I agree with a number of points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I agree with him about the grave danger that the so-called temporary provisions will become permanent.

One could understand, at the time of the outrages in Birmingham, why the Home Secretary felt it was necessary to bring in legislation, even though many of us on this side of the House felt it was simply cosmetic. To some extent, we could see that there might be some justification for it, although, from the beginning, a small handful on this side of the House have always voted against the prevention of terrorism legislation. One could understand that a Secretary of State, faced with the heinous crimes that occurred at the time, might come forward with this legislation.

But there is now a grave danger, especially in the light of the Shackleton report and the Secretary of State's statement about what he will accept and what he will not accept from that report, that the Government would like to see prevention of terrorism legislation, basically along these lines, for some considerable time to come, if not for all time. Those of us who opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Bills in the past always made it clear—I hope that the House once again will accept our stand—that we are completely and utterly opposed to the heinous crimes committed by the IRA and any other groups in Northern Ireland or terrorists anywhere else. However, we are concerned about civil liberties, and I want to say a few words about two Bristolians who found themselves caught up in the Act that we are discussing.

The Shackleton report contains some paragraphs on exclusion orders. It cannot be emphasised enough that when someone is faced with an exclusion order and is taken into custody he is given no indication of the evidence against him. We have heard a good deal about legal representation. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has mentioned it. We have heard about the rights of individuals to see a lawyer. But what is the point of having a lawyer if it is not possible to give him any indication of the evidence against somebody to allow him to build up a defence?

That was exactly the position of two Bristolians who were taken into custody separately. They managed to convey a message to me at this place. There were no problems about that. I received the message that they had been picked up. The National Council for Civil Liberties is to be commended on getting a lawyer to visit and help these two Bristolians. However, there was no way in which he could begin to prepare a defence. The individuals concerned had been given no indication why they had been taken into custody or of the evidence against them.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North is right to say that the term"adviser"is a euphemism. What can the adviser do? When Lord Alport went to see one of the Bristolians, he was asked whether he had any indication of the evidence that had been brought against him. I am told that Lord Alport replied that he had not even seen the papers. Apparently they spent the time talking about Bristol Rovers football club. There was general chit-chat. I do not know what Lord Alport learnt from that. He may have understood that the Bristolian was someone who might or might not create a disturbance on the terraces at the Rovers ground.

We are assured by the Shackleton report that the advisers read the evidence that has been prepared against individuals. But how can they advise without giving some indication of the evidence? Do they advise surreptitiously? Do they say"I cannot tell you what the evidence is against you, but I want to make a judgment on whether you should be excluded "? It is nonsensical.

I apologise in advance to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) if I have misunderstood him. The hon. Gentleman suggested that if there is the least suspicion against anybody an exclusion order should be used. That is what I understood him to say.