§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 9, in page 4, line 5, leave out Clause 4.
No. 12, in page 4, line 31, leave out Clause 5.
No. 15, in page 5, line 20, leave out from 'enter' to 'with' in line 21, and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 21, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'Great Britain, Northern Ireland or'.
No. 22, in page 7, line 28, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 29.
Mr. PowellAll the other amendments associated with amendment No. 4 are consequential to it, and I hope that no consequentiality, apart from those, has been overlooked.
The effect of the amendment would be to eliminate from the Bill two of the three forms of exclusion order that it contains at present. The three forms of exclusion order are two internal and one external. The two internal are from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and, conversely, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The external exclusion is exclusion from the United Kingdom. The amendment leaves in the Bill the third, or external, form of exclusion, but removes what in the previous debate was described perfectly accurately as "internal exile". It leaves external exile — although "exile" is an inappropriate word, since it is applicable only to people who are riot British citizens — but it removes the evil of internal exile.
It may be queried why, in view of what I am to say presently about exclusion orders, one should not get rid of the whole contraption and the entire part of the Bill. There would be considerable attraction in that course except that, when questioned in Committee, the Secretary of State asserted that, although he had powers under existing legislation otherwise to exclude from the United Kingdom, or prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of. undesirable persons under the emigration law, there was a very narrow category of Irish citizens who would not be covered by those powers. He also asserted, although we failed to elicit from him very much illumination of what he meant by it, that the powers in the Bill were more efficient than the powers in other legislation for excluding, or preventing the entry of, non-British citizens in respect of the United Kingdom.
I do not think that in present circumstances we would wish the Home Secretary to lack the efficient power to prevent an alien from entering this country for what the Home Secretary had reason to believe were nefarious purposes, or to terminate his stay herd in similar circumstances. Therefore, the amendment does not touch the power of exclusion from the United Kingdom What it does do, I repeat, is to remove the power to issue an order to a citizen to remove from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom.
In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, "We have not much hope of succeeding," and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, "Conservative Governments never learn from experience." I appreciate that both those propositions could be buttressed with a good deal of illustrative material. Nevertheless, I move this amendment in genuine hope because I cannot believe that the Government can go on year after year—with the number of persons excluded under the powers in clauses 4 and 5 dropping from the very large numbers when the Bill was first introduced to a handful at the present time—attempting to justify the maintenance of this utterly unacceptable presence in our law of a power to dictate the position of residence inside the United Kingdom to a British subject or, as it has often been called, the power to impose internal exile.
If the Government had presented to the House a new Bill embodying the powers in clauses 4 and 5, then 1 think hon. Members on both sides of the House would suppose that they had taken leave of their senses. It would be quite inconceivable that, in 1984, any Government, in the 965 circumstances that now obtain, would have come forward with those powers. But of course, we are not treating this in fact, although we are in form, de novo. We are dealing with powers that have existed on the statute book for 10 years, although we are, with substantial modifications, renewing them by this Bill.
My hon. Friends and I are entitled to ask the House to consider this provision as if it were today for the first time that the Government were asking the House to grant these powers. We would ask the Government, "How many cases do you expect a year will fall within the ambit of the exclusion from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?"—a curious direction and proposition, in any case—and they would, with the benefit of hindsight, reply, "Oh, about 10 or a dozen." We would then say to the Government, "Have you any reason in present circumstances to suppose that you could not provide for security in other ways by the use of the ordinary criminal law without having recourse to this specific power in so tiny a number of cases?"—of which again only a small proportion, as the past evidence shows, will be concerned in terrorist offences.
It would not be made to stand up, it could not be justified, and the continuance of what has always been regarded by the whole House as a blot upon the statute book, and by the people of Northern Ireland as a special slur, a special imposition, upon themselves, could not be justified. The provision nevertheless, appears in the Bill. I ask the House and the Government to recognise that, upon that test which it is reasonable to apply, they do not today propose a new provision of this kind, and that therefore they ought not to be producing a Bill that contains it.
7 pm
There is, I admit, an argument in relation to part I of the Bill that, having had the power to ban an organisation for so long, it is new to bring that power to an end. I concede that suddenly in 1984 to say that the IRA and INLA should not be proscribed organisations would be unreasonable, even had we not proscribed them since 1974. But no possible mischief can come from saying that such has been the experience in the last 10 years that there is no longer any substantial ground in the use made of this power which would justify it remaining on the statute book. Nothing is lost. There is nothing on the other side of the account, nothing that is unacceptable to public opinion, nothing that would outrage a public opinion that has witnessed the continuance of terrorist offences here in Great Britain as well as in Northern Ireland right up to the present day.
Therefore, I am asking the House now to remove from the statute book what might have been justified 10 years ago and in the earlier period of that decenium, though even from the start it was the product more of indignation and panic than of reasoning. Now that the circumstances are so changed, as the factual evidence in the Jellicoe report illustrates, I am asking for this to be removed from the statute book so that we shall no longer be exposed to the charge that we in the United Kingdom, who point the finger at other countries, have on our statute book a power by which a Minister can impose exile from one part of the United Kingdom to another on a British citizen.
Whatever was the argument in years gone by—whatever jocularity may be indulged in at the expense of 966 those who, at the beginning of that 10-year period, supported or did not oppose this provision—it is time for it to go, and I hope that the House will do right tonight and take it off the statute book.
§ Mr. SoleyI shall not delay the House, because we have been over many of the arguments already. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I agree on many of the issues about which he spoke in relation to the amendment, and we have debated them at length in Committee and elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the official Opposition will vote for the amendment, for we recognise that this group of amendments would put an end to what we have rightly called "internal exile".
§ Ms. Clare ShortI, too, support this group of amendments, which would remove from the Bill the power of internal exile. The only exclusion power to remain would be the power to exclude people from the United Kingdom, with no right to exclude people from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
This power, which was taken rapidly in the wake of the Birmingham bombings, was originally designed only to exclude from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The symbolism of that was that an explosion or death from terrorist activities in Great Britain was intolerable and unacceptable to this House but that such explosion or death in Northern Ireland was of little concern. That was undoubtedly the symbolism of the original measure and it was subsequent embarrassment—when that was pointed out — that made the Government take the power to exclude people from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, so that it would look like parity and not as though we did not care what happened in Northern Ireland. That is at the root of the power. We should be clear about that, admit it openly and say what a disgrace it is, for if more hon. Members and more people who live in Great Britain had shown more concern for the situation in Northern Ireland we might have found solutions to the problems there a long time ago.
The power is, in any event, strange because by it we say, in effect, that if we move to Northern Ireland certain people who are moved to use force and engage in terrorist activities in Great Britain, things will be safer here, Northern Ireland being the place where, some people feel when considering the political situation there, people wish to use force. It would make more sense, if it was a power designed to prevent terrorism, to exclude people to Cornwall, Orkney or to a place where they would not be constrained to involve themselves in terrorist activities in connection with Northern Ireland. If that were to happen it would cause uproar in this country—I am sure that it would cause uproar in Cornwall and so on—and would be considered intolerable.
The precedent for the power can be found in the Soviet Union, where certain citizens are excluded to Siberia. We take a parallel power, but our Siberia is Northern Ireland; we exclude people to poor old Northern Ireland if we think that they might endanger the public peace in Great Britain. In itself and in principle the power is intolerable.
The Minister said that such a grave and serious action—the use of the power—was taken when there was no evidence against the individual concerned, only when there was intelligence or suspicion—something that 967 would not hold up before a tribunal or court. In other words, this grave and serious power is used on the basis of very slight evidence.
I am sure that we can agree that the power is in principle objectionable. An argument for it might be that somehow it prevents terrorism and makes things safer. But when we look at the figures we find, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out, that in the last two years only 26 people were excluded. In other words, this deeply offensive power is being used so sparsely that we can consider getting rid of it, even if there ever was a case for it.
In addition, it could be argued that, rather than prevent terrorism, the power could encourage it. Following inquiries that we made in Committee, the Minister wrote to me—the letter was copied to all members of the Committee—giving the figures for people who had been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and who had subsequently been convicted of being involved in acts of terrorism. The figures are quite large: 15 people for certain and a further 31 convicted of offences that might have been offences connected with terrorism. In other words, because the police or intelligence forces in Great Britain have about certain people a vague suspicion that would not hold up in court, those people are bundled off to Northern Ireland.
We are told that those excluded are closely watched by the security forces, although I note that Lord Jellicoe's report stated that when he was attempting to review old exclusion orders and write to people who had been excluded, half of them could not be found. It is clear, therefore, that it is not the case that those who have been excluded are carefully watched. Thus, in a good many cases, people who were excluded from Great Britain on a vague hunch subsequently went on to involve themselves in violent actions in Northern Ireland. It could be argued that the power has permitted terrorist actions to take place, for had the police been better policemen and had they continued to watch the individuals of whom they were suspicious, they might have been able to arrest them for criminal offences and thus prevent acts of terrorism.
For those reasons, I strongly support the amendments, which would get rid of what must be considered an intolerable power in any society that claims to be free. It is an intolerable power, a power that in its symbolism shows that we care nothing about violence and the troubles in Northern Ireland, and a power that does not prevent, but could be argued to perpetuate, terrorism.
§ Mr. WaddingtonWe fully appreciate that it is a serious matter to deprive a British citizen of the right to move freely in his own country, and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Jellicoe said that he found consideration of the exclusion order powers the most difficult part of his task. These provisions, distasteful though they are, remain a sad necessity, so long as the threat from terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs remains with us, a fact which none of us can now doubt.
It has been suggested that these provisions are unnecessary because they do not work and it has been said that they did not prevent the Harrods bombing. That is rather like saying that there is no point in having any police powers because crime is still committed. The truth is that the essentially preventive nature of the exclusion powers makes their effectiveness extremely difficult to judge. The system comes into operation only when there can be no 968 question of a prosecution because of the sensitivity of the intelligence on which cases are based. To expose such intelligence in court could, in some cases, endanger lives, and would inevitably prejudice the gathering of further intelligence from the same source.
I accept that we who are closely involved in the operation of the system are not perhaps best placed to make a judgment on how it is used, and for this reason we must place great weight on Lord Jellicoe's judgment. He carried out a very careful examination of a large number of exclusion cases. He talked at length to those involved in the operation of the system and he concluded that it
has played a significant part in preventing acts of terrorism, or in making the commission of terrorist acts more difficultand that,regrettably, the power cannot simply be abolished at present".In agreeing with that conclusion, the Government share particularly Lord Jellicoe's feelings of regret that such exceptional measures remain necessary.It has also been said that the power to exclude persons from Great Britain has made Northern Ireland a dumping ground for terrorists. That is despite the reciprocal provisions allowing exclusion from Northern Ireland as well as from Great Britain which were introduced in the 1976 Act after an amendment to that effect had been tabled in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell).
As an illustration, reference is made to the large number of British citizens excluded from Great Britain—268 since the legislation was introduced compared with only seven from Northern Ireland. As I said in Committee, that is no more than a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of British citizens involved in Northern Irish terrorism originate, as one would expect, from Northern Ireland.
A separate argument is involved in amendment No. 15, because different considerations arise. That amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to make an exclusion order against a non-British citizen whom he was satisfied was attempting to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom with a view to being involved in acts of terrorism.
The power would be exercised against such persons only if they were attempting to enter the United Kingdom from outside. So long as there is a risk that non-British citizens will travel from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or in the opposite direction in pursuit of their evil deeds, I believe that the power to exclude from the United Kingdom should be retained.
I take no comfort from the fact that circumstances still require the retention of these exceptional measures. We all fervently hope that the time will come, sooner rather than later, when the provisions will be allowed to lapse. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), simply because we realise that these are serious powers we have tried to mitigate their effects. Everyone, even those who disagree with the maintenance of the powers, will appreciate that.
Mr. J. Enoch PowellIs the Minister seriously saying that the purpose is, in the case of a non-British citizen present in the United Kingdom, to catch him at his nefarious intentions when he is passing between Great Britain and Northern ireland and to erect a new and artificial barrier and net against non-British citizens who 969 happen to be in the United Kingdom for terrorist purposes? That is a novel view of the background to the exclusion order. Is that seriously the intention?
The shoulder title of clause 6 is
Orders excluding persons from the United Kingdom".That appears to be the purpose of clause 6, yet the Minister is telling the House that inside clause 6 he is maintaining an internal barrier, as one might have a road block on the M1, at which people can be intercepted in their movements within the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. WaddingtonThe right hon. Gentleman explained why he decided not to table an amendment to delete clause 6. He was saying that he was content for the time being that there should be a power to exclude from the United Kingdom and therefore, I should have thought, a power to prevent people from entering the United Kingdom. One does not "enter" the United Kingdom if one is an Irish national travelling from Ulster to Great Britain and therefore there would be a gap in the legislation.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 208.
971| Division No. 140] | [7.17 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alton, David | Leighton, Ronald |
| Barron, Kevin | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
| Beggs, Roy | Litherland, Robert |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Blair, Anthony | McCartney, Hugh |
| Boyes, Roland | McCrea, Rev William |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Buchan, Norman | McGuire, Michael |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McKelvey, William |
| Canavan, Dennis | McNamara, Kevin |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | McWilliam, John |
| Clay, Robert | Madden, Max |
| Cohen, Harry | Maginnis, Ken |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | Maxton, John |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Cowans, Harry | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) | Nellist, David |
| Dewar, Donald | Parry, Robert |
| Dormand, Jack | Patchett, Terry |
| Dubs, Alfred | Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) |
| Eastham, Ken | Prescott, John |
| Ellis, Raymond | Redmond, M. |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Fatchett, Derek | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Robinson, P. (Belfast E) |
| Fisher, Mark | Rogers, Allan |
| Flannery, Martin | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| Foster, Derek | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Garrett, W. E. | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| George, Bruce | Skinner, Dennis |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Golding, John | Snape, Peter |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Soley, Clive |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Strang, Gavin |
| Haynes, Frank | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Wareing, Robert |
| Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Welsh, Michael |
| Home Robertson, John | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Winnick, David |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Mr. Harold McCusker and |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Mr. Clifford Forsythe. |
| NOES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Arnold, Tom | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
| Ashby, David | Key, Robert |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Kirkwood, Archibald |
| Baldry, Anthony | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Beith, A. J. | Knowles, Michael |
| Bellingham, Henry | Knox, David |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Lang, Ian |
| Body, Richard | Latham, Michael |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Britian, Rt Hon Leon | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Lightbown, David |
| Burt, Alistair | Lilley, Peter |
| Butcher, John | Lloyd, Ian (Havant) |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Luce, Richard |
| Chapman, Sydney | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Coombs, Simon | MacGregor, John |
| Cope, John | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Maclean, David John. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Maclennan, Robert |
| Crouch, David | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Dicks, T. | Malins, Humfrey |
| Eggar, Tim | Malone, Gerald |
| Fallon, Michael | Maples, John |
| Favell, Anthony | Marlow, Antony |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Mates, Michael |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Mather, Carol |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Maude, Francis |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Fox, Marcus | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Freeman, Roger | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Gale, Roger | Mellor, David |
| Galley, Roy | Merchant, Piers |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Greenway, Harry | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Grylls, Michael | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Murphy, Christopher |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Neale, Gerrard |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Needham, Richard |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Nelson, Anthony |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Neubert, Michael |
| Hannam, John | Newton, Tony |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Harvey, Robert | Norris, Steven |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Onslow, Cranley |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Ottaway, Richard |
| Hawksley, Warren | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Hayes, J. | Pawsey, James |
| Hayward, Robert | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Pollock, Alexander |
| Henderson, Barry | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Hickmet, Richard | Powley, John |
| Hicks, Robert | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Hill, James | Raffan, Keith |
| Hind, Kenneth | Rathbone, Tim |
| Hirst, Michael | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Hooson, Tom | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Howard, Michael | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Howells, Geraint | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Ryder, Richard |
| Hunter, Andrew | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Irving, Charles | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Jessel, Toby | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Tracey, Richard |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Trotter, Neville |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Silvester, Fred | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Sims, Roger | Viggers, Peter |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Waddington, David |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Wainwright, R. |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Speller, Tony | Wallace, James |
| Spence, John | Waller, Gary |
| Spencer, D. | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) | Watts, John |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Stanley, John | Wilkinson, John |
| Stern, Michael | Wilson, Gordon |
| Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Stevens, Martin (Fulham) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) | Wood, Timothy |
| Stradling Thomas, J. | Woodcock, Michael |
| Sumberg, David | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) | Yeo, Tim |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Thomas, Rt Hon Peter | |
| Thompson, Donald (Calder V) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) | Mr. Douglas Hogg and |
| Thornton, Malcolm | Mr. John Major. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. Alex CarlileI beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 36, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 49, in clause 18, page 14, line 28, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
§ Mr. CarlileI shall be brief, but I hope that my brevity will not be regarded as an intention in any way to dilute the importance of the amendments. The duration of exclusion orders proposed by the Bill—a period of three years—is a considerable improvement on the present provision and my hon. Friends and I regard that as highly commendable. However, we think that three years is still a very long time.
It would be possible to produce a catalogue, indeed a magazine, of cases in which injustice or undue hardship had occurred because of an exclusion order for a period in excess of two years. I do not propose, because I do not feel I need to, to give the House a series of hard luck stories which have arisen under the provisions of the existing and previous legislation.
One must bear in mind that under the Bill the Home Secretary would in any event have the power to invoke a further exclusion order after the operational period of the initial or subsequent order. Accordingly, we invite the Minister of State to accept that two years is long enough.
§ Mr. WaddingtonUnder the 1976 Act, exclusion orders remain in force indefinitely unless or until they are revoked by the Secretary of State. Lord Jellicoe saw no reason why they should not have a fixed life and accordingly recommended that henceforth they should be for a fixed term of three years, after which they would automatically expire. He also recommended that if it were considered necessary to continue a person's exclusion beyond that period it should be on the basis of a fresh application by the police, detailing recent intelligence on the person and setting out the reasons why exclusion remained necessary. Thus, a new exclusion order would have to be made by the Secretary of State if exclusion were to continue for longer than three years.
972 7.30 pm
Of course, there is nothing magical about the period of three years and the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has not suggested that there is anything magical about two years. As with many of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations, however, the proposal is the outcome of a painstaking process, balancing hardship for the individual against the need to protect the safety of the public. The period must be sufficient to allow a person to mend his ways if that is his intention and for the Secretary of State to be reasonably certain that he has done so. In some cases this would involve fairly fundamental changes in the person's way of life. The period must also be sufficient for the police to decide, on the evidence of the person's activities during that period, whether involvement in terrorism had continued and whether a fresh application for a new exclusion order should be made.
I see no advantages and some disadvantages in changing the period to two years. In some cases it may be a difficult and lengthy process for the individual to sever all links with his terrorist past. Equally, we must be mindful of the fact that the shorter the period in which the person has to appear quiescent, the greater the risk that he will resume his former activities afterwards. Lord Jellicoe considered that three years was the right period for the purpose and the Government have accepted his recommendation. I see no merit in the amendments and I ask the House to reject them.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 2, leave out
'(whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 14.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI need not detain the House for long. Our object is to be consistent in the way in which the territorial ambit of each part of the Bill is defined. The amendments do not alter the effect of the provisions. When considering making exclusion orders, the Secretary of State will still be able to take into account acts of terrorism committed anywhere in the world, always provided that they are connected with Northern Irish affairs.
In Committee I moved an amendment the effect of which was to make the acts of terrorism referred to in part III, which creates offences in relation to contributions to and information about acts of terrorism in connection with Northern Ireland, unlimited territorially. I also gave an assurance that further amendments would be introduced on Report to achieve uniformity of approach to such references, and that we have now done. If the House accepts the amendments, the position will be that only where the terrorist activity referred to is to have a territorial limitation will there be any qualifying words, as in clause 1(4) where it is intended that before there can be proscription the terrorism must be limited to the United Kingdom. Where the terrorism referred to can have been committed anywhere, there will be no qualifying words.
The new approach embodied in the amendments was prompted by arguments put forward in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who suggested that the words in question were unnecessary and might even be misleading. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tabled an amendment 973 to clause 6 which is identical with the Government's amendment. I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to possible improvements in the Bill. I ask the House to accept the amendments.
Mr. J. Enoch PowellI have no doubt that the Government amendments are an improvement and a clarification so far as they go, but it might be wise to put down a marker at this point. It is remarkable that, with the exception of part I, the limitation of which to the affairs of Northern Ireland is ipso facto, the other parts of the Bill refer in some cases to terrorism related to Northern Ireland, but part IV relates to terrorism almost totally at large. Many of us do not believe that we have got the definition of terrorism totally at large right or that there is justification for limiting the powers in parts II and III, in so far as they are justified at all, to terrorism related only to Northern Ireland. Although if a different point of view were taken it might involve an amendment to clause 3(6), the matter might more conveniently be debated when we reach clause 12. I therefore leave the matter there, having put down that marker at this stage.
§ Amendment agreed to.