Prevention of Terrorism

HC Deb 19 February 1986 vol 92 cc415-37 10.29 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

I beg to move, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved. We are debating tonight how a democratic society can legitimately respond to the use of indiscriminate and brutal violence for political ends. Terrorism is a fearful phenomenon of our age, because it seeks to turn one of democracy's greatest strengths, the openness of our society, inward against us. In replying to the threat of terrorism, we must jealously protect our traditional liberties, but we must be realistic about the threat that is posed to our free society by terrorism. Society has a right to defend itself, to protect innocent citizens and to give to the police and the Executive carefully defined exceptional powers, subject to the regular approval of Parliament.

The purpose of the order is to renew the 1984 Act for a further 12 months from 22 March. It is the best weapon that we have against the continuing menace of terrorism. I regard its renewal as a sad but necessary step. During the past year, the police have had notable successes in countering and preventing terrorism. Those have demonstrated both the continuing nature of the threat that we are facing and the effective use that can be made of the special powers that the Act provides. When I became Home Secretary I studied these matters carefully, and reached the conclusion that the only responsible policy in present circumstances was to continue the Act in force.

Briefly, in relation to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, the Act provides powers to proscribe terrorist organisations; to exclude terrorists from a part, or the whole, of the United Kingdom; and to detain for questioning persons suspected of involvement in terrorism. The latter power is also available in relation to international terrorism. The Act also establishes offences of supporting proscribed organisations, breaching or helping to breach exclusion orders, contributing to acts of terrorism and withholding information about terrorism.

I think that the House would agree that the Act makes substantial inroads on ordinary civil liberties. The Government accept that it should not be kept in force longer than is necessary. Each year Parliament reconsiders the need for its renewal, and an essential part of the argument must be the level of recent terrorist activity.

The 1974 Act followed closely upon the Birmingham bombings, which killed 21 innocent people. The introduction of the 1984 Act came shortly after the Harrods bomb and was followed a few months later by the attack on the Conservative party conference in Brighton. Fortunately, there have been no similar terrorist outrages in Great Britain in 1985. The core of our argument, however, is that without the vigilance of the police, using the powers that this Act confers, the story might have been very different.

In June the police made a number of arrests under the Act in Glasgow and elsewhere. As a result, eight people were charged with conspiracy to cause explosions, one of whom has also been charged in connection with the Brighton bombing. Following the arrests, the police found and disarmed a bomb planted by the IRA in the Rubens hotel in London. The House will remember my predecessor's statement, which gave details of a conspiracy to plant bombs in a number of seaside towns, timed to explode at the height of the holiday season. We owe it to the perseverence and professionalism of the police that that plan of violence did not succeed. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was used on that occasion.

On 11 November, two large bombs that had been placed outside Chelsea barracks were fortunately discovered and made safe before they could explode. A number of arrests followed and two men have been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was used on that occasion.

Two weeks ago in Manchester, two men who pleaded guilty to planning a bomb attack on a retired army officer were convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. A third was convicted of an offence of withholding information under section 11 of the Act. I know that the police, because of their power under section 12 of the Act, were able to arrest those concerned earlier than would otherwise have been possible. All those incidents, of which none fortunately produced a fatal result, took place in Great Britain. However, I do not need to remind the House of the continued scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Because part of the Act now covers international terrorism, I should warn the House of a new anxiety concerning terrorist activity here connected with the affairs of India. Since November last year several prominent members of the Sikh community have been attacked, apparently by other Sikhs of extreme views. The most recent attack resulted in the death of the victim, Mr. Tarsem Singh Toor, who was well known as a moderate. One person who had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been charged with conspiracy to murder Mr. Toor and two other people. So the Prevention of Terrorism Act was used on that occasion. Last October four Sikhs arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Leicester were charged with conspiracy to murder the Indian Prime Minister during his visit here. We intend to be vigilant in dealing with This danger and vigorous in pursuing those who resort to violence in order to further a political argument about the future of Punjab.

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

As vice-chairman of the Indo-British Association may I say to my right hon. Friend how much it is appreciated by the Indian community, not only here but in the Punjab, that he should have stated his position on the matter so well at the annual dinner the other night and how encouraging it is tonight to hear him carry the matter forward under the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

Mr. Hurd

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, we have to spend a good deal of time on the matter. My purpose in bringing it in tonight was to illustrate how wise the House was to agree to Lord Jellicoe's recommendation that the Act should in that respect be extended to cover terrorism other than in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the number of Sikhs who have been detained and subsequently charged. Can he say something about the number of Kashmiris who have been detained? He knows of a case with which I have been concerned involving Mr. Chaudry Siddique. Kashmiris have been detained, in some cases on two occasions, on what they believed to be fishing expeditions by the police, and have not been charged. Will he make observations on the fact that that has led to very deep concern in the Kashmiri community as a whole about the activities of the police?

Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to draw my attention to his worries. There is no question of fishing expeditions in the use of the Act. In the cases he mentioned the police were acting on specific information. Having looked into them as a result of his representations I believe that the police acted correctly within the letter of the Act. I am glad to have the opportunity to make that point clear.

The case for retaining the powers of the Act rests on the judgment that it helps to limit terrorism. We accept the view of Lord Jellicoe who recommended: if special legislation effectively reduces terrorism…it should be continued as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains". I do not see much likelihood of the Act becoming unnecessary in the near future, because of the kind of incidents I have just enumerated. The annual renewal procedure helps to remind us that the powers are exceptional and helps to prevent them from becoming an accepted feature of our criminal law. Our consideration of the case is materially helped by the report of Sir Cyril Philips on the operation of the Act in 1985. He carries out admirably his role of providing the House with a snapshot picture of the way that the Act works in practice, with particular emphasis on any indications that the powers are being abused. He submits himself to an exhausting programme of visits and discussions and is given wide access to Home Office papers on particular cases, including any where a complaint has been made about the way in which the Act operated. I am deeply grateful to him, as I am sure all hon. Members are.

The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and some of his colleagues criticised me courteously in correspondence for, in their belief, failing to publicise the fact that Sir Cyril's review was in progress or announcing its publication. I think that they are a little unfair and I have replied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in some detail. Since last year's renewal, it had been public knowledge that Sir Cyril would again carry out a review this year. I announced this in answer to a question on 14 January, but I accept that it would have been sensible to make the announcement a little earlier. Nevertheless, it allowed time for hon. Members to make representations to Sir Cyril if they wished. I received Sir Cyril's report on 27 January and on 30 January I announced that I had placed copies of it and of my reply in the Library and the Vote Office, so this year—as opposed to last year—there was ample time between the tabling of Sir Cyril's report and this debate.

Sir Cyril suggested that Parliament should pay special attention to the exclusion powers under sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Those sections provide power to exclude British citizens from either Great Britain or Northern Ireland if the responsible Secretary of State is satisfied that they are concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It has sometimes been described as a power of internal exile, but that is misleading because exiles are forced to leave their homes, whereas sections 4 and 5 cannot be used to exclude a British citizen from a part of the United Kingdom in which he or she has been ordinarily resident for the last three years.

I know that the police in Great Britain and Northern Ireland continue to find that exclusion is valuable in the containment and prevention of terrorism. Terrorism thrives on movement. The mobility of the terrorist increases the circle of those who can be drawn into terrorist activity and it deepens public anxiety.

Sir Cyril Philips points out, accurately, that the exclusion power considerably infringes normal civil liberties. That is why Lord Jellicoe recommended that the possibility of abolishing this power should be kept under regular review and that it should be one of the first to be repealed. I accept that entirely, but our assessment of the security situation persuades us that it would not yet be safe to abandon this power. I will give the figures so that the House can judge for itself. At present, 240 exclusion orders are in force, most of them excluding people from Great Britain. A great many of those orders were made under the previous Acts and were therefore indefinite. In 1979, we began the practice of reviewing all exclusion orders of more than three years' standing.

Since the passage of the 1984 Act, which established a three-year time limit for new exclusion orders, the review of old orders has been accelerated, but in a significant number of cases exclusion has had to be maintained to protect the public. Last year, 58 orders were reviewed and exclusion was maintained in 25—just under half—of those cases. As we continue the review, it is probable that we shall identify a hard core of committed and active terrorists whom it would be dangerous to readmit to the territories from which they are excluded. I am therefore driven to think that the power of exclusion should be retained for the present. Sir Cyril suggests that the review process should continue and that the power to maintain the exclusion in some cases might be preserved. I think that that is right and I hope that the House will agree.

Sir Cyril makes another suggestion which I am not able at the moment to accept—that the Government should undertake not to make any new orders against persons who have not previously been excluded. He argues that the declining use of the exclusion power indicates that it is no longer necessary to make new orders. Having looked into the matter, I do not feel that that is yet the case. Last year, seven new exclusion orders were made, six of which are still in force, and that was four more than in the previous year. We are able to use the powers more sparingly than in the past, but I do not think that that undermines the justification for the few new orders that are now made. The power is reserved for the most serious cases and I am sure that the possibility of exclusion also has some deterrent effect which restricts the movement of a great many active terrorists. I think that Sir Cyril's proposal will be helpful if and when there are definite signs of a decline in the terrorist threat, but that moment is not yet with us.

I have no desire to heap powers on the police for the sake of doing so. The standing of the police in the community is so important that they should not have powers which they do not need and which only attract criticism to them. The protection of the public is the test, and in this case it is the protection of the public against terrorism. I hope that the House agrees that we have to be cautious about demolishing powers when the threat of terrorism is so active and, in some respects, increasing. It would not be right to buy a nod of approval from the Opposition or a word of praise from The Guardian if the price is that terrorists can go about their work with a greater sense of ease and security.

It is essential that the Prevention of Terrorism Act be renewed again this year. This is familiar ground. It was first introduced by the Labour Administration in 1974. It is a weakness that our common approach to this problem has not been maintained. I believe that to argue that the legislation is no longer necessary is to ignore the plain facts, some of which I have set before the House.

Having some acquaintance with him, I think that, if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were in my position, he would need these powers and come to the House and ask for them. He would defy those pressures which oppose the powers, because he would then have a responsibility which forced him to seek them and very occasionally, and reluctantly, to use them. If that is so—I am sure in my own mind that it is—it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman could come to that point now as the spokesman of the main opposition party.

It is in that sentiment that I ask the House to support the renewal of the Act. I call on Opposition Members to think very carefully before they oppose the motion bearing in mind the terrorist threat that I have described. I hope that the House will act what I would regard as a responsible part when the House deals with this matter of vital national interest.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several minutes ago the House was subjected to an outbreak of the most appalling behaviour. The reason for that behaviour was to gain publicity. Is there any way in which the House can prevent the cause from being given publicity?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

There is nothing that I can do about it.

10.47 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

The whole House is united in its resolute and implacable hostility to terrorism. The question is not whether we should fight terrorism but how. What special powers, if any, are needed to fight terrorism? What civil liberties are we ready to sacrifice—what civil liberties is it right to sacrifice—to fight terrorism? The question is also whether substantial inroads into civil liberties caused by anti-terrorist legislation are themselves a victory for terrorism.

A prime aim of terrorist groups is to secure the contraction of civil liberties in the societies which they attack and to bring the authorities, especially the police and security forces, into conflict with the community. By doing so, terrorists hope to secure a larger number of passive sympathisers—more people to shelter them or to deny information to the police. They may even hope to recruit more active members. Above all, they hope to exploit a climate of abnormality and emergency in which to weaken general public confidence in the administration of the state.

When Parliament gives up part of our normal civil liberties, it risks giving terrorism a victory. From the day when the first version of this Act was introduced into Parliament, on behalf of the then Labour Government, by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), it has been acknowledged by successive Home Secretaries that the legislation erodes civil liberties.

Home Secretaries in this Government have acknowledged—and each of the phrases I now use is a quotation from statements by Conservative Home Secretaries since 1981—that the powers these Acts contain infringe our shared concept of civil liberties … make a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud … make sad inroads into our cherished traditions of civil liberties … are intensely undesirable". When the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) moved the Second Reading of the current Act, he said that its powers were exceptional, not to be taken for granted, and to be exercised only with the greatest care and consideration". He acknowledged that In other circumstances"— he— would regard them as wholly unacceptable". —[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 52.] Tonight the present Home Secretary agreed that this Act makes substantial inroads into ordinary civil liberties.

That is why this Act is limited to a five-year life and must be renewed annually. This is why each year it is not the Opposition who have to make the case for annulment but the Government who have to make a conclusive case for renewal. The Home Secretary failed to make that case tonight, and the facts that he failed to provide for the House demonstrate clearly why that case cannot properly be made.

In terms of preventing terrorism, this Act is a failure. Terrorism continues horrifically. The presence of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on the statute book, most unhappily, prevented neither the atrocity at Harrods nor the abomination at Brighton. Indeed, the very statistics published by the Government themselves demonstrate how little effectiveness this legislation delivers in return for the inroads it undoubtedly makes into civil liberties.

The Government statistics published only last month demonstrate that starting from the introduction of the legislation in 1974 to the end of last year—less than six weeks ago—92 per cent. of those detained in Britain have not been subject to any charge. In other words, they are innocent in law. Moreover, only 3 per cent. have been charged with offences under the legislation, and one third of those have been charged only with failure to co-operate with examination at the port—a charge that could be made only because those subject to it were detained in the first place.

Of those charged with offences under these Acts, only 2 per cent. of those detained were found guilty of any offence whatsoever, and only a half of 1 per cent. were found guilty of offences meriting more than one year's imprisonment. Of those charged with criminal offences under other Acts, only 4 pet cent. of those detained were found guilty of such offences, and fewer than 2 per cent. received prison sentences of one year or more. All told, fewer than 2.5 per cent. of those detained were found to have committed offences of any substantial seriousness. Therefore, the Act, both as creator and apprehender of serious offences, is an almost complete failure.

Mr. Hurd

I gave the House particulars of various terrorist attempts in this country during 1985 that were frustrated, so that no one was killed, and I said that in each of those cases the Act was used. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that amounts to a strong case for renewal?

Mr. Kaufman

The right hon. Gentleman says that the Act was used. He does not say whether those attempts would have been stopped had the Act never existed and had other powers, already available, been used instead. The Act has been used, and is being used. The question is whether it is needed to apprehend and deal with those who seek to commit terrorist acts.

Lacking information that the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have available to him, he has not presented a convincing case for anything except that an Act on the statute book has been used. I have demonstrated conclusively from his own figures that almost all the use of the Act for detection is detention of innocent persons who have not been charged with any offence.

The Act as an apprehender of perpetrators of offences that existed before the Act was passed is only a little more successful. It is impossible for the Government to demonstrate that the 71 people convicted of serious crimes after being detained under this Act since 1974–71 out of the more than 6,000 who have been detained—would not have been caught if the legislation had never been passed.

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

In the cases that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned of murderous acts having been frustrated by the use of the Act, what alternative powers would the right hon. Gentleman have used if he had been Home Secretary to frustrate such terrorist deeds in the absence of this Act?

Mr. Kaufman

I shall be coming to that point, and I request the hon. Gentleman to continue listening to what I have to say.

It is certain that 95 per cent. of those detained under this legislation have been completely innocent of anything, however trivial. That failure rate—or success rate, if one cares to put it that way—is scarcely a vindication of powers that Ministers in the present Government have described as "intensely undesirable" and "wholly unacceptable". Perhaps that is why, lacking any really convincing justification for the legislation, Ministers have been driven to make strange claims for retaining these powers.

When the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks moved the Second Reading of the Act two years and four months ago, he called in aid, as an example of terrorism, the shooting of a former Israeli ambassador in London—an assassination attempt for which, he claimed, those responsible are now serving long sentences. However, those terrorists and would-be murderers were apprehended without any recourse to the powers under this Act, and were sentenced for offences not contained in them.

A year ago, when he moved the renewal of these powers, the Minister of state cited as an example of the necessity for continuing these powers the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. That was indeed a dreadful killing of a courageous young woman, and I have twice had the sad opportunity of meeting her bereaved parents and extending my sympathy to them. However, the legislation has done nothing to apprehend or to punish those who murdered WPC Fletcher. Despite the continuing presence of the Act on the statute book, her killers went, and remain, free. Indeed, one Libyan present in the People's Bureau at the time of the murder is now living placidly in Wiltshire, courtesy of the Home Secretary.

Although terrorism unhappily continues, despite the continuance of this Act, the legislation is not only mostly activated in vain, but is too often activated in a highly questionable manner. In March of last year, 10 so-called hunt saboteurs were detained at Daventry police station and told that they were being held under the Act. That the Act was being used to hold them was confirmed to the National Council for Civil Liberties by the superintendent of the station. Three of those detained were charged with public order and theft offences, but those charges were subsequently dropped. Whatever were the police doing holding such people under the Act?

Five months ago, Mr Shapua Kaukungua, chief representative of SWAPO for the United Kingdom and western Europe, was held for examination at Heathrow airport under the Act. The Foreign Office has acknowledged SWAPO as an important and legitimate organisation yet when my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) wrote to the Home Secretary drawing attention to the treatment of Mr. Kaukungua, the right hon. Gentleman replied on 30 January stating that this incident does not in any way reflect on the Government's attitude towards the status of SWAPO", and saying that what he called this "tiresome procedure" had to be suffered by hundreds of travellers each year.

But the Home Secretary's response was both inaccurate and disingenuous, because the Home Secretary's own statistics show that last year not hundreds of travellers but only 22 persons were examined for more than one hour under that part of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act relating to international terrorism. Mr. Kaukungua, the acknowledged representative of an acknowledged organisation in good standing with the Government, was one of those 22. The simple question that we have to ask is, why?

Last year, during the debate on the renewal of the Act the Minister of State, in a state of high indignation, declared: It is quite outrageous to talk about random arrests. under this Act. He insisted that there is no question of random arrests. Yet on 5 May last year councillor Sheena Clarke, the deputy chairman of Sheffield city council housing committee, returning after a housing conference in Belfast, was detained at Manchester airport under the Act, as the week before had another person from Sheffield who attended that conference. A spokesman for Greater Manchester police said later that the two detentions were routine, like going through customs, a random one or two might be stopped. That goes clear against the Minister's undertaking and is a deplorable misuse of an Act that the Minister himself last year in the same debate said represented a very considerable infringement of the civil liberties normally enjoyed by individuals in this country."—[Official Report, 21 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 1299–1304.] How can the Home Secretary claim, as he did tonight, that there is no question of fishing expeditions under the Act when Greater Manchester police say that they stop people like going through customs, a random one or two under the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

The fact is that in so far as the detention powers under the Act were ever needed, their continuation in England and Wales at any rate cannot be justified now even on the Government's own terms with the implementation of the powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, under which those suspected of a serious criminal offence can be detained without charge for up to 96 hours.

If one takes the figures for Great Britain for last year, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would have allowed the detention for the full period during which they were held of all but 10 of the 193 people detained in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and not charged. To justify the seven-day power in any way, the Home Secretary should tell us how many of those detained for more than 96 hours were charged and how many were convicted on evidence obtained after 96 hours in detention. That information is simply not available, but it is very important.

Apart from the detention power, the most controversial power under the Act is the power of exclusion; and this year we have Sir Cyril Philips' report on the exclusion powers. Last February in the debate on the renewal of the Act the Minister of State was full of praise for Sir Cyril. In the 1985 debate he expressed gratitude to Sir Cyril and thanked him for producing an independent report which was, he said, "both clear and helpful". That, of course, was because 12 months ago Sir Cyril was, as the Minister put it, broadly satisfied that the Act is being used properly". This year the reaction to Sir Cyril's review has been rather different and it has to be said that that is because this year Sir Cyril clearly, from the Government's point of view, was not helpful. In his report he recalled that Lord Jellicoe in his review of 1983 stated: the power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases … and the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers. He added: it should be one of the first powers in the Act to be repealed". The report by Sir Cyril Philips continued: In the debates leading to the Act of 1984 Parliament accepted that the power to exclude was in many ways the most extreme of the powers in this Act, the most severe in its effect on civil liberties, the most divergent from the normal criminal process, and that it had aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who may well support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation. There is no question that this power is objectionable in principle as being inconsistent with the right of the citizen to reside in and travel freely throughout the territory of the state of which he is a citizen and as operating to deprive a person of an important civil right without a judicial hearing. Sir Cyril recommended: For these reasons the time would appear to be right for Parliament to take this opportunity of considering afresh the need for sections 4 and 5. I understand the legal position to be that if these sections are not renewed, existing exclusion orders made under them will cease to have effect. A first prudent step might well take the form of an undertaking not to make any exclusion orders under sections 4 and 5 against persons who have not hitherto been subject to such an order". The Home Secretary in his letter of reply to Sir Cyril admitted that exclusion orders very considerably infringe ordinary civil liberties", but he curtly rejected Sir Cyril's recommendation, as he has done again tonight. But that recommendation was all the more powerful because it reminded the Home Secretary—something to which he has not referred— that he now has powers to discontinue only part of this Act. Lord Elton, speaking for the Government in the other place when this legislation was being passed, promised that it was by no means a foregone conclusion that every section would be renewed.

The Home Secretary justified his decision by drawing attention to continuing terrorist activity. He has done that again tonight. But, on that basis, this legislation, passed in urgency to deal with a special situation and retained on the statute book with repugnance, will never be repealed, for it is hard to speculate when terrorism will be defeated. It is certain that terrorism continues despite the continuance of this legislation on the statute book. We are faced with the paradox that this Act's signal lack of success is cited as the reason why it should be continued.

Terrorism is a horror and a plague, and we should unite in using all legitimate weapons to combat and defeat it. The Opposition have no reason to criticise the illiberality of this Act when the condemnations by Ministers of its invasions of civil liberties bestrew the pages of Hansard. This Act is obnoxious and unsuccessful. We have not been offered any convincing evidence to justify its continuing presence on the statute book. That is why we shall vote against it.

11.8 pm

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the Labour party will once again divide the House on this matter. They must know what will happen if they throw out the whole of the Act; for example, section 6, which provides the power to exclude non-citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including the very people about whom the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned. Those people might, for instance, be from Libya. That power is contained in the Act. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be throwing away a power which he has been urging my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to use.

Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I shall give way later. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.

I want to make four main points. First, it is essential to have the Act. If anyone doubts that, he only needs to read the Jellicoe report or discuss the operation of the Act with those who are in the front line—the police—and who have to operate it. The Act is designed ultimately to protect the innocent, and it does have that effect. I would say without hesitation that there are innocent men and women who are alive today who would be dead if the police had not been able to exercise their powers under the Act.

On the matter of the exclusion orders, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or the Minister who is to reply to the debate, to confirm that he personally reviews these cases as they come up. It is important for the House to know that such a review is carried out by a Minister in each case.

Laws, however, are not enough. We can pass the continuance order, as I hope we shall, but the police need something more. They need to be properly equipped and trained to meet the threat, and they are entitled to the support of both sides of the House when they do this. It is in that specific connection that I want to comment on the appearance of police officers at Heathrow carrying sub-machine guns in order to carry out their anti-terrorist duties. I confess to being troubled by this. It is a new phenomenon in Britain. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend about it, and to senior members of the metropolitan police force and, just on balance, I have been persuaded that, regrettably, it is necessary.

There are, however, two matters that trouble the Police Federation and I think that I should put them on record. I can do no better than quote the chairman of the Police Federation and some remarks from the Police magazine. Mr. Curtis, the chairman, said: It is totally absurd to make a high profile public announcement that a police unit, permanently armed, will perform anti-terrorist duties at Heathrow and, in the same announcement, to attempt to reassure the public by pointing out that the automatic weapons carried by these police officers may only be fired by them using the single shot operation, and that they must be fired from the shoulder. He continued: To put the entire responsibility for outshooting terrorists on the police, and at the same time to withdraw the special army units at Heathrow, looks to me like a weakening, not a strengthening of airport security. I have to say to my right hon. Friend that I do not agree entirely with Mr. Curtis in all his criticism. But it would be useful if the Minister would address that matter when he replies to the debate.

The equipment that has been issued for this duty is the so called Heckler and Koch MP5 gun. I am advised that the weapon is a bad choice for such duty. I shall quote from the Police magazine, from an article written by a person who I believe is a firearms expert. He gets it right when he says: As a fully automatic weapon of 9 mm calibre the Heckler and Koch MP5 was a bad choice … It is over penetrative, prone to ricochet and lacks stopping power. I ask my hon. Friend, if not tonight, on some other occasion, to address that matter, because it is of real concern within the police service.

My next point concerns the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The RUC is not in any doubt that it needs the Act and the other emergency powers that are available to it in Northern Ireland in order to protect innocent lives. Those hon. Members who have visited Ireland, as I have from time to time, will be conscious of the fact that in the face of the carnage that is committed by terrorists, the police need extraordinary powers with which to tackle it. But the RUC needs the support of the House in other ways. I am disturbed that the RUC's morale has been severely damaged by the attempts of its Chief Constable to gag its spokesman and prevent him from examining its views.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to stop the hon. Gentleman from making important points, but this debate lasts for only one and a half hours and it should focus on the Act and its renewal. I ask you to rule that other issues, however important, should not be dealt with in the limited time available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am listening carefully. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the order.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I am willing to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would have been wiser for the hon. Gentleman to let the Chair decide these matters rather than presume to decide them himself.

I return directly to the order. The argument of the right hon. Member for Gorton was based on a fallacy. He said that because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could not set out in enormous detail examples of where the Act had resulted in offenders being brought to book, it was not effective. But it is the pre-emptive action by the police which is possible under the Act that frequently prevents people being killed. It is that pre-emptive aspect of the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself.

There is increasingly a need for international co-operation to tackle all kinds of terrorism. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say that under the powers available to him he has been able to extend his ability to exclude to deal with terrorists from the middle east, and perhaps now to deal with those few members of the Sikh community who cause terrorist problems in this country.

That is good news, but it is not sufficient. It is necessary for the international conventions on terrorism to be pursued more vigorously. I shall shortly be sending my right hon. Friend a number of suggestions about how that could be done.

It is a tragedy that the Opposition are again voting against the renewal of the Act. I understand their reasons. They do them no credit. They fail to recognise that our fellow citizens live constantly under a threat and that the members of the police service, whom we ask to risk their lives to protect us, need this power and should not be denied it by the Opposition for political reasons.

11.17 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

We in the House who are revolted by terrorism in the United Kingdom and regard terrorists within our shores as the most despicable of our fellow creatures must recognise that there remains a need for some legislation to protect us from the terrorist scourge. Despite repeated and recent outrages, much has been achieved—some within the legislative framework that we are considering, and some outside it. It would be wrong to allow a debate on this subject to pass without repeating a tribute to those who bravely work, in and out of uniform, to rid us in the United Kingdom of that terrorist scourge.

The recent Anglo-Irish agreement, whatever its constitutional prospects—I do not wish to dwell on them tonight because the debate it is not about them—has shown us that co-operation between the British and Irish Governments can be developed within the context of the prevention of terrorism at least.

I welcome the recent meeting between Ministers responsible for justice and security in the two countries. I also welcome the breadth of their discussions, if the reports of them are reasonably accurate. Those discussions should be viewed as a beginning rather than as an end in themselves. I hope that in due course, and where necessary, we shall see legislation aimed at the prevention of terrorism and the detection of terrorists being enacted in like terms and at the same time here and in the Dail.

I welcome the Government's acceptance, which they signalled in 1984, of the need for far more effective monitoring of the operation of the prevention of terrorism provisions than had previously been the case, especially bearing in mind the Government's acceptance in 1984 that it was to be regarded as a temporary and expedient Act rather than as a permanent unwelcome feature of our law. Indeed, I have been troubled—this is an observation, not a criticism—by the pessimism of the Home Secretary's prognosis earlier in the debate.

We now have the advantage of seeing and have had the time to consider carefully the second report by Sir Cyril Philips, the independent person—indeed, nobody could be more independent than he—appointed by the Secretary of State's predecessor to monitor the operation of the Act. Sir Cyril makes many deeply persuasive and cogent points which, while they do not go to the whole root of the legislation, deserve less of a brush-aside response than they have received from the Government.

As the Home Secretary has recognised and, indeed, as is provided for under statute, it is possible to review parts of the Act while still renewing the remainder. It is regrettable that the Government have not at least given the House the opportunity to review separately the continuation of exclusion orders under sections 4 and 5, that is those relating to the United Kingdom.

The Home Secretary made a realistic assessment in his reply to Sir Cyril Philips on 29 January. He said that exclusion orders, which are a form of internal restriction, if not of internal exile, in the United Kingdom very considerably infringe ordinary civil liberties. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was right to remind us of Lord Jellicoe's comment that the possibility of abolishing the power to exclude should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers. The Government should have offered the House that possibility tonight.

Sir Cyril Philips, in his report earlier this year, reminds us of four important changes in practice which have taken place since 1984, and it is right that the House should be reminded of them. First, he tells us that new exclusion orders have become less and less important as an effective means of preventing terrorism, and are of diminishing significance. That is his independent judgment, and we should pay proper respect to it.

Secondly, in the context of increasing emphasis on the need for general and co-ordinated action against terrorism, the strategy of transferring suspected terrorists from one part of the United Kingdom to another appears to have diminishing relevance and application. In other words, we should not be shunting terrorists from one part of the United Kingdom to another, because that achieves nothing. We should be, and have been, achieving the prevention of terrorism itself—a far more useful and important objective.

Thirdly, the police now have all the powers given to them by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which came fully into force on 1 January 1986. Those powers enable the police to detain and question suspected terrorists effectively in the context of criminal procedure and codes that apply equally to all of us. If possible, it is important that those who are suspected of terrorism should be questioned and detained within the same context as is applicable to the rest of us.

Fourthly, sections 4 and 5 are now available only against people who have not ordinarily resided in Great Britain and Northern Ireland continuously since 1982. Sir Cyril Philips believes that the high level of revocations in the current review demonstrates that the police are far better informed and equipped than used to be the case. Exclusions which formerly appeared necessary are no longer deemed to be so.

For those reasons—this is not a whim of mine—Sir Cyril Philips recommended that Parliament should take this opportunity of considering afresh the need for exclusion order provisions and that as a first step the Home Secretary should give an undertaking to make no fresh orders. That is objective advice, and nothing could have been more.

Leaving aside Sir Cyril Philips's objective judgment, regrettably there is evidence in some cases of doubtful subjective factors. Doubtful judgments by individual police officers and officials have been given the status of truth without evidence to support them. The case of Mr. Guilfoyle, of which the Home Secretary is aware, is a worrying example. He was thrown straight back at his old associates, despite his declared desire to start a new life. It is a credit to the Home Office that the order against him was eventually revoked, but it is no credit to the Home Office or the police that the revocation was necessary. The original exclusion order made upon his release from prison was based on incorrect information. Because of the nature of the procedures under the Act, Mr. Guilfoyle had no opportunity to challenge the factors upon which the order was based until after his exclusion had been effected, and only because his solicitors in the Republic of Ireland worked unusually and especially hard and succesfully on the case.

Cases such as Mr. Guilfoyle's demonstrate that there is a danger of exacerbating the perception that the availability of exclusion orders constitutes anti- Irish legislation, thus worsening the risk of more and more terrible terrorist acts. The substantive law outwith the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 is now stronger than it was in 1984. I confess readily to having been one of those who believed that the substantive law as contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act went too far. However, now that we have the Act, I do not hesitate to make proper use of it.

I share Sir Cyril Philips's view that the substantive law's strengthened state is sufficient not only to render exclusion as alien to our concept of justice as ever it was, but also otiose. I am surprised that the present Home Secretary does not give Sir Cyril the credit that his report deserves by putting it to the test, especially in relation to sections 4 and 5, by allowing them separate consideration.

11.29 pm

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)

As a solicitor, I have listened with some interest to the legalistic arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should have provided us with the opportunity of considering these provisions afresh and objectively, but I must say reluctantly that I share the Home Secretary's view that it is not yet the time to abandon the provisions. I hope that the Opposition will consider the timing, not in a legalistic sense, but in a political sense. I shall restrict my remarks entirely to the effect that not approving the provisions would have in. the Province of Northern Ireland.

This is not the time or the place to discuss the details, justifications, attributes or otherwise of the Anglo-Irish agreement, but it is a proper time to show how that agreement is perceived in Northern Ireland by the two polarised parts of the community. Republicans, whether constitutional or terrorist, see it as a toe in the door to ultimate Irish unity. Equally, the non-constitutional Unionists perceive it to be exactly the same thing.

On Easter Tuesday the marching season will begin in the Province of Ulster. If by that time there has been no arrangement between the constitutional Unionists—I regret their absence from the Chamber this evening—and the Government in relation to the agreement, the probability is that there will be violence, and not necessarily only from the provisional IRA. We must now start to consider the probability of violence in a big way from the Protestant paramilitaries. I am sure that the hon. Member who has recently been elected to represent Fermanagh would not disagree with my forecast.

If there is even a scintilla of truth in what I say, there is no reason at this stage to abandon the provisions of the Act and not to approve their continuance. Regardless of whether they are effective—there are arguments on both sides—and regardless of their effect on civil liberties, their abandonment would be seen as an abandonment by the House of its determination to defeat terrorism, whether it be republican or loyalist.

That is my fear. Let us consider the provisions during the coming year and let us see what happens, but in view of what is likely to happen in the Province, let us not abandon them now.

11.33 pm

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I hope that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is as wrong about what he has just said as he was about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

We have heard almost no politics in the debate so far. The process is so mechanical. Many of us have been here since 1974 and have heard every melancholy renewal, enactment and re-enactment. The Act will run until 1989, and if we are still here in 1989, we know that we shall hear the same things. Ireland is a political problem, not a security problem, important though security is. Children in Northern Ireland have never known anything else; they were born in trouble. The reality is that Britain has never been able to hold down Ireland without armed force. Trouble was bound to break out again as long as the border remained. It is certain that it will continue for as long as it remains.

There is no doubt that the synthetic division of Ireland forced upon an unwilling people is at the root of it all, and until we handle that politically the problems will continue. The Act deepens and exacerbates the situation. It is and will continue to be the cause of a great deal of the killing. That is why I have always voted against it. The Labour party did not always vote against it and it was a long time before the bipartisan policy began partly to work itself out. People with an Irish background and especially with an Irish accent are suspect and feel threatened as a result of the Act. If they work in the trade union and Labour movement and are involved in legitimate actions such as struggles and strikes, they are particularly suspect. If they are relatives or friends of a detainee they are suspect.

Let us look at the matter of the excludees and the orders that they have to obey. As has been said, they have to leave Great Britain or be subject to criminal charges. They are not told the evidence against them, which is appalling, and they have no opportunity to cross-examine those who are making the charges against them. They have no form of trial and no right of appeal.

During the debate on the Bill in another place Sir Cyril Philips was appointed to report to Parliament. In paragraph 20 of his report he says, and it is worth repeating: There is no question that this power is objectionable in principle as being inconsistent with the right of a citizen to reside in and travel freely throughout the territory of which he is a citizen and is operating to deprive a person of an important civil right without a judicial hearing. The Home Secretary said what a good man Sir Cyril Philips was. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, when Sir Cyril went a little farther and was really critical and asked for the power of exclusion to be removed, the Home Secretary changed his mind about him. When Sir Cyril Philips asked for that power to be removed, he described it as having "diminishing relevance of application." He argued: The time would appear right for Parliament to take this opportunity of considering afresh the need for Sections 4 and 5 (exclusion of United Kingdom citizens) with the intention of getting rid of them. That is just not going to happen. The Home Secretary wrote back within two days and said: Exclusion powers very considerably infringe ordinary civil liberties But he said that he would do nothing about it.

There are many examples of injustice, and even the review procedure has inbuilt injustices. For instance, the exclusion order lapses after three years, subject to renewal. But life intervenes and the reality is that many of the people who are excluded have moved house in that time, and many of them think that three years ends the whole thing. But renewal could take place and they would not know about it. That makes them criminals and they could be subject to imprisonment. That is one of the things that the National Council for Civil Liberties brought to our attention, particularly in the last day or two. If the order had been renewed, such people are in grave difficulty. We must look at that, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will give us some guidance.

It is almost impossible to prove that this Act has done any good, but it causes the perpetration of appalling injustice and is fraught with inbuilt miscarriages of justice. Two dreadful cases come to mind immediately and were the subject of early-day motions. The first case is that of Dr. Maire O'Shea. I knew her some 30-odd years ago when she used to baby-sit in my home when we had our first boy. I was staggered when she was tried. We put down an early-day motion. This good doctor, this psychiatrist who worked in our local hospital and who was beloved in the area, was found to be innocent.

The other case involved the Maguire family. It gave me immense pleasure to read the early-day motion in the names of the hon. Members for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). They realised what a terrible and brutal injustice had been done to that whole family. Lord Fitt visited the family in gaol when Guiseppe Conlan was dying. Mr. Conlan told him that he was innocent. The evidence on which that family were gaoled was appalling. That is the sort of thing that happens under the Act.

I shall vote against the order, as I have always voted against it. The Act is a draconian and unjust measure that intensifies the problems facing us all. It is a provocation. People are angry that such an injustice is perpetrated. The Act will continue the killing, not prevent it.

I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against this terrible measure tonight.

11.40 pm

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)

I speak now, as I have spoken since the introduction of the Act, in expressing a deep regret, which I am sure is felt by all in the House, that this Act is necessary. We have always appreciated that it is a denial of some of the basic human rights that this House has done so much to preserve. It is only in the most extraordinary circumstances that we have agreed to its continuance.

I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary echoed the words of his predecessor and welcomed the fact that the Act is always subject to annual review. When it was introduced, that was not the intention. During its Standing Committee stage, a number of us pressed for an annual review, and the then Home Secretary readily agreed. It is necessary to look on the Act as a temporary measure, which should be abolished at the first opportunity. I accept, however, that that opportunity is not here today.

I do not think that there is any validity in the comment that exclusion orders are a hardship and burden on those subject to them. I suspect that those concerned are in the forefront of politics and are well aware of the order and its effects on himself and his family. However, I find exclusion orders abhorrent, and I echo the words of Sir Cyril Philips on that.

We must remember that Sir Cyril conducts an annual review. He is a worthy gentleman who carries out an independent review. I should like to think that the burden of proof is always upon the Government, not upon Sir Cyril. He is the independent person who has investigated the workings of the Act. He produced an excellent report, in which he said that exclusion orders were a power that should be removed and that their phasing out should start now. The burden is on the Government to show that there is a need for the orders. I hope that a great deal of thought is given to that part of the report with a view to implementing it during the next year.

I am mindful that much is said about the impact of the Act which, as Sir Cyril has shown in his report, is not true. Last year, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that it was a convenient way of removing political activists from the streets. He said that its powers had been used against South African nationalist groups. Sir Cyril examined that carefully; he was satisfied that the powers under the Act had not been used inappropriately and that there had been no breach of the assurances that had been given by Ministers.

Sometimes one feels that extravagant claims are made. I do not know whether the claim about the hunting fraternity of Daventry was extravagant, but I find it worrying. I hope that the right hon. Member for Gorton will refer all the facts to Sir Cyril so that they may be part of his review this year. I hope that he will be able to satisfy us. If the Act has been used in that way, it is regrettable.

I repeat that there is an independent review, and it is important that we should have it. It is necessary to continue the Act, but where the independent review finds that a power should be abolished, the burden is on us to disagree because the independent review prima facie is a failure.

11.45 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

If there is one aspect of the Act's implementation which exposes the hollow rhetoric and patent insincerity of the Government it is their inability to implement sections 10 and 11. Reference has been made to the few prosecutions that there have been, but a considerable number of prosectuions could have been brought against insurance companies in the City who sell kidnap insurance where the moneys paid go to the Irish Republican Army, for whatever purposes.

Section 10(1) reads: If any person—

1. (a) solicits or invites any other person to give, lend or otherwise make available, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property; or
2. (b) receives or accepts from any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property,

intending that it shall be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies, he shall be guilty of an offence. I submit that control risks represent soliciting and inviting other persons to give money to the Irish Republican Army and, therefore, are in default of the Act and should be prosecuted. I ask the Minister to prosecute them.

Section 10(2) provides: If any person gives, lends or otherwise makes available to any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property, knowing or suspecting that it will or may be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies, he shall be guilty of an offence. I submit that the words "whether for consideration" in that subsection relate to the release of kidnap victims. Therefore, the insurance companies who are selling the insurance policies in the City are in default of section 10(2) under "Miscellaneous offences" in part III of the Act and should be prosecuted. The authorities refuse to prosecute them. They know they are breaking the law. The Government are being selective in their implementation of the law.

When the young men we send to Ulster—

Ms. Clare Short

Northern Ireland.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

—Northern Ireland are shot at, the public in this country should know that the funding of the munitions that are used by the Irish Republican Army comes in part from insurance companies in the City of London. The loss of lives is being funded by British institutions which should be prosecuted.

11.49 pm

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

The speeches and actions of the Home Secretary and of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) show how easy it is for those who see themselves as convinced democrats to end up eroding the very democracy that they seek to defend. I shall not go at length into the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, because much of it was out of order, but I have yet to hear him do anything other than come down—on balance, as he would say—against the extension of the erosion of the democratic rights that we have seen eroded over the years. He is always on the wrong side of the scales and the Home Secretary has joined him there.

In his opening comments, the Home Secretary said that this Act was of desperate seriousness to our democracy. If that is so, why are we debating it, yet again, for just one and a half hours between 10.30 pm and midnight? The Home Secretary said when he wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that he rejected Sir Cyril Philips's suggestion that exclusion orders should be dropped. That recommendation was central to Sir Cyril's report. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said, it is up to the Government to prove that it is necessary to continue with exclusion orders.

In his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary made it clear that he had not given sufficient warning to Opposition parties in allowing only 10 days for us to give evidence to Sir Cyril Philips. The Home Secretary regretted that fact in his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend, and in a further letter he rightly corrected another error. The Member of the House of Lords whom he had described as a member of the Labour party was in fact an independent peer, Lord Henderson. I do not make that as a cheap point. I make it because the Government at no time made it clear to the Opposition parties in this House that they were to be given just 10 days in which to give evidence.

If the Home Secretary really regards the Act as so desperately serious, will he ensure that in future the Opposition are given proper notice of the latest date by which representations must be made to Sir Cyril Philips so that we may treat the matter with the seriousness that it deserves?

In the very limited time available, I make just a couple of key points. In so doing, I can do little better than to reiterate one or two of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in his opening comments.

The Government argue that they need the Act to get information on people whom they can later convict as a result of the Act. In other words, they recognise what many of us have recognised for years—that this Act should really be called the Collection of Information Act. Inasmuch as the Government can point to 32 people whom the courts since 1974 have found guilty and seen fit to sentence to more than a year's imprisonment, the Government have that part of the argument on their side. They can say that the 32 people who committed acts serious enough to warrant more than a year's imprisonment are evidence that the Act is working, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton pointed out, it is not good evidence or hard evidence.

Against that, however, we must set the fact—the Government never address themselves to this—that no fewer than 5,324 people out of a total of 6,098 have not been proceeded against in any way at all. The important point is that those 5,324 individuals have families, friends and contacts in the rest of this country and in Ireland. By alienating them from the forces of law and order, the Government are doing more to undermine the fight against terrorism than they achieve by using the Act as a means of collecting information.

Even leaving aside the underlying arguments in the context of Ireland, which I do not have time to cover today, the whole philosophy of any paramilitary unit operating in the way in which the Republican and, to some extent, the Unionist ones operate is to seek to represent those people whom they can alienate from the state that is seeking to win their loyalty.

This is not just a matter of collecting information; it is a battle for hearts and minds. To win that battle, we must address ourselves to Northern Ireland and our view of what position it ought to have in the future and to the people, their relatives and friends, who are so alienated from the forces of law and order that they feel that they cannot commit themselves to the forces of law and order in the fight against terrorism.

Much more needs to be said, but I shall end on this note. If we were facing only international terror from other countries, we would never consider this Act to be necessary. I cannot believe that even this Government would continue with the Act if that were so. We are doing it because of Northern Ireland. Until we address the causes of that problem, and until we address how we are alienating so many of the people whose support we need to resolve that problem, we will continue to get ourselves in increasing difficulty. Above all, we will continue to erode the democaracy of which this country was once proud.

The Home Secretary said that the exclusion order was not internal exile. In all but word, it is. It is a power that has not existed in Britain since mediaeval time. It is time that we got rid of it.

11.55 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)

This Act helps the police to fight the evil of terrorism. It helps to prevent terrorism. One need only examine the use of the powers last year and the successes of the police last year—with the Rubens hotel bomb and the threat to our seaside resorts—to know that it helps.

The contentions of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were quite extraordinary. He said that the Act is a failure because terrorism continues. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous proposition. One might just as well say that the criminal law is useless because crime continues. Acts of terrorism have been prevented.

The right hon. Gentleman compounded his folly by making this ridiculous remark: the Act is being used, but that does not prove that it is needed. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that 20 per cent. of those detained under the Act in 1985 were subsequently charged. There were 94 extended detentions—detentions as a result of the decision of the Secretary of State—and only 30 of the people involved were not charged. Who, in the face of those facts, can say that the Act did not help in the fight against terrorism?

The need for legislation is regrettable. We must not underestimate the inroads on ordinary civil liberties which the Act makes, but we have to keep a sense of proportion. In asking not just for the exclusion powers but for all powers to go, the Opposition have lost all sense of proportion.

To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), the exclusion powers are exercised by the Secretary of State personally. The Government accept Lord Jellicoe's view that exclusion should be the first power to go. It is an objectionable power and we shall continue to do all that we can to keep down the number of orders and ensure that they are made only in the most serious cases. It is our job to protect innocent people from the murderous attacks of cunning and vicious terrorists.

I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) that the Government are reluctantly, but firmly, convinced that exclusion orders will remain, for at least the next 12 months, an essential instrument of protection. Seven orders were made last year. That is not many, but an increase on the previous year. If the power were discontinued just now, we would be issuing a warm welcome to this country to more than 200 evil people who have been—

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

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 109.

Division No. 82]	[12 midnight
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Durant, Tony
Amess, David	Emery, Sir Peter
Ancram, Michael	Evennett, David
Ashby, David	Eyre, Sir Reginald
Aspinwall, Jack	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Fallon, Michael
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Favell, Anthony
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Forth, Eric
Batiste, Spencer	Franks, Cecil
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Benyon, William	Freeman, Roger
Bevan, David Gilroy	Galley, Roy
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Blackburn, John	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gow, Ian
Bottomley, Peter	Greenway, Harry
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Gregory, Conal
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Ground, Patrick
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Bright, Graham	Hampson, Dr Keith
Brinton, Tim	Hannam, John
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Bruinvels, Peter	Harris, David
Buck, Sir Antony	Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Bulmer, Esmond	Hawksley, Warren
Burt, Alistair	Hayes, J.
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam	Hayward, Robert
Butterfill, John	Heddle, John
Carlisle, John (Luton N)	Hind, Kenneth
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Cartwright, John	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Cash, William	Holt, Richard
Chapman, Sydney	Howard, Michael
Chope, Christopher	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Cockeram, Eric	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Colvin, Michael	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Conway, Derek	Jackson, Robert
Coombs, Simon	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Cope, John	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Couchman, James	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Crouch, David	Kennedy, Charles
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Key, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Dorrell, Stephen	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dunn, Robert	Knowles, Michael

Lang, Ian	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Latham, Michael	Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)
Lawler, Geoffrey	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Pollock, Alexander
Lester, Jim	Porter, Barry
Lightbown, David	Portillo, Michael
Lilley, Peter	Powell, William (Corby)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Lord, Michael	Raffan, Keith
Lyell, Nicholas	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
McCrindle, Robert	Rathbone, Tim
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Rhodes James, Robert
Macfarlane, Neil	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Maclean, David John	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Maclennan, Robert	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Major, John	Sims, Roger
Malone, Gerald	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Maples, John	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Marlow, Antony	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mather, Carol	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Thurnham, Peter
Merchant, Piers	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Waddington, David
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Moate, Roger	Wall, Sir Patrick
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)	Wheeler, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Whitfield, John
Moynihan, Hon C.	Wood, Timothy
Nelson, Anthony	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Neubert, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick	Tellers for the Ayes:
Norris, Steven	Mr. Archie Hamilton and
Ottaway, Richard	Mr. Peter Lloyd.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

NOES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Foster, Derek
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Foulkes, George
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	George, Bruce
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Godman, Dr Norman
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Hardy, Peter
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Bermingham, Gerald	Haynes, Frank
Blair, Anthony	Heffer, Eric S.
Boyes, Roland	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hume, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Janner, Hon Greville
Canavan, Dennis	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Clay, Robert	Leighton, Ronald
Clelland, David Gordon	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Litherland, Robert
Cohen, Harry	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Coleman, Donald	Loyden, Edward
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	McGuire, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cunningham, Dr John	McKelvey, William
Dalyell, Tam	McNamara, Kevin
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	McWilliam, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Madden, Max
Dixon, Donald	Mallon, Seamus
Dobson, Frank	Marek, Dr John
Dormand, Jack	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dubs, Alfred	Martin, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P.	Maynard, Miss Joan
Eadie, Alex	Michie, William
Eastham, Ken	Mikardo, Ian
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Nellist, David
Ewing, Harry	O'Brien, William
Fatchett, Derek	O'Neill, Martin
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)	Parry, Robert
Flannery, Martin	Patchett, Terry
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Pavitt, Laurie

Pike, Peter	Spearing, Nigel
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Stott, Roger
Prescott, John	Strang, Gavin
Radice, Giles	Straw, Jack
Randall, Stuart	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Redmond, Martin	Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Richardson, Ms Jo	Wareing, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)	Welsh, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian	Winnick, David
Sheerman, Barry	Woodall, Alec
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Skinner, Dennis	Tellers for the Noes:
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)	Mr. Mark Fisher and
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)	Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.
Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.