With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.

The business for this week will now be:

Tuesday 22 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2005 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2005, followed by remaining stages of the Drugs Bill.

Wednesday 23 February—Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

Thursday 24 February—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

Friday 25 February—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for next week will now include:

Monday 28 February—Committee and remaining stages of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

I will of course make my usual business statement on Thursday.

The Leader of the House knows how seriously we view the decisions that the House will have to make about the Prevention of Terrorism Bill; indeed, such concern is shared in all parts of the House and in the country. Just this morning, I received an email from a solicitor stating that

"imprisonment without trial on the say-so of the Executive is completely contrary to our way of life and obviously open to abuse."

The Leader of the House will therefore realise how angry we are at the fact that this measure is to be rammed through the House, with our time for debate ruthlessly curtailed. The Bill should not be guillotined and it should have a proper Committee stage. The Government say that this legislation is urgent, but they have had more than three years since 9/11 in which to take the necessary decisions, and two months since the court case that prompted these changes. Is the House really to have just two days in which to consider these important matters? At one time, the Leader of the House would not have defended such proposals, which are redolent of the measures that he fought against so fiercely in South Africa. Will he think again about this Bill and, more importantly, about the time allowed for debate?

I am certainly not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman on civil liberties. Frankly, his synthetic anger suggests that he wishes to remain in opposition as shadow Leader of the House, rather than having to behave in the responsible way in which the Government are required to behave, given the terrorism threat that we face. There is no plan to ram this Bill through the House of Commons. He seems not to be aware that as a result of the Law Lords' decision, Royal Assent is required by early March at the latest. The Bill will need to be in force and control orders made in respect of the current detainees—if appropriate—before the part 4 powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 lapse on 14 March as a consequence of the Law Lords' judgment. It is not possible simply to renew them, because the Law Lords have declared that they are not lawful. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is the job of the Government to balance civil liberties and their continued protection with ensuring that we fight terrorism at every opportunity.

I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. The priority of the Liberal Democrats is to avoid any further derogation from the European convention on human rights, which is the central issue that must be tackled. We welcome the fact that the Leader of the House is putting some proposals before the House, but I must make the point that it is three years too late. As to the court ruling, we look with great regret on the way in which the Government have sought to circumvent it. We shall look very carefully at their proposals. If the legislation that results from the proposals does not find favour with the House, we would certainly want a much shorter derogation period—not 12 months, but perhaps four—in future, while we work out in greater detail across the House some satisfactory solutions to this difficult legal conundrum.

First, I acknowledge that the leader of the Liberal Democrats behaved in a responsible way when he saw the Prime Minister last Friday and said that he welcomed some of the changes being made—I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees—in contrast to the opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. As to circumvention, it is not a matter of circumventing the ruling but of introducing legislation so that we are no longer out of compliance with the European convention on human rights, as the Law Lords ruled. It is a question of overcoming that anomaly in the best way possible, which is what the leader of the Liberal Democrats discussed with the Prime Minister last Friday. Those discussions were very constructive.

Does the Leader of the House understand that the measures likely to be contained in the Bill represent the greatest attack on the liberty of the British people for 300 years? He understandably does not wish to take lessons from Conservative Members in that regard, but does he realise that many Labour Members—and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people outside the House who are natural Labour supporters—share precisely the concerns aired by the official Opposition spokesman?

The greatest attack on civil liberties in Britain in 300 years would be a suicide terrorist attack right at the heart of our communities. The Government would be acting irresponsibly if they did not, while balancing concerns about civil liberties, deter such an attack. It seems that some Opposition Members, among others, are encouraging us to act in that irresponsible way.

The Leader of the House may not be aware that Northern Ireland Members were informed that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would make a statement to the House today. Does he have any idea when that statement will be made during the course of this week? He will know that the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has issued a statement saying that he has evidence that two Members of this House—I refer to McGuinness and Adams—are members of the army council of the IRA. That has now been put on record, so surely the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to have a statement about what is taking place there.

It is the Secretary of State's intention to make a statement, but there was no plan to do so today.

The Leader of the House referred to the constructive discussions between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party. May I remind my right hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, that that is all very well, but we in the House are not privy to those discussions? There should be some disclosure before Second Reading as to whether agreement or concord was reached between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party. We also need to know whether—this is a crucial point for many Labour Members who have not been consulted in the same way—a judicial element applies when people are detained in their houses. For me, that is the critical point. While I am seized of the gravity of potential terrorism, I am not prepared to support legislation that keeps people in custody in their homes on the decision of a politician, although I might accept that decision by a judge—I see colleagues nodding in agreement. This is a dynamic situation and I hope that my right hon. Friend will report back to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister this afternoon. If he wants us to support him in the Lobby, he must meet our concerns.

I understand the reasons for my hon. Friend's question and I believe that he will be encouraged when the Home Secretary makes a statement tomorrow, which he intends to do before Second Reading so that any questions can be put to him. That will give plenty of time before the remaining stages, including Committee stage next Monday, for any points to be taken on board. I believe that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the contents of the Bill and that some of the worst fears that have been expressed in the media and elsewhere will prove not to be well founded.

The Leader of the House is clearly right in saying that we need to reach an understanding about the balance between liberty and the threats to it. However, in the spirit of the debate on a Liberal Democrat motion less than two weeks ago, does he accept that there are genuine concerns, particularly about the judicial element, throughout the House, and that the best way of resolving those is to have adequate debate rather than ramming the Bill through with undue haste, which is likely to lead to tears?

I am sorry, but I do not accept that we are ramming the Bill through with undue haste. I have already explained the reason for putting in place the necessary legislation and obtaining Royal Assent by early March in the light of the Law Lords' ruling. The Bill amends a specific section of the 2001 Act and there is no need to discuss it for more than two days. When the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at the Bill when it is published tomorrow, I think that he will be reassured that we are adopting a course of action that protects civil liberties and also protects us from terrorist attack. The balance is difficult, but when he hon. Gentleman hears what the Home Secretary announces, I think that he will agree that we have got the balance about right, although we will listen to any constructive suggestions to improve the Bill.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the strong action that he wants to take in response to terrorist threats would receive greater support if it were clear that all the available evidence would be brought to court, particularly phone tap evidence? That greatly exercised the Standing Committee that considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, but when the Bill reached this House, only one sentence of objection came from a Labour Member—my right hon. Friend Mr. Smith. It is vital that phone tap evidence be admissible in court to minimise the prospect of people being unnecessarily detained without trial.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. He, too, will have a chance to question the Home Secretary tomorrow if he is not satisfied on that point.

I hope that the Leader of the House is aware that when the Home Secretary made his initial statement to the House he agreed with me that we need the widest consultation and discussion with Members from all parties before introducing a Bill. We shall not see the Bill until tomorrow, and most of us are totally unaware of its contents. Has not the Leader of the House, in his other job as Secretary of State for Wales, utterly failed in not consulting with other political parties in Wales?

No.

When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last made a statement to the House on this subject he gave an assurance that, whenever possible, a prosecution would be the preferred course of action. Is it the intention that the legislation will enshrine that as a precondition before control orders are possible? Have any thoughts been given to creating the new criminal offences recommended by the Newton report? Is it the intention that a cadre of judges will have the specific responsibility for dealing with such cases?

I think that my hon. Friend will see, when the Bill is published and the Home Secretary makes his statement, that a careful system of checks and balances will be put in place. I think that he will be encouraged by that—at least I hope he will be.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

Order. The statement is about the rearrangement of business, and the substance of the matter can be inquired about tomorrow when the Home Secretary makes his statement.

Presumably the Leader of the House has been aware since the Law Lords' judgment that fresh legislation would have to be completed by early March, so it is his fault and not that of his critics in the House that it is being rushed through at this late hour. In those circumstances, should not there be more than one day for Committee and a slightly longer gap between Second Reading and Committee and Report so that we can consult interested parties outside?

For the reasons that I have already explained, I do not consider that necessary, because the Bill amends only one section of the 2001 Act. There will be plenty of time both to debate it in principle on Wednesday and to probe the Home Secretary before that, tomorrow. There will then be detailed line-by-line consideration on Monday. The precedents established by previous Governments, including ours and those in which the right hon. Gentleman served, show that when we have had to introduce emergency legislation of this kind, we have had to do it quickly. The reason it is being done at this time is that much care and thought have gone into getting the balance absolutely right—as best we can—between the protection of individual liberties and the threat of terrorist action. The right hon. Gentleman should welcome what we are doing when the whole proposal is published tomorrow.

Further to the point that the Irish Government have publicly and formally identified two Members of the House as members of a terrorist organisation, should not that be a matter of grave concern to the House and one that it should address at the earliest opportunity?

rose—

Order. That is not a matter before us at the moment.

I listened carefully to everything that the Leader of the House said, but why can we not have a few days to reflect on the Bill, which none of us has seen? Why cannot we have its Second Reading on Monday and complete its stages during the rest of next week? That would give us all an opportunity to read it and to reflect and consult on it, and many of the charges justifiably levelled at the Leader of the House could then be withdrawn.

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and he is always entitled to press me for more time, especially on such important issues. I remind him, however, that Royal Assent is required by early March at the latest as the Bill will need to be in force and control orders made in respect of the current detainees, if appropriate, before the part 4 powers lapse on 14 March; otherwise those people may simply walk out. The procedure still has to take its course in the House of Lords before Royal Assent can take place, and the Bill may be closely debated there, as the Lords are entitled to do. We are absolutely right to bring in the Bill as we have done, but we are anxious to see the fullest possible scrutiny of it.

Does the Leader of the House understand that people will be incredulous that the House will go from First to Third Reading in six days to impose, on the recommendation of the nation's secret police, powers of administrative detention? That he of all people should be recommending that to the House on such a timetable is extraordinary, and I hope that the Government will review it.

I am sorry, but I can give the hon. Gentleman no encouragement or satisfaction on that point. I have explained the necessity for the timetable. Surely he will understand that something has to be done before the powers lapse on 14 March, especially in light of the Law Lords declaring that the current legislation is defective in this respect and out of compliance. We need to do something about that, and I would have thought that he would join in a constructive discussion—and encourage the Leader of the Opposition to get involved—about the exact balance to strike, rather than opposing the measure almost outright, as appears to be the case.

Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's protestations, many of us in all parts of the House believe that the decision suddenly, and with such haste, to introduce this threatening piece of legislation is extremely undesirable, given that one of the linchpins of our liberties is under threat. Can he, on the strength, presumably, of advance sight of the draft of the Bill, at least offer the House an assurance that where such a sacred liberty is under threat the Bill that we see will be the Bill in total, and that there will be no provision in its clauses for further and potentially damaging incursions on liberty, introduced by the Government in the form of secondary legislation?

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see the contents of the Bill, but as I keep saying, I think he will be reassured. What the Government are doing and what we have always stood by is ensuring that the protection of individual liberty comes first—that is something that I have spent many years of my life fighting for—but in a situation where we have the suicide bomber and an international terrorist threat of quite a different order even from that of the IRA in past years, we need to be very careful about protecting our security and protecting our liberty alongside it, because if our security is not protected, what is the point of any liberty?

The Leader of the House keeps telling us about the very tight timetable that we must meet. Presumably, he knew of that timetable when he made his last business statement to the House. Since then, the House has not sat for a week, and now he tells us that there will be but six days from First to Third Reading. Will he assure me now that the House of Lords will not get longer to debate this issue than the House of Commons, which is elected?

Again, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman puffs himself up into anger about this issue, because the truth is that the original Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, following the events of 11 September, was taken in three days—the whole Bill. Its Second Reading took place on 19 November, and then there were two days of debates in Committee and on Third Reading—so three days in total. We are devoting two days to one aspect of that Bill, as opposed to the entire Bill, which took three days. Therefore, we are entitled to ask for the House's understanding in the circumstances.

As for the other point about timing, yes, the recess has come between my last business statement and now. I have come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, and one of the reasons why there has been some delay—I genuinely make no criticism about this—is that the Prime Minister wanted to consult both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats. That consultation took place on Friday, and I do not think that it could have taken place beforehand. That is one of the reasons why we are proceeding in this way.