Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, a timetable motion has been tabled on which we shall vote later, at least under the deferred procedure. So many hon. Members wish to speak that you have felt it necessary to impose a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. There is genuine anxiety about the timetable. Will you consider not putting the Question on the timetable motion unless and until the Home Secretary makes a statement to explain why two days are deemed sufficient?

Mr Michael Martin (Speaker)

If the motion is on the Order Paper and is moved, I must put the Question.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the Second Reading debate and the vote on the timetable, we will consider a motion, which has an hour and a half for debate, on whether to support and agree to this country's derogation from article 5 of the European convention on human rights.

Last week, my hon. Friend Mr. Tyler wrote to the Leader of the House to ask whether discussion of the derogation could wait until we had completed our consideration of the Bill. That would enable us properly to consider the need for the derogation. This afternoon, there is a debate in the House of Lords about whether such consideration should happen at the end of the Bill's passage through both Houses.

May I, through you, ask a Minister to explain whether the Government are willing to accept that logical proposal? If they are, we would not have to spend a lot of time today arguing about whether to pull out of an article of the human rights convention when it may be rendered unnecessary by Parliament amending the Bill.

Mr Michael Martin (Speaker)

That matter could be explained during the debate that we are about to hold.

Before we proceed, I point out that Mr. Hogg was right to say that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I thank all those—my advisers, officials and hon. Members, including my ministerial team—who have worked so diligently with me on the Bill. I should also like to put on record my thanks to the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and of the Select Committee on Home Affairs for their speedy and diligent work.

It would be useful to deal with the question that Simon Hughes asked about the derogation from article 5 of the European convention on human rights. We believe that it is sensible to seek the consent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords because unless Parliament agrees to clauses 21 to 23 and associated provisions, which relate to detention, the need to seek a derogation from article 5 under article 15 will not arise. It is therefore sensible to have the provision in place. It will fall automatically if Parliament does not consent to the clauses that I mentioned.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I shall, but I want to make a little progress afterwards. Obviously, I shall then give way to hon. Members.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Home Secretary for being as courteous on this matter as he has been throughout the proceedings so far. Will he reconsider the issue that he heard me raise earlier, and with which he has partially dealt? Does he accept that, by virtue of the order that the Government laid last week, there is a 40-day period within which the order is the law. At the end of the 40 days, it will lapse if Parliament does not agree to the proposal in both Houses. Given that the Government have the cover that they seek, is it not, in a sense, an abuse of the judgment of both Houses to assume that they will agree that the Bill should remain as it is, when there may be ways—following the Human Rights Committee's proposal—in which it could be amended to avoid derogation? In that case, the Government would not need the decisions of both Houses, the 40-day period would lapse in the normal way and the Government would not, to put it crudely, be putting the cart before the horse on a hugely important national and international legal obligation.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

The 40-day period stands, but we do not agree that there is an alternative way of proceeding that would be acceptable to the Government; if there were, we would propose it. This issue will be the subject of the debate today, and of subsequent debates here and in the House of Lords. On that basis, we are seeking the consent of the House on derogation.

Circumstances and public opinion demanded urgent and appropriate action after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Many parliamentarians understandably demanded caution, proportionality and a response that would last for the future. Over the five weeks following the attacks, in which thousands of men and women lost their lives, it was the Government's task to appraise the measures that would be necessary to close loopholes and set aside anomalies that had developed over many years in existing legislation.

We therefore took our time in preparing the statement of 15 October, which laid out precisely the kind of measures that I am proposing this afternoon. I make no apology for having taken another five weeks to come to the House with these measures, which required consideration. Given the need to put in place safeguards that could be required any day and at any time, I do not believe that 10 weeks is a hurried period.

It is important to recognise that, in the first few weeks after 11 September, the emotional response to what had happened—the sight that people beheld and the hundreds of public service workers and volunteers who lost their lives trying to save the lives of others—could have evoked an immediate and, I would have thought, universal call for even more draconian measures than those that I am accused of introducing. It would have been wrong to do that. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but it was understandable that the United States Government sought to pass their Patriot Act by 26 October, which they did and it has now received the signature of the President. It was appropriate for us to be more circumspect, and to bring to the House what we consider to be proportionate and reasonable measures.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

The right hon. Gentleman made the point that he has taken 10 weeks to contemplate the contents of the Bill. That was indeed right. Given that it was necessary for him to take 10 weeks, does he understand the anxiety in this place that we are being asked to pass the Bill—all 114 pages and 125 clauses of it—in two days beyond today? Surely that cannot be right.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I am not absolutely certain that the length of the debate and the scrutiny given to a Bill are one and the same thing. The length of the debate and our scrutiny of it depend on the availability of time to deal with the aspects of the Bill on which there is genuine disagreement. Disagreeing with something on which there is general approbation is entirely different. It seems to me that the time available in this House and the House of Lords will be used effectively and rightly to scrutinise those proposals that have already received public attention and on which there has been considerable comment.

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the time set aside for consideration in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading is roughly equivalent to four Committee sittings. Is that a proper way to deal with this most important legislation, the significance of which he has underlined, given that terrorism and other such Bills were considered for much longer? The Bill contains the embryo of five Bills.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I do not accept that it contains the embryo of five Bills. The measures are coherent, they deal with a threat of a particular nature, they were laid out on 15 October with one or two exceptions—Opposition Members pressed us on those, including that in respect of corruption—and they are before the House for agreement. If there were no emergency, if there had not been a terrorist attack and if there were no danger that not passing the Bill by the end of the year would put us at risk, I would not be introducing it in the first place.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

rose—

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

rose—

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I shall give way once more, but then I must make progress so that we do not lose time for the debate that Members want. We must get on to arguing about the content.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a fourth time so early in his speech.

My right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Hogg complained about the lack of parliamentary time to discuss the Bill following the 10-week gestation period. It was published only towards the end of last week, but it will complete its Commons stages by the beginning of next. That allows only a week for outside bodies to concentrate on its terms and lobby those in the House who are interested in its content and implications. Although the Home Secretary may be right that he spent 10 hard weeks drafting the Bill, surely those outside the House should have rather longer than a week to lobby Members and the Government on its content and effect.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

But the debate has been going on for 10 weeks, and the detail was laid out on 15 October.

Mr Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour)

Not the detail of the Bill.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I am being substantially heckled by my hon. Friend. Does he want to intervene?

Mr Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour)

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary. Surely he appreciates the distinction between the principles that he laid out on 15 October and the detail of the Bill. We are expected to scrutinise and pass law, and that law is based on the wording of the Bill. As Mr. Garnier said, outside bodies have only a week in which to consider the Bill and advise us. Surely the Home Secretary accepts the historical precedent that when the House acts quickly, it seldom acts wisely.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I have no intention of getting into conflict this afternoon, but, if I might say so, I had not noticed that the past 10 weeks were free of detailed comment by a range of lobbying organisations and individuals. [Interruption.] Yes, about the Bill, the nature of its content, the statement of 15 October and the work undertaken by the Human Rights Committee and the Home Affairs Committee over the past week, including detailed evidence given to them by the very groups to which my hon. Friend Mr. Fisher referred. Those groups clearly had a handle on the principle and the detailed substance of the Bill, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend Beverley Hughes, and I were questioned in detail in those Committees on that content. The idea that people have been deprived of knowledge of the details or implications of the Bill does not bear thinking about.

I have certainly learned one thing. I believed that lobby groups and those connected with the law understood the existing provisions more fully than proves to be the case. I shall try to deal with that this afternoon, because what the Bill seeks to do is build on what is already there rather than transform or overturn it. If there is any confusion in the minds of those giving advice or lobbying Members, I hope that we shall be able to end it during the days ahead.

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

As a legal challenge to the Bill is highly likely, will the Home Secretary elaborate on his definition of a public emergency, and also explain why the United Kingdom is the only country subscribing to the European convention that considers such an emergency to exist?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I shall deal with the second point during my speech. I am well aware of the differences that exist not merely within countries that are signatories to the convention, but across the world. However, the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the article 15 provisions gave us precisely the power to act in circumstances envisaged by those who drew up both the European convention on human rights, as approved in 1953, and the European convention on refugees, as approved in 1951. They foresaw circumstances in which it would be necessary to take action to derogate—to suspend temporarily—a particular article or clause, in order to be able to act in a particular way to respond to what was happening. I am positing that the circumstances of 11 September and its aftermath are such that they warrant immediate action.

An article in The Times on 15 September stated:

"Despite fine promises and emergency legislation, Britain is still home to hundreds of extremists who have made this country one of the centres for the violent transnational network that inspired and encouraged the barbarism in New York and Washington."

That is just one of hundreds of statements that have been made over the past 10 weeks about what people perceive to be the situation in our country. Again and again, people—including people in the United States—have illustrated the real dangers that exist, and it is on that basis that I shall spell out today why we felt it necessary to act.

Let us recall for a moment not just what happened on 11 September, but what has happened since. Let us recall the interviews given and the video recordings made by bin Laden and the al-Qaeda group, which have spelt out their determination not simply to threaten once, but to threaten the civilian populations of the United States and those working with it. It is for that reason that we are proposing measures allowing us to take rational, reasonable and proportionate steps to deal with an internal threat and an external, organised terrorist group that could threaten at any time not just our population, but the populations of other friendly countries.

Mr Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)

Does the Home Secretary accept that many people who are obviously appalled at what happened on 11 September believe that the answer is not to suspend traditional legal rights such as the right of access to courts in this country, but to use the criminal law against those planning or perpetrating criminal acts? Many people are deeply disturbed about this piece of emergency legislation, and believe that it will be no more effective than the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. Peace eventually came to Ireland through a political process, not a legal process.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I would take my hon. Friend's appeal more to heart if it were not for the fact that we are debating use of the very machinery that the House agreed, in 1997, to ensure that the legal process is followed and legal rights exist. I think that fundamental misunderstandings have arisen among lobby groups and others because of that point.

In 1997, the House unanimously passed the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which established the commission. I would be interested to know whether any hon. Member would like to use their comments in debates on that legislation to contradict me now on this legislation. Does anyone wish to intervene? No hon. Member from either side of the House voted against that legislation, which was subsequently approved by the other place. It was approved not only because previous practice had been judged not to accord with the level of human rights that was needed and accepted at the end of the 20th century, but because, in November 1996, the then Government had lost the Chahal case, which considered the acceptability of the process being used to eject people from the United Kingdom.

It was adjudged in the Chahal case that there had been improvements in the process, such as use of the three wise men and women, but it was also held that the process for ratifying the Home Secretary's power of certification for removal was not acceptable because the power infringed article 3 of the European convention on human rights. That is the nub of the issue. There is also no disagreement that the previous Government would have introduced the 1997 Act.

After the Chahal judgment, therefore, the House passed a measure that effectively provided judicial review of the Home Secretary's right to certificate the removal of an individual who is not a British national, but who is judged to be endangering national security or whose presence is not conducive to the public good.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I shall give way in a moment, but I should like first to deal with what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our proposals.

The question for hon. Members is, what did they think that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the judicial process would do? What cases was the commission to hear? Was it to hear cases in which there was judged to be a risk, or cases in which the presence of an individual was not conducive to the public good and the Home Secretary had heard evidence from the security and intelligence services and was prepared to act? The answer is yes; the commission was established to consider precisely those types of case. Nevertheless, the very judgment that led to the commission's establishment was the one that held that article 3 precluded us from sending people back to their death, to torture or to degrading treatment.

The current situation, therefore, is that evidence may be adduced by the security and intelligence services, the Home Secretary may believe that he or she is correct to issue a certificate and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—SIAC—may judge that that belief is correct, but the Home Secretary cannot deport that person because of the risk to the person's life. That is, and has been, the situation. The difference now is that we want to ensure that people cannot continue to conduct or organise terrorism from this country.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I shall give way in a moment, when I have finished making this point.

The issue for me to decide is whether I should seek an opt-out from the European convention, and then to opt-in again by using, I think, article 58; to say that individuals should be released although we have evidence which SIAC is prepared to uphold that warrants detention; or to seek to hold those individuals.

It is the third choice that we are putting before the House this afternoon. If we were prepared to derogate, or if I were prepared to sign a certificate to send someone to their death because no third safe country was available, we would not be introducing the measure in this form. We are doing so precisely to avoid that eventuality. That is why—you will forgive me for mentioning this, Mr. Speaker—I have been slightly depressed over the past day or two about how the case has been put, and how some in the media who know better have sought to mislead those who have no reason to know better because they were not present, did not see and could not read about the steps that led to the establishment of SIAC precisely to deal with the circumstances that I described.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

The right hon. Gentleman places great weight on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Surely he should remind the House that under the Act that established that commission, it is entitled to withhold from the detained person particulars of the reason why he is detained. Furthermore, the Law Officers of the Crown can appoint a representative for that person who is expressly stated not to be responsible to the persons whose interests he is appointed to represent. That is not a very good safeguard of rights.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may make a judgment about whether that is acceptable to him, but it was acceptable to the whole House in 1997. Following a challenge in the courts in the case of Mullah Rehman, the Lords judged five weeks ago that both the process and the threshold of evidential base were acceptable and in line with what the House intended when it passed the Act unanimously in the first place.

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North, Labour)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I shall in two seconds—but first I shall answer the second element of the question.

The person who is adjudged to be a risk has the right to take on a legal advocate of his own. When the case reaches the point at which evidence is presented by the security and intelligence services the delivery of which—this is why SIAC was established—would put at risk the operation of the security services, and those working with them and for them, often covertly, an advocate from a list of advocates is provided, as in 1997 the House judged should happen, to allow evidence to be presented and the case on behalf of the person charged to be heard and properly dealt with legally. Then a right of appeal on a point of law to both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords is provided in similar circumstances and with similar rights.

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North, Labour)

I take the view that in all circumstances the powers that my right hon. Friend is taking are necessary. I am not happy—no one could be—about what is happening, and I work on the assumption that several people have been allowed in who should never have been allowed in. Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us who take that view are, despite his comments, worried about the lack of judicial review? If we introduce measures that no one likes, and people are to be locked up for reasons that we believe are justified, some form of judicial review—apart from what my right hon. Friend has been explaining—is all the more necessary, and its existence would make me much happier.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

We would have to return to anything that the House decides about extradition or asylum issues more generally. All that we seek to do in the Bill is to make clear what SIAC and the Lords believe to be the case. In the cases that have gone to SIAC since the Act was passed four years ago, judicial review has not been sought, because the operation of SIAC has been judged to constitute a judicial review of the Home Secretary's certification. That is the issue that we are dealing with and that is why SIAC was seen as a substantial improvement on what existed previously.

The issue this afternoon is whether it is right that we should hold people in circumstances where we cannot transfer them to a third safe country, where the country to which we originally sought to transfer them does not have extradition agreements and therefore where their lives would be at risk, or whether we should release them into the community. At issue is an enhanced risk, post-11 September, which we believe warrants our taking that difficult but balanced and proportionate step. In doing so, we will ensure that the House will annually reaffirm or otherwise the measure on detention. In any case, the derogation has a five-year life and is automatically a sunset clause.

I also wish to make it clear that we do not think that a debate of one and a half hours would be adequate should we have to seek reaffirmation of the provision under the affirmative procedure and, with the agreement of the Leader of the House, we would seek to provide a more extensive opportunity for debate.

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway, Labour)

My question is not intended to be pejorative, because I am genuinely interested in the answer. Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a sea of difference between SIAC being used to deal with issues of deportation—with all the problems that SIAC has as a review body—and its being used to review decisions to incarcerate and imprison, indefinitely, without trial and, indeed, without charge? If evidence exists against the people about whom we have heard, why are they not being charged and tried in this country?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

If the evidence that would be adduced and presented in a normal court were available, of course we would use it, as we have done in the past. We are talking today about those who are adjudged to have committed, organised and supported and helped those involved in terrorism worldwide in the circumstances of 11 September. Those who drew up the European convention and the refugee convention could not have dreamt of the act that took place on 11 September, but they did envisage some act of that kind that would at some point require us to be able to take the necessary steps. That is why I am using article 15 to derogate from article 5, rather than seeking to withdraw altogether. If evidence could be presented that is not subject to the parameters that I laid out a moment ago, it would be used. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a barrister and, as a non-lawyer, I always listen carefully to those who are—[Hon. Members: "Airy-fairy ones?"] I listen carefully whether they are airy-fairy or not.

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway, Labour)

What about SIAC?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I am coming to SIAC. It was the establishment of SIAC and the judgment in the Rehman case that upheld the threshold required and the nature of the way in which the evidence should be presented that answer my hon. and learned Friend's question. The House accepted, and the House of Lords agreed, that in some cases the nature of the evidence from the security and intelligence services will be such that it would put at risk the operation of those services and the lives of those who act clandestinely to help them if that evidence were presented in normal open court. That is the measure of the proposals this afternoon.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

Can my right hon. Friend explain more about the way in which SIAC will operate in cases where he is making a certificate relating to articles 1(f) and 33.2 of the refugee convention, which do not simply cover people suspected of international terrorism? How do his comments about article 3 and returning people who may face the death penalty relate to clause 34, which the Home Office's explanatory notes say provides that, in considering whether those articles apply, there is no requirement to consider the threat to life or freedom of someone who is removed from the UK?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

Clauses 33 and 34, while being separate from clauses 21 and 23, are related to them. Let us consider the example of someone who is picked up on suspicion of being involved in or engaged in terrorist acts while in transit through one of our airports. The moment they are picked up and there is the intention to remove them, they then claim asylum and the rights that go with it in terms of having their case heard through the asylum process. To be able to adjudge that in those circumstances the substantive case for asylum is not heard is to acknowledge the circumstances of the detention of someone who was about to leave the country or go about their business in another way without actually claiming asylum, who is then using the asylum machinery precisely to get round the existing law. That was debated immediately after 11 September because a case at Gatwick illustrated the problem.

Following the consultation on extradition, we will be able in the Extradition Bill to deal with these matters more extensively, where extradition powers exist; however, where they do not, we have to be able to deal with the circumstances that we are discussing today. This is our home—it is our country. We have a right to say that if people seek to abuse rights of asylum to be able to hide in this country and organise terrorist acts, we must take steps to deal with them.

The underlying question is whether this measure is necessary. Is there really an issue arising out of 11 September that warrants us taking such steps? That is the fundamental question raised in the media and, in effect, raised here this afternoon.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I will give way, but let me answer the question. I have posed one, so I think that I will answer it.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent the weekend in Ottawa with colleagues from across the world. He was engaged, rightly and effectively, in getting 183 countries to affirm that they would establish what we have established—a terrorism finance unit—as a way of co-operating and getting to the bottom of the most careful and clandestine networks the world has known. My right hon. Friend spent the weekend encouraging people from 183 countries to do that not because there has not been a new threat but because the threat has increased dramatically. That is not merely because people acted as suicide bombers, flying planes into the World Trade Centre, but because they have openly declared that it is open season on all of us. They want to destroy our lives, our liberty, our values and our way of life. If 10 weeks makes such a difference in terms of perception, I despair of our being able to hold in our mind the gravity of what we have been dealing with and the threat that exists. The question is whether, proportionately and cautiously, we should take steps to protect ourselves.

Mr Kevin Hughes (Doncaster North, Labour)

I welcome the legislation that my right hon. Friend is bringing forward. After 11 September, it is probably long overdue. Does my right hon. Friend find it bizarre—as I do—that the yoghurt and muesli-eating, Guardian-reading fraternity are only too happy to protect the human rights of people engaged in terrorist acts, but never once do they talk about the human rights of those who are affected by them?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I declare straight away that I do eat yoghurt and occasionally muesli—in the summer, I even wear sandals; but I do not suffer fools gladly. It seems to me that although the nation of course has a right to scrutinise what we are doing and to question us—to ask why on earth we are taking additional measures—we must also face up to things and be prepared to understand that people out there really want us to get a grip on any danger that threatens their or our lives, or the operation of this country—its economy, working and lifeblood. That is all that we seek to do this afternoon: to explain the necessity of having to take these actions and, on the back of them, of having to derogate.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North, Labour)

Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of many Members in the Chamber for his new news today that debate on future renewals will not be limited to an hour and a half—unlike our debate on the motion that we are to discuss later tonight? Given the circumstances of the 40 nations that have signed the European convention and, indeed, of the United States itself, why does my right hon. Friend think that circumstances in the UK should lead us to suspend habeas corpus? That is not the case for those other nations, which were equally affected and, in one instance, much worse affected by the tragedy on 11 September?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

In the United States, the Patriot Act gives the Attorney-General sweeping powers of detention. It gives powers in terms of the ability of the Attorney-General first to certificate and then to hold people pending their removal from the country. Of course, they are not subject to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. In countries such as France—

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I am still answering a question.

In countries such as France, where the investigatory magistrates have considerable powers, a different law applies. People can be—and have been—detained without trial while investigations are taking place, for up to four years in certain circumstances. From time to time, investigatory magistrates are challenged. Indeed, the French have been challenged in the European courts. When the challenges are upheld, the magistrates take a different approach, but based on French law, not British law.

I am proud of the fact that British law provides the human rights that are being defended and considered by all of us this afternoon. I am not intent on trawling through the anti-terrorist, criminal or civil laws of each country in order to abuse their systems, but I want to make one thing absolutely clear so that there is no mistake: those of us who are arguing the case this afternoon for additional powers are just as committed to human rights and civil liberties as those who legitimately and reasonably seek to oppose the powers. Some of us—in fact, all of us on the Government Benches—have spent our lives fighting for the civil liberties and empowerment of people who do not have access to wealth, privilege and power.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I shall give way to my hon. Friend Mr. McNamara in a moment, but first I give way to my hon. Friend Helen Jackson because I have to live with her regularly—

Mrs Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)

I beg your pardon!

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I shall rephrase that. I have to keep our friendship going.

Mrs Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am glad that he rephrased what he said about our living together.

I do not doubt the intentions behind the Bill and the need for action following 11 September, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify an issue that relates to the effectiveness of this provision. I understand that the objectionable bits of the Bill on detention and the length of time that people might be detained applies only to people who are not nationals of the country in which they live. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would clarify this query: to what extent can he be sure that the people who are part of the international network about which we are concerned at the moment are not nationals of the various countries in which they live? Is there not a danger that we are labelling those individuals who are stateless, and directing this Bill at them, so ignoring potential terrorist activities from people—

Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Michael Martin (Speaker)

Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment. The hon. Lady's intervention was certainly far too long.

Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh, Conservative)

You have just dealt with my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to ask whether there was a 10-minute limit on interventions.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I return to my original point, and I apologise to the House for making it again, but it is important to stress that we are seeking the powers in relation to detention and the use of SIAC precisely on the basis of our immigration and nationality provisions and the inability to send people to countries in which they would be put at risk.

The right to regular review exists; the right to leave the country exists; and the right to ask that Parliament reconsiders what we are asking it to pass in relation to these measures exists; but all that is based on the presumption that, in normal circumstances, we would have asked people to leave our country but that we have been unable to do so because their lives would thereby be put at risk. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, because I promised to do so.

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most forbearing. He mentions the United States Patriot Act and the power of the US Attorney-General to detain people for up to four weeks. Will he confirm that, under the US constitution, any act by the Attorney-General is subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court of the United States and cannot be excluded?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

Well, it is, but that question has two answers. First, the person will be detained while that process takes place. Secondly, under the existing Acts and powers and in the circumstances where the Attorney- General would use his powers, military courts can also be used. In such circumstances, evidence can be presented in precisely the way that we intend under the SIAC process. I would not advocate such an approach, and I do not imagine for a moment that other hon. Members would.

Mr Teddy Taylor (Rochford & Southend East, Conservative)

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way so often and helping Back Benchers to understand this complicated Bill, but will he genuinely explain why clause 21 states:

"'international terrorism' does not include terrorism concerned . . . with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom"?

Does that mean that individuals from Turkey, Florida or other places who help and finance the Real IRA or the IRA will not be covered by the Bill? Bearing in mind the fact that international terrorist organisations co-operate with one another and help one another with financing and training, is it not crazy to exclude the Real IRA from a Bill that deals with international terrorism?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

When such a foreign national is suspected of international terrorism or linked with international terrorists, he would be subject to the Bill.

Mr Teddy Taylor (Rochford & Southend East, Conservative)

No.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

Yes. We can argue it out in Committee on Wednesday and I will be happy to do so. There will certainly be time to argue about that particular phrase.

I want to make progress by giving Members the opportunity to intervene on different parts of the Bill. Before I move quickly through the Bill in detail, I want to lay to rest once and for all the idea that, because action has been taken—action criticised by others—that has liberated two-thirds of Afghanistan from the threat of the Taliban, the threat has somehow gone away. It has not. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that a wounded and cornered tiger is more dangerous than ever.

Ms Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

One more time, but then we must move on to consider the clauses.

Ms Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his patience.

Further to the question raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I thought that, under the Bill, when a case could be brought to trial in the United Kingdom—as I would expect for a case of terrorism in Northern Ireland—the person subject to immigration control would be subject to due legal process in Britain. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that where it is possible to conduct a trial in the UK—because the evidence and the witnesses are here—we will seek to bring these criminals to trial here?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

My answer is unequivocally yes. Of course we would do that. The hypothetical question was not about the act that could be charged—such as organising terrorism in Northern Ireland—but about whether it could be shown that there was a link to terrorism world wide.

Mr Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I will give way one more time to ensure that we do not irritate each other by misunderstanding the arguments.

Mr Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour)

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for his patience. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend Fiona Mactaggart, do not the courts in this country have all the powers that they need to take evidence in camera, and are not judges able to clear the court? In respect of any evidence—my right hon. Friend identified it earlier—that prejudiced sources or the security forces or is prejudicial to the case, powers currently exist to hold part of a court trial in camera. The need to assume the wide powers in the Bill is not readily apparent.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

My hon. Friend is right. The difficulty, as adjudged in passing the measure that set up the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and that results from the challenge of Mullah Rehman, is that some evidence is not admissible in such a court, but it is admissible in SIAC. That protects the security and intelligence services. The required threshold has to reach the level where SIAC adjudges that the decision taken by the Home Secretary on advice is correct. The Rehman judgment affirmed that what we believed to be the case over the past four years was indeed the case—that the threshold of evidence that would not be admissible in a normal court is acceptable in the SIAC process. I hope that that clarifies the position, because there has been a major misunderstanding about that at the public level. Although I have tried on various news and current affairs programmes to clarify the issue, it has not been possible to spell it out.

Parts I and II complement the Proceeds of Crime Bill in stopping organised terrorism and crime being perpetrated through money laundering by organised finance—a subject that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered in Ottawa. We are seeking the ability to freeze assets, to take unified action with other countries and to introduce restraining orders. I also referred to the terrorism finance unit.

Part 3 will enhance the power of disclosure to law enforcement agencies, with clear guidelines, and allow disclosure to be presented in constrained circumstances, including those that relate to criminal investigation.

Part 4 deals with the issues to which I have just referred. In addition, I intend to make a small amendment to clause 25. During the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it was pointed out to me that there should be a test of reasonableness. It is my intent, therefore, to introduce an amendment to clarify that. I hope that that information helps the House and shows that we are genuinely prepared to listen and respond to what is proposed on such matters.

Part 5 covers issues that relate to the controversy that has arisen in respect of religious hate. For the sake of clarification, I again want to put on the record what we seek we do. The debate on this subject has been going on for a long time. We were approached by leaders of the Muslim community—it was a representative leadership group—who thought that it was only right, fair and protective to include religion with race in terms of avoiding incitement to hate using the Public Order Act 1986. I considered that and decided that their point was fair and reasonable. That suggestion was also made when the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 went through Parliament and the Opposition pressed us hard to implement it. At the time, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is now Foreign Secretary, accepted that there was a reasonable case for keeping it under review, but that it would not be introduced then.

Since then, others from the Muslim community—representative or otherwise—have said that they do not like the idea. It has been suggested—I heard people say this as recently as this morning on the radio—that it might be used against Muslims. That is true; it might, because Muslims are no less subject to the law than Christians, Hindus, Jews or anyone else. I do not want gesturism. I hope that the provision will protect all those who have deeply held religious beliefs from having that faith used to incite hatred against them. This is a public order Act, and it is the order that we are talking about. To be prosecuted, the power has to be used against the perpetration of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with—this is the crucial phrase—the intention and likelihood that racial hatred would be stirred up. That is the crucial element.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I will give way in a moment.

The case is to be adjudged by the Attorney-General and brought only if he believes that there is a case to be heard. That brings the law into line with those of the Jewish or Sikh faith who have already been adjudged by the courts to be covered by the term "race".

Dr Brian Mawhinney (North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way and want to put a question to him from a Christian point of view. He will know, to use his own words, that two of the central foundations of the Christian faith—namely, that Jesus Christ was both man and God and that people can get into a relationship with God only through Jesus Christ—are deemed by some in other religions to be insulting and offensive. Indeed, in some countries it is so insulting and offensive that the very statement of Christian faith is enough to put someone in prison. Will the affirmation of those fundamental Christian beliefs fall foul of his Bill?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

The answer is unequivocally no.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I give way to Tony Baldry.

Mr Tony Baldry (Banbury, Conservative)

I fully support the Home Secretary's intention to extend to Muslims the protection afforded by race relations legislation to members of the Sikh and Jewish faiths. However, the problems with that legislation, including the exclusion of Muslims from its provisions, have simply been created by judges in their interpretation of it. Why does not the Home Secretary simply amend the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1976 to extend their protection to the Muslim community, rather than creating a new criminal offence? Will the Home Secretary acknowledge—

Mr Michael Martin (Speaker)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

Religious discrimination is a different matter, and it does not relate directly to the issues that we have been debating, which are public reassurance and calm in our communities following the hatred and associated dangers arising from the events of 11 September. Those tensions could have been extremely dangerous, and we have devoted an enormous amount of police time and resources to providing protection. It would not have been right separately to pick out, and discriminate either for or against, a particular faith, because that in itself could well have caused difficulties with public reassurance and social cohesion.

People are entirely entitled to their views on this matter, but including religion with race seemed to us to be a perfectly reasonable measure, associated as it is with the aggravated offence, which has been extremely successful—almost 22,000 such cases have been considered, and there have been 4,000 prosecutions.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

May I put a very straight point to the right hon. Gentleman? Rev. Ian Paisley has on occasion said that the Pope is the anti-Christ and the whore of Babylon. Would that be illegal under this Bill? As a follower of His Holiness, I do not think that it ought to be illegal, because people should be allowed to say what they want.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

The argument is not whether people should be allowed to say what they want but whether the intention, and the likely effect, of their comments is to stir up racial hatred. [Interruption.] Both the intent and the consequences will be the basis on which the Attorney-General will make a judgment on any individual case. The great strength of our democracy is that we can debate, and people can say what they believe, but another strength, represented by race hate legislation, is that we can prevent people from using that democracy to develop hate into attacks on other people.

I have paid careful attention to the column inches devoted to this matter. It is interesting that the very people who, in the weeks immediately after 11 September, wanted us to take action against particular, vocal individuals on the grounds that they were developing hatred, are now so strongly opposed to us including religion in laws to prevent that hatred becoming effective.

Miss Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Labour)

The whole House supports the stated intention behind the religious hatred clause, but if it is partly to afford to other religions the protection currently given to the Christian faith by the blasphemy laws, surely another way around the problem is simply to get rid of the blasphemy laws.

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

The laws apply only to the Church of England.

Miss Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Labour)

I am sorry.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

There is an interesting debate to be had about the blasphemy laws—I said so to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—which apply only to the Church of England. However, this is not about religion or the blasphemy laws; it is about public order and whether we are taking the right steps to ensure that we broaden the definition in relation to hate and the aggravated offence. An amendment will undoubtedly be tabled on Wednesday, which we shall be able to debate; we will reflect on what was said back in 1998.

Part 6 deals with weapons of mass destruction and will extend the scope of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. Those are precautionary measures but, in my view, quite sensible. Part 7 deals with dangerous substances and secures the necessary protection for laboratories and other places where they may be held. Part 8 increases security in and around civil nuclear installations and will enable the Office of Civil Nuclear Security to deal with that. Part 9 updates aviation security and makes improvements to the Aviation Security Act 1982, which has some extraordinary loopholes. Part 10 deals with policing.

Mr Chris Mullin (Sunderland South, Labour)

As the Home Secretary may have noticed, I have kept quiet until now. Why is it necessary to extend the powers of Ministry of Defence police to cover any act in any part of the country, not just those involving terrorism?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

They are to be used in specific circumstances. It is important to distinguish the MOD services that we are talking about from the military police; I read one article that clearly implied that we were talking about military police moving around with guns in their hands. We are not. I want to make it clear that any use of weaponry would be entirely under the provisions of the authorisation requested by police services in the normal way. We are talking about circumstances in which MOD services would be brought in, either on the request of the local police or where there was judged to be a definable emergency, and only for that period. It is right and proper that in the police reform legislation that we will introduce next year, we ensure that the normal powers for police complaints will be available; if there is any action under the measures by people acting in a certain way, there is no doubt that individuals will have normal protection.

Parts 9 and 10 also enable us to deploy the transport police in a more sensible way than is available at the moment; that is not controversial in any way. Part 11 deals with the retention—

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

For anyone watching the Parliamentary Channel, part 11 deals with communications data and their retention.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that clarification. Why will the powers that he proposes to give the authorities require all communications data to be kept and the authorities to have access to them not simply for the purpose of safeguarding national security, which people will understand, but for the purpose of the prevention and detection of crime, which could be any crime whatsoever? Why are the powers so sweeping and far-reaching?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

Because it has become abundantly clear that it is impossible to distinguish the issues when one cannot separate out crime and terrorist funding, crime and terrorist organisation, and crime used to fund terrorist acts. That is why there is a provision allowing data already held by the service providers to be held under the voluntary code that we intend to put in place.

We thank, as I did on 15 October, the service providers for their co-operation, which we expect to continue. We are providing a reserve power only against people who undercut or damage the reputation and work of others by refusing to take part and co-operate with the code. The data will not include content, merely subscriber details already held and itemised billing, and will be renewable after two years.

Part 12 deals with bribery and corruption. We were happy to respond to the many voices, including those in the House, calling for such provisions. Part 13 deals with a range—

Mr Teddy Taylor (Rochford & Southend East, Conservative)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I did not think for a moment that my friends on the Eurosceptic wing would allow that to pass. For clarification, the affirmative procedure would apply under part 13.

Mr Teddy Taylor (Rochford & Southend East, Conservative)

Clause 109(3) states that references to the treaty on European Union include references as amended by the treaty of Nice. As I understand it, the treaty of Nice has not yet been approved by all member states, and is unlikely to be approved by member states. Is it right to put into our law a provision amended by the treaty of Nice, when that treaty has not been approved by each member state?

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I believe that the hon. Gentleman would be strongly in favour of our approving what we consider appropriate. The treaty of Nice and the Tampere European Council took forward provisions that were expected to be carried through in the usual way, after detailed scrutiny and an affirmative resolution. They included the 1995 and 1996 conventions on extradition, as well as laws updated in 2000 on mutual legal assistance. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was against the 1995 and 1996 provisions, but such measures are precisely the sort that will be carried through.

The provisions relating to arrest warrants, which have caused such interesting debate in Europe, not least when I was discussing them last Friday, will be carried through, subject to the agreement of the House, in the Extradition Bill, rather than in the measure before us. The Bill also contains provisions dealing with the manifests carried by carriers, to introduce the protections that we seek.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Bill provide the country with the power to defend itself, and provisions to monitor and scrutinise how that power is used, to ensure that Parliament is not ignored and can hold the Executive to account for the actions that they take, and to ensure that our security and intelligence services are used effectively.

I am aware of reports in the broadcast and print media of people abusing our intelligence and security services. On the basis of their performance 10 or 20 years ago, one or two commentators have called those services useless. They are not useless. Over the past few days, together with the Customs service, they have proved that by picking up those who threaten our lives in the United Kingdom from Ireland. We owe those services a debt of gratitude. Members of the police and security services, for instance, who approach vehicles that are about to explode in order to save the lives of others do not deserve the opprobrium of those who simply write columns and who have never in their lives taken the responsibility for making a decision, apart from what they would buy from Sainsbury's.

Let me put the matter simply, as though we were dealing with someone who has been invited into our home—someone who is not a member of our family, but who accepts our hospitality. Let us suppose we find that, in our home, they are undertaking actions that are unacceptable to us. In normal circumstances we would ask them to leave, but that might immediately put their life at risk. We would surely want to take steps in our home to ensure that we and our family were secure. Using the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the powers that we are setting out in the Bill, we endeavour to do precisely that, while of course protecting the civil liberties gained over many years in our nation and including the power to set aside even the limited requirement of detaining people on a limited basis should it prove that the threat that emerged on 11 September diminishes or disappears. I would be the first to come back to this House and ask for us to drop that power, but I am the first this afternoon to ask that, in the circumstances, we agree to it.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

These are dangerous times—I think that is agreed across the House—and there are loopholes in our national security. That, too, is agreed across the House. However, the purpose of the House and of Parliament as a whole at a time such as this is not merely to enact into law the first set of propositions that occur to Her Majesty's Government, but to achieve an appropriate balance between public safety, which it is the Home Secretary's responsibility to protect, and individual liberty, which this House and Parliament as a whole were established to protect. Most of what I want to say relates to that balance and to the elements of the Bill that I and my hon. Friends believe do not appropriately strike that balance.

First, however, I want to say a word about process. I have discerned across the House, as everybody here must have done, a strong feeling that a few days—three days, in the case of this House—are not enough fully to scrutinise the Bill. However, I accept the severe time constraints under which the Home Secretary feels that he is operating. I also accept, therefore, that it is probably appropriate to allow this House and the other place the opportunity to make up ex post for what we will have failed to do ex ante, by providing a drastic set of sunset clauses so that Parliament as a whole will have a full opportunity to revisit almost all parts of the Bill regularly, and so that the great bulk of it will fall away unless Parliament chooses to re-enact it. We will then have the opportunity to see how it works in practice and to investigate whether the Home Secretary is correct, or whether some of the arguments that hon. Members, including me, will advance in this debate are proved right.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend accept the proposition that, although there may be parts of the Bill that are truly urgent, the great majority of it cannot from any viewpoint be considered as such? Is not the best way forward to identify that which is truly urgent, incorporate it into a one or two-part Bill and deal with the rest of the matter in proper order?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

My right hon. and learned Friend and I will probably not wholly agree about this, but I am willing to take on trust and for the time being the judgment made by the Home Secretary, as he is in a position—whereas I am not—to understand what is urgent and where the loopholes are. If it turns out that some of the provisions were not needed or that they have not worked as the Home Secretary supposed, that will be an argument for them to fall. Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that some provisions should not have been included in the Bill in the first place. We will come to them in a moment.

Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe & Nantwich, Labour)

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that that is quite a comforting doctrine, as it says that if the House of Commons passes bad laws, that is good enough, as long as we know that we will return to them within 12 months? Does he accept that it would be far better if the House of Commons and the other place had time to consider the Bill carefully before it gets on to the statute book, and not after we have discovered that, as too frequently happens these days, we have made a pig's ear of it?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

Of course, it would be better if we had more time now. However, I suspect that the hon. Lady would agree that the time needed to scrutinise the Bill in detail is not simply an extra couple of days. If that were the case, I am sure that the Home Secretary would give way to the argument. The problem is that consultation on a wide range of measures has been inadequate because of time. The Home Secretary believes that he needs powers now to protect us against a potential appalling attack on our fellow citizens. I am unwilling on behalf of my party to put my country at the risk of the Home Secretary being proved right. I am therefore willing in that exceptional case to accept the argument that we should reconsider the matter later.

Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

I could not let that go. My hon. Friend's approach to the Home Secretary is sympathetic and could almost be described as osmosis. Although that may be admirable, let us consider part 12, which covers bribery and corruption. What is so urgent that it needs those provisions? What arises from 11 September that requires them?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right. Part 12 is not an emergency measure. For a long time, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have called for legislation on bribery and corruption to implement our obligations under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention. I accept that the inclusion of the provisions constitutes an inelegance. However, it would be difficult for my party to oppose it given that we called for it.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I am grateful for the way in which the shadow Home Secretary expresses his genuine disagreements. I believe that the Conservative spokesman for international development suggested that the Bill would be a suitable vehicle for the provisions in part 12. I accepted that, given that it affects the OECD and the financial implications that the Chancellor tackled in Ottawa yesterday. The United States has said that it wants precisely such measures to help with anti-terrorist activity.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

I fear that the answer to that intervention is simply yes.

Mr Menzies Campbell (Fife North East, Liberal Democrat)

The general approach that the shadow Home Secretary intends to take to the Bill has excited a great deal of interest. Looking back at all those who have occupied the office of Home Secretary in the past 14 years, does he believe that it would have been legitimate in every case for Parliament to adopt the principle of "Trust me, I'm the Home Secretary"?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

It is never appropriate to adopt a principle of trusting anybody. Parliament exists not to trust but to scrutinise. I wholly accept that we should be willing to pass legislation at the current pace only in the most exceptional national circumstances. That view has not always been shared by Labour Members.

However, when the Home Secretary of the day believes that an urgent threat to our national security needs to be resolved but Parliament does not have adequate time to do that through scrutiny, proper sunset clauses are the only way in which to proceed. I hope that there is general agreement on that and that the Home Secretary and members of the Treasury Bench will eventually subscribe to our drastic amendments on sunset clauses.

Meanwhile, we must not delude ourselves that it is sufficient to express the fears and hesitations that many of us may have about the short time available for scrutiny, or to use them as an excuse to sit back and refuse to carry out the scrutiny that we can in the few days that are available to us. We have tried to begin that scrutiny in the past few days. I shall give three examples of amendments that I believe we shall table jointly with Liberal Democrat Members. I hope that they will command wide support in the House of Commons and the other place.

Part 3 deals with disclosure and includes strong provisions to increase the amount of disclosure of personal details by Government agencies, including the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. We shall try to limit that. The Bill would permit disclosure under the circumstances of any criminal investigation, including that of a minor offence. We want the provision restricted to terrorist-type offences.

Part 4 gives a definition of international terrorism that I believe simply contains an error. The response of the Treasury Bench will be interesting. The definition specifically excludes terrorism that is

"concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom".

Members on both sides of the House will recognise that the effect of that is that, if someone comes to the UK from a foreign country to engage in the kind of terrorism that is specifically restricted to Northern Ireland, these provisions could not be used against them. That cannot be the intent of the Government, and we would want to see an amendment to that provision.

My third point relates to the section with which my hon. Friend Mr. Shepherd was concerned. Notwithstanding the short time available, we want to carry out what scrutiny we can on the section on bribery and corruption. Clause 106 contains another error. I understand from our legal advisers that the clause as drafted would have the effect of making it a common law offence—indeed, probably an imprisonable one—for a member of Her Majesty's security services to bribe a foreign official to get information to stop terrorism in the UK. That cannot be the intent of the clause, and we shall table amendments to cure that.

Mr Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern over the wording of clause 21(2)(c), in which the definition of an international terrorist includes someone who

"has links with a person who is a member of or belongs to an international terrorist group"?

When we are taking such extreme powers, is association of that nature—and the way in which it could well be interpreted—really satisfactory?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

I have to admit that, before the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, I had not taken proper note of clause 21(2)(c). I found his arguments compelling, and I shall discuss with my colleagues whether we could table an amendment to try to cure that anomaly too. I agree that there is a problem there, and I suspect that there are other problems lurking in the text of part 4.

Dr Bob Spink (Castle Point, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a better way of dealing with that aspect of part 4 would be for the Government to use articles 57 and 58 of the European convention on human rights to gain reservation against article 3, so that those threatening national security could be deported to countries such as, say, the USA and India?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, but I have spent a large amount of time in the last few weeks propagandising for that view. I shall come to that hugely important question in detail in a few moments. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I turn now to the three major elements of the Bill in which we see large-scale problems, and for which we do not think that scrutiny and detailed correction will suffice. The first relates to clauses 109 and 110, which, as the Home Secretary so helpfully pointed out, relate to the implementation of third pillar decisions by the member states of the EU. The clauses propose that such implementation should occur by statutory instrument.

The Home Secretary confirmed today what an earlier letter from one of his Ministers had hinted at, namely that it is his intention to implement the framework decisions on counter-terrorism and on the Euro arrest warrants through the forthcoming Extradition Bill, rather than through statutory instruments. We are grateful for that. On account of that, however, clauses 109 and 110 cannot be regarded as urgent. This cannot be regarded as an emergency provision if the very items most closely related to the emergency with which we are dealing are going to be implemented not by statutory instrument under the clauses, but by another route that is already available—primary legislation.

We have a case, therefore, against including clauses 109 and 110—at least as they are currently drafted—in emergency legislation, and a material case against them in any event. The whole point of the third pillar of the EU is that it gives member states an opportunity to continue to control the vital question of how they are governed from the point of view of their criminal law.

That is not just a matter of intergovernmentalism. To coin an adaptation of the words of Edith Cavell, intergovernmentalism is not enough. We need a continuing parliamentary check, so that it is possible to revise what Ministers in Brussels have decided between them. That is why we want these clauses to be restricted to the very narrow extradition proceedings to which the UK is already committed, and thereafter to lapse, so that we can return, as we believe that we should, to implementing EU third pillar decisions in primary legislation. To give an example, that would mean that with proposals such as the Euro arrest warrant, we would be able to argue for amendment—as we will—so that the Euro arrest warrant related exclusively to terrorism. Such amendment would be possible only under a Bill such as the Extradition Bill. It would not be possible if these clauses remain intact, so we want to excise them in that form.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend do more to emphasise his objection to clause 109? Is not the real objection that, hitherto, primary legislation has been required to put such measures into law? We are being asked to approve by way of emergency legislation, rushed through in two days, a state of affairs in which primary legislation will not be necessary to implement third pillar regulations. That would be done under the affirmative procedure—unamendable at that.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

My right hon. and learned Friend teaches me that I am wholly inarticulate. That is precisely what I was trying to say.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend accept that that objection is shared even by those hon. Members who are Europhile? It is not acceptable that, using the excuse of emergency legislation, the House should deny itself the opportunity properly to scrutinise what in most cases I would find perfectly acceptable had the House debated it properly.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

I concur with my right hon. Friend. He and my right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Hogg were members of the Cabinet who gave us the third pillar and part of the point was precisely that the House should retain the right to control those matters by primary legislation. I believe that we should utterly resist including in this emergency legislation provisions that deny the House that right. So, incidentally, does the Home Affairs Committee. As in other areas, there is a distinct congruence of the views of Conservative Members and the Committee, which has in its ranks a majority of Labour Members.

Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

I must reinforce my hon. Friend's point. Under title 6 of the European Union treaty, which deals with home affairs and some police matters in co-operative terms, primary legislation must be used.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right, and that is a strong point.

Part 5 contains clauses that largely relate to incitement to religious hatred. I put it on record that Conservative Members recognise that the Home Secretary has a noble motive in introducing them. He wants, as we want and as every Member of the House wants, to protect vulnerable religious communities. That is not an issue. Moreover, he has included clause 39, which makes it an aggravated offence to engage for religious reasons in an act that is anyway an offence. We are more than happy to subscribe to that clause.

We see a genuine distinction between an evil and illegal act committed by an individual for ulterior motives and such an act committed for religious reasons. The difference is that sectarian strife can ensue if the motive is religious. That is a consequence for society worse than even the offence itself. Therefore, just as with a racially aggravated offence, we see an argument for a religiously aggravated one. There we are at one with the Government.

I fear that we have the severest reservations about the rest of part 5—all those clauses that deal with incitement to religious hatred and the definitions that flow from it. In the first place, we are worried about including such provisions in emergency legislation. These are immensely delicate issues and there are huge questions of freedom of speech, some of which my hon. Friends and Labour Members have already raised.

I do not know, and I suspect that Ministers do not know, what will be the true extent of the legislation's effects. No clear answer was given to my right hon. Friend Mr. Gummer when he asked whether the Member who has called the Pope an anti-Christ would be affected. I do not know whether he would be affected. I do not want to subscribe to legislation that could have effects on free speech that none of us in the House knows.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

May I put another case to my hon. Friend? If a religious group allows its children to die because it does not accept blood transfusions, and if I drew that to the attention of others, they might well be very angry about the death of the children. Would I be breaking the law in making a direct connection between the religious beliefs of that group, and the deaths that result? If so, it means that I cannot properly argue the case in this country in future.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

I do not entirely know, and what worries me is that I am not certain that the Home Secretary has fully fathomed the answer. Earlier, in response to a question, he said that what had to be shown under sections 18 to 23 of the Public Order Act 1986—which are the relevant sections—was that the defendant intended to stir up religious hatred and that, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up. It is not so. The word "intends" in section 18(1)(a) is governed by what follows—the word "or" followed by

"(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up".

There is all the difference in the world between those two little words "and" and "or".

I am sure that, under the "and" clause, my right hon. Friend's hypothesis would be unfulfilled—I am sure it would not be the case that he had intended to stir up racial or, in this instance, religious hatred. But whether, having regard to all the circumstances, religious hatred would be likely to be stirred up by such a statement, I do not fully know—and I do not believe Members will know unless and until judges make decisions.

Mr David Cameron (Witney, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend consider a work that was without doubt hurtful, even hateful, to members of a particular religion, and indeed led to disorder on the streets of this country? I refer to "The Satanic Verses".

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

My hon. Friend brings me to the second of my deep concerns about clause 39.

We stand at a very difficult moment for the country, for reasons that the Home Secretary rightly adduces. We are potentially under attack; but this is also a difficult moment because relationships between the Muslim community and the remainder of our citizens are tense. That is acknowledged on both sides, and the Home Secretary and I share an earnest desire for the tensions not to be aggravated.

The Home Secretary rightly said that a piece of legislation of this kind could and would apply to Muslims, as to all our fellow citizens. That is how our law operates: it is blind to the persons with whom it is dealing. My hon. Friend, however, has raised a vital question. It can be replicated in many other ways. We must ask whether the editor of The Muslim News will find that he or some of his writers are under threat. Will Muslims feel that the use of this law against them at this time might have deleterious consequences?

We are dealing with a matter of great delicacy. It deserves to be part of a considered debate featuring wide consultation and deep thought over a prolonged period, and very probably allied to the resolving of the whole question of religious discrimination, which is the item that most worries most religious minorities. We firmly believe that it would be far better to remove these clauses, and to leave the Bill to concern itself with items that are genuinely to do with terrorism—this is not such an item—so that we can return later to consider, properly and deliberately, the question of religious discrimination and all the attendant questions.

Mr Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead, Labour/Co-operative)

In that case, will the hon. Gentleman support my amendment to delete these clauses entirely—including clause 39—so that they can be given the careful attention that he has recommended?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I raised the matter with the Home Secretary in the House a couple of weeks ago, he expressed complete incomprehension in regard to claims made by me at that time, and made today by, for instance, Mr. Gummer and Mr. Hogg?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

Although we could argue about clause 39, on religiously aggravated offences, I go along with the rest of the hon. Gentleman's view. I think that it is extremely significant that the Home Affairs Select Committee has taken the view that

"We have not seen sufficient evidence to justify the proposition that extending the law of incitement to include religious as well as racial hatred will work in practice . . . We therefore see no reason for this measure to be included in this emergency Terrorism Bill."

I hope that the Home Secretary will heed those remarks from a source that is not partisan and that he will see fit to withdraw those clauses.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

It may be helpful for the hon. Gentleman to have confirmation that, having talked to the Christian and other faith communities, we believe that the strong preference of all faith communities is the one that has been expressed by him and by Mr. McWalter. The faith communities believe that we should legislate carefully and separately on the issue and that we should not mix debates on terrorism with those on how we protect people's faith and their right to criticise faith. That view should be a support for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. It is also held by a very large coalition which I detect may find favour in a few days in the other place.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

I wholly agree with that, and our soundings among the same communities have produced the same results. I also think that the hon. Gentleman has, by allusion, made an enormously important point. To confuse protection of any minority, but particularly Muslim minorities, with counter-terrorism is itself to make an elision that is dangerous in the current circumstances. Muslims are not, as the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have freely and frequently acknowledged, terrorists. Muslims are Muslims—they are from a religion—and terrorists are terrorists. We do not want to be discussing the one in the same breath as the other.

Part 4 contains the internment clauses which have caused most of the scintillating debate today. If these clauses are to remain in the Bill—in a moment I shall give the reasons why I believe that there is a much better route to use than that type of internment—they will need amendment. However, I think that the Home Secretary may have started to move in directions that are welcomed by Opposition Members.

Clause 21(1)(a) currently requires the Home Secretary merely to believe that the person in question who is to be interned is a risk to national security. In the context of that inevitably draconian power, there should surely be at least a requirement for substantial grounds for belief. I think that that chimes with the Home Secretary's welcome statement earlier today that there would be some form of reasonableness constraint. I should like a reasonableness constraint allied to substantial grounds.

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that desirable though such provision may very well be, and although such provision may well be included in the Bill, if judicial review remained—and there seems to be absolutely no reason why it should not remain— the divisional court would import a question of reasonableness into the test in any event?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

The hon. and learned Gentleman moves me on to my next point, on judicial review. Perhaps unlike him, I sympathise with the Home Secretary's desire to exclude from consideration by judicial review the decision made by the Home Secretary himself.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

On the merits.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

Yes. I believe that the Home Secretary fears that, if the merits of his decision are subject to judicial review, the merits will be subject to judicial opinion. He believes, and I have some sympathy with this line of thought, that it is the Home Secretary of the day—

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway, Labour)

rose—

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

I promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if he can contain himself, I am about to make a point that will fully expose my view. Then I shall be happy to enter debate with him.

The Home Secretary believes that it is the Home Secretary of the day, in the democratically elected and accountable Government, who should decide, on the merits of the case, whether the individual concerned is a danger to our national security. I can sympathise with that view, although with the profoundest doubts and hesitations.

However, I cannot sympathise with the further leap that the current text takes, of entirely excluding judicial review. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission was set up not for the purpose of determining whether a person should be detained indefinitely, but for other and lesser purposes. Although, as the Home Secretary rightly says, that body was originally established with a view, de facto, to reviewing judicially decisions made by the Home Secretary, it is not constituted in a manner that gives sufficient assurance that by itself it will always act properly.

The Lord Chancellor sets out the rules for that body, and we want at least an amendment that makes it possible to test by judicial review whether the body followed its own rules. That must be the absolute bare minimum of procedural constraint. To take a ludicrous example—

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

I should hate the hon. Gentleman to embark on a ludicrous example before I was able to challenge him on a less ludicrous one. Surely the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and, if given leave, to the House of Lords on a point of law is itself a point of law relating to whether the SIAC process has been observed properly by the High Court judge and those sitting with him.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

No. I have taken legal advice on the matter—as, obviously, has the Home Secretary—and we shall argue it out in Committee. As I understand it, an appeal on a point of law would not lie if there was a procedural irregularity in the conduct of SIAC. To take what I hope is a ludicrous example—although it has happened in English courts—if the person presiding over the commission on a given occasion were asleep during its proceedings, I understand that the Home Secretary would debar legal review of the decision to put someone into an English jail indefinitely, notwithstanding the fact that the person presiding was asleep. That needs reviewing.

Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway, Labour)

May I say, slightly painfully, that in this respect I agree entirely with the Home Secretary? That would be a matter of law, and would clearly be covered. The real problem surely relates to an attack on the merits, on which a Minister decides, on the basis that someone will be incarcerated indefinitely. For that not to be reviewable is abhorrent. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in judicially reviewing a Minister's decision, the divisional court does not say whether it agrees or disagrees with the Minister? It must find that no reasonable Minister would have come to that conclusion. In my experience that has always been so: I cannot think of a single case in which the divisional court has not dutifully followed that principle.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case, to which we shall attend and, perhaps, return in Committee. The question is whether the judicial review might be restricted to a kind of reasonableness that genuinely does not seek to judge whether the Home Secretary was right. That elision increasingly worries Members on both sides of the House. If the definition could be genuinely restricted to the case of reasonableness as it was originally understood, Opposition Members would have considerable sympathy for such an amendment.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

I understand why my hon. Friend is reluctant to subject to judicial control the Home Secretary's decision about whether someone is likely to be a threat to national security. That is a qualitative judgment and is difficult to make, and therefore rather difficult to subject to appeal. The question whether someone is associated with a terrorist organisation, or whether reasonable grounds exist to suspect that he or she is, is ultimately a matter of fact. I put it to my hon. Friend that there is a strong case for that issue to be the subject of an appeal and review procedure.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

My right hon. and learned Friend makes another important point, and I am more than prepared to consider that, too, in the 24 hours that are available to us. We may return to it in Committee. Indeed, I have no doubt that he will want to return to it in Committee, by which time we may be willing to support him.

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

Those are all very fine legal points and distinctions, but for many of us the important question is whether the person who is to be incarcerated should know the reasons and evidence on which that incarceration will rely. We are saying that we will have to depend on the good faith of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, but there have been other Home Secretaries, in other circumstances, whose objectivity has been more coloured by the need to retain popular support than by the interests of justice and the individual. It is because we believe that a person should know the evidence that is being used to justify his incarceration that we object to this part of the Bill.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman takes us beyond the question of the process to be used and advances an argument against part 4 as a whole. There I leave him, because the Home Secretary and the Government do not currently have a viable alternative. They should develop such an alternative, which returns us to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham a moment ago.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

It surely is not beyond the wit of the Home Secretary, or of man generally, to come up with a process that can accommodate the protection of the rights of the individual subject to the detention order and the necessary requirements of the secret services to protect their sources of information. Those are both proper things to want to protect, so surely, between the 659 of us, we can devise a process that would achieve both aims.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

I agree that it ought not to be beyond the wit of the House—and the other place, which may have a large role to play—to devise such a balance in part 4. That should be our primary purpose in Committee and it should be the primary purpose of the other place. I hope that we will devise such a scheme and amend the Bill accordingly. If we are unable to do so, a drastic revision after a year may enable us to correct what we have been unable to get right now. Between those two possibilities, I hope that we will get nearer to having a part 4 with which we feel more comfortable.

We cannot ever feel wholly comfortable with part 4 because it poses two difficulties. The first, which concerns some Labour Members and some of my hon. Friends, is that each time we intern people—under whatever procedure—indefinitely and without a full trial, we create another precedent that, in the long run after an accumulation of precedents, may prove dangerous to our liberties. That is a worry. Secondly, and ironically, we may cause a risk to our society. The Home Secretary rightly seeks to protect British citizens from attack by means of the Bill, but if people connected with terrorism are interned without trial in our jails, that may be a potential cause of their friends, relations, allies and compatriots taking action from the outside to seek to liberate them through hostage taking, reprisals or other measures. Will the Bill impose an additional risk on us?

For those reasons—the reason of precedent, which every hon. Member takes seriously, and the reason of increased risk—we should have a viable alternative to putting people in jail indefinitely. In my opinion, there is a viable alternative because the Home Secretary is in an unusual position. Most of our predecessors would have found it astonishing to be told that a British Home Secretary who had serious grounds for believing that an individual posed a threat to the stability of our society and the safety of our population was unable to prevent that individual from entering the country. That is indeed an astonishing state of affairs. It is yet more astonishing that on discovering that such an individual is in this country, the Home Secretary is unable to remove him. He is unable to do those things not because of article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which is often cited, but because of what the judges have decided in cases such as Chahal and Soering, which was not part of the original intention of the drafting of article 3.

The original statements that gave rise to the convention make it abundantly clear that the intention was to make it impossible for a country that subscribed to the convention to engage in inhuman or degrading treatment of its citizens or anyone else in its country—something to which I wholly subscribe. The judges extended that doctrine so that it was impossible for the Home Secretary's predecessor—a man whose politics I do not share but who is, by any standards, a reasonable man—to remove to India, which is not in a state of barbarism but has a proper legal system, two individuals whom he conscientiously judged to be a risk to this country. That strikes me and my right hon. and hon. Friends as absurd.

The Home Secretary has today helped enormously to take the debate forward in a constructive fashion by reinforcing the very point to which we have been trying to draw attention. Under articles 57 and 58 of the European convention on human rights, it is clearly possible—we have taken formal legal opinion on this and no doubt the Home Secretary has employed half the English Bar to consider it—to engage in an inelegant manoeuvre to remove ourselves from the convention for a millisecond and re-enter with a reservation, parallel to, though much more restrictive than, the reservation that the French have entered in respect of national emergency. That would enable the Home Secretary to have two weapons at his disposal. I think that the one to prevent entry or remove the person in question will be used more often.

In the extreme circumstance that someone would be sent back to a most ghastly death and the Home Secretary judged that the risk to this country of interning him would not be so great as to make even that tolerable, then it is reasonable, I think—just, and with my heart sinking—for the right hon. Gentleman to put that person in indefinite detention, at least until the country in question becomes reasonable enough for him to return that person there. Instead, the Home Secretary is creating a situation in which he is willing to put at some risk our civil liberty precedents and our safety, as far as reprisals are concerned, simply to avoid that inelegance. I find that astonishing.

I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this state of affairs and take action. I do not believe that primary legislation is required at this stage. Oddly enough, in the Human Rights Act 1998, the same provisions apply to reservations subsequent as to derogations subsequent. The same kind of order that we will be debating later could apply to reservations. The Home Secretary could take action without any significant primary legislation being necessary in the short term. I hope that he will look again at the question and spare many of us the great anxieties to which part 4 gives rise by providing himself with a proper viable alternative.

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman's word "inelegant" is an elegant way of describing sending people back to countries where they might be killed, tortured, subject to inhuman treatment or the target of American bombs. The statements of the leaders of the United States make it clear that countries that take into their territories people even suspected of terrorism will be legitimate targets. The hon. Gentleman is not asking my right hon. Friend to do that, is he?

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

We are talking about a fine balance. I respect the hon. Gentleman's pure position. However, does he really believe that the fact that someone comes from what, by our standards, is an unpleasant country—even if it has a perfectly proper judicial system—justifies us opening ourselves to the possibility of an appalling attack on our fellow citizens? The logic of his twin attack on part 4 and on my alternative is that the Home Secretary exposes us to that very risk. I am struggling to preserve so far as possible the fabric of our liberties while giving the Home Secretary the greatest possible scope to protect our public safety. It is that twin act—not so pure, but desperately important—in which we as a Parliament must try to engage.

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

On that basis, we should never have taken into our country any refugees who were Jews, because they were likely to be followed by German Nazi persecution—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish!"] That is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. In the words that he used to describe the countries to which people were being sent, he also supports and strengthens the case being made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

My mother-in-law left Germany in 1939. Her entire family was wiped out. I am rather grateful that this country received her because it gave me my wife. If she had come here with the intention of blowing up Londoners I do not think that she should have been let in. That is the argument I am making. I am not making it because I do not care about refugees: I do—passionately. I am making it because the Home Secretary has to balance our protection against the protection of individuals who are seeking entry. That seems a rational position.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a great inelegance because in the present circumstances we are saying to countries such as India, which have become independent, that we do not trust them as they should be trusted? We are thus taking a view that they must find immensely offensive. I do not understand why those who are most enthusiastically anti-imperialist should take upon themselves a role that they would not adopt in any other circumstances.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

My right hon. Friend is unequivocally right. The case of India shows his point clearly. Let me take him one step further: if Mr. bin Laden were not to be apprehended and eliminated by British troops currently trying to kill him—as I understand it—but were to make his way to the UK and to say to the Home Secretary's officials that he was claiming asylum, not only would they have to admit him to this country but it would be impossible subsequently to extradite him to the United States if the Americans insisted on applying the death penalty to him. British troops may hunt someone down to kill him abroad, but if he enters this country we cannot return him to sit on death row in the United States—irrationality!

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

In case anyone should think of writing that up as a tremendous debating point, I make it clear that we have had an extradition agreement with the United States since 1974. We understand precisely where we are on that. It was not the Government but the courts who judged that we should not extradite or remove to India, so we come full circle: the hon. Gentleman is deciding—is he not?—not simply that we should disavow but that we should have to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. That is what he is saying.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

To repeat: the opinion we have obtained suggests that it would be perfectly possible to withdraw for a millisecond and to re-accede with a reservation. However, the Home Secretary has made an extremely odd point. Our treaty and understandings with the United States rely on the American states to which we are extraditing individuals not applying the death penalty. If an American state or the federal Government insist on applying the death penalty, I cannot understand how it can be right to refuse to extradite a gentleman whom we are trying to kill elsewhere. That is irrational.

I have spoken for too long, for which I apologise to the House. I have done so mostly because I have tried to answer a number of interventions, as the Home Secretary did on a much more magnificent scale. I hope that, in the succeeding few hours, we shall have a calm but effective debate on the detail of the Bill, which poses fundamental issues for our liberties and safety. I hope that in Committee, in this House and in the other, we shall make changes that will make the Bill not perfect—we cannot hope to do that with this rush—but at least better. Finally, I hope that, in a year and in two, three and four years from now, Parliament will have the chance to reconsider the provisions and to decide how many of them are really necessary and how many need further amendment. If we can achieve that in Committee, in this House and in the other, Parliament will have done its job.

Mrs Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker)

May I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches?

Mr Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras, Labour)

I do not suppose that any hon. Member welcomes this Bill because we all regret the circumstances that have made it necessary. We wish that there was not a growing threat of terrorism and growing evidence of people provoking and inciting racial hatred and discrimination, but, sadly, there is. We face a dilemma: we are presented with emergency legislation, but we have to recognise that these laws are likely to have to remain in place for many a long year and that they might be strengthened and amended later to combat the threat of terrorism.

Attempting to curb terrorism will be a long process, but we have a duty to protect our law-abiding fellow citizens going about their business or, for that matter, going about their pleasure, and we also have to make a measured response. We must always bear it in mind that one of the objectives of terrorism has been, is now and will be to get us to conspire with the terrorists to bring our valued institutions into disrepute and to get us unnecessarily to erode our democratic standards, so we must be very careful.

The Home Secretary has had a very difficult job in attempting to strike a balance. Broadly speaking, he has got it about right, although hon. Members on both sides of the House have many detailed criticisms. However, I hope that, in the spirit that has been embodied in virtually all the contributions, he will listen to the points that have been made and consider additional safeguards where they can be provided without undermining the general strength of what he is trying to do.

I want to concentrate on the proposal to make incitement to religious hatred a crime in the same way that incitement to racial hatred is a crime. That proposal seems to have provoked a great deal of adverse comment from the commentariat in the newspapers, hardly any of which seems to have addressed the background to the proposal.

The proposal has been introduced because Muslims have been victims of religious hatred and discrimination not just since the murderous events in New York and Washington, but for years. Muslim mothers collecting children from primary schools have been abused and assaulted. Muslim homes have been stoned and fire bombed. Well-qualified Muslim young people have been denied the jobs that they expected to get. All that has happened because of religious hatred and discrimination, yet Muslims have been denied some of the protection that is rightly afforded to other groups.

Incitement to racial hatred and discrimination has been unlawful since 1965, and most of the arguments now being put against making incitement to religious hatred and discrimination unlawful are exactly the same as those put in the 1960s. The problem is that the racial hatred laws cover some religious groups—for example, Sikhs and Jews—where religion and ethnicity coincide, but that is not the case with Muslims. Muslims, if they are a group at all, are a religious group, not an ethnic grouping. Devout Muslims feel resentment because they know that the blasphemy laws do not cover their religion.

I support the proposal to outlaw incitement to religious hatred. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, the scope has been limited so it does not pose a substantial threat to freedom of speech. I agree that it will be hard to enforce—the law against incitement to racial hatred has been difficult to enforce—but it is not impossible.

We must remember that the law is declaratory. Making incitement to racial hatred discriminatory and unlawful changed society's view of the awful things that had gone on in the past. The law declared that such incitement was wrong and at the moment we are not declaring that incitement to religious hatred and discrimination is wrong. I believe in equality before the law, so I am glad that the Home Secretary accepted our argument that the proposed change in the law should apply to people of any religious belief.

The law should also protect people of no religious belief, because 40 to 45 per cent. of the population of this country—and I am one of them—subscribe to no religious belief. Atheists and agnostics are just as entitled as anyone else to protection against fanatics having a go at them. We should all be equal before the law. We need to right a wrong against Muslims and I believe that this change will do that.

As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the change will have two effects on the Muslim community. It will protect them from attack, and also constrain immoderate attacks by some of them, which is only right and proper. Equality before the law is what we believe in.

If we pass this measure, it will remove the last fig-leaf of legitimacy for the present law on blasphemy. As long ago as 1949, Lord Denning described it as a "dead letter". In 1967, Parliament repealed the Blasphemy Act 1697 and in 1985 the Law Commission recommended—and no wonder—that the common law offence of blasphemy should be abolished. It has never been clearly defined. People may commit a crime without knowing that they are doing so. Despite that, there is strict liability, so if people commit a crime they may be guilty even if they never intended to cause offence in either sense of the word.

The last time that the courts considered the matter in 1991, it was decided that not Christianity but only the Church of England was covered. That relied on the summing up of a judge in Gathercole's case at the York summer assizes in 1838. I am proud of my native city and its contribution to English history, but that is ridiculous. There is no reason why any religion should require special protection over and above what the Bill intends to provide.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras, Labour)

No, I am afraid I do not have time.

I understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury and others have objected on the grounds that the change might lead to things being said that cause offence to people of deeply held religious beliefs. Deeply held religious beliefs are not a monopoly of the Church of England. Roman Catholics, Quakers, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs all have deeply held religious beliefs and have no protection at all from blasphemy. Although I am not a believer, I recognise their deeply held beliefs and I do not believe that the Church of England is in such a bad state that it needs some special measures. As my right hon. Friend knows from his experience as Secretary of State for Education and Employment, special measures are usually an indication of real trouble.

I have tabled an amendment, which I understand that my right hon. Friend favours. It was drafted by the Law Commission and comprises just 84 words to amend a Bill of 114 closely printed pages. I hope that he will ignore his officials and, if the Archbishop of Canterbury has objected, that he will ignore him. The Church of England should learn to stand on its own feet.

I am reminded of a glorious episode—and I mean that—in the history of the Church of England when Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were being got at by Catholic theologians. It was said that Cranmer leant upon Master Latimer in the argument, Master Latimer leant upon Master Ridley and Master Ridley leant upon the singularity of his own wit. People in the Church of England should now lean upon the singularity of their own wit and look after themselves. They do not need the state to protect them.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Although Mr. Dobson and I differ in our faith, or lack of it—I am a member of the Anglican Church—my party and I share his view that it is nonsense to protect a denomination of one faith in a way that other faiths and other denominations of the Christian faith are not protected.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

One more sentence; it is an early intervention.

My party believes—in this respect, I share the Home Secretary's view—that it is better to legislate on this matter in the context of other changes in faith legislation, with slightly more time given to them after we have dealt with the emergency provisions that make up the principal part of the Bill.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am tempted to mention early birds and worms.

Surely the point is simple: the law of blasphemy may be bad, but we should not replace it with another bad law.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

That is certainly part of our case. I shall return to the argument that, when we legislate on faith, freedom of speech and so on, we need to be careful to consider whether we can do it reasonably in a total of two or three hours in the House of Commons, because it will be almost incredible if we can. To think that Parliament as a whole can do it in a couple of weeks is certainly incredible, and we will be in big trouble if we try, because we will be doing a disservice to members of all faiths and because it will be disrespectful. I hope that we can agree on the process even if we have different views—as there are in all parties—about the laws that we should have.

On a more formal note, I thank the Home Secretary, his ministerial team and their officials for the courtesy that they have shown to me, my colleagues and, I believe, Conservative Members in trying to keep us abreast of the preparation of the legislation before it came into the public domain last week. We may disagree—as we do—about some of its elements and about the process, but on the matter of personal political co-operation, I hope that the three main parties have behaved as efficiently as possible given that the Government have an army of civil servants and all the cards at the beginning, and the Opposition parties do their best with the cards that they are dealt at the end. We have also tried to work co-operatively and intelligently with Mr. Letwin and his team, so that the politicians disagree only when we really disagree and do not spend time engaging in artificial disagreements when there is little between us.

Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)

May I take this opportunity to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks? I, too, thank Ministers for now distributing early versions of their amendments to us for consideration. They are gratefully received. I hope that the Bill will be an example of scrutiny in opposition, with the Opposition parties working together in co-operation in a way that does service to the nation.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

That is the formalities over. It is important that we send people the message that we are trying to be adult and responsible politicians as we deal with difficult matters in difficult times.

Liberal Democrats share with all other responsible community leaders the view that exceptional times sometimes need exceptional measures. The 11 September attack was an exceptional attack and, since then, people have been trying to come to terms with exceptional new realities. There has been a severe element of terrorism in the world, the likes of which we have never seen before. We accept that there is a terrorist threat to this country, although its extent is probably better known to Ministers than to hon. Members generally. For those reasons, as Ministers and the House know, we have supported the international diplomatic, humanitarian and military coalition abroad. We may have had some nuances of difference and differences of emphasis, but we realised, and were prepared to say publicly, that we knew that something had to be done.

This debate, however, is not about what we do abroad; today's questions relate to what we do at home. Are the United Kingdom's laws sufficient to deal with the threat, or do they need to be strengthened because we did not foresee the provisions that we would need?

I remind colleagues that only a year ago we passed the Terrorism Act 2000, and only a little earlier we passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Those two major Acts give the state considerable new powers, and before we legislate further we should consider whether those are not enough.

We are all seeking to ensure that we get the balance right between the powers that the state properly needs in exceptional times and the liberties that people should have whatever situation we are in. That is self-evidently important because we have no written constitution. With some exceptions, Parliament is supreme, so we have a particular job to do. If, for example, we deny people the opportunity to go to court to have a decision of the Executive investigated, there is no place to which they can turn for a remedy.

There are two fundamental justifications for the Bill. The first is that we need additional powers to deal with terrorists, and the second is that we need an emergency timetable to put those powers into statute within days. However, the problem is that the Bill deals not only with national and international terrorism but with many other matters. Liberal Democrats' first objection is that if we are to be asked to legislate in haste to deal with terrorism, we should do just that, and not tackle matters that are in the Government's queue for action or that it will be convenient to append to this already significant project.

When the Home Secretary was asked why the Bill contains phrases such as "any other criminal offence," he said, in a telling response, that it is because the offences cannot be separated out. That is not the argument that we heard from his colleagues last year when we legislated on terrorist offences. If we are trying to deal with terrorism, as much of the Bill does, we should limit the legislation to that because it gives the state particular additional powers. Other, less serious, crime should not be dealt with in the same way, and there should be no general removal of rights from the defendant or suspect.

Our second objection, which has also been voiced by Conservative Front Benchers, is that time limits are imposed at only two points in the Bill. There is a time limit on the opt-out from article 5 of the European convention on human rights and a possible time limit on some of the powers on data regulation in part 11. Like the Conservatives, we say clearly to the Government that unless, by the time the Bill leaves Committee, it contains general provisions requiring us to legislate again when we have time to do so properly, it will not be acceptable. There is a precedent for such legislation—we have introduced emergency powers for Northern Ireland, as many colleagues know well. In that case, there was not only an annual renewal provision but a requirement for Parliament to re-enact legislation to make sure that what was done in haste was considered more carefully later on.

I need not remind hon. Members that history tells us that legislation rushed into statute for a short period often remains in place for a very long time, and legislation pushed through the House quickly is often very poor. I shall give a minor example. At 4.30 pm my hon. Friend Mr. Burnett went to a delegated legislation Committee dealing with a Home Office measure on the rehabilitation of offenders in England and Wales. From the fact that the Committee had to be adjourned because the measure was not accurately or adequately drafted, we can see the need to get our legislation right. With the greatest respect to the members of that Committee, this Bill is much more wide-ranging and much more dangerous in its implications than that statutory instrument, and we need to learn the lesson.

We welcome the omission from the Bill of two provisions that were talked about and, in one case, even announced. We welcome the fact that the provision for additional sentencing powers for what are colloquially called "anthrax hoaxes" is not retrospective, because that would have been quite wrong. We are grateful that Ministers heard the opposition to that idea and decided not to proceed. Secondly, in his statement of 15 October, the Home Secretary suggested that there might be a general conspiracy law. That is not included, which is welcome news.

I can be very brief about the bulk of the Bill. There are generally good things in eight of its 14 parts. Parts 1 and 2, which deal with the proceeds of crime, terrorist property and freezing orders, are by and large acceptable. My only comment today is that they should logically be part of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is in Committee at the moment. I hope that, by the time this Bill has passed through the House, those provisions will be more correctly located with their parent legislation.

Without going into detail, parts 6, 7, 8 and 9 contain measures that the House wants to put into statute. It is obvious, for example, that we ought to be improving aviation security, so we welcome and support those measures.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman says that we welcome and support those measures, and he may be right, but does he agree that the process that we have embarked on should enable us to consider them properly and in detail?

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I thoroughly agree. Those parts of the Bill seem to be related to terrorism, so they pass the first test, but we will not be given the opportunity to consider them in detail, so they do not pass the second test. That is why I hope that, whatever view the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes on other matters, he will join us in voting against the programme motion later.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

And the Bill itself.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I shall come to the Bill. We cannot begin to deal with those provisions in the two Committee days that are to be allocated. As Mr. Shepherd said, a maximum of 16 hours' consideration of a Bill of this size is not possible or justifiable, however exceptional the circumstances.

My comments on the two remaining parts are less controversial. The bribery and corruption measures in part 12, to which we may table detailed amendments, have been included only as an exception to the rule. There was agreement between the three main parties that those measures were not controversial because everybody had argued for them and they were potentially linked to terrorism. Part 14 makes general provision.

So much for agreement—it does not apply to the rest of the Bill. Parts 3 and 11 deal with very important matters concerning the rights of the state to interfere in communications, to find out what communications, technological or otherwise, are passing between people and to require people in the communications industry to hold on to that information for much longer. We have only just legislated in that area. If we need more powers, they should be strictly limited to matters to do with terrorism, and they should be much more narrowly drawn. We shall seek to amend parts 3 and 11 to that effect.

Part 10 relates to police powers. We are told that there will be a police Bill later this Session, so we could reasonably expect those powers to be introduced in that. I ask the House to take care and to seek much more satisfactory answers about two measures in particular before it agrees to them. The first is the power enabling the police to require somebody to remove coverings that they are wearing, even when they have not been arrested or taken into custody. Somebody could be wearing a hood on their way to a football match; they could be taking part in a demonstration on globalisation issues; or they could be wearing a piece of clothing traditional to their culture. It is dangerous to propose seeking powers to identify people before they are believed to have done anything wrong and when there has been no arrest for suspicion an offence. I hope that in due course we can remove that provision from the Bill.

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

What about somebody wearing a balaclava in a crowd throwing pipe bombs?

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

If they are suspected of committing an offence, they can be arrested and dealt with in the normal way. I understand what the issue is and that it is a matter for debate, but we cannot debate it properly in two days.

The second controversial area relates to whether the Ministry of Defence police and the transport police should have jurisdiction outside their natural territory. Such a provision is left over from the Armed Forces Act 2001. It was got rid of before the election, but is now being reintroduced. Colleagues all over the country, both north and south of the border, have serious concerns about the tight control of policing of non-specialist parts of the country other than by conventional territorial police. Clearly, we seek change on that.

Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe & Nantwich, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, although he accepts a small number of clauses relating directly to the current emergency, almost two thirds of them, which he has carefully enumerated, are not acceptable to him or his party? If that is the case, will he give an undertaking that he will oppose the Bill?

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I was going to deal with that, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe & Nantwich, Labour)

Actually, I am a lady.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. No one could fail to recognise that she is a lady, unless they were momentarily inattentive; I apologise again.

I have tried to make it clear that eight parts of the Bill seem to relate to terrorism. Six parts either do not relate to the subject or go much wider than we would wish. In a second, I shall explain how we propose to deal with that, both today and in the days ahead. Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]—I am sorry, I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] I have a defence, as the occupant of the Chair has just changed, unlike the sex of Mrs. Dunwoody, which is well known to be permanent.

I shall move on to race and religion, which may be safer than gender and sex. Liberal Democrat Members have made the point that the Bill includes perfectly reasonable propositions to remove the blasphemy law which applies only to the Church of England; we support that and have long argued for it. We have long subscribed to the need for an equality Bill, which treats all faiths equally. Mr. Dobson made the point that race relations legislation does not protect all faiths equally.

The Bill makes specific proposals both on incitement to religious hatred and on aggravated offences. I hope that I have made clear our view that we ought not to legislate on such sensitive areas now; incitement to religious hatred comes into that category. If the House is minded to deal with the much easier matter of accepting the aggravated offence of religious hatred and sentencing on it, we ought to follow the proposal of the Scottish Executive, which was put to the Scottish Parliament last week, to consult more widely and relatively quickly on religious incitement but to legislate separately. The Scots are not buying into that aspect of the legislation; I hope that the United Kingdom Parliament will not buy into it either. If we are trying to make sure that community relations improve as a result of the crisis of the past two months, we need to ensure that we do not act in ways that would make it more likely that they worsened.

Mr Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a substantial number of Muslim people have been asking for equality before the law for years—so long, for instance, that the Law Commission's 1985 report on blasphemy canvassed the idea of an offence of creating religious hatred? Although it is convenient to include such a provision in the Bill, it can scarcely be regarded as a rush to judgment. The hon. Gentleman may have talked to religious groups that find it surprising that it has now been thought of, but they were consulted in the past, as the House has discussed it before.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

That is certainly true, but those groups also say clearly that they would rather have an equality Bill that dealt with all matters of faith, as the Government promised in the last Parliament. We were waiting for a report from the university of Derby, which has now been published, and the Government said that they would introduce such a Bill. Many groups, and the Liberal Democrats, believe that it would be much better to pursue that option.

Part 13 deals with the third pillar proposal. Even though our party is supportive of a European jurisdiction, I share the view that we ought to have primary legislation on important and wide-ranging measures, even if they have their genesis in the European Union. The Secretary of State is justified in seeking a short debate and the right to introduce statutory instruments only in relation to measures that cannot wait until beyond the end of the year because they are time-limited by an EU agreement and are connected to terrorism and related issues.

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

They are.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Those are the only things that ought to be introduced now. The conclusion to be drawn from what the Home Secretary just said is that we may be able to limit this part of the Bill to those matters. If so, he will find much more widespread support in the House.

Part 4 raises one major issue that has already been touched on and two others, including the process of dealing with asylum applications. The Bill suggests that somebody can be turned away before their application is considered, against the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It also introduces the power to keep asylum seekers' fingerprints indefinitely, which is not right. In addition, there is the issue of how we deal not just with people who are suspected of terrorism but, as was pointed out earlier, with individuals who could be linked to terrorism—a much more remote proposition—and therefore detained under the proposals. Theoretically, under one derogation, people could be detained for up to five years, although with six-monthly reviews.

We should improve the procedure significantly; we should improve the rights of representation on appeal and throughout the process; we should improve people's opportunity to have their case reviewed, as Mr. Hogg pointed out, according to both facts and law, and allow more frequent reviews. The key point is that the House should not agree to take away the rights of the courts to hold the Executive, tribunals and Ministers alike to account. That is almost unprecedented; it is entirely unjustified and goes well beyond what is necessary, even in the circumstances.

Later, we shall debate whether we should derogate from the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has just been set up, made clear recommendations after taking evidence from the Home Secretary. It stated, in paragraph 30 of its second report, that

"even if it is accepted that there is such an emergency"—

which is a prerequisite for derogation—

"the lack of safeguards built into the Bill, particularly in relation to detention powers, causes us to doubt whether the measures in the Bill can be said to be strictly required by the exigencies of the situation."

At the moment, those safeguards are not in the Bill, which is a strong reason for making sure that we do not derogate at this stage from the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. That is why I suggested to the Government at the end of last week that we leave that debate till the end of our consideration of the Bill, and that we do not come back to it unless we can be persuaded—the burden is on the Government—that the Bill contains only what is necessary. If the Human Rights Committee, which we set up to do the job, advises us that the measure is not justified, we should be careful to follow that opinion. If we do not, the danger is that community relations could be significantly impaired because we have not been attentive to those who are suspected and held in detention as a result.

The British constitution works on the basis that Ministers bring proposals to Parliament. It is for Ministers to propose and for Parliament to decide. I gather that some Government amendments have already been tabled, even before we have completed the first day of proceedings on the Bill. If they are good amendments, they will be welcome, but it is strange that the Government are amending their Bill at this stage—

Mr David Blunkett (Home Secretary; Sheffield, Brightside, Labour)

As I said, we listened and responded to the Human Rights Committee's deliberations last week—yet now the hon. Gentleman tells us that it is strange for us to table amendments. I have every intention of listening. If there are good arguments that the Government as a whole can accept, I will accept them. To do otherwise would be an example of the yah-boo politics that bring the House into disrepute. In return, I hope that, if I convince both major Opposition parties, they will do me the courtesy of giving way on matters which at present they find objectionable.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Of course. If the Home Secretary had let me finish the sentence, he would have heard me say that I hoped that the Government would try to get agreement with the Opposition on amendments tabled at this stage. We are all in the business of reaching agreement about any improvements that can be made to the Bill; I accept that, whatever the rigours of the timetable. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have tried to ensure that where agreement is possible, it is reached. Yes, we will listen and respond. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do likewise.

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, many significant amendments will be needed in the Commons or the Lords if the Bill is to be acceptable to us. That might make the Bill not only shorter and more focused on terrorism, but much more limited in terms of time. Liberal Democrats see it as their job to make sure that legislation pushed through by emergency procedures has only a limited life. We see it as our job to ensure that anti-terrorist legislation deals with the dangers of terrorism, not with a lot of other issues at the same time. We see it as our job to make sure that the Home Office does not take the opportunity to clear its in-tray just because there is the convenient opportunity of less scrutiny. We specifically see it as our job to make sure that we do not take away the right of anybody in this country to go to court to test whether what the Government or the Executive are doing is right.

We had a choice to make about the attitude that we took tonight and in the days ahead. I have indicated that we will vote against the timetable motion, as the time is ridiculously short. I have made it clear that we will vote against derogation from the Human Rights Act, as we do not believe that the case has been made. However, we are prepared to let the Bill go on to the next stage.

If, in the light of the Home Secretary's last remarks, we are to be constructive, and given that the Government have a majority in the Commons, we will seek to change the Bill by amendment over the next few days. If we do not get the amendments, we will vote against Third Reading. If we get the amendments, the Bill will have been much improved by the fact that the views of the Opposition and of many Labour Back Benchers have prevailed. I look forward to persuading the Home Secretary and his colleagues of the fact that the Bill will be acceptable to deal with terrorism or the emergency only if it is significantly amended.

Mr Chris Mullin (Sunderland South, Labour)

I shall speak mainly to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report published today. I start by thanking the Home Secretary and his colleagues for co-operating with the Select Committee's attempt at pre-legislative scrutiny, of which I hope we shall see a great deal more.

In the short time available, we inevitably focused on part 4 of the Bill. We were anxious to publish our report and the evidence in time to inform today's debate and the subsequent Committee stage. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will find our report and the published evidence useful.

I welcome the fact that no attempt was made to rush through emergency legislation in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity on 11 September, as has happened with emergency legislation in the past. Like Simon Hughes, I welcome the fact that none of the provisions is to be retrospective. However, I agree with those who say that we could have done with a little more time to scrutinise the Bill.

Despite the Home Secretary bending over backwards to co-operate with our Committee, our witnesses had to give oral evidence and express a view in public before they had a chance to see the Bill. That is not entirely satisfactory. The Bill is large—much larger than any previous emergency anti-terrorism legislation—and it would have benefited from a slightly more generous timetable.

Many of the measures in the Bill are uncontroversial and are plain common sense. They adapt existing anti-terrorism legislation to deal with the threat of chemical and biological warfare; they oblige telecom companies to keep records for much longer than they must do at present to assist with investigations into terrorism; and they enable Customs and Inland Revenue officers to work with law enforcement agencies. All that seems to me, as it seemed to the Committee, desirable.

As regards part 4, the Committee accepted, albeit reluctantly, that there may be a small category of persons who are suspected international terrorists who cannot be prosecuted, extradited or deported, and may therefore have to be detained. However, as everyone who has spoken so far agrees, that is a very large step, which we should not take lightly or with much enthusiasm. We welcome the various safeguards that the Home Secretary has inserted—the renewal after 15 months and 12 months—and I particularly welcome what he said about his willingness to provide for a much longer debate when the time comes to renew the legislation.

We note the six-monthly review of detention in each case by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. However, we believe that there should be a sunset clause for part 4. As we all know, the history of anti-terrorism legislation is that when it is introduced, it is represented as temporary and as a response to some immediate crisis, but it has a habit of becoming permanent. I have therefore tabled—as have others, probably—a sunset clause which requires the Government to come back to Parliament after five years to go through the entire legislative process to obtain the powers that they seek in part 4.

We picked five years—others may choose a shorter or a longer period—because there is a precedent for it. That is what appeared in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. I believe that the Government could readily concede that measure, and I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect carefully on it. I am sure that he will.

As for the clauses dealing with incitement to religious hatred, most of the evidence that we received was sceptical—first, about whether they would work, and secondly, about whether they were needed. Thirdly, some suggested—I was probably the person whom the Home Secretary heard on the radio this morning, although he was far too delicate to mention it—that the provisions would probably be used first against Muslims, which was not necessarily the intention. Of course, I entirely agree with his comment that Muslims should be as accountable to the law as those of any other faith, but I agree also with those who have argued that the measure has no place in emergency legislation and should perhaps return to the House in another provision that deals with this and other religious issues. If he is going to proceed anyway, as I suspect he will, this might be the moment to adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend Mr. Dobson and abolish blasphemy as well.

On the third pillar measures, the Bill gives the power to implement all the justice and home affairs measures, rather than those relating only to terrorism, by secondary and not primary legislation. The Committee felt that that was too broad and that the power should be confined to anti-terrorism measures. I hope that the Government will think carefully about the matter.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Chris Mullin (Sunderland South, Labour)

I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to forgive me; I shall not give way, as I have only a few minutes.

There is one other matter that we did not consider as a Committee: extension of the powers of the MOD police, all of whom can be armed, to arrest anyone in connection with any offence in any area, albeit subject to a request from a police force. I believe that the last Armed Forces Bill contained a measure that fell at the last election to confer new powers only in life-threatening situations. The measure before us seems to be an improvement. I welcome the comment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—indeed, I had intended to make the same suggestion—that, if the MOD police are to have these powers, they should be subject to the Police Complaints Authority and perhaps also to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. However, perhaps that is not possible—of course, he will have taken advice on the matter—and the powers should be limited to terrorism-related incidents.

I recognise, as did the entire Committee, that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Many of the measures in the Bill are necessary and reasonable, but some go too far and take powers that are too wide, and I hope that some limits will be placed on them during our brief consideration of the Bill. 6.23 pm

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

It is always a pleasure to follow Mr. Mullin, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I congratulate him and his fellow Committee members on their speedy work in producing the report to which he alluded. In discussing that report, I congratulate also Jean Corston and the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the speedy work that they have done. I am sure that it has informed the debate considerably.

If there is any purpose in this Chamber any more, it is to provide members of the opposition—I refer to the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, members of the other smaller parties and, indeed, the members of the opposition that I see seated on the Government Benches—with opportunities to bring to public attention from time to time the ideas that masquerade as considered policy and high principle and which are turned, almost without question, into law.

We have already had an excellent debate. The Home Secretary, who has just left the Chamber, was generous in giving way, as was my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, who made an especially effective contribution. I hope that, if he and other hon. Members question the utility, let alone philosophy, of the Bill or parts of it, the Home Secretary will pause, listen and perhaps even consider what we have to say before sweeping all before him. He said that he would do so, and I hope that he is as good as his word. The victor's laurels do not take long to wither. Although the first stage of the crisis in Afghanistan may perhaps be ending successfully, our duty to unpick legislation, ask the simple questions "Why?" or "What for?" and test propositions almost or even to destruction goes on.

The Home Secretary has a number of arguments at his disposal in support of the Bill. We will have to take some of them on trust, because the evidence upon which he relies is drawn from the secret services. I accept that he cannot tell us everything, but if he wants us willingly, rather than grudgingly, to accept the need to disapply certain provisions of the European convention on human rights barely a year after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force and to accept in a spirit of co-operation that what were so recently thought to be essential freedoms should be curtailed, he needs to be more open with us and, if I may say so, to avoid insulting the very people whom he needs to apply and carry through his new restrictive provisions.

It is not an argument in favour of detention without trial to say that those who are prepared to uphold the present law against the Executive are ill-motivated. The Home Secretary is clearly proud of the fact that he is not a lawyer. I am sure he is entitled to the proud heart that evidently beats so fiercely in his breast, but he has recently made it an article of faith to vilify judges and lawyers. Ten days ago at The Spectator magazine and Zurich parliamentary awards lunch, at which he was the honoured chief guest, he repeated what he had said only a few days before in accusing lawyers—I paraphrase so as not to give the slander excessive currency—of being a money-grubbing vested interest group. Lawyers of that calibre may exist, or it may be that his sense of anger arises from a conversation with the Lord Chancellor.

Lawyers and judges are and must be independent of Government, but they will apply whatever laws, good or bad, that we pass. If we pass laws that have consequences that the Government did not foresee, it is a problem that the Government and Parliament must deal with in a rather more intelligent fashion than by abusing the judiciary and the legal profession. The term "Kill all the lawyers" is not a new motto, but nowadays it has greater resonance in Zimbabwe than it should have in this country. It should certainly have no resonance in the Home Office.

The Government's case is apparently based on a public emergency. The Home Secretary declared last week that we were in a state of emergency so that he could avoid the consequences of the very convention that his Government brought into our law last year. However, what is the evidence to show that such an emergency exists or had to be proclaimed except as a device to sidestep this Government's own legislation?

Article 15 of the European convention on human rights permits a state to derogate from convention rights

"In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".

The functions of government at national, devolved, county, district and parish level continue undisturbed by the events of 11 September. Our public services, as far as this House has been told, have not been affected by international terrorists. If we look at the member states of the European Council or the European Union, do we find an Interior Minister who has reached the same conclusion as our Home Secretary? Surely the French, German, Italian and Spanish Governments, as well as all the others, would have reached the same conclusion, had the evidence existed. They would not have been slow in taking necessary measures to protect their citizens or in declaring emergencies if they had existed. The burden of proof, which is a heavy one and must be discharged by our Government, and the standard of proof to be expected must be sufficient at least to stir in our minds a feeling that this is a policy that has been thought through and is evidence based, even if not to convince us so that we are sure.

Humbug often masquerades as high principle. The signs of political camouflage in the British domestic arena are already emerging. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Government's proposal in the Bill to make it a crime to incite religious hatred. We do not need a law to make that type of behaviour illegal, and nor would it serve the purpose for which some of its proponents hope: deterring anti-Muslim unrest in this country and allowing Britain to be seen as fighting terrorism and not Muslims. Every citizen of this country has the right to expect that the law will protect him from bodily harm as well as safeguard his freedom to worship and to express his views. That does not mean that those who disagree, wish to evangelise in favour of another religion or want to express views that others may find abhorrent should have to curtail their activities or run the risk of prosecution. Parliament should not be in the business of standardising opinion or entrenching orthodoxy. Nor should it make courts of law arbiters of what is right, wrong or acceptable in religious or philosophical controversy. Such debates should take place in the columns of newspapers, in books, on public platforms and in pulpits. The criminal law should protect citizens, not ideas. Plenty of laws make the use or threat of violence against human beings a criminal offence.

It is a mistake to confuse race and religion; they are not always interchangeable. They should not be likened as they are in the Bill. If the Government whip Parliament into passing a law that outlaws incitement to religious hatred but will not define religion and list the religions that are to be covered by the statute, its use to stifle debate and free expression can be foreseen. The Government may not want the law to do that or to be used to that end, but those who are more intent on curtailing than respecting free speech will employ it in precisely that way.

The lengthy Bill, heavy with constitutional and legal implications, will receive a Second Reading. I trust that here on Wednesday and next week and in the other place later, further work will be done and that in the short interval, the public will learn exactly what we are doing in their name. Perhaps it is worth saying that if we are prepared to cast aside essential freedoms to gain temporary security, we are likely to lose both freedom and security.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the position on interventions? They can help debate. My understanding is that the intervention does not count against an hon. Member's time, although the answer sometimes does.

Mr Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is precisely right.

Professor Ross Cranston (Dudley North, Labour)

We have a heightened responsibility to scrutinise the Bill because it encroaches on civil liberties and human rights. They have been hard won, and we therefore cherish them. We also know that the great majority of people do not have similar civil liberties and human rights.

Our history teaches us that the Executive can trample on liberties or rights in pursuit of their interests. Habeas corpus was mentioned in one of the many interventions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took. It was an attempt by common law courts in the 17th century to limit one aspect of Executive government. Seldon's case, which was one of the seminal decisions, involved the imprisonment of Members of Parliament by the Crown because of their objections on a taxation issue.

History also teaches us that law enforcement agencies can use discretion partially. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, Labour Members are especially sensitive to that because the Labour movement was often a victim. The well documented example in the 1930s of the partiality of the police to the blackshirts comes to mind.

Again, history shows that encroaching on civil liberties or human rights, however justified, can go horribly wrong. Obvious recent examples are the miscarriages of justice arising from the fight against Irish terrorism. We must therefore scrupulously test the claims made for a Bill such as the measure that we are considering. What is its overall justification? Are its specific provisions justified? Are there equally effective alternatives that would make less of an incursion into liberties and rights? Will the unintended effects swamp the benefits? How will the checks against abuse, misuse and mistakes work in practice?

I have no doubt about the Bill's overall justification. Terrorism is not new. We have known since the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993 and the east African embassy bombings in 1998 that al-Qaeda is a major terrorist organisation. However, the events of 11 September have brought home its ruthless dedication and destructive capacity. When we consider other factors such as the existence of rogue or distressed states and the dispersal of the knowledge and technology that relates to biological and other weapons of mass destruction, we know that we face a threat to our way of life. People expect us to act, and we must.

I cannot accept that we should not act because that is somehow contrary to what are said to be our liberal, democratic traditions. We are vulnerable because a liberal democracy enables people to pursue individual interests, and we act as a refuge for those from other states. We will pay a high price if we ignore the minority of fanatics who would abuse the liberties and rights of liberal democracy to destroy it.

In 1940, E.F.M. Durbin, who later became a Member of Parliament, considered the relationship between socialism and democracy and wrote that

"we should continuously remind ourselves that the enemies of democracy have no moral right to the privileges of democracy; . . . a time may come when, to defend ourselves, it will be necessary to suppress their political organizations."

He was referring to fascism and communism in the 1930s, but his words are equally pertinent today.

Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Professor Ross Cranston (Dudley North, Labour)

Since it will not take up my time, I shall.

Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

How do we know that people are a threat to democracy?

Professor Ross Cranston (Dudley North, Labour)

The events of 11 September show clearly that there is a threat to democracy.

Part 4 deals with the dilemma that is posed by the European Court of Human Rights, and decisions such as that on Chahal: we would be in breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights if we deported international terrorists to jurisdictions where they would be tortured, executed or otherwise inhumanely treated. What should we do? Should we allow terrorists to continue their evil work unchecked? The Bill proposes their detention, which will be subject to regular review by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. That body was set up following a suggestion by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal. Its composition and methods have been judicially approved by the European court and in the House of Lords in subsequent decisions.

Hon. Members need only consider SIAC's decision in the Rehman case to realise that it is no pushover. It imposed the same high standards of proof as ordinary courts. In the case of Rehman, SIAC rejected the Home Secretary's case. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, some believe that there will be no judicial review of SIAC decisions. That is nonsense. The Bill provides for an appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. That covers matters such as the sleepy judge, which Mr. Letwin mentioned, and the absence of evidence, to which Mr. Hogg referred. Apart from some interlocutory matters, appeal on a point of law is equal to judicial review. Therefore, judicial review exists.

Mr Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

I accept the point about appeal on a point of law, but although a friend who is appointed to represent the accused may be told the evidence on which intelligence services make their decision, the accused will not. His court-appointed representative cannot tell him that. He is therefore in no position to rebut the evidence against him.

Professor Ross Cranston (Dudley North, Labour)

The evidence is rebutted by counsel appointed by the Attorney-General to act for the accused. That points to the importance of the independence of the Bar.

Mr Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

The detained person will not know the evidence against him, and he cannot therefore give proper instructions to his representative.

Professor Ross Cranston (Dudley North, Labour)

Only one aspect of a case before SIAC—intelligence information—will be treated in that way. In other aspects, ordinary counsel, who acts on behalf of the person, will put the case.

Merits review has been mentioned. Judicial review never involves a review on merits. There can be an appeal on a point of law, and issues such as lack of evidence or facts, which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned earlier, will be taken into account. I do not, therefore, regard that as an objection.

The more substantial objection to the detention provisions is that foreign international terrorists should be dealt with by the ordinary courts. The Terrorism Act 2000 gives the courts extra-territorial jurisdiction to deal with foreign international terrorists who incite, or who have engaged in, terrorist acts abroad. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has assured the House that there is still a small number of foreign international terrorists who would not be caught by those powers. He alluded to the problem of the Interception of Communications Act 1986, and the bar that it appoints to bringing evidence before the court. That Act was, incidentally, introduced by the previous, Conservative Government.

I am sure it would help the House if the Minister, or the Home Secretary, could reiterate that it is Government policy that the Bill's provisions will be a last resort—in other words, that if foreign international terrorists can be prosecuted here, or extradited to places where they can be tried, they will be.

I cannot see an alternative to the thrust of the provisions, although the Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised some useful points of detail which I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider. I should also say that, at first blush, I am attracted to Professor Gearty's proposal to the Home Affairs Committee for an annual report on detentions, by an independent commissioner.

Earlier this year, I supported the provisions on the disclosure of publicly held information for law enforcement purposes, to which the hon. Member for West Dorset objected, and with the additional protections in the Bill, I cannot see any problem with them. As to the objection to the power to remove face coverings, if the power is handled sensitively, I cannot see a problem, contrary to the views expressed by Simon Hughes. The retention of communications data will be subject to a code of practice, and also to data protection legislation.

On the provisions relating to religion, there has been, as my right hon. Friend Mr. Dobson said, an upsurge in religious harassment and attack. Such incidents have occurred in my constituency. Hon. Members may have received through the mail the latest bile from the British National party, a copy of which arrived in my office this morning.

Mr Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker)

Order. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman has had his 10 minutes. I call Mr. Christopher Chope.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

Following on from what Ross Cranston has said, I hope that, if he had been allowed to speak for a bit longer, he would have gone on to tell us that the Home Affairs Committee report contained some useful evidence from Muslim organisations which originally thought that the Bill would be helpful to them, but now realise that it will not be.

Mr. Dobson dismissed the objections raised by Muslims, but he failed to recognise that the organisations which signed up to the document submitted in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee included the Muslim Council of Britain, the Association of Musli