I shall be brief so that my colleagues—at least—are able to make their speeches.

One of the ironies of the debate is that there is a common link between the two sides of the House—the opposition to terrorism. However, when we vote we shall divide and appear to be disunited. It should be stressed that every hon. Member who votes tonight is voting against the terrorist. The argument is whether the order helps or hinders the attack against the terrorist.

I do not believe that the order helps. Three matters spring to mind when looking at the order. The first is whether it takes us any further towards finding a political solution. I do not believe that it does. There is no easy political solution, but if we are looking to defeat the terrorist we should look, in the first place, for a political solution.

Secondly, how far does the order encourage ordinary people to set out to beat the terrorist and give information to help the police? In my view, the order does not help one bit to encourage people, particularly the Irish community in this country, to come forward and help in the fight against the terrorist.

Thirdly, how far does the order help the police? I do not believe that it helps them. The police feel that the limited extra powers provided by the Act are of some help. But in my discussions with senior police officers in the North of England I have found that they do not believe that the Act makes the slightest difference to their practices. They are concerned about the number of men that they have on the ground, the amount of equipment, and matters of that sort. They believe those matters to be more significant as an attack upon the terrorist.

The worst aspect of the Act is that it means that many Irish people in this country, particularly those travelling between Great Britain and Ireland, feel harassed by the provisions of the Act. That harassment is counter-productive.

The Home Secretary suggested that the easiest way to get rid of this temporary measure was for the terrorists to stop their bombing campaign. In fact, the terrorists want to keep the measure because it aids them in trying to convince people that there are injustices that can be put right only by their methods. We should be trying to show that those methods will not put anything right. We should be ensuring that citizens enjoy the same rights throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

The Act is coming up for its fourth renewal and we are getting to the stage where it ceases to be easy to say that it is a temporary measure. It is becoming a lasting measure on the statute book.

I am particularly worried by the fact that in British law we have always had two categories—guilty and innocent. We now have a third category. A person who is deported to another part of the United Kingdom or excluded from entry is a suspect and is neither innocent nor guilty. He is in limbo, and it is unfortunate that we should keep such a provision in English law for any time.

Section 11 of the Act is the hindsight provision. It was dangerous for us to have put it into the Bill at all. At the beginning of our debate, we could have predicted its course in the light of Mr. Speaker's ruling about the way in which we should discuss the Bennett report. With hindsight, we can see that the course of the debate has been different from what many people would have predicted following Mr. Speaker's ruling. The main problem with section 11 is the danger of looking afterwards at a piece of information which it seems obvious that a person should have supplied. At the time that the information first becomes known, it may be difficult to see that it is necessary for it to be supplied.

The Home Secretary has said that he will review exclusion and deportation cases after three years. He has a backlog of more than four years and it was obviously difficult for him to provide a short review period. However, I press him to consider carefully whether he could not at least have moved towards reviewing cases after two years rather than after three years and whether cases can be reviewed more than once.

Such cases involve someone being suspected of having done something and not having been proved to have done it. The decisions must be marginal, and three years is a long time to wait for a review. In addition, given that decisions are marginal, it is unsatisfactory that someone should have to wait another three years after the first review before his case can be considered again.

I welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to make it easier for relatives to visit those who have been excluded or deported from one part of the United Kingdom. However, may I ask him to consider the position of a person who has been expelled, perhaps after having lived in this country for up to 19 years? He finds it impossible to go back to the events that people want, or feel that they have, to attend, such as funerals, weddings and so on. Those who are deported are unable to make the sort of journeys that the rest of us take for granted. If my right hon. Friend is allowing relatives to visit them more easily, I hope that he will consider whether there ought not to be a provision to allow those who are deported to return for certain family occasions.

The Shackleton report made clear that there was much concern about interviewing techniques. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the use of tape recorders or video recorders when some interviews are taking place. There is already pressure for the Royal Commission on pre-trial procedure to carry out at least a limited experiment. It might be a good idea for it to consider whether, at some of the interviews which take place at ports, an opportunity can be taken to conduct this technique on an experimental basis.

Those of us who vote against the order tonight will do so because we believe that without the order we have a better chance of beating terrorists than we would with the order.