I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the mental health and special learning needs of convicted prisoners; and for connected purposes.

The Bill is specific in trying to address the problems that affect a significant proportion of our prison population. I introduce it because I believe that the way in which our penal system cares for those with mental health needs at the start of the 21st century is a stain on our society.

Daniel Meehan, a young constituent of mine, had always been a troubled young man. He had a history of mental illness and drifted in and out of prison throughout his adult life. Daniel had been diagnosed as suffering from a series of mental illnesses, including the antisocial personality disorder, Tourette's syndrome, from the age of 17. He had spent around half his life in prison but he never received the help and treatment that he needed to tackle his problems.

Instead of rehabilitation, Daniel was left exposed and fell foul of the problems that, all too often, vulnerable people face in prison. He developed a heroin addiction while in jail and started to abuse alcohol. In September last year, on his discharge from prison, he was left homeless, without his medication or even any clothes. He was bailed by the courts to his father's address. When his father was not at home, he looked for somewhere else to stay and, as a result, he was rearrested for breaking his bail conditions and taken back into custody. His mother and sister desperately tried to arrange specialist care for Daniel and eventually arranged for a social worker to visit him in Lewes prison. However, on the same day the social worker was due to visit, he was moved to Her Majesty's prison Weare, a floating prison off Dorset.

Neither the social worker nor Daniel's family had been made aware of the transfer, yet the prison system somehow expected a prisoner with a long history of mental illness to rearrange the appointment himself. Daniel's complex needs were never properly assessed. Alone and without the support he needed, Daniel died at his father's house in January this year, aged 29. The coroner returned an open verdict on the death, but to most of us who had seen his case develop, we have no doubt that suicide would have been the more appropriate verdict.

Daniel's family freely admit that he was a difficult man, but time and again, over almost 10 years, the prison system consistently failed to address his problems. As Daniel's sister, Mrs. Meehan-Bissett, said:

"Prison was not the answer for someone like Daniel, he needed rehabilitation. He died due to neglect. The prison authorities cannot be bothered with someone like Daniel . . . There needs to be somewhere for people like Daniel to go. If you need to lock them up, lock them up, but not without anything to do all day."

The Government response to the Home Affairs Committee report on the rehabilitation of offenders, which was published in January 2005, stated that there were firm commitments that, by 2004:

"All prisoners with severe mental illness would be in receipt of treatment and that no prisoner with a serious mental illness would leave prison without a care plan".

In Daniel's case, it is all too clear that those rules were not followed. Many hon. Members are aware of similar cases from our constituencies, so it is important to understand the extent of the problem.

Last year in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), whom I am pleased to see on the Front Bench, the then Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said:

"A survey of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics, showed that around 90 per cent. of prisoners sampled displayed evidence of at least one of the five disorders—personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, alcohol misuse and drug dependence—considered in the survey. There will, at any one time, be around 5,000 prisoners with a severe mental illness".—[Official Report, 2 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 247W.]

Similar findings were published in a report by the Prison Reform Trust, supported by the Nuffield Foundation, into the mental health of women prisoners. It found that two thirds of women in prison show symptoms of at least one neurotic disorder such as depression, anxiety and phobias. More than half suffer from a personality disorder. Yet, among the general population, less than one fifth of women suffer from those disorders.

The report found that half the women in prison are on prescribed medication such as anti-depressants or anti-psychotic medicine and there is evidence that the use of medication increases while in custody. Of all women who are sent to prison, a terrifying 40 per cent. say that they have attempted suicide at some time in their life.

Research by Oxford university into suicide rates for younger offenders is even more shocking. The analysis of suicide rates in England and Wales from 1978 to 2003 found that the difference was particularly striking in 15 to 17-year-olds. Offenders in that age group were 18 times more likely to kill themselves than those in the general prison population. Depressingly, the report concluded that

"half those who commit suicide in prison have a treatable mental illness."

If those illnesses were indeed treatable, it means that those suicides could have been prevented.

The problem goes far beyond mental health; there are also too many prisoners who have serious learning difficulties. According to Home Office statistics, the prevalence of poor educational attainment among prisoners is shocking. Fifty-five per cent. of prisoners had a reading ability of level 1 or below—the educational level for an 11-year-old. That proportion rises to 67 per cent. in young offenders—in other words, two thirds of young offenders have the reading ability of an 11-year-old or younger child. In spelling, 79 per cent of prisoners were at level 1 or below, with that figure rising to 87 per cent. in young offenders. In numeracy, those rated at level 1 or below represented 69 per cent. of the general prison population, and 78 per cent. of young offenders, so the frightening truth is that about three quarters of young offenders are illiterate and innumerate. Despite this, however, the average time for education in prison was under six hours a week per prisoner in 2002, and only slightly higher in young offender institutions. As a result, most of them are almost as illiterate and innumerate when they leave prison as when they start their sentence.

This Bill is not about making excuses for those who break the law. One essential pillar of prison is that it should act as a deterrent to those thinking of committing crime and punish those who have broken the law. But prison works only if it also rehabilitates. As one governor said to me:

"We are very good at incarceration, but not at rehabilitation."

A prisoner without rehabilitation is a prisoner who will offend again. So, the mental health and learning needs of prisoners must be addressed if we are truly to have a prison system that meets those two core goals.

The Bill that I am proposing is a simple one. Where it has been established that a criminal has mental health needs, there would be a legal requirement for those needs to be professionally and thoroughly assessed at the start of their sentence. For all prisoners, an assessment would be required of their educational needs. Those with mental health requirements would be detained only in an establishment with specialised facilities, and with staff trained to deal with them. A pathway programme of support would have to be developed to ensure that their mental needs were met. Those needing educational attention would receive a more focused programme of tuition, instead of the haphazard tuition that they currently receive, and it should focus on skills training as well, to give them some hope of employment when they leave. As prisoners with mental health problems are now treated by the NHS, the primary care trust budgets covering this treatment should be ring-fenced to ensure that the funds to finance prisoner care cannot leak away into other areas of health care.

The objective of the Bill is not to create prison asylums surrounded by barbed wire—far from it. The Bill seeks to ensure that prisoners with mental health needs are kept in an establishment in which those needs are addressed first and foremost, and which works to support their rehabilitation. In no way does it undermine the principle that many people need to be kept away from society, for the good of society and for their own good, but it does mean that they will be given the care and medical support that they need.

I have visited a number of young offender institutions. They are the most depressing places I have ever been to, and I certainly do not know how we can rehabilitate someone if we lock them up in a 9 ft by 5 ft cell for 18 hours a day or more. When those prisoners have mental health problems or special learning needs, this becomes a hopeless task unless rehabilitation is at the forefront of the approach. Through specialised and focused rehabilitative methods, the prison system can make major inroads into reducing reoffending, but rehabilitation must be more responsive to the often complex problems of prisoners, which have all too often contributed to their being in prison in the first place, and will have them returning there time and again if they go unresolved.

The case of Daniel Meehan is a tragic one. A young man with profound mental health needs died because he did not receive the help that he needed. At the start of the 21st century, that is something that should shame us all. We have the power to do something about this. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Charles Hendry, Peter Bottomley, James Brokenshire, Annette Brooke, Chris Bryant, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Julie Morgan, Mr. Andrew Lansley and Tim Loughton.

Prison Reform (Mental Health)

Charles Hendry accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the mental health and special learning needs of convicted prisoners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 July, and to be printed [Bill 82].

I beg to move,

That the Order of 26th October 2005 (Terrorism Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

For paragraph 3 (proceedings on consideration) substitute—

'3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the second column.

I know that Opposition Members object frequently to every programme motion, but I suggest that even they would find it hard to fault this one. The effect of this programme motion is to increase the amount of time that the House will have to consider this Bill on Report.

The House will recall that the programme motion passed after Second Reading allocated us six hours in total for Report. However, any votes in the middle of that would have eaten into that six hours. Without wishing to reveal any secrets or pre-empt later debate, the considered and careful judgment that I have reached is that it is unlikely that the House will reach complete agreement today without any Division.

Accordingly, the motion provides that we begin on amendments to clause 23 and the new clauses that have been tabled. We have three hours for that part of our proceedings. Once that concludes, any votes that are necessary will take place, and they will not cut into the House's remaining time. Once all the votes have taken place, we will then have a further three hours on the remaining groups of amendments, followed by whatever Divisions are required. I hope that the whole House will recognise the benefits of that.

I will not seek to divide the House on the programme motion, but I should point out to the Home Secretary that although we welcome the concession that has been made, the practical reality is that we still have far too short a time to consider the amendments tabled for this afternoon. Even at this late stage, I hope that he might consider taking advice on whether further time can be made available. Let me explain why.

We will start with a debate on the period of detention, which is a subject of considerable controversy. Given the way in which the procedures of the House operate, and the fact that the Government have tabled amendment No. 55, which changes the period from three months to 90 days, anyone wishing to have the 28-day amendment considered must first vote on Government amendment No. 55. We will therefore have to have two votes, whereas one on the 28 days alone might have been necessary otherwise. I am not clear as to why that has come about, except to provide a delay mechanism in the time that the House has for consideration. As a consequence, the reality must be that new clause 8 on stop and search, which was tabled by a Government Back Bencher, and which, I believe, merits the consideration of the House, is most unlikely to receive any consideration whatever. In the context of trying to build consensus, that must be highly regrettable. There is no reason why that should have to happen.

When we move on beyond the three-hour break, when we will probably have had a couple of votes, and the stop and search matters will not have been considered, we will have five groups of amendments to consider, all of which are of importance, and three hours in which to do it. We might well have time to deal with the offences under clauses 1 and 2, which remain controversial because the Government concessions do not appear to change radically the way in which indirect incitement to terrorism can still be committed negligently. If we have a full debate on that subject, however, which greatly exercised the Committee last week, there must be a danger that we will never get to the glorification clauses, which, as we know from last week, were the subject of enormous controversy. If the Home Secretary wishes to avoid the suspicion that the Government are trying procedurally to close down the debate on those clauses, it would be wise to give us more time. Without filibuster in any sense, we will have difficulty in reaching those clauses.

I worry, and I shall judge the matter by what happens this afternoon, that we might see a procession of Government Back Benchers put up to prolong the debate on offences under clauses 1 and 2, so that debate is prevented on the question whether a glorification element in incitement to terrorism should remain in the Bill. That would be a scandalous state of affairs. I look to the Home Secretary to provide guidance, as the debate takes place, to ensure as far as is possible that that does not happen.

My hon. Friend will agree that it is important that our proceedings today should be intelligible to the country at large. Given that we have no fewer than 60 amendments and new clauses to consider, and only six hours in which to do so, the arithmetic is obvious. Does my hon. Friend agree that having fewer than 10 minutes for the consideration of each amendment is a travesty of parliamentary scrutiny, and that if the public knew what was taking place, they would be appalled by it?

I entirely agree. Even if Members act with reasonable expedition, the second part of the motion in particular is flawed in terms of allowing scrutiny.

Even after the glorification amendments, there are important amendments dealing with the endorsements of publications and the defences that may exist, issues that were of great concern to the House last week. There is also the question whether there should be any defences in relation to training for terrorism: there are currently none. Last but not least, although last week the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—in a very powerful speech—expressed concern about our failure to define terrorism correctly, that is the last item that we shall have time to consider today, and the reality must be that we shall never reach it at all.

I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that if the House cannot debate these matters adequately, that will encourage even closer scrutiny—if such is possible—in the other place, and the inevitable amendments? Such scrutiny, however, should be carried out by the elected House and not the unelected House.

I do agree. As I said to the Home Secretary last week, the controversial nature of the Bill makes it immensely desirable that, if at all possible, this House should reach an agreed position so that we can all vote for the Bill on Third Reading tomorrow. But to do that we must debate, and if the debate is curtailed so that important parts of the Bill are never considered at all, that will place those who wish to consider them in great difficulty. As the Home Secretary knows, because the Bill is so controversial, there must be a risk that the other place will take over the responsibility that we have shirked—and that we shall find ourselves involved, as we have too often in the past, in late-night spats as we try to sort out the differences between this House and the other place. Let me say sincerely to the Home Secretary that I think that that can be avoided, or largely avoided, if there is sufficient time, but I do not think there is at present.

The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said that it would not be our fault if there was ping-pong—that it would be the fault of the other place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, however, if we had not debated the Bill adequately that would be our fault. It was clear in Committee that the provisions relating to offences committed abroad were an extremely controversial part of the drafting, and would merit discussion and refinement on Report. The other place will have to consider the provisions if we fail to do so.

I agree—all the more so because it seemed to me during last week's debates that we were moving towards the possibility of agreement. Members of the other place do bother to read Hansard, and if they see that important matters raised in Committee—[Interruption.]

Order. I know that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) gets very excited sometimes, but a little calmness might help the situation.

If Members of the other place see that important issues raised in Committee and postponed until Report because the Government said that they would respond positively have not been debated at all, not only will that send a pretty dreadful signal to the public and the electorate of our country about the way in which we conduct our business, but it will make it inevitable that Members of the other place will try to second-guess and look again at what has happened here.

We will not divide the House, because I want to get on, but even now I urge the Home Secretary to consider whether we cannot have more time. I also seek an assurance from him that we will do our level best to get through all the groups of amendments.

I took exception to very little that was said by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Like him, we consider the timetable motion defective, but like him I see no reason for us to divide the House on it. I accept the Home Secretary's point that some small measure of protection for the business has been made available, and that small amount of extra time is indeed welcome. Nevertheless, without second-guessing the way in which today's business will proceed, I think it very likely that we shall not go beyond the first string of amendments before the first knife falls after three hours. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, that will leave the stop-and-search provisions proposed in new clause 8 entirely undiscussed. Surely that is too important a subject to leave this House without any proper discussion being placed on the record.

I also think that a great deal of important business will remain undiscussed under the second group of amendments. The House will have to choose between holding its tongue and restricting its comments on clause 1 and the question of intention if we are to secure any meaningful discussion on the crucial question of glorification. As a result, questions as fundamental as the definition of terrorism itself will almost certainly be left undebated. As a result of that, the only meaningful scrutiny will be carried out in the other place. If the Government are content to proceed in that way, they cannot then complain that the unelected House has interfered with or changed the Bill when it makes the amendments that are inevitable.

The programme motion strikes me as an exceptionally inappropriate way for the Government to order our business. I hope that, even at this stage, they may see sense and allow further time tomorrow if necessary.

I do not wish to be churlish, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on producing a programme motion that is an improvement on the previous position. I certainly will not vote against it, and I am happy to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having listened to the complaints that we made before the general election about the time allocated to a similar Bill. He has tried to respond according to the standards of today's practice, and the House is in his debt to that extent.

It is, in fact, the standards of today's practice on which I wish, briefly, to comment. As well as trying to avoid being churlish in the House—I hope—I try to avoid overdoing the "senior Member of the House" bit, and lamenting the fact that things are not what they were. But things are dramatically different from what they were, and I cannot hold my tongue on this occasion.

I believe that if such a controversial Bill involving such changes in individual liberty had been produced 10 years ago by a Conservative Government with such a timetable, there would have been a major row. Twenty years ago, such an allocation of time for a Bill of this kind would have been regarded as laughable, and it would not have been entertained by the usual channels during the Thatcher Government. Thirty years ago, if a Conservative Government had proposed a Bill of this kind, several days of debate would have been allowed before any guillotine curtailing debate would have even been contemplated. Had anyone tried to force through a guillotine of this severity, I should have expected the sitting to be suspended as Labour Members caused disorder and began to run away with the Mace, or something of the kind, to give visual expression to their constitutional outrage.

There is a serious point behind all this. I think that the House is becoming accustomed to a shortness of debate and a lack of scrutiny of legislation that is on the verge of becoming ridiculous, given the complexity of this Bill. I see no reason whatever why the House should have to rise shortly after 7 pm today and at a similar time tomorrow. The suspension of the rule to allow us at least to sit on through the evening until such time as the Government's business managers decide to try to call a vote to end the debate would constitute a very elementary extension of debating time, which would cause merely minor inconvenience to a few Members and no real affront to the House.

I also agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that the present situation underlines the case for not tampering with the powers of the House of Lords. I strongly believe that the House of Lords should be reformed; it lacks legitimacy and we need a much stronger Upper House. If this House is to continue to deal with matters of this importance in such a cursory fashion, it becomes all the more important that the whole Bill be properly scrutinised, and that the Lords force us to look again at, and to discuss in more detail, some of the other very serious aspects of this Bill.

I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), although I recall that it was the noble Lord Heseltine who had a fondness for wielding the Mace. Apart from that—[Interruption.] Ron Brown played a secondary role in Mace-wielding. I never wielded it at all, as I remember, but never mind.

I support the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and I have a very specific reason for being concerned about this programme motion—[Interruption.] During last week's debate—at which I seem to remember the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy) was not even present—the Home Secretary was forced to concede, by letter to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), that

"I can confirm that the Lord Advocate has not been asked for, or expressed any view on the proposed extension of the maximum period of detention without charge."

That admirably candid admission on the part of the Home Secretary is somewhat at variance with the briefings from the Scottish Executive, and was extracted after debate.

Understandably, many Scottish colleagues who are interested in whether the senior Scottish law officer has been consulted on these matters wanted to pursue the same question today in respect of stop-and-search, glorification and the commission of offences abroad. If this timetable renders reaching these crucial matters impossible, the right of Scottish Members to find out whether the Lord Advocate has been consulted on them, and how this Bill interrelates with Scottish criminal law, will also be curtailed.

Of course, the Home Secretary would be straying out of order if he gave us that information in discussing other amendments to, and clauses and passages in, the Bill, but I fear that this timetable will make it simply impossible to pursue the entirely legitimate questions of whether Scotland's senior law officer has been consulted on any of the Bill's crucial parts, and whether the Home Secretary was in blissful ignorance of the Lord Advocate's advice on glorification, the commission of offences abroad and stop and search, as he candidly admitted he was in respect of 90-day detention.

In terms of the protection of the House, this programme motion deals with key matters. In terms of the protection and legitimate rights of Scottish Members, and our ability to question what bearing Scottish criminal law has on these proceedings, this motion is far too strict.

I have yet to be able to take part in debates on this Bill because of other duties in the House, and I shall be very brief.I want to endorse most strongly everything said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). During Question Time today, the Prime Minister left the House in no doubt that he believes this to be the most important issue that the House currently faces. I agree. I want to treat the votes in this debate as free votes. I want to try to vote in what I consider to be the national interest, regardless of party, and I know that many Members in all parts of the House take a similar line, whatever view they may reach on the question of 90 days, 28 days and the other issues before us—[Interruption.]

However, if the Prime Minister truly believes that this is the most important issue—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary is busy talking at the moment and it would be quite a good idea if he listened. If the Home Secretary genuinely wishes to create a consensus—he has tried to listen on certain occasions, and this programme motion is a modest advance on what we had before—it is an insult not just to this House but to the people whom we represent to deny this House the opportunity adequately to discuss crucial aspects of this Bill that will affect, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, a vast number of our constituents. We are likely to take decisions today that could have a profound effect on the structure of our society, our criminal law and many other things. We should be able to debate these issues, as we could in former days, at not inordinate but adequate length. There is absolutely no opportunity afforded in this programme motion to debate issues such as glorification and stop and search at adequate length.

Even at this very late stage, I appeal to the Home Secretary, through you, Mr. Speaker, the defender of the interests of this House, to stop sidelining Parliament and to allow this House—which has, or ought to have, primacy within Parliament—adequately and properly to scrutinise, so that the other place can then concentrate more properly on what it ought to deal with: the detail and minutiae. As it is, we are giving the House of Lords the duty and obligation to examine matters that we have addressed for not even half a minute. That is disgraceful.

Over the past eight years, we have seen a progressive sidelining of Parliament and an over-mighty Executive seeking to use their muscle. Yes, I accept that the Prime Minister believes that he is acting in the country's interest. I am one of those who have never impugned his good faith on these issues, but I say through the Home Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is not here, that he is not behaving as a Prime Minister who honours parliamentary democracy ought to behave. He should recognise that in a parliamentary democracy, a fragile thing that our forefathers fought for—[Interruption.] Indeed; our foremothers also fought for it. The Prime Minister should recognise that in such a democracy, it is crucially important that we, who between us represent all the people of this country, should have adequate opportunity to debate the crucial issues of the day. This programme motion does not give us that opportunity.

I fully accept why my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has handled this matter with great sensitivity and skill from the Front Bench, is not going to seek to divide the House. I certainly will not seek to do so from the Back Benches—even though we should divide—because we need to move on to the issues of substance. The fact that we cannot move on to all those issues is not only regrettable, but a blot on the Government's democratic integrity. I again appeal to the Home Secretary, even at this late stage, to let the House sit until at least 10 o'clock tonight, thereby giving us another three hours over and above what the Order Paper allows.

I simply do not believe that there is enough time to understand the unexplained contradictions between the philosophy behind this legislation and that behind the Northern Ireland peace process. I have persistently sought to work constructively with the Government, and particularly the Northern Ireland Office, to ensure significant progress in Northern Ireland, and to that extent I agree that the Government can take some credit for what has happened there, but I find very frustrating the virtual absence in these debates—probably owing to time pressure—of any significant explanation as to why the Home Office takes such a different approach to this legislation from the one we are expected to support for Northern Ireland.

The Government need the time to explain why, for example, internment, which was universally regarded as having failed in the Province, is now proposed as a solution to international terrorism. There is a grain of explanation in the form of a comment yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward):

"The Government are looking at a specific UK threat from a kind of terrorism different from that being discussed here."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 November 2005; c. 15.]

Well, it does not seem very different to the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If the Government want our support and sympathy in these difficult times, they need to provide themselves with enough time to explain the apparent contradictions writ large—certainly in the eyes of Northern Ireland residents—as the Government increasingly try to suggest that there are two different kinds of terrorism. Furthermore, and perhaps ironically, only today Northern Ireland offences legislation is being published—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not stray into that matter.

Even more contradictions are thrown up by other legislation, but I shall not go into them now, Mr. Speaker.

The Secretary of State should realise that his decision on the time for debate necessarily prevents a profound understanding of why the Government believe that they are being consistent and joined up in their thinking with regard to Northern Ireland terrorism and international terrorism. Of course the Government can force these things through in a short period, but I warn the Home Secretary that if he insists on doing so with inadequate explanation, not only will he create resentments in the Chamber, but the ramifications of the programme motion for today's Bill are likely to cause significant and practical obstructions that could well prevent the Government from passing other Bills that they desperately want passed in respect of Northern Ireland.

Let us have a fast debate if that is what the Home Secretary wants, but let us recognise that the Government will pay many times over in delay and obstruction, particularly in the other place, because our good will on Northern Ireland matters has been utterly exhausted.

It was right for the Government to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, because the Bill affects every one of us and all those we represent. No one assembled here in the House doubts the importance of the issues before us. In fact, the Bill has many of the features that would, in the old days, have made it be viewed as a constitutional Bill. As a general rule, such constitutional Bills of major importance were never guillotined. Every one of us should have the opportunity to justify, query or give reason to our anxieties about the Bill. I am struck by the fact that we have not concluded any detailed scrutiny of the substance of the Bill before our consideration on Report and before Third Reading.

My concern is that the debate is so staggered or staged that it seems almost impossible to reach some of the key concepts within the Bill. I therefore want to ask the Government whether this is an act of cynicism. Is it a deliberate attempt to ensure that the House will not be able reach the provisions on stop and search, or perhaps on commission of offences abroad or glorification? I believe that denying the House of Commons the proper opportunity to examine the Bill does not serve the Government's own cause of arguing their case to the country.

I want briefly to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)—that the House should be involved and at the heart of scrutiny of this legislation. In particular, after eight years in this place, I saw last week that the House of Commons was finally adopting a supreme role in trying to revise and improve the Bill. As I said in an earlier intervention, it became apparent to the House last week that in respect of the commissioning of offences abroad, there was greater concern than had first appeared when the Bill was probed in Committee. It is disappointing that the Government are introducing a programme motion that almost guarantees that there will be no follow-on from last week to this week. That effectively hands back to the House of Lords the job of scrutinising the detail of legislation—a major error.

At business questions last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made the point that the Government should find more time to debate the Bill. It is not yet too late for the Government to recognise that, if the House is to build on what happened last week and to remain the dominant scrutiny Chamber, more time is required to debate the Bill on Report.

I agree with those who have argued that the programme motion is unsound and unsatisfactory. It may represent an improvement—a modest one, at that—on previous procedure, but in view of previous procedure, that does not say much for it.

I do not mind vouchsafing to the House, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, that at 7.29 yesterday morning, my wife gave birth to our second child—Frederick James, weighing in at 8lb 6oz and born in an excellent national health service hospital. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House will understand, that I am very keen indeed to take a decent period of paternity leave. Moreover, I have already informed my Whips—I emphasise, informed my Whips—that I intend to do so.

I happen to believe, however, that the issue—or, rather, the set of issues—before us today exceeds in importance any other issues before the House now or for the foreseeable future. To that extent, I agree with what the Prime Minister said at Question Time. Some of us had the privilege of contributing to the Queen's Speech debate earlier this year, and in that debate I made the gentle observation that if the Government were confident of their case on legislation to be put before the House, they should not be afraid of debate, but allow time for arguments and accept that other legitimate points of view can and should be put forward.

In the context of the programme motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) raised the question of whether the Government were deliberately seeking to circumvent debate. The question has been implicit and sometimes explicitly asked as to whether Ministers are afraid of the arguments. My honest view is that the Prime Minister is not afraid of the arguments and I do not think that the Home Secretary is afraid of the arguments. I am not even going to accuse the Home Secretary, in the context of the programme motion, of engaging in some sort of deliberate Machiavellian parliamentary contrivance. If I were so to suggest, it would probably be unworthy.

What I am going to suggest is something that I think is at least as serious. The charge is not that the Government are afraid of debate or that they are trying to shut people up. The charge is that the Government are, frankly, careless of and insensitive to the wishes of Back Benchers who want the opportunity to put their legitimate point of view and to receive responses to it. It seems to me that that was the kernel of the argument developed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who is recognised throughout the House as a truly outstanding parliamentarian. He knows that there is a history in this place of considering these matters seriously and at length.

I say in all sincerity to the Home Secretary, whose sincerity I respect and whose patriotism I acknowledge: what harm would be done either to the Government or to the national interest if we were to debate the Bill tonight until 10 o'clock? What would be the harm if the Government were to acknowledge that there was a welter of different opinions around the House and to let us have another day for debate? What damage would be inflicted; what disadvantage would be incurred?

If the Home Secretary is looking just a bit irritated, as I suspect he is, it might be because he thinks that he knows that he has got it right, that the Government know what they are doing and that hon. Members must be told to let the Government get their business through. What I would say to the Home Secretary is that he should accept that in this, the cockpit of parliamentary democracy, we should debate the issues fully and comprehensively. We should have that opportunity, but we are being denied it. If I am prepared to stay here until 10 o'clock at night or to have another day's debate on issues that are far more important than most matters that the House will consider, why are Ministers not prepared to allow that? Why cannot we have a proper representation on the Government Front Bench for these important debates?

Might I say that there was a time in the House—a time that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire will well recall—when on occasions of this sort, the Prime Minister was customarily in his place to hear the arguments and listen to alternative points of view? What is happening to our parliamentary democracy?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will conclude in a moment, but of course I must give way to my hon. Friend.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. I well remember the days when Jim Callaghan, the late Lord Callaghan, would sit in the Chamber for an hour or two at a time to listen to even rather insignificant debates. Other Prime Ministers have done the same, but not Lord Callaghan's successor.

I only wish that this Prime Minister would do that. I repeat that I respect his motivation, and think that he is motivated by the highest considerations of national protection and public service, but neither he nor the Government have made much of a case for the central components of the Bill. Why cannot the Prime Minister be here? If he respected the House, the House would respect him.

I endorse what has been said so far, and wish to make two other brief points. I also have a question for the Home Secretary which I hope will shorten the debate to come.

Colleagues from three different parties on the Opposition Benches have argued that they accept that the programme motion gives more time for debate, but that we will still be hugely constrained. The Government's approach has two obvious defects. First, people outside the House who are not satisfied with Parliament and who have little respect for it will be able to say much more easily that we do not do our job properly or thoroughly and that we rush through important legislation. The central proposition for debate today is that we should make the period for which a person can be detained without charge six times as long as it currently is. Surely that merits a debate that is not constrained? There is no need to constrain debate, and the view that the Government should adopt a different approach is widespread.

Secondly, the Government and the Home Secretary often criticise the House of Lords for being unelected and for interfering in the decisions of the elected House. It is impossible to criticise the Lords validly if this House cannot debate properly all the propositions that the Government put to it. The House of Lords then has an additional duty to make up for our failure in that respect.

How long will the House of Lords debate this matter for?

The House of Lords does not have a guillotine procedure. The debate there will go on for as long as people want to contribute to it. If ever there were a Bill that needed to be debated at somewhat greater length—and for which time was available—this must be it.

I turn now to my question for the Home Secretary, which follows the question posed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the advice of the Scottish law officer. The right hon. Gentleman's answer to that question might shorten debate later: his answer to my question will do the same, and make it easier for him to make his case.

The Home Secretary got into difficulties last week when it came to explaining the legal advice that he received and its provenance, but my question does not ask him to reveal the content of the advice from the Attorney-General. It is this: who gives him advice as to whether the Bill, or any part of it, complies with the European convention on human rights? Is it internal legal advice from his Department—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the programme motion.

Debate is important, quality and brevity are desirable. Long-windedness, repetition and mere quantity are not desirable.

Question put:—

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 22, line 7, leave out 'special'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 52 to 55.

Amendment No. 1, in page 22, line 19, leave out 'three months' and insert '28 days'.

Amendment No. 33, in page 22, line 19, leave out 'three months' and insert '60 days'.

Government amendments Nos. 56 to 58.

Amendment No. 29, in page 22, line 36, at end insert—

'(3AB) Where the new specified period will end more than 14 days after the relevant time—

(a) the specified period may only be extended—

(i) pending the result of an examination or analysis which is to be or is being carried out with a view to obtaining relevant evidence, or

(ii) for the purpose of obtaining relevant evidence from outside the United Kingdom or from records within the United Kingdom which cannot reasonably be obtained without such an extension of the specified period;

(b) the specified period may only be extended if the judicial authority is satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility of the detainee being charged immediately with another offence relating to terrorism or a terrorist act;

(c) the judicial authority must approve the nature of any further questioning of the detainee during the new specified period.'.

Government amendments Nos. 59 to 61.

Amendment No. 63, in page 23, line 6, at end insert—

'(6A) After paragraph 37 insert—

"37A (1) Any detained person who has been released—

(a) in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 37 having been detained for not less than 14 days, or

(b) owing to the effluxion of time

("the ex-detainee"), shall be entitled to claim full compensation for his financial losses resulting from his detention.

(2) The Secretary of State shall, within 3 months of the coming into force of section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2005, make regulations establishing a compensation scheme for ex-detainees.

(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.

New clause 1—Extension of period of detention by judicial authority: duration—

(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide—

(a) that all or any of those provisions which are in force shall continue in force for a period not exceeding twelve months from the coming into opertion of the order; or

(b) that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force.

(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

New clause 4—Disapplication of Human Rights Act 1998—

'Sections 23 and 24 of this Act shall take effect notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)'.

New clause 7—Duration of Section 23—

'The provisions of section 23 of this Act shall remain in force until one year after their commencement and shall then expire.'.

Government amendment No. 62.

All the amendments in this group relate to the complex and contentious question of pre-charge detention in terrorist cases. Government amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 62 provide that extensions of detention beyond 14 days must be approved by a High Court judge or, in Scotland, a judge of the Court of Session. That responds directly to concerns raised in the Chamber at Committee stage. Any application that would extend detention beyond 14 days will need to be made to the senior judge. If, for example, on day nine, the police thought that they needed only another couple of days before they would be in a position to release a suspect or suspects, they could still apply to a district judge. If, however, the police were clear at that point that they wanted a further seven days, the application would need to be made to the senior judge.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way at this early juncture. Why is application in Scotland to be made to a court of civil jurisdiction—namely, the Court of Session—for what is essentially a criminal matter?

Following our exchanges in Committee, I set out clearly to all Scottish Members—I think that the hon. Gentleman will have received my correspondence—the range of issues relating to that particular set of questions. I believe that that addresses the question that he has raised. If not, and he is indicating that it does not, I shall come back to him on the point later in the debate.

In Committee, it was suggested that it was not only the level of judge that was important, but his experience of handling terrorist cases. It was suggested that there should be a cadre of judges designated for that purpose. We have explored that suggestion with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, but it and the judiciary rejected that approach, so it has not been pursued.

Another option raised in Committee, following Lord Carlile's recommendation, was for decisions to be taken by senior circuit judges, with an avenue of appeal to a High Court judge. In our view, that would lead to an appeal in virtually every case with the cases eventually being decided by a High Court judge, so we have achieved the same result with fewer hearings. I can easily explain the effect of the amendments and I have also dealt explicitly with the proposals made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

It was also suggested that judges should give reasons for their decisions to extend detention. The clear advice we have is that that would open up an avenue of appeal. There is also the risk that the judge might have decided to grant the extension on the basis of sensitive material, so we have decided not to proceed with that suggestion.

Can the Home Secretary amplify the exact procedure before the High Court judge? Will it be possible for submissions to be made by the person under detention pending charge? Will he be represented? How will the procedure operate and will the Government publish further material on that point, if necessary?

The answer is yes. On the procedure, I shall come shortly to the codes of practice that will apply—a point that the hon. Gentleman pressed in Committee and to which I am keen to respond.

I turn to Government amendments Nos. 51 and 58. As the Bill is currently drafted, extensions of pre-charge detention are for seven days unless there are "special circumstances" that warrant a lesser period. The amendments remove the word "special" so that a shorter extension period would be granted if the judge felt that circumstances warranted it. The amendments are identical to ones tabled by the Opposition in Committee, so we are responding to the debate on that issue.

The Home Secretary will know that successive Chief Constables in Northern Ireland have had to fight terrorism in that part of the United Kingdom. What view does the present Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Orde, have on the renewal of detention every seven days and extensions to 90 days if needed?

The hon. Lady has more personal experience of the dilemmas caused by such questions than most hon. Members. I have spoken to Sir Hugh Orde on that point, because of his particular experience. He was unequivocally clear, and he authorised me to say so in the House, that the legislation is—in his experience and from his point of view—necessary, and that includes the extension to 90 days. He is also of the view that the seven-day review by High Court judges is the right way to proceed, and that the flexibility that I am discussing is necessary. I hope that Members from Northern Ireland will take account of those views when they vote this evening.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether any of our police officers have suggested that we have a power of internment? If they did, what view would the Government take of it?

Since I have been Home Secretary, there have been no suggestions from any source, the police or the security services, that internment be adopted as a measure to deal with any of these questions. Were that suggestion to be made, I would consider it, but I am sure that the House will agree that the assessment of the operation of internment in the period in which it operated was that it was a counter-productive approach to terrorism in the circumstances. By the way, I reject the rhetorical comment—made not by my right hon. Friend, but by others—that the measures we are discussing today can in any sense be equated with internment. That is simply not the case.

Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), Sir Hugh Orde will appear before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee this afternoon and will doubtless be asked many questions. Are there any chief constables who take a directly contrary view on this issue?

I am not aware of any. I have not personally spoken to every chief constable, so I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that not one of them takes a different view, but all the chief constables to whom I have personally spoken about it take the strong view that the provisions are necessary. The Association of Chief Police Officers also strongly takes that view, which is held most strongly by those people who have been most directly involved in fighting terrorism.

The Home Secretary has just said that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland had reached his conclusion based on his experience. The letter that we received from Hayman of the Met said that the experience in Northern Ireland was totally different and not relevant. We now face new circumstances. What relevant experience has the Chief Constable had? Does he believe that the new powers are necessary in Northern Ireland and, if so, did the Home Secretary refuse to give him those powers?

I regret to say that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point that Assistant Commissioner Hayman made. His point was that the modern terrorism that we face is different in certain important respects from the terrorism that we had to face in the past in Northern Ireland. It is the case that the modern terrorism that we face is a challenge for police in Northern Ireland today in a very direct way, which is why the Chief Constable is entitled to make his comments, not as a point of general principle but in terms of dealing with the modern terrorism that he has to face.

The Home Secretary may recall that under schedule 8 it would be open to the judicial authority to exclude any person to whom the application relates—the suspect—or anyone representing him from any part of the hearing. How can he reconcile that with the provisions in the European convention on human rights on fair hearings?

I shall come on to the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman in a few moments. I believe that the two can be reconciled, which is why I have provided the certificate for this legislation.

In answer to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I want to say a few words about codes of practice. He also raised the point with me last week. In Committee, it was suggested that we needed a code of practice to govern the treatment of those held under the Terrorism Act 2000. We welcome that suggestion. Powers for that already exist in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Secretary of State can issue a code of practice in respect of those detained under schedule 8 to the 2000 Act if he so wishes. Existing PACE code C already applies to those detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, but we can see grounds for having a separate code for that purpose, as the hon. Gentleman argued earlier in our proceedings.

Such a code would be laid before Parliament and be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Similar provisions exist for a code that would relate to the Northern Ireland (Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)) Order 1989. In Scotland, codes of practice are not generally used. Instead, the Lord Advocate, as the head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths, has a statutory power to instruct the police in relation to the investigation and reporting of crime under section 12 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and section 17 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. Constables must perform their duties subject to the directions of chief constables, and chief constables must comply with all lawful instructions, in relation to the investigation of offences, from the appropriate prosecutor.

The Lord Advocate takes the view that it would be inappropriate to have different powers and periods of pre-charge detention in Scotland from the rest of the UK in terrorist investigations and, in considering appropriate guidance to chief constables in the Scottish context, he would want to maintain a consistent position north and south of the border, as far as possible. His officials would expect to work closely with Home Office officials on the preparation of a code of practice for England and Wales and any equivalent guidance to be issued by the Lord Advocate in Scotland. For those reasons, we are not tabling amendments at this point, but I can give a firm guarantee that the appropriate codes and their equivalent will be brought forward.

The Home Secretary will remember that last week we discussed the possibility of altering the rules about interviewing detained people after charge so that it facilitated inquiry after charges had been brought. Will that be part of the subject matter of the codes that he is bringing forward and, if so, does not it have some bearing on the total length of time for which we may need to detain people?

I do not expect that aspect of the code to deal with the particular point that we debated. Unless I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I think his position is that we need, because of the particular situation of a possibly extended period of pre-charge detention compared with existing detention, to have a different approach to PACE in certain regards. I shall say later—

rose—

I shall give way when I have finished what I was saying to the hon. Gentleman.

The question of judicial scrutiny is important and becomes more and more pressing at each stage of the process, as time moves on, and the judge needs to deal with that directly as we move forward. I am ready to have discussions on that point, too. The proposal is not designed to address the issue of questioning pre and post-charge that we have already discussed.

That is an extremely important point, which was twice raised by Mr. Hayman in his letter. It was raised during the Privy Council briefing that the Home Secretary organised for the Leader of the Opposition and me. The question of interview post-charge has clearly had a major effect on the attitude of the police to charge and to the proposal that we are discussing. It is clearly the case that if we alter the ability of the police to interview after charge, it will open up to them much evidence and procedure that will act to stop terrorism. Can the Home Secretary please give the House an undertaking that he will put that in process?

I agree with all that and, as I said to the House both on Second Reading and in Committee, we think the case for the right hon. Gentleman's point is well made. Application of the procedure that he set out may mean that it would be less necessary in a given case, and thus there would be fewer cases where there was an extended period of pre-charge detention. The key point, however, is that it does not remove the need for pre-charge detention in certain circumstances, although I agree that the number would be limited. Nevertheless, I accept the integrity of his point; the view is shared across the Government that we need to achieve the state of affairs that he described. It is none the less important to note that there are implications for other aspects of the conduct of our legal process and they, too, need to be considered.

We have heard a lot about the views of the police on the extension of the detention period. Given that my right hon. Friend cannot tell us what the Attorney-General has told him, has he spoken to the Director of Public Prosecutions? The Solicitor-General, who has responsibility to the House for the views of the Crown Prosecution Service, is sitting next to my right hon. Friend. What are the views of the DPP about the 90-day period? Secondly, given that the provision will disproportionately affect members of the Asian community, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that when the police have those additional powers they will engage fully, at a local level, with the Asian community?

I can give my hon. Friend the specific assurance that he seeks on his first point: the CPS strongly supports the proposed extension to 90 days. I have said that throughout the debate, because the experience of prosecutors intimately involved in such difficult cases has led them to the same conclusions as senior police officers involved in the process. That is their clear and unequivocal position, explicitly and directly.

rose—

I want to finish answering my hon. Friend's question. His second point was very important. Without any encouragement from me, the police, over a period of 10 to 15 years—perhaps since Scarman, perhaps for even longer—have been working extremely hard to transform their relations with various minority ethnic communities in particular cities. Obviously, that is patchy and there are areas where not as much has been done, but some of our great metropolitan forces have made massive strides in developing relationships between operational policing and particular communities that did not exist previously. Moreover, the major faith leaders, nationally and locally, in most of our communities—not all—are working hard to find ways to co-operate in addressing the issues on a basis of respect for different faiths. To be candid, the comparison that was made earlier with current events in France is utterly unhistorically based when we consider our achievements in the UK.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to re-intensify our efforts to ensure that police relationships with various ethnic minority communities and faiths are substantial and real in every community in the country. Much work is already going on, but I can give him an assurance, without qualification, of the key importance of that point.

The Home Secretary was right to seek the views of the CPS in England and Wales, and it is right that the House should listen to them. Having done so, however, why did not he seek the view of the Lord Advocate with regard to the necessity and workability of 90-day detention in the context of Scots law?

I set out as clearly as I conceivably could the precise process that we followed in trying to obtain those views. That was the right approach. I set that out both in what I said earlier and in the letter that I sent to Members of Parliament from Scotland. I believe that we have gone about things in the right way and we are establishing properly based legislation for the whole United Kingdom.

May I take the Home Secretary back to the issue of the Lord Advocate? From what he told the House a moment or two ago, it appears that the Lord Advocate's view is that the period should be the same both north and south of the border, and that the authorities in Scotland should co-operate with the authorities in England, but it does not appear that the Lord Advocate endorsed the principle of 90 days. Is that correct?

The Lord Advocate endorsed the view that it should be the same north and south of the border, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—[Interruption.] That is the case. Our proposal is that there should be a 90-day period south of the border, so the Lord Advocate thinks that there should also be a 90-day period north of the border.

How has it transpired that the Lord Advocate, Scotland's senior Law Officer, expressed to the Home Secretary the view that the period of detention pre-trial should be the same north and south of the border, but at no stage in that correspondence or discussion expressed a view about how long that period should be? Does not the Home Secretary accept that many of us find that an incredible state of affairs?

I am always ready to accept that the hon. Gentleman leading the Scottish National party finds things incredible, but the fact is that I do not think it is incredible; it is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will give way later.

Amendment No. 63, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), addresses an important point that a large number of people have raised with me—compensation in the event that someone was held incorrectly. The amendment provides that those held for more than 14 days and released without charge should be entitled to compensation. That is my hon. Friend's principal proposal.

I have much sympathy with the idea, but there are some issues regarding its implementation. Thus far, we have never paid compensation, other than in cases involving malpractice, to people tried and acquitted, even though they may be held in custody for far longer periods than we are considering in these circumstances. We may or may not agree with the justice of that position, but it has been the case for a long time. We need, therefore, to consider carefully the precedent that we might set if we agreed to the amendment. However, I accept, first, that my hon. Friend is making a serious point and, secondly, that by hypothesis we would be dealing with a very small number of cases indeed—the very small number of cases where people are held, say, for more than 28 days pre-charge and within that group the very, very small group of people who were wrongly held and subsequently not charged. For that reason, because the provision would apply to such a small group of people, I am prepared to look carefully at my hon. Friend's suggestion and will report back to him and the House as soon as I can. I hope that he will understand that we need to take the operational implications fully into account, so I cannot give him an unequivocal commitment at this stage, but on the basis of that proposal, I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.

I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the point about interviewing a person who has been charged already. My understanding is that, under existing arrangements, if new and significant evidence becomes available, it is possible for the police to apply to re-interview. Is that not the case? Does that not cast some doubt on the case for 90 days?

I do not think that it casts any doubt whatever on the case for 90 days, but my right hon. Friend stated the situation quite correctly. I have just checked with my colleagues—

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Some colleagues have a wonderful tendency not to allow me to answer my right hon. Friend—which I will. I shall then consider—I make no commitment—the merit or otherwise of giving way further. Let me try to answer the question that she fairly raises with me. She is fundamentally right in her analysis that it is possible in certain circumstances to re-interview. She is also right in that the Government are considering whether such circumstances could be—[Hon. Members: "We cannot hear."] I beg hon. Members' pardon.

My right hon. Friend is also right in that we are looking carefully, as I have told Opposition Members, to extending the case more widely. She is also right in her implication that, if we were to succeed in doing that, it might reduce the number of people whom we had to hold in pre-charge detention for longer than the current period. All those points are correct. They do not, however, obviate the central point that, even all that said, there will still be cases where it might not be possible to operate in that way. That is why the power that we seek is needed.

Would the Home Secretary care to comment on the view that has been expressed to me on the questioning of suspects after charge by Professor John Spencer, QC, who is one of the leading experts on the law of criminal procedure in this country and, indeed, throughout Europe? He says that the so-called

"rule that suspects may not be questioned after charge is one that has no clear legal basis, whether in statute or case-law."

He goes on to say that the only possible basis that he can think of is the existence of paragraph 16.5 in PACE code C, to which he refers, and that the conclusion that we must draw is that the power already exists, without primary legislation, for the Home Secretary to create a situation in which terrorist suspects can be questioned after charge, so this part of the Bill has no point whatsoever.

The hon. Gentleman totally misses the point. It is necessary, even under the PACE code that he describes, that a charge should be in place to go through that process. The hypothesis that we are discussing is that, in a number of cases, there is no possibility of charging on a short-term basis.

I want to move on to the central question of this part of the debate: amendments Nos. 1 and 33, which deal with the length of time for which an individual can be held. That has been a subject of massive debate in the country and in the House. We debated it last week. I said in the House that I thought it important to try to get consensus in the House, and that has been my approach throughout.

The Prime Minister has sought to make this debate a simple matter of party politics, something with which some of us do not agree. Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he gave undertakings in the House to find a consensus, we understood that it would be not just with Opposition parties, but that he would seek a consensus of which we on the Labour Benches who had some objections and concerns would become part? I put that to him before he goes on with his prepared speech.

My hon. Friend makes two points, one of which I do not accept and the second of which I do accept. I simply do not accept her description of the Prime Minister's motivation in terms of party politics. I do not think that it is accurate; I do not think that it is his personal motivation; and I certainly do not believe that it is the Government's motivation. As I said on Second Reading, in Committee and at other times, the question that all Members must address is how can we do our duty as Members of Parliament in dealing with the national interest and national security.

I do not doubt for a second that these are difficult questions for all of us—for my hon. Friend, for myself and for every other hon. Member—but I do not believe that we have at any stage taken this issue from the point of view of party politics. Some have interpreted it that way. We have only to look at the media on any day of the week to see that they provide a prism through which they say that all this debate is about party politics in some respect or another. I have tried personally, when interviewed on the media, to rebut that suggestion because I do not think that it is true. I do not mean that I think that it is right but not correctly done; I think that it is an inaccurate description of the state of affairs.

I now turn to the point about consensus, about which my hon. Friend asks me. I believed and hoped as late as last Thursday that we could achieve a consensus with the main Opposition parties about the length of time that should be used. I also agree with her point that I was talking about consensus with Labour Members as well as with the Opposition parties on this question. That is what motivated me in the way that I operated. She may recall—I think that she will—that I asked every Member of the House to go back to their constituencies last weekend and take the view of their constituents, talk to them and ask their police and whoever else about these questions. I hope that she would agree that many Members have done precisely that: they have gone back and talked to people—I am sure that she is one of those who have done just that—and everyone will make their judgments on that basis.

When I had the meetings with the leadership of the Opposition parties at 11 o'clock last Monday morning in my office—I do not think that the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) and for Beaconsfield, who were present for the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, would contest this—they said that for their part there was no circumstances under which they would consider extending beyond 28 days the amount of time for which detention might operate. That was their considered view. There was a discussion about the period between 14 and 28 days. I was of the view, which has been my view throughout, that 28 days is not long enough to deal with the police case that we have, but I was ready to entertain discussions of a shorter period that could arise. I said that publicly in a variety of circumstances.

rose—

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I shall give way when I have finished what I have to say on this.

I then came to consider the best way to deal with this situation, and the view that I came to was that there ought to be three key areas in which I ought to try to respond to the House, the first of which is the whole area of scrutiny, which we have been talking about already: the role of the High Court judge, the PACE code and the various safeguards in place, which are changes from the position when I was speaking in the House last Thursday.

The second group of issues are those that we will debate later this afternoon relating to intent, glorification and the definition of terrorism—the range of issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) particularly was pressing from our side of the argument and, in fairness, which were expressed by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I felt that I should try to respond to those points, and I believe that we have done so today, although they will be debated later in the process.

Finally, against all my best instincts—I am not a great fan of sunset clauses in general—I thought that the way to deal with the uncertainty that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) and many other Labour as well as Opposition Members have about the length of time was to say that there would be a period, 12 months, after which clause 23 would run out and the House would decide, on the evidence and on the basis of what had happened in those 90 days, whether or not it should be extended. I am ready to commit, and do commit, to a report to the House on the operation of the law on the 90-day period when the House has to decide it.

rose—

I will give way in my own time. I have seen the hon. Gentleman, who is a very persistent popper up and down, which is very nice.

First, on reporting to the House about the operation of the 90-day period, I commit to do that so that every hon. Member can consider it. Secondly, at the behest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, I have agreed that Lord Carlile should conduct a review of the definition of terrorism within that year, so that that conclusion would also be considered by the House when it comes to that point. Thirdly, as the House already knows, not as a result of this process, Lord Carlile will report on the operation of the control order regime during the course of that year, so that we can have a discussion in the round on those questions.

The view that I came to—perhaps it is the wrong view, or not; people will have their own view—was that that approach was a better way to address people's concerns than by introducing another figure, and I shall tell the House why. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House told me to avoid, if I possibly can, a Dutch auction of the numbers that are being pushed around in different areas. Some say 42 days; some say 60; or whatever it might be. I thought that that was quite a powerful point, and I thought about it over the weekend. I am also aware that many hon. Members came back after those consultations saying that we should take the 90-day period. That is how I got to the position where I am now. It may not satisfy my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, but I hope that she will accept that I have tried hard to fulfil what I said on that occasion.

It is right that at Monday's meeting I said to the Home Secretary that our position continued to be that 28 days was the limit of what was acceptable. The Home Secretary indicated that he would incorporate several concessions in the Bill and told those present that he would table an amendment to determine whether a period between 28 and 90 days could form the basis of a compromise. I should be grateful to know why that proposal disappeared during the six hours that followed. There was never any suggestion that it was linked to the other concessions that he was making. When I spoke to him, it appeared that it would be part of a total package that we could consider—so what happened to it?

I am glad to set the historical record straight. I think that the hon. Gentleman will concede—he will correct me if I am wrong—that at no point during the meeting held in my office last Monday morning did any representative of the Opposition parties raise the idea of a sunset clause or a review—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. The matter was raised on the Floor of the House, but not during that conversation.

I said to the Opposition parties that morning that I would spend the rest of the day talking to colleagues in the House to test their opinions. I personally attended at least three meetings of Labour Members at which we discussed their views of the state of affairs. A lot of people put their views strongly, but there was not unanimity. Some people strongly felt that we should support the police and go for 90 days, while others strongly felt that the period should not be extended at all. We had frank discussions.

After those meetings and discussions, I had to come to a view on the best course of action to follow, which I did at about 8 o'clock that night. I went for the option of putting the sunset clause before the House because it seemed to be the best way of addressing the matter and enabling all hon. Members to examine the practice of the system and reach a view on how to take things further forward.

In that recitation of what happened on Monday, the Home Secretary conveniently overlooked the fact that after the meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, he told the media that he would be tabling an amendment to provide for a shorter period of detention. How long did the Prime Minister have to detain him before he decided not to proceed with that amendment?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct that I did say that to the media after the meeting. He is also entirely correct that I was present at the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party meeting that the Prime Minister attended at which precisely these questions were discussed. I will address the question of detention that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised with the Prime Minister earlier today. I can give him the example that he seeks from evidence given by Peter Clarke to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

To answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier question, I shall quote what Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said about whether the time period would make a difference. DAC Clarke said that he could point to a particular case as an example of terrorists evading justice because of the lack of such a provision. He said:

"had we had this provision in 2002, the outcome of a recent court case, the so-called ricin trial, might have been very different. Mohamed Meguerba was one of the suspects in that case and it is likely that we would have held him or applied for his detention for sufficient time to find that his fingerprints were on the ricin recipe and he would have stood trial as a main conspirator in that case had he not fled the country. As it was, he was not available to stand trial and so the jury were not able to benefit from his presence in the court. I cannot say whether the jury would have come to a different decision"—

of course he could not—

"but I think it would have been possible for the prosecution to present the case in a way which was easier for the jury to understand".

That is a compelling argument that 90 days might have made a difference and allowed things to be dealt with far better.

The Home Secretary will know that I originally raised this matter with the Prime Minister months ago. I asked for a briefing to test whether, if a 90-day period had been in force, it would have led to the apprehension of people who could not otherwise have been apprehended. The Home Secretary must know that the case to which he refers does not in any way justify the 90-day period. The evidence did not take 90 days to materialise. Will he now confirm—the Prime Minister refused to do so earlier today—that there is not a single case to which the police or anyone else can point in which evidence that became available 80 or 90 days after arrest was sufficient to charge the person who had been arrested?

It is striking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point in such a way. He is right in one essential respect: we tried to work with him and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), over the summer to address these questions. He is right that we organised a briefing on Privy Council terms to consider such questions for him and his right hon. Friend. He says that he is not convinced by the case. He is entitled not to be convinced by the case—that is his right—but I believe that the case put by DAC Clarke to the Joint Committee on Human Rights was a powerful and effective argument for a 90-day provision.

Like many hon. Members, I have not been party to any of the discussions since last week, about which I make no complaint whatever. The Home Secretary's comments a few moments ago suggested that his approach to other parties and his Back Benchers was made on the basis that the Government were sticking to 90 days, but asking whether they could get 90 days so long as they improved judicial review, or added a sunset clause. In other words, they were saying, "Take the pill; we'll try to put some sugar on it." However, although he has cited one case—I shall not go on about that because I am making an intervention—he has not addressed the fundamental case. If it is to be the rule that after people have been held for 14 days and there is still no evidence to justify charging them they may be held for 90 days, what is the argument for 90 days? He says that he deplores Dutch auctions, but the time period—three months in all—seems to have been plucked out of the air. A man could be repeatedly questioned during that time in the hope that something would turn up that would enable him to be linked with a terrorist plan.

I give credit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his consistency because he made that argument in Committee, too. He also voted against the Bill on Second Reading, as he was entitled to do. My answer is the same argument that has been put through the whole of the debate. There is a compelling case for extending the current 14-day period.

rose—

Order. It is entirely in the gift of the Home Secretary to decide whether to give way.

The police and the prosecution service have come clearly and unequivocally to the view that in their professional judgment 90 days is the appropriate time. The suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that the police and the prosecution service have simply plucked some figure out of the air is utterly wrong. The reason the Prime Minister asserted today during Question Time—

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will give way in my own time, when I have made my own argument, to the people to whom I think it is worth giving way. [Hon. Members: "Ooh!"] There we are; that is what I will do—I think that that is called parliamentary democracy, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am making the point simply and straightforwardly that we should take the professional judgment of the police, who actually deal with situations such as the one at Russell Square tube station, and the advice of the prosecutors extremely seriously.

rose—

I give way to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who was another participant in the Monday meeting.

I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) on Monday morning. He said earlier that he was not in favour of a Dutch auction, having thought about the matter at the weekend, but he gave all those present at the meeting on Monday the clear impression that he would table an amendment to provide for a shorter period of detention. Indeed, some of us were surprised that such an amendment was not tabled that day. When was he overruled by the Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I said I would continue to consult for the rest of the day, which I did, and I then tabled my amendment.

With great respect, my right hon. Friend has been misled on the ricin case, because the individual who fled the country while on bail was released by the police after two days in custody, not after 14 days. It cannot therefore be argued that they could have charged him if they had been able to hang on to him for 90 days. Will he confirm that that is the case?

I can confirm that that is the case, but the specific example I gave demonstrates that there are cases in which the police, when making a judgment about whether to charge someone, can reach a decision that, in my opinion, is damaging to the course of justice.

It is not just the police and the prosecution authorities who support the Government's position but Lord Carlile—

Only with major qualifications.

I should have thought that the name of Lord Carlile would have some resonance among Opposition Members. He is the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and he said that there should not be a Dutch auction in Parliament on the numbers, which is exactly what is happening. He also said that

"as a maximum three months is probably a practicable and sensible option, all other things being equal."

Is that not a judgment to which we should give considerable weight?

In my opinion, it is. Lord Carlile also said:

"I am satisfied beyond doubt there have been situations in which significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted as a result of the time limitations placed on the control authorities following arrest".

Lord Carlile has played an admirable and outstanding role, despite being a Liberal Democrat, in seeking to get terrorism legislation into a coherent form. We should take seriously everything that he says, which is why I have tabled a number of amendments on Report to try to meet some of his concerns. It is incumbent on others, particularly Liberal Democrat Members, to look at what he says in the round and to act accordingly.