---

Mr. Grieve: I could not agree more. I am a great believer in sunset clauses generally, because there is much stale legislation on the statute book. This legislation requires a sunset clause. It is ridiculous that we should consider allowing legislation passed in such haste to remain on the statute book for an indeterminate period.

Mr. Charles Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman likes sunset clauses so much, will he propose his own personal sunset clause by answering the question I asked him last night? Will he put in his manifesto his intention to repeal the legislation before us?

Mr. Grieve: The Home Secretary is suffering from severe cognitive dysfunction. I explained our position to him last night, and I am sorry if he cannot now
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1830
 
remember it. I can only assume that his general anger and frustration got the better of him and he was not listening to a word I said. That is why I appear to be repeating myself, and I shall try to avoid doing that.

The Home Secretary said that no concessions had been made in the other place. That was not my impression. When the debate started, we wanted a sunset clause of eight months—and there were strong reasons for that. A concession was made and on a very sensible Labour amendment, we accepted a sunset clause of 12 months. So it is wrong for the Home Secretary to say that no attempt has been made to reach agreement. I am here, if the Home Secretary wants to talk to me—any time he likes—as are all my hon. Friends.

Fundamental issues remain to be addressed, but the Home Secretary has not even attempted to do so.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Home Secretary that the sunset clause gives the House of Commons the power to control the legislation? The House of Lords is in fact enabling this House to protect its own future in controlling this legislation.

Mr. Grieve: Yes, indeed. Much was said yesterday about the primacy of this Chamber, but this is a parliamentary matter, for the whole of Parliament. If we do not allow the other place to carry out its functions, and ignore what it says, we end up with bad legislation.

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend also agree that a sunset clause would enable the House of Commons, for the first time in this debate, to add in a Committee stage to examine the detail of each and every clause, which hitherto we have not been able to do?

Mr. Grieve: Of course it would, and it is a scandal that we were prevented from doing so. There was no reason why we could not have done so. We have sat through the night now and we could have sat through the night last week, but the Government would not allow us to do so. We might then have had a better chance of achieving consensus.

The Government have consistently denied this House any opportunity to reach consensus, which makes a complete mockery of our procedures.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): If the Tories are so keen on sunset clauses, and in view of the fact that I was here during the 18 years when they were in power, can the hon. Gentleman tell me why no sunset clauses were included in the rail and coal privatisations? Why did the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty not include sunset clauses? I could go on for another 20 minutes. The truth is that the Tory Opposition are using unelected Members in the other place to overturn the will of hon. Members in this House, who are directly elected by our constituents.

8.15 am

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman's latter comments were on message, but I suspect that his initial remarks were off message, as far as Labour Members are concerned. First, those laws are good laws. [Interruption.] The Labour Government adopted them
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1831
 
and did not reverse them. If those laws are so bad, why have the Government not taken the opportunity to deal with them? Secondly, those laws do not touch on the liberty of the subject, which this Bill does, and they were not timetabled with knives, which this Government have used ruthlessly.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North) (Lab): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because of what he has said about the liberty of the subject. Some of us divided this House in 1971 on internment without trial, because we felt that incarceration without trial was wrong. The Tory party pushed the measure through and maintained it throughout its time in government. Why should we not be suspicious about this apparent Damascene conversion?

Mr. Grieve: First, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not mention that legislation. Secondly, the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) took a principled stand on that matter, which the passage of time has probably proved to have been entirely correct. The House would do well to reflect on his example.

Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab): This view may not be fashionable on these Benches, but these proceedings are bringing this House into disrepute. In the other place, the party majorities reflect voting across the country, and the exaggerated majority in this House undermines the House's democratic authority.

Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Lady is right, which is why it is so foolish for hon. Members to recite mantras about the primacy of this House. Parliament is supposed to operate with the participation of both Chambers. The upper House reflects the fact that some aspects of this Chamber are not purely democratic. The system can work and should work, if only the Home Secretary and the Government would listen.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): On many occasions during the past eight years, the Government have reasonably introduced legislation relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland that explicitly includes sunset clauses, and we renew such legislation every year on the basis of a debate. Does he agree that there is no principle preventing the Government from introducing a sunset clause on this occasion? Out of bloody mindedness, they refuse to apply a consistent policy, as they have done on Northern Ireland matters.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the oddest features of the process has been the Government's complete unwillingness to engage in real dialogue with the Opposition parties.

Mr. Charles Clarke indicated dissent.

Mr. Grieve: That is the truth. The Government came up with an idea and presented the Opposition parties with a fait accompli. They then said, "Take it or leave it." There was no discussion in January, when the Government could have held a creative conversation to try to achieve common ground. They did not do so, which is regrettable, because I do not think that we would be here today if that had happened.

Mr. Tom Harris: There is an important point of principle here, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. This
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1832
 
elected House of Commons has repeatedly, over the past day and the past week, made its position clear on some fundamental points, and the unelected Chamber has, on similar terms, made its point of view very clear. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his position and that of the Conservative party that where the elected House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords disagree, the view of the Commons should prevail?

Mr. Grieve: The upper House has engaged itself as a revising Chamber, and it has put forward suggestions for improving the legislation—that is exactly what it should be doing. It is now being subjected to a battle of attrition by the Government to try to whittle down the overwhelming view expressed there, not only by Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers but by Cross Benchers and even some of the Government's own peers. That is the extent of the problem that the Government face, and until they start to listen, they will continue to have a problem. All that I can say to the Home Secretary is that I hope that during the passage of the morning he may come to have a little more sense, because he can have this Bill and the protections that it offers, and at the same time, civil liberties can be protected; at the moment, they are not. The House should support the Lords amendments.

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): At first, one could characterise this Bill as a nasty little Bill because we live in a nasty little world. I abstained on Second and Third Reading because I wanted the Home Secretary to make concessions. To my mind, he has done so, and I have been happy to vote with the Government when the Bill has recently been before the House.

There are currently three sticking points. The first sticking point is the sunset clause. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) tells us that a sunset clause is necessary because otherwise the Bill, when enacted, could go on and on. He seems to forget the fundamental constitutional principle that one Parliament cannot bind another, that we will have a general election within the next 18 months, because constitutionally we must, and that any subsequent Parliament can look at this legislation again.

The second sticking point is the question of Privy Councillors conducting the review. I remind hon. Members that myriad independent reviews in the past were not carried out by Privy Councillors, and they were in no way the lapdogs of Government. If we think back to the previous Government, we had the Scarman inquiry, and the Scott inquiry into Matrix Churchill. Just because a review is carried out by an independent person does not mean that the inquiry is a stitch-up from the beginning.

The third sticking point involves non-derogating control orders and the burden of proof. I can see why the Conservatives argue for that principle, but it has not been a principle in the past and is not a principle in many parts of our criminal law. If someone is remanded in custody, that is because there is a reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence. They can be remanded in custody for weeks. Under the previous Government, as some Members may recall, there was the case of Mr. Osman, who fought extradition from
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1833
 
this country because there was a reasonable suspicion that he had carried out criminal activities abroad. He was incarcerated in this country for years under the previous Government—it did not seem to be a principle to the Conservatives then.

Most hon. Members have been with a constituent, as I have, and discussed an issue that appears to be have been resolved in the conversation, when the constituent says, "And another thing," so one has a discussion about that—but then the constituent says, "And another thing." That characterises the Opposition's position. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have made no concessions, yet the Government have made them as part of the debate in the Chamber and in the other place, and I respect my Government for that. I shall continue voting with them because I do not wish to be in a position whereby the House of Lords dictates to us and does not engage in proper concessions. Such engagement is the way in which a mature society should resolve those issues.

---