HC Deb 19 May 1975 vol 892 cc1145-62

Question again proposed.

Mr. Fitt

Many of my hon. Friends said that they recognised that this was a serious erosion of the fundamental liberties which had been enjoyed by the British people until this legislation was passed, but as elected representatives they recognised that in the highly emotional atmosphere which existed it would have been foolhardy of them to have gone into the Lobby against the Government. But even tonight there are many hon. Members, not exclusively on this side of the House, who have sincere and deeply held convictions in opposing this measure. I recognise that.

Earlier tonight I was in Belfast with some of my hon. Friends. I understand that the Home Secretary, in appealing to the House for extension of the legislation, referred to my opposition to the Bill last November. [Interruption.] Perhaps it was an hon. Member opposite who referred to my opposition at that time.

Someone sought to justify an extension of the legislation by saying that since it was introduced there had been no acts of terrorism in Britain. I do not accept that argument. The legislation has achieved absolutely nothing. If there have been no acts of violence in Britain, if there have been no pub bombings or explosions, if no one has lost his life as a result of an act of terrorism by the IRA, it is not because of this legislation. I suspect that it is because of some arrangement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Provisional IRA or Provisional Sinn Fein.

We have repeatedly said—and here I think I have the support of hon. Members opposite who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—that we do not know what arrangement has been made, what has led to the cease-fire, or what behind-thescenes deals have been made. As a representative who has lett Belfast today. I must question the bona fides of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If there is a so-called cease-fire, if there is an arrangement which prevents people in Britain from being killed, if no lives have been lost and there have been no acts of terrorism by the Provisional IRA, the cease-fire has signally failed because since its onset there have been many acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland and many innocent people have lost their lives. Those tragedies cannot be attributed to the violence perpetrated by the IRA, which is exclusively referred to in this legislation.

When the Act was passing through the House last November I asked—it was refused—that if the IRA was to be proscribed, other organisations, like the UDA and the UFF, which were involved in violence and which have since claimed responsibility for bombings and killings in Northern Ireland, should also be proscribed. I was supported in my plea by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If we are to be honest in our endeavours to stamp out terrorism we should not limit those endeavours to one particular organisation. Yesterday a young boy of 17 was shot dead in County Down, in the constituency, I believe, of the right hon. Member for Down, South. This was allegedly because a policeman had been killed in Londonderry three or four days before. Whoever was responsible for killing the policeman and whoever was responsible for killing that innocent 17-year-old boy deserve to be condemned by every citizen in these islands.

If we are to condemn those who are engaged in terrorist activities we must condemn them all and not just one section. For some months the people of Northern Ireland have suspected that Ministers and Members in this House are prepared to ignore the acts of terrorism taking place in Northern Ireland so long as they do not affect their own constituencies in Great Britain. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and if attempts are to be made to stamp out terrorism they should be made against all the illegal forces. I am referring specifically to claims which have been made over the past few months of responsibility for acts of violence by the Ulster Protestant Action Group, the UFF and the UVV, which was de-proscribed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I refer, too, to the claim by young militants this morning of responsibility for the killing of that innocent boy. After the UVV was de-proscribed it had no hesitation in claiming responsibility for some of the most brutal and callous murders in Northern Ireland since the onset of the present troubles.

I opposed this legislation initially and I oppose it now. It represents a serious erosion of the rights and liberties of the people of the United Kingdom. I can remember very well—and I was in total agreement with the Home Secretary's reaction on this occasion—many hysterical voices being raised by Conservative Members, particularly hon. Ladies opposite, in an attempt to reintroduce capital punishment. They believed that if capital punishment were reinstated it would prevent acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Fortunately for this House and for the country, that move was rejected. However, if capital punishment would have been ineffective in preventing acts of terrorism, this legislation has been no less so. What has prevented acts of terrorism from taking place in Britain but allowed them to continue in Northern Ireland is whatever arrangement was entered into by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Provisional Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA.

We must clearly define our attitude. What I find most objectionable about this legislation are the provisions concerning exclusion from Britain. This matter has already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), who has been involved in cases which have taken place in Southampton. I have been involved with exactly the same type of cases which concerned people being excluded from Britain and brought back to Northern Ireland—indeed, to my constituency.

I am not saying that I know those people better than the Home Secretary, but at least I have met them. They have come to my home. I have seen the husbands, the wives and the children, but the Home Secretary did not have that advantage. I am not saying that everyone who was excluded from Britain under this legislation was completely innocent, but the people who came to my home completely convinced me that they were not involved in any acts of terrorism in this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not have the advantage of meeting them. He had to rely on police reports.

Initially the police were the people responsible for arresting such persons in Northern Ireland, Southampton or Guildford. I remember well the terrible tragedy of Guildford. Like all my constituents and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and the Republic, I felt a wave of revulsion at what happened in Guildford and Birmingham.

I turn specifically to Guildford, where there was a wave of arrests. The police there seemed to be arresting everybody who spoke with an Irish accent or had an Irish address. I remember speaking to officials at the Home Office after representations had been made to me and telling them that they had arrested far too many people for the Guildford bombings. I hoped that they had got the right people. I told them that if those people were guilty they deserved the full penalty of the law, even if it meant life imprisonment. I would support such a sentence if those people were guilty of perpetrating such a tragedy. I said to the Home Office officials, and to others, that the police had been too indiscriminate and had arrested everyone in the area. I said that I believed essentially in the justice of British courts and that the cases would be thrown out.

That is exactly what happened. Many of those who were originally arrested for the Guildford bombings were incarcerated in prison. They were not allowed bail. When they were brought before the court, the police produced no evidence against them. They were arrested in at atmosphere of hysteria, which was quite understandable. However, the police forces of this country and the application of British justice cannot allow themselves to be whipped by hysteria. At all times the administration of justice and police forces in this country must act in the interests of the people.

The same thing has happened with exclusion orders. Many people have been excluded from this country although they had not engaged in acts of terrorism. What I am about to say may bring me the enmity of the House, but I say it without fear and regardless of what enmity I may bring upon myself. Policemen are policemen. Policemen are individuals. Policemen are human beings. They have made mistakes in the past. One can think of the mistakes made by certain policemen, and one can become deeply involved in objections to the RUC, and so on. But I am relating my remarks particularly to the police force here in Britain.

We have many immigrant communities throughout this country. I believe that the immigrant communities in Britain have been afforded protection and sustenance that would not have been given to them in any other country in the world, in any circumstances. This country has absorbed its immigrants and is treating them as individuals and human beings. Irrespective of the attitudes expressed by many people, some of them in the House tonight, this country has been good and kind to its immigrants.

Within the immigrant communities—Pakistani, Indian, Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot or Irish—there are some very good people and some who are not so good. Some of those who have been subjected to exclusion orders and transported back to Northern Ireland and the Republic have not been excluded because they were involved in terrorist organisations. They may have had criminal records in this country. They were people who had been brought before the courts for offences similar to those for which others—Englishmen, Scots and Welshmen — had been brought before the courts. The Act gave the police an opportunity, in certain counties and districts, to get rid of people who they did not particularly like. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says "No". The House either accepts my right hon. Friend's word or it accepts mine. I have no hesitation in saying that hon. Members will accept my right hon. Friend's word.

How do I prove what I say? I have been at the Home Office, and no doubt I shall be there again, many times. I do not have to believe what I hear in my own home as a constituency representative. I have sufficient intelligence to know when people are trying to tell me lies. If I believed, or had the slightest suspicion, that people were engaged in terrorist activities, I would not put their case on the Floor of the House, because I have opposed terrorism and will continue to do so whilst I am in political life.

Mr. John Dunlop (Mid-Ulster)

The whole trend of the hon. Gentleman's argument and that of other Members on the Government benches seems to be that the complete repeal of the Act would in large measure solve the problem of terrorism. I feel that the hon. Gentleman will end by advocating that the Act should be expunged from the statute book, and that he will also advocate the restoration of the rights, privileges and liberties that have been eroded from the British public and the public of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt

It may be that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), having gone to the inconvenience of coming here this afternoon, has established the fact of his presence by making such a ludicrous intervention. That was not the intention of my argument, nor was it the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend.

My argument is that the legislation has not prevented terrorism but has led to a good deal of trouble for many innocent people. I will illustrate one or two cases. A constituent of mine left Belfast to go to Glasgow to purchase a taxi. He took with him his eight-year-old son. He left the boat and before he could meet the contact from whom he wished to buy the taxi he was arrested and his young son was taken to a welfare home. After 48 hours the boy's father was eventually released. That young boy had never been out of the company and care of his parents. He had never been to a welfare home, and it must have been a frightening experience for him. I had to make arrangements by telephone for that young boy to be released and flown home.

Last week two 18-year-old lads in my constituency went to Glasgow to watch Celtic. As they were coming back home they were arrested before they got off the boat. They were kept for two or three days and released after I made representations. Those are only two of the many cases I could bring to the attention of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Test referred to constituents of mine who were excluded from Southampton. The men involved are Belfast men married to English wives, and their children are English born. The men have been in steady jobs while they have lived in Southhampton. Their children go to English schools and speak with English accents. They are unsuited to be sent back to Northern Ireland to live in areas where an English accent might get them into trouble. I have spoken to those people, and I am convinced that they are not and never have been, involved in terrorist activities in this island. I have serious suspicions that the police in that area for reasons known only to themselves felt that it would be right to deport those people to Northern Ireland.

What way is there of preventing this? Will the confidence that normally exists in the House between elected representatives and members of the Government allow the Home Secretary to prove to me that my ideas are wrong and that these people are guilty? If he cannot prove it to me, will he prove it to my hon. Friend the Member for Test? Perhaps if the information cannot be given to me on the grounds that my political ideas might be suspect, could not that proof at least be given to another hon. Member who can be trusted? I am convinced that my hon. Friend the Member for Test is no revolutionary or anarchist. Perhaps information could be given to him which would convince him so that he might convince me. I am seriously perturbed at the way exclusion orders are being granted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

If we have to have this type of Draconian legislation—I do not want it and I shall be voting against it, along with, I hope, many of my hon. Friends—there is no one I would rather see in charge of it than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I believe that he is a decent and compassionate man. However, we can all make mistakes, and I believe that mistakes are being made as regards exclusion orders. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some indication that where there is serious doubt, or the possibility of injustice being perpetrated on some total innocent accused of being involved in terrorist acts we as elected representatives can make representations and obtain all the information that is necessary to allay our suspicions.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I completely accept—I would have accepted it even before the tribute which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) paid to me at the end of his speech by saying that he would rather I were in charge of this legislation than anyone else, although I am not sure that I endorse that myself—that my hon. Friend has always been opposed to terrorism. I am sure that he deplores any acts of terrorism which may be carried out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West raised the point that was made in more extreme form by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) by suggesting that people were excluded on the ground that they were undesirable or, as I would prefer to deal with it, because the police had some grievance against them and wished to pick them up in this way. I can assure my hon. Friends and the House that that suggestion is without foundation. No one can be excluded unless a substantial case is made. The matter goes through a number of people before coming to me. I have to make a personal decision upon it. It is clear that these powers have been used in a restricted sense.

When I was asked at the end of November what numbers I thought might be involved, I said that I thought that in the first instance a few dozen might be involved. I had in mind 36 or 48 in the first instance. In fact, over the six months which have elapsed 51 orders have been made. Only 39 have involved exclusion from this country, either because of revocation or because the people concerned were already outside the country. I do not think that anyone can say that I began to mislead the House about the numbers involved in November. In fact, the numbers have been less than I thought likely. I thought that initially there would be between three and four dozen and that the numbers would build up subsequently to a higher figure.

There has been no question of using these powers loosely. Of course, I can be mistaken. I would not claim absolute infallibility. However, I can assure my hon. Friends and the House that there has been no question of excluding anyone unless I have believed that they have been involved in, or were liable to be involved in, the commission of acts of terrorism. I can give the absolute assurance that there has been no question of getting rid of people because someone does not like them or for other matters such as police prejudice. No executive procedure can be absolutely foolproof. However. I can assure my hon. Friends that this procedure has been used sparingly. Where it has been used I have been convinced, rightly or wrongly—on the whole I think rightly, although I do not claim absolute certainty—there was a danger to the security of the lives of people in this country if the persons concerned had remained.

I cannot prove whether the Act has saved lives. I agree that the fact that we have had no major incidents for the past few months has been due not to the Act but to a change in the position. I believe it to be the case that had we continued with a political situation as regards the activities of the Provisional IRA similar to that which prevailed in 1973 and 1974 the Act would have improved our defences. I think it is justified as a temporary measure on that ground. I cannot prove that it would have made our defences absolute. I would not claim that it would have made them absolute. I think that there have been changes in the position.

I come now for a moment to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who spoke early in the debate and who, I thought, made a moderate, though in some ways a critical, speech but a speech which I followed closely, about the measure. He referred to relations between the Irish community and, if one likes so to call it, the host or indigenous community in this country and said that he believed that exclusion orders under the Act had exacerbated these relations.

I do not believe that that is so. I cannot prove it not to be so. Let us remember the situation at the end of November and early December. I, like a number of hon. Members who sit for large cities, sit for a city with a large, important and respected Irish population and for a division in it with such a population — part of the city of Birmingham, where, I suppose, the tension was greatest during that period. I say without any doubt at all that the danger of a real backlash and a totally unjustified deterioration of relations between the two communities on a scale that we have never seen since a large Irish community came here has receded substantially in the past six months. I greatly welcome that.

I would not claim that that is because of the Act. I would claim that, had we continued in a position as we were in then, taking no measures to protect the British public, it might well have been the case that the deterioration in relations would have continued. None of us can prove these things, but I say that the Act has not been incompatible with the surmounting of that difficulty and with a very considerable improvement in relations from that difficult period.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) gave a generally cautious welcome to the continuation of the powers, taking the point — with which I agree—that we do not want to go on this way for long and accepting the fact that, if the powers are to be substantially renewed in the autumn, it should be done by legislation when we can review them thoroughly.

The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who also spoke early in the debate, asked about the question which was raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in our debates in November. That was whether there could be a reverse provision by which people could be excluded from Northern Ireland if they were primarily of English origin and were committing acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

I indicated then that I thought that there was, in principle, certain force in this point and that I would be prepared to consider amending the Act if I thought that this was practical, and a time for amendment had arisen. I would not think it sensible to do that at present, not because I object to it on principle—I agree with it on principle—but because I could not think—I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland agrees with me—of any practical example in which this would apply if the provision were made symmetrical. It is a question not of principle but of practice. It is clearly a matter that we can discuss again if, regrettably, there has to be fresh legislation and we have to consider the matter in that form.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who, I know, has followed these matters very closely and communications from whom I have read carefully and studied throughout the consideration of the way in which we should proceed with the Act, raised a number of points, from which I will single out two. He asked, first, about the number of occasions on which the power of a police officer to authorise a search under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 3 had been exercised. These powers are not unprecedented. That does not necessarily mean that one should not ask questions about them. I am informed that there have been 29 cases on which these powers have been exercised.

My hon. Friend raised the point, secondly, about access to solicitors during the five days of extended detention. I have repeatedly emphasised, and do so again now, that the Judges' Rules apply in these circumstances under the Act just as they do in all other cases. There is no suspension of the Judges' Rules so far as this matter is concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) made a speech of great penetration on the issue. I followed very closely and with great sympathy what he said. He was very close to the core of the matter when he said that the House is misleading itself if it thinks that one can have a satisfactory amalgamation of executive and judicial powers. I believe—I notice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nodding, and he has great experience of these matters—that Northern Ireland has shown this.

If we have executive power, a member of the executive responsible to this House has to answer how it has been exercised. It does not make sense to dress it up in some quasi-judicial robes and pretend that it is judicial when it cannot be by its very nature. With the greatest respect to many hon. Members, whose views and civil libertarian approach I greatly respect and in many ways share, they are barking up the wrong tree when they say that the thing to do is to get some sort of judicial element into this Procedure. The thing to do is to get rid of this legislation as soon as we reasonably can. But to pretend that we can keep this legislation and introduce a quasi-judicial element is misleading.

Mr. Beith

What the right hon. Gentleman is saying, with much of which I agree, surely does not remove the need to specify what the rôle of the adviser is. Could he make clear whether the rôle of the adviser is to review the evidence or simply to make an assessment of its character, while recognising that this is not a judicial procedure?

Mr. Jenkins

I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised that point. I was aware that he raised it in his speech, which unfortunately I missed as I was out of the Chamber for a while, but I have a note of his remarks. The rôle of the adviser is essentially to give an independent assessment of whether I, having considered what has been given to me through many stages of recommendation and counter-recommendation, am exercising a sensible judgment and give a totally independent view about it. That is the rôle of the adviser under the executive procedure. It is not a judicial procedure. I do not pretend it is, but it is not a nugatory procedure. Of 13 people who have made representations, in five cases the orders have been revoked.

I am not, however, pretending that it is or can be a judicial procedure because in a great number of these cases I have to act on highly sensitive evidence—I should perhaps put the word "evidence" in inverted commas—and I have to use my own judgment in these difficult circumstances as to whether it is better to exclude these people or run the risk of the consequences which might follow from what they are doing here. I have exercised this extremely sparingly and, on the whole, very cautiously.

Mr. George Cunningham

Could my right hon. Friend tell us whether the advisers are given all the evidence, used in this qualified sense, that is later put before the Home Secretary himself?

Mr. Jenkins

The evidence is put before the Home Secretary before the order is signed. Therefore, the evidence is put before the Home Secretary before there is any question of representations, and, therefore, before there is any question of the adviser entering the picture. The adviser can, if he wishes, see the evidence before or after. He does see the evidence, but he is not conducting, and is not intended to conduct, a judicial hearing. I am not pretending that he is. I assure the House that if it were a judicial hearing it would be sensible to do it in public or semi-public and not in this manner, and to have a totally different procedure.

A great deal of the evidence which has to be dealt with is of a highly sensitive nature. If the evidence and the sources of the evidence were known to the person with whom one was dealing, this in itself, particularly if one subsequently revoked the order, would be extremely damaging to sources of intelligence which are necessarily important in circumstances such as those with which we have to deal. I would not defend this as a permanent procedure were we living in normal circumstances, but I certainly do defend it in circumstances following the outrages of 1973 and 1974.

Let us remember also the number of people whom I have excluded. I do not pretend that exclusion is not at best an inconvenience, and in some cases a hard process, for those to whom it is applied, but it does not automatically deprive them of their liberty, and in any event it is very different from being blown up in an explosion, as has been the fate of people killed by terrorist activities. I feel that we must bear this in mind in having some regard to the proportions of the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised a question to which, I know, he has devoted great attention; that is, the procedure for complaints against the police. He attached considerable importance to this matter. I must tell him that I do not think that the question of the Act and of complaints against the police match one another, and I feel that during debates on the passage of the Bill and on its operation he has, if I may say so, seen too close a symmetry or interlocking relationship between the two.

On a purely arithmetical basis, complaints against the police in this country number about 12,000 in a year, whereas the number of people with whom we are dealing in relation to the Act is of an entirely different order. Clearly, there is no symmetry here. I assure my hon. Friend also that if the Act had never been introduced, or if I could get rid of it tomorrow, that would not in any way change my view about the desirability of early introduction of a legislative scheme for permanent machinery introducing an independent element into the procedure for complaints against the police.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked me about the timetable for that, and he quoted—I think it was he—what I said, in the middle of the night in November, under some stress in a desire to get the Bill through, about a possible timetable for complaints against the police. I must say that I have been gratified that I was restrained on that occasion because nothing that I then said was incompatible with what has happened since.

I believe that we are very near to a conclusion of consultation, and I think that I can say that we shall have concluded it some time in June. But that is different from saying that we can immediately legislate, and I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking as to the exact date on which it will be introduced. No departmental Minister is in a position to pre-empt the time of the House by suddently announcing during debate precisely when something will be done. I hope very much that it can be done and that, from the point of view of consultation, I shall be ready by the end of this Session, but the House will be aware that the legislative programme is not exactly in an easy position now.

I assure my hon. Friend that this is one of the highest priorities for next Session, and I am determined to put it through. I regard it as an important, major Bill. I shall, of course, take great notice of what is put to me. I thought that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) substantially exaggerated the position of the Police Federation, but I take great note of what the Police Federation says on the matter. I am determined to put it through, though I should be misleading the House were I to pretend that it could be done this Session. I emphasise again, however, that I regard this as a long-term matter totally independent of any temporary legislation of the sort with which we are here dealing.

Mr. Mather

I put it in the mildest possible terms. There are members of the Police Federation who are unhappy about this proposal. I do not think that I could put it more mildly than that. That is hardly exaggeration.

Mr. Jenkins

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says—although, if he put the matter as mildly as that, it was hardly worth putting it at all. With respect to him, I believe he put the point much more strongly than that. I do not deny that the Police Federation has a view about the matter, but it is a reasonably constructive view and we are getting over the difficulties. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North a complete assurance as to the long-term position.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

Could my right hon. Friend amplify the matter a little because there seems to be some confusion about the discussions? Some of us were under the impression that the discussions had ended. My right hon. Friend now says that the discussions are continuing and that it is hoped they will finish by the month of June. Will my right hon. Friend consider tying this matter to the new piece of legislation in November aimed at replacing the present provisions?

Mr. Jenkins

I think that would be a remarkably foolish thing to do. Here we are dealing with a major question which introduces an independent element into the matter of complaints against the police, of which there are about 12,000 a year. Tonight we are dealing with cases which, at most, amount to several hundreds a year. Therefore, it is foolish to suggest that the two should be interlinked. Furthermore, we are dealing with what I regard as a temporary piece of legislation. For my hon. Friend or anybody else to try to link the two would be to invite the corollary that when this legislation lapses, so should the procedure for independent complaint against the police. If my hon. Friend tries to make the one dependent on the other, I assure him that that is a consequence I could not accept. It would be foolish to link this major long-term measure with a short-term measure of this sort.

Subject to that, I have given—and I hope they will be accepted—assurances

so far as I can to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North about my attitude to the timetable. I hope that he will be reasonably satisfied.

The House naturally has made some criticisms of the working of the measure. It would be amazing if that had not been the case when we realise that the measure went through its stages in the course of a sitting of 18 hours, under stress, emotion and tension. I would be surprised if there had not been certain deficiencies. However, whether by luck or judgment, it has not been so botched a piece of legislation as one might have thought in the circumstances. I have no doubt some hon. Members would wish to propose some amendments, but I would resist them. We have to have this legislation for a further limited period.

I do not like legislation of this sort. I do not intend to keep it on the statute book indefinitely, but it has helped in the past, we need it in the present uncertain position within the next six months, and I hope it may not be necessary for longer than that—but I cannot be sure. On that basis, and on the understanding that we may need substantially to review the major part of these provisions in November, I hope the House will agree to accept the order and permit the Bill to run for another six months.

Mr. Cryer

Before my right hon. Friend concludes, will he assure the House that he intends, in taking account of all the circumstances, not to renew the legislation at the end of the next six months but to introduce new legislation [HON. MEMBERS: "He has already said that."] Will he reiterate that point?

Mr. Jenkins

I gave a careful account at the close of my speech, and I chose my words carefully. I think it would be confusing for me to attempt to summarise them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 10.

Division No. 210.] AYES [10.50 p.m.
Anderson, Donald Booth, Albert Carter, Ray
Archer, Peter Boothroyd, Miss Betty Carter-Jones, Lewis
Armstrong, Ernest Bray, Dr Jeremy Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Bates, Alf Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Corbett, Robin
Biggs-Davison, John Carlisle, Mark Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Carmichael, Neil Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Kilfedder, James Ryman, John
Cryer, Bob Lamborn, Harry Sandelson, Neville
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Lamond, James Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Lawrence, Ivan Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Dalyell, Tam Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Lyon, Alexander (York) Silvester, Fred
Deakins, Eric MacFarquhar, Roderick Small, William
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Mackenzie, Gregor Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Snaps, Peter
Dempsey, James McNamara, Kevin Spearing, Nigel
Dormand, J. D. Magee, Bryan Spriggs, Leslie
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Marks, Kenneth Stainton, Keith
Dunlop, John Marquand, David Stallard, A. W.
Dunn, James A. Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Mather, Carol Stott, Roger
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Strang, Gavin
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Millan, Bruce Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Evans, John (Newton) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Tinn, James
Fairgrieve, Russell Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Tomlinson, John
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin Moate, Roger Torney, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Molloy, William Urwin, T. W.
Freeson, Reginald Molyneaux, James Viggers, Peter
Garrett, W. E. (Wellsend) Monro, Hector Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
George, Bruce Moonman, Eric Wakeham, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Golding, John Moyle, Roland Ward, Michael
Gould, Bryan Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Watkins, David
Grant, George (Morpeth) Neubert, Michael Watkinson, John
Grant, John (Islington C) Oakes, Gordon Weatherill, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Ogden, Eric Weetch, Ken
Hampson, Dr Keith O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian Wellbeloved, James
Harper, Joseph Ovenden, John White, Frank R. (Bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) White, James (Pollok)
Hatton, Frank Palmer, Arthur Whitehead, Phillip
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Park, George Whitlock, William
Hunter, Adam Parker, John Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Pavitt, Laurie Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Perry, Ernest Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Phipps, Dr Colin Winterton, Nicholas
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Woodall, Alec
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Prescott, John Woof, Robert
Janner, Greville Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Young, David (Bolton E)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Rooker, J. W.
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roper, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kaufman, Gerald Ross, William (Londonderry) Mr. Donald Coleman and
Kerr, Russell Rowlands, Ted Mr. David Stoddart.
NOES
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Flannery, Martin
Bidwell, Sydney Loyden, Eddie TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Richardson, Miss Jo Miss Joan Maynard and
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Selby, Harry Mr. Stan Thorne.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (Continuance) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.