Question: According to Home Office ministers, September 11 has meant that the nature of security has changed. Naturally that has a knock on effect on our rights. Do you think the proposed new anti terrorist legislation is an appropriate reaction to September 11?

Chris Mullin: I certainly agree that September 11 changed everything and it is certainly right to look at existing anti-terrorist legislation and look for loop holes - for example, most of our terrorists used to operate with explosives, but now the very real possibility exists that they are able to operate with biological or chemical weapons, so obviously a big adjustment has to be made to cope with that possibility.

Question: Some people argue that the government has overreacted to September 11, and the new legislation is overly draconian and could have a damaging effect on our domestic stability. Would you go along with that?

Chris Mullin: I don't think it will have any impact on our domestic stability. The Home Affairs Select Committee which I chaired looked at what was proposed. The most controversial part, of course, is the proposal to detain indefinitely foreign nationals who for one reason or another can't be extradited, prosecuted or deported. We went into this fairly thoroughly and we concluded that there are a small number of foreign nationals in that category so we reluctantly went along with what the government is proposing.

Question: The government has said that they would review that specific section every five years. Do you think the whole bill should be reviewed, and should it be reviewed a little more frequently than every five years?

Chris Mullin: Well there are all sorts of safeguards built in. One is a special immigration tribunal which will review each case of a person detained every six months. Secondly, there's to be an overall review of the way in which the legislation is working, carried out by Lord Carlisle, and thirdly the Government have accepted a so called sunset clause, which was my Select Committee's proposal. This means that after five years, the controversial part, the detention part, will end. The powers will either disappear, or the Government have to come back to Parliament and explain why they need them renewed and go through the legislative process again.

Your question was about the rest of bill. Much of the rest of the bill, though not all of it, is uncontroversial and I see no reason for renewing that, although as I say, there is this mechanism in existence where Lord Carlisle will look at what works and what doesn't on an annual basis.

Question: Many people have complained about the speed at which the government has put the bill through Parliament. But we are in a technical state of public emergency and our forces are in conflict in Afghanistan so isn't it right that the government needs to rush through these measures?

Chris Mullin: The complaint has been firstly about the size of the bill. This is much larger than any previous anti-terrorist legislation that we've been asked to pass. There are 124 clauses and 8 schedules, as compared I think to 15 clauses in the Prevention of Terrorism Act which was rushed through in 1974. But the second criticism is that a lot of the measures it contains are not emergency measures, and ought perhaps to have been addressed in a more leisurely fashion and in other legislation.

Question: Do you go along with that?

Chris Mullin: I do.

Question: Because of size and speed with which it's going through, do you think this bill won't get the adequate scrutiny it requires?

Chris Mullin: As far as the Commons is concerned, pushing a bill of this size through in two days with some of the controversial clauses not debated, is a problem. More time should have been given to scrutiny in the Commons. The government would say we need to get it through by Christmas, then I would say perhaps you should have brought it to us a week or two earlier - to which they would reply, well we wanted to think about it carefully. I still think there's a problem with pushing this through so quickly.

Question: And do you think there's a large number of your colleagues on the Labour back benches who share your concern?

Chris Mullin: Oh that view is fairly widely shared, even amongst people who would broadly go along with what's proposed.

Question: Do you think the legislation will get a much rougher ride in the Lords?

Chris Mullin: Oh certainly it'll get a much rougher ride in the Lords. The government doesn't control the agenda in the Lords to the same extent as it does in the Commons. Six days have been set aside to scrutinise it, as opposed to two in the Commons, and you can do quite a bit more of scrutiny in that time. Plus of course there's a majority of Conservative or non-Labour peers in the House of Lords which will make things a bit different too.

Question: Another controversial proposal in the bill is about racial hatred. You described this as "gesture politics". What did you mean by that?

Chris Mullin: I think there was a feeling that it was gesture politics. I have to say, listening to the arguments of the debate, this was quite well debated in the House, Gerald Kaufman, Frank Dobson and the Home Secretary made a strong case for it and in the end I felt inclined to go along with it. What the Select Committee said about it was that they were not persuaded that it was necessary. And certainly, it couldn't easily be called an emergency to get that through. But in the end, having heard the arguments, it probably was justifiable.

Question: Some people argue that a small minority of extreme Muslims calling for the assassination of Tony Blair, or calling for young people to go and fight with the Taliban, should be arrested. Would you go along with that?

Chris Mullin: They should be arrested if they have committed a crime.

Question: Should that be a crime?

Chris Mullin: Calling for someone to be murdered is already a crime.

Question: Looking back at the proposals to detain foreign nationals without trial, some have described it as internment. Does it make martyrs out of terrorists or potential terrorists?

Chris Mullin: Well firstly, you've got to bear in mind we're talking about a very small category of people, and they are as follows: they are people who there is intelligence to believe they have links with terrorist organisations seeking entry to this country, and who's application for entry to this country is rejected - they turn up to the airport and they are rejected. Ordinarily what would happen is that they would be deported or returned to where they you come from. In some cases, however, this is not be possible because they face torture, but at the same time it is not in our interests to let these people in. So that's one category. To say that they are detained indefinitely is not quite true because it is open to them at any time to leave, providing they can find a country which will have them, which they may well be able to do.

Then there's another category where foreigners have already been admitted and are thought to have connections with terrorist organisations, thus it is in our interests to prosecute. And in those cases, the same rule applies- they will be detained, their case will be reviewed every six months, they can, if they choose, go back to their country of origin. Some of them might not choose to do so for fear of torture or persecution when they get back. So there is a way out.

Question: Iain Duncan Smith objects to the government's proposals to distinguish between domestic and international terrorism. Do you see this as a valid distinction?

Chris Mullin: We've got a large amount of legislation that addresses domestic terrorism, which I am glad to say is greatly reduced. The problem that we're having to address is that we're not prepared for an organisation like Al-Qaeda and the events that occurred on September 11. That's the problem that we're seeking to address, and I think it's frankly point scoring to suggest that really we should be looking to introduce more legislation to deal with Irish terrorism which is already very well catered for.

Question: Another measure of the legislation is to create a facility to introduce EU Home Affairs legislation - an EU arrest warrant, for instance. Are you comfortable with this?

Chris Mullin: I certainly believe that it should be subject to detailed scrutiny. It makes sense to have a common extradition warrant in Europe and to have similar procedures. I don't have any objection in principle. Where there is a particular objection is that there is a clause in this bill which would enable a Home Secretary to introduce any measure coming from the EU Home Affairs council, whether or not it related to terrorism, on an Affirmative Order, which means basically a 90 minute debate in a committee room upstairs, rather than through main legislation.

Question: What's wrong with that?

Chris Mullin: The main objection is that little or none of this stuff is about anti-terrorism. Secondly, we would want to scrutinise it in a bit more detail since we don't necessarily accept everything at face value that comes from the EU. What I thought was disappointing was that this clause was pushed through the House of Commons without any debate at all.

Question: What amendments are realistically possible, and which ones would you like to see?

Chris Mullin: Well two amendments that I proposed have already been accepted: the five-year sunset clause, and the annual review. Both came from the Home Affairs Select Committee report. In addition, I obtained from a Defence Minister, I hope, a cast iron assurance, that Ministry of Defence police will not be allowed to roam the country. They will only be used outside of Ministry Defence territory in an emergency and at the request of local police. The other controversial areas are, one, this question of whether all EC Home Affairs measures should be wafted through the House on an Affirmative Order, and secondly, whether people detained indefinitely should have the right of a judicial review. The bill seeks to exclude that.

Question: The main thing that you're looking to see are changes to EU home affairs legislation passing through on an affirmative order?

Chris Mullin: Well I would certainly want to hear an explanation, and I haven't yet.

Question: The majority of Labour MPs voted for these anti terrorism measures. What's your assessment of Labour MPs mood towards this proposed legislation?

Chris Mullin: I think there is a general feeling in the country, and it appears to be reflected among Labour MPs, that those who's ambition is to destroy our democracy, should not be able to take advantage of its privileges. At the same time, because our system is better than those of many other countries, we have to demonstrate that it is, and stick to our principles. So there's some ambivalence amongst those who voted for it, but a recognition that this organisation Al-Qaeda is very serious, they have an unknown number of operatives in the outside world, we can see from their previous terrorist atrocities that they are prepared to take up to 2, 3, 4 years planning a big event, and so the destruction of Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan is not necessarily the end of the affair.

Question: How long do you think this legislation will be necessary for?

Chris Mullin: Well as I say, many of the measures in the bill are uncontroversial, giving the security services greater access to bank accounts and the movement of money, enabling Ministry of Defence police and police who guard civil nuclear facilities and transport police to work together on the same basis. Those are all common sense and I don't see why they shouldn't remain indefinitely. The detention powers are time limited to 5 years, and after that we'll see.

Question: Do you think more financial and research support and status should be given to Select Committee members in order to encourage MPs to pursue a longer career in the Select Committees?

Chris Mullin: I certainly believe the status of the Select Committees needs to be enhanced. I'm not sure if it's a question of resources. The first thing both the government and the Select Committees need to get into the habit of doing is subjecting major bills to pre-legislative scrutiny. That would require a big cultural change in the way business is done in this place. Instead of bills turning up a week before Second Reading, they would have to appear published in draft some weeks before, then a Select Committee could call evidence on them, as we did with the Anti -Terrorism legislation, and the Freedom of Information bill, and the Food Standards bill. Then the government would look at what the Select Committee recommends, and then maybe amend the legislation accordingly. It's in the interests of government as well because early scrutiny often leads to an improvement in legislation and a lot less time wasted on the floor of the House arguing about matters that have already been resolved. That's where the future lies in my view.

The second area I think that is going to have to be considered is paying the chairman of Select Committees in order to create an alternative career structure, because at the moment most of the best and the brightest tend to be attracted towards government office. One can talk until the cows come home about more resources, more this, more that, but at the end of the day they are dealing with ministers who are often quite junior to them in terms of experience but are much more highly paid. And I can't see another way round that otherwise you'll going to have a leakage of the best Select Committee members into the Executive. I've had people who've stayed on the Home Affairs Select Committee for as little as two months before being tempted away to be PPS to an obscure member of the government in the hope, of course, that they will become ministers.

Question: What about party whip's control over Select Committee appointments?

Chris Mullin: Oh that's a matter that is in the process of being addressed thanks to a little rebellion we had last July and I think some new method will be found. There are a lot of factors to balance - geographical, regional. Whips have an interest and should be consulted, in my view. But there needs to be some mechanism for the House to exert itself independently of the Executive - you cannot have the Executive appointing the people who are supposed to be scrutinising it.

Question: Do you detect that the Parliamentary Labour Party is willing to be more assertive towards the government in this Parliament?

Chris Mullin: No, not particularly. There have been several uprisings both in this Parliament and the last. The first one, if you recall, occurred about six months after we were elected after the proposed reduction in Single Parent Benefit. So that was only six months after our first election victory and it was quite a considerable uprising.