House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Nov 1999 (pt 13)

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with the right hon. Lady's question shortly.

We understand the need for the registration of investigative powers, but because it is a highly technical subject, we will scrutinise closely the extension of powers to deal with modern technology. We understand that that needs to be brought into accord with the human rights convention. It is right that there should be legislation, but we must not go over that line in taking liberties away as we regulate for the modern, more technological age.

My hon. Friends and I have proposed that counter- terrorism legislation should be placed on a UK-wide basis. I have always opposed a separate rule for Northern Ireland, as distinct from the rest of the country, and I have always opposed exclusion orders from one part of the country and not the other. We will therefore support the proposal for UK-wide legislation.

The issue that will detain the House, rightfully, is how we define terrorism. Although it is right to extend the definition to cover other sorts of terrorism, we must not legislate so hastily that we get things wrong, as the House did a year and two months ago when it legislated in haste in September 1998; nor must we make it possible in this country for people lawfully seeking to bring democracy to other countries--which 10 years ago might have been South Africa, and this year might be Pakistan--to be regarded as terrorists, simply because they are involvedin advancing democracy through normal democratic processes. We shall seek to get the definition of terrorism right, although the principle of a general law for terrorism should remain.

We shall put a further proposal to the Home Office and to the House. Because such legislation is so particular and so exceptional, it should lapse every Parliament and need to be renewed every Parliament. That is a safeguard for everyone, not least the House, to ensure that the legislation is up-to-date and appropriate.

We support a Bill to bring independent government to the Crown Prosecution Authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon will take the details of the proposal up with appropriate Ministers as the Bill comes before the House.

There are four Bills that we support but which do not go far enough. The political parties and referendums Bill is an appropriate Bill, but we say that it should include the power to provide for referendums in the future. It is no good having, as the Government had in their manifesto, provision for two referendums, one on the electoral

23 Nov 1999 : Column 500

system and one on the single currency, but not having on the statute book a mechanism for holding referendums whenever Governments of the day decide to hold them.

It would be much better for the Government to legislate on the principle of how a referendum should be held, rather than mixing that up with the issue that will be the subject of the referendum itself.

On the funding of political parties, to which thehon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred, we welcome legislation, but on the detail there are differences of view around the House--for example, about whether people who live abroad but have a vote in the UK should retain the right to contribute to political parties.

Mr. Bercow: I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am a little perturbed by what he has just said about referendums. Given his well-known, long-standing and widely respected concern for the integrity and fairness of our political procedures, does he not agree with the Conservative Opposition that there is grave cause for anxiety that, in respect of future referendums, the Government apparently plan to allow themselves the right to continue pumping out propaganda material at public expense and pushing it down the throats of the electorate right up until to 28 days before the date of a plebiscite?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter which is clearly relevant because coming down the track is at least one referendum, and preferably two. We need a funding system that allows broad parity to the arguments. My hon. Friends who have argued that, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, have made it clear that we will take that issue up when the Bill comes before us. If we are to have referendums, the Government cannot seek to fix the outcome by weighting the argument with finance in advance. That must be the condition under which referendums are held.

We broadly welcome the reforms in the representation of the people Bill, but the Government have failed to include the one thing that would most encourage people to vote, which is for the result to reflect the way in which people voted--[Hon. Members: "Like the Euro elections."] No, not like the Euro elections, because the Home Secretary stuck to his view, rather than take the advice of my colleagues--

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman's party changed its mind.

Mr. Hughes: We never changed our minds.

The Home Secretary stuck to his decision to have an electoral system that, though proportional, did not allow the voter the choice that we believe the voter always should have, which was what we always wanted. In the end, we were all forced to accept half a loaf rather than have no bread.

We hope that the sexual offences legislation will pass through the House speedily, not least because the European Court has ruled that we should have such legislation. It is also right to legislate to deal with those who have abused a position of trust in relation to young people.

23 Nov 1999 : Column 501

The Home Secretary conceded that the race relations Bill falls far short of many people's expectations. It is right that public services should be subject to the Race Relations Act 1976, but the Commission for Racial Equality and many others, as the Home Secretary knows, have argued that we need much wider revision of the legislation because it is now significantly out of date. We hope that we can persuade the Home Office to extend the Bill and we shall seek to do so.

However, I was encouraged by one sentence in the Home Secretary's speech. I hope that he will listen to us--I shall be happy to work with him to achieve it--and put on the statute book a Bill to achieve equality across the board. There is a good case for legislation that provides equality, not piecemeal--one day on race matters, another on disability matters and another on gender matters--which seeks to ensure that we have a society in which we do not unfairly discriminate at all and in which we honour across the board the words and intentions of the European convention as well as the aspirations of the British people. If, by the end of this Parliament, we had an equality Act, we would save ourselves a lot of work and meet the aspirations of many people.

That leaves the Freedom of Information Bill, about which I can be brief. It is wonderful, as far as it goes, but not when one considers it in the round. The previous Government never introduced such a Bill, although they had a code of practice. This Government started by introducing a timid Bill and have improved it, for which I thank the Home Secretary, but he knows the three criticisms that we make.

First, the test should be that information should be withheld only if it substantially prejudices the authority, rather than merely prejudicing the authority. Secondly, it is nonsense to withhold facts and figures--I accept that the Government need not, but they will retain the power to do so--although it is entirely right that the personal advice and internal political debate should be held behind closed doors. Thirdly, although the information commissioner will have the power to recommend, and by recommending to influence the outcome, I understand that it will ultimately be a dog that can bark but not bite.

I ask the Home Secretary--as he honestly accepted would be reasonable--to watch the progress of the Bill produced by his party and mine in Scotland. If the arguments--not just the fact of different legislation--justify the proposals that come from Edinburgh win the day here, I hope that he will accept that, if we are to have an open society and open government, we need to have on the United Kingdom statute book the best freedom of information Act. I hope that the Scottish example will teach us all a lesson.

The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald reminded us that drugs are an important issue. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office answered questions on drugs at Cabinet Office Question Time on 10 November from what the whole House recognised as his personal, tragic experience. Given that recent experience, he was extremely brave in answering such questions. He said: