HC Deb 18 March 1981 vol 1 cc375-95

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

10.11 pm
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)

I should not like the last debate to pass without congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on giving the House far more time to discuss this important issue than we have had previously. The horrors of terrorism always and understandably provoke a tough reaction from society. The bombs in Birmingham, like other bombings here and in Northern Ireland, not only killed people but maimed others for life and brought misery to the friends and relatives of the victims. That misery will go on for the rest of their lives, even among those who were not maimed or killed, simply because they are close family friends or relatives.

In the past few months I have had two bomb explosions in my constituency of Hammersmith. That is a matter for serious concern. I have said on other occasions that I think that the best policy in Northern Ireland for everyone, including the Protestants in the North, is to move towards a federal united Ireland with safeguards for minority groups. There are disputes about that view, but I have held it for many years, since long before the present troubles broke out in 1969.

The use of terror to achieve unity or any other purpose in the Province or on the mainland is totally unjustified. I am also of the view—in passing—that it is counterproductive. The existence of the IRA has in no small measure led to the development of the UDA. In many ways that is unjustified. Well-organised and sensible peaceful protests would have been just as effective in achieving reform in Northern Ireland, although the actions of other Administrations in Northern Ireland played into the hands of the paramilitary groups. Ultimately, the solution must be political and not military.

The point has already been well made—I do not wish to dwell on it—that the Act was meant to be temporary. The temporary period is becoming dangerously long. The powers are draconian. That phrase was used by the Home Secretary when the Act was originally proposed in 1974. I think I am correct in saying that everybody agrees with that. However, I shall dwell on the impact on civil rights.

We rightly condemn moves in the Soviet Union such as the expulsion of Sakharov from Moscow to another part of the Soviet Union. I recognise that the reasons for doing that in the Soviet Union are different from the reasons here, but the force of this country's voice for human rights is diminished by the fact that we have a similar type of power operating in the United Kingdom, regardless of the difference of reason. The effect on civil rights is dramatic.

The argument that I wish to put, with as much force as I can, is that, whatever view one takes of Ireland and the future of Northern Ireland, it is in the interests of all the people of this country and Ireland to oppose the renewal of the Act. I argue that because the creation of the Act was one of the victories of the Provisional IRA. Along with internment and other such measures, it was seen as a victory by many Provisional IRA supporters.

To understand that, we need to look at the philosophy of terror in revolution and the use of terror. The philosophy is not new—it has been around for at least 100 years and traces of it can be found long before then. I have been impressed in the past 10 years by the clarity with which the philosophy of terror has been spelt out and copied around the world from one writer, Carlos Marighella, in a book which has been used extensively by terrorists here and elsewhere called "Mini-manual of the Urban Guerilla".

It is worth reading from that book to emphasise my point. Carlos Marighella says: The government has no alternative except to intensify repression". Of course, that is the object of the terrorist. The police networks, the house searches, arrests of innocent people"— with all that that implies in the Act and of suspects, closing off streets, make life in the city unbearable. … The armed forces … are mobilised and undertake routine police functions. Even so they find no way to halt guerilla operations, nor to wipe out the revolutionary organisation with its fragmented groups that move around and operate throughout the national territory persistently and contagiously. The people refuse to collaborate with the authorities"— I shall come back to that point shortly and the general sentiment is that the government is unjust, incapable of solving problems. That was written for a South American situation, and Carlos Marighella was killed in an anti-terrorist operation in 1969.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

Did that writer, or another, not also say that if, through fear, the Government fail to take action, the guerrillas will win anyway? Do they not fear most that the Government will take reasonable steps to safeguard law and order in the community, and is not the Act a reasonable step?

Mr. Soley

I am aware of that argument and I shall come to it. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with what I say, perhaps he would like to intervene again.

In sum, the aim of the terrorist is to force the Government to take increasingly repressive powers to combat the terror, and particularly against those whom the terrorist claims to represent. I shall say later that the Act is directed primarily against the group which the terrorists claim to represent.

Because the Government were forced into panic reactions—though I do not describe the Act, which followed the Birmingham bombings, simply as a panic reaction, though to some extent it falls into that classification—there resulted a degree of repression, and a political problem was turned into a semi-military problem.

Historically, terrorism does not have a good track record in terms of winning power for the terrorists themselves. In many cases, it has failed or been counterproductive. Perhaps the best example if the Tupamaros in Uruguay who managed to produce a result the exact opposite of what they wanted. That is not unusual.

I should like to give another quotation from General Richard Clutterbuck, a British Army general witing on the same problem and to some extent looking at Marighella's writings. He said that the terrorists are anxious to force their governments to adopt measures so repressive that they will arouse discontent amongst liberally-minded people and that the Government have no option but to use repressive measures. Liberal forms of law are made unworkable by intimidating witnesses and juries, so that more arbitrary forms of law have to be substituted. An example is the Prevention of Terrorism Act. `Disruption, damage and loss of life reach a scale which compels the government to introduce curfews, roadblocks, searches and mass arrests. This harassment starts the process of discontent with the government. It is continued by bombing which destroys places of work and deters investments, so that unemployment is increased. To use Marighella's own words, the aim is to make life 'unbearable' for ordinary people, and `transform a political situation into a military situation'. Richard Clutterbuck makes the point that the chief enemy of the terrorist is the liberal reformer—an important point in the context of this debate. He says: Thus, like all revolutionaries he regards his chief enemy as the liberal reformer. To maintain his image and not to alienate possible future allies, he must pay lip-service to Popular Front movements, but in elections his real hope may be that the 'Man of Order', the 'Man of Right', will gain power and provide the repression he seeks. I advise the House to take careful heed of those words. They are relevant to our discussion because the Prevention of Terrorism Act plays into that role. The Baader Meinhof group and the Red Brigade in Italy have argued similarly. The Baader Meinhof group said words to the effect that they must force the West German Government to strip away their mask of social democracy and force them to act in a more repressive way. Every time that we pass an Act that has the effect of repression, especially against those whom the terrorist seeks to represent, we play into the hands of the terrorist. We should bear that point in mind with some care.

If it could be shown that the Prevention of Terrorism Act had been used primarily against terrorists, it could possibly be justified. There is a case for such measures as a last resort, but only if they bear most heavily against terrorists and only in certain other circumstances to which I shall refer.

I should like to read another quotation from "Urban Guerrilla Warfare". This states: From its original role of keeping the peace between the Catholic and Protestant communities, the British Army moved over to an offensive intended to root out the IRA as a fighting force. Although the new tactics produced military results, they helped to polarise opinion in Ulster and enabled Catholic critics to represent the army as a repressive force. In this sense, IRA terrorism succeeded. It led to a situation where the British Army, which began as the referee between the two communities in Ulster"—— hon. Members who remember the early days of that involvement can remember the British Army being welcomed in the Catholic areas—— appeared as a party to the quarrel. The chaos it engendered helped to postpone the application of social reforms designed to get to the root of the problem and thus eroded Catholic faith in solutions within the existing framework. Another success, of the Provisional IRA was to get the British Army into that situation, which in the early stages of the involvement was not the case. That, again, was a success for the terrorists. It is my aim to defeat terrorism. One does not defeat terrorism unless one understands its purpose and philosophy and acts accordingly. When we take the Prevention of Terrorism Act, we take a blunderbuss. It is a singularly ineffective weapon. It is not effective. This damning evidence has already been given. Of 5,061 people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 4,482 were neither charged with any offence nor excluded from Britain. Of the other 579, only 70 were charged with offences under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.

It is clear—it has been said by one or two Conservative Members—that the value of the Act is in the collection of information. I have no doubt that it is valuable in that sense. By constant cross-examination of people, it is possible to discover their contacts and where and when they last saw them, thus building up a picture of the movement of the people in the area. So, in that way, it is a useful Act.

However, there are two problems. The first is that that purpose is used to justify the actions of any police State. That danger has already been mentioned. However, there is another aspect to which we have not paid enough attention, and it is the other side of the same problem. The Act has been one of the best recruiting sergeant-majors for the Provisional IRA that has yet been invented.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

It has not done very well.

Mr. Soley

I am not so sure about that. The conviction figures in the Diplock courts show that the majority of the people who appear there have not been in trouble before. It suggests that the Provisional IRA still has no real difficulty in recruiting.

The Act fails in three ways. First, as I have just said, it recruits people directly into the Provisional IRA as a result of their own experiences or of the experiences of friends and relatives. Second—perhaps of more importance—it increases the number of their sympathisers. In cases where people are picked up, held and cross-examined intensively for a long period but no charge is preferred, and the person—rightly or wrongly—presents himself as innocent, it creates the impression among people who are not involved that their community has been picked on wrongly. It increases the number of sympathisers in exactly the same way as the bombs that exploded in Birmingham created in those who were not directly concerned a feeling of anger against the terrorists.

Third—and this is of particular importance—the Act devalues or undermines the desire of the minority community to co-operate and to support the authorities for precisely the same reasons as I have just given—wrongful arrest or arrest when nothing happens as a result of cross-examination. Whatever else they can say, they cannot say with confidence that the British authorities are protecting their people. They feel that their people are suffering. All the evidence is that if one feeds the idea that the authorities are coming down more heavily on one group than an another, one is working along the lines that Carlos Marighella spelt out as a terrorist philosophy. As I said, that philosophy was not expounded by him in the first place, but it was expounded most clearly by him and it has been followed by many others since, both in Europe and elsewhere.

The temporary provisions are not only in danger of becoming permanent—or semi-permanent, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said—but are eroding civil rights in a serious way and devaluing this country's voice abroad when calling for civil rights in other countries. Above all, in being used against the wrong people and in the wrong way, they lend support to paramilitary organisations, and particularly to the Provisional IRA. I therefore urge the House to oppose the measure on those grounds, regardless of the 'views of the individual on Ireland.

10.30 pm
Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)

My right hon. and hon. Friends supported the motion calling for an inquiry, but there should be no misunderstanding about our reasons. We do not believe that there should be any lowering of our guards against terrorist activity and the continuing threat of it. Our vote did not signify any complacency or moral weakness, faced as we are by deadly, clandestine groups in our midst.

We have witnessed in recent years the growth and spread of internationally linked terrorist organisations throughout many countries in Western Europe. That must be combated with all the combined social democratic strength that the various Governments can exert. I pay tribute to the police and everyone else involved in Britain in counter-terrorist work which has been pursued with courage and determination. But for them, many more innocent members of the public would have been maimed or murdered.

In my view, the press and the media generally do some harm, perhaps unwittingly, in creating an aura of glamour and respectability around the activities of some terrorists. They should be projected not as people with a cause but as violent men engaged in criminal conspiracies and criminal acts.

My right hon. and hon. Friends wished for a review and fresh legislation, unencumbered by the debris of past years. The Government should have accepted the need for that and recognised that we have not had a satisfactory debate on the issues involved and the powers conferred since the measure was introduced seven years ago and barely amended a year later.

By any criteria it was an extraordinary measure, regarded as such at the time by the then Home Secretary, whose personal commitment to civil and constitutional liberties is beyond question. It was considered by him as a temporary measure which we would all wish to discontinue as soon as possible. It has not been possible to do that. In a continuing abnormal situation, it will not be possible to abandon some such powers. The nation would not forgive us if we simply reneged on our responsibilities.

The very abnormality in a democratic society of the present administrative powers conferred on the Executive calls for constant rigorous review and scrutiny by Parliament. The House is being denied that this evening. The Government's attitude reflects a casual indifference. Perhaps I put it too highly. It certainly reflects a measure of indifference to our concepts of democratic control over Executive action. We condemned that with our vote a few minutes ago.

Year after year, successive Home Secretaries concede the repugnant nature of powers which they and we know to be alien to our traditions and to long-established laws and procedures, such as exclusion orders—which, as Lord Shackleton reported, involve no judicial proceedings, no charge, no trial or court—arrest without warrant, extended detention and interrogation of people whom the statistics show to be, for the most part, quite remote from any conceivable offence and uninvolved in any type of terrorist association. The orders also involve an offence unknown to our legal system and concepts of justice—namely, withholding information. They are exercised quite arbitrarily, and all have kinship more with totalitarian regimes than with government subject to the will of the people.

Powers of this nature, however carefully exercised by Secretaries of State, lend themselves inevitably to abuse, error and the maltreatment of the innocent. As others have suggested, they can even prove counter-productive. We have heard of instances of maltreatment and error involving innocent members of the public from those who have participated in the debate. That is a shocking state of affairs. It is intolerable and it should not be accepted on the basis of the ends justifying the means in the sort of society that we seek to preserve.

When justice itself is offended, the law is brought into disrepute. That creates a mood of cynicism and defiance. I have no doubt, too, that the way in which these powers operate induces genuine grievance and a sense of community slur among many loyal and law-abiding British citizens. I have many constituents of Irish birth and origin, people who loath and condemn terrorism and violence of any sort, and I know that many of them feel honest resentment at the nature of some of these powers.

It may be that certain of these powers will have to be renewed, always reluctantly but in the public interest. Other powers may have outlived their usefulness and some may be shown never to have had a deterrent effect or preventive value. If that is so, they should be discarded without further delay. Arbitrary measures are sufficient of an affront in themselves without permitting their unnecessary renewal.

The time has come when the House should exercise its own authority and decide on the basis of the full inquiry for which we ask, which will, we hope, be forthcoming on the basis of the Secretary of State's assurance in his closing remarks. The House should decide whether and to what extent each specific power is properly required in future.

In our view, there are vital issues of principle at stake, not least the rights of Parliament itself, and for that reason Social Democrats voted against the Government on the motion. We shall not vote against the renewal of the Act. I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Where are they?

Mr. James Lamond (Oldam, East)

Name them.

Mr. Sandelson

If the Secretary of State fails to reappraise and to accept the position that we have urged this evening, we, too, may have to reconsider our position should he return to the House for a continuance of these powers yet again.

10.39 pm
Mr. Archie Hamilton (Epsom and Ewell)

The remarks by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) were not a good start to the policies emerging in the new centre party if it cannot make up its mind which way to vote on the order. It is absurd to abstain on a matter of this importance. I cannot see how anyone, with the best interests of this country at heart, can oppose the renewal of the temporary provisions in the Act.

As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the use of the Act is a balance—a balance between the prosecution of the war against terrorism and the sacrifice of civil liberties. We must ask ourselves whether the threat of terrorism still exists. The answer must be that it does. The outrages continue in Northern Ireland and people continue to be mutilated and murdered. In those circumstances, the House has no option but to give the security forces the fullest possible support in catching those people and keeping security close at heart. There have also been bombings in London. Therefore, it is obvious that the IRA is managing on occasions to export its terrorism to the mainland, as the Home Secretary said. We must ask ourselves why it does not do that more often.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

Does my hon. Friend recall that the Labour Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), thought that there was no question of ending the legislation while the Provisional IRA was engaged in violence? That was the view of the member of the Labour Administration responsible for those measures.

Mr. Hamilton

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. However, we must observe dramatic changes in the Labour Party as it comes under the influence of some of its more extreme comrades. No doubt this is yet another example of that.

We must ask ourselves why the IRA does not operate on this side of the Irish Channel more often, because in anybody's language the targets must be regarded as much softer. The problem for the IRA is that it is rejected by the Irish communities in this country. The activities of the Special Branch are extremely vigorous and many of the potential sympathetic groups which might support it have been infiltrated.

We have a Prevention of Terrorism Act which gives great powers to the security authorities in this country. They are able to control people coming here. It is well known that many of the activists in Northern Ireland can be recognised as such by the security forces, but it is difficult for them to get convictions. That would account for the fact that a number of people have been arrested but the number of prosecutions has been relatively small.

If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed to review the Act now, it would be considered to be a weakening of resolve by the Government. It is important that we should show no weakening of our resolve to combat terrorism and to reduce the amount of crime being committed in the name of the freedom of the Emerald Isle. If we were to wait and renew the Act after some outrage, that could only be seen as shutting the stable door after the event. Therefore, I urge all hon. Members to support the renewal of the Act with vigour and determination.

10.44 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

Once again, I rise to voice my opposition to the Act, as I have done since it was first placed on the statute book.

I do that not because I have for one second any sympathy with the IRA or other terrorist groups which have wreaked such havoc in Northern Ireland in particular and, indeed, in this part of the United Kingdom. I am not frightened or intimidated by the IRA. I am opposed to the Act because it is counter-productive. The normal legal processes of the country are sufficient to apprehend and imprison people found guilty of terrorism. "Draconian" was not an exaggerated description when it was first used by the then Home Secretary. It has been repeated many times since. Over the years, we have seen how draconian and repressive the legislation is.

I am 55 years of age and probably the oldest Northern Ireland Member. Ever since I was born, we have had repressive legislation in Ireland. The special powers legislation was enacted in 1922. The Act was renewed every six months, three times in succession. It was then renewed at yearly intervals until 1929. The Unionist Government, with their overwhelming majority, then decided that is should be there for all time.

Repressive and draconian as that legislation was, this Act advances repression even further. In 1972, the special powers legislation was taken off the statute book. It was immediately replaced by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. Then, in the wake of the Birmingham bombings, this Act was introduced in 1974. Two repressive Acts apply to Northern Ireland.

Did the 1922 legislation lead to a fair and just society? Did it bring the two communities together? Did it help people to get jobs and houses and to live a better life? No. It built up frustration, animosity and hostility, which led eventually to the civil rights movement being set up in 1968 which in turn led to the downfall of the whole Stormont structure.

Mr. Kilfedder

The hon. Gentleman was castigating the old Stormont Government for enacting legislation to deal with terrorism. Was not similar legislation enacted in the Dail to deal with terrorists in the Irish Republic? During the war, Mr. De Valera introduced courts martial to try Provisional IRA terrorists, who could be sentenced and executed without right of recourse to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Fitt

It is not my function tonight to defend the Government of the Irish Republic.

For about eight years in the 1930s, we had no overt acts of terrorism. People were too concerned to obtain food. It was the hungry 'thirties. We had hunger marches in Belfast of Protestant and Catholic unemployed, and perhaps they could be equated with acts of terrorism. The special powers legislation was not necessary in those years.

How long does one wait? Does one wait eight years, 10 years or 20 years before one decides that it is safe to abolish the Act? In the 1940s, there were a few IRA incidents at the beginning, but for eight out of the 10 years there was no need for the special powers Act. The same applied in the 1950s and in the 1960s. How long does one wait?

It is my impression that once a Government have these powers in their control they are very reluctant to give them up, particularly today, when many people in the United Kingdom will not be surprised if there is social unrest as a result of unemployment rising from 2 million to 3 million or even to 4 million. This Act would certainly come in handy if events took place which did not satisfy the Government in power at the time. The Act is always there, it can always be extended, and it could be used to deal with such a situation.

I have always strongly opposed exclusion orders. I do so once again with just as much vehemence, because no one can fully justify the secrecy which surrounds them. We are told that information is given to the Home Secretary and that he then makes up his mind before signing his name to an exclusion order. I have serious doubts about that. I do not believe that any Home Secretary, whether Conservative or Labour, has the time or, indeed, the anxiety to go into all the facts of an exclusion order that is placed before him by an official. He will ask the official "Do you think this fellow should go or not?" and then sign his name. Like any civil servant, he will sign his name to the document presented to him.

I say that because I know people who have been the victims of exclusion orders. I have known those people all my life. They are not involved in terrorism, nor have any of their families ever been involved in terrorism. Some of them live very close to my own home. I mention in the House the case of a merchant seaman who was subjected to an exclusion order. All I can do is to pit my knowledge of the family and the person concerned against that of the Home Secretary. I have made personal representations to successive Home Secretaries. I told them that they could take my word on the subject. I was not going to advocate the case of an IRA member to keep him in this country, or anywhere else for that matter. I would not support anyone of whom I did not have sufficient knowledge. If I had the slightest suspicion that the person was in any way involved in terrorist activities, I should have told him in no uncertain terms—as I have done on many occasions—to get out of my home and away from my door.

When I am absolutely convinced that the person has not been involved, however, I write to the Home Secretary and go in person to see him. The Home Secretary, whoever he may be, tells me that perhaps I do not know everything and that he has seen the papers. What do I do then? Do I simply accept the word of the Home Secretary, whoever he may be? I am caught. Moreover, the person who has been wrongfully excluded will naturally feel that he has been the victim of an unjust system, and, as has been rightly pointed out, he and his family may then begin to build up bitter resentment and hostility towards the authorities which promulgated the order in the first place.

There are instances of this every weekend. If the order has to be enacted, it should be operated with a certain delicacy so that fewer people are inconvenienced or harassed by its provisions. Yet every week when a football match takes place in Scotland people from Northern Ireland travel on the ferry from Larne to Stranraer to see the match. Some, indeed, go to matches in England, but I take the specific example of matches in Scotland. The police at the port seem to have a remarkable facility for picking up young lads going to a football match who just happen to live in Ballymurphy, in the New Lodge Road, in Turf Lodge, Andersonstown or the Bogside—in other words, Catholic areas. The policeman will immediately say "You come from a Catholic area, so you must be a supporter of the IRA."

Such lads are arrested getting off the boat on a Saturday morning or coming back on a Saturday evening. It seems—I speak from experience—that all the policemen in Belfast and the policemen in the detention centres in Liverpool, and particularly Glasgow, all go home for the weekend. I am never off the telephone, making representations. I am told "We close down for the weekend, and the interrogation officers will be coming in again on Monday morning."

It is unjustified that just because the policemen go home for the weekend someone should have to lie in a cell. Shackleton recommended that the detention cells should be better than they were then. I am not sure what facilities are provided now in the detention cells, but, whether or not they are hotel-type cells, people should not be there just because there are not enough police available, whether in Belfast or at the port where those concerned are detained.

The Home Secretary said tonight that he did not like exclusion orders. He said that he looked at appeals and added that he had no wish to keep excluded a person who could demonstrate that he had turned away from terrorism. How does someone convince the right hon. Gentleman that he has turned away from terrorism? Can the Home Secretary tell us tonight that he has been convinced by a subsequent appeal that someone who was excluded has turned away from terrorism? The people whom I know who have come under exclusion orders have never been involved in terrorism in the first place.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and I have been involved for nearly a year in the case of a person who died in prison, Giuseppe Conlan. Other persons were convicted at the same time—including Mrs. Maguire, Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Smith. I am convinced that they were not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted.

This legislation does another thing. One can be charged under all the other Acts on the statute book and have a chance of being found not guilty, but if one is charged under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act one's chances of being found not guilty are less, because there is a presumption of guilt if one is arrested under the Act. Naturally, there is a great deal of emotion attached to the Act. People are ever mindful of why it went on to the statute book, in the wake of the terrible, brutal, callous Birmingham bombings. If we ask even the most illiterate people in this country why the Act is on the statute book, they will reply "Because the IRA bombed Birmingham", though they would not know the reason for any of the other criminal legislation. There is a feeling that anyone charged or arrested under the Act must be at least half guilty.

That was the atmosphere when Giuseppe Conlan and the others who were charged with him were sentenced. I have raised the matter on the Floor of the House and have gone on deputations to the Home Secretary. I have written letters and tried all the other normal methods of raising the matter. I repeat that there are in prison people who have been there for a number of years, but who are guilty of no offence. I call on the aid of my colleagues in the House tonight, because I am convinced that those people are innocent.

The IRA and the INLA are banned under this legislation. When it first came before the House, I put down an amendment to ban the UVF and the UDA. It was rejected. Even though I put down that amendment, I was convinced that the legislation would not do all the great things that people thought it would do. If we are to have this type of legislation to ban organisations engaged in Irish terrorism, we must be seen to be impartial. We cannot be seen to have this legislation in operation against one section of the community in Northern Ireland.

Members of the so-called Ulster Defence Association have been convicted of terrorist crimes in Britain—in Scotland; crimes of arms running. They have not been convicted of committing in this country the kind of heinous offences of which members of the IRA have been convicted, but in Northern Ireland the UDA and the UVF have been guilty of even more heinous crimes. Even within recent months the UDA has almost admitted that some of its members were guilty of some brutal and callous murders.

If we must have the proscription of one organisation, why not proscribe all terrorist organisations? In Northern Ireland some idiot has gone on television and given himself the fancy title that Eisenhower had during the war. He calls himself the supreme commander of the UDA—no less. He has never worked a day in his life, and he is the supreme commander. He tells the world "I have 50,000 men at my command, and that scares the life out of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland". That scares the Secretary of State—"He has 50,000 men. That is far too many, I am afraid to ban them".

Numbers alone and the threat of numbers should not be allowed to change the Secretary of State's mind or to frighten or intimidate him. If those organisations are engaged in terrorism and murder, they should be proscribed just like the Provisional IRA. If we are to use this law, we must use it against all terrorist organisations.

I am no spokesman for Irishmen found guilty of terrorist offences in this country and sentenced to prison terms here. They should finish their sentences here. But Englishmen or UDA men found guilty of crimes in Northern Ireland can say "We do not like the atmosphere here. There are too many Republicans in gaol". Then they get transferred to a prison of their choice somewhere in the United Kingdom. People who commit murder should all be treated in the same way. Prisoners should not be transferred from one part of Ireland, just because it does not happen to suit them, to another part of the United Kingdom. Prisoners should stay where they are convicted. There should not be special category status for the UDA or the UVF or for the IRA. I make no distinction.

Recently in Northern Ireland three soldiers, a sergeant, a private and a captain were found guilty of a brutal and savage murder in County Fermanagh in 1972. The sergeant and the private were sentenced to life imprisonment, but the captain received a two-year suspended sentence. He got off free. I believe that he is still in the British Army. I hope that that is not so, but there is some question about his being allowed to remain in the Army. The other two were convicted of the brutal murder of two innocent people in County Fermanagh. Those prisoners did not like going to gaol in Northern Ireland, so provision was made to transfer them back to England. We should not do such things. We should treat every convicted murderer in the same way.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

When the hon. Gentleman said that those convicted of crimes should not be able to go to prisons of their choice, did he mean that the Price sisters should not have been transferred to Armagh?

Mr. Fitt

I did not advocate the transfer of the Price sisters. That is why I can stand here and say that the two soldiers who murdered people in Fermanagh should not be transferred. At least, I am consistent. If I had advocated the return of the Price sisters, I should not be able to stand on the Floor of the House and say that.

Mr. Sandelson

In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he make it clear to the House that the captain to whom he referred played no part in the offence committed by the other two men and that his only offence—if it was one—was to withhold information?

Mr. Fitt

I am delighted by that intervention. According to section 11 of the Act, it is an offence to withhold information. Even if section 11 and the whole of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act did not exist, if anyone in any circumstances withheld information about a murder he would, in my book, be committing an offence. I say that regardless of whether such a provision is on the statute book. That case has caused a great deal of discontent in Northern Ireland.

If the Government want to maintain the credibility of the British Army and of its operations in Ulster, they should not allow that captain to remain in the British Army. From 1972 onwards, he knew that two of his colleagues had committed murder. They would not have been caught if it had not been for the "Ripper". Someone suspected that one of them was the "Ripper"—the man responsible for killing so many women. The case came to light only as a result of an anonymous telephone call. That captain should not be allowed to remain in the British Army. If he were to remain, the British Army would be in great danger of losing its credibility.

This legislation is counter-productive. It causes great inconvenience to many thousands of people of Irish descent merely because they have an address in a Catholic area or speak with an Irish dialect or brogue. That is racism at its worst. The colour of their skins does not matter. This legislation affects many Irish people who travel to and from this country. Indeed, it affects those who have lived in this country for many years.

It has been said that a citizen of this country cannot be excluded from it. Nineteen years ago, a fellow from Belfast came to live in Southampton. He met a Southampton girl and married her. He has four or five children, who all speak with delicious Southampton accents. He was suspected of having done something although he was not charged. The authorities told him to go back to Belfast. He had been away from Belfast for years and had never been there on holiday. However, the Home Secretary signed an exclusion order. It broke up his marriage.

The Southampton girl and her children tried to live in Belfast. They tried to live in a completely alien environment. She took the children and returned to Southampton. Her husband is still in Belfast. I am not sure whether he will appeal to the Secretary of State. If he does, I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the case. That man has convinced me that he has never been involved in terrorism.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

The hon. Gentleman has rightly condemned the Army captain who was aware for a long time that two subordinates had committed a murder. He kept that information to himself and said that he had done so in order to preserve the good name of the British Army. Will the hon. Gentleman follow the logic of what he has said? It was only because of section 11 that that captain committed any offence. Surely it is unacceptable that such an Army officer should not be made the subject to a criminal charge.

Mr. Fitt

I fully support what my hon. Friend has said, but I have already said that where an Army captain or any person, in or out of uniform, is aware of such circumstances, it is his moral duty to report the matter to the police. An Army officer should do so also for the sake of the good name of the regiment. I am not denying that it was said that the man involved was an excellent soldier, but——

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stevenage)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to understand precisely what he is saying. Is he making the accusation that the Act is being administered partially against the Roman Catholic minority of Northern Ireland, or is he saying that it is being administered against the whole of the population of Northern Ireland without distinguishing between the Catholics and the Protestants in that country?

Mr. Fitt

Although the Act overlaps into Northern Ireland, it is used mostly in this part of the United Kingdom. If we were to go through the 5,061 detentions, it would be found that the vast majority were Catholics. I am quite certain of that. If the Act were used against ordinary, decent, law-abiding Protestants in the same sorts of circumstances, I should be just as opposed to that. In the majority of cases, however, it has been used against Catholics in a very harassing way, and only recently I have been in touch with the Home Secretary about a case in Birmingham.

I shall be voting against the approval of the order tonight. Some people in Northern Ireland may regard it as inconsistent on the one hand to want to erase the Act from the statute book and on the other hand to wish to add the name of the UDA. I do not think that that is at all inconsistent. While the Act is on the statute book, it must be clearly seen that all its provisions are directed against every terrorist organisation. They should all be brought within its ambit.

I still believe that the Act has been on the statute book for far too long without review. There should be a continuing review of the Act, from one week to the next, without the need to employ any extra civil servants or police. What happens is that some executive looks at it and then it is forgotten for two or three years before it is looked at again. As long as it is done in that way, the Act will never be taken off the statute book. This country cannot claim to be the great protector of civil liberties and human freedoms that it has been in the eyes of the world as long as the Act remains part of British legislation.

Several Hon. Members


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. As the debate can last for only one and a half hours, the Front Bench speeches will start at 11.30 pm.

11.13 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I know that several hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) put a very emotional case and tried to suggest that the order is aimed only against Roman Catholics. I know of cases in which Protestants have been subjected to the provisions of the Act, so that it cannot be said that its application is one-sided.

The Act will cease the moment the Provisional IRA ceases its campaign of terrorism, which has already resulted in the slaughter of over 2,000 people and the mutilation of over 25,000 people in Northern Ireland. The sooner that it brings its evil campaign to an end, the sooner we can have peace and decency in the country.

When the Prime Minister went to Washington a short time ago, she was met by demonstrators supporting the Provisional IRA who carried placards saying "Brits out of Ireland". Yesterday was St. Patrick's Day. If St. Patrick were to return to Ireland and landed in County Antrim, as he did over a thousand years ago——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

No, no.

Mr. Kilfedder

If he landed again in Antrim, he would be met by people with placards saying "Brits out" and the IRA would slaughter him.

The IRA should be treated with contempt by everyone who has respect for law and order and who wishes to see peace brought back to Ireland, because the IRA has cast an evil spell over Ireland, both North and South. The Irish Republic has taken strong measures against the Provisional IRA because it wants to rid itself of the IRA from its midst. Why should we not take equally strong measures? To the credit of the Irish Republic, it will not allow the IRA or its sympathisers to appear on radio or television, whereas we—because the BBC and independent television wish to be even-handed—allow the IRA to put forward its case for murder and mutilation. That is a disgraceful state of affairs.

11.16 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)

At the beginning of the earlier debate I asked the Home Secretary for some figures. I am glad that he has them.

How many requests have been refused by the right hon. Gentleman for the extension beyond the 48-hour period of the detention of persons who have been detained under part III in relation to suspected terrorist activity unconnected with Northern Ireland? I want to speak briefly about the use of the Act outside the political violence in Ireland. I want to draw the attention of the House to one case of a person in Swansea who on 19 July last year was arrested at 6.30 am under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. His home was not searched, and he was taken to Swansea central police station at 7 am where he was given breakfast. He was allowed to telephone his solicitor. He was given lunch at noon and fingerprinted and photographed at 2 pm. He was fed again at 6 o'clock, given breakfast at 8 am on Sunday, exercised at 1 pm and released at 2 pm without being charged.

The reasons for the detention of that person are still a mystery, both to the Welsh Campaign for Civil and Political Liberties that brought the case to my attention and to his legal advisers. He was deprived of his liberty for 31½ hours. There was no question of a significant or potential charge being put to him. His home was not searched and he was told by a police officer as early as 2 pm on the Saturday that if his answers to questions about his work and his home address "checked out", as the officer said, he would be released.

In my view and in the view of the civil liberties organisation that advised me, there must be reasonable suspicion that the arrested person has committed an offence under the Act or that he has been concerned in the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or a criminal offence for which a charge can be brought.

In this case it appears that the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act were used to keep that person off the streets for 31 hours. He was fingerprinted, and it would appear that the powers to obtain the fingerprints of a person under the Act should be dependent on there having been a valid arrest and a valid reason for detention. It seems to me and to the civil liberties organisation that discussed the case with me that the arrest was not valid and that the fingerprinting, not being related to a charge, must have been to identify that person and to add his details to the computer information files of the Special Branch.

All that happened in Swansea on 19 July last year. It appears to me that the only possible reason for the detention of that person was the presence of the Prime Minister in Swansea on that day and the demonstration that took place there. It is a serious matter when the police authorities in the United Kingdom use the provisions of the Act to detain a person merely to keep him off the streets because they suspect that, even though he was on holiday in the South-East of England in the previous week, he may have been involved in arranging a demonstration against the Prime Minister.

It is because the Act increasingly amounts to repressive legislation, because it is used outside the immediate context of the North of Ireland and because we may see the police practice connected with the Act and other pieces of repressive legislation being increasingly extended as the economic crisis deepens that I shall oppose its continuation.

11.21 pm
Mr. Michael Mates (Petersfield)

I have listened to both debates since 7 pm with interest and increasing astonishment as we have seen the wide divergence of views and opinions expressed on the Opposition Benches. A number of parties in the House need to sort out their thoughts on this complicated and important subject.

I probably have more cause than most other hon. Members to remember the introduction of the Act in 1974, because I made my maiden speech that evening and there is no more horrific occasion in the life of an hon. Member. I supported the Act at that time, have supported since and will continue to support it unhesitatingly tonight.

There have been some responsible speeches in the two debates. I pay a particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who, speaking for that part of the official Opposition over which he has control, was thoroughly responsible and reasoned. I did not agree with his request for an inquiry, but that is a matter on which we can differ without dishonour to either side.

The right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) also spoke reasonably until he came to a hypotheseis that was rather strange for a distinguished lawyer. He tried to turn the argument on its head by saying "Suppose that the Act had not been enacted in 1974. Could we come to the House now and enact it?" There is no answer to that, because it is a hypothetical question. However, one must ask "If we had not moved with the speed and resolution with which the Labour Government moved in 1974, with the full support of the House, how many more Birminghams, Guildfords, and Aldershots might have happened?" If the answer is even one, the House was entirely justified in its action. There are no facts on which to base reasoned observations, but if, when we look into our hearts, we concede that there is a chance that one more innocent life might be lost if we did away with the Act, that is a good enough reason for retaining it.

Other hon. Members have expressed their opposition, some of it reasoned, some of it not. I shall not comment on all their speeches because time is short. It is a pity that the Liberal Party has, for the first time, decided officially—if that is how things are decided in that party—to oppose the Act. I suppose that there will be consultations between the Liberals and the Social Democrats to see whether they can come to any sort of concordance.

However, it was disingenuous, to say the least, for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) to address the House in the tones that he used. Unless I misunderstood him, he asked the Home Secretary to concede an inquiry because otherwise he would have to vote against the continuation of the Act. That comes ill from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman, because he voted against renewal last year—without asking any questions and without making a speech or an intervention. He ought to have been a little more honest about his opposition, which is not recent, but which may have been part of persuading the Liberal Party to change its hitherto official view of acquiescence to the distasteful, but necessary, Act.

The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—I am sorry he is not present—went to the extreme. He opposed the Act. That is fair enough. To my question "What is different from last year?", the hon. Gentleman replied that things had got better. That response, from a generally responsible hon. Member, verges on the incredible.

Everyone is grateful that the level of violence continues to decrease both here and in Northern Ireland. That is not to say that the potential for violence is still not as great as it was in 1974. We must watch against it. There is no way in which it can be measured. Nor can one measure the effectiveness of the Act. There is no answer to the accusation of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that one cannot tell whether things are better because of the Act. There are, however, several indications from which one can draw conclusions. These indications, taken together, persuade me that we cannot do without the provisions that the forces of law and order in this country possess over and above the normal legal framework.

To say that things have gone quiet is to state a bald fact. One must remember, as my right hon. Friend reminded us, of the events at Uxbridge. One must remember the find in Southampton in 1976 of enormous quantities of explosives which had been lodged there agaist the day when the IRA wanted to activate its active service units, which undoubtedly exist in this country, and cause a major violent disruption. We were lucky to find all that. I wonder whether the police would have been as effective in not only finding those explosives but rounding up those responsible, which culminated in the Winchester bombing trial, without the Act. Frankly, I doubt it.

Only last year, there was a major find of ammunition and arms, explosives and bombs in North London when, again, people were rounded up. I wonder whether the police would have been nearly as effective or could have produced those results without the Act. There has been comment in the press—I do not know whether it is official—about how much the police needed the powers in the Act. The man Tuite, who, alas, has escaped, was, I understand, in police hands for two or three days before he was recognised for who he was, such was his skill in disguising himself, taking on aliases and so on.

These are not facts—they cannot be facts—but if one takes the totality of occasions when disaster has been averted by outstandingly good police work, to which I pay credit, I believe that we owe it to those forces on which we depend to ensure to the best of our ability that these atrocities are not repeated either in this country or in Northern Ireland. To take away one whit of the assistance that they feel they need to carry out their task would handicap them in a way that I hope all my hon. Friends would find disagreeable and distasteful.

No one wants this Act to remain in force for longer than is necessary. I reject the argument levelled at me by the hon. Member for York that I would like it to remain for ever. That is not true. The sooner that peace comes and the sooner we can be sure that people may live in safety under the normal law, then, and only then, can we do away with temporary provisions that are needed, over and above the normal law, to cope with an abnormal situation.

While people who shout for liberty and balance the requirement for law and security against their own libertarian wishes and those, they say, of the people they represent, they nevertheless always come down in favour of liberty. That is their right. Thank goodness they do not have the responsibility and have not had the responsibility for making a judgment between the restriction of liberty and the protection of society. If one innocent person loses his life because the libertarian lobby has had its way, that will be one person too many.

I believe that I speak for many when I say that I am perfectly happy that there should be certain restrictions, with safeguards, put upon my liberty so that those terrorists who live in our midst and are determined to destroy our society cannot succeed. If that means more checks and more security—even temporary detention for me—that I will accept. What I will not accept is that one more innocent person should die.

11.30 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

I shall be brief because I know that the Home Secretary wishes to reply to the debate. I wish merely to raise the case of Patrick O'Hagan, and to remind the Home Secretary of it. I shall oppose the order because I do not consider that renewal is justified and I believe that, far from diminishing terrorism, continuance of the temporary provisions is more likely to encourage it.

Patrick O'Hagan was in prison serving a sentence in Belfast. The governor gave him home leave to adjust himself to going back home. The governor informed the police in Yorkshire that he was going. When he arrived at Leeds-Bradford airport, on his way to visit his family in Keighley, members of the Special Branch turned up, armed to the teeth, arrested him, and put him in Armley gaol. They kept him there a week and served an exclusion order on him. They arrested his brother and served an exclusion order on him. His brother had been allowed by a previous Home Secretary to come to this country after being in a detention centre in Northern Ireland.

The family was settled here. They had moved away from Northern Ireland to get away from the troubles, in which they were not involved. I emphasise that Patrick O'Hagan had never been involved in a terrorist outrage. He was an ordinary criminal—if that is ever ordinary—and he was serving an ordinary sentence, without any terrorist involvement.

Patrick O'Hagan did not have his home leave. He went straight back to prison, and the Home Secretary has refused to lift the exclusion order. The family is now back in Northern Ireland, closer to the troubles, because they refused to be split up. The family went nearly demented as a result of the arrests and exclusion orders. They are now closer to involvement with terrorism, from which they deliberately wanted to move away.

That is harsh, unjust and unfair. There is no justification for it. The man was in prison, he came straight to Leeds-Bradford airport and was arrested there, so he could not possibly be excluded under the terms of this legislation. On that basis—I know that similar considerations apply in many other cases—I shall oppose the renewal of the temporary provisions of the Act.

11.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw)

Naturally, knowing that he had waited all evening to do so, I gave the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) an opportunity to state his case, although that has slightly cut down the time available to me. I do not accept much that the hon. Gentleman said about the case which he raised—I do not think that he would expect me to—but I shall, of course, look again at all the facts which he has brought out and consider them carefully.

My hon. Friends the Members for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) and for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) made a strong case for renewal of the temporary provisions of the Act, as I would wish to do. Both they and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) paid tribute to what the police do in this work and to their firm belief, which I think important, that the powers given to them under the Act are crucial to their task of preventing terrorism and protecting our country from it. My hon. Friends the Members for Petersfield and for Epsom and Ewell were entirely correct in what they said, and I entirely endorse it.

In the earlier debate I gave the example of the outrage at Uxbridge, which could have had disastrous effects. I mentioned also, as did the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), some of the trouble there has been at Hammersmith. I shall return to some of the hon. Member's other points, but I am glad that he very fairly mentioned that as well.

I think it right also to call attention to a report in the Irish Times of the trial in Dublin of a man called Peter Rogers and his conviction of the murder of a member of the Garda. Rogers killed a member of the Garda after his van had been stopped and explosives were found in it. The report states that the Garda believed that he was: in the process of transporting the explosives to an active service unit in Britain who planned the blitz as part of the then continuing H block protest. Garda experts who examined the explosives and various other devices soon after the killing of Garda Quaid described them as some of the most sophisticated ever uncovered in these islands. Not only was there sufficient explosives for 15 major bombs but also highly advanced radio control devices and mercury tilt switches similar to that used in the killing of Airey Neave. That is a fact of what is still happening, and it illustrates some of the risks to which our citizens are still subjected.

I agree with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that as long as these outrages are threatened and people persist in pursuing them, so long do we have to take measures to protect our citizens. I believe that there is in that considerable justification for the renewal of the Act.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North made a reasoned and careful speech. I think that I must avoid, as I have scrupulously avoided for the last eight years since I left Northern Ireland, making any references to activities in Northern Ireland or giving any views about it, but I could not agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's solutions.

I found the hon. Gentleman's rather academic approach to the attitude of terrorists somewhat at variance with what I believe many of us over the years have found to be the motivation of these people. When the hon. Gentleman refers to the banishment of Sakharov as equivalent to exclusion, surely that is extremely unfair and, in the circumstances, extremely unreasonable. The Act enables me to exclude people only if I am satisfied that they have been involved in acts of terrorism. Terrorism involves the use of violence, and I therefore reject this comparison. All the more do I reject it when both I and my predecessors, in every way that we have carried through the Act, have scrupulously abided by its provisions as it relates to offences directed towards Northern Ireland.

Here I mention the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), and I apologise to him for not having answered his question in the previous debate. Let me deal first with the arrest of people who are not connected with Northern Ireland. The power of arrest and detention is not limited to Irish terrorists, because it may not always be obvious to the police at the time of arrest whether a terrorist is motivated by Irish or other causes. However, in a current circular, Home Office advice to the police is that it would be contrary to the intention of the Act for this power to be used to arrest someone concerned with terrorism known to be unconnected with Northern Ireland. That is the specific advice that the Home Office has given to the police. If the hon. Gentleman believes that in the case that he mentioned that intention was contravened in any way, perhaps he will contact me and I shall consider what he has said.

The hon. Gentleman asked about extensions of detention that had been refused in the period from 1974 to 28 February 1981. The answer is two in England and Wales, five in Scotland and two in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington tried to have his cake and eat it. On the one hand he was determined to combat terrorism, he was determined not to lower his guard, and he quite rightly paid a considerable tribute to the police, but on the other hand he was inclined to believe that we should continue with the Act. I think that there is in that an element of having one's cake and eating it. I respect the view of those who believe, as the Opposition officially do, that the Act should be renewed but that there should be a review of it. That is one point. To be sure that one wants to combat terrorism and yet be doubtful about renewing the Act is trying to have one's cake and eat it, and I do not think that that is a satisfactory position.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), of whose courage against terrorism no one in the House has any doubt—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—raised a number of points which I must tell him I do not think are right. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's feelings in the case about which he is disturbed and which he has discussed with me. I am prepared to consider, yet again, the position in that case. It involved someone who was in prison for a crime for which he had been tried and convicted. It had nothing to do with the Act.

It is fair to say, as did the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), that the Act does not apply only to people from Catholic areas or to the IRA. Exclusion orders have been applied to members of the UDA and the UVF. I do not take particular delight in that, but it has been evenhanded to all who have been thought to be connected with terrorist activities in Northern Ireland.

I hope that I have shown to the House that we have had recent evidence of the seriousness of the threat by people seeking to use violence to further their views in Northern Ireland. We have seen the threats and know that they still exist. We cannot lower our guard. We are talking about men who do not scruple to kill innocent people. Inasmuch as the Act reduces that threat, it is justified and, indeed, necessary.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion,Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No 3 (Exempted business):

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 44.

Division No. 109] [10.00 pm
Alton, David Dalyell, Tam
Ashton, Joe Davis, Clinton(Hackney C)
Atkinson, N. (H'gey,) Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Deakins, Eric
Beith.A.J. Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) Dempsey, James
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Dixon, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Dobson, Frank
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Dormand, Jack
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Dubs, Alfred
Campbell-Savours, Dale Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Canavan, Denníis Eadie, Alex
Carmichael, Neil Eastham, Ken
Cartwright, John Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) English, Michael
Cocks, Rt Hon M (B'stol S) Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Concannon, Rt Hon J.D. Evans, John(Newton)
Cowans, Harry Field, Frank
Cryer, Bob Fitt, Gerard
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Flannery, Martin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Palmer, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Pendry, Tom
Foster, Derek Penhaligon, David
Foulkes, George Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Race, Reg
Freud, Clement Radice, Giles
George, Bruce Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Golding, John Richardson, Jo
Graham, Ted Robertson, George
Grant, John (Islington C) Rooker, J.W.
Hamilton, James(Bothwell) Roper, John
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Haynes, Frank Rowlands, Ted
Heffer, Eric S. Sandelson, Neville
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) Sheerman, Barry
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Home Robertson, John Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Homewood, William Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Hooley, Frank Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Horam, John Snape, Peter
Howells, Geraint Soley, Clive
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Spearing, Nigel
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Stallard, A. W.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Steel, Rt Hon David
John, Brynmor Stoddart, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Lamond, James Tilley, John
Lyon, Alexander (York) Tinn, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W) Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
McCusker, H. Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Watkins, David
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Welsh, Michael
McKelvey, William White, Frank R.
Maclennan, Robert Whitehead, Phillip
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton) Whitlock, William
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Wigley, Dafydd
Maxton, John Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Maynard, Miss Joan Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)
Mikardo, Ian Winnick, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Woolmer, Kenneth
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Molyneaux, James Young, David (Bolton E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Newens, Stanley Tellers for the Ayes:
O'Halloran, Michael Mr. George Morton and Mr. Hugh McCartney.
O'Neill, Martin
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Alexander, Richard Bulmer, Esmond
Alison, Michael Butler, Hon Adam
Ancram, Michael Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Arnold, Tom Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Aspinwall, Jack Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) Chapman, Sydney
Atkins, Robert(Preston N) Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Clegg, Sir Walter
Bendall, Vivian Cockeram, Eric
Benyon, Thomas(A'don) Colvin, Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony Cope, John
Biffen, Rt Hon John Costain, Sir Albert
Biggs-Davison, John Cranborne, Viscount
Blackburn, John Critchley, Julian
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Crouch, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert Dickens, Geoffrey
Bright, Graham Dorrell, Stephen
Brooke, Hon Peter Dover, Denshore
Brown, Michael(Brig & Sc'n,) du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Browne, John(Winchester) Dunlop, John
Buck, Antony Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Durant, Tony Onslow, Cranley
Eggar, Tim Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Elliott, Sir William Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Emery, Peter Paisley, Rev Ian
Eyre, Reginald Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Fell, Anthony Pollock, Alexander
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Fisher, Sir Nigel Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles Prior, Rt Hon, James
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) Proctor, K. Harvey
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Gardiner, George(Reigate) Renton, Tim
Garel-Jones, Tristan Rhodes James, Robert
Goodhart, Philip Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Gow, Ian Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Gray, Hamish Rossi, Hugh
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) Royle, Sir Anthony
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) Scott, Nicholas
Grylls, Michael Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Hamilton, Hon A. Shaw, Mchael(Scarborough)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hannam, John Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Haselhurst, Alan Shepherd, Richard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Shersby, Michael
Hawksley, Warren Silvester, Fred
Heddle, John Sims, Roger
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Smith, Dudley
Holland, Philip(Carlton) Speed, Keith
Hordern, Peter Speller, Tony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Hurd, Hon Douglas Sproat, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Squire, Robin
Kaberry, Sir Donald Stainton, Keith
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Stanbrook, Ivor
Kilfedder, James A. Stanley. John
King, Rt Hon Tom Stevens, Martin
Lang, Ian Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Latham, Michael Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Lawrence, Ivan Stradling Thomas, J.
LeMarchant, Spencer Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Lester Jim (Beeston) Tebbit, Norman
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Temple-Morris, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Loveridge, John Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Nicholas Thompson, Donald
McCrindle, Robert Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)
Macfarlane, Neil Thornton, Malcolm
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)
McQuarrie, Albert Trotter, Neville
Madel, David Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Major, John Viggers, Peter
Marlow, Tony Waddington, David
Marten, Neil (Banburry) Wakeham, John
Mates, Michael Waldegrave, Hon William
Mather, Carol Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Waller, Gary
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Ward, John
Mayhew, Patrick Warren, Kenneth
Mellor, David Watson, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony Wells, John(Maidstone)
Mills, Iain(Meriden) Wells, Bowen
Mills, Peter (West Devon) Wheeler, John
Miscampbell, Norman Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Moate, Roger Wickenden, Keith
Moore, John Wiggin, Jerry
Murphy, Christopher Wilkinson, John
Myles, David Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Neale, Gerrard
Needham, Richard Tellers for the Noes:
Nelson, Anthony Lord James Douglas Hamilton and Mr. Selwyn Gummer.
Neubert, Michael
Newton, Tony
Division No. 110] [11.40 pm
Alexander, Richard Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Alison, Michael Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ancram, Michael Lyell, Nicholas
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) McCrindle, Robert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony McCusker, H.
Berry, Hon Anthony Macfarlane, Neil
Biffen, Rt Hon John McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Biggs-Davison, John McQuarrie, Albert
Blackburn, John Major, John
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Marlow, Tony
Boscawen, Hon Robert Mates, Michael
Bright, Graham Mather, Carol
Browne, John (Winchester) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Buck, Antony Mayhew, Patrick
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Mellor, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Meyer, Sir Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Miscampbell, Norman
Cockeram, Eric Moate, Roger
Colvin, Michael Molyneaux, James
Cope, John Moore, John
Costain, Sir Albert Murphy, Christopher
Cranborne, Viscount Myles, David
Dickens, Geoffrey Neale, Gerrard
Dorrell, Stephen Needham, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Nelson, Anthony
Dover, Denshore Neubert, Michael
Dunlop, John Newton, Tony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Onslow, Cranley
Durant, Tony Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Elliott, Sir William Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Eyre, Reginald Paisley, Rev Ian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Pollock, Alexander
Fisher, Sir Nigel Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles Price, Sir David (Eastlaigh)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) Proctor, K. Harvey
Garel-Jones, Tristan Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Goodhart, Philip Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) Rossi, Hugh
Grylls, Michael Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Gummer, John Selwyn Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Hamilton, Hon A. Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hannam, John Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Hawksley, Warren Silvester, Fred
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Sims, Roger
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Smith, Dudley
Hunt, David (Wirral) Speed, Keith
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Speller, Tony
Kilfedder, James A. Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
King, Rt Hon Tom Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lang, Ian Sproat, Iain
Lawrence, Ivan Squire, Robin
LeMarchant, Spencer Stanbrook, Ivor
Stevens, Martin Ward, John
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire) Watson, John
Stradling Thomas, J. Wells, Bowen
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) Wheeler, John
Temple-Morris, Peter Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Thompson, Donald Wickenden, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Trotter, Neville Tellers for the Ayes:
Waddington, David Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. John Wakeham.
Waldegrave, Hon William
Waller, Gary
Alton, David McKelvey, William
Ashton, Joe Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Atkinson, N. (H'gey,) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Beith, A.J. Maxton, John
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) Maynard, Miss Joan
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Mikardo, Ian
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) O'Halloran, Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale Penhaligon, David
Canavan, Dennis Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Cryer, Bob Race, Reg
Dixon, Donald Richardson, Jo
Dobson, Frank Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Dubs, Alfred Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Eastham, Ken Sheerman, Barry
Fitt, Gerard Stallard, A.W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Steel, Rt Hon David
Foulkes, George Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) Welsh, Michael
Home Robertson, John Wigley, Dafydd
Howells, Geraint
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Tellers for the Noes:
Lamond, James Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Martin Flannery.
Lyon, Alexander (York)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.