With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the bomb in Omagh.

At 3.10 pm on 15 August, a car bomb consisting of 200 to 300 lb of home-made explosive blew up in Market street in the centre of Omagh as a community festival was in progress. The explosion brought devastation and tragedy to the heart of the town. Twenty-eight people were killed—the highest death toll in any single incident in Northern Ireland. Seventeen were Roman Catholic, 11 were Protestant, 11 were under the age of 18. The dead included three from the Republic, and two from Spain. Over 200 people were injured, many very seriously. More than 50 continue to receive medical treatment in hospitals around the country.

The whole House will want to join me in expressing our disgust, outrage and total condemnation of those who were responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

There was a telephone warning at 2.30 pm to Ulster Television. It spoke of a bomb close to the courthouse in Main street. The Royal Ulster Constabulary responded accordingly and moved people away from the courthouse down Market street. The bomb went off 400 yd from the courthouse in Market street, in the very area to which people had been directed. The bomb was in a car in the street outside busy shops at a busy time of a busy day. The resulting carnage was inevitable. We reject with contempt the excuses of those who have tried to explain it away.

The atrocity was later admitted by the so-called Real IRA, a renegade republican group. All the political parties in Northern Ireland condemned the attack unequivocally. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland and those of us who have been to Omagh, including myself, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, have seen the terrible pain and grief that were inflicted, and the trauma that has resulted for many. No one can fail to have been moved by the sight of the procession of coffins that we saw on our television screens as those who were killed in the explosion were buried. Again, the whole House extends its deepest sympathies to the victims of this wicked attack, and to all their families and their friends.

We should also take this opportunity to appreciate once again the magnificent work that was carried out by the emergency and health services. In dreadfully difficult and distressing circumstances, they did their utmost to rescue the victims of this outrage, to tend to the injured and to comfort the shocked. They went through experiences that no one should have to face. Their courage and dedication were remarkable. They are remarkable people, and we in the House salute them.

When I visited the Royal Victoria hospital the following day, I saw for myself not only the professional skill of the medical staff but the hugely important comforting and counselling role that they played. They have my and our whole-hearted admiration and respect.

I also believe that the RUC deserve the highest praise. On many occasions in the past, their skill and courage have prevented similar scenes of carnage, but, perhaps as a result, the warning times have been shortening. On this occasion, they were helpless in the face of the misleading warning that was given by those cowards who carried out this attack, but the RUC's subsequent actions attracted deserved gratitude from all sides of the community.

We have known tragedy in Northern Ireland many times before; but this was an indiscriminate attack on a whole community, bringing nothing but further grief to the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland. It was a deliberate attempt, by a small group of extremists with no moral or political support anywhere, to wreck the Good Friday agreement and the foundation for a lasting and peaceful Northern Ireland which the agreement offers. It was a cynical attempt to provoke a violent reaction from others.

Those aims, however, have not succeeded, and they will not be allowed to succeed. That has been the response not only of the two Governments and the political parties but also, overwhelmingly, of the people of Omagh and elsewhere in Northern Ireland and the Republic. It was on the lips of virtually all those to whom I spoke, even those who had suffered most, when I visited Omagh just over a week ago.

The aim of those bombers was, as I say, not just to kill innocent people but to strike at the very heart of the peace process. The best response that we can give, therefore, is not to abandon the Good Friday agreement but, on the contrary, to carry it forward vigorously, to deny these people the very objective they seek, and to continue to work for a better future for Northern Ireland that puts the past behind us.

The agreement reached on Good Friday was emphatically endorsed in referendums north and south. The election in June underlined the wish of the majority of people in Northern Ireland to reach for a new and peaceful future. Those who continue with terror have no support, no votes, no mandate from any part of any community in the whole of the island of Ireland.

Both we and the Irish Government are fully committed to implementing the will of the people of Ireland, north and south. Further political progress is by far the best answer to violence, and, as I have said, it is what the people of Northern Ireland demand and deserve.

I therefore welcome the efforts to achieve this of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—the First Minister and First Deputy Minister designate of the new Northern Ireland Assembly—and of other politicians in Northern Ireland. I welcome yesterday's statement by Sinn Fein, making clearer than ever its rejection of violence and commitment to peaceful means, and the initiative of the First Minister and the First Deputy Minister designate in calling a meeting of the leaders of all the political parties next week.

I welcome, too, the latest announcement today of the appointment of Martin McGuinness to work with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning to facilitate the process of decommissioning. This is a practical, important step forward in the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Under that agreement, the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons within two years is a vital part of a lasting settlement.

This is a difficult process, and there will be many more difficulties along the way; but I have no doubt that things are on the move, and moving in the right direction. In the wake of Omagh, people of both communities are determined as never before to overcome past divisions and to build new confidence and trust, and we shall do all we can to help this process.

But we must also take strong and decisive steps to deal with this unrepresentative minority who want to use violence to undermine this peaceful future. Amid what I believe to be unprecedented co-operation between Governments and police forces, we continue to provide maximum support to the RUC and the Garda as they hunt for those responsible for the Omagh bomb and other outrages. I can assure the House that the investigation to bring to justice those responsible is being pursued with the utmost intensity and with complete unity of purpose between the British and the Irish authorities.

To complement and reinforce those security operations, both we and the Government of the Republic propose to strengthen our anti-terrorist laws to help bring to justice those who are still dedicated to violence. I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for agreeing to this recall of Parliament to enable early action to be taken. The Irish Parliament is also meeting today to discuss a wide range of new proposals designed to strengthen its own terrorist legislation and, in many respects, bring it into line with our own.

The House will shortly be debating our own proposals. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will explain the full details, but I believe that they are a proportionate, targeted response to deal with small, evil groups of violent men who seek to wreck the hopes for peace for which the great majority yearn and have voted. Our basic aim is to make it easier to achieve convictions for membership of the organisations concerned, in particular by changing the rules of evidence in a way that is tough but is fully thought through, and fully in line with the rule of law and our commitments under the European convention on human rights.

The House is also well aware that terrorism is an increasing threat world-wide. The horrific bomb attacks on the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in early August brought that home yet again, as did the more recent bomb in a restaurant in South Africa. As I know from my own discussions with other leaders, not least in Europe, the international community is and should be determined to respond uncompromisingly. Britain must play an active part in the international battle against terrorism, and avoid becoming any kind of haven for international terrorists and their supporters. We are therefore taking the opportunity of Parliament's recall to put into law long-held plans to make it a criminal offence of conspiracy to commit offences outside the UK.

We will not forget the horror of Omagh, but I say this to those who perpetrated that outrage: "You sought to wreck the agreement, and you failed. You sought to divide the community, and you failed. You sought to win new support, and you failed. You failed because violence and terror represent the past in Northern Ireland, and democracy and peace represent the future in Northern Ireland." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

There are few more important challenges to democracy, and therefore to this House, than terrorism in all its forms. We must fight it vigorously wherever it appears, while holding fast to our democratic principles and the rule of law. We must also redouble our efforts to carry through the political settlement in Northern Ireland, which alone can bring lasting peace. That is the approach that I commend to the House.

When the Prime Minister speaks of the outrage and horror of the Omagh bomb, he speaks for both sides of the House. Each one of us has been appalled by the scenes of destruction in Market street and the tragedy wrought by the violence. Each one of us has been moved by the courage and professionalism of the emergency services and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the Prime Minister described. Each one of us has been given hope by the determination shown by the people of Omagh not to let the men of violence win.

Like the Prime Minister, we utterly reject the excuses of those who carried out that atrocity. Like him, we extend our deepest sympathy to the devastated families involved. Like him, we wish to see no effort spared to bring to justice the evil murderers responsible for that.

The answer to one question above all must be clear in our minds. Why did those murderers commit their terrible crime? Why did they do it? The answer is cold and simple: they are prepared to do anything to prevent the people of Northern Ireland from living in peace, in the hope that they can achieve through violence what they know they cannot achieve through democratic persuasion.

Does the Prime Minister agree that anyone who thinks that has misjudged the people of Omagh, the House and the people of the entire United Kingdom? Is he aware that the Government will have the support of the Opposition if they do everything that they can to ensure that the terrorists do not succeed? He will also continue to have our support in implementing the Good Friday agreement and in carrying through the efforts of this Government and the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to bring lasting peace.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, although we should welcome the words of the Sinn Fein president yesterday, tough words must now be matched by clear deeds, as the Good Friday agreement effectively links progress on decommissioning with the early release of convicted terrorists and membership of the Northern Ireland Executive? We welcome the first move by Sinn Fein to co-operate with the decommissioning commission by appointing a representative to work with it. I welcome what the Prime Minister said in his statement about the importance of the decommissioning of all paramilitary explosives and guns over the next two years, as agreed under the Good Friday agreement, supported by Sinn Fein and the loyalist paramilitaries.

If Sinn Fein's words are to ring true, we must now look for the actual dismantling of the apparatus of terror that paramilitaries on both sides have held over the people of Northern Ireland for so long. Can the Prime Minister assure us that terrorist prisoners will not be released early until the process of giving up guns and bombs has actually begun?

The Opposition will support the Government's legislation today, but can I put to the Prime Minister two specific concerns? The first is that, although today's proceedings and those in the Irish Republic will bring the law north and south of the border more closely in line, there will be one glaring difference. As such store is now being set by having the same laws in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it was a mistake last autumn, as we argued then, to remove from our statute book the reserve power of internment, a power that is retained in the Irish Republic?

The second concern is that, although we support the legislation because everything possible needs to be done to combat terrorism, we inevitably worry about the effectiveness and the operation of any legislation that is so hastily conceived and executed. Will the Prime Minister agree to a full review of the effectiveness of this legislation, to be published before the Government come back to the House to seek its renewal in 12 months' time?

I welcome the release announced today of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. The Prime Minister will know that my colleagues and I have raised their case many times, and we are delighted that their cases have been reviewed and that they are now free.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response, particularly for the words that he said about the emergency services and the RUC. It is also right that we should not forget the role of the Army in this. The Army and RAF helicopters also played a vital part in moving people from the scene of the incident, and the death toll would have been considerably higher had they not done so. Anyone who has travelled in and visited regularly Northern Ireland knows the debt of gratitude that we owe our armed forces for the work they do there.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those who think that violence is the way forward have misjudged the mood of people. I was struck in Omagh by the fact that people from all parts of the community and those who supported all different political parties within Northern Ireland were unanimous in their view that the Good Friday agreement was the way forward. I pay tribute to the work that was done before this Government came to office by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to try to bring about a process of peace.

I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the Good Friday agreement itself, and the words that are in it. All the parts of the agreement have to be read as a whole, whether on prisoner release, decommissioning or any of the rest of it. It is worth pointing out that, contrary to what some people sometimes say, decommissioning is part of the agreement. It contains an obligation for all weapons to be decommissioned within a two-year period. I hope that the process begins as soon as possible. We welcome what has happened today as a practical step on the way to that.

The right hon. Gentleman raised two specific concerns about the legislation. We had to make a judgment about internment. We have made it clear that we do not rule anything out for ever, but my judgment is that the history of internment as it operates here and in the Irish Republic is different.

All the way through, we are trying to take carefully targeted measures that allow us to deal with these terrorist groups, but do not provoke such a backlash in other parts of the community that they undermine the fight that we are trying to secure. I agree that that is a matter of judgment, but that is our judgment; although, as I say, we rule nothing out for the future, should things be necessary. Although the Irish Government have the power of internment on their statute book, they do not intend to implement it at this stage.

As for the points about measures being hastily conceived, I believe that again, as a result of having targeted the measure carefully, we have steered the right course between a knee-jerk reaction that introduces measures that are not well thought through and measures that will give us practical help and assistance in trying to deal with those people who are members of the relevant proscribed organisations.

But, of course, this has to be seen against the background of the review of the terrorist legislation which is going on at present and will be published in due course by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think that the publication date will be within the next six months. I cannot promise to have it done before the House reconvenes, but it will allow us to examine the ambit of terrorist legislation, how it works and how this particular legislation is operating. It will also give us the chance to consider some of the proposals being made by the RUC and the Garda for further tightening measures.

The process is already under way that allows us to analyse what we need to do for the future, but I believe that people expect us to do two things in the wake of Omagh. One is to take what security measures we responsibly can to try to deal with the small remaining groups engaged in terror. The second is to continue with the political process. I believe that the events of the past two weeks have shown that the will exists right across the community in Northern Ireland, and certainly in the House, to do both those things.

I echo the comments already made, without necessarily having to repeat them, about the atrocity of Omagh, and especially the welcome given to Sinn Fein's helpful statement yesterday. Perhaps out of the horrors of Omagh we are at last going to see a real and historic opportunity for the people of Ireland to come together to build a peace for the future. In so far as this legislation is aimed at that purpose, we support it.

We are, however, glad that the Government appear to have amended the original draft legislation that we saw, because there were and remain some concerns. We are especially glad that the Government have agreed that there needs to be more than the statement of a single police officer to deal with the issue of proscribed organisations. We are also glad that there will be an opportunity annually to review and renew the legislation.

Many of the concerns will have been answered, but is the Prime Minister aware that one, it seems, has not? It is the Government's decision to add into the legislation matters that are nothing to do with Northern Ireland. I deeply regret that. I regret that, by adding complicating extra measures, which are, in my view, unnecessary, the Government will not have given the House a full and ample opportunity to debate the matter properly.

Nevertheless, the Government can count on our support, because we believe that these are exceptional times, which require exceptional actions—for three reasons. First, having maintained the cross-party unity on Northern Ireland matters that has subsisted in the House for 25 years, it would be wrong to allow it to be destroyed by the blood and atrocities of Omagh. The second reason is that precisely parallel legislation is now going through the Irish Parliament. We have long been in favour of that, and it would be a tragedy if the first attempt ended in failure when it ought to be a model for the future. I hope that the Prime Minister will confirm that that is what he would like.

Finally, the atrocity committed on that terrible day in Omagh was not against the actions of a single Government whom one group of people may or may not support, but was designed to undermine and destroy the sovereign will of the Irish people, who, in a referendum, overwhelmingly expressed the desire for peace. We cannot allow that to succeed.

On the right hon. Gentleman's points about the legislation, it was always our intention that the statement of a police officer could not of itself alone secure a conviction. I think that an annual review is simply sensible in legislation of this sort.

There are two reasons for the international measures. First, they have long been on the stocks, as it were. Under the last Government and under this Government, we have been waiting for the right opportunity. People expect us to be taking action not merely in respect of acts of terrorism within the United Kingdom but in respect of people here conspiring to commit such acts abroad. I think that, after the events of the past few weeks, that feeling is stronger rather than weaker.

In respect of the legislation in the Irish Republic, of the many differences between the situation now and that which has existed over a considerable period in Northern Ireland, one stands out above all others—the co-operation between ourselves and the Government in the Republic. We are working together. One of the reasons that we thought it right to seek the recall of Parliament is not just that it would, I think, be unwise for us to proceed without legislation, but that it is right to proceed step by step with the Irish Government, showing that there is a determination, in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland, to hunt down those responsible and to bring them to justice, recognising that this is a different situation and that those people have no support and no votes anywhere.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that every sensible person will share his desire to see the perpetrators of the terrible atrocity at Omagh and their supporters behind bars, but that there is no substitute for patient detective work, resulting in credible evidence and the conviction of the right people? If we get this wrong, we shall end up creating a political base for a tiny, isolated sect, which has no political base at the moment. That is what has happened in the past, and we must avoid it in the future.

If we are to avoid that happening again, we must have credible evidence, capable of belief in court. Therefore, will the Prime Minister consider accepting two of the amendments that I have tabled, one of which would require the RUC to take audio recordings of interviews with suspects—which, incredibly, it has resisted for years? The second would require the presence of a solicitor, as is required in most of the rest of the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend make the Bill conditional on that happening? He will find that all the mainly bogus objections raised to such matters will melt away like snow on a volcano if those provisions are a condition of being allowed to arrest people in the way that the Bill proposes.

First of all, my hon. Friend's concerns are perfectly reasonable—I accept that. I accept, too, that we have to beware of repeating any mistakes made in the past. As I said, we do not want to provoke a backlash which will give those people a political base. However, we must also recognise that we are dealing with a different situation—with a very small group of people who have no base and no support, but who have the capacity to engage in the most appalling acts of tenor, as we have seen. Measures have to be focused, targeted and responsibly done.

I take it that my hon. Friend accepts the need for some form of legislation. On his first point, on audio recording, that is now the law, and it is being introduced as quickly as possible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say some more about that.

On the presence of a solicitor, it is precisely to deal with the European convention on human rights that we made it a condition that people have to see a solicitor. My right hon. Friend will also draw attention to the other safeguards that exist in respect of the presence of a solicitor. We do not believe that it is right to amend the legislation in that way for reasons that my right hon. Friend will give, but we are acutely conscious of the need to steer a path between carefully targeted action and action that could result in the miscarriage of justice. Obviously, we do not want the latter, and that is why we have been so careful to frame the legislation in that way.

First, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. All hon. Members who have spoken reflected the view of the whole House this afternoon when they offered their sympathy and condolence to the people of Omagh, especially all those who have lost loved ones and those who are still recovering from serious injuries—many are still in a serious condition.

Omagh is in my constituency—indeed, it is my home town. I was born close by, and have spent all my life there. I went to school in Omagh and was employed by the local council for nine years, after which I had a business which has served the people of Omagh for the past 30 years. It is a town where people have always got on well together, and, despite several bomb attacks and a number of murders of security personnel and others during the years of our troubles, in the main those good relationships have remained.

Saturday 15 August was a busy day in the town. The weather was good, and many mothers and children were together, no doubt buying school uniforms and getting ready to go back to school. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said, a festival was taking place too, and a number of floats were expected to parade through the town at 3.30 pm.

Just after 2.30 pm, a male caller made a call to the Ulster Television newsroom saying that a bomb had been placed outside the courthouse at the top of Main street, and it was due to go off in about half an hour. Three minutes later, a second call was made stating that the bomb would go off in 15 minutes. A further call was made to the Samaritans.

The police immediately went into action and expeditiously cleared the area round the courthouse, routeing many people to the bottom of the town into Market street, where they believed they would be safe. Later, a policeman standing in the centre of the town was expecting the bomb to go off to his right, at the courthouse—but it went off to his left, and he realised that the blast had taken place not at the courthouse but in Market street where the people had assembled.

That policeman quickly made his way down to Market street, but he was not prepared for what he met; it was utter carnage. He and his police colleagues were met with horrific sights, screams for help and mangled bodies, terrible injuries and blood everywhere. A water main had burst, and the water was washing parts of bodies down the side of the street. No doubt those sights will remain with them and with fellow officers who were quickly on the scene to help; those memories come back in their sleep at night as they relive the events they saw.

Like the Prime Minister, I wish to put on the record the excellent work done by the emergency services—the police, the Army, the RAF, the fire brigade and the ambulance men, and especially the members of the public who rushed to the scene and did everything asked of them.

The scenes at the local hospital were equally harrowing, as the numbers of the injured increased and relatives thronged the corridors searching for their loved ones whom they knew had been in the town and were unaccounted for. Again, I place on the record the valiant work done by the surgeons, the other doctors and nurses, the paramedics, and everyone else at the hospital. They did excellent work in stabilising many of the injured, in performing emergency life-saving surgery, and in making people ready for transfer to other acute hospitals.

There were also the ministers of religion and the people from the social services and the district council, who were called upon at short notice to deal with traumatised people, and who quickly made counselling services available. An incident centre was soon set up at the local leisure centre, and the work of collating information and identifying the dead and injured went on right through the night and the next day.

No one who was there will forget the scenes at the centre, as lists of the identified victims from the various hospitals were put on notice boards. Above all, there was the anguish of those whose relatives were unaccounted for, and who waited with decaying hope for news of their loved ones.

I pay tribute to the various hospitals that took the injured: Altnagelvin hospital, Erne hospital, South Tyrone hospital, the Royal Victoria hospital, Musgrave Park hospital, the City hospital and the Ulster hospital all readily received victims, and did magnificent work in treating them.

In all, as the Prime Minister said, 28 people lost their lives. Bombs are indiscriminate: they kill Protestants, Roman Catholics and Mormons; they kill all types of people; they kill children, mothers, grandmothers, sons and daughters. There are many people in Omagh today who mourn the loss of their loved ones.

I should like to. thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for coming and visiting us in Omagh. I should also like to thank the Prince of Wales for coming. He has known something of sorrow and distress, and when he came to Omagh, he readily identified with us there, and we felt that he empathised with us in our tragedy.

I pay tribute to the press and the other media. Sometimes they are criticised, but, except for one unfortunate programme, they behaved with extreme decency, were very understanding and did a good job.

Every decent person in Northern Ireland wants that bomb to be the last. We never want to see a bomb outrage like that again. The Real IRA has claimed responsibility for the bomb outrage. The security forces are convinced that the bomb was a deliberate attempt to kill men, women and children, and I agree with their assessment. It is hard to believe that people with such evil intentions are in our midst, but it is true. They have killed before, and they are quite prepared to do it again. They must be stopped.

I therefore welcome, as far as they go, the changes that will be made in the law in order to help defeat terrorism. Of course they are too late and too little, and no doubt, when we debate the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, there will be an opportunity to say more about that.

I thank all hon. Members for their sympathy and their condolences this afternoon, which I am sure will be very much appreciated by my people in Omagh.

I am sure that everyone will respect and agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman

In view of the criticism, which a number of people have made, that the Government are going too far, what would have been the position if, following the terrible tragedy at Omagh, and against the background of what the Irish Government are proposing at this very moment in the Irish Parliament, the British Government had taken no further action against terrorism? If that had been the position, how would that have gone down among those in Omagh who lost their loved ones, and others who wait at the bedside while their dearest and loved ones receive the most urgent medical treatment, and, for all we know, may be seriously injured for the rest of their lives?

My hon. Friend is right; I do not think that it would have been understood if we had not responded. We must respond carefully and responsibly, but respond we must; first, to show that, both in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland, we will have the toughest possible responsible measures against terrorism. Secondly, because this is a group with absolutely no interest in the political process, it is important to have measures that enable us to deal with its members on the basis of stopping them committing these appalling acts of terrorism.

If it is our dearest wish that this is the last such outrage that ever occurs in Northern Ireland or in the island of Ireland, and as, if terrorism is to be eradicated, it will be necessary for co-operation of the closest kind between the Irish and British Governments and people to continue, will the Prime Minister accept my support for the fact that Parliament meets today, on the day that the Dail is meeting, to discuss legislation that can combine against the common enemy? Will he recognise that, although, over the years, there have been periods of good co-operation, it has often been difficult to sustain it throughout that period? As the two Governments are joint trustees of the Good Friday agreement, I very much hope that it will be the wish—I am sure it is—of the House that that close co-operation in dealing with any remaining terrorists will be fully sustained.

I agree with that entirely. As the right hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone else, the fact that the British and Irish Governments are working so closely together, and the fact that public opinion in the whole of the island of Ireland, in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland, in the United Kingdom—all that opinion—is behind the agreement, is vastly different from anything that has been known before. Those elements provide the context within which these measures can be carefully targeted—made to work—but they act alongside a political process that gives us a chance of a lasting, peaceful settlement.

May I express my deep appreciation to the Prime Minister for what he has said today, and also to the leaders of the two main Opposition parties? I have no doubt that, as the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made clear, what they have said will also be deeply appreciated by the people of Omagh.

In the past 30 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered terribly. One in 500 has lost a life, and one in 50 has been maimed or injured—yet far the worst atrocity in all those 30 years is what happened in Omagh, where 28 people lost their lives, some of them children. I have seen many of the deaths, but one of my worst experiences was looking at the coffins of those children, with life in their faces as they lay dead in their coffins.

As the Prime Minister rightly said, the objective of the people who did that was to derail the agreement that had been endorsed so overwhelmingly, not by this House alone, but by the people, north and south. The powerful reaction of the people—the people of Omagh in particular, but the people north and south—demonstrated that our common humanity entirely transcended the divisions of our people.

It is our duty now to translate that common humanity into reality by working to implement the agreement that others tried to derail, to create a society in which the differences of our people are fully respected and in which we work together—and, by doing so, to build an eternal monument to those who have lost their lives on the streets of Omagh: that they will be the last generation to have so suffered.

I received a copy of the legislation that is before us just as I arrived here. It is detailed, and very important. Given the statements about it that have been made by leading lawyers and human rights groups, my party and I will have to study it in depth before responding to it; we should not respond in a hurry. I call on everyone, however, to give full support to the authorities on both sides of our border, so that those who carried out this terrible atrocity can be brought to justice.

I fully share the vision of the future that the hon. Gentleman has set out, and has done so much to promote. As for the legislation, of course it is important. It very much follows what I said when I went to Omagh myself, but of course it is important for us to study it, assess it and see how it works. That is precisely why we shall have to keep it under review and renew it each time, as a House. There is that built-in mechanism to ensure that it works properly, and in the way we intended it to work.

I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. On top of today's Bill, however, can he be more specific about the improvement in security co-operation with the Irish Government since Omagh, to which the Secretary of State referred in an article in The Observer on Sunday?

:without going into the details of the co-operation—which I know the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do—I can say that the actual working together of the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the services on either side of the border, has been immensely close. That has applied both to the attempt to track down the people responsible for this—to track down the members of this organisation—and, in particular, to working extremely closely in respect of any intelligence that can be gathered to prevent any similar attacks in the future.

Most of the people I have talked to who are engaged in the police or the security services in Northern Ireland say that the co-operation is closer than anything they have ever known. I think that—as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said a moment ago—that co-operation is in part driven and underpinned by the will of the people, north and south, which is the importance of the Good Friday agreement and the referendum. Those two elements, in combination, give us the best chance.

While sharing everything that the Prime Minister said about the horror of the Omagh bombing, may I plead with him to take an historical perspective? Violence has characterised the relations between Britain and Ireland over many years, and many of us have sat in this House when anti-terrorist legislation has been introduced, yet the only gain there has ever been was when this Government had the wisdom to open negotiations with the nationalists, which made possible the Belfast agreement, the referendum, the Assembly and the prospect of peace in the future. May I urge the Prime Minister not to take any action that might look as if it were going back to some of the old legislation, which was repressive and ineffective, and did not contribute?

On the wider question of terrorism world wide, the world was shocked by the bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. However, I was astonished that the Prime Minister supported the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan, as it is contrary to the UN charter and international law that any country can bomb any other country in reprisal for anything done to its own nationals in a third country.

I finish on the historical perspective. Will the Prime Minister remember that, 100 years ago today, 10,000 Sudanese were killed by the Army under General Kitchener? We may not remember that, but people in Sudan do. They were bitterly disappointed that we did not support them when their factory near Khartoum was bombed by the United States, which has been quite unwilling to agree to an inspection of that site to see whether the bombing was justified.

On my right hon. Friend's latter point, I am afraid that I simply have to disagree with him. Countries that are state sponsors of terrorism must recognise that action will be taken if they sponsor terrorism and if terrorists based in their country take action against their nationals abroad. I believe that article 51 of the UN charter provides a justification for that. I also point out that, although no one was killed in the strike against the Al Shifa factory in Sudan, almost 300 people were killed in Kenya and Tanzania in those bomb outrages—95 per cent. of whom were innocent passers-by.

On my right hon. Friend's first point, my view is that we must learn from our history, but we should not be mesmerised by or live in it. We must recognise the importance of targeting the measures carefully and of taking account of the possibility of a backlash in the republican community. That we have done.

We must also recognise the two big differences in the present situation. First, we march in step with the Irish Government. As we have said before, that is a huge difference from previous situations, and a huge difference from the history of the past 30 years and measures which have been taken. Secondly, we are not dealing with terrorist groups with a political basis, as was the case with the old terrorist groups which operated in Ireland for a long period. They had real support, real votes, and a political basis. We are talking about people who have no support anywhere and no votes, yet are prepared to use weapons of terror. In the circumstances, we must be prepared for a carefully moderated, sensible and well-targeted response.

We can have all the political processes in the world, and we can have complete agreement across all the mainstream political parties—indeed, we have that now in Northern Ireland—but the terrorists could carry on operating. In the exceptional circumstances that exist, I believe that we are right and justified in saying that we have a political process that must work, but that we must take exceptional measures to mop up the last recalcitrant and renegade terrorist groups that are prepared to threaten the future of Northern Ireland.

In fully endorsing what the Prime Minister said about the vile acts perpetrated on the people of Omagh and about the real and urgent need to bring those responsible to book, may I say that the time allotted for scrutiny of the Bill is totally and utterly inadequate? If there has been an intention for some time to combat international terrorism, why has it not been mentioned in any Queen's Speech since I have been a Member of this place?

On the last point, measures to make conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism abroad a criminal offence here have been discussed in this House over a long period. The previous Government had a Bill. There was a private Member's Bill; there was a discussion about that. We have always made it clear that we support action on that front. I think that it is the right time to do it, given that we have measures that we are taking against terrorism ourselves, and measures that are necessary to defeat terrorism abroad, examples of which we have seen just in the past few weeks.

As for the time for scrutiny of the Bill, again, let me emphasise: the parts of this that we have done—evidence of a senior police officer being admissible and inferences that can be drawn from the refusal of people to mention facts that they later rely on—were, of course, highlighted in precisely the terms in which they are in this legislation in the statement that I made at the time of Omagh; both of them are here before us.

We have said that we will review at greater length other measures that have been proposed by the police and security services on both sides of the border, precisely because we have been concerned not to rush into legislation, but in the end those two specific things that are in the Bill are very carefully measured and very carefully targeted. They march us, as I say, completely step by step and in line with what is happening in the Irish Republic.

People simply would not understand it if the Irish Government were meeting today and the Dail was meeting in session passing laws that allowed them to act against these terrorist groups in the Republic of Ireland, and we were not meeting here to do the same in the United Kingdom's House of Commons.

In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, I also thank you, Madam Speaker, for agreeing to the recall of Parliament, because, unlike the biblical law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a body for a body, this shows law being passed in this Parliament to deal with terrorism. I also welcome the fact that we are meeting at the same time as the Irish Parliament—again, I think, for the first time. Perhaps in our British Isles, the different nations, peoples and faiths can at long last learn to live and to co-operate together.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this legislation is fully in accord with the European convention on human rights and other international conventions, and that what we are about here is the creation of some new international law, acting jointly with Ireland and other sovereign democracies, against that threat of terrorism?

Yes. Our view is that it is fully in line with the European convention on human rights—in particular, it is in line with the safeguards that arise as a result of the Murray case before the European Court of Human Rights. We believe that it is, as I say, a targeted and judicious response to the acts of terrorism with which we are faced.

I endorse everything that has been said by hon. Members about the atrocity in Omagh, particularly the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), but in looking at the situation at Omagh does the Prime Minister agree that the tragedy there came as no surprise and that there had been, over the previous months, a series of bombs planned and planted by the group calling itself the Real IRA? Indeed, just a fortnight before Omagh, a bomb in Banbridge could have had exactly the same consequences. It too had a misleading warning and could have resulted in carnage, had not a member of the RUC been vigilant enough to spot what had happened.

As the Prime Minister has said, this was done, obviously, with the intention of destroying the hopes that people in Northern Ireland have that we are coming out of violence and coming into a new era in which people will be able to work together, and I agree entirely with what he has said about the need to ensure that those hopes are not frustrated. I am sure that by far the greater number of people in Northern Ireland are determined to ensure that those hopes are realised, but, in pressing on with the agreement, does the Prime Minister agree that it is important that we ensure that the integrity of the agreement is sustained? There are a number of things that are linked together and the need for those who have been involved in terrorism to show they have left that clearly and decisively behind is underlined by what has happened. That is why it is necessary for us to focus again on issues such as decommissioning.

On that, I welcome the step that has been taken today, provided that it is only, as it should be, a first step and that it will be soon followed by other steps. We, of course, will take what opportunities we have to press on the leadership of Sinn Fein and other paramilitary-related parties the need for them to take this issue seriously now.

Is there not also a case for the Government to look more closely at some of their own procedures? I am thinking about prisoner releases. There are safeguards, but there is a need to scrutinise them more carefully to ensure that none of those released goes to augment any dissident group. Is the Prime Minister disturbed to learn, as I was, that a leading member of the Real IRA was released—I think by the Irish Government—some months ago as a so-called confidence-building measure at the request of Sinn Fein? We must ensure that that does not happen again.

We shall deal later with various security measures that are being brought forward. The Prime Minister has mentioned other matters. The House will be aware that the Chief Constable of the RUC has mentioned half a dozen measures that he considers important. I appreciate that the Government are looking at that list, although it is the same as the previous Chief Constable's list. We have been waiting five years for one Government or another to take action on it. Can we have an indication of the time scale on which the Government will consider the measures?

The Prime Minister has referred to the desirability of moving in tandem with the Irish Republic. I welcome that, but he should bear it in mind that the Irish Government have said that they do not rule out resorting to internment without trial if that becomes necessary. My judgment is that, if the measures that are being enacted in the Dail and, we hope, here in the next few days are ineffective—as I fear that they will be—the Irish Government will want to move to that quickly, particularly if there is another major incident. It would be gravely embarrassing if the Irish Government were prepared to intern but found that they could not do so because there were no parallel measures in the United Kingdom, allowing members of the Real IRA to flee to a safe haven in the United Kingdom. Must we not ensure that that does not happen?

On that last point, as we have shown today, we can act without delay if necessary. I have made it clear that we rule nothing out for the future. My judgment was simply that this is not the right moment. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Good Friday agreement. For the integrity of that agreement, all parts of it have to be implemented in full. The existing safeguards on prisoner releases have to be followed through and obeyed. We shall ensure that they are.

The measures put forward by the Chief Constable of the RUC will be looked at. A working party is examining them with the Chief Constable, in conjunction with what is happening in the Irish Republic. That can form part of the review of terrorist legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will bring forward in the not-too-distant future.

I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about not frustrating people's hopes. I congratulate him on the work that he has done over some time to move the process forward. Over the past 15 months, I have learnt that there are two groups of people when it comes to Northern Ireland: there are those who say that there are tremendous difficulties, therefore it is all hopeless and we should give up; and there are those who say that there are tremendous difficulties, so let us overcome them. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is in the latter group shows his courage and commitment to the process.

In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the Prime Minister surely was not implying that article 51 covered a country sending cruise missiles to another country without warning.

Was the American evidence on the role of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory taken on trust before British support was given? Have the Government been shown compelling and convincing evidence on that point since? What support did Britain give at the United Nations to the Sudanese request for an early site inspection of the pharmaceutical factory? Would the Government consider sending a team from Porton Down to make a technical assessment? What steps will the Foreign Office take to resume diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level with Khartoum, bearing in mind the exposed nature of the British community in Sudan and the UK's close involvement with the UN relief work?

On my hon. Friend's last point, the staff were withdrawn after two of them were actually ordered to leave by the authorities there. The view taken was that it was best for the protection of the rest that they leave. The Americans do have strong evidence of attempts to manufacture chemical weapons in Sudan for use by terrorists, and that evidence has indeed been shared with us. Indeed, bin Laden himself lived in Sudan for some four years and has retained extremely close links with the regime.

Those states that sponsor terrorism must expect to have action taken against them. In respect of the Al Shifa plant, no one was actually killed; but, as a result of those bombs that went off in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, almost 300 people were butchered—wholly innocent people. It is important and it is justified for states to take action to make it quite clear that those who take terrorist action against their citizens will not do so with impunity.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks made today by hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of those who have been bereaved and those who are still suffering from the results of the Omagh massacre. We are all indebted to the hon. Member for the constituency, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), for his moving and touching speech. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) mentioned that he was moved by the coffins and the little corpses of babes. I was moved by the coffins that could not be opened, because they contained only parts of the bodies recovered. As one of my own Sabbath-school teachers was one of the victims, it was brought home to me in a very real way indeed.

No doubt, in the coming debate, there will be an opportunity to deal with the matters on the minds of Members from Northern Ireland, but I should like to put one point to the Prime Minister. I am sure that, when he read the reaction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the atrocity, he was aware that four men were arrested who were known by the security forces to be members of the so-called Real IRA: I refer to the brothers O'Hagen, Francis Curran and Shane Mackey. They were released. There is one question on the mind of the people of Northern Ireland today and they would like the Prime Minister to answer it. If the laws that he is now saying we must pass today had already been in operation, could those four men have been kept in custody and brought to trial to prove whether they were guilty or not guilty when the security forces said that they were members of the organisation that committed the atrocity?

I cannot comment on individual cases of individual people and it would be wrong if I did so. What I can say is that we believe that the legislation gives us a far better chance of being able, where people are members of the proscribed organisations, to prove that membership, because we have dealt with two of the major problems that the police have with proving such a charge.

I also say that, of course, the very purpose and object of the bomb were to wreck the agreement and produce a violent reaction from others. We all have a responsibility to make sure that that does not happen.

In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the best way forward is by way of continuing political reform. I agree with him. I also agree whole-heartedly with his view that strong and decisive steps must be taken against those murderous fascists who committed that terrible atrocity. However, he must take cognisance of the genuine and utterly legitimate concerns of many people that the implementation of the legislation might harm the civil liberties of decent ordinary citizens.

We need sustained, methodical police investigation on both sides of the border to track down these dreadful, evil people. The Government must fulfil their promise of the early creation of a human rights commission for Northern Ireland with strong investigative powers. That is surely essential as part of the continuing political reform to which my right hon. Friend referred.

It is precisely because of our recognition that, with any such legislation, there will be genuine, legitimate concerns about whether the balance between strong action and protection of civil liberties is right, that we have taken the measures that we have. Those measures are specific. There are also forfeiture provisions, but in evidential terms the changes are twofold: the admissibility in evidence of the word of a senior police officer, and the right to draw inferences from the failure to mention certain facts. Both those powers are carefully circumscribed. I think that we have got the balance right.

The human rights position is set out in the agreement and we will proceed accordingly. There is now a different context in which the British and Irish Governments take measures together. In the past 20 or 30 years, measures taken by the United Kingdom Government were fiercely resisted, not only by large parts of the community in Northern Ireland, but by many in the Republic, where they had no political support and there was no political base for them. The context today is completely different.

I urge on my hon. Friend, as I did on my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that, while we must learn the lessons of the past—that is why we are moving in step with the Irish Government and the measures are so carefully targeted—we need to have an answer to the problem of small groups of people who will carry on with terror irrespective of the political process. The ordinary, decent people who expressed their democratic will in referendums in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have a right to the protection of the law in so far as we are able to give it to them.

I, too, welcome the sensitive manner in which the Prime Minister expressed the sympathy of the House for the victims at Omagh, but certain aspects of the Bill are disturbing in the light of what he himself has said. There seems to be a distinction between small terrorist groups committing acts of terror with no political support and larger groups of terrorists who may, broadly speaking, have such support.

Do we now have a two-tier system under which the proposed measures will apply to groups such as the Real IRA but not to Provisional IRA, which, through its alter ego, Sinn Fein, has considerable public support? Since the Belfast agreement was signed, there have been 37 murders: 28 at Omagh and nine outside that outrage. There have been 29 punishment shootings and about 57 brutal beatings, inflicting terrible injuries. Almost every one of those crimes was committed by what might be called the good terrorist groupings that are party to the agreement: Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries. It seems that the new provisions would not apply to what might be called the major terrorist groupings prior to the advent of the Real IRA. Will the police be called upon to make a preliminary determination as to whether one is a wicked terrorist of a small group that is outside the process, or a good terrorist who belongs to a group within the process and, having so determined, apply the new provisions? If that be the case, we are entering a two-tier system of terrorist opposition and a two-tier system of the administration of justice, and many people would regard that as a grave mistake.

Obviously, we have to make a judgment in respect of any group about whether it qualifies under the provisions. There is a provision, which we are entitled and able to use should the situation change in respect of any group, to add that group to this list. It is simply not correct to say that there is a division between one group of terrorists which operates according to one rule and another group which operates according to different rules. There is provision to change the list if that becomes the right thing to do. Our judgment in the round is the one that we have expressed about the activities of the Real IRA and other groups.

Justice for victims cannot be achieved by providing a safe haven for terrorists; nor can it be achieved by miscarriages of justice such as have occurred in the past. I welcome the Prime Minister's words about the admission of evidence and about the European convention on human rights. What further assurance can he give that the process will lead to a full and fair trial so that justice can be done and be seen to be done?

The short answer is that the standard and burden of proof remain exactly the same. As I have said, this is an attempt to amend the law simply in these two respects. They are important respects, because we know perfectly well that, on occasions, it has not been possible to convict people of these offences, precisely because of gaps in the law. We have very carefully attempted to steer a path between some knee-jerk reaction, by which we would bring in a whole range of measures that, on examination, cannot be justified, and ending up not acting at all in circumstances where people would not expect that. The fact that that is the collective view, not just of this Government but of the Irish Government too, is some earnest not merely of our good intent, but of the fact that we have been able to deliver the intent in practical legislation.

May I say with the greatest respect to the Prime Minister that what he said a few moments ago about internment is wrong? It is not a matter of judgment: it is a matter of fact that internment's only use is as an element of surprise and a weapon of surprise if a situation arises in which it has to be used. We all hope that that will not happen; but if it should we would be in a ludicrous position, because the Irish Government would be ready to exercise that surprise and act decisively but we would have to come here to debate the matter for a couple of days, during which all that we should be doing is bolting the doors on empty stables. Will the Prime Minister reflect on that and perhaps consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary? I make the point seriously. We are rightly following the Irish and agreeing with them on joint measures for the island. This is a glaring exception and we ought to put it right.

I do not agree with that view, for the reasons that I have expressed. It is a matter of judgment as to whether reintroducing internment at present would help the situation. The hon. Gentleman was part of the previous Government for a long period and I notice that they did not do that. [Interruption.] They did not actually introduce the power, they did not actually implement the power, and I believe that the judgment that we have made is the right judgment. If we got that judgment wrong, the danger would be precisely the danger to which we have drawn attention—that there would be set up a series of reactions in other parts of the community that would undermine the very thing that we want to achieve.

rose—

Thank you. We must now proceed with the business of the House.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am given to understand by the Clerks in the Public Bill Office that there may be some difficulty in tabling amendments for the Committee stage where the amendments, though going to the objectives that the Prime Minister has just outlined, are thought to be inconsistent with the long title. Is there any way in which we can ensure that, in the course of these rather rushed proceedings, we have the flexibility to ensure that the Prime Minister's objectives are achieved?

As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the Chairman of Ways and Means will select amendments in due course. There will be ample time for such amendments to be tabled and for hon. Members to be guided by the Clerks because they will be accepted during Second Reading. The Chairman of Ways and Means will be generous in the selection of amendments so that there is proper scrutiny of the legislation.

I regret the fact that this motion appears on the Order Paper. We have heard a most profound and important statement from the Prime Minister today, giving voice to the views of many in Britain about the fears that we as a people suffer in the face of terrorism, and to the suffering that was experienced by one of the communities within the United Kingdom.

This is a land of laws and of due process, and that due process applies to the House of Commons. I am here only because of the liberties secured for me by preceding generations. We are all conscious of that as elected representatives of defined parts of this realm. This is important, therefore, because the process by which we conduct our business is the very process that has secured our liberty.

I say this with the greatest regret because I understand the urgencies that we often feel in our fear in the face of terrorism. We are being asked to consider, in the shortest possible space of time, measures that affect our profound liberties and our civil and criminal justice systems. That is a corruption of the ideal. We have a duty to weigh most solemnly and carefully every contention that is set before the House.

The Standing Orders of the House set out the way in which, by tradition and custom, that has been done by the House. A Bill is deposited before the House so that we, the elected representatives of the citizens—the generality of us all—may consider and weigh the contentions in it. All day yesterday, I, along with many hon. Members, telephoned the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office and demanded to know when the draft of the Bill could be seen: first, it was to be by 12 o'clock, then before 2 o'clock, then some time between half-past 4 and 5 o'clock; finally, it reached the Vote Office at ten minutes to 6 yesterday.

Until ten minutes to 6 yesterday, all that I knew about the Bill was what I believe the country will come to detest more than anything—the manipulation, the spin, the press releases and all the covert ways of trying to secure the legislation of this country without reference to Parliament. I knew only what I was told by anonymous press spokesmen.

The matter goes further than that. We were told with a sort of laudable intent that the Bill would be draconian. Leaving all that aside, that is how long it took the House, assembled in London, to gain possession of the Bill. I am a representative from the west midlands, but how long would it take those from Scotland, Northumberland, Cornwall, Wales and Ulster to gain possession of the Bill?

We are assembled at half-past 2 to discuss the Bill. Before us is a motion that insists that we conduct an examination of the intents of the Bill and weigh the processes of the House. Can that process be borne? Is it worth bearing it, and for what purpose?

The House should reject the motion. In the face of terrorism, we should not abandon the freedom to discuss these matters. It is essential that we think about them. This is a new House of Commons, and it has almost become a House of Commons of acclamation. The contentions that we shall consider on Second Reading are such that we will come to regret them if we accept them in their present form.

I have been in the House for 19 years. I have seen every manner of expression and hallelujah and law. I opposed them as best I could, and I noticed that I had the support of the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary; I noted the words of the present Home Secretary in respect of these matters.

On 30 October last year, the Home Secretary gave us to understand that a consultation paper on terrorism would be issued by the beginning of the year. Throughout the year we have inquired about it—it was to be available early this year, then a couple of months later and then a couple of months after that. We were told not to worry. We were told that in October a consultation paper would be issued on some of the principles contained in the Bill. The Prime Minister now says that he cannot promise us when the consultation paper will be issued—and it is only a consultation paper, not a Bill or a White Paper.

Throughout the year, the Home Office and its officials told us that the issues involved were dynamite. We were told that the matters would have to be weighed, and the views of the House would be needed. Yet the Bill is drawn up as though there were no need for consultation or for the House to reflect on the measures proposed to deal with terrorism.

I take the matter extremely seriously. I want the House to reflect on it. Will we have added one jot? What will we have accomplished by assembling at the beginning of September? Why have we assembled? The stately order of our business does not require us to be here. I noticed that in his statement, which at times was more like a speech in a Second Reading debate, the Prime Minister did not make a serious case for the House being assembled today and called out of turn. He said that the Irish Dail is sitting today. I wish the Dail well, and I hope that we march with it in this Bill. The Dail may have prepared the ground for it, but we as a House have clearly not done so.

This is no way for the House to conduct its business. The Government are acting manipulatively. The House does not countenance terrorism, but we have been knee-jerked here. There is much talk about considered, rational legislation, but all too little ability for the House to consider it reasonably.

Hon. Members should reflect on the contents of the Order Paper and on what we are asked to do. How do we table an amendment to the Bill? The Order Paper states:

"notices of amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted before the Bill by the Clerks at the Table has been read a second time".

The Bill was read the First time a few minutes ago, so the House has had only a few minutes to table amendments properly and in good order. We have all served on Committees and are familiar with the Committee stage of Bills. We may want to table amendments during the Committee stage, but the Order Paper does not allow for that. How do we deal with amendments? Are they to be tabled four or five minutes before the end of Second Reading? If an hon. Member tables a manuscript amendment, how will the rest of the House obtain a copy of it? How will we be able to read the amendment and relate it to the content of the Bill?

I am astounded that the Leader of the House did not think it worth her while to explain to the House why there should be a guillotine that would condense discussion of the entire Bill into six hours. Clauses 1 to 4 are to be dealt with in the first three hours, and the rest—Report and Third Reading—is to be disposed of in another three hours. How do we treat those assembled in the other place—the Law Lords of this land, some of the finest legal minds? How do we treat any amendment that they deign to send to us? All Lords matters will be disposed of in one hour.

I plead with the House. Ours is a great nation, a nation founded on freedom and liberty. We are the elected representatives of this nation. We should have a pride in our process, for in our process we defend our liberty in the face of these terrorists.

Lest it should be thought that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) speaks alone, I should say that I have grave reservations about the speed with which the Bill is to be debated. I hope to move an amendment that will deal with some of the points that particularly concern me, but I believe that the House of Commons ought to give itself time to think.

In a long career in the House, I have realised that, brilliant though we may be, we are not the repository of all wisdom and that occasionally there are those outside in the United Kingdom who can give us advice and help and point out that what we believe to be targeted and precise may in legislative terms be imprecise, vague and, in the final analysis, not worthy of a democratic assembly. I hope that we will think. I am aware of the pressure on Members as a result of the horrendous and appalling events, but I hope that we will think seriously that, when we rush through legislation and cease to put on the statute book ideas and views that have been properly tested by the time to debate, to examine and, indeed, often to understand what we are doing, we are not fulfilling our proper task.

I have very grave reservations about the way in which our proceedings today are being organised. I hope that it will be clear that they stem not from objection to the need to do something urgent about the horrendous terrorism but from something stronger that can be summed up in a very simple phrase—my misgivings about legislation that is rushed and probably will not, in the final analysis, be capable of doing that which we demand of it.

My party received a fax at about 10 o'clock yesterday morning from the Secretary of State to say that, if we rang a number at Stormont, we would be supplied with a copy of the Bill. I immediately rang that number and the civil servant informed me that the Bill had been printed, but that changes were being made and that it had to be completely reprinted. I was told that it would be available shortly after noon. I rang again at noon and he said that he was sorry, but it would not be available until later on. It was only later last night that we received a copy. I must say that the Northern Ireland Office faxed us a full copy.

Hon. Members know my attitude to terrorism, but terrorism is not the issue before the House. The issue is how we deal with business that is very, very important. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that the Bill affects all my constituents: it does not affect only people who call themselves the Real IRA. Anybody can be lifted under the terms of the Bill. Therefore, I as a representative of those people have a right to defend their interests, and where should I defend them? I should do so in the House.

If we are to meet today, why did we not have a two-day sitting? Why bring us all here and then more or less say, "Snub your nose at the House of Lords for it does not matter what it says anyway"? If we had any respect for the other House, we would wait and hear its report and debate it. We should have had two days at this Bill.

The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party made a similar point when he said that his party would like more time to consider the Bill. In the circumstances, I should have thought that we should have as much time as possible to consider it, and there are ways in which that could be done. I therefore agree entirely with the hon. Members who spoke before me on that issue.

I agree very strongly with the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who spoke before me—an unusual combination. We say that the Bill attacks civil liberties, but the attack on civil liberties has already begun because Members of Parliament are being denied the time to examine the Bill, to consult their constituents and experts, and to refer to the initial Acts of Parliament that are being amended. How can Members suddenly pick up the fact that the Bill amends the prevention of terrorism Act or the law on criminal conspiracy?

We are being used to rubber-stamp what a Government have decided to do, but they do not know what they want to do. They have had two weeks to draft the Bill. They could have published it in draft. The Liberal Democrats' leader said that he knows that changes were made. He is luckier than I am because he must have seen an earlier draft. If he had seen an earlier draft, he could have tabled an amendment before the Bill came before the House. What a way to treat Parliament! We are being treated as though we were the Supreme Soviet, simply summoned to carry through the instructions of the Central Committee.

Whatever the merits of the Bill—we are not discussing them now—it is an absolute affront to the House and to those whom we represent to say that we have to pass the motion by 10 pm. I made inquiries at the Whips Office. The Chief Whip will know that I rang No. 12 time and again before lunch. I was told that there was not even going to be a guillotine motion, so that has appeared at the last minute.

It is time that hon. Members stood up for our right to represent the people who send us here. On those grounds, I strongly support the speeches of the hon. Members who spoke before me. I think it is a view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who said that he would be unable to support the Bill because of the shortage of time, although on reflection he might decide that he wished to support or amend it. I urge the House to move for more time.

As you know, Madam Speaker, I wrote to you in the middle of August asking for the recall of Parliament to debate the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan. I welcome the recall, but not just to be forced to do what I am told in respect of a Bill that I have not seen and cannot consider and about which, in any case, many people want a longer debate.

No one wants to undermine the unity that exists across the House against terrorism. None of the speeches that we have heard has sought to do that, but, procedurally, what we are asked to do is contrary to all aspects of "Erskine May" and our Standing Orders. It is wrong.

We can march in time with the Dail. Let us have Second Reading today, but let us come back in a week—the period that is usually allowed—during which time amendments could be tabled and the matter could be properly considered. We are again setting a precedent that is wrong.

It is not as if we are going to war. In some instances, the House is recalled specifically for that reason, but whether this Bill were passed tomorrow or next week would make not one jot of difference, except that a week's delay would mean that it could be considered fully and properly, as the structures of the House have always demanded. Why are we being so rushed? No reason has been given. It seems that we are thrusting to one side all the House's normal procedures for no reason.

During Prayers, I obtained a copy of the Bill from the Vote Office. The document that I was handed stated that it was a draft. Like many other hon. Members, I have just come back from my holidays. I telephoned home to find out what was happening in general, was told that Parliament was to be recalled because of Omagh and was satisfied that that was proper. I want action to be taken against terrorism and terrorists, as do we all. However, clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill do not deal with or arise from Omagh.

I received a letter from the Chief Whip, or party officials, telling me that the proposals—on conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas—were supported by the Government when they were in opposition. In February 1997, those proposals were put to the House in a private Member's Bill, which had the support of the then Tory Government, but the House failed twice to provide a quorum to pass the Bill. The Tories, who wanted it, could not provide the quorum and no Labour Member went into the Lobby to provide one on either occasion. If that was Labour supporting the measure in opposition, I would not like to see us opposing anything. In fact, it was one of the most effective examples of opposition during that Tory Government's period in office.

I feel deeply affronted that Omagh, on which I want the House to speak with a united voice, is being mixed up with other items. If action were taken or planned in this country, for instance against the Taliban in Afghanistan, that would be subject to the Bill—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is making a Second Reading speech and we are dealing with the business motion.

I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to those on the Government Front Bench and to anyone with influence, to disentangle those issues when we discuss the matter and, as has been said from so many quarters, to give us more time to discuss these important issues.

I approached the Prime Minister on behalf of my party to ask for a recall of the House because we were tired of listening to Government through the press and tired of the concept that we were to tackle terrorism in Northern Ireland through secondary legislation, which might not stand up. Regrettably, now that we have been recalled, we have discovered that, for whatever reason or judgment, an opportunity to bring us into line with the Republic has been set aside. It is important that we have time to debate the matter and learn the mind of the House properly.

I am also concerned about the way in which a matter of this importance has been handled. I should have expected some notice, but, given the situation, I can appreciate why we did not have it. I do not appreciate the fact that there has not even been an opportunity for members of the parliamentary Labour party to discuss the matter. I wanted to do some research to find out whether the United States Congress has any legislation similar to the Bill that the Government are trying to push through. That is important and it is germane. The Prime Minister says that he is walking hand in hand with the Irish Government. I want to know why, or whether, he is walking hand in hand with the American Government.

Order. Hon. Members are straying into a Second Reading debate. The Bill is available and we are ready for the Second Reading. We cannot marshal the amendments until this motion is agreed, so I hope that the House understands the position in which it is placing itself.

You indeed have a difficult task, Madam Speaker, in producing before the end of Second Reading a list of marshalled amendments that the House can use. However, the Government have got themselves into that difficulty, with their decision to add to the Bill provisions on conspiracy that are not confined to terrorism.

The conspiracy provisions are extremely wide, and in my view it would take more than their portion of the three hours referred to in the motion to consider them properly, bearing in mind the fact that the second half of the time allocated is for clause 5 and the remainder of the Bill, together with Report stage, if we have one, and any other proceedings. Within those three hours, all that has to be dealt with.

Many hon. Members did not expect to find those provisions in the Bill, and therefore have not had the opportunity to consult widely on them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), our Chief Whip, attempted to negotiate a satisfactory outcome through the usual channels, but the view widespread among my hon. Friends is that it will not be possible to do justice to the important Northern Ireland provisions of the Bill and still leave enough opportunity to consider the rest of it.

We all have to recognise that some of our cherished procedures sometimes have to be cut short so that we can deal with emergencies. That argument runs for the first part of the Bill, but it does not run effectively for the second half of it, which could have been introduced at a later date. Precisely for that reason, I find myself unable to recommend that my hon. Friends support the motion.

In support of what has already been said to you, Madam Speaker, may I draw your attention to one matter of importance that has not been mentioned? The Bill affects the liberty of the subject, yet, because of the speed with which it has been drafted, the drafting is a lamentation. I have read a good many statutes in my time, and I have no hesitation in saying that this is one of the worst that I have ever seen.

By way of a soupcon, may I—it is a very short quotation, Madam Speaker—offer this delicacy from subsection (6) of the proposed new section 1A that clause 5 would insert into the Criminal Law Act 1977:

"In the application of this Part of this Act to an agreement in the case of which each of the above conditions is satisfied"—

Order. I am quite capable of reading the Bill, which is now available in its final form. The hon. and learned Gentleman is raising minute Committee points. He has every right to do so, but at the right time.

rose—

Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take his seat until I have given him a little guidance? We are discussing the business motion at this stage, not the Bill. No part of the Bill can be considered until I have the business motion.

May I clarify the point that I am trying to make, Madam Speaker? I am not talking about the merits of the clause from which I quoted; I cannot do so, because I cannot decipher it. Having spent a great deal of time trying to read it, bringing to it what legal experience I have, I find it completely incomprehensible. One of the reasons why it is incomprehensible is the unseemly speed with which the Bill has been drafted.

That utterly incomprehensible clause—I invite hon. Members to read it at their leisure as, following your order, Madam Speaker, I may not read it myself—would have the most profound effect on the liberty of the subject in this country in respect of what are purported to be agreements to commit offences overseas.

The Bill is not in a fit condition to be debated by the House—

Order. We are not discussing the Bill at present; we are discussing the business motion. I hope that hon. Members will keep that in mind.

I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and I ask the House to oppose the business motion and not to give it any consideration. I am fortified in my contention by the fact that the deputy leader of the Liberal party has decided that his own party should oppose it—despite the fact that the motion carries the signature of his Chief Whip.

I would not seek to match the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I would say that this is an example of the contempt in which the Prime Minister holds the Chamber, and which he has demonstrated almost from the first day we assembled after the general election. We are being used simply as a rubber stamp. The news is released by leak, by briefing, so that ordinary Members of the House read about it for the first time in the newspapers as they are on the way to the House. It has already been released to Lobby journalists; it has already been the subject of briefings. The meat of what is proposed has already been determined.

We are simply not being consulted, and we do not have time properly to discuss and debate the Bill. The whole House should reject the business motion because, in the fulness of time, this experience will be repeated on many occasions.

I hesitate to question the judgment of hon. Members who have spoken, who, on my calculation, have between them more than 200 years' experience in the House. However, I must say, as a relatively new Member, that the broader population would be incredulous if we accepted the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), in which he questioned whether we should have been recalled, and even more incredulous if we said that we were such slow readers that it would take us another week to consider the proposals.

I agree with some of the reservations that have been expressed, to which I should like to return during discussion on the Bill, but I believe that people expect us to march in step with the Dail on this and consider the issue today and tomorrow, because it is seen as an urgent issue and it requires an urgent response from Parliament.

Some days ago I argued, in the light of what I believed was coming up in the Bill, that it was an outrageous contempt of the House for us to be treated in the way that we have been in the past few days. That feeling has been made even worse by today's occurrences.

The Government have determined on a course of action in the light of their extremely large majority. I say to the Prime Minister that I fear that, by attempting to railroad the Bill through, he may achieve the exact opposite of the objective that he seeks. I support the principle of the legislation, but I do not support the manner in which it is being enacted.

It is part and parcel of the procedures of the House that we have an opportunity to make amendments. I raised a point with you, Madam Speaker, concerning the long title. It is not enough for the Chairman of Ways and Means to exercise an attitude in the selection of amendments. The key question is whether it is within the order of the House for amendments that are inconsistent with the long title to be moved.

I believe that there is a serious problem, which goes to the heart of the Bill, and which the Prime Minister may not have fully appreciated. The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which we passed on 28 July, provides for the imposition of a series of conditions and tests when deciding whether prisoners should be released early. The Act clearly states that among those tests is whether the person in question is a member of a proscribed organisation. The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill changes the burden of the test, in the early parts of the procedure, to the opinion of a police officer plus other evidence.

If the long title needs to be changed to allow us to guarantee that persons who, in the opinion of a police officer and on the basis of the related evidence, are members of proscribed organisations are not released early, the failure to change the long title may create a flaw that defeats the Bill's main objective—to ensure that members of proscribed organisations are not released early. Therefore, there are substantive reasons why we need to know what the Government have in mind regarding the long title.

The argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made about the manner in which the Bill is being dealt with was absolutely justified. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary owe the House an explanation of how we can meaningfully propose or make amendments to the Bill.

There has been a remarkable cross-party consensus on the Back Benches. I have seen nothing quite like it since I have been in the House, which is not all that long. Nevertheless, lawyers on both sides of the House have advanced sensible arguments about why such rushed legislation is not a good idea. From my short experience in the House, I know that rushed legislation is not good legislation; yet, until 5.50 pm yesterday, it was impossible to obtain a draft copy of the Bill, and I understand that at 2.30 pm today, when the House met, it was still not possible to obtain the final version—certainly it was not possible this morning, when I tried.

What is the urgency? Are we to believe that on Friday, after a rushed Royal Assent, terrorists will start to be charged and locked up by the courts? I doubt it. I would say that the urgency has already been expressed by the Prime Minister, when he said that we must march in step with the Dail. It seems to me that this has much more to do with President Clinton's arrival tomorrow: we must all look as though we are expressing the same opinions, because President Clinton is coming tomorrow.

Most Members of Parliament would support the general thrust of the legislation. I certainly do—although I question why we got rid of internment in April this year, if we now want to introduce such so-called draconian measures. I think it important, however, for the House always to consider legislation sensibly and with time to spare, so that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out—it can discuss amendments.

This is rushed legislation, and I suspect that it will be bad legislation. I certainly do not believe that the House, the country or the fight against terrorism will benefit from our having passed it in such a rush.

This is not the first time that I have marched shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose original address to the House was extremely eloquent. I shall not risk your ire, Madam Speaker, by repeating what he said; I shall simply say "Ditto", which was said in the 18th century after an eloquent speech by Mr. Burke.

Like my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I waited in the long queue for copies of the Bill yesterday, when we had the impression that it was being changed by the hour. I think that, if the House was to be recalled, the Government might have paid it the compliment of having the legislation ready beforehand.

I want to dwell simply on clauses 5 to 7. In a long passage in his study of the Congress of Vienna, Henry Kissinger remarked on how difficult it was for the 18th century to come to terms with a revolutionary spirit like Napoleon. This age is faced with exactly the same problem in confronting terrorism. The Prime Minister said that clauses 5 to 7 had been lying around until a convenient moment arrived for them to be introduced. In terms of the time that we have to debate clauses 1 to 4, this strikes me as a singularly inconvenient moment. I must ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you would accept a manuscript amendment allowing us to delete those clauses, in order to solve our problems.

In this short debate, reference has been made to a guillotine motion. Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the only curtailment of today's debate will apply to debate on the business motion and the Committee stage, and that the Second Reading debate can continue until any hour, until all Members have had an opportunity to speak on this important Bill?

It is clear that many members of all political parties in the House are sympathetic to the direction taken by the Bill, but the unease that is emerging throughout the House about the pace at which we are moving should give the Government pause for thought.

This afternoon, I received 14 draft amendments proposed by the Law Society of Scotland. Those important amendments, whose value I have not had time to consider this afternoon, relate to issues such as the opportunity for individuals to consult solicitors, and the importance of a standard of proof in relation to forfeiture orders. I think that the House would benefit from an opportunity to consider those important matters, and I hope that the Home Secretary will have something to say about how that will be done.

I hope that the Prime Minister—who, understandably, has been unable to stay for the whole debate on the motion—will pay attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). The House would be assisted—and, I am sure, the official Opposition would not object—if the Government, through the usual channels, came forward with a proposal to find a way forward.

The essential point is that the Government thought it right yesterday to use a number of hours to make adaptations and, no doubt, improvements to the Bill. The House would want to have the same opportunity. The Government's White Paper on local government refers to decisions made "outside the ordinary structure". In this case, decisions are being made outside the ordinary structure. For the purposes of law, the places where decisions are made are this Chamber and the Committees of the House.

The points that have been made thus far by parliamentary colleagues show the importance of debate because, as the discussion moves on, so colleagues see the importance of consideration. Many colleagues are coining to the opinion that perhaps clauses 5 and beyond should be excised from the Bill as their provisions lack the urgency that, arguably, should relate to those provisions that refer specifically to Northern Ireland.

In his very eloquent opening, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—a considerable parliamentarian in so many respects—perhaps voiced the concerns of many of us that, in a Bagehot sense, the House is moving from the efficient to the dignified part of the constitution. We are all part of a theatre. We are all meant to play our symbolic roles. I accept the symbolism of the Dail and our Parliament marching together in respect of terrorism. I am less happy to accept the symbolism behind the belief that we have to rush our proceedings through because of the visit of the President of the United States to Ireland.

We are here because of what is deemed to be an urgency. I believe that, following Omagh, there is certainly an urgency in respect of Northern Ireland—that, in my judgment, would be the consensus of the House—and that there are relatively short, clear and targeted amendments in respect of Northern Ireland. I am not so convinced in respect of those matters that, frankly, concern me the most in respect of terrorism.

I was one of those who helped to end the previous Government's attempt to have provisions relating to conspiracy put on the statute book. In that case, they did so through the back door by a private Member's device. They also did not, until the later stages, have the fallback position of the Attorney-General's fiat. Together with those on the then Opposition Front Bench, I agreed that that should be done.

Until very recently, we were told by the Government that the matters referred to in clause 5 and beyond would be the subject of a consultation paper to be brought forward some time in the autumn—essentially because of the constitutional importance of the matters to be discussed in terms of individual citizens' liberties and so on. What has happened in respect of terrorism offences that makes the need to override that consultation paper envisaged by the Government so urgent now? In my judgment, the case has not been made in respect of the latter part of the Bill; it almost certainly has been in respect of the first. I hope that the Government will consider carefully the differences between the two elements.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Government were to show that they were willing to substitute this business motion with one that allowed time to be allocated for a contemplation of the Bill without clause 5 and beyond, would that be a business motion that you could accept—either by amendment or substitution—so that we could proceed according to the spirit of the House?

That is too hypothetical for me to contemplate at this stage. There will be a response from the Government in due course on these matters.

An interesting debate is emerging on this business motion, which has been signed by representatives on both Front Benches and by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. Therefore, any self-respecting Back Bencher finds himself in a state of confusion about the way in which proceedings are taking place.

There is a separate strand in the debate. The powerful points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) were about any legislation that would be contemplated on a recall of the House such as today's, because of the due processes, as he rightly said. Latterly, certain points have been raised about some clauses in the Bill. I should like to ask the Home Secretary—if he would take a moment just to listen to me—to help some of us in the House. Why is the urgency of the clauses about international terrorism as great as those about Irish terrorism?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying into a Second Reading debate. This is a business of the House motion. The responsibility for this lies with the President of the Council, who will respond in due course.

I entirely understand that view, but I must have misexpressed myself. My problem is that, to make a decision on the business of the House motion, I need to get some guidance from the Government on whether there was equal urgency in introducing clauses relating to international terrorism. I do not wish to debate those clauses.

There have been some disturbing events in the world during August relating to such international terrorism. It is also clear that, to achieve peace and stability in Northern Ireland, it is vital to keep the American Government on side. We have not been told, even by the Prime Minister this afternoon, whether there have been discussions between him and the American President about both aspects of the Bill, and whether the American President will make announcements when he arrives here that affect the consequences of terrorism. I ask the Home Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box to help on those important matters; otherwise, it will appear to hon. Members, and certainly to me, that we are legislating on two separate matters—one a matter of urgency and one a matter of convenience.

The Bill is divided into two parts. It would be easy if the President of the Council were to say that the Government were not going to move clauses 5 to 7. That would then end part of the controversy that surrounds the Bill.

Another part of the Bill is important. As I understand the Bill, the part concerning conspiracy will not be part of the consultative paper to be published in the autumn. It will have gone and will not be part of that general discussion. If that is true, we will not be able to return to it; we have been told that one of the major concessions under the Bill is that we will be able to look at it every year.

I urge my hon. Friends to think very carefully on this matter. It would be very easy not to move—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says from a sedentary position that it would still come under Lord Young's committee. Even if that is true, it still does not defeat my earlier argument. It is far easier for the Government to say that they will not move clauses 5 to 7. It gets over that particular difficulty.

In terms of what has been said, can my right hon. Friend the President of the Council say, following discussions with the American Government, to what extent that Government support the limitation of the fifth amendment of the United States constitution and whether the American President is considering introducing similar legislation in the United States to achieve that purpose?

This Government are used to using their very large majority to bully through inadequate legislation. They are in danger of doing the same thing again. It is interesting to see the way in which the tone of the House has changed over the past two hours. It is clear to me at least that the House is angered that two different types of terrorism are getting mixed up in one Bill.

Will the Government consider removing all those parts of the legislation to do with international terrorism, so that they can be given clear and thoughtful consideration at some later date? It seems to me that that part of the Bill owes more to President Clinton' s visit than to considerations of good-quality legislation.

I should like to deal as briefly as possible with the important issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked why I did not speak when the motion was moved. I assure him that I meant no discourtesy to the House. I simply did not wish to take the time of the House in debating a matter that would reduce the time available for consideration of the substance of the issues that we are here to discuss. The House would be—

rose—

I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me a moment. The proceedings that we are discussing are not unprecedented, although I agree that they are unusual. The House does not normally meet in this way or curtail business as we are doing.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I shall readily give way to him.

I wanted to refer to a specific point that the right hon. Lady made.

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He has asked me why I did not speak at the outset of the debate. I did not do so because I had hoped that the House would wish to proceed speedily—as I believe that the country wishes us to do—to discuss the substance of the Bill. I did not want to take up the time of the House. If I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, I apologise and I shall give way to him.

The right hon. Lady should have read her motion on the Order Paper. This motion can be debated until 10 o'clock. Putting forward the arguments for the guillotine would not take away the House's opportunity to debate the Bill. The right hon. Lady's argument is nonsense.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I gave not an argument, but a reason. He asked me to give a reason, and I have done so. If he finds it unsatisfactory, I am sorry. Of course the motion can be debated, but he will know that we do not debate all the motions that we are able to debate. It seemed right to preserve as much time as possible for the House to debate the substance of the Bill.

Previous Governments have felt that emergency issues had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. There have been precedents for matters being dealt with in this way. I say that with great respect to the many hon. Members who have made important points in the debate. In April 1996, an emergency was thought to have arisen. The then Government made a statement one day and the House discussed the legislation the next day. With great respect to the right hon. Members for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I should like to say that they voted for the guillotine motion of their Government to deal with that Bill in one day. The previous Government allowed less time to discuss that measure than we are allowing today. I have great respect for the right and proper feeling of hon. Members that we should consider and take proper decisions, but our course of action is not unprecedented or unknown. No doubt that is one reason why those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches supported this way of proceeding.

A situation in which not all the signatories to a motion still fully support it might be considered unusual. Having listened to the debate for the past hour, is the right hon. Lady confident that all the signatories to the motion still fully support all its details? If not, should the Government not make some response?

I have heard nothing that leads me to conclude that those who signed the motion do not continue to support it.

I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it is one of the absurdities of this place that it is thought to be an unforgivable sin not to listen to the arguments of one's colleagues and one's opponents. I know the difficulties that the Government had yesterday. I know that it was difficult to communicate. It was very difficult, when the Bill was not even published, to specify the format of the motion. However, I ask her to listen, as I have done, to the views expressed in the House, particularly on clauses 5 to 7. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) expressed real concerns, about measures that did not naturally fall within the Bill being tacked on. I am sincerely sorry if I have in any way led the right hon. Lady to expect my full support for the whole motion. Having listened to the views of other hon. Members—as I hope that the Government will—I shall withdraw my name from the motion.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. It was not so clear previously. If he and his party have changed their minds, that is a matter for them. As I am sure he is aware, members of his party, including some of those who have spoken in the debate, were kept informed. As far as I am aware, they were informed at least a week ago that we intended to include the provisions in the Bill. It would not be fair to imply that that came as a source of astonishment to the Liberal Democrats when they arrived at the House today. They are free to change their minds and I am sure that the House notes that they have done so.

Sadly—it is always sad when such matters have to be dealt with in this way—it is not unprecedented for the House to act as the Government propose. We have sought—

Much emphasis has been put on clauses 5 to 7. Points that are new to me have been made. Will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that President Clinton was not told that, by the time that he arrived in Ireland, the provision would be embodied in statute? If that is the reason, let us know it and determine whether it is valid.

I do not speak for the American Government, but I assure my right hon. Friend that the issue that he raised has formed no part of the Government's consideration and the matter has not been discussed in that way.

I said at the outset that I did not speak at the start of the debate because I did not wish to take up the time of the House—and nor do I wish to do so now. The debate has veered between those who have complained that there has been insufficient time to consider the matters that will be before us in the Bill and those who have complained that they had heard all about the issue in the press before the House had met. Those points of view are valid, but they are not consistent with each other. I have been surprised to hear both expressed by the same person at times. The Bill follows what the Prime Minister said at Omagh. The way in which the Government intended to proceed was extensively discussed and trailed. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and others are rightly concerned about how the provisions will operate should the House decide to pass the Bill. We have made it plain that the matter will be kept under review. It will be examined and will form part of the consultation process to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred, as will all the provisions of the Bill.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to get on.

It has been said during the debate that the matters in the second part of the Bill will not form part of the review. That is not correct.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Any issue on which hon. Members have concerns can be raised—

Order. I have a point of order. I think that it is more a point of frustration.

I have already raised with the Prime Minister and with you, Madam Speaker, the question whether the long title could be amended. I have had further discussions with the Clerks, and it is clear that there are significant difficulties, unless the Leader of the House is prepared in principle to concede that that could be done—

Order. That is not a point of order for me. It is an intervention on the Leader of the House, who may now continue.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Of course.

My right hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to me. May I ask her, very seriously, whether the Government will simply accept that the Bill is a complex one which has enormous implications? Even those of us who want to see on the statute book those aspects of the Bill that are most urgently needed in Northern Ireland have real reservations about it. During the next part of the debate, will she seriously consider whether there is a way in which the guillotine can be removed?

The motion is not, strictly speaking, a guillotine motion. It is a business motion, which was carefully considered so as to try to give a fair amount of time for the debate. It does give more time than has been given for debate on such matters in the past. I believe that the House has the capacity thoroughly and properly to debate the proposals that the Government are making, should the House wish to use and exercise that capacity. I am anxious, as I know my hon. Friend will be, to proceed towards allowing the House to take that step.

Does the Leader of the House accept that some of the implications of clauses 5 to 7 are technical and that Members might be well advised to consult people outside the House before coming to a conclusion on them? Given that the logic of proceeding at speed stems from the Irish situation and a desire to walk side by side with events in Dublin, and that that same logic does not apply to clauses 5 to 7, cannot the Government amend their position on that part of the Bill?

There have been recent terrorist events in places other than Omagh and therefore that is not the sole reason why the Government feel it necessary to put before the House the prospect of acting with some speed. The right hon. Gentleman says that the matters in the latter part of the Bill raise certain issues, but those issues have themselves been extensively discussed by the House over the past couple of years in a variety of different contexts. Therefore it has been possible for people to become conscious of some of the implications of the issues that he raises. However, it is undoubtedly the case—

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

With great respect to both hon. Gentlemen, I do not think that our constituents who send us here expect us to spend our time discussing the minutiae of how we debate the Bill. I say that with great respect to the hon. Gentlemen, who are both long-serving Members of Parliament, and bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Stone has voted for a guillotine on a previous occasion.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I shall not give way. I am simply saying to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I have been a Member of Parliament for as long as many and it has never been my practice to debate sittings motions and take up time, unless it was absolutely necessary. Hon. Members have raised important issues relating to whether matters should be handled in this way, but that question has been dealt with and I do not propose to deal with it at greater length.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I say to him and to the House that I do not intend to give way again.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), made an important point relating to clauses 5, 6 and 7 and their extra-territorial implications. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a need for serious discussion and consultation with a large number of people before the House takes such a major legislative step, which, in effect, will give power in British law to other countries when we do not have any such control over other countries' laws?

I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the Bill and seen that the Government have taken steps to write safeguards into it. He will also be aware that the matter has been extensively discussed over a very long period before being put forward in legislation. I say both to my hon. Friend and to the leader of Plaid Cymru that one of the reasons for the precise nature of the Government's motion was to ensure that the House had the opportunity specifically to consider those clauses of the Bill and not to allow that time to be swallowed up by the debate on the earlier part of the Bill. The Government have tried to recognise the sensitivities that hon. Members have expressed and to deal with them.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who feels passionately and strongly about the liberties secured in the House, spoke about the liberties secured for him here. The principal reason why the Government are introducing the Bill is that securing our liberties and securing peace within the United Kingdom are of great importance to us all. That is why those on the Opposition Front Bench supported the manner in which the Government are proceeding. The matters before us are ones that, from time to time, have to be considered with a little more dispatch than is our wont. The hon. Gentleman also said that he hoped that we would march step in step with the Irish Parliament and Government; we are seeking to do so today.

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

I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Copies of the amendment have been available in the Vote Office for some time and are still there for hon. Members who have not yet seen the amendment.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his statement that we face a new situation in Northern Ireland. The peace process is moving forward with the overwhelming support of both communities in the north and of the people of the Republic, but small splinter groups have shown themselves ready to resort to appalling and indiscriminate destruction, as they did in Omagh, in a desperate effort to throw that process off course. We cannot and we must not let such groups succeed.

The devastating bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and, more recently, of the restaurant in Cape Town are further reminders, if any were needed, of the wider threat. We have to send the clearest message to international terrorist groups that we in the United Kingdom will not allow this country to be used as a base for plotting and supporting terrorist operations abroad. Britain already has wide-ranging powers to combat terrorism, but it is essential that they are kept under constant review and that we remain ready to move quickly to remedy practical deficiencies that come to light.

In opposition, we actively supported the previous Government in their rapid steps in April 1996 to extend police powers to stop and search in response to the Provisional IRA's resumed bombing campaign. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spelled out a few moments ago, at that time the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), made a statement of his intention on 1 April and presented a draft Bill. With our co-operation, a guillotine motion was introduced and the debate, which finished at 1.21 am, dealt with all stages of that Bill.

Although I entirely accept that in a perfect world it is unsatisfactory to have to deal with legislation quickly and that we should never go down that road unless we have to, it is a matter of record that a Labour Government did exactly that, when in November 1974, they presented the original prevention of terrorism legislation. The Conservatives supported them at that time and, with Labour support, the previous Government introduced a more modest measure in April 1996.

I understand the Home Secretary's argument about terrorism. Does he recognise that the conspiracy part of the Bill is not confined to terrorism? For example, it could apply to an environmental pressure group that was organising a peaceful protest in Germany against the dispatch of some toxic material to Britain. Therefore, the urgency that he seeks to apply, even if it were applied to terrorism outside Northern Ireland, cannot be applied to the non-terrorist implications of the Bill.

I shall come to that. The right hon. Gentleman has had much more notice of this matter than usual because of co-operation, which may turn out to be one way. The Liberal Democrats can tear up with gay abandon the agreements to which they sign up. We live and learn. The right hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. It is impossible to conceive of a circumstance in which what he describes as a plan to disrupt a peaceful protest in Germany would be an offence here. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the 1996 legislation and is well enough versed in these matters to know that the Bill contains the fundamental principle of dual criminality. We never lay a charge of conspiracy to commit an offence abroad if that offence is also an offence here.

If it were an offence here to do what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) describes, people could be charged with it because we have signed Council of Europe conventions that allow prosecutions for a wide range of offences where there is evidence of conspiracy here to commit those offences in other countries. That applies not just to EU countries, but to other Council of Europe countries, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows include some in eastern Europe. I shall explain in more detail when I come to the relevant part of the Bill why the change is important. We have lost 28 lives in the north of Ireland—but I do not seek to make this a competition, because any person's death from terrorism diminishes us. However, 10 times more lives were lost in outrages in Dar es Salaam and Kenya, and we would have been blind and deaf if we had not recognised the need to act in respect of those as well as in respect of terrorism in the north of Ireland.

Does the Home Secretary accept that clauses 5 and 7 are substantially lifted from my private Member's Bill of some 18 months ago which his party failed to support in the Division Lobby? What is the difference between the situation 18 months ago and that of today? Sadly, many people were killed in terrorist outrages more than 18 months ago and many have been killed in such outrages since.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you advise the Home Secretary to take such interventions when he comes to clause 5? If that does not happen, the House will be distracted and delayed in dealing with the Bill.

That is a sensible suggestion, but it is hardly a point of order. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary and the House have noted it.

Up to a point, I accept my hon. Friend's intervention, but he will know from his years in the House that I seek to accept interventions because that is vital to the process of debate, especially when the House is asked at short notice to deal with such a Bill.

We ensured that the Bill that was presented by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) received an unopposed Second Reading. Although we moved amendments in Committee, as I recall we did not vote against the Bill at any stage. We had reservations about its width in the context of incitement, which is not included in clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill that we are debating. As a safeguard to deal with the legitimate anxieties about how such a power might be misused, any prosecution will be subject to the explicit and prior approval of the Attorney-General. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 take account of that.

The private Member's Bill that was presented by the hon. Member for Eastbourne did not succeed because "I spy strangers" was called and the Conservative Whips were so incompetent that they could not get 40 Conservative Members to secure a quorum. I had not intended to mention that embarrassment in terms of the previous Administration's mismanagement. I hope that there is all-party support for the present measure. If the hon. Gentleman's Bill had been important, the previous Government would have made it a Government measure.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his preparedness to take interventions. I refer him to the principle of clauses 5, 6 and 7. Does he accept that there is a serious danger of incorporating in British law what pertains in countries over which we have no influence or control whatever? People in such countries might decide that some of their political opponents in exile are dangerous and should be committed to prison. The title of clause 5 does not specify the offences. It merely states:

"Conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that part of the Bill is extremely dangerous and has far-reaching implications for the principles of political asylum anywhere for people who legitimately oppose brutal and barbarous regimes in other parts of the world?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. Others have expressed it, and I hope that not only on Second Reading but in Committee my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be able to allay those fears. They can be allayed by reference not only to what is in the Bill but by the important fact that the Attorney-General will have the duty personally to examine every potential prosecution and, if required, he will be able to take the public interest into account. That includes some of the considerations that my hon. Friend raises.

We need not look in the crystal ball; we can look at the book. As I explained, any offences committed in countries that are members of the Council of Europe can be the subject here of a charge of conspiracy to commit those offences abroad. In addition, the offences of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit sexual offences anywhere in the world can already be put on an indictment.

So what is the urgency?

The urgency is to ensure that, in appropriate circumstances, we can also charge people with terrorist and other serious offences. There is one other explanation. At the moment, we can charge in respect of terrorist offences not only in countries that are members of the Council of Europe but in the United States and India. Therefore, if the outrages committed by middle east terrorists had taken place not against the American embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi but against the American embassy in Delhi, and there was evidence here of a conspiracy to commit that outrage, we could have brought that charge. In all the 19 years that I have been in the House I have never once heard a representation against that power being used.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would exercise the greatest care in judging whether an indictment should lie, and judge and jury would also deal carefully with the matter. We are dealing here with important anomalies which mean that our weaponry against those who conspire to commit terrorist offences abroad is defective. I have long believed that we should remedy those defects and, in the light of the nearly 300 people who lost their lives in those outrages in east Africa, now is the time to take action.

We shall return to the question of asylum, but the law and the practice here are categorical. Even where, from time to time, people in Britain are convicted of terrorist offences that relate to international, not Irish, terrorism, it is common practice where the offence is serious for a deportation order to be issued against such individuals if they are not British citizens. But those people are not automatically deported. Despite their previous convictions, they have rights under the United Nations convention on refugees and rights under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which we are strengthening by its incorporation. They cannot be sent back to the country from which they came if they will then be subject again to degrading punishment.

No prosecution can be taken forward under clause 5 without the agreement of the Attorney-General. My right hon. Friend mentioned the public interest consideration that the Attorney-General of the day would apply. Would I be right in surmising that the Attorney-General may consider it important not to alienate a major trading partner and that, because of that, no action should be taken, despite there being, on the face of it, good reason for that?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General furrows his brow with some measure of disbelief at the supposition behind the question. Such a consideration would be entirely outwith the quasi-judicial way in which, in my time in the House, the present Attorney-General and—I say with great respect—his predecessors have operated.

rose—

I shall give way to three hon. Friends; then I must proceed with the debate. Of course, I shall also give way later.

To be specific, Osama bin Laden was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. If anyone had supported him then, would he have been caught by what the Bill proposes? Many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, supported Mandela when he was imprisoned for terrorism to which he confessed at the Rivonia trial. If people are now engaged in trying to topple Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, or North Korea, would they be caught by the Bill? Would the Bill apply to Sandline and to other mercenaries who provide the mechanism for this? Would it apply to the security services? My right hon. Friend must be absolutely specific. If we pass this legislation, prosecutions will arbitrarily be left to the Attorney-General. Attorneys-General can be flexible in their interpretation of the law if it is inconvenient to the Government in which they serve. That is why they remain Attorneys-General. We must not pretend that this is simply a matter of the law, the law, the law. It is a matter of governmental discretion. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend would answer those questions.

I shall do my best but, if I fail in my right hon. Friend's eyes, as I suppose I might, I hope that he will return to the matter in Committee.

The Attorney-General's decision is simply to proceed to prosecute. He is not judge and jury. Aside from the wider issues of the public interest, the Attorney-General must, above all, take into account whether he believes that there is a case to go before the courts and then before a jury. If the case is weak, it is highly likely that the judge will throw it out before it gets to the jury or, if he allows the case to go to the jury, that the jury will throw it out. I have great confidence in the ability of British jurors to determine guilt or innocence in serious cases of this kind. I am clear in my belief that they would do so.

We are dealing here not with a clean sheet but with a highly anomalous situation where already conspiracy to commit murder anywhere in the world is an offence here, as is conspiracy to commit various sexual offences and, as it happens, some computer crimes. A conspiracy to commit terrorist offences in the United States and India is already an offence here and a conspiracy to commit any offence of any kind in any country that is a member of the Council of Europe is already an offence.

My right hon. Friend refers to the Attorney-General being a safeguard, but he is not immortal and we must worry about any future incumbent's attitudes. It is appalling to think that a person's liberty could depend on the fairness, justice and probity of one individual. Surely the Bill needs to give people the clear safeguard that, if they do something against despotic regimes abroad that is not illegal here and which we as democrats would support, they need not fear prosecution here.

Although Attorneys-General are not immortal, as it happens—this is an ad hominem point—my right hon. and learned Friend is almost immortal. Next year, he celebrates 40 years in this place. I was in his constituency yesterday in part to celebrate that great and looming day which will take place in October.

My hon. Friend's other point was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I do not believe for a second that, under the Bill as drafted, any idea of a charge against people who supported the African National Congress, as I did, throughout the period of apartheid, would have remotely got on its feet. We are not talking about that; we are talking about conspiracy to commit serious crime. Much of what the ANC was doing here was a crime in the vile Republic of South Africa, as it then was, but it was not a crime here. No charge can be made unless it is a crime not only in the country concerned but here. That is the essence of the dual criminality rule.

rose—

I shall take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and then from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed).

Like most people in the country, I suppose, I do not believe that Britain should be some kind of haven for those committing terrorist offences abroad. It is inconceivable that we should give asylum to those who do that. However, why do we not insert the word "terrorist" in the appropriate place in the phrase "conspiracy to commit offences"? I understand that other serious offences that my right hon. Friend mentioned, such as sexual offences, would be covered by other laws, but in order to tighten the legislation and to safeguard civil liberties, will he consider adding the word "terrorist" at the appropriate place?

We shall return to the point in Committee. The Bill tabled as a private Member's Bill under the previous Administration covered all potential offences. We supported it at that time and did not argue about the fact that it covered a wide range of offences. I know that the anxieties of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members relate principally to terrorist offences. I do not believe, therefore, that, if we excluded other offences, those anxieties would be allayed.