---

Mr. Heath: I welcome the tone, if not all the content, of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is time we regained that sense of seriousness which, I am afraid, has not characterised some of our debates in the past few hours.

We must remember the context of the debate. The Home Secretary was right to remind us at the beginning of his remarks that today is the anniversary of an appalling terrorist atrocity in Madrid. We are all trying to ensure that such an atrocity cannot happen in the United Kingdom.

Claire Ward (Watford) (Lab): You're not.

Mr. Heath: I find that remark deeply offensive. We are trying to find the best way of stopping terrorists and dealing with them effectively.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: No. [Interruption.] I will not take an intervention. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is not giving way at the moment. The House should come to order, remember that we are discussing serious matters and listen to the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor.

Mr. Heath: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, as I said at the outset, it is important that we remember exactly what we are about. We are trying to find—I hope through consensus—the best way of protecting the citizens of this country and ensuring that they are subject to fair laws. I respect many of the comments that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made, but it is wrong to say that no attempt has been made to find that consensus.

We have understood the Home Secretary's arguments and accepted that, although control orders are deeply unpleasant, they will be part of the architecture of fighting terrorism in this country. We have accepted,
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1834
 
because it was appropriate, that the emergency arrangements were a necessary part of the construction of those control orders. We have sought to find any number of ways of constructing an appropriate legal framework in which those control orders could be made. The other place has played a significant part in that dialogue and we have made progress. The House should accept that.

Volume is no substitute for content, and we should examine what the House of Lords says. It does not state that it wishes to oppose the Government's proposals. Far from it—it wants to work with the Government. It insists on its amendment, which we propose to delete today, on a matter that is deeply significant not only to people from abroad whom we might not like the look of, but to British citizens and the way in which they will be treated in our courts. It is important to read the Lords reasons. Reason 1F states:

"Because the Lords remain of the view that reasonable suspicion is too low a test; that the authority to conduct a prosecution should be the Director of Public Prosecutions and not the chief of the relevant police force; and that all control orders should be subject to the same procedure before the courts."

There are many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches who agree with all those propositions. I see some of them nodding now.

Kevin Brennan: What is the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal Democrat—I emphasise the word "democrat"—as to whose view should prevail if there is ultimately an honest disagreement between this House and the unelected House?

8.30 am

Mr. Heath: We are engaging—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I am answering the question. We are engaged in a process of dialogue that I hope will result in justice for the people of this country. The honest answer is that, ultimately, the House of Commons must of course be the prime House. I have no quarrel about that, and nor would any of my noble Friends at the other end of the Corridor. I return to what they are saying: it is not that the House must not have the anti-terrorism proposals that the Home Secretary has put forward—but there is a perfectly proper argument that reasonable suspicion is too low a test. We heard the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in an earlier speech, saying that we do not even accept that for a parking ticket for British citizens, yet we are prepared to accept it for deprivation of liberty. I take that seriously, and I hope that Members on the other side of the Chamber take it seriously. They would have done so in previous years and previous debates, so I hope that they still do.

The second component is that the prosecution should be conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that principle. He has chosen, for reasons that are not entirely clear, to say that he wishes to consult the chief of police rather than the person who is charged with making a prosecution—the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not understand that. I do not understand the matter of principle involved in that. I would have thought that it is all a matter of proper dialogue and negotiation.
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1835
 

The third point relates to the common procedure for these orders. Again, we have heard cogent speeches from well-respected Government Members saying that there should be exactly that, so let us not pretend that there is a matter of principle between the two sides of the House on that point.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman, in his usual way, is putting cogent arguments to the House. He is setting out concessions, to which I have adverted, made by the Government and the Home Secretary. I may have misunderstood him, but I have not understood him to be putting forward any concessions made by his party during the debating process of the last two weeks. He is setting out principles of his party, and I respect that. What concessions has his party made during this debating process?

Mr. Heath: Because the hon. Gentleman asks the question in a sensible way, I will do my best to answer. A whole series of amendments have come forward from the Home Secretary that have not returned to this House. He may have noticed that we are now down to three propositions as the areas of differentiation. Initially, we were very concerned, as I said, about the whole concept of control orders. We have accepted that. We were concerned about reasonable suspicion for an emergency control, as a matter of principle. We have accepted that there are conditions in which that will be the appropriate test. Clearly, therefore, we are making progress in those areas.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has been pestering me for two days, so yes.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has been making the point that all control orders should be treated precisely the same, which is a principle to which their lordships are still holding. Does not he accept that many in the House believe that it is wholly different to impose a control order that deprives someone of their liberty by putting them under house arrest and to impose one that merely says that somebody is not allowed to work in a nuclear establishment or that they will have their passport removed?

Mr. Heath: Let me take the hon. Gentleman's point at face value. What is proposed in these control orders is a whole spectrum of controls, ranging from minimal matters to serious restrictions on the liberties of the individual. There is no sharp dividing line. At one end there is what has been described as home arrest; at the other there is merely reporting to a police station, or something of that sort. Between the two, there are what can only be construed as serious deprivations of liberty, which could fall short of a derogation. I think it entirely reasonable to have a common judicial process.

Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that non-derogating orders are capable of wholly destroying the lives and livelihoods of the people with whom they
 
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1836
 
interfere—and, moreover, the lives and livelihoods of their friends and families? They are extremely draconian measures.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. They can be. The problem is that there is such a range of potential—I was going to say penalties, but we cannot really call them penalties, because they are not penalties for a crime committed; they are penalties imposed in the anticipation of a crime.

Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: No. I think I have given way enough.

I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda this: it cannot be described as a minor deprivation when someone cannot work, cannot leave a particular area, cannot consort with friends, cannot telephone anyone and cannot use the internet. All those orders are on the palette available to the Home Secretary. It cannot be said that all of them are inconsequential matters for the individual, and that the orders should continue for as long as the Home Secretary may determine. I am sorry, but I do not believe that those are inconsequential matters.

---