OFFENCES UNDER PART II (Hansard, 22 March 1976)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is designed to clarify the clause in two respects. First, the offence of failing to comply with an exclusion order is to arise only after a per son has been removed or has become liable to be removed under Clause 8 rather than—as in the Bill as it left the Commons—at a time after he has been served with notice of the making of an exclusion order. Secondly, the amendment simplifies and improves the provisions 158 offences in relation to harbouring or facilitating the entry of persons subject to exclusion orders.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) will notice that the new subsection (1) has been drafted to take account of a point he raised on Third Reading.
The new subsection (2) simplifies the provisions creating offences of harbouring or facilitating the entry of persons subject to exclusion orders. It also removes an anomaly in the existing provisions, under which a person who harboured, or helped to enter the country, someone whom he knew to be subject to an exclusion order could commit an offence in circumstances in which the excluded person himself would not be committing an offence because he had not been served with notice of the making of the order.
The penalties for offences under the clause remain the same—that is, on summary conviction six months' imprisonment or a fine of £400, or both, or on conviction on indictment, five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.

§ Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)
We are obliged to the hon. Lady for that helpful explanation, and I am particularly grateful that she has taken account of the point I raised at the last moment on Third Reading.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)
I have no doubt that the amendment is both a simplification and an improvement. In particular from the point of view of Members from Northern Ireland, it is preferable to have Northern Ireland put in exactly the same position as Great Britain quite clearly on the face of the Bill. So we welcome, although it is little more than drafting, the improvement in the form.

§ Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)
Throughout the debates on this type of legislation I have felt that I could not give full-hearted support to repressive legislation. But, when bomb factories are being found in London and other parts of the United Kingdom, and when it is only by the grace of God that there have not been many casualties or deaths as a result of bombs placed on trains, I can understand the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
159 However, in such legislation the House should be concerned not only with apprehending terrorists but, at the same time, with giving protection to people who are not terrorists and at whom suspicion may be cast. I am taking this opportunity to bring before the hon. Lady a case of which I am well aware in Northern Ireland. It relates strictly to the amendment, and it is fortunate that the amendment enables me to bring it before the House.
I know very well a young merchant seaman from Belfast. He has been at sea for a number of years. It is the only livelihood he has ever had. He likes going to sea and travels to many parts of the world. A few weeks ago, he joined a ship in Felixstowe and within a few hours the police arrived on board. They obviously knew whom they were after, because they called his name and then took him to Felxistowe police station. They questioned him for about an hour about what ships he had been on, what countries he had visited, and whether he liked being a merchant seaman. They then left him. The next day, he was questioned again, and asked whether he had ever belonged to a terrorist organisation, or knew anyone who did. He said that he had never been involved in such an organisation and did not want to be.
I know the young man concerned personally, and I know his family. Everyone knows my opposition to terrorism, and if I had the slightest doubt about my assertion that that young man is not associated with any terrorist group I should not be making this case. After he had been questioned again for about an hour on the second day, the police went away. Five days later they came back to tell him that he was to be served with an exclusion order because they thought that he knew something about terrorists in Northern Ireland.
He proclaimed his innocence again and said that he was prepared to prove it before any court. The police said that that was not possible and that he would be excluded. They served him with the order and put him on a plane at Heathrow and he subsequently landed in Northern Ireland.
That young seaman now cannot go back to sea. He has lost the only livelihood 160 he has ever known. He can never sail out of ports in Britain. If he is lucky enough to join a ship sailing for Belfast, there is no guarantee that it will not call at a port in the United Kingdom. If it goes back to Belfast, it seems that he will be all right, but if it goes to London, what will happen to him? Will he have to report to the police and say that he had arrived in London accidentally? Will the shipping company or the master be regarded as having brought back into the United Kingdom someone subject to an exclusion order?
This is a difficulty which is not covered in this legislation. I hope that further representations can be made to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the Minister can give me any further ideas on how I, as this young man's Member, can approach his Department and discover what suspicion attaches to this man.
I believe that someone in Belfast, who may be a member of a terrorist organisation and who dislikes this young man because he is not a member, has passed information to the police here. It happens very frequently in Northern Ireland that if a person does not agree with a terrorist organisation, the members of the organisation can lay false information against him to try to put him in such a position that he will become a member.
I can understand the necessity for this legislation, particularly when bombs are being found in London, but the greatest protection should be given to persons who are to be subjected to exclusion orders.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether she is aware of the case that I have mentioned and what steps I could possibly take to clear my mind. I should not like to think that I knew the person involved, and his family, and that he had been engaged or was suspected of having been engaged in terrorism when I did not know about it, because I do not associate with terrorists of any description in Northern Ireland. I should like the position clarified, for my own protection.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me an answer, either tonight or later in writing, as to what will happen if that young boy, who still has a merchant seaman's ticket, happens to join a ship in Belfast, perhaps tramp around 161 the world and then return to London. Will he be liable to arrest and imprisonment, or to a fine, because the ship has arrived back in London?

§ Dr. Summerskill
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) appreciates that I cannot discuss individual cases in the context of the debate on this amendment. However, he can be assured that the Home Secretary has given very careful consideration to the case that he has raised. If my hon. Friend will contact us again, in writing or in person, the Home Secretary will take very careful note of everything that he says.