Orders of the Day — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill — [1st Allotted Day]

House of Commons, 21 November 2001.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

On a point of order, Sir Alan. I believe that you may, in another guise, have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was inadvertently unfair to the Under–Secretary of State for the Home Department in asking her to explain why the Bill had not been given enough time in the House. He would have done better to ask the Leader of the House to give that answer but was unable to do so because the right hon. Gentleman, although in the House, was not in the Chamber. Is it possible for him to be in the Chamber so that this question may be asked of him?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, which Ministers are on the Bench to answer questions is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that his point has been noted; a similar point was made somewhat earlier.

New Clause 6 — Duration

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

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

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am not privy to the discussions that may have gone on between the Government and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but from listening to the interchange during the debate on the programme motion I sensed—perhaps mistakenly—that the Government might be offering to concede on the version of new clause 6 that has been proposed by the Home Affairs Committee. We shall undoubtedly discover whether that is the case as we proceed.

I want specifically to point out the respects in which new clause 6, tabled jointly by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, differs from that which has been proposed by the Home Affairs Committee. The Committee's proposition is a huge advance on the position in the Bill. We would welcome a concession, but our view—for reasons that I shall explain—is that the Home Affairs Committee version is not tough enough to enable the House and the Government to inquire sufficiently, over succeeding years, into the effects and implications of the most controversial parts of the Bill.

Ministers will already fully understand new clause 6, but I apologise to the Committee because the drafting is inelegant and it may be opaque on first reading. The intent, however, is simple. New clause 6 is best read from back to front. The underlying intent of new clause 6(5) does not differ greatly from that of the Home Secretary. It would provide that part 4—the most controversial part—would cease to have effect after a year. The Bill would give that provision a 15-month renewal clause, so although there is a significant difference between a complete lapse and a renewal and a minor difference between 15 months and a year, our underlying thoughts are similar to those of Ministers.

New clause 6(4) would apply a two-year lapse period to the second most controversial class of parts of the Bill—parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13. Part 5, which covers incitement to religious hatred, might have been better included in new clause 6(5) and given only a year before it lapses, but we opted—in the spirit of attempting to reach eventual consensus with the Government—to give it and the other parts I mentioned two years before they lapse. New clause 6(3) relates to the remaining parts of the Bill except part 12. They are less controversial and we opted for a period equal to that suggested by the Home Affairs Committee—five years.

Having moved from the end of the new clause towards the front, I beg the Committee to move from the front towards the middle. New clause 6(1) and (2) describe the flexibility that we wish to give the Home Secretary, within the constraints that I have just described—one-year, two-year and five-year lapses for parts of descending order of controversy—to renew parts or to let them lapse and bring them back. The only other effect of new clause 6(1) would be on part 12—the implementation of the OECD convention on bribery and corruption—which would be left intact with no lapse period, because it is a matter of cross-party agreement and I am reasonably confident that such minor amendment as we have proposed will eventually be the subject of agreement, if merited. It is a purely technical amendment.

The sum result is that we wish the Committee to recognise—and if it does not, that the other place will do so—that the necessary constraints under which Ministers have laboured in producing a Bill at high speed and under which the House and the other place labour in scrutinising it at even higher speed, as we have already heard, should be matched by an exceptional rigour in forcing the Executive to bring back sections of the Act, as it will be, for fundamental renewal. The renewals would be more frequent the more controversial the provisions. I hope that we can reach consensus on that point. Many issues will be debated in the next few hours, next Monday and in the other place.

We ought to be able to agree that it is as much in the interests of the Government as it is in the interests of Parliament and of the people that there should be the opportunity to discover whether the intent of the Bill—I have always admitted throughout these proceedings and in all public pronouncements that the Home Secretary's intent is noble and justified—is reflected in the outcomes it provides.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

As always, my hon. Friend explains his case with exemplary clarity. May I ask him a question about new clause 6(2)(c)? It states:

"The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide . . . that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months."

I understand that a provision that the Secretary of State wishes to lapse should be dealt with by order. That broadly covers subsection (2)(b). I can also understand that the continuance of an existing provision should be made by order of the Secretary of State, but when a provision has lapsed—for one, two or three years—is my hon. Friend able to convince me that it should be revived by order rather than by some more fully debated system?

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I certainly do not know whether I shall be able to convince my hon. and learned Friend. If I can, it will be a good test of whether I am right. He is one of those Members whose legal knowledge and attention to these matters is of the greatest. Let me try to convince him.

We believe that the constraints established by subsections (3), (4) and (5), which will force primary legislation de novo for part 4 within a year, for parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 within two years and so forth, already create a sufficient lever for Parliament against the Executive. Subsection (3) would allow part 1, a relatively uncontroversial part of the Bill, to stand for five years. Under subsection (2)(c), to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, the Home Secretary would have the option to implement the provision, to let it lapse because it was no longer deemed necessary or to bring it back again within five years. Given that at the end of five years primary legislation would be required to re-enact the provision, it seemed to us reasonable that he should have that flexibility within the five-year period.

I certainly do not regard that as a cardinal point. If my hon. and learned Friend were able to persuade me or the Committee that new clause 6 was appropriate, bar subsection (2)(c), I should not dream of going to the stake about it. However, the flexibility that we are providing is appropriate, given the strict rigour that we are applying to the Government's actions under the sunset clause.

Furthermore, if the provision stretches the patience and tolerance of my hon. and learned Friend, that is a good indication of the lengths to which we have gone to try to ensure that we achieve consensus with the Government. We have tried to ensure that the new clause provides sufficient flexibility that reasonable Ministers, acting in their own self-interest as well as that of the House and of the country, could accept the new clause.

Finally—I certainly do not want, in these proceedings or elsewhere, to go beyond the requirements of the subject matter—I merely observe that if Parliament passes large sections of the Bill intact, without a serious sunset clause, questions will be raised about the legitimacy of parliamentary proceedings in this country. It is perfectly right that the Home Secretary of the day, attending to a major national crisis, should introduce emergency legislation to deal with it. It is perfectly right that he should entertain the possibility of engaging in legislation of a kind that I suspect for him, and certainly for us, has a rather difficult feel to it. However, it cannot be right to do so at speed, and without the provision—right from the beginning—to enable Parliament to reconsider these controversial issues. The effect of not including such a sunset clause will be to cast into disrepute measures that are in principle acceptable and necessary. So I hope that the Home Secretary will, on mature reflection, support and welcome new clause 6, and I offer to describe it as "the Blunkett amendment" if that helps.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

In speaking to the Government amendments and suggesting that clause 123 stand part, I want first to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the substantive issue—the sunset clause.

I said on Monday that we were—in my view, rightly—prepared to listen and respond to proposals, made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by other hon. Members, that would reassure the two Houses and were material to ensuring that the Bill would be in a good state when it gained Royal Assent. I meant what I said, and we will do so during the Bill's passage through Parliament. The speed with which it proceeds does not affect our willingness to be prepared to listen and respond.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs has suggested, having deliberated such issues in that Committee, that it would be appropriate to draft a clause that did not simply reinforce the return to the detention powers in clauses 21 to 23 annually, for which provision is already made in the Bill, so that Parliament can debate such issues under the affirmative procedure, but for longer than an hour and a half, as we said on Monday. He suggested that the content of those clauses should be put to the House afresh, so that it could show whether it was willing to reaffirm them.

I am prepared to agree on behalf of the Government that, on Report, we shall move a Government amendment providing a sunset clause after five years. That would allow us to determine whether we as a Parliament felt that the detention provisions were justified and acceptable any longer.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I thank the Home Secretary for what he says. His willingness to listen to what the Select Committee and others have said will make it very much easier for those hon. Members who have some discomfort about the Bill to support it in the Lobby later on.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. I am genuinely prepared to continue to listen and to refute those who have the unfounded belief that we have malice aforethought in assuming that we can have questions and debates that are more like those of the court room than of Parliament.

I only quote The Guardian to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), but, on 13 November, Hugo Young asked:

"how long will the emergency last? When will circumstances permit it to be lifted? If the minister is left to decide this alone, does anyone seriously expect this ever to happen?"

The answer is yes—people do seriously expect it to happen, and it will happen not only in the annual reaffirmation but in the sunset clause.

I am also prepared to respond to a further proposal, which appears on the amendment paper, from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee in relation to the sensible suggestion that, as with the Terrorism Act 2000, we should allow the reviewer of the Terrorism Act to review the operation of the detention clauses in time to report before the first review by Parliament—that is, when they return to Parliament for reaffirmation.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I hope that, when the occasion arises, the Home Secretary will make another important concession, which I mentioned on Monday. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I very much welcome what he says, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Does it not destroy the argument used by some Opposition Members that the Government and Labour Back Benchers are indifferent to civil liberties—that we could not care less about them and that we simply vote without any concern for the civil liberties of people in the country, including those who are not nationals? The Home Secretary shows how deeply concerned we are, and I am very pleased that he has listened to the Committee's recommendation.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Throughout my time in politics—a very long time—there have been many occasions, not least the terrible traumas in the Labour party in the 1980s, when abuse rather than persuasion was the order of the day. I have never relented in the face of abuse and I have always said that if people try to persuade they are more likely to receive a hearing. As long as I am in this job, I shall be prepared to listen to persuasion from Members on both sides. I am pleased that Lord Carlile accepted my invitation to undertake the duty of reviewing the clauses and of reporting back in time for the House to hold its deliberations.

I do not intend to speak for long as there is very little time available, but I need to refer to new clauses 6, 7 and 8, which were tabled jointly by the two opposition parties. We really cannot accept sunset clauses that deal with issues that—by anyone's standard and irrespective of how long they have been debated—would be accepted by us all.

Do we want to retain the power to remove unauthorised intruders from aircraft and airfields? Of course we do. Who wants to reject after two, four or five years the updating of the Aviation Security Act 1982? What is the point of tabling sunset clauses for issues on which we are all agreed? Do we seriously want a sunset clause to ensure that we can no longer protect civil nuclear sites in the way they will be secured and, as Members said on Monday, should have been secured a long time ago under previous legislation? Do we really oppose measures that retain on the statute book powers against the aiding and abetting of people transporting nuclear weapons?

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Does the Home Secretary accept that, although we certainly agree with the intent behind such provisions, there is a difference between agreeing with the intent and being sure now that the drafting will have the effect that he and I jointly desire?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

The limited but genuine exercise to try to engage everyone in the past few weeks and the genuine commitment to respond to sensible suggestions, including drafting suggestions made here or in the House of Lords, are designed to meet that point. For example, if we have got wrong the provisions to protect us against the ebola virus, we will be very happy to respond to suggestions about how we get them right. However, the idea that we shall run out of time and that, in the next few years, we shall change our view on how we should protect ourselves does not do the House justice. The proposals would allow opposition for its own sake and not for the sake of getting the measures right. I want to be brief, but that is why we oppose the new clauses.

By all means let Members suggest changes that are appropriate to improving the legislation, but let us not for political or parliamentary procedural reasons suggest that sensible provisions that should have been sorted out a long time ago should be held up in years to come and brought back to the House. If they are, that will be at the expense of the other legislation for which Members on both sides will be pressing. They will ask why a Bill has been left out or why the Government have not managed to achieve what they wanted to do. They will ask why their constituents are demanding that we should have done this, that or the other—whether on the national health service or foxhunting—when we are bringing back large parts of a Bill that people agree with but wish to make a point about.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Does the Home Secretary not understand the consequences of the argument that he is adducing? Precisely because, on every future occasion, there will be pressures for other legislation, Ministers will say that it appears, on reflection, that such legislation should be put through very quickly and perhaps not in the form that we would like. The many other competing claims might mean that we do not return to a certain Bill, and that might be one reason why we have had defective Official Secrets Acts for so long.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

That argument does not damage my point. The Leader of the House is endeavouring to allow sufficient time for us to debate the issues that hon. Members wish to address while using parliamentary procedures and timetables that bear some relation to what people outside expect. As I have said several times, I am in favour of timetabling every Bill because that benefits constituents. There is an interesting anomaly, and the shadow Home Secretary was good enough to mention the clause on bribery and corruption. We agreed to it because we and the Opposition parties wanted it and it was an international obligation.

We should pause and reflect on the fact that the Bill may be long, but we have tried to get the wording right and to replicate the provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is on the intent of the Bill that we should be agreeing or disagreeing, not on whether bits of it, with the exception of one clause, should have to return to the House to be put through as a substantive parent measure just because people are irritated about the speed with which we are operating. It is on that basis that I ask the Committee to reject new clauses 6, 7 and 8.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I begin by agreeing with the Home Secretary's decision to accept the proposal by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as contained in amendment No. 53, to give a sunset maximum life of five years to part 4, which contains the most controversial measure—detention without trial. Of course that is welcome.

It is also welcome that the Home Secretary has said that there should be a reporting back procedure on those measures that relate to terrorism, which is in line with the recommendation of the Select Committee and new clauses 7 and 8. This is my first chance to say in public how glad we are that he has appointed our noble Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, a former Member of this House, to be the new reviewer of terrorist legislation. That job was created by the Terrorism Act 2000 and will be extended to this legislation.

Although those measures are welcome, there are others on which the Home Secretary needs persuading. I intend to do that by persuading him on their merits, the tactic that he says works best. He does not understand the nature of the case put by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The issue is one of principle. Parliament is being asked to have unusual timetables and exceptional measures of procedure, and the House of Commons is to spend a total of three days on a Bill. The timetable has not been agreed with the parties. With the exception of the clause on bribery and corruption, which the Government asked the Opposition parties to accept, the proposals have not been agreed in detail; yet they are trying to use emergency procedures, as evidenced by Monday's vote on a guillotine motion that gave us today and next Monday to debate the Bill's substance. In such a case, legislation should always come back to Parliament. It is not a case of whether it is controversial. The principle is that Parliament must hold the Government to account.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Why then does the hon. Gentleman not accord that principle to the clause that was agreed? We agreed to many clauses in our discussions, although they did form part of a bigger Bill. If I introduced them one by one and suggested that they were, as they are, emergency provisions, and if the parties agreed to them, would they add up to the same clause on bribery and corruption as he is prepared to accept?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Not only is the answer no, but that is an unfair and unreasonable comment. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways. His Minister came, no doubt with his blessing, specifically to obtain the agreement of the other parties to the inclusion of that particular proposal on bribery and corruption. No other proposal came to us. We were not consulted on whether other parts should be included. I expressly agreed with the Minister that the measure would be the only ring-fenced provision. I accepted that it could go through without the usual requirement for it to return to the House, because it was part of the policy supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Home Secretary must not pretend otherwise. He is wrong to do so, and he is misleading the House if he is suggesting that anything else happened. I am going to be tough with him because this is completely unreasonable.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

If you accuse me of misleading the House, I have the right to make the clear point that over the past three weeks we did not bring clauses singly to the parties—except for the bribery and corruption clause, which was drafted after the substantive clauses had been presented to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party in substantial form. You might not like the form in which they were presented, but they were presented. I object strongly to the suggestion that I misled the House—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I was careful to do that, as the Home Secretary will realise if he refers to the transcript of the debate.

We have not agreed to the detail of the rest of the Bill; therefore it must come back to Parliament if we are to have an emergency procedure. That applies generally and in particular to the more controversial provisions, especially the powers of the state. The Government have introduced the Bill to give the state more power. In that respect, it is important that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation. We propose that there should be a five-year period for the uncontroversial matters to return to us, a two-year period for the relatively controversial matters of police powers and European legislation, and a one-year period for detention without trial, which is four years earlier than the Select Committee wanted. That is a considered proposal to ensure that everything that has not been agreed returns.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when there is such full-hearted agreement in the immediate aftermath of a disaster or terrorist outrage, experience teaches us that that is when we may well make mistakes? When the Home Secretary suggests that everyone agrees to this legislation so there is no need to return to it, the experience of everything from the Dangerous Dogs Bill to any other emergency legislation teaches us that when we all agree we soon find out that we should have disagreed.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The right hon. Member is a former Minister and former chairman of his party and he is absolutely right. The Bill is a mixture of general agreement on matters that are not fundamentally important to our constitution, and huge disagreement on some matters that are very important. I pray in aid the fact that the Select Committee noted at paragraph 10 of its report:

"Since 1974, at least eight Acts have been passed by Parliament, dealing with terrorism. Those in 1974, 1996 and 1998 were passed by the House with great speed. The other five were taken at the normal pace . . . The three Bills which passed quickly were relatively short—between seven and 13 clauses or 12 to 14 pages—and passed all stages on a single day at sittings of up to 17 hours . . . It is proposed"

—these are the Select Committee's words, not mine—

"that this Bill (which is ten times longer) should be considered at three sittings—one day for second reading and two days for Committee".

The Committee concludes:

"We question whether it is appropriate for this Bill to be passed through the House of Commons in exactly two weeks with only three days of debate on the floor of the House. A Bill of this length . . . with major implications for civil liberties should not be passed by the House in such a short period and with so little time for detailed examination in committee."

Those are the words of an all-party Committee, considering the Bill and forming a clear view.

I shall quote just two sentences from paragraph 79 of the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2001–02:

"Careful consideration is not, however, aided by the decision to push a Bill of this size and complexity through Parliament at such breakneck speed. Too many ill-conceived measures litter the statute book as a result of such rushed legislation in the past."

Matthew Taylor (Liberal Democrat, Truro and St Austell)

rose—

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

rose—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Is not the very good point that the hon. Gentleman is making reinforced by the selection list? In the first allotted day, before 6 o'clock, there are 15 underlined subheadings to be dealt with, many of them subdivided. The Home Secretary very fairly said that he was prepared to listen, but if we do not have time to talk to him, he will find it quite difficult to listen.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

You are taking up time now.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Ministers cannot say that we are taking up time now. Members of Parliament are sent to this place to debate issues; I am sorry about that. We are sent to Parliament to ask Government questions. We are sent to Parliament to question whether the Government have got things right. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough is absolutely right, as are my hon. Friends, to point out that it is impossible to do so if there is no time allocated to do it.

It is a constitutional matter. We—ordinary people, the people whom the Home Secretary commends: the trade union movement, women, students—have fought over the years for Parliament, not the Executive, to be supreme: for Parliament to have the chance to decide, not the Executive. The Home Secretary must understand, and I am sure that he does if he is straightforward with the House on this matter, that Parliament must be here to hold each and every Government to account, including his; and on matters emanating from the Home Office, to do with the powers of the state and liberty, Parliament must do its duty above all, for us, and for future generations as much as anyone else.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor).

Matthew Taylor (Liberal Democrat, Truro and St Austell)

I want to catch my hon. Friend before he goes too much further. A moment ago, the Home Secretary intervened to argue that the bribery and corruption clauses had been presented to the Opposition parties because they were drafted subsequent to the main items of the Bill. I was grateful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the time to discuss that issue with me, because it was something that I had pressed on him, and we welcome the introduction of those clauses. However, my understanding was that the discussion took place on the basis that there was some question as to whether they were appropriate for inclusion in the Bill, because although they might have indirect links with terrorism they were not directly linked with it, and whether we would support them in view of that issue, not because they were drafted late.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is exactly the point, and that was the subject of the debate. The debate was about whether—without prejudice to the question of whether there was a terrorism link—because there was perceived by Government to be a relevance, and it was a reasonable case that there might be, and because everyone else had said that they supported these proposals, and they were part of an international obligation, we would accept the Bill as a home for them. Without prejudice to the rest of the Bill, we said yes to that.

The whole debate about the Bill, however, and about the justification for it—I hope that we shall have that debate shortly—is about whether the Bill should be a general Bill about terrorism, crime, security and other things, or whether it should be a terrorism-related Bill only. Those of us on the Opposition Benches who are trying to do our constitutional job are saying that if the Government want Parliament to pass a Bill quickly to deal with an emergency, it must be limited to matters that are to deal with that emergency.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

rose—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

rose—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Of course, Sir Alan. I wish to take two interventions. Let me deal with the last substantive points before I let my colleagues intervene and then allow others to speak.

The reason Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Front-Bench team have sought to work together on the new clause and others is to try to achieve the maximum agreement to save time as far as possible, so as to create a basis for reasonable agreement in both Houses. That is why, conscious of the timetable, we have separated out the most controversial aspect of the measure and given it a specific one-year duration proposal—we believe that detention without trial should not be authorised by rushed legislation, given all the controversial issues that were raised on Monday night, without its returning properly to the House after being considered in the other place—and why we have suggested, in relation to a limited number of proposals, that some of them, but only some of them, should have a two-year life.

I remind the House of what those proposals are. They are: the parts of the Bill dealing with exchange of information among Government Departments—controversial; the part of the Bill dealing with race and religion—extremely controversial, if it were to reach the statute book; the part of the Bill dealing with police powers and their extension—extremely controversial; the part of the Bill dealing with communication data and the control by authorities of data—also controversial; and lastly, and not accidentally, the power that the Bill gives Ministers to introduce, by secondary legislation and by order, legislation that has only ever seen scrutiny by Ministers in Brussels and has not even been to the European Parliament. It is not unreasonable to argue that that sort of legislation, when we do not have time to scrutinise it and we may not in the House have time to debate much of it either, should have to return to this place, definitely, certainly and not conditionally on the whim of the Home Secretary.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful that my hon. Friend continued his speech somewhat before taking my intervention, because it makes my point even more formidable. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary is taking a huge risk by resisting these sensibly, carefully crafted amendments, because by resisting them in the House, where the Government have a majority, he is simply inviting the other House to spend more time examining these issues and perhaps reaching a more rational and carefully crafted conclusion than we are able to in the House. He is taking that absurd risk by pushing the Bill through without these central amendments, because he will come a cropper at the other end of the building.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I not only accept that, but I hope that the Home Secretary accepts that if he does not want his Bill bouncing around between both Houses of Parliament in the days leading up to Christmas—

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

That is a threat.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No, it is not a threat. It is a constitutional process, not a threat. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it has happened in every Parliament he and I have been in this place. The House of Lords has a job to do. When it overturns the Government or amendments are made, the legislation returns to this place, and the more the Government resist in this place, the more will have to be overturned in the other place, and the more it will have to come back to this place. I am seeking to do what the Home Secretary said he wanted to do, which was to make proposals with widespread support, which will be supported in this and the other place.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his arguments are further reinforced by this consideration? We are now debating a group of new clauses and amendments, and the debate must end by 6 o'clock. There are actually 20 clauses in the schedule on which discussion must end by 6 o'clock. Some of them relate to the Treasury's powers to freeze money or to seize what is described as terrorist cash. The truth is that we shall never reach any of those clauses because we must terminate this part of the debate by 6 o'clock. Very important things—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am so sorry.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

What I am seeking to do, if I may just explain—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On a point of order, Sir Alan. I was not seeking to argue with the Chair. What I was merely trying to do—and I am not seeking to argue with the Chair—was to reinforce the case for the sunset clauses, on the basis that we would not be able to discuss many things because of the timetable.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Home Secretary asked a rhetorical question about how long the emergency will last. None of us knows that. Liberal Democrat Members have accepted that there is a case for special legislation, but we do not know for how long it will be necessary. That is why the new clause provides for flexibility. It will allow the Government to terminate elements of the legislation or even re-enact certain elements within five years, if that is required. However, Parliament has a duty to say to the Government that we will not allow emergency powers or legislation that we have not considered to continue indefinitely. We are the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There are separate issues for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. If ever there were a test of whether the constitution will be upheld, it is whether Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation.

The sadness for some Opposition Members is that those are exactly the arguments that the Labour party, in opposition, used to deploy against the Government of the day. It is sad to record that the longer it remains in office, the more new Labour forgets that it has to be properly accountable to Parliament—and Parliament to the people—rather than arrogating more and more power to the Executive. The Government need lessons because they are ignoring what they used to say in opposition and what the country expects from a democratically accountable Government. This is a usurpation of power too far.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

In speaking to the new clauses on duration, the Home Secretary said that the important thing is that we all agree on the Bill's intent, implying that we should not get too hung up on procedure or detail. With the greatest respect to him, I beg to differ. We are passing a law on which will turn the liberty of the subject, so despite the fact that many of those interned under the legislation will be people whom most hon. Members find unsavoury, and who have no popularity with the wider public, it is important not only that we agree on the Bill's intent but that we be satisfied that the letter of the Bill is robust and will achieve the desired effect.

In the debate on the programme motion, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), said that we needed to suspend our normal expectations because of the emergency situation. I am not sure what she meant by that, but no emergency justifies the suspension of our normal expectation that the House should pass legislation that is robust, defensible and fair.

I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its excellent report, and in particular its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), on his hard work on winning from the Home Secretary the concession of a five-year sunset clause. Of course it is an improvement on the status quo, but I ask my hon. Friend to cast his mind back to the last Parliament, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was Home Secretary. He was a past master at the art of the carefully calibrated concession—just enough to get people voting with the Government but not enough to alter the substance of the legislation. I hope that in this Parliament we will not get caught up with such concessions because, a few years on, no one can remember what the concessions were but we know that we are lumbered with thoroughly bad legislation. The Chairman of the Select Committee is to be congratulated on his body fight for the concession—

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

The Select Committee considered the proposals in detail and concluded that it agreed with the Government that there is a small category of people who cannot be deported or extradited and who constitute a danger to the state. The Committee is not disputing the Home Secretary's reason for bringing the core part of the Bill to Parliament. We wanted a sunset clause because we hope that in five years the emergency will be over.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I do not think that anybody in the House disputes the Bill's intent; it is the letter of the Bill that we are attempting to debate under the onerous restrictions of the programme motion.

I give the House a general warning to beware, as we scrutinise the Bill, of the carefully calibrated concession and always to return to the substance of the Bill and ask whether it is acceptable. The new clauses that would introduce more detailed sunset provisions would be preferable even to my hon. Friend's hard-won concession, but as we go through the Bill, we will find many substantive points to which many of us wish to speak.

David Cameron (Conservative, Witney)

I sit on the Home Affairs Committee with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I thank the Home Secretary and his colleagues for giving way on an amendment in our names.

I have listened to the debate and to the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the carefully calibrated concession. When the Select Committee suggested a sunset clause on part 4, the most difficult part of the Bill, we also said that we profoundly believed, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, that it was not appropriate to give the Bill's passage so little time and we called on the Home Secretary to do some major surgery to the Bill.

We know from what we have heard that the House will get no more time to examine the Bill, and having listened to the debate on Second Reading, some of us are doubtful that we will get major surgery. The Select Committee asked for most of part 5 and all of part 13 to be cut out of the Bill. Do Ministers still have an open mind on those other points? New clause 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is, I admit, complicated, but it does at least deal with the problem that the Bill is simply too long.

A sunset clause alone is not enough. A more general sunset clause along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, which would not apply to the bribery clauses in part 12, would allow the Government to re-enact parts of the Bill for 12 months. It would include a fallback position of a full sunset clause: five years for the least controversial aspects; two years for quite controversial matters, and one year for part 4. If the Government accepted that, it would give them the defence that they will need when the Bill goes to another place, where Members will know, because it is simply too long, that we have not had time to scrutinise it properly. I hope that Ministers will address that point.

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

Like others who have spoken, I greatly welcome the Home Secretary's acceptance of the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation of a sunset clause for part 4. I especially welcome what he said about extending the remit of Lord Carlile, which would give many people considerable confidence.

The debate about sunset clauses has focused on the principle, intent and duration of the Bill, but there is a separate problem that new clause 6 might address, albeit slightly inadvertently: implementation. We need to retain not only the power to bring the measure to an end after a five-year term, desirable though that is, but the ability to consider and express a view on how it is being implemented.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

That effect is not inadvertent; it was central to the view that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I took when we tabled the new clause.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments, which I accept.

I should like to return to an issue that I raised in the debate on the programme motion, and mention what happened when we introduced internment in 1939 and 1940. On 4 September 1939, the then Home Secretary, Sir John Anderson, of Shelter fame, gave in answer to a question from Mr. Arthur Greenwood an admirable reply about how aliens would be treated under internment. He said that there would be

"no unnecessary interference with other foreigners".—[Official Report, 4 September 1939; Vol. 351, c. 366.]

I am sure that that was his intention and that he wanted the measure to be liberally interpreted and carefully considered and constrained, but as quickly as the following July, different results were shown by a statistical survey that was conducted in an internment camp containing 1,500 people. It dealt with the circumstances of all of those people and was conducted to see how internment was operating.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. All that he has said is entirely true. Policies were undertaken here and in other democratic countries during the second world war that caused great regret. However, first, there is, surely, no comparison; and secondly, no one envisaged in 1939 or 1949 the special immigration advisory committee procedure, which I spelled out in great detail on Monday and which we will, of course, implement to the letter.

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

I accept what my right hon. Friend says. There is no intention that the measure should be applied on a wider basis than is appropriate. In 1939, however, the then Home Secretary initially thought that he was giving himself powers to intern about 2,000 people, but within nine months, 20,000 of the 30,000 Austrian and German male residents in this country had been interned because of the pressure of events. I suspect that that is not what Sir John Anderson intended, but it is what happened. The speed of events and the implementation of the measures by those with that responsibility—in this case, the chief constables—meant that although the sweep was originally targeted at enemy aliens, it was much wider in practice. Nazi sympathisers and opponents, Jews and Aryans, and a whole range of people who were not originally intended to be caught by the measures were affected. [Interruption.] I must say, Sir Michael, that it is terribly difficult to address the Committee when the junior Minister is talking on the Front Bench. As I was saying, the intention was one thing, but the effect was another. There were no additional powers, but the impetus of events meant that the circumstances were very different as soon as nine months later.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend Home Secretary intends the Bill to cover a very small number of people, as he told the House the other day. However, we must have the right to ensure that we can consider how it is proceeding in one or two years' time. At the very least, we must have a chance to debate, comment and, if necessary, vote on Lord Carlile's report every year, so that we can ensure that circumstances do not drive the intentions of legislation that is passed this year in a very different direction.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I rise briefly to express my support for the thought behind the sunset clause approach, largely because of the procedure that we are going to adopt. The new clause at least enables all the parts of the Bill to which it refers to fall away within specified times. That inevitably means that this House will have to consider those provisions further if the Government of the day want to give statutory force to them.

The plain truth is that, because of time constraints, we are not going to discuss the substance of any of the clauses in the group whose consideration terminates at 6 o'clock. We have reached only the first line in the marshalled list. At least new clause 6 would apply a sunset provision to all the other measures that feature in the marshalled list, but which will not be discussed at all. Some of them, such as the power of the Treasury to freeze people's cash, the power of Customs to go to the magistrates to get a seizure order in respect of "terrorist cash" and the extension of disclosure obligations are of great importance.

I shall not seek to debate the merits of those issues as you, Sir Michael, would call me to order if I did so. I point out only that, from any viewpoint, they are extremely important obligations and powers that are backed by penal sanctions. Furthermore, they apply to people's property and may also affect the property of innocent third parties. However, we are not going to discuss them at all. That is one of the arguments in favour of sunset clauses, which are a very imperfect way of dealing with the problem that we face. We should not be in this position, but as we are, we must do something to provide a remedy. A sunset clause is one way of at least expressing our dismay about the position.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned penal sanctions. Does he agree that there is a compelling debate to be had about whether more senior judges should deal with those matters, rather than more junior judges and magistrates, as the Bill proposes?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am sure that that is correct, although I am being a bit careful because I do not want to stray into the merits of clauses that are not currently before the Committee. None the less, the hon. Gentleman's point is valid, as the sunset clause gives us the opportunity, at least in theory, to address matters that the House will not address at all. Its failure to do so cannot be right.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that, as the professor of human rights law at King's college pointed out in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, since the mid-1970s, regular review has been a feature not only of parts of anti-terrorism legislation, but of that legislation as a whole? That is the case not least so that Parliament and Government have to keep thinking about whether the legislation is justified and so that the public continually have it in the front of their minds.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I was not aware of that specific evidence, but I am sure that the professor is entirely right. Sunset clauses at least focus the attention of the Executive and Parliament on whether the existing situation at a given time is serious enough to justify a derogation from civil rights. That is important, but in this case it is much more urgent: some 12 minutes of debate remain, in which we must consider 20 clauses—and we have not discussed one of them.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I welcome the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given in his response to the suggestion of the Select Committee on Home Affairs regarding sunset clauses. It is entirely appropriate that a five-year limit has been set. In normal circumstances, the House is rightly very suspicious of measures such as that which is before the Committee, but they should not necessarily be ruled out in all circumstances. Clearly, we are currently in a situation that nobody sought and nobody wants. We all wish that this had not happened, but the fact is that there are significant threats not only to this country and the security of its people, but to our way of life.

I want to take up a couple of points, but I do not want to detain the Committee long. In his two speeches this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made great play of comparisons with legislation passed during the second world war. I shall reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in an intervention—the two sets of circumstances are not comparable. In the second world war, we were dealing with a defined enemy and a known set of circumstances and massive intelligence was not required to know where people were or what support they had, although espionage was certainly going on in this country. We are now dealing with a terrorist organisation with tentacles all over the place. It can use sophisticated technologies that simply did not exist during the second world war. In those circumstances, it is crucial that we protect ourselves against that threat.

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

The Home Secretary said that his difficulty is that he can identify the people who put this country at risk, but cannot take action against them. We are not dealing with the problem of an unknown and undefinable enemy in the community; the Home Secretary, or the security forces, can identify the people who are likely to cause terrorist outrages in this country, but cannot act against them.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

My hon. Friend would be right if the intelligence available to the Home Secretary and Ministers was a single static body of knowledge. I am sure that the Committee agrees that intelligence gathering is a dynamic process. As time goes on, other people, although relatively small in number, may well be identified who will fall under the provisions proposed by my right hon. Friend. I hope that that will be the case. I suspect that, in such circumstances, he will want to use the power that is available to him. So, in direct response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and others, in times like these they must accept that an element of trust is involved.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

No one is denying for half a second that an element of trust is involved. We are entrusting to the Government the power, with relatively little parliamentary scrutiny, to implement measures of great concern. The question is whether that trust should prevail for years or whether we should have the opportunity to review the issue of whether our initial trust was well placed.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I accept that entirely. If the hon. Gentleman had not intervened to make that point, I was going to go into that territory.

If the House and, by extension, those whom we represent are to give that trust, it follows that the House should have regard to the period for which the legislation should sensibly last and at what time a sunset clause should come into effect. I have given that trust to Labour Ministers and would happily give it to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) if he were in government. I do not think that that is an immediate prospect but, nevertheless, I would do so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has listened and he has earned our trust. He decided that suggestions by the Select Committee on Home Affairs were sensible and signalled that he wished to take them on board.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that we would all be more willing to trust the Home Secretary completely if the Bill was narrowly focused, concentrated on anti-terrorist measures and not packed full of stuff that has been lying in a Home Office cupboard for months?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

If I strayed from the immediate point, you would pull me up, Sir Michael. However, the argument that the Bill has somehow managed to attract unconnected clauses for the Government's convenience is, frankly, a naive reading of the situation. The truth is that the Bill's provisions are connected. Having spent two years as a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I am well aware of the connections between all the clauses; there is an overarching theme, and the Bill is not just a loose connection of good ideas that somebody has decided to throw together. The point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) does not stand up.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

rose—

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

rose—

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) first and then the hon. Member for West Dorset, but after that I really must try to conclude my remarks.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

My hon. Friend said that the Government listened to the Home Affairs Select Committee, but that is not completely true. The Home Secretary accepted its recommendation on the five-year sunset clause, but not its concerns about the time needed to debate the Bill in the House. He did not accept those reservations when they were made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, either. Surely, the two things go hand in hand.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I am in some difficulty, as I do not know whether the Front Bench wants time to respond before 6 o'clock. I am sure that somebody will signal if that is the case.

I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that he was persuaded by the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee on the sunset clause. He went on to say that there were other areas on which he was prepared to continue listening to advice. I am prepared to give him more than the benefit of the doubt, as he has already demonstrated his willingness to listen.

I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for West Dorset—[Interruption.] He has declined the opportunity.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

In the light of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) not taking up that offer, I thought that I would quickly get in. I have listened to the debate with interest, and must ask a fundamental question. In what way is the Government's position, especially on part 4, fundamentally impinged if they have to return to the House to renew their legislation?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

If the hon. Lady had been listening to my speech, she would be aware that I made the point that, in the circumstances, the Government must return to the House to renew the legislation. The only contentious thing is with what frequency they should do that.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman argued that the entire Bill was, in a core sense, central to anti-terrorism. If that is the case, why does he not argue, as he did all the years that he was in opposition, that the whole Bill should be subjected to annual review?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly explained that that is exactly his intention. I do not fully understand the hon. Gentleman's position.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The hon. Gentleman sought to intervene earlier; I tried to give way to him, but he withdrew his request. There are two minutes left, and I have been generous in giving way throughout my speech. I shall now try to bring my remarks to close.

My right hon. Friend made it clear that he has listened to concerns that have been put to him and has acted on some of them. He also made it clear that he will listen to further reasonable concerns; I accept in good faith that that is his intention. In those circumstances, I hope that Conservative Members will withdraw new clause 6, and I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will not press their two new clauses to a vote.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

For the avoidance of doubt, we shall not withdraw the new clause. The position is not as represented inadvertently by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The Home Secretary's concession means that one part of the Bill will lapse after five years and, in the interim, will be subject to annual review. The remainder of the Bill, in its entirety, will not be subject to review and will last for ever. Conservative Members cannot accept that position.

It being Six o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Clause 123 — Commencement

Clause 1 — Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With clause 1, we are also considering whether schedule 1—Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash—should be the First schedule to the Bill.

Clause 2 — Amendments Relating to Section 1

Schedule 2 — Terrorist Property: Amendments

Clause 21 — Suspected international terrorist: certification

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 10, line 35, after "State", insert "reasonably".

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Sir Michael. I was listening very carefully and waiting for clause 17 to be called. We are minded to vote against it standing part of the Bill, but it was not called either on its own or with other clauses.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Further to my point of order, Sir Michael. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but may I take you through what you said? Apparently, we were dealing with clauses 4 to 6, schedule 3, clauses 7 to 16 and schedule 4. My colleagues and I were listening carefully, and I understand that clause 17 was not included, although a schedule relating to it was included.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

rose—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

What if I asked you to take advice, Sir Michael?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Sir Michael.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It is a separate point of order, Sir Michael.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

rose—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

May I ask you, Sir Michael, to consider either putting the last Question again or putting the Question relating to clause 17 separately, to allow the Committee—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

rose—

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Sir Michael. If a genuine mistake has been made—and I believe that one has—ought there not to be a reconsideration?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On a point of order, Sir Michael. I wonder whether we can look to the future just for a moment. As you will know, members of the Committee have followed the way in which you have put the Questions on the marshalled list, which makes plain that clause 17 gave rise to a free-standing debate. We all therefore expected to hear the Question on clause 17 put separately.

May I make a suggestion, Sir Michael? If in future you put the Question on a clause out of the marshalled-list order, so that there is a risk of our being taken unawares, will you be good enough to make that plain? I think that there has been a mistake, and that there will be some surprise about what has happened.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I hope that whatever disagreement has taken place will not sour the serious debate that we are about to have. [Interruption.] It has taken us until 6.35 pm to embark on a substantive discussion of the detail of the Bill, and I appeal to Members to be prepared to engage in that discussion rather than continuing to grumble from a sedentary position about the decision that has just been made.

While evidence was being given to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a number of issues were raised with me. I promised that I would think about them, and return to them in due course. One, which I mentioned on Monday, is the issue of the "reasonableness" clause—the provision requiring that a belief and suspicion must be reasonably held by the Home Secretary of the day in respect of judgments made by SIAC on the correctness of the certificate issued by the Home Secretary. I can confirm that we will table such a clause.

I am aware that a piece of paper circulating among some Members implies that the insertion of the "reasonableness" clause will be at the expense of what was already there, in terms of SIAC's powers to overturn the certificate. That is not correct. The "reasonableness" clause is as well as, not instead of, the current position, as it were. I think it important for people not to be misled.

Having heard the discussion in the Human Rights Committee and taken cognisance of approaches made by its chair, I think it only right to look again at some of the wording of the Bill, including clause 27(9). That subsection relates to links that someone may or may not have with a terrorist or a terrorist group. I think that the issue would be best addressed in the House of Lords, but I think we should make clear the connection someone would have to have with a particular group or groups. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), and for Redcar (Vera Baird), who made a point of drawing that to my attention. We are happy to examine—with our lawyers—how we can clarify the position.

I must now apologise for referring to clause 27(9) in connection with links. I meant to refer to a different clause. Clause 27(9), in fact, gives rise to debate on the word "otherwise". I undertook to look at that wording too.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

The Secretary of State mentioned the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). When he consults the lawyers, will he ask them whether, while proceedings are on their way to Strasbourg, the provision he has mentioned could be included in the "taking action" provision in the European convention on human rights?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Having signed up to the convention, we are fully cognisant of it. I take the point, however, because there appears to have been some misunderstanding or at least misreporting of Lord Scott in relation to the interpretation of what is available to us and would be available to an appellant.

With regard to the word "otherwise", the human rights Committee feared that a certificate might be altered in circumstances other than those in which a certificate might be found to be technically at fault without the substance of the proposition being at fault. The Committee felt that SIAC should have the right to draw attention to the fact, and that it should be possible for the certificate to be drawn up again. Our lawyers believe that the formulation of that particular provision is correct. I have agreed to examine it and to take advice. Should it not be the case that what we intended is achieved, we will be prepared to look at the matter in the other place.

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

I am sorry to take the Home Secretary back a little. I was rather taken by surprise by what he said in relation to Government amendment No. 70—that it does not increase the test for SIAC. The amendment would leave out

"does not agree with the belief or suspicion",

whereby SIAC could conclude that it did not agree with the belief and reverse it. The text now is

"considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion"

In those circumstances, SIAC could conclude that the Home Secretary was wrong, but none the less be constrained by the clause because there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the detention should continue.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

The provision does not take away the power of SIAC. It clarifies the terms on which it would make its judgment, again within the provisions and terms agreed in the Rehman judgment. We referred to that at considerable length on Monday in terms of the evidential threshold and the process to be followed. It is on that basis and in response to the requests made to us that we wish to clarify what is described as the reasonableness test. I will stick to that. Having gone through the matter at considerable length, I am satisfied that we are improving, not worsening, the rights that are available and the clarity with which certificates will be dealt with by SIAC.

There has been much misunderstanding all round in relation to the operation of SIAC, including by those who have great experience in the court. A letter in The Daily Telegraph—I am a great reader of The Daily Telegraph at the moment, which always enlightens me and sometimes infuriates me—from Peter Carter-Ruck of Great Hallingbury, who I understand is a renowned libel lawyer, so I am very careful to say what I am saying in the House rather than outside, accuses me of seeking to set up a Special Immigration Appeals Commission appointed by the Home Office. As I pointed out on Monday, it is already appointed through the Lord Chancellor.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Does the Home Secretary think that, without impugning the present Lord Chancellor, the system of appointment would be more objective if appointments to SIAC were made by the Lord Chief Justice?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Appointments to a range of tribunals and appeals have been long established. On an emergency measure of this sort, to ask the Lord Chancellor to hand over to the Lord Chief Justice the appointments to the tribunals and commissions would be extraordinary, so I resist that.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am sorry, but I do not want to leave the point that was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) because I think that I am now in some confusion. On Government amendment No. 70, which changes the position from one in which SIAC could agree or disagree with the belief to one in which it must judge whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief, does the Home Secretary believe that he has made it more or less difficult for SIAC to reject the Home Secretary's decision?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

It is a mirror image of the change that we made in consequence—

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

That is wrong.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I understand that it is a mirror image of what we are seeking to achieve under clause 21.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

We may end up by agreeing about the matter on reflection. As I understand it, it is a double mirror image. The Home Secretary, or his lawyers, may think that, by changing to reasonable grounds—a move that we support and welcome—they have tightened the rule on what SIAC has to agree, but if all it is permitted to judge is whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief, the Home Secretary might make a decision—this was the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—with which it profoundly disagrees, but for which it admits he had some reasonable grounds. That is to enlarge the capacity of the Home Secretary and to diminish the capacity of SIAC.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Yes, but SIAC cancels the certificate if it believes that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the person is a threat to the United Kingdom's national security, or suspecting that the person is an international terrorist. It is whether the grounds on which that certificate was issued are reasonable that is being inserted.

If there is a genuine misunderstanding about this matter—we are desperately trying to ensure that we disagree on things—of course I will go back and look at it again, but my lawyers assure me that the measure provides the safeguards that were sought during the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Ross Cranston (Labour, Dudley North)

Even if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is right, and I do not accept that he is, clause 25(2)(b) says that SIAC can cancel the certificate if it

"considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued",

so SIAC is in charge. It can decide the matter in terms of both the facts and the law. I think that that is the absolute answer to my hon. and learned Friend's point.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

It is. I am grateful. As I was describing, that is the broader conclusion that is still built into the Bill. We have not taken that away. That was the point that I was seeking to make.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Does not the debate over the wording of the basis on which SIAC can look at certification orders suggest that, instead of trying to re-invent rules of evidence to that ad hoc, unusual body, the simpler way to deal with the matter would be to involve the courts fully and properly in the function of the system?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I desperately tried to deal with that debate on Monday. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was here and took it in, but we dealt with the establishment of SIAC in 1997.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

On a point of order, Sir Michael. Unfortunately, I was not here on Monday because I was dealing with matters in my constituency.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

It is certainly a point of interest. I would like to put it on record that I wish I had been dealing with matters in my constituency as well.

The serious point is that we dealt with the nature of the establishment of SIAC in 1997, which was universally agreed by the House. We dealt with the question of the type of evidence that was to be adduced, the fact that a High Court judge or someone who had been a High Court judge should have two other people sitting with him, that there was a right of appeal on a point of law to the Appeal Court and to the House of Lords if leave were given, and that the evidential base had been established.

The issues around judicial review are being raised, particularly by the Liberal Democrats and others. When the certification process was established, and when eventually SIAC was put in place as an additional safeguard, it was seen as a review of the certification process for the Home Secretary. That is what it was established to do, with the appeal on the point of law clarifying whether the process had been properly carried through. Were judicial review to be reinstated between those processes, that could be done only on the basis of the provision of the evidence, admissibility and the rules that have been established and agreed not only by the House of Commons but by the House of Lords.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Does the Home Secretary accept that, when SIAC was established, it was for a very different purpose—it was to deal with deportation, not incarceration?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

It was to deal with the ability to remove people from the country who were a threat to national security, or whose presence was adjudged not to be conducive to the public good. I do not intend to go on at length tonight because people have rightly said that they want to debate the issues and I need to allow them to do so, but that brings us back to the only central point that I want to remake. That point concerns precisely the choice addressed in part 4 of the Bill—whether to derogate, temporarily or otherwise, from the ECHR altogether.

I do not accept the suggestion that, to do that, we could use article 58 of the convention, or pull out for a second or two under article 57. I do not believe for a moment that that would work or stand up to scrutiny. However, if, for the sake of argument, we were to come out of the ECHR, I would then have to sign a certificate declaring that I was prepared to send people back to regimes and judicial systems that we did not consider to be acceptable. Those regimes and systems would not stand up to scrutiny in court under the ECHR, in this country or in Strasbourg, because they do not provide for people properly or protect them from execution, torture or degrading treatment.

That is the choice that we face. The official Opposition are at least clear that that choice exists. Members of the other main Opposition party, the Liberal Democrat party, believe that we should continue to let the people involved be free in this country if we did not have a workable extradition treaty with their home country, or if they were not able voluntarily to go to a third, safe, country. According to the Liberal Democrats, those people would go if they were able to but, if they were unable to go, they would remain free in our society, even though the judgment had been made that they put us at risk.

In those very narrow circumstances, we are seeking to take the power of temporary detention, with the safeguards that we are now building in.

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

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of SIAC, will he clarify the definition of the word "terrorist" to which it will work? I welcome what he had to say about rethinking the use of the word "links" in clause 21(2)(c), but I find it difficult to understand what has changed since the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed. Clause 40 of that Act contains a completely different definition of the word "terrorist".

Has that definition proved inadequate and, if so, in what way? Why are we being asked to adopt two separate definitions of terrorism, and will not there be problems in reconciling two pieces of legislation that presumably should work in harness and reinforce each other but which, in this regard, appear to contradict each other?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

The substantive issue of whether the definitions in the 2000 Act and in this Bill contradict each other is dealt with in schedule 2, which relates to the 2000 Act. As my hon. Friend knows, we are dealing in this Bill with the extension of the international terrorist threat. That is why we are here tonight. Therefore, the Bill and the 2000 Act are clearly compatible.

I know that all hon. Members are right to scrutinise whether lawyers—in government or outside, in the House or outside it—have got it right. On this occasion, I honestly believe that they know what they are talking about.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I do not belong to the usual suspects in this matter, as I believe that, given the circumstances, the powers that my right hon. Friend is asking for are justified. If they were not, I would not hesitate to oppose the Bill, along with some of my hon. Friends. All hon. Members reach their own judgments: that is the purpose of the House of Commons.

I spoke about a specific case when my right hon. Friend was not in the Chamber, and I believe that, if we are going to take these very special powers following the events of 11 September, legal safeguards are necessary. I have noted everything that my right hon. Friend has said about SIAC, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied that the Bill can be passed without provisions for judicial review. It is absolutely essential that legal safeguards should exist, and that they are seen to exist. That is why I must support some form of judicial review.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I note what my hon. Friend said, but I am afraid that, when passing legislation and dealing with evidence provided by the security and intelligence service on suspected terrorists, it is not possible to have a vague view of what judicial review should achieve. Should judicial review come between certification by the Home Secretary and by SIAC? If so, it would be unable to hear the evidence that had been presented to SIAC, and I remind hon. Members that that process has been agreed by the House. The people involved would be misled and deluded into believing that they were going through a meaningful process.

If the review were to be concerned with SIAC's decision, based on the evidence provided and the circumstances in which that evidence was provided, it would come between the SIAC stage and an appeal court hearing based on a point of law—that point being whether the process had been conducted properly.

I appeal to all those hon. Members who think instinctively that we need a certain provision because it applies in other circumstances to ask, not whether that provision is a good idea, but how it might be implemented. It is precisely to achieve some accuracy in these matters that I responded as I did on the question of terrorist links, which relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

We have been talking about terrorists—people who are

"concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism".

The provisions in the Bill do not replace the powers that already exist, but add to them.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

My right hon. Friend is right. As a Minister, I took through the House the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which established SIAC. It was created with the intention of dealing with some very serious issues—among them detention, as many of the people who were to come before SIAC would be detained. The provisions also covered their removal from this country, which might be something that the people involved would greatly fear. That is why it was considered necessary to have a High Court judge, an immigration judge and a specialist in security matters to review the Home Secretary's opinion. They could direct that that opinion should be changed.

If a judicial review procedure were inserted in this Bill, it would merely replace one High Court judge with the High Court judge that we have in SIAC. It would not provide the ability to keep confidential the intelligence information that SIAC can keep confidential. The divisional court does not have the appropriate procedures—short of introducing public interest immunity certificates, and I suspect that those who advocate judicial review would not want those certificates to be introduced in these circumstances anyway.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, on Monday, I read the Second Reading speech that he made in connection with the 1997 Act. It was very instructive and is why I know so much about SIAC. I appeal to the House: it is perfectly justifiable for hon. Members to want to do the right thing for the right reasons, but to want to do the right thing and then find out that one has done the wrong thing is neither justifiable nor wise.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

My concern is less with the appeal mechanism than with those who might be caught by the provisions in the Bill. Specifically, clause 21(2)(b) adds to those

"concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism"

any person who

"is a member of or belongs to an international terrorist group".

This afternoon, the International Sikh Youth Federation was involved in a lobby of Parliament. Members of that organisation are or have been terrorists, and the group has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. However, I assure my right hon. Friend that it also has members who are not terrorists. I am worried that we are planning to use the very serious measures contained in the Bill against people who are merely members of a group, and who are not suspected of being actively concerned in the commission of terrorism.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I shall try to answer that question as delicately as I can, as that group, which was proscribed back in February, is appealing against the decision. I have a crucial role in the appeal, so my hon. Friend will forgive me for being circumspect. However, it must be understood that people who become members of groups that are banned in this country are subject to the law of the land. Obviously, people are free to join other organisations and democratically to make the point they wish to make. However, when the Prime Minister of India asks, as he did last week, whether we are serious about the organisations that are committing terrorists acts in terms of following up members of banned groups, the answer has to be yes.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I quite understand that. I am concerned about the Bill's incarceration provisions and whether it is considered appropriate to hold in detention people who are simply members of some of these organisations.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Let me make this clear. In our democracy, people are free to be members of, or belong to, an international organisation, but not an international terrorist group. They are not free to belong to a group that has been proscribed. There would have been no point in Parliament passing the legislation or in my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, having proscribed 21 groups if we were not going to implement it.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), one of the proscribed organisations is the PKK, a Kurdish nationalist organisation. In Stoke Newington, hundreds of people call themselves members of the PKK and go on marches. My local superintendent of police says that he cannot pick up hundreds of such people. Yet those people, who have joined what they perceive to be a legitimate nationalist group and have no intention of bombing or murdering anyone, will be at risk of incarceration if the Bill goes through unamended.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

This is a red herring; we will not pick up everyone who has been on a march or in a room with a particular group. We are talking about people who have connections with and are believed to be involved with such groups. I am clarifying the position about links precisely to avoid red herrings.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I will give way in a moment. I do not want us to get involved tonight in trying to determine who poses a risk to our national security or is engaging in international terrorism. The evidence must be adduced by the security and intelligence services and presented so that it convinces the Home Secretary of the day that a certificate should be issued. When a certificate is issued, the individual has a right to go to SIAC and to appeal. I have spelt that out—the judgment will depend not on whether people turn up to a PKK rally in Stoke Newington but on whether they pose a risk.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The House is wrestling with the fact that although the Home Secretary says that the powers would be used only as a last resort—which I accept—that is not what the Bill provides. The second issue relates directly to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). People could be certificated by the Home Secretary and detained because they had links with a person who was a member of or belonged to an international terrorist group, yet those links are not defined anywhere in the Bill. Someone who has represented them could be caught. All sorts of people might be caught. Surely the Home Secretary accepts that legislation cannot be drawn this widely. It is dangerous.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I will give way to one of my hon. Friends in just a second when I have answered the question. Taking into account the criteria that are laid down, I have accepted that "link" was not tight enough to ensure clarity about the nature of the connection with the group. That is precisely what I was responding to in saying that the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights have a point. Therefore, during the Bill's passage through the two Houses, we will bring back a tighter definition that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as I suspect, each case will be dealt with on its own terms, on the basis of the evidence and information that is available? Given that some of that information will be very sensitive, it is probably not appropriate to spell out too clearly the circumstances in which he will make those judgments.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

That is true. However, let me stress—to avoid another red herring—that judgments will be made within the terms that we are laying down, the process that SIAC has to follow and the evidential base that has to be provided. Now that that has been challenged through the courts and is established as accepted, we can move forward in a sensible but sensitive way.

That comes back to my earlier point about choice. We have the choice to do nothing or to take draconian action and give the Home Secretary powers to certificate and to remove people from the country whatever the circumstances. We can also choose to take the middle route, whereby we cannot use temporary detention when extraditing people or removing them to a third safe country.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Does the Home Secretary agree that a number of the points raised recently are partially covered by the fact that my right hon. Friend will issue a certificate only if he suspects that someone is an international terrorist under the terms that we have defined and believes that person's presence in the United Kingdom to be a risk to national security? It would not sufficient for someone to be a member of the PKK, for instance. He would have to be a member of the PKK whom my right hon. Friend believed was a risk to national security.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to confirm that if a person is incarcerated under clause 23 and voluntarily chooses to leave, he will be free to do so.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Yes, that is entirely correct. That is why talk of internment is inappropriate; that is not what we are proposing.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. He said a few moments ago that the law must be upheld and obeyed when he defended his right to proscribe a number of organisations, including the PKK. Does he accept, therefore, that the police will have the powers of sweep and of arrest, even if those people are subsequently released, as many were, under the prevention of terrorism legislation. If the Bill is designed to catch international terrorists individually, why is it not drafted to do so? Why is it drafted to catch people who are merely members of organisations that the Home Secretary, on advice from many sources, including the United States, believes to be international terrorist groups?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I have just dealt substantively with that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made the point that it is not a question of a single definition. I am slightly exasperated because I have said this, as have other hon. Friends, over and over again. It is a question not of a simple definition but of whether a person belongs to an organisation, as provided in the Bill. It is clear that with the exception of refining the term "links" we are specific about what is required, and SIAC would make a judgment on whether a case had been satisfactorily made when deciding whether a certificate was valid. The idea that those of us who carry that responsibility or those who sit on the appeals commission would agree to the detention of someone who did not seriously pose that risk is breathtaking and flies in the face of the process that has been undertaken in the past four and a half years, since SIAC was established, and our commitment to protecting civil and human rights. That is why we have agreed to a sunset clause and an annual review, as well as to a review by the reviewer, which lock in—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, and probably will say next Tuesday—the protections that people seek to achieve.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the Government will re-examine the definition of "links", which deals with the point made by the Joint Committee about the possibility of arbitrariness in the operation of these provisions. He said that he would not send people back to another country if he felt that they would be subject to torture or the possibility of the death penalty. Will he confirm that it is not his intention therefore to deport anybody to the United States or to accept an extradition order from that country? If any person connected with bin Laden or any other terrorist is captured by British forces in Afghanistan, will he confirm that they will not be transferred to the American authorities there, because by virtue of the executive order of the President of the United States—to which, my right hon. Friend will recall, he particularly drew my attention—and the draconian powers it contains, that person would be immediately subject to a possible punishment of death?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I will answer the part that is relevant to the Bill and to my powers. I would not sign a certificate for any country with extradition arrangements unless it was prepared to agree to retain and maintain the extradition agreement signed by us. In any revision of the extradition agreement with Attorney General Ashcroft, which we will undoubtedly undertake because it has been in force for 27 years now, I would insist that that existing parameter remain in force. I would not transfer someone to the United States or elsewhere if I believed that that outcome would result. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.

The issue is one of genuine choice. Some Opposition Members believe that it would be reasonable to give the Home Secretary the power in question, by removing the restraint of the ECHR. I do not take that view, but it is a reasonable alternative, albeit an unacceptable one in terms of the powers of our Parliament.

David Cameron (Conservative, Witney)

The right hon. Gentleman overstates the position of those of us who are arguing that the Home Secretary should have greater flexibility in exercising the power to deport people from this country who may pose a threat to national security. Has he seen the recommendation in the Home Affairs Committee's report, which states:

"It would be desirable for the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament, to be able to exercise his discretion within the framework of article 3."?

That is the conclusion of a paragraph that says that

"we do not, for a moment, suggest that the Government should send people back to countries where they would be at risk of torture or ill-treatment".

Is not the problem that the jurisprudence under article 3 has made it so difficult to deport anybody in any circumstances, because the Home Secretary is not allowed to take into account, according to the Chahal judgment, the risk that they may pose to the United Kingdom?

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

It is true that the jurisprudence on that case, to which I have referred publicly, constrained what was possible, but—and this is an interesting point for the immediate future and we will return with a substantive extradition Bill in the new year—if we cannot reach an extradition agreement, it is not right to ask the Home Secretary to certify the risk in those countries that do not have judicial systems that are acceptable according to our terms and with which we do not have an extradition agreement that locks in the safeguards that we would seek. Even if we have queries about some countries' judicial systems, we have extradition agreements that safeguard the process when someone arrives back in one of those countries.

It is not right to ask the Home Secretary to take a risk in a grey area, where an extradited person may be summarily executed or tortured. We need to be open and clear, so that we do not say one moment that we do not want to detain people, but the next moment say that we are prepared to take the risk, on the certification of the Home Secretary, that someone will not be put to death. That is why the difficult but necessary compromise that we are putting to the Committee is the right one, and why the Government will seek to gain the assent and support of both Houses of Parliament in carrying it through.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

rose—

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

I had intended to finish, but to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman I shall find another sentence.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary. He has given an accurate and compelling description of the disposition of the Conservatives, the Government and the Liberal Democrats, but one element needs to be refined. He describes his choice, which is to give himself the power that he calls indefinite detention, as not being internment. He rightly says that in some technical sense the people he is interning—as I would call it—have the right to leave voluntarily. However, he has made the argument powerfully—although I disagree with it—that the choice that falls to those people is to go to countries to which he says he would not deport them. I do not understand in what meaningful sense someone could be said voluntarily to be able to leave if the circumstances of their departure are such that he would not compel them to go to that place.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

That is an interesting debating point. I should warn the hon. Member that I have read chunks of his 1999 book, which relates, interestingly, to definitions of freedom and the role of politics. I happen to believe that if people wish to leave this country after they have come here voluntarily, they should be free to do so. If they choose to do so, that is very different from a Home Secretary deporting them on a certificate in the belief that they are a risk, but in circumstances in which their lives would then be at risk.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

We are about to enter the M25 on the issue, but because blood pressure should not be allowed to rise too high, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.

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

The Home Secretary is willing to allow people voluntarily to leave the country whom he has good reason to suspect are associated with international terrorism. It cannot be good to let loose into the international community people whom he believes to be international terrorists; they should be detained and prosecuted here. We would do international security no favours by allowing those people to go voluntarily to another country.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

That is the dilemma we have struggled with. The obvious answer is for my hon. Friend to table an amendment on Report that the process, including the role of certification and the review by SIAC, should lead to the person being imprisoned, even though the evidence base differs from the one that would usually be used and would normally be available to commit them for a set period of time to prison.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

No, I shall not give way. I want to finish the point.

There is a good debating point as to whether someone should be ejected from the country, but let me make it clear: we are using immigration powers—we are relating them to the issue of someone who has voluntarily come into our country, was hosted by this country, but whom we wish to remove on the grounds that they are a risk to our national security or that their presence is not conducive to the public good. We are challenged on that, not in terms of the fact that, historically, we can do that, because under the Immigration Act 1971—in schedule 3, I think: just for Simon Carr of The Independent, I was not referring to braille to enable me to remember that point—[Interruption.] He would not be in the Gallery because he will be having a good dinner somewhere. The biggest choice that he will have made will not have been at Sainsbury's but on the quality of the wine that he is buying on the expense account of The Independent. He cannot say anything more vile about me than he said on Tuesday morning, so he can get his own back at length, and undoubtedly, often—[Interruption.] Muesli will not be on the menu.

The serious point is that under those immigration powers, we had the ability to deport someone from this country. What has got in our way was the judgment that we were unable to ask a person to leave because their life was at risk. I rest my case.