HC Deb 06 December 1988 vol 143 cc275-82

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
    1. (i) any expenses incurred under that Act by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate; and
    2. (ii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and
  2. (b) payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

10.26 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

I do not think that the money resolution should go through without comment. As I understand it, we have 45 minutes in which to examine the pros and cons of the money resolution and I have always understood that that is one of the jobs of the House. It is clear that many Conservative Members are not interested in this because they are chatting. The hon. Members who are chatting by the Bar do not seem to be interested in one of the basic functions of the House—the scrutiny of expenditure.

The financial effects of the Bill are described on page V of the explanatory and financial memorandum. I should like to raise a few questions that, no doubt— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate kindly leave quietly?

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

Buzz off.

Mr. Cryer

I am most grateful. I would not use words like "buzz off", which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said most clearly, but I am grateful for your efforts, Mr. Speaker, and his. I realise that my hon. Friend wanted to be helpful in exercising some scrutiny.

Everyone treats money resolutions as some sort of joke and the House passes through hundreds, thousands or millions of pounds on the nod. If we were discussing a Bill that concerned social security, Conservative Members would not take that view. They would try to screw every last penny from the poorest in the country. If they can do that with Department of Social Security legislation, they can look at all the other legislation that goes through the House. Although I suspect that this legislation does not involve large expenditure, the paragraph in the explanatory and financial memorandum is so vague that it behoves Ministers to provide some more detailed information.

Page v of the introduction states, in connection with terrorist finances: there are likely to be some additional investigation and prosecution costs for the police and the prosecution services; additional costs arising out of the provision of court services; extra legal aid; the costs of the receivers appointed to realise land subject to forfeiture orders; and possibly some limited expenditure on compensation. The introduction then states that it is difficult to make such calculations. I cannot believe that the Home Office has not calculated an amount of money that would give some idea of the level of public expenditure.

I wonder what sort of compensation is envisaged in the paragraphs dealing with finance—possibly some limited expenditure on compensation. We need to ask what sort of compensation it is because the legislation envisages that some land or property might be seized in error and compensation will therefore have to be paid. The House should know.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

Will my hon. Friend advise me as to whether in the financial effects of the Bill, as determined on page v of the introduction to which he is referring, there is likely to be scope for compensation for those thousands of people who during the previous enactments of this legislation—when the provisions were annually re-enacted—were falsely and wrongly detained and who perhaps lost money from employment or from other arrangements such as holidays or other commitments? We know that 90 per cent. of the people who have been detained under the provisions of the previous enactments of the Bill have been wrongly and incorrectly detained. Is there scope in the money resolution for compensation for those who have been affected in that way?

Mr Cryer

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I shall seek that information. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has heard the question and I dare say that he will make the position clear. The comment on limited expenditure on compensation is limited to the clauses dealing with terrorist finances and therefore—

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)

rose—

Mr. Cryer

Perhaps I can finish this comment before the hon. Gentleman interrupts me. I should have thought that if compensation is involved for what is in effect wrongful arrest, that would be a general term and, indeed, there is a paragraph on exclusion orders, to which I shall come. I shall be interested in the Minister's reply.

Mr. Ashby

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to be saying that he does not think that it is right that money should be set aside for a fair hearing in a court and for legal aid for people who might be arrested under the prevention of terrorism legislation? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying? Is he denying such people justice?

Mr. Cryer

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I have been saying instead of blurting out figments of his imagination which have no connection with my comments. Of course, I am not denying anybody any justice. Indeed I shall come to a point about injustice shortly.

What I am asking for is information about the expenditure. Since the Bill is being put forward by a Government who continually talk about the need for controlling, scrutinising and limiting public expenditure, it seems not unreasonable that I should use the opportunity specially provided by the Standing Orders of this House to raise some questions about expenditure.

What is the section on compensation for? If people are dealt with unjustly, I want to them to be compensated properly. There is no question about that. What does the compensation cover? Is it for mistaken forfeiture or is it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has suggested, for what amounts to wrongful imprisonment? The compensation provisions do not seem to apply to the exclusion order provisions, as set out on page v in the second paragraph under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill." It says: Police expenditure will continue to be incurred in connection with the control of travel into and out of any part of the United Kingdom, but the Bill is not expected to lead to any significant increase in that expenditure. We should like to know what is the present expenditure so that we can judge by how much it is likely to increase.

The exclusion order provisions are among the most objectionable in the Bill. I wonder whether the expenditure can be justified. We ought to be told what justification there is. Sir Cyril Philips and Lord Colville specifically stated in their reviews that the Home Secretary should reconsider these provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East pointed out, Lord Colville's views are not particularly radical, but he said that he was not convinced that the ends justify the means.

What kind of expenditure do these exclusion order provisions involve? I remind the Minister of what has happened under them. A former constituent of mine was in a Belfast gaol for a criminal offence. The governor granted him home leave with his family in the Bradford metropolitan district so that he could adjust to life outside gaol as he was nearing the end of his prison sentence. That was an entirely proper and authorised procedure. He was met at Leeds-Bradford airport by armed special branch detectives and was immediately arrested and placed in Armley prison. He stayed there throughout the whole of his seven-day home leave, was served with an exclusion order at Leeds-Bradford airport when he boarded the return flight and went straight back to prison in Belfast. Such arbitrary action was entirely unjustified.

Expenditure of that kind will be involved here. More than 90 per cent. of the people who are arrested and who are made subject to exclusion orders are not charged with a criminal offence. Exclusion orders are an outrage against justice. They mean that people in one part of the United Kingdom are excluded from another part—a part that is continually described as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

The only time when that power was exercised was when people such as Willy Gallagher were excluded from Clydeside to prevent them from attending meetings and setting forth their views. It was during a most repressive time under a most repressive Government.

I should like the Minister to tell the House whether this expenditure is justified. I know that he takes a keen interest in money resolutions.

Mr. Nellist

Will my hon. Friend reflect on yet another example during the period to which he referred? During the miners' strike in 1984 and 1985 a large number of people were excluded from entering or leaving the Nottinghamshire coalfields. That was done without legislation being passed by this House, but the inspiration for it was the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that illustration.

The family to whom I referred had moved away from Northern Ireland so as to be out of the troubles. They did not want to be involved in the activities of the warring factions.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

What exactly was this chap in prison for? He was obviously found guilty.

Mr. Cryer

Yes, he was found guilty. He was serving a sentence for armed robbery, but he was not connected in any way with a political terrorist organisation. The governor had given him home leave as a matter of course when he was nearing the end of his sentence. Conservative Members cannot make a case about him being a dangerous terrorist because he was released shortly afterwards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted away from the money resolution. I am sure that he will come back to it.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to make it clear that it was a non-political category and that the expenditure of money on the exclusion order was unjustified, even within the terms of the legislation. That is a good illustration of the way in which expenditure can be misapplied because of the terms of the legislation.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's comments. He has obviously scrutinised the financial implications of the Bill. Are there likely to be financial implications for the state if it is found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights of holding people for long periods? That could involve expenditure on legal costs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will not be tempted away from the money resolution. Commenting on the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) would take him outside the resolution.

Mr. Cryer

As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your advice. However, you will have noticed that there is a reference to some limited expenditure on compensation. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that phrase includes expenditure on claims made by people because the Government have ignored the decision of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which would place the legislation outside the normal standard of conduct on human rights.

The last paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill mentions the fees of persons nominated by the Secretary of State to consider representations against exclusion orders, and in connection with the removal of persons subject to exclusion orders". You will no doubt recall vividly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that exclusion orders can be served when there is no charge, no court hearing and no right to know why they are served, and representations are made about a charge for which no evidence is given. That is an outrage against our civil liberties.

I must make it clear that, although I am raising questions on the financial effects of the Bill, I am not making a case for acts of violence. I am opposed to acts of violence, whether they involve a British soldier serving his time in Northern Ireland who is subject to a terrible and untimely death or spending £11 billion on Trident nuclear weapons for the purpose of mass extermination. I abhor and oppose them both. However, I will not go down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely using that as an illustration. I would be interested to know what the fees are for the people nominated by the Secretary of State. The last paragraph says: A small amount of public expenditure will continue to be incurred in meeting the fees of persons nominated by the Secretary of State". Just for the record, it would be nice to know how much those people are paid. That will give us an idea of whether they are pillars of the establishment, earning perhaps several hundred pounds per occasion, or whether they are just humble folk, drafted in by the Government like members of a jury and paid a nominal fee to cover their expenses. For example, are the fees related to what might be received by somebody on invalidity benefit or unemployment benefit? Are they related to what the mass of ordinary folk can expect to receive from the state if they are in a position to receive money from the state. That would be interesting to know.

I suspect that the people to whom fees are paid are pillars of the establishment and that they receive establishment-type fees, which are in the astronomical category, and which help to ensure that they do not come to a conclusion that is in any way outside the establishment view of the operation of this legislation.

I hope that I have not detained the House for too long, but we cannot let such occasions go by without some scrutiny. Even some Conservative Members take that view. They have listened with interest to my comments. I look forward to the Minister's response.

10.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke to the money resolution. I should have been deeply disappointed had he not done so, because I told my officials that he most certainly would. I was proved to be correct in that respect.

I am always struck by the economical use that the hon. Gentleman makes of his time in this place. For example, let us consider this debate and the preceding one. He came into the Chamber to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary open the debate. That was a jolly wise thing to do. He left before the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke. That, too, was a jolly wise thing to do. He then came back rather late in the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I imagine that he considered that he had come back rather too soon. Then he heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. All in all, the hon. Member for Bradford, South makes economical—not to say sparing—use of his time in this place.

I cannot be so complimentary about the substance of the hon. Gentleman's speech on the money resolution. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the House of the nature of the money provisions in the Bill and the money resolution. The substantive provision of the Bill is clause 25, which authorises the payment out of moneys. Those substantive powers are amplified by the money resolution which, in turn, are clarified by the explanatory memorandum.

It might be helpful if I were to demonstrate the kind of payments that fall within the scope of the money resolution before I refer to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

Good examples of the kind of payments that have to be made and are authorised are payments to the advisers who have been appointed to receive representations against exclusion orders, costs of removing people who are the subject of exclusion orders, necessary expenditure incurred by the courts when dealing with the powers under part III of the Bill, and the compensation provisions that are dealt with in schedule 4 of the Bill.

Mr. Nellist

I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's later remarks, but does he intend to give figures for those examples? He mentioned fees paid to people who are designated to hear representations against exclusion orders. That is one of the main matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked. Hon. Members are staying here tonight to hear not just the examples, but the actual amounts of money to be spent on them.

Mr. Hogg

I was coming to precisely that point.

Let me now deal with the various questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. He began by criticising the compensatory payments provided for under schedule 4 of the Bill. That was a bit peculiar, because, as the House will know, the schedule 4 compensatory provisions are linked to part III of the Bill. It appears that the provisional wing of the Labour party, as represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, find themselves in difficulty on that point.

As to what that is paid for, I strongly recommend to the hon. Gentleman as part of his evening reading that he studies paragraphs 7(1), 7(2) and 17(3) of schedule 4. He will find the answer spelt out in considerable detail and it will keep him going for at least 20 minutes. In broad terms, it deals with loss that can be properly be attributed to abuse in the conduct of prosecutions that give rise to the forfeiture proceedings under part III. I may have spared the hon. Gentleman some 20 minutes of homework.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asked whether the money resolution is retrospective in its effect. He knows perfectly well that both wings of the Labour party—the provisional and the official wings—are against retrospective legislation. Therefore, I feel certain that they would not wish to commend that course of action to us.

Mr. Nellist

May I remind the Minister that it was a Conservative Government who, under Lord Soames, when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, passed through this House retrospective legislation to grant an amnesty to those who had committed murder in Rhodesia. Since that precedent was set, I am in favour, for example, of repaying the debts of those who have taken out social fund loans. If a case was made for retrospective compensation for someone who was badly dealt with in the years when this was a temporary measure reviewed every year, I would support retrospective legislation.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman is establishing his credentials for the clay cross. That is not an award that I willingly dish out, but I shall certainly dish it out to him along with the rations, if that is what pleases him. In reply to the other questions from the provisional wing, if improper use is made of the detention powers, there are the ordinary common law remedies which are called false imprisonment and give rise to a claim for damages. Schedule 4 deals only with the powers under part III.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South waxed fulsome about actions by the police in carrying out the exclusion orders and asked how much it costs. The costs are inevitably subsumed in the general cost of police expenditure, and it is simply not possible to disaggregate one from the other. But every penny spent on combating terrorism is money well spent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.

On the interesting question of the advisers, there are two of them. The hon. Gentleman asked how much they cost. They are paid at a rate which is proportionate to their high professional standing and is analogous to that paid to those who serve in judicial roles on a part-time basis, such as recorders and assistant recorders.

I have answered all the questions asked of me, and, as I see that the Whip wants me to sit down, I propose to do just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved. That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
    1. (i) any expenses incurred under that Act by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate; and
    2. (ii) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and
  2. (b) payments into the Consolidated Fund.