Counter-Terrorism Bill

I hope that I will not disappoint the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) if I say that he struck a note in his speech that was rather different from the generality of the comments that we have heard during the debate. Of course I agree with him that terrorism is a terrible thing—which is why, when the Government come forward with proposals to combat terrorism, we in the House need to give them careful consideration. That is also why, as far as possible, we need to try to achieve consensus and to put to one side party political considerations, especially those that might tend towards short-term electoral advantage. Although I appreciated the hon. Gentleman's comments about the danger, he missed the point about how best to go about not only ensuring security by taking necessary measures to increase it, but taking the steps that are needed in the long term in the battle of values that underlies the terrorism that we face to ensure that our values of pluralist democracy and freedom triumph. It is on that point that some of us have doubts about several, but by no means all, of the measures that the Government are putting forward. We have very serious doubts indeed about some of those measures. We have heard a great many contributions, and I hope that I will be forgiven if I cannot necessarily do credit to all of them. Some of them went into the detail of the Bill. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) pointed out that the forfeiture clauses, which might appear superficially attractive, could result in serious injustice. We will need to examine such issues in Committee. Compelling arguments were advanced by the hon. Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and others, highlighting the fact that the inquest provisions, which were slipped into the Bill at a late stage, are incoherent and incomprehensible. There are plenty of systems in place to provide, under public interest immunity, for inquests not to be given all the information that the state might have, if national security is involved. There are systems in place for positively vetting juries, if necessary. However, why it should suddenly be decreed that because of terrorism, the ordinary process of deciding where a person died, how they died, and the circumstances surrounding their death, should disappear is quite unclear, especially—