EXCLUSION ORDERS: GENERAL

HC Deb 28 January 1976 vol 904 cc506-19

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 10, leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Speaker

With this amendment we may also take the following amendments:

No. 10, in page 3, line 19, leave out Clause 4.

No. 18, in page 4, line 6, leave out Clause 5.

No. 21, in page 4, line 23, leave out Clause 6.

No. 27, in page 5, line 19, leave out Clause 7.

No. 29, in page 5, line 29, leave out Clause 8.

No. 33, in Clause 9, in page 6, leave out line 17.

No. 37, in Clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 8 and 9.

No. 39, in page 7, line 13, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

No. 41, in page 7, leave out lines 24 to 27.

No. 42, in page 7, leave out lines 31 to 33.

No. 43, in Clause 11, page 7, leave out lines 39 and 40.

No. 44, in page 8, line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Bennett

The intention was that I was to play a sweeping role in this debate but, having looked round the Chamber, I see that I am to be regarded as almost the only sweeper.

This group of amendments deals with the principle of the exclusion order. Many of us have been concerned about the concept of such orders, particularly following the removal of internment in Northern Ireland and the feeling that there is still a need for some judicial process.

I am concerned about the numbers involved in this process. When the legislation was introduced over a year ago it was clear that the numbers were to be small, but as time has elapsed the numbers have grown and they are still growing. The procedure does not appear to lead to a reduction in numbers. It would appear that we must wait until such time as it is felt that there is no longer a need to provide in legislation for any substantial reduction in the number of orders. The occasional order is appealed against and sometimes that appeal is successful, but the basic number of orders in existence is steadily growing. Many hon. Members are concerned that they will grow into a mountain.

If the number of orders increases too greatly, I believe that it will become a matter of concern in English communities, as did the question of internment in earlier days. Indeed, the process may well have the reverse effect from that intended when originally introduced in that it may turn the community against the Government rather than assist their efforts.

We are also concerned lest two levels of evidence are to be involved—one requiring conviction in the courts and another involving a level of evidence sufficient for an exclusion order to be made. We should ensure that evidence is heard in the courts rather than that there should be extra powers based on less positive evidence but still leading to an exclusion order.

We must ask certain questions. Is the present set-up producing the effect we want? Is it intended to keep one or two people out of the country, or to scare the whole Irish community? In one or two cases that have come to light the latter rather than the former concept appears to be the intention. There are many reasons for questioning exclusion orders. I hope that we shall receive some explanation from the Minister about how we are to get rid of them. I hope that we shall be told how people who have been excluded for a certain period can go about obtaining revocation of an order. This is an important matter for people who have been uprooted from their homes and who wonder whether they will ever have the opportunity to return.

There is disquiet about exclusion orders. They have now existed for a year and they appear to be needed even beyond that time. I hope that the Government will seriously consider dropping the provisions relating to exclusion orders.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas

I wish to deal with the subject of exclusion orders because it cannot be denied that as the legislation stands it involves a serious infringement of civil liberties. That point was clearly made in Committee. I was not a member of the Committee and I was surprised that no amendments were moved to protect civil liberties. It is on the basis of protecting the civil liberties of the British people that I make my remarks about exclusion orders.

I speak in terms of the experience of two Bristolians, one of whom was a constituent of mine, who were served with exclusion orders. I have made the point before, but it is worth repeating. At no stage of the proceedings leading to the serving of the orders were they given any indication of the evidence against them. Neither their families nor their Members of Parliament were given any information about the evidence.

There is an amendment for discussion later which seeks to ensure that individuals who are taken into custody receive legal representation. Under the exclusion order procedure, no lawyer can get any information to help him prepare a defence statement. I was rightly inundated with telephone calls from a solicitor in Bristol who had taken up the case of my constituent. His request was quite simple. He wanted to prepare a defence statement to help his client—and I take it that that is the first duty of a legal representative—but the police would not give him any information about the evidence against the man. I contacted the Home Office which refused to give me any information.

I am told that the adviser who visited the men in prison told them that he had no indication of the evidence against them either. Imagine that! The man who had to advise the Home Secretary whether these men should be taken away from their wives and families and sent back to Ireland apparently had no idea of the evidence against them. I ask the lawyers in the House how they would proceed in this kind of situation.

My right hon. Friend has said that this is an executive order and that he takes the decisions. However, I understand that the words "Secretary of State" in the Bill mean any Secretary of State. If this sort of procedure was happening in other countries, whether Fascist Chile or the Soviet Union, hon. Members would not be reticent about putting down Early-Day Motions, and I am sure that the Home Secretary would support them. Hon. Members would protest at families being split up in this way and at Members of Parliament being unable to get an indication of the evidence against their constituents.

This House should be the watchdog of civil liberties, not the Home Secretary's poodle. I am concerned about the House passing legislation which gives these incredible Dowers to the Home Secretary. He can exclude people from this country and send them back to Ireland and we do not know whether they and their families will ever be reunited. Hon. Members who feel this situation can be passed over lightly should come to Bristol and talk to the wives of the men served with exclusion orders and explain to their families why their fathers have been sent out of the country.

A number of hon. Friends and myself are concerned about this legislation. If there is evidence that people have been, or are likely to be, involved in acts of terrorism, they should be brought before the courts and, if they are found guilty, the full penalty of the law should be imposed upon them. To find someone guilty without telling him the evidence on which that decision is based is contrary to what we have always believed to be British justice.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I have never pretended that I like these powers and I have always been anxious that they should be as temporary as possible, but I dislike still more the acts of terrorism to which we have been exposed and their consequences. While this House must safeguard civil liberties, it must also safeguard, as far as possible, the safety of the people of this country.

We face a difficult decision. I must tell the House and my hon. Friends that opposing the exclusion order provisions would be equivalent to opposing a very large part of the Bill, removing many of its teeth and leaving us, if recent circumstances arose again, with no effective measure in this area. I hope that we can move in the reasonably near future to a position in which we can dispense with these provisions.

In normal circumstances, I would not advocate them as desirable, but in the circumstances of the sustained acts of terrorism through which we have lived, I am sure that they are both necessary and desirable. I should not like anybody to be in any doubt that if he votes for removing the exclusion order provisions, he is voting to remove a very large part of the effectiveness of a Bill against terrorism.

Why can we not proceed by purely judicial procedures? Unfortunately, it is not possible. We can often convict people after crimes have been committed, but we are most anxious—and this is my duty—to prevent the acts of terrorism. That involves acting as we do. I believe that I have exercised these powers with a great deal of care and discretion.

There has been no question of my simply rubber-stamping orders. I gave the figures recently and they will not have changed much in the intervening period. I told hon. Members that I had made 69 exclusion orders. Notice of the making of an exclusion order has been served on 61 people. The other eight were not in this country. Fifty-six of them have been removed, 39 to Northern Ireland and 17 to the Irish Republic. Sixteen of the 61 made representations objecting to the orders, and in five of those 16 cases the orders were revoked after being referred to the advisers. This shows that the advisers procedure and consideration by the Secretary of State are not meaningless. I have revoked orders in just over 30 per cent. of the cases referred to the advisers.

I was asked why the whole system could not be used openly with the evidence presented against an individual. When people are removed, they are not imprisoned. They are removed to another part of the country, or to the Republic of Ireland, wherever they originated. People who were born here or who have lived here for 20 years cannot be so removed. I do not like the process, but its dangers have to be balanced against the danger—not just the threat of danger but the actuality of danger—to which the British public have been subjected in the past few years.

It is not a case of removing people against whom cases can be sustained in a court of law. Of course that is a much better and much more satisfactory procedure. In a great many cases however, that can be done only after acts of terrorism have been committed in circumstances which are difficult to prove. In present circumstances it is my duty to be prepared to act, balancing considerations in a way which enables us to act on real suspicion but not necessarily on sustainable evidential proof in a legal sense.

I was asked why the proceedings before the advisers could not be conducted in a judicial way. That would be to confuse the object of the two procedures. Either there must be a fully judicial process or an executive process with responsibility resting upon the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) stated correctly that another Secretary of State could always sign an order for the Home Secretary. That does not mean that these matters are tossed around Whitehall. I think there may have been two cases in which orders have been signed by other Secretaries of State because I have been away. However, in each case the matter has been looked at most carefully by my advisers before signing and by myself on return. Every exclusion order case has received my careful individual attention. As for the advisers procedure, the fact that five of the orders have been revoked is in itself a strong indication that this is not a useless and ineffective whitewashing procedure.

I was asked why people cannot be told the charges against them. Obviously that cannot be done without endangering our sources of information. We all know the sort of conspiracies which have confronted us. One of the most vital factors for anyone trying to preserve the safety of people is to safeguard the sources of information.

Of the two advisers let me say that one prefers to see the man first, to hear what he has to say and to form a view about him, contrasting it afterwards with the case against the man. The other prefers to do it the other way around. They have both given very good, dedicated and balanced service. I would find it impossible to decide, if there were an instinct which was more favourable to the cause of the person against whom the order was laid, which of the two advisers would be likely to come up with the more favourable result. The two processes balance each other out. One does not result in a process any less favourable than the other.

Therefore, so long as we are subject to this terrorist threat, we have to continue with these powers, and if we took any other view, we should not be making an effective Bill. I certainly regard this part of the legislation as the most effective part and the removal of which would be the most damaging to the purposes of the Bill.

7.45 p.m.

One of my hon. Friends suggested that in some way this was not a measure for the safety of the British people, but a measure against the Irish community here. Nothing can be further from my intentions or from the effect of the legislation. As a Member representing a Birmingham constituency, my great desire in dealing with the aftermath of the Birmingham bombings, which were the worst we have had to suffer and potentially the most dangerous to relations between the very large and valued Irish community in Birmingham and the indigenous community, has been to prevent these bestial acts from having any general effect upon those relations. In order to achieve that we must strike the right balance, and we have to strike a certain balance over a period of time.

It is extraordinary how short term are our reactions and our memories. When there is a dreadful incident, such as we have happily been free of for nearly two months, as a result, to some extent, of some very effective police work in December, great waves of emotion arise in this House and among the public. If we do not take care, large numbers of people get into the frame of mind in which they abandon all idea of justice and want to shoot almost anyone who might be involved.

After a number of weeks, memories fade and views swing the other way. People begin to think that the only important thing is to ensure that there is not too much executive power. My duty, and it is one of the most difficult I have ever had to discharge in a number of offices, is to try to hold a proper balance over a period of time between those two attitudes.

I believe that with all its difficulties and problems—and I should not like to see it a permanent part of our legislation—the Bill broadly achieves that objective. Without these provisions, it would be gravely weakened and unacceptably affected.

Mr. Litterick

My right hon. Friend has made a point about the Irish community and that is very germane. Will he say how many, if any, non-Irish people have been deported from one part of the British Isles to another under this legislation?

Mr. Jenkins

I am not sure that I can. I am not sure of the relevance of the question. Probably—I am not quite sure—all those involved had some form of Southern or Northern Irish connection, otherwise they would not have been involved.

I remind my hon. Friend that we are here discussing a Bill to deal with Irish terrorism. Other forms of terrorism exist in the world and can arise. It is not a peculiarity of the Irish people that they produce terrorists. My hon. Friends below the Gangway have been extremely anxious that the Bill should be confined to Irish terrorism, and I have been asked in the course of the passage of both the previous Bill and this to give many assurances. Therefore, any construction based upon my hon. Friend's question would not be valid, and any suggestion that the legislation has led to a general anti-Irish feeling would be entirely misplaced.

Mr. Whitelaw

I rise to say briefly why I feel deeply and strongly that the House must support the Home Secretary in resisting the amendment. He rightly spoke of the need to preserve a balance and rightly stressed that the legislation was of a temporary nature, which is an extremely important safeguard.

On the question of balance, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) asked how one would give an answer to the families of people who had been subjected to exclusion orders. I accept that it is a difficult answer to give, but it would be much more difficult to explain to the families of people who had suffered from terrorists' actions in this country why the House was not taking every possible effective step against terrorism.

The House must take effective measures. Inevitably, from time to time they are distasteful measures. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I had to exercise considerable powers against terrorism, some of which were distasteful. No one in the position of Home Secretary or Secretary of State for Northern Ireland likes to exercise these powers. One does it not from pleasure but because one has a duty to protect the people against acts of terrorism. Measures taken against members of the Irish community who might be engaged in terrorism are a great safeguard for the remainder of the Irish community who are not engaged in terrorism in that they are thereby to some extent safeguarded against the undoubted reprisals which would come upon innocent members of the Irish community—as the vast majority undoubtedly are—if we did not have such measures.

I wish to endorse what the Home Secretary said about the powers of the Secretary of State. From time to time, when I had power as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, other Secretaries of State signed orders on my behalf, but never without my accepting personal responsibility for the action taken. They might sign, but I took personal responsibility, because I was answerable to the House. Naturally and properly, I took that responsibility, as would any Home Secretary or Secretary of State.

I also endorse what the Home Secretary said about safeguarding sources of information. We have to preserve the right balance. It is proper that questions concerning the individual and civil liberties should be raised in the House, but, in the light of what we have had to endure from terrorism, the House has to be seen to be determined to take effective action.

To allow the amendments to the Bill would make it seem that the House was not in earnest and was not determined to take effective action. It would appear that we were passing a Bill which would not do the job necessary. Having set our minds to deal effectively with terrorism, we should not flinch at our first chance of doing so. That is no way to safeguard our people, which surely is the primary consideration.

Mr. Mikardo

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary devoted a substantial part of his speech to an account of how he had administered the provisions since they had been in operation and the scrupulous care he had taken to use them in such a way as to minimise their adverse effects and consequent encroachments upon civil liberty. I totally accept that part of his speech. Everyone, even its supporters, agrees that the legislation is obnoxious. The best anyone says of it is that it is a necessary evil. If we are to have this obnoxious legislation, I can think of no one I prefer to my right hon. Friend to administer it. But he is not a permanent fixture.

Although the Bill is temporary, such is the insecurity of man upon the earth that even in the Bill's temporary life we cannot be sure that my right hon. Friend will be administering it for all its life. It is a poor reason for legislation to say that it is awful but at least the present Minister is doing a good job with it. I totally accept what my right hon. Friend said. I pay sincere tribute to him for the way in which he has administered the provisions. No one admires more than I my right hon. Friend's humanitarian and libertarian views, but I do not think that they are relevant to the amendment.

I turn to the main burden of the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). I have not before listened to a speech like that made by my right hon. Friend, but I have read one. I read in a Soviet journal a detailed account which purported to give a point by point answer to the "Gulag Archipelago" and which said exactly what my right hon. Friend said. He will no doubt be horrified to hear that, but he needs no assurance from me that I am not comparing him—or indeed the right hon. Gentleman—with the people who committed the atrocities referred to in the "Gulag Archipelago".

The point by point refutation in the Soviet Press of the accusations in the "Gulag Archipelago" were virtually indistinguishable from what my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman said. The same arguments were used. It is true that in the Soviet Union chaps are put in prison or in a psychiatric hospital whereas we do not do that. But we separate chaps from their wives and children and choke them out of their jobs. The pains felt by the victims referred to in "Gulag Archipelago" are imposed by the Bill upon some of our citizens.

8.0 p.m.

What is the point by point refutation of the "Gulag Archipelago" that no hon. Member accepts? It is as follows: "It is bad and we should like to proceed against these people by the processes of law, but they are enemies of the State." We call them "terrorists"—for "terrorist" read "enemy of the State", for "enemy of the State" read "terrorist". The refutation goes on: "They are enemies of the State and the first consideration must be to protect the people."

That is what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has just said. That is what was said in Pravda. We were told in its refutation: "Do not have sympathy with these people who are sent to the Gulag Archipelago; have sympathy with the potential victims of these enemies of the State. We should like to be able to proceed against these enemies by the due processes" and so on, and so on—we know it all. "The State must be protected because these people are ruthless"—we have heard those terms in the House today. The conclusion is: "The community must be protected and so we have to take powers different from any powers which have been taken before to deal with enemies of the State."

It is just a matter of which side one is on. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's terrorist is another man's enemy of the State. One man's protection of the community is another man's Gulag Archipelago. It depends on the way one looks at it. There is a great deal of subjectivity in all this.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal) rose—

Mr. Mikardo

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is rising to ask me whether I am trying to protect terrorists, the answer is that I am not, by any means. But I do not want us to start the beginnings of a process the end of which could well be the Gulag Archipelago.

Mr. Rees

The hon. Gentleman is developing an extremely interesting line of argument, but so that we can appreciate its full sublety, will he tell us whether crimes of violence are as prevalent in the Soviet Union as they are in Ulster?

Mr. Mikardo

I have not the least idea. I have no statistics, and nor has the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think

that either of us could get them. I am trying to figure out the purport of his intervention. Is he saying "Good. The Soviet Union has done this. It has the Gulag Archipelago and it has got rid of crimes of violence and therefore we should have a Gulag Archipelago"? That is what it sounds like. Otherwise I cannot see sense in his intervention. Much as I deplore crimes of violence, I deplore the Gulag Archipelago more, and I hope that he does, too.

Mr. McCusker (Armagh)

The case being made of innocent workmen on the flimsiest evidence being wrenched from their families and sent to Ireland, North or South, would be substantially reinforced if it could be shown that when they got to Ireland they all settled down, got jobs, worked hard and found homes where they could be reunited with their families. But what do we find when we examine the activities of at least some of them? I have not examined all their cases, but I have examined the cases which have impinged on my constituency,

Among the people referred to by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) may be the one who, weeks after his return, was not only actively working in the Republican movement, but came into my constituency and in June 1975 made an oration over the grave of the only known IRA terrorist shot by the British Army during 1975 in the commission of a terrorist crime. He described that terrorist as having been killed on active service. That was all done during the period of the so-called IRA cease-fire. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if the family of that man were to ask me for an answer, I would say, "Look to your father and what he is doing in Ireland."

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 140.

Division No. 43.]	AYES	[8.7 p.m.
Bidwell, Sydney	Lamond, James	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Canavan, Dennis	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Wigley, Dafydd
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen	Litterick, Tom	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Mikardo, Ian
Corbett, Robin	Noble, Mike	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Cryer, Bob	Parry, Robert	Mr. Ron Thomas and
Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Mr. Andrew Bennett.
Flannery, Martin	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Skinner, Dennis
NOES
Alison, Michael	Harper, Joseph	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds E)
Archer, Peter	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Armstrong, Ernest	Henderson, Douglas	Reid, George
Ashton, Joe	Hopson, Emlyn	Rooker, J. W.
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Bales, Alf	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Beith, A. J.	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hunter, Adam	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Bishop. E. S.	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Rowlands, Ted
Blaker, Peter	James, David	Sims, Roger
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Boardman, H.	John, Brynmor	Small, William
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Bradford, Rev Robert	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Judd, Frank	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)	Kilfedder, James	Spriggs, Leslie
Buchan, Norman	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Campbell, Ian	Knight, Mrs Jill	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Carlisle, Mark	Lawrence, Ivan	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Carson, John	Le Marchant, Spencer	Stradling Thomas, J.
Cartwright, John	Lector, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Crawshaw, Richard	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	McCartney, Hugh	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	McCusker, H.	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Deakins, Eric	McElhone, Frank	Tinn, James
Dempsey, James	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Viggers, Peter
Doig, Peter	Mackenzie, Gregor	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Mackintosh, John P.	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Dunn, James A.	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Eadie, Alex	Madden, Max	Ward, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Marks, Kenneth	Watt, Hamish
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Welsh, Andrew
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Millan, Bruce	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	White, James (Pollok)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Molyneaux, James	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Evans, John (Newton)	Monro, Hector	Whitlock, William
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Moyle, Roland	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Nelson, Anthony	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Freud, Clement	Oakes, Gordon	Winterton, Nicholas
Golding, John	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Woodall, Alec
Goodhart, Philip	Pardoe, John	Woof, Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Park, George	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Graham, Ted	Parkinson, Cecil
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Pavitt, Laurie	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grist, Ian	Penhaligon, David	Mr. J. D. Dormand and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Mr. David Stoddart.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 15, leave out 'or 5 below' and insert: '(orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland) or 5 of this Act'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]