I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—

'(4A) The fourth condition is that the offence referred to in subsection (4) would be triable on indictment and punishable by imprisonment.'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 26, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'fifth'.

'which is triable on indictment and which is punishable by imprisonment'.

'which is triable on indictment and which is punishable by imprisonment'.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on his Bill reaching this stage. It is an ambitious Bill, which has, not surprisingly, received considerable drafting help from the Home Office and is, in essence, a Government Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not sought to abrogate responsibility for it, as he made clear in Committee, but it addresses wider issues than a private Member's Bill normally does. Scrutiny was rightly given on Second Reading and in Committee to the necessary balance.

I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted in Committee that it is impossible to draw the line that he describes in the Bill, which is why he is looking for an extraneous mechanism—albeit specified in the Bill—to require consent in certain cases. I think that that is a fair summary of his position.

It is indeed. It would be too legalistic to try to draw a line, but it is sensible to have a provision built in. The protection offered by the powers of the Attorney-General and the clear understanding of his role—not his role as a member of the Government, but his other role of scrutinising prosecution—would give assurances to the House that the Bill will hit its intended target and will not go beyond that with a scatter of shot at all sorts of unintended targets.

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but is he talking about amendments that we have not reached?

The point is to find mechanisms. Amendment No. 1 is one of several. I am talking about them as a bundle rather than separating them, although we are debating them specifically. The aim of amendment No. 1 is to ensure that only acts

"triable on indictment and punishable by imprisonment"

The hon. Gentleman has spent a lot of time talking about issues that relate to a later group of amendments. I want to respond on behalf of the Government, but I hope that he will not object if, at this early stage, I do not respond on matters that are covered elsewhere.

If the Minister does not want to respond at an early stage, we shall have to consider matters later. I was trying to make progress.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, for example, the offence of threatening behaviour under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which could well arise in football hooliganism cases, would be caught by the amendment, because it is not an offence that can be dealt with on indictment, but can be dealt with only on a summary basis?

Yes. That is why I made it clear that the amendments, which were drafted within an hour or two of the completion of the Committee stage, because that was the only way in which to ensure that they could be considered today, are not ones that I would press to a vote. The intention is not to undermine the purposes of the Bill. The intention is to get assurances that the Minister will consider the points that we raised in Committee and will ensure that there is a mechanism that will help to ensure that the problem I have highlighted is addressed.

These whole proceedings have been an outrage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has just made clear, the Committee stage finished on Wednesday. My hon. Friend has complained that he had almost no opportunity to contemplate amendments to table on Report. It remains to be seen whether the Minister can assuage the doubts, such as they are, of Labour Front-Bench Members in the short time available.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those of us who have dealt with the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and today know that the amendments are narrowly drafted. They deal simply with whether the offences covered by the Bill are liable to indictment or summary trial. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who was not present for the Second Reading debate, to give a long speech on the principle of the Bill, which is not germane to the amendments?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) is saying. He referred to the amendment, but he is going a little wide of it now. I ask him to return to the amendment.

My contention is that the amendment does not go far enough and I hope to persuade the House of that point. I am sorry that I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate. I did, however, attempt to become a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. I wrote to the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I telephoned his office. I would very much have liked to have been a member of the Committee so that I could express my strong views during the line-by-line, proper parliamentary scrutiny. Alas, no place could be found for me.

The hon. Gentleman talks of safeguards. I wonder whether he has applied his mind to the principle of dual criminality which is a central part of the Bill.

Yes, I have, and that provides no safeguard either because, such are the horrors in their own country and their well-founded fear of persecution for their political views, those who are in exile and have been granted political asylum here, almost by definition come from places where the position can be changed only by what would be considered criminal means.

The hon. Gentleman must accept that circumstances change. Not so many years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organisation allowed a Japanese terrorist organisation to shoot people at Lod airport. Now, however, Yasser Arafat is the leader of an established nation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an amendment of some kind is necessary to control terrorism in Britain and someone has to decide who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter?

We are all in favour of controlling terrorism in Britain. Surely not a single hon. Member has any truck with terrorism here, but we are talking about terrorism in other countries and what is defined as terrorism by foreign dictatorships where there is no democratic process. I shall deal with Palestine, with which I am exceedingly familiar, or at least as familiar as any other hon. Member, but for the moment I should like to continue making my point about Mandela.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I underlined the fact that two extremes need to be protected: one is the possibility that serious offences might be alleged and the other, which the amendment seeks to address, is that the Bill might be used against minor offences committed abroad. Therefore, there are two sets of amendments attacking both ends of the scale.

Indeed. I am sure that we shall return to that when we discuss the other amendments. Amendment No. 1 was proposed as a safeguard, but it does not go nearly far enough. Nelson Mandela was arguing, organising and raising funds and all the people with whom he worked are now rightly considered heroes by the British state. Just a few yards from here, in Westminster Hall, Madam Speaker made one of the most moving speeches I have ever heard in the presence of President Mandela in which she described how she felt during his early leadership of the African National Congress, including his visit here. At the time, Nelson Mandela was collecting funds for, organising, advocating, inciting and conspiring for the armed wing of the ANC Umkhonto we Sizwe—to commit violent acts that were indictable here and in South Africa and punishable by imprisonment. Under the Bill and the amendment, which does not go far enough, President Mandela would have been clapped in irons. There is no doubt about that.

I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest as I am not really conversant with the Bill, but he has now said, "The amendment does not go far enough" four times. I get the feeling that no amendment would go far enough.

That is not the point. In my humble opinion—and I am humble in front of the venerable and distinguished hon. Member—that comment does not behove him. He is a splendid Liberal and a splendid veteran of the anti-apartheid cause. Perhaps he should listen a little more carefully.

I was not intending to make a joke. It simply seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman was advancing arguments that in substance are against the whole idea of having such a Bill at all.

Clearly, the time has gone when I would have been permitted to do that. I am anxious to ensure that the Bill has real safeguards. I had no time to table amendments. After all, we did not know until yesterday afternoon that the Bill would be coming before the House today—a matter about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth complained.

I was surprised to find when I arrived half an hour before President Mandela spoke in Westminster Hall that the first four rows of seats were occupied by all the Tory Members of Parliament who had wanted to hang, draw and quarter him.

That was one of the most extraordinary sights in modern times. The whole world of course rejoices if a sinner repents. None the less, even in my time in the House, which is less than 10 years, it was routine for Conservative Members to denounce President Mandela as a terrorist leader. Indeed, their co-party workers used openly to sell and wear "Hang Nelson Mandela" T-shirts at Conservative party conferences. That was just in the past few years, when the whole world, apart from such dinosaurs, had come to regard Mandela as a world statesman of premier rank and indispensable to the solution of the crisis in southern Africa.

I should make it clear again that the amendment is intended to ensure that, by providing extra-territorial jurisdiction and the power to prosecute, the Bill does not cover minor offences abroad, such as bicycle offences and the like, as well as prosecutions for offences relating to violence. The amendment is not intended to deal with a set of political and moral judgments that my hon. Friend is addressing, which subsequent amendments seek to address. The amendment specifically deals with the bottom end of offences and a quite different mischief, which, in the interests of everybody, should be excluded from the Bill by some mechanism.

But my point is that—we can consult the record—it has been claimed in support of the amendment that it is some kind of civilising measure, protection or means by which the worst excesses of abuse of the legislation can in part be curbed. I take my hon. Friend's point that other amendments will, in his view, buttress that further.

By trying to outline the Opposition's intention generally, I may have gone beyond the amendment's intentions. I wanted to make it clear that two issues need to be dealt with. The amendment was not intended to deal with the one to which my hon. Friend is primarily referring.

Obviously, if I had not been in order, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have stopped me. I am entitled to address the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made in support of his amendment, and that is what I am trying to do.

It has given the hon. Gentleman new travel opportunities.

I did not travel to South Africa in the old days and I have not done so recently, but I accept that jibe in the spirit in which it was offered. I have chosen Nelson Mandela's case because it is an easy case. Almost nobody would now say that they would have wanted him to be prosecuted under this legislation. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That saying is a cliche because it is so true. Nelson Mandela was always a freedom fighter to me, but to some Conservative Members, for a long time, he was a terrorist. Some still probably cannot get their lips around the words "freedom fighter".

Order. This is an interesting tour of world geography, but it would be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman could return his attention to the amendment we are discussing.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I was flying too far and wide of the amendments. My point is that the Nicaraguan Contras operated in London, inciting, inspiring and commissioning acts of terrorism. I found their actions revolting. However, it would not have been right—in the unlikely event that I were the Attorney-General—for me to have prosecuted the Contras under this legislation, untrammelled by the amendments, because I detested them and regarded them as terrorists. It cannot be right that one man, the Attorney-General, should be given the power to decide who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter. That is the power that the Bill would give the Attorney-General and the amendments do not go nearly far enough in putting the hems on that untrammelled power.

We have had an interesting debate on the amendments and a pleasant stroll down memory lane for those who have fond memories of old Labour. The amendments, which have a narrow compass, would provide that the substantive offences in clauses 1 and 2 would need to be first triable in a Crown court and punishable by imprisonment. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said when he moved the amendments, they would exclude offences that are triable only on a summary basis in the magistrates court or are not punishable by imprisonment.

The hon. Gentleman has taken the point that I was making when I moved the amendment. I made it clear that the amendment is not a perfect mechanism, and I seek some assurance that offences that the hon. Gentleman would agree should not be pursued, will not be pursued. It is not clear how that can be effected in the Bill as it stands, so it needs to be dealt with either in the Bill or by some other mechanism. I look to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to provide reassurance.

I take that point. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I agree that he said that he did not regard the amendment as a clear-cut solution to the problem that he described. However, I am not sure whether I accept that there is a problem. As I have said during previous debates on my Bill, the point of it is to take the approach set out in the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 and extend it right across the spectrum of the criminal law in this country.

rose—

May I finish this thought?

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that when we debated the same issues last year, the Minister said that we should be careful how far we go into extra-territoriality, which is what the Bill is all about. He said that we should ensure that we did not go beyond the intended mark. I turn those remarks back now, because last year the Minister was too hesitant, whereas now we may be going even further than the hon. Gentleman intends. Where is the mechanism to ensure that that does not happen?

We shall hear shortly what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I am not trying to duck the debate, but I think that some of the later groups of amendments will give us more scope to look at mechanisms and how they will or will not work.

It is clear that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) seeks to eliminate what he perceives to be "unimportant" offences. He is saying that in some instances it does not matter if people in this country are conspiring to commit offences abroad, even when the test of dual criminality is satisfied.

Will the Minister give way?

Not until I have got a little further.

On that very point?

Not at the moment.

It is only right that the Minister should allow me to intervene, as he has referred to me, although he looked as though he was giving way to me with a heavy heart.

I do not support the idea of anyone using our country to incite others to commit crimes elsewhere, any more than I support the actions of Members of Parliament who suggest that others should fail to pay their poll tax or disobey the law in this country in any other way.

The Minister said that he did not subscribe to the idea that it does not matter that there are some offences arising abroad which involve some act in this country. That is the precise argument that he and other Ministers used when we were trying to persuade them to pursue people involved in sex tourism and child abuse abroad. When we suggested that Britain should go further in providing powers to pursue such people, the Minister responded by saying that we should be careful not to go too far and hit too wide a target.

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 24.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in page 2, line 25, leave out

', if it thinks fit, may' and insert 'shall'.

The amendments have been tabled in response to concerns that the Bill as it stands could be seen to place responsibility on the defence to disprove an element of the prosecution's case when, due to the complex nature of the alleged offences, the defence may not have the resources to do that. My amendments would remove proposed sections 1A(8) and 1A(9) and, if they were accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), would amend the Criminal Law Act 1977 to read:

"The court may permit the defence to require the prosecution to show that the second condition is satisfied".

"The court, if it thinks fit, may permit the defence to require the prosecution to show that the second condition is satisfied".

The Bill's wording follows the precedent set out in part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993—legislation with which I am sure my hon. Friend is extremely familiar.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. It may be true: I appreciate that, when forming legislation, the parliamentary draftsmen often base their drafting on previous legislation. However, the matters with which criminal justice Acts deal are often very different from the highly complex issues that we must address in this area.

"it should be for the prosecution to prove, as it would if it were seeking extradition, that the offence is an offence in both jurisdictions."—[Official Report, 31 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 612.]

Where is Gainsborough?

My hon. Friend's sedentary intervention is quite uncalled for—he should know where Gainsborough is. It is a small town with excellent solicitors, but how could they know whether an act complained of is contrary to Islamic law, for example? It would be beyond the resources of large firms of solicitors in London to investigate that matter. Islamic law—although very worth while in itself—is highly complex. If we conceive of a prosecution being brought against a group for plotting or fomenting revolution in Iran, for example, a defence solicitor may have to research Islamic law. Where would he find the resources to do that?

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and I promise that immediately after the debate I will find out where Gainsborough is: I apologise for not knowing. I support my hon. Friend's amendments, which seem to deal with a significant defect in the Bill—exactly the defect that I raised on Second Reading and that he raised subsequently and again today. It is simply not fair to put the onus on the defence to prove a point that it is not within its competence to prove.

I intrude with some trepidation on these fascinating, lawyerly, sincere and important contributions. I shall be interested to hear the outcome.

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point and we are having a worthwhile little debate. He is obviously familiar with Saudi Arabian and Islamic law in a way in which I am not. What would happen if a group in this country was plotting to plant bombs in Saudi Arabia—clearly an offence under our law—given that little is written down under Islamic law, which was decreed by the prophet many centuries ago and is subject to interpretation by religious groups? How would a firm of solicitors in this country, or the Crown Prosecution Service, proceed? To what authorities would they go under Saudi Arabian law? Is it written down? That worries me, and the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the subject, may be able to help.

With pleasure. It would be different in different countries. Not all countries that claim to implement Islamic law are as utterly bereft of due process as Saudi Arabia. In some other Islamic countries, the religious authorities—the Ulema—have a certain independence and can decide whether such and such a matter is an offence. That is not the case in Saudi Arabia, where the head of the Islamic council, Sheikh Bin Baz, is a hand-picked factotum of an unelected, dictatorial Government—a mediaeval tyranny.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point. An even more important point, on which he is touching, affects a future amendment: the resolution of the question is a political matter that ought to have the approval of the Attorney-General before any such prosecution is launched.

At the very least, it should have the approval of the Attorney-General, although I am not entirely comfortable with vesting such sweeping powers in him. The hon. and learned Member for Burton has in part acknowledged my point about how politically charged all the issues that we are discussing will be, and how potentially disruptive it will be to our lives as well as our legal system.

There has been an interesting debate on this amendment. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) for developing arguments that arose on Second Reading or in Committee.

What about a Syrian organisation in Britain that plotted armed action against the Israeli occupation of the Golan heights? Clearly, armed action is an offence in Britain. It is terrorism; let us call it what it is, at least in the Bill's terms. What about plotting an explosion at an Israeli army barracks, God forbid, on the Golan heights? That is not an offence in Syria, because Syria regards itself as being at war and under occupation. It is an offence in Israel, but the territory is not Israeli. How would dual criminality work in such circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman raises a complex example, although I do not blame him. There would be a general onus on the prosecution in such cases to take advice from the Foreign Office about whether, de jure or de facto, we recognised a regime in a particular country or part of a country. I accept that that would be a matter for evidence.

I waited to hear how my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) would deal with the amendment before speaking. I remain very concerned about the Bill as currently drafted and support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

We have had an interesting debate. Although the Government cannot go down the lines suggested in the amendments, they raise issues of enormous importance. I am a little surprised that hon. Members do not have more confidence that, by creating a dual criminality test, we are applying to all these matters the criminal law in this country, and that elsewhere. As I have said before, we welcome people who wish to exercise their freedom of expression and allow them to do all sorts of things in Britain, which is a free and democratic nation. If they fall foul of our criminal law—they would have to do so for the dual criminality test to be met—at least at that point, they can rely on the British justice system.

With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few more remarks. It is probably a great mistake to start reading Bills too carefully. The more one reads them, the more worried one becomes. I am still not entirely satisfied.

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—

'(12A) No prosecution in respect of conspiracy to commit an offence to which subsection (12B) applies shall be instituted by virtue of this section except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.

(12B) This subsection applies to any offence listed in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.

(12C) A statutory instrument made under subsection (12B) above shall be subject by approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—

'(8A) No prosecution for incitement to commit an offence to which subsection (8B) applies shall be instituted by virtue of this section except by or with the consent—

(a) in England and Wales, of the Attorney General; or

(b) in Northern Ireland, of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

(8B) This subsection applies to any offence listed in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.

(8C) A statutory instrument made under subsection (8B) above shall be subject by approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 4 would create a mechanism to allow a distinction to be drawn between the prosecution of those involved in some pretty horrific activities such as child sex abuse abroad, racial violence, anti-semitism or activities of the mafia, and the prosecution of those who are supporting a fight for freedom and justice in another country. That is an important distinction, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have made clear in the debates from Second Reading onwards. The mechanism in the amendment of a list and the approval of the Attorney-General would, for example, allow the prosecution of paedophiles engaging in overseas activity to go ahead without approval, but would require approval in some of the more sensitive cases referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The list may, of course, include terrorist offences, although they are dealt with more specifically under amendment No. 5.

I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said. However, in my long years in the House, one thing that I have learnt is that Ministers' assurances that Parliament's intentions are this, that or the other become worthless after a Bill becomes law.

I understand that point, which is why I mentioned the case of Pepper v. Hart, in which it was said that Parliament's intentions as expressed on the Floor of the House can be considered. I think that that is an important starting point in clarifying Parliament's intentions. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I think that we need a mechanism to ensure that the intentions expressed on the Floor of the House are considered at a specific point. In our amendments, we have suggested that it should be clear that the buck stops on the desk of the Attorney-General in interpreting Parliament's intention. Therefore, decisions cannot be taken by accident because—in Scotland, for example—they have been taken by the procurator fiscal or by someone in the Crown Prosecution Service, in which, even at the top levels, there may not be total confidence that they are taking the right judgment. That is why it is important that we have a mechanism.

I have listened with great interest to the comments in this debate of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), as has my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to reply. The Government have been very concerned about the comments made by my hon. Friend—who is promoting the Bill—by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). The Bill deals with a difficult issue. In Committee, we had a very full debate on the necessity of a provision requiring the Attorney-General's consent for prosecution under the legislation.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. He is making it clear that he listened to what was said in Committee. However, I should like to be clear on his proposals. He has mentioned and outlined a mechanism. Will the strength of his proposals be based on a requirement rather than on advice, and will he advise his colleagues in another place to ensure that the mechanism is included in the legislation, through amendments tabled in another place?

As I think we have been reminded several times today, there has been a comparatively short time between the stages in the Bill's passage. We have yet to work out the precise and most practical mechanisms. However, I think that my remarks have made it fairly clear which route we think we can and should follow. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne thought that I would come empty handed today, but I have not. I believe that our proposals can well be put into practice in a manner that will effectively deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed. I know that hon. Members have said in this debate that Ministers give assurances which are as nothing as time goes on. I do not give assurances lightly, and I will personally ensure that the matters progress—hopefully to satisfy hon. Members.

One is grateful for small mercies and that sounds, on the face of it, like a small mercy, but, as even the Minister has acknowledged, the lack of clarity—the necessary lack of clarity given the lateness of the hour of the statement being lobbed into the debate—again highlights what I said earlier: the unseemly haste with which the Bill is being rushed through means that mistakes might be made. The small mercies being thrown on the table may or may not be as they appear, and may or may not have the quality to which the Minister attests. I have no doubt that the matter will be fully tested in another place.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has missed the point about the Attorney-General with his examples of cases in which the United Kingdom chose not to prosecute. The issue is not whether there is evidence—the subject of the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave—but whether, there being evidence, it is in the national interest for a prosecution to proceed. It is in those circumstances that powers are given to the Attorney-General. The latest edition of "Blackstone's Criminal Practice" sets out the situation concisely on page 935. It says:

"In general, the Attorney's consent is required where issues of public policy, national security or relations with other countries may affect the decision whether to prosecute. An example is the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 … by which he must sanction any proceedings here for terrorist offences allegedly committed in a convention country. Other examples are offences of bribery under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 or Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 … offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911"—

"contrary to part III of the Public Order Act 1986 … offences of belonging to a prescribed organisation, contributing money to prescribed organisations"

I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend was in his place a few minutes ago, when I made clear a proposal in regard to the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in future consideration of matters that arise from the Bill in the area that he is discussing.

If my hon. Friend has conceded the point that was made in Committee, I am grateful and I apologise for detaining the House unnecessarily even for a minute or two.

It is difficult for me to go back over that ground. I have not conceded the precise nature of the amendments, but I have said that we want a mechanism put in place to ensure greater scrutiny, particularly for sensitive matters and matters that may be in the area of public policy. We want that put on a clearer basis. I have put that clearly on the record this morning. Our proposal does not fit the amendments precisely, but it recognises the contributions in Committee of my hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members who wanted us to make such provisions to allay their fears and concerns.

I am grateful for that. I trust my hon. Friend and his advisers to come up with a form that responds reasonably to our concerns. I apologise for having taken the House's time.

I apologise to the House for arriving late. I have been to and from my constituency. I understand that the Minister has made it clear that the Government have moved, recognising that the points raised on Second Reading and in Committee are points of substance. We accepted from the start that the Bill was necessary, but that safeguards were needed. We shall give the Bill a fair passage and we hope that the Government will move towards the points relating to sensitive matters that we have raised.

I am entitled to be brief in responding to the debate for two reasons. First, we have had positive and detailed debates on the issue on Second Reading, in Committee and today. I am delighted to see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in their places. Both of them have been admirably persistent and persuasive on this topic. The second reason is my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement, which I very much welcome. The Government have clearly listened to the arguments deployed at various stages and they have come up with a positive solution to the concerns expressed.

I thank the, Minister for responding positively to the concerns expressed in Committee and today. He is wise to do so and wise to have left open the possibility of inserting into the Bill, by amendment in the other place, the mechanism to which he referred. He did not actually say that that would happen, but he did not close the door on the matter.

For about the fourth time during the passage of the Bill, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not a question of teasing anything out of me. I do not like that phrase and I wonder whether he would desist from using it.

I apologise if I have teased the Minister. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) suggested that I was seeking to terrorise the Minister. I seek simply to help to achieve an effective measure that contains the safeguards that are required. It is not the Minister's mind or his intentions that need teasing out, but effective, clear legislation. I hope that the Minister will not feel so sensitive to that way of expressing it. The Bill needs a safeguard to balance the completely open range of offences that it seeks to address by making sure that it cannot be misused or abused.

I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. As I said earlier, I shall not attempt to talk the measure out. It is clear that I am alone in opposing it in principle and as a democrat I shall have to accept the consequences of that when we divide.

This is an issue of some concern to me, as our country now increasingly has to face its international responsibilities. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) that I am not sure that when the Kashmiris in my constituency contribute money to the campaign for human rights in Indian-occupied Kashmir, they do so in the direct knowledge or belief that they are contributing to terrorist activities. My impression of the strong and passionate commitment in Rotherham to the Kashmiri cause is that people want an end to terrorism and violence of any sort.

My hon. Friend takes a close interest in such affairs. Has he heard of the jihad fund? Does he know what the word "jihad" means? It means holy war. In every mosque in every town and city in this country, there is a collection every Friday for that fund, which goes to support the liberation movements in occupied Kashmir. Of course, people want an end to the violence, but until Indian occupation ends, they are prepared to support the counter-violence of their compatriots.

I do know what jihad means, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me. Of course there are many funds with aggressive and warlike historic names attached to them, but I do not believe that my Kashmiri constituents support or want their money to go to any kind of armed violence.

I had not intended to speak in the debate, but feel that I should make a brief contribution. It seems clear that the general intention of the Bill is laudable, certainly within the area of criminality—the area of political activism is much more problematic. What I have heard loud and clear, however, is that the Bill is cast in an unsatisfactory way.

The role of Parliament is not to be a rubber stamp for the Executive. Our task is to view legislation that has been drafted by the Executive and to question and improve it.

The Minister and the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), have heard both support for the Bill and expressions of concern about how powers might be misused. We all understand the fears of hon. Members. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) argued strongly that the powers should not be used to undermine the struggle for freedom and justice in different parts of the world. However, he also acknowledged that he would not want to defend evil and unprincipled villains who break the law and cause murder and mayhem around the world. We are united in our aspirations for the legislation.

No one can seriously deny that the Bill is necessary, and not many people have done so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on introducing the Bill and I thank him for inviting me to be one of its sponsors.

I tried to say precisely the opposite. Both the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and I have practised in matters that involve international terrorism. He and I are well aware of the globalisation of crime nowadays.

I am pleased that the meaning intended was the same as that which I intend, although the words may have appeared to come out differently.

We have had a series of excellent debates in Committee, this morning and on Second Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on the care with which he considered all the amendments that we tabled in Committee and on Report. However, I am still worried about the Bill, although I understand why it is necessary and I do not oppose it.

If a safeguard of the nature suggested by the Government were not built into the Bill, it would of course be possible for a private citizen to initiate a prosecution. That would cause considerable problems.

I accept that point. I am glad that the Minister has made various concessions today, but I suspect that, if a terrorist group were discovered to be inciting or fomenting terrorism against Saudi Arabia, its members would be prosecuted under the Bill.

This has been an excellent and important debate. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on promoting the Bill, and on the excellent way in which he has guided it. He has listened to the concerns of hon. Members, and has taken those into account as the Bill has progressed.

All the examples the Minister has cited have been or are being dealt with under existing British law. The maniacs who tried to blow up the Israeli embassy and the Jewish charitable building were dealt with under due process of British law. The Minister has just told us that two Algerians are facing extradition to France—God's speed to that extradition—where they are alleged to be guilty of serious terrorism. They are all being dealt with under existing law. We are now inventing a new law; surely the Minister should be making a case for that.

I have tried to explain that the Bill will strengthen our powers. We do indeed already have some powers, but the new ones will be extremely useful in our fight against international crime being organised from this country.

We have had an interesting debate of very high quality. I am grateful for the element of cross-party support for the Bill and must thank especially the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his efforts during its various stages. I also thank my colleagues who have given up their time on a Friday to be here rather than in their constituencies.

The hon. Gentleman is speaking as though he is not in favour of the concession made by the Home Office. Does he agree that another argument for involving the Attorney-General is the possibility that a tyrannical regime overseas could urge, finance and give evidence to a private individual in this country sympathetic to that tyrannical regime to bring an action against someone like Mandela, whose broad opposition to such a tyrannical regime we would support?

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next point, which is that much of the debate that he has instigated has been about whether the Attorney-General's consent should be a precondition for a prosecution or whether some other mechanism can be arrived at for what the hon. Gentleman described in Committee as high-profile cases—those sensitive cases with a political and perhaps an international element. That is why I very much welcome the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Minister, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does. The announcement meets the legitimate concerns expressed in our debates. We cannot permit people who come to this country as a safe haven to abuse our hospitality by plotting to commit criminal acts abroad and let them go unpunished. I commend the Bill to the House.

I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who attempted earlier to stop the proceedings. I was a couple of minutes late for that. I heard the generality of his views.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to our debate, which has been going on for some time. I assure him that I take full responsibility for the Bill. It is my Bill. If there are any defects in it, I shall be delighted to explain or defend them. It is my Bill and I am delighted to have the opportunity of putting it to the House.

Of course it is the hon. Gentleman's Bill now. The truth is that it comes off the Government's shelf. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who was on the Committee, made it plain without being challenged that the Bill came from the Home Office.

I should like to offer a few words of general introduction to the clause and the Bill.

The Bill is unique, because its notes on clauses provide more illumination than the Bill itself. I have always complained that notes on clauses for Government Bills usually do not tell us anything more than, and sometimes use the same words as, the actual Bills. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) or the Minister will be able to clear up one puzzle for the House. The Bill is in essence a Government Bill, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman takes full responsibility for it. The legislation has, however, been drafted by Government draftsmen and the Government must take responsibility for ensuring that the legislation is right.

I would like to clarify that point. The hon. Gentleman surely knows this, but for the record it is important to make it clear that those of us who are fortunate enough to come high in the ballot for private Members' Bills are deluged with proposals for new legislation, and that it is up to each individual Member to select what seems to him or her a good idea. The Bill certainly struck me as a good idea. Of course, I remain grateful to the Home Office and its officials for their assistance in its drafting.

The hon. Gentleman put that beautifully. Everybody wants the Bill to go through, but there are questions that need to be answered, and it is right for the House to scrutinise it. The difficulty when a Government Bill is adopted by a private Member is that one is questioning two targets—the Member in charge of the Bill and the Minister—at the same time. I am becoming rather adept at that now, because we have had a lot of experience of it this Session. Almost every private Member's Bill seems to have been adopted after having been, shall we say, "produced" by the Home Office—I was almost drawn into questions of parentage then, but I resisted the temptation.

"enables the regulations made under section 2(4) of the 1974 Act to specify as a recognised trade union any other recognised body representing the constables and cadets in National Crime Squad, NCIS and non-home department police forces."

"the Police Federation for England and Wales shall be treated as a recognised trade union recognised by each chief officer of police".

"each chief officer of police"

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) on introducing the Bill. I have talked to him about it, and I know how much work he has done and how committed he is to this sensible measure. As the grandson of a police sergeant, I am happy to support the Bill. We should welcome any measure that would assist the police in their duties and ensure that they are compensated properly.

"assist chief officers and their senior commanders in reviewing their force health and safety arrangements in the light of the Government's decision to enact legislation to extend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to police officers."

I, too, broadly welcome the introduction of the Bill and believe that it will be welcomed by the general public as well as by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) said, it is certainly welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. Having said that, I do not wholeheartedly welcome the Bill in that I have a couple of reservations on which my hon. Friend might be able to reassure me.

"Another important provision will be the incorporation of a derogation taken from the European Framework Directive on health and safety management. Briefly paraphrased this will provide that the legislation will not apply in circumstances when there is an inevitable conflict between police operations and the health and safety legislation."

"One of the difficulties in moving towards a statutory regime"—

"has been the fact that policing duties and the environment in which they are carried out are so different from those which generally apply in factories, offices and other static premises."

"The difficulty has been compounded by the absence of any guidance which expresses the health and safety provisions in terms which can be seen to be relevant to the operational work of police officers."

"would be concerned if the cost of implementing the measures meant that officers had to be withdrawn from duty."

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) for his clear explanation of the purpose of the Bill and the content of the clause.

"so far as is reasonably practical".

I apologise if the Minister is about to come to this, but will he comment on representation in NCIS, the National Crime Squad and in respect of other central functions?

I wanted to return to that issue in the debates on later clauses where it is more applicable. If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I shall comment later.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for clarifying the points raised in the debate. They were legitimate points and I am grateful to the hon. Members who raised them. I am grateful also for their support for the general principle of the Bill.

I confess that I was surprised that the Minister did not respond to my point because I thought that it came up under clause 1. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with it, or the Minister may like to intervene. Clause 1 (3)(a) provides for chief officers in England and Wales to recognise the trade union status of the Police Federation for England and Wales. The interpretation appears to be that that does not cover NCIS or the National Crime Squad. I asked whether the wording covered the chiefs of those organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman or the Minister can clarify that, and also the point in relation to the central services. The matter arises under clause 1—not later, as the Minister suggests.

It is my understanding that that is the case, but I will ensure, in conjunction with the Home Office, that it is clarified. My hon. Friend the Minister may have a further comment to make at this stage on that important issue.

I thought that I had covered the point a few moments ago, but I am clearly being told that I did not. I thought that I said clearly that arrangements would be made for recognition of the police representative bodies as trade unions in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. If I have not covered that point, perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth can explain—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I realise that he cannot do so because I am intervening in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney). In any event, I thought that I had covered the point. If I have not, I will return to it in due course.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is facilitating a useful discussion. The fact that a body will be recognised as a trade union in respect of NCIS and the National Crime Squad is clear. That will presumably also apply in respect of other central functions. What is not clear is the position of the Police Federation. The position is made clear in respect of the Home Office forces, as the Minister described them—the police forces of England and Wales—but it is not made clear in respect of NCIS or NCS. That is the point that I want the Minister to clear up.

It is certainly my understanding that the representation will be the same. The point will have to be considered carefully again as the Bill proceeds, we hope, to the other place. Any possible lingering uncertainty—I believe that the points have been clarified—should be resolved.

I understand that the position for NCIS is that representation of the federation and other bodies will be covered in regulations under section 2A of the 1974 Act.

I am most grateful for that further clarification.

I welcome the Bill, but I should like to address a comment to my hon. Friend the Minister. When he draws up his guidance to chief constables on the workings of the legislation, he should deal with the question of police houses. As my hon. Friend knows, in rural areas of Northumberland we have police houses, which sometimes have a notice outside saying "Northumbria Constabulary". I want to be certain about the position of those who live in police houses in terms of whether they are on or off duty. If someone knocks on the door, are those living there deemed to be off duty or on duty? The Minister will be aware that officers who live in police houses are not necessarily posted to the area where those police houses are located. That may cause confusion. If my hon. Friend cannot give me an answer now, I should be grateful if he will consider the matter when he draws up the guidance.

This is the clause about which I have the gravest reservations. It states that a new subsection should be added to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 stating that

"a person holding the office of constable is at work throughout the time when he is on duty, but not otherwise; and".

"the lack of experience on which to base guidance to forces on how to make risk assessments for all aspects of police work (although generic risk assessments have been prepared)

providing employees, including police officers, with a safe place to work

advising officers who find themselves in life-threatening incidents on how to deal with the situation".

"the action officers should take when faced with danger (retreating or intervening?)"—

"the potential conflict between the operational independence of chief police officers and the powers of Health and Safety Executive inspectors"

It is, of course, correct that clause 2 extends the definitions of "work" and "at work" in section 52 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It provides that a constable is only to be regarded at work

"throughout the time when he is on duty."

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 2, in the title, line 2, after `prosecution', insert

'or by the Criminal Cases Review Commission'.

The Bill currently protects material that is disclosed by the prosecutor in the overwhelming majority of criminal proceedings. However, there are circumstances in which material might be disclosed by someone else. when the Criminal Cases Review Commission discloses material because of an investigation into an alleged miscarriage of justice. There would be no difficulty when the commission refers a case to the Court of Appeal. When the commission declines to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, however, it is obliged to disclose any material it has gathered that is relevant to the decision, which may include protected material.

I am very happy to support the new clause and the amendment tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), which relate to the disclosure of material by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. My hon. Friend has noticed a loophole in the Bill which might, albeit in unusual circumstances, allow defendants accused of sexual offences to gain access to victims' statements as well as to photographs and medical reports without any safeguards or supervision.

Am I correct in understanding that the new clause deals with an anomaly which might arise after a decision had been taken by the Criminal Cases Review Commission because of the disclosure needed at that time? Will the Minister reassure us that prior to that—before the commission takes a decision, while the matter is still under consideration by the review body or when that body subsequently refers it to the Court of Appeal—the matter is already dealt with by the Bill as it stands? Have I understood correctly?

The hon. Gentleman has indeed understood correctly.