HC Deb 15 March 1982 vol 20 cc151-71

11.7 pm

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

I beg to move, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved. The purpose of this order, which was laid before the House on 24 February, is to continue in operation for a further year the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The Act is due to lapse, unless renewed, on 24 March.

This is the third time that I have come before the House to seek the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is my firm belief that renewal of the Act is necessary and justified, but I seek the renewal in no routine spirit. I have consulted those whose job it is to protect us from terrorism, and I have considered the need for the Act in great detail. As a result, I feel bound to recommend that we should keep these unwelcome powers for a further year.

We on the British mainland were reminded forcibly and tragically only a few months ago of the evil and vicious crimes of those who seek political change in Ireland by means of violence and of the need for this Act as an important element in our defence. The Provisional IRA bombing campaign in London in October and November is fresh in all our minds. The Chelsea Barracks nail bomb, in which two passers-by were killed and over 40 soldiers and civilians injured; the bombing of the car of Lt. General Sir Steuart Pringle, who, I am delighted to see, has made such a speedy recovery; the Oxford Street bombs, one of which caused the death of the courageous Metropolitan Police bomb disposal officer, Mr. Kenneth Howorth; the bombing of the London home of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General; and the placing of explosive in a toy pistol—such as any child might pick up—which blew up and injured two women outside Woolwich Barracks—these were all the work of men who treat human life with contempt, and who are prepared to murder and maim without compunction in the hope of advancing their cause. We rely on the police to protect us from these evil men; and in this task the police deserve the support of us all. But, as I shall show when I come to describe the use of the Act over the past 12 months, they also require the additional powers to deal with terrorism which Parliament has granted them under this Act.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act makes a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud, and I understand and share the concern of hon. Members that the powers it contains should continue to be necessary. This concern is reflected in the fact that the Act remains a temporary measure, which would lapse without annual consideration and approval by Parliament. It is reflected also in a proper and understandable demand that the powers be kept under close scrutiny. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that Lord Shackleton carried out a most valuable review of the Act's operation in 1978. As I announced last week, I have decided that the time is now right to hold a further review, with the same terms of reference as those chosen by the Government in 1978 for the Shackleton review—namely, Accepting the continued need for legislation against terrorism, to assess the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, with particular regard to the effectiveness of this legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject, and to report". The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) expressed the Opposition's view on this last year in the debate on the motion for a review. He said on that occasion: The motion which I commend to the House does not even call for an inquiry into the necessity for an Act. It calls for an inquiry into the operation of the Act—the sort of inquiry that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Shackleton undertook in 1978".—[Official Report, 18 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 338.] I agree that enough time has now passed since Lord Shackleton finished his work to make a further review worth while. We agree that the review ought not to focus on whether or not we need the Act. The events of October and November merely reinforce what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on that point a year ago.

I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he has agreed that the review will deal with the operation of the Act both in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. As with the Shackleton inquiry, it will be carried out by one person, taking evidence in private but with a report to be published in full. I am delighted that I am able to inform the House that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Jellicoe has accepted my invitation to carry out the review. The aim will be for the report to be published in time for it to be discussed when the Act is next due to lapse.

Hon. Members will be aware that Lord Shackleton made a number of recommendations for improvements in the operation of the Act, and it will be part of the task of this review to examine how they have worked out in practice. It will also, of course, consider all the powers which the Act contains, to see what use has been made of them since Lord Shackleton reported, and what complaints have been made of their possible misuse, as well as their drawbacks for our civil liberties and their benefits in the prevention of terrorist acts.

I turn now to the use of the Act over the past year. From the time the 1974 Act came into force up to the end of last month, over 5, 300 people have been detained in Great Britain under its provisions, 257 in the past year. This number is the lowest of any year since the legislation was introduced. Over the last year, I or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland granted 50 extensions of detention beyond 48 hours—again, by far the lowest number for any year since the Act came into force. These reductions can be explained in a number of ways. My own view is that they are due in the main to the deterrent effect of the port and internal controls carried out under the Act, and to the sensitivity and selectivity of those who administer them. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the proportion of those detained who are subsequently charged or excluded is substantially higher than in the early years of the Act's operation. Of course, decisions taken since 1974 to exclude those involved in Irish terrorism have substantially reduced the number of such people who can enter the country legally.

Part II of the Act empowers me to make exclusion orders. To make an order I must be satisfied that a person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. I carefully consider every application for exclusion that the police put before me. Since 1974, the police in Great Britain have made 320 applications, and 277 orders have been signed. The equivalent figures for the past year are 13 applications and eight orders signed. This figure, too, is considerably lower than in any earlier year of the Act's operation. None of those excluded in the past year made representations to have their case considered by one of my advisers.

Under the arrangements to review an exclusion order three years after it is made, I have in the last 12 months revoked nine orders and confirmed two others. Eleven cases are currently under review. Altogether, I have revoked 12 orders as a result of this three-year review, 14 following representations to an adviser and six for other reasons—a total of 32 revocations. As I have explained to the House before, it is for excluded persons to ask for a review in the first instance, but there are arrangements for them to write to their last known address when they become elegible to have their order reviewed. I consider personally all such reviews.

The Act does not, of course, apply only in Great Britain. Parts II and III extend to Northern Ireland as well. During 1981, 495 people were arrested in Northern Ireland under section 12 of the Act, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland granted 403 applications for extensions beyond 48 hours. A substantial proportion of those detained are subsequently charged with offences, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this power is of great assistance to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in its fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. In 1981, my right hon. Friend signed orders excluding 11 people from Northern Ireland or from the United Kingdom as a whole.

The police tell me that the powers contained in the Act remain a vital weapon in their fight against terrorism. I accept this view. It may help to put it in context if I refer briefly to a recent case in which use of the Act was instrumental in the success of a police operation. In April 1981, a routine check was made at a postal sorting office in Glasgow of three parcels posted in Canada to addresses in the Strathclyde area. The parcels were found to contain arms and ammunition. After inquiries, 19 people were arrested under the Act's powers. As a direct result of the interviews of these people, and after extensions of detention beyond 48 hours had been granted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, a further quantity of firearms, ammunition and detonators was discovered, which had been destined for use in Northern Ireland by members of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Of the 19 detained, nine were subsequently charged with offences, including conspiracy and contravention of the Firearms, Explosives Substances and Prevention of Terrorism Acts. Eight of the nine were subsequently found guilty and they received sentences of imprisonment ranging from four to 11 years.

Mr. Reginald Freeson (Brent, East)

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that there are no other powers open to the authorities under which such action could have been effectively taken?

Mr. Whitelaw

I could not, of course, absolutely say that there were no other powers in any circumstances which might not have been available in some of these cases. That would be an absurd thing to ask any Minister to say. In general terms, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes".

I wish that we could do without the powers in this Act. But the events of the past few months, and the effective use to which the Act has been put, convince me that for the present such powers remain essential and that we must not take away this vital weapon from the police. The review which I have announced will enable us to consider whether the powers are being operated as we should wish: with the minimum of inconvenience to innocent members of the public, with the least possible infringement of civil liberties, but with as much effect as possible in combating the work of the evil men who use violence for political ends. I seek the agreement of the House to the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act for a further 12 months.

11.23 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkhrook)

I begin by offering what I am sure is the sympathy of the whole House to those who have suffered in Northern Ireland tonight from the renewed campaign of violence. I know that the House speaks with united determination to see such terror brought to an end and those who have perpetrated such acts of terror brought to justice. If there is a difference, as there is, between the Home Secretary and myself this evening, it is in no small measure an argument about the way that the campaign against terrorism and violence can be most successfully prosecuted.

Having said that, I must tell the Home Secretary and the House that it would be dishonest of me to pretend that I feel anything except the deepest distaste for the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the thought of its being extended for another year. I regard it as wrong in principle and a severe and substantial infringement of civil liberties, and I have grown increasingly dubious about its practical advantages and ability to make a net contribution to the campaign against terrorism and violence. I use the term "net contribution" for reasons that I shall now try to explain.

I have no doubt that the operation of the Act—the arrest of men and women against whom no charges are made, their detention for 48 hours and their occasional banishment to specific parts of the United Kingdom—provides help of a sort to the security services. The Act may deter some acts of individual terrorism and it certainly enables the collection of useful information. However, I seriously question whether the assistance it provides matches the damage it has done to the cause of law and order in the United Kingdom in general and in Northern Ireland in particular.

The Act's existence is consciously exploited by law and order enemies, who continue to say that the British Government are behaving in a way which is, in itself, a threat to the freedom that the British Government claim to protect. The truth of the matter is that in this, as in so many similar operations, the duty of the Government is to drive a wedge between the few men of violence and majority of the law-abiding population. My fear is that it now drives the wedge at the wrong point and that many people, without any sympathy for violence—many who have nothing but abhorrence for the appalling acts that have taken place in Ireland and, indeed, on the mainland over the past seven years—are growing increasingly concerned about its continued existence and, therefore, begin to have the unequivocal commitment to the generality of the Government's policies put in doubt.

I know that judgment about the net value of the Act is in truth no more than an opinion that I cannot substantiate. Indeed, it is the nature of the Prevention of Terrorism Act that we must accept or reject its continuation without adequate evidence. Despite the individual example that the Home Secretary has given this evening, to which I shall turn in a moment, it is in the nature of the Act that we cannot be told how it has worked, or be really advised about the consequences of its repeal. We must take it on trust from the Home Secretary, and from those who advise him, that it is necessary, or we must challenge the judgment which by the nature of the measure they cannot substantiate publicly in any detail.

I mean it as no offence to the Home Secretary, whose integrity I regard as being beyond question, when I say that the principle of accepting such powers on trust is wholly repugnant, or ought to be, in a proper democracy. That is particularly true if such draconian powers were originally accepted by this House as a temporary measure, intended to meet an immediate and desperate emergency, and have gradually over the years grown more and more permanent until today it is difficult to determine how different in any real sense they are from a permanent Act of Parliament—a permanent part of our criminal procedures.

Theoretically, they receive the House of Commons assent for renewal every year, but in practice they are too often charged through this House late at night after other eye-catching, headline-catching business has been concluded. After last year, when the Government managers provided a proper debate on a crucial subject at a proper hour, it is deeply disappointing that once again we have turned to this matter of great principle in the hole-and-corner way in which we examine it this evening. I say that working on the principle that I believe guides many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that it is only necessary to summarise parts II and HI of the Act to be offended by its continual existence.

The Act entitles the Home Secretary to exclude from Great Britain, or in some circumstances from the United Kingdom, persons not normally resident in one of those places—persons who, he believes in his judgment, are terrorists. It allows the police to detain for 48 hours without trial men and women whom they suspect of being terrorists, and it allows the detention of those men and women to be extended to seven days on the Home Secretary's fiat. The hard fact of the existence of this Act, as revealed in the Home Secretary's own statistics, is that only one of out nine such men and women held under those powers has eventually been successfully prosecuted. Eight our of every nine people held without charge and trial have been innocent men and women.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)


Mr. Hattersley

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who one might imagine would leap at the point, says "No". It is a fundamentally damaging and dangerous thing when people say "We did not charge or try them, they were not convicted, but we happened to know they were guilty". If there was ever the top of a slippery slope moving away from the freedoms that the House is supposed to protect, the idea that we happen to know people are guilty—despite the minor inconvenience that the courts cannot find them so—seems to be a fundamentally dangerous proposition for anyone to defend.

I take the example that the Home Secretary has given this evening. As I understand his figures, 19 persons having been detained for a crime, which all of us must be glad eventually resulted in a successful prosecution, only eight people were so prosecuted and convicted. The case cited to us by the Home Secretary, which produced eight prosecutions, was also a case in which 11 people, who were not guilty of anything according to the courts, were held for either 48 hours or seven days.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

The right hon. Gentleman will remember, perhaps more poignantly than most hon. Members, the Birmingham pub bombings. Is he asking the House to accept that the police and security services should never act pre-emptively to prevent such an event from happening again, even though the matter is not justiciable?

Mr. Hattersley

I find the concept of the police acting pre-emptively terrifying. I do not believe that is a term that either the Home Secretary or police officers would use. I hold to the view that the police should be given adequate powers to prosecute those who have a legitimate chance of being found guilty in a court. To be held without that prospect is a fundamental danger.

I tell the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, as I told the House last year, that nobody remembers more poignantly—his word—than me the Birmingham pub bombings, those who died and those who were injured. Six of the very young men and women who died were my constituents. I do not propose to harrow the House by trying to explain my feelings on the day when, with the then Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), I first visited the scene of the bombings and then, more desperately, the hospitals and the bereaved relatives.

It was the feelings of those days and the strong anti-Irish feeling that existed in Birmingham and elsewhere—I put it simply and crudely—that justified the introduction of this extraordinary Act. Those of us who voted for the legislation then—and we do not apologise for doing so—voted for it in the belief that it was what it claimed to be: a temporary provision. It is wholly reasonable and consistent, feeling about it as we did seven years ago, to feel that there is no obligation to feel the same way about it year after year as it gradually passes-I use the words again—into something very like permanent powers.

I make no complaint about that part of the Act that proscribes certain terrorist organisations. It seems wholly reasonable that they should be proscribed and prevented from propagating their evil beliefs and raising funds in the United Kingdom to propagate those beliefs. My only query about that part of the Act is whether it should include all the potential terrorist organisations which are, but should not be, allowed to operate freely.

I wholly support the idea of the IRA being treated in that way, but I think the time is coming when we should consider whether Protestant organisations ought to be examined and perhaps proscribed in the sanie fashion. However, it is not that part of the Act about which I complain or have the greatest fears. It is those powers, which I can only describe as arbitrary, which are given to the Home Secretary and the police force and which should cause us the deepest concern and disquiet.

We have been told—and I am sure that we shall be told again between now and the time when we come to vote or not—that my repugnance for the Act is felt on both sides of the House. Indeed, a feature of debates on the Act and its renewal, since Mr. Roy Jenkins introduced it, has been that all those who supported it have been repelled by it. Mr. Roy Jenkins, on the day that he introduced the legislation, described it as "justified only by a wholly exceptional situation".—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 635.]

I repeat, every Government and Opposition spokesman has expressed "deep concern" and "deep disquiet" about the infringement of civil liberties. Indeed, the Home Secretary talked about the considerable erosion of civil liberties.

Last year the Home Secretary was even more precise. The right hon. Gentleman accepted my judgment, because he said: As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, they"— the powers— infringe our shared concept of civil liberties."—[Official Report, 18 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 341.] As parliamentarians and democrats, we all hate the Prevention of Terrorism Act, but not enough of us hate it sufficiently to get rid of it. I must make my view absolutely clear. Only in the most exceptional circumstances—circumstances similar to the slaughter of the people in the Birmingham pub in 1974 and the violent reaction to those outrages, the 21 deaths and the 170 people injured—would I regard the continuation of the Act as justified. I cannot believe that if the right hon. Gentleman and I were in opposite roles this evening I would be asking for the Act to be renewed.

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the danger is all that much less than it was in 1974?

Mr. Hattersley

I have already said that it is difficult to make a judgment on these matters. We are required to vote for the continuation of this Act virtually blindfolded. To do so I would have to be satisfied of three things. First, I would have to be satisfied that the danger was as extreme and immediate as when the Act was introduced, secondly that this was the only way of combating the danger—that there was no way that was more acceptable to our traditions of liberty—and thirdly I would have to be satisfied that by operating in this way we were not playing into the hands of the violent men and women who want to be able to say that the Parliament at Westminster, the British Government, the imperial Parliament is behaving in an arbitary, Draconian and totalitarian way.

I must say in all fairness to the Home Secretary that when we debated this matter a year ago I asked him specifically for an inquiry. Modestly, I did not ask for an inquiry into the necessity for the Act. I did not ask for some distinguished person to justify its existence. I simply asked for the sort of inquiry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) instituted when Lord Shackleton was asked to see how the Act was operating three years ago.

A year ago the Home Secretary turned down that wholly reasonable request. He spoke about the request in far less emollient terms a year ago than he did this evening. But, 348 days after I made that request, he has now acceded to it, in the nick of time for this debate. I am glad that it has been organised in the way that he described and I am glad that he referred to the preamble, which says Accepting the continued need for legislation against terrorism". We all accept that. The question is whether it has to be legislation that allows powers that are not those powers that are common and proper in a democratic society. I hope that the noble Lord who is to institute and conduct such an inquiry will be able to look at whether there are alternative powers that meet the Home Secretary's needs but do not offend against the spirit and traditions of liberty in this country.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

How can Lord Jellicoe do that, in view of the terms of reference contained in the words read out by the Home Secretary? Surely, having made such a powerful case against the need for the Act, my right hon. Friend cannot continue to accept it merely because the Home Secretary has appointed some invigilator to look through the books simply to say that the powers are being carried out in the normal, routine way.

Mr. Hattersley

I am glad that at least my hon. Friend says that I have made out a powerful case against the Act. If I have, it is not least because of my feelings of repugnance, which grow stronger with the years The case that I have made out does not lead me to conclude that at the end of the debate, Lord Jellicoe or not, and whether or not there is a general reconsideration in the terms I have described, my right hon. and hon. Friends should vote for the continuation of this measure. For my part, I shall not vote for its continuation. I shall not vote for it to be repealed. I shall look forward with anxiety as well as eagerness to the conclusions of the Jellicoe report, and I shall look forward to examining them with the greatest care—but the most sceptical care. I do not propose to vote against the continuation of the Act tonight. It also means that I do not propose to vote for its continuation. I believe that the right course is for my right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain. That is what I intend to do, and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will do the same.

11.40 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

1 wish to make only three points. First, I am deeply disturbed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He has had experience in Government and must know that in the prevention of terrorism much must rest on the judgment of the Home Secretary of the day and that there are matters that, with the best will in the world, it is impracticable and unwise for the Home Secretary to make fully public, even to the House.

Therefore, whether we like it or not, and I do not like it, we are driven to a question of trust. One issue that arises on the Act, as it has under previous Administrations, is whether the House is prepared to trust the Home Secretary of the day to administer the Act with a proper regard both to the civil liberties of the individual and, no less important, to the general security of the State. I believe that my right hon. Friend's record is one which can give the House full cause for trust in his judgment.

In failing to support the Act and in dodging into abstention, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has ducked the issue facing us. He has abdicated his responsibility and done no service to the cause of law and order which he so eloquently espoused at the beginning of his speech.

The Home Secretary is entitled to ask the House for its trust.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk)

And the House is entitled not to give it.

Mr. Griffiths

Indeed it is. I offer only my own view, and I am willing to give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary my full trust.

Secondly, the House does not have all the evidence—nor do I—but the evidence that we have is to the effect that, on the whole, the Act has been a success. The figures quoted by the Home Secretary of the dramatically falling number of people who have had to be detained or to be subject to the powers in the Act is an eloquent demonstration that the Act has achieved, and is continuing to achieve, its purpose.

My third point relates to pre-emption. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook courteously gave way to me, and I asked whether there could be justification for the security services acting to prevent a killing, bombing or maiming or an attack on the security of the State even though the information available to the services when they acted was not justiciable.

One of the problems that the House is bound to consider, if not to accept, is that there are numerous occasions, when the police are dealing with terrorists, when they must take action to prevent crimes from being committed—and perhaps to save innocent people from being blown up—before they can be certain that the information on which they are acting would suffice to convince a jury in a court.

Suggesting that we have a police State when the security services seek to prevent the destruction of innocent men, women and children and when, at the time that they must take action, they cannot be certain whether the evidence available to them would be sufficient to convince a jury, is tantamount to saying that the police should fail not only in their duty but under their discipline code. They have a duty to act to prevent a breach of the peace. They have a duty to act to prevent the State being subverted. If any police officer failed to act in those circumstances, he would be guilty, in my view, of a dereliction of duty and he would be rightly criticised in the House.

I believe that the Act, in practice, has provided the police and the security services with an unwelcome and disagreeable weapon that none of us would wish to have in a free society. There are, however, two measures of freedom. One is the freedom of the individual not to be arrested, not be detained and not to be charged unless he can be proved guilty. The other is the freedom of society at large to live in peace without threat to its existence. The balance between the two freedoms has had to be considered carefully by the House over the centuries.

The Act, in the end, is a mechanism that preserves the balance. It must be constantly reviewed and monitored. I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about the further review that is to take place. If, however, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is proposing, by his abstention, to duck the issue, to run away from the responsibility of saying "Yes" or "No" to the powers that the Home Secretary requires, he demonstrates—I say this having some affection and regard for the right hon. Gentleman—only his total unfitness to be Shadow Home Secretary.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry)

It is because this Act extends in large measure to Northern Ireland that I seek to give the view of my party and the people I represent. No one has a better right to speak on the issue of terrorism than those who come from the part of the United Kingdom where my constituency is located.

There is a certain overlap between the Act, and the powers contained in it, and the similar Northern Ireland legislation. For that reason, I welcome most warmly the review that the Home Secretary has announced. Such a review can do nothing but good. Whenever the review takes place, the Home Secretary should consider fully the effectiveness of the Act in Northern Ireland and its present and future relationship to the Northern Ireland legislation.

The powers in section 12 are dissimilar to those that exist in the corresponding section of the Northern Ireland legislation. It is therefore not possible, I believe, to have a thorough review of the application of the Act in Northern Ireland without taking full cognisance of the Northern Ireland Act. I see that the Home Secretary signifies assent to my remarks. I hope that he realises that this may mean, at some point, legislative changes in relation not only to the Act under discussion but also in the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to Government policy being an attempt to drive a wedge between the terrorist and the general population. I suggest that Government policy should not be to drive a wedge between the terrorist and the general population but to defeat the terrorist. There have been attempts for years to drive wedges but with little success. Yet the application of the Act—described in such harsh terms this evening—is alleged by the Home Secretary to have resulted in a great reduction in terrorist activity in this part of the United Kingdom. There has been no effort to drive a wedge here, but only a straightforward effort to defeat the terrorist. Surely that attitude should be carried to Northern Ireland with the same vigour.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also talked about taking people on trust. The Home Secretary knows all about taking too much on trust in relation to terrorists. After all, he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We recall clearly a number of terrorists being flown over for consultations precisely when two British Army officers wandered into the Bogside and were captured by the IRA. That is not the type of trust that we desire between Government, security forces and the terrorist.

There can be no trust when murderers are involved. People joining a terrorist organisation know that they are committing themselves to an organisation which is dedicated to murder and that the act of joining proclaims to the world that they are willing to commit such murders.

Methods of control over points of entry into the United Kingdom causes anxiety. I fly every week, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends. Sometimes we travel via Gatwick and sometimes via Heathrow. There is a difference in the security measures taken at the two airports. May we have a detailed rundown of the measures taken at all the major points of entry such as Liverpool and airports in the Midlands and Glasgow so that we can compare what happens there with what happens at the London airports? We hear disturbing reports about the different levels of interrogation at each airport. If certain measures are necessary at one airport, surely they are necessary at all points of entry, including sea ports.

We all view the application of the Act with distaste. I view with greater distaste the murders, the violence and the evil which make such an Act necessary. There is no point in bemoaning the law. We should be bemoaning the actions that lead to the necessity for such laws. We should realise that only when we have conquered the terrorist—not only the terrorist in Ireland but the terrorist from further afield—can we safely throw such Acts into the dustbin where we all desire them to be.

I am sorry to have to refer to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook so often, but I disagreed with much of what he said. He claims that the Act is a temporary measure. He referred to the slaughter in Birmingham and said that it was many years ago. It was this evening in Banbridge. It was this evening in mid-Ulster and it was yesterday elsewhere in Ulster.

For the life and soul of me, I cannot understand how people can say that just because the violence and murder in Great Britain has decreased, we should forget a measure whose application is for the protection and welfare of people throughout the Kingdom. The duty of the House is to protect all citizens of the nation, not only the citizens of Birmingham. Because of that, my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the order.

The terrorist seeks to overrule the ballot box and those who watched "Panorama" this evening saw the murderers walking free in the Irish Republic. They saw that those murderers—those violent men—have not forsaken their objectives.

Those who stand up and say that we should throw away a weapon which is so clearly needed are very foolish and put at risk not only lives in Ulster but lives that are protected by the Act here. I would prefer to see other protections such as a sealed land frontier, which would do more to defeat terrorism than anything else that has been talked about. I should like to see control of the movement of citizens of the Irish Republic wishing to come to the United Kingdom. However, we have been down that road before and we have been refused.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will review the relationships between Britain and that foreign nation with which we share a land frontier, to see what can be done to control the movement of its citizens right across the board, right across the frontier and right across the sea.

11.56 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I know that the Act that is before us tonight largely concerns hon. Members from Great Britain and not hon. Members from Northern Ireland. However, as Northern Ireland is involved in the legislation, I should like to make a couple of comments.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said that he could well support the legislation if there were such happenings as took place in Birmingham some years ago. In Northern Ireland, those circumstances are continuing. There has been a bomb blitz right across Northern Ireland tonight, resulting in the death of a nine-year-old child in Banbridge. On the right hon. Gentleman's argument that if those things were happening the legislation would be necessary, I suggest that the legislation must stay on the statute book for Northern Ireland.

No representative of Northern Ireland could ask at this time that any weapon should be taken from the statute book. In this House in the past I have been fervent in my opposition to the removal of civil rights. I have opposed the whole system of internment and voted against that very issue. However, this House would be foolish if it thought that the threat from the Irish Republican Army was over.

Leading citizens of Northern Ireland and hon. Members of this House have recently been called to police stations and shown a list of prominent persons who will be murdered. Well to the top of that list was the Lord Chief Justice and a few days afterwards an attack was made upon him. Only the fact that his car was parked a yard further forward than it is usually parked prevented the Lord Chief Justice from being murdered. The terrorist was unable to get his gun in line with his intended victim.

Those are the matters that concern the people of Northern Ireland. While every review of the Act woud be welcome, it would only help terrorists' interests if the House tonight took this legislation off the statute book.

11.58 pm
Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange)

Although I warmly welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State concerning the review of the Act, I rise to speak against the renewal order. At the end of the, debate I will go in the "No" Lobby again as I have clone in previous years.

When Mr. Roy Jenkins introduced the Act as Home Secretary, he said clearly that the Act was draconian and must be temporary. What are his views now? I sincerely hope that in the Glasgow by-election the Irish community in Glasgow will ask Mr. Jenkins whether he will oppose or support the repeal of the Act if he is elected to Parliament. It will be interesting to see whether the SDP Members vote against the order. I understand that some of the Liberal Members will be voting against it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), when he was Home Secretary in a previous Labour Administration, said that there could be no question of ending the legislation while Provisional IRA violence continued?

Mr. Parry

Many members of the Irish community in the United Kingdom feel that the Act is a recruiting sergeant for the IRA. There is a very strong feeling in that regard. I accept the hon. Member's point, but I am trying to emphasise that the Irish community in the United Kingdom feel very strongly about the continuance of the order. They feel that it is anti-Catholic in its operation. [Interruption.] Someone says that that is rubbish, but last year my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made the same point that I am now making, and the Irish community in the United Kingdom support my argument.

The Home Secretary will recall that I wrote to him recently seeking a meeting with him on behalf of the Federation of Irish Societies. He rejected the application but said that he would meet hon. Members of this House to discuss the implications of the renewal of the order. I should like to ask the Home Secretary a specific question which has been raised with me by the federation. Can he name one case where a conviction for a terrorist type of offence has been obtained which could not have been obtained under legislation other than the Prevention of o Terrorism Act?

I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the Federation of Irish Societies is a bona fide and very responsible organisation. In England, Scotland and Wales it is mainly responsible for social matters, for sporting activities, and for cultural, language and other matters affecting the Irish community. When representatives of the federation met a number of Labour Members a few weeks ago, they made it clear that they, like my hon. Friends and myself, totally condemn and abhor violence or murder in any shape or form, from whatever source.

People refer to the infringement of civil liberties as being "one of those things". Is the House aware that, over the past seven or eight years, many thousands of people who have been detained and then cleared of any offence, still have their photographs, personal details and fingerprints on the police files? That is a gross infringement of civil liberties, and the Irish societies believe that the Act is used purely to collate information for the police so that it can be put on a police file or computer.

I have dealt with many cases on Merseyside of people who have been detained under the Act and later released. People who have been released as innocent feel unclean, they feel guilty, and they feel that their neighbours are pointing at them or looking at them as if they have been involved in some criminal activities. It has led in some cases to people losing their jobs. It has led to the breakdown of marriage. In one case it led to a man having a nervous breakdown. I understand that recently it led to an attempted suicide.

On those and other grounds, I shall be voting against the order.

12.4 am

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

I normally listen to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with considerable interest, because he often makes a valuable contribution to our debates. I like to give plaudits where plaudits are due. However, on this occasion he has put himself in an impossible position. His position, broadly speaking, is as follows: the Act requires inquiring into—that was the position that he took last year—but that pending the inquiry he will sit on his backside and do nothing.

That is a difficult position for the right hon. Gentleman to justify. He made the point—one that it is important to understand—that the immediate justification of the Act when first introduced was the bombing at Birmingham and those elsewhere at that time. That terrible bombing was the justification for the Act. However, this Act applies to Northern Ireland, except for part I. No one can seriously argue that the situation in Northern Ireland today is less grave than was the situation in Birmingham in 1974. One has only to read the newspapers and listen to Northern Ireland Members to realise that Northern Ireland is in a state of anarchy much worse than we experienced in 1974. Yet, in 1974 and subsequently, the Labour Government thought it proper to bring in this legislation and thereafter to renew it. The position in Northern Ireland now is infinitely worse than it ever was in this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

That is not helping.

Mr. Hogg

What the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) says shows the narrow mind that he often adopts on issues of this nature.

We were promised an inquiry by the Home Secretary. He was right to do that, but, pending the inquiry and its results, it is extremely imprudent to suppose that this Act is not making a contribution to security, because in Northern Ireland, at least, the position borders on anarchy.

The Home Secretary did us a service when he reminded us about the bombing in this part of the United Kingdom during the latter part of last year. That, too, was a serious campaign against the security of the State and against our fellow citizens. To suppose that we could safely do away with this Act without awaiting the result of the inquiry is, I suggest, to commit an act of considerable imprudence. It surprises me that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should advocate such a course. That is unlike him, although it is very like the hon. Member for Keighley.

12.7 am

Mr. Edward Lyons (Bradford, West)

The Act poses a painful dilemma. On the one hand, all hon. Members want to prevent terrorism, which involves the indiscriminate killing of innocents. At the same time, the House has a tradition of supporting the principle of natural justice and wants to ensure that the legislation it passes is legislation of which we can all be proud and which conforms with the general principles of other legislation in this country.

Under the pressure of the terrible Birmingham pub bombings in 1974, a Government who were pledged to the rule of law and to natural justice none the less felt obliged to introduce this legislation. Because they were aware of its imperfections and knew that it contained things which offended the principles of natural justice, they said that the legislation should be of a temporary kind, and that the House should decide—first, at six-monthly intervals, but in 1976 at annual intervals—whether the legislation should continue. Given that there are provisions in the Act that we should normally abhor, that is quite right.

There is a dilemma. We wish to protect our people from outrage, yet we also wish to conform to the rule of law. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) sought, in common with members of the Official Opposition to obtain the assurance of an inquiry. When an Act damages the safeguard of habeas corpus, confers powers on the Executive to remove United Kingdom citizens from the United Kingdom and inhibits the movement of United Kingdom citizens from one part of the country to another, it is only right that there should be a stringent review and inquiry into the way in which it works. We can then see whether it can be replaced and, if not, whether—without prejudice to the security of those in the United Kingdom—provisions could be incorporated in the Act so that it conforms with the rules of natural justice as we understand them.

Therefore, we applaud the decision to carry out a review. As the Home Secretary has promised a review, what should we do? Clearly, we do not want to do anything that will prejudge it or damage the House's right to deal sensibly with any report or recommendations. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to oppose the order. If the Social Democratic Party had understood—[Interruption]—that the official Opposition were going to oppose the extension—which it is not—it would—given the promise of a review—have mustered its forces to support that extension. That is our position.

12.12 am
Mr. Reginald Freeson (Brent, East)

For the Government and anybody who wishes to support the extension of the Act, the main purpose of the debate must be to provide the evidence and arguments in favour of continuing such a temporary provision. The onus of argument should rest not upon those of us who oppose the Act but on those who wish to continue it.

I make it clear from the outset—as I did last year—that I oppose and shall vote against the continuation of the Act. Even on the question of an inquiry, the Government have not given us a satisfactory response. Let us ignore the fact that it has taken 12 months for the Home Secretary to agree to something, in general at least, put to him last year, when he rejected it. Let us ignore the fact that during the 12 months since then nothing special has occurred to make him change his mind. Let us set aside that he should have accepted the proposition last year and let us merely consider his proposals. We shall have to study tomorrow's edition of Hansard carefully, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to make it clear that the review will not consider whether the Act should continue, but will merely monitor the Act's administration. Even if I were decided in my own mind to oppose the continuation of the Act, and even if I wished to concentrate on the review and whether such a proposition should decide one whether to support the continuation of the Act, oppose its continuation or abstain, I should find the proposition that has been put to the House highly unsatisfactory.

It is not sufficient to put to the House a proposal to monitor the administration of the Act. The issue, even in the context of an inquiry, is whether the Act should be continued and whether there are matters being dealt with under the Act of the sort that the Home Secretary illustrated during his remarks that could equally, if not more effectively, be dealt with under other powers.

The Act was introduced in 1974, and not 1969 when terrorism broke out again, under the pressure of the terrible events in Birmingham, the special situation, the special mood and the special threats. There were threats from the terrorists and the threats of those who wished to take action against the community to which the terrorists belonged.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

Are we not in danger of regarding what is unacceptable in Birmingham as acceptable in Northern Ireland and regarding what is unacceptable over there as acceptable here? There is a danger that we are trying to divide the United Kingdom so that something that is regarded as normal over there is given a few column inches in the press whereas if the same thing takes place in Birmingham, Chelmsford, Enfield or Liverpool we have to have an Act. Surely that is a disgraceful state of affairs.

Mr. Freeson

I do not accept a word of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. That is not the burden of the argument. We did not require an Act between 1969 and 1974 to conduct the campaign against terrorism in Northern Ireland or inside the rest of the United Kingdom. I understand the feelings that emerge when we debate these matters, but we are not discussing whether we should be soft on terrorism or hard on terrorism. Whatever labels are attached to the so-called nationalists in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, they are the other face of violent Fascism. That is true whatever political labels they attach to themselves and whatever theorising some may indulge in politically. We should oppose them as strongly as we can.

I do not believe that the continuation of the Act assists us and it rests upon the Government, whichever party is in Government, to prove the case. The onus is on them and the Government are signally not proving their case. What is more, they are making it pretty clear, if I heard the Home Secretary aright, that the so-called inquiry is to be not a review of the desirability, the practicability or the necessity of the Act but a monitoring exercise. It is clear that it will not concern itself with the fundamental issue whether the Act should remain on the statute book.

I may be wrong and misjudging the situation, but one of the causes—perhaps the main one—for the sharp decline in detentions and arrests under the Act during the past year was the very nature of the debate that took place in the House last year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I am entitled to express that rather modest view as other Members have claimed in highly emotive terms that it is vital to retain the Act, which is a direct infringement of civil liberties, for the purpose of combating terrorism.

We have not had evidence to support that. Year after year we have failed to receive the evidence and the Home Secretary should be able to establish whether the son: of example that he has quoted—others could have been quoted of a lesser nature—in his speech could have been acted upon only under the powers provided by this Act. He signally failed to do so and I do not believe that he could establish it. There are other powers. That comment is as applicable to the Home Secretary's speech as it is to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).

The House must decide whether it wishes to see continuing on the statute book in an attack on terrorism—without evidence to support the case that is an essential weapon against terrorism—an Act which provides for arrest and search without warrant, for the refusal of access to legal or other advisers, family or friends, forcible fingerprinting and photographing of arrested persons, no knowledge given to the detained person of why the arrest was made, the possible risk of false confessions and false information being used for purposes of arrest and detention, the stress and tension that leads to further false statements and the abolition of the right of silence. One could go on to deal with other aspects of the legislation.

No one in the House can easily accept such legislation unless there is overwhelming evidence that the Act is required in order to combat terrorism. No one, certainly not the Home Secretary, has yet adduced that evidence. What we are seeing is temporary legislation turning into permanent legislation. The case for continuing the Act must be argued here, not in secrecy or privacy. Year after year we are moving further away from such open Government and open legislation, which we should be proud to protect in the House.

We have not had the evidence. The House should reject the continuation of this legislation not in order to go soft on terrorism but because the Act has not been proved necessary to combat terrorism and it is a deep affront to the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of people. It should not be mocked or laughed at, but should be argued seriously, especially by the Government Front Bench.

12.23 am
Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

As I watched the "Panorama" programme this evening, followed by the news of the terrible bombings in Northern Ireland, I must admit that even my resolve and my opposition to the Act almost became seriously weakened. For a few moments, I could see myself not going into the Lobby to vote against this legislation. But then I recognised that that is exactly what the IRA would have wished me to do.

Why was that programme put out tonight? It was because it had been advertised and the IRA knew well what it would contain. It involved a number of men and women, so-called soldiers—I regard them as cowards, the scum of the Irish nation—who from the safety of the Republic openly boasted of the terrible deeds that they had committed in their own country. It was well known all last week and the week before that we were to debate the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act tonight.

I do not know the working of the terrorist mind, nor do I particularly want to, but there is no doubt in my mind that the terrorist activities in Northern Ireland tonight were deliberately carried out because it was known that we would be debating this subject tonight. The IRA does not want the Act taken off the statute book, but thousands upon thousands of decent Irish men and women living in Scotland, England and Wales bitterly resent the fact that, whether it is intended or not, the Act points the finger of suspicion at them. The IRA lives and thrives on legislation of this kind. It is ordinary, decent people who are affected by it.

There are Members of the House who honestly believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has prevented acts of terrorism. That is an opinion honestly held, but there are others such as I, who have lived all my life in the shadow of repressive legislation, who believe that it has not led to any diminution of terrorism.

Let us follow the logic of the argument. The Special Powers Act existed from the creation of Northern Ireland until it was abolished in 1972. Yet that Act, regressive as it was, and draconian as this legislation is, did not prevent terrorism from occurring in Northern Ireland. Too many innocent people are affected by this legislation.

There is also the argument about the police being able to take preventive action. I do not subscribe to that at all. We are being asked to take too much on trust. I, too, talk to policemen. It is necessary for me to do so. Many of them say, as the Home Secretary says, that they cannot tell me the reasons for having to take a certain action. On the argument of prevention, it would be perfectly easy to come to the Dispatch Box and initiate a Prevention of Mugging (Temporary Provisions) Bill and then arrest anyone suspected of that offence—the figures for mugging in Northern Ireland are far worse than they ever have been for terrorism.

I particularly resent this legislation because of the exclusion orders that have been promulgated. I am convinced—again, one can only use one's intelligence, and I have a reputation for being opposed to the men of violence—that utterly innocent people have been excluded from this part of the United Kingdom without their having been involved in any action or support for terrorist organisations.

When I tried to seek information from any source about why they were excluded, I was told by the police and by the Home Secretary that they had the information justifying it but that they could not give it to me. I honestly do not believe that the Home Secretary, as I have said in debate after debate in the House, has gone into every case where an exclusion order has been granted. The police carry out the inquiries and, whatever their reasons may be—their motivation can sometimes be seriously at fault—they make recommendations to the Home Secretary, and he signs exclusion orders. If there is to be an inquiry, serious attention should be given to this one part of the Act.

I am not advocating any extension of the terms and provisions of this Act, but I support the remarks made by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Within recent weeks in Northern Ireland—certainly within recent weeks in Northern Ireland—certainly within recent months—many cases have been brought before the courts which give rise to serious suspicion that there has been collusion between the UDA, a Protestant extremist organisation, and the IRA. A case is now being heard in Northern Ireland in which a policeman is being tried for the killing of a colleague. We are also told that there have been acts of collusion between police forces within Northern Ireland and members of terrorist organisations.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that?

Mr. Fitt

This was evidence given in the courts and it has not been contradicted so far. I am not a jury man, but perhaps those cases have not been adequately reported in the United Kingdom—

Mr. William Ross

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has referred to a case in which a member of the RUC is accused of killing a fellow member. If my information is correct, that case is not yet finished but is presently before the courts.

Mr. Fitt

I am not passing any opinion. If the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) wants a case in which the evidence has been concluded, I can give this example: three of four UDA men, members of a Protestant paramilitary organisation, were sentenced to terms of imprisonment only last week for the murder of councillor John Tunnley. As soon as the case reached its concluding stages, a defendant said that he had been acting in collusion with the security forces. That gives me cause for concern.

In the final analysis it is this House and not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that can either allay the suspicions or do something to ease the tension that now exists in Northern Ireland.

It is right that everyone in the House should express regrets and sorrow to all those injured in Belfast tonight. Although we go into the Lobby to vote against the renewal or retention of this legislation, it must not be thought that we in any way support terrorism. The ordinary law in this country is sufficient to apprehend any terrorist in the United Kingdom. The retention of this Act on the statute book tonight and, indeed, the next time it comes up for renewal, is exactly what the IRA wants and that is what I want to deny it.

12.34 am
Mr. Whitelaw

I have only a few minutes before the time expires. I say first to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that I am sure everyone in the House—as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, deeply regrets the bombings that occurred in Northern Ireland tonight. The hon. Member for Belfast, West knows very well from me that his record of being against terrorism is absolutely unchallenged and nobody would seek to challenge it in any way. That does not mean that one necessarily agrees with the conclusions he draws and I am bound to say that I do not.

I am grateful to the many hon. Gentlemen who thought it right that there should be a review of this Act, as I announced, by Lord Jellicoe. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook for saying that that course was right.

The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that he does not believe in such a review, is against the Act altogether and that nothing special has happened since last year when it was reviewed. I should have thought that the bombings that took place before Christmas—including the bombing of Sir Steuart Pringle's car, were something fairly special in the United Kingdom. To write them off as nothing very special is somewhat surprising. I cannot accept that assertion.

I understand the decision of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to sit on the fence. I also understand the decision of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) to sit on the fence. If the hon. and learned Gentleman sits on the fence on many more issues, the whole thing will collapse and he will have to make up his mind one way or the other, but so long as he can put that day off, he will no doubt wish to do so. It will not be for very long, because the fence is becoming extremely rickety. I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman make so many speeches when he has sat on it that it seems almost to have gone for ever. He will therefore have to decide.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) for what he said. There is bound to be an element of trust in the Home Secretary when deciding these matters. To those who doubt that, I can only say that all my predecessors since the Act was passed, including those in the Labour Party, have decided that it was right to have this Act and these powers and that they were necessary to combat terrorism.

My experience in the last year, including the bombings before Christmas, has proved that that is still the case. I have promised the review that was asked for last year. I believe that to be right. On that basis I hope that the House will renew the Act tonight.

Question put,

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 53.

Division No. 91] [12.35 am
Alexander, Richard Butcher, John
Aspinwall, Jack Cadbury, Jocelyn
Banks, Robert Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Benyon, Thomas(A'don) Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Berry, HonAnthony Clegg, Sir Walter
Bevan.DavidGilroy Cope, John
Biggs-Davison, SirJohn Costain, SirAlbert
Blackburn, John Cranborne, Viscount
Bottomley, Peter(W'wichW) Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Dorrell, Stephen
Bright, Graham Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Brinton.Tim Dover, Denshore
Brooke, HonPeter Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n> Eyre, Reginald
Bruce-Gardyne, John Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Bryan, Sir Paul Faith, MrsSheila
Buck, Antony Garel-Jones, Tristan
Budgen, Nick Goodlad, Alastair
Bulmer, Esmond Gorst, John
Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN) Paisley, Rev Ian
Gummer, JohnSelwyn Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Hannam, John Patten, John(Oxford)
Hawkins, Paul Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Hawksley, Warren Prior, Rt Hon James
Heddle, John Proctor, K. Harvey
Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Hunt, Jobn(Ravensbourne) Rhodes James, Robert
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey Robinson, P. (BelfastE)
Jopling, RtHon Michael Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Kimball, SirMarcus Sainsbury.HonTimothy
Lang, Ian Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lawrence, Ivan Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Lee, John Shelton, William(Streatham)
LeMarchant, Spencer Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Lester, Jim(Beeston) Silvester, Fred
Lloyd, Ian(Havant& W'loo) Sims, Roger
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham) Smyth, Rev. W. M.(Belfast S)
Lyell, Nicholas Speller, Tony
McCrindle, Robert Spicer, Jim(WestDorset)
Macfarlane, Neil Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)
MacGregor, John Stainton, Keith
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury) Stanbrook.lvor
McNally, Thomas Stanley, John
McQuarrie, Albert Steen, Anthony
Major, John Stevens, Martin
Marland, Paul Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)
Marlow.Antony StradlingThomas, J.
Mates, Michael Tapsell, Peter
Mather, Carol Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)
Mayhew, Patrick Temple-Morris, Peter
Mellor, David Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony Thompson, Donald
Miller, Hal(B'grove) Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)
Mills, Iain(Meriden) Vaughan, DrGerard
Mitchell, R.C.(Soton Itchen) Waddington, David
Moate, Roger Waller, Gary
Molyneaux, James Ward, John
Mudd, David Watson, John
Murphy, Christopher Wells, Bowen
Myles, David Wheeler, John
Neale, Gerrard Whitelaw, RtHonWilliam
Needham, Richard Wickenden, Keith
Nelson, Anthony Wilkinson, John
Normanton, Tom Wolfson, Mark
Ogden, Eric
Onslow, Cranley Tellers for the Ayes:
Osborn, John Mr. David Hunt and
Page, Richard (SW Herts) Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Allaun, Frank Lyon, Alexander(York)
Ashton, Joe McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Atkinson, N.(H'gey, ) Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)
Bidwell, Sydney Maxton, John
Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith) Maynard, MissJoan
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n& P) Meacher, Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale Mikardo, Ian
Canavan, Dennis Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)
Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g) Newens, Stanley
Cryer, Bob O'Halloran, Michael
Deakins, Eric Parry, Robert
Dubs, Alfred Pavitt, Laurie
Duffy, A. E. P. Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Eastham, Ken Race, Reg
Fitt, Gerard Richardson, Jo
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington) Roberts, Allan(Bootle)
Foulkes, George Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Freeson, RtHon Reginald Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Hogg, N.(EDunb't'nshire) Skinner, Dennis
Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll) Soley, Clive
Homewood, William Stallard, A. W.
Huckfield.Les Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Wigley.Dafydd
Lamond, James Wilson, William (C'trySE)
Winnick, David Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and
Mr. Martin Flannery.
Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly agreed to.


That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.

  2. c171
  3. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c. 17 words
  4. c171
Back to