HL Deb 27 November 1975 vol 366 cc393-402

3.17 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH rose to move, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1975, laid before the House on 28th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this order is to renew the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 for a period of four months beginning on 29th November. It may be for the convenience of the House if I set out the background to the laying of this order, which I foreshadowed in my speech in the Home Affairs debate on Tuesday. The House will recall the circumstances in which the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was passed last November. That Bill was considered in great haste both in another place and in this House in order to meet the serious situation that had arisen.

When the Act came into force last November, its operation was limited for a period of six months in the first instance. In May, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary came to the conclusion, with some reluctance, that the powers in the Act could not be allowed to lapse then. Accordingly, an order was laid to continue the operation of the Act for a further six months from May to November. Noble Lords will recall our debate on 13th May, when the first draft continuance order was approved, I think with the whole-hearted support of the entire House. When that order was debated in another place on 19th May, my right honourable friend gave an undertaking that unless in November he felt able to recommend the dropping of substantial parts of the Act, he would not ask the House to proceed by order; and that if we had to continue with the full or main scope of the powers of the Act, he would think it right to introduce fresh legislation. He recognised the possible need for an interim period to be covered by order if new measures were to be considered.

The present position is that the 1974 Act will lapse tomorrow unless renewed. My right honourable friend has come to the conclusion that, in present circumstances, it would be impossible to allow powers of the kind conferred in the 1974 Act to lapse. In accordance with the undertaking he gave last May, ho has therefore introduced a new Bill to replace the 1974Act. The new Bill was given a Second Reading in another place last night by a majority of 169. The object of this order is to prolong the 1974 Act for the interim period while the new Bill is being considered in another place and in this House. The order I am moving today was approved in another place last night and, if it is approved by noble Lords today, the 1974 Act will be continued until 28th March next year. I hope that the new Bill will make such speedy progress that it will become law earlier than28th March; and as soon as it becomes law this order will lapse and the new legislation will take over.

I would not think it right to go into any detail today about the contents of the new Bill. This has still to receive a great deal of consideration in another place, and noble Lords will obviously have full opportunity to debate when it reaches this House. We were all conscious last November that the urgency of our proceedings inevitably meant that it was not possible to consider the details of the Bill to any significant extent. That will not be the case for the new Bill. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will feel that consideration of the new Bill, rather than consideration of this draft continuance order, will provide the right occasion to consider the details of temporary provisions legislation of this kind.

The issue today is not the substance of these powers but whether we should continue the current provision as an interim measure, pending consideration of the new Bill. I am confident that your Lordships will share my view that there can be absolutely no doubt about this. There can be no question of depriving the police or the community at this time of the measure of assistance and protection which these powers provide. The Act has given us powers to maintain a strict surveillance at ports, with greatly increased controls over those coming into and going out of this country. It has given the police powers to enable them to detain persons suspected of being involved in terrorism or of having committed offences under the Act. The exclusion powers have enabled us to remove a number of people whom we were satisfied were concerned in terrorism or who were coming to this country for that purpose.

No one pretends that the exercise of these powers is easy, or indeed that they represent a simple solution to the problem of terrorism. Nor does anyone pretend that the Act of itself will remove terrorism. But we believe that it is an essential element in our attempt to defeat it. This order is an essential bridge between the 1974 Act and the new Bill. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accord it their fullest support today.

Moved, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1975, laid before the House on 28th October, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

3.23 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, The catalogue of crime in the months since at any rate August of this year is reason enough for the renewal of this order. I believe I am right in saying that since the Aldershot Barracks were bombed in February of 1972 there have been over 260 bombing incidents in Great Britain in which some 60 people have died. The principal Act was passed a year ago following the appalling devastation in Birmingham and today this order comes before the House after three explosions at restaurants in the heart of London, crimes which were brutally cruel in their intention and totally indiscriminate in their effect. Of course in recent weeks there have been car bomb explosions, one of which claimed the life of a family man, a doctor whose work was devoted to saving other people's lives. Thus, I do not have the slightest hesitation in supporting this order, which is being introduced pending the fresh legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred and which received its Second Reading in another place yesterday.

When the previous continuation order came before this House last May my noble friend Lord Balniel said he believed that the Government had struck the right balance—to proscribe the IRA, whose activities had become an affront to the public, to give the police powers of arrest and search, if necessary without warrant, and to provide for the detention of suspects for questioning. These powers, unprecedented in peace time, were thought necessary by Parliament a year ago for the public safety, and I believe that they remain necessary today. However, three of these powers—which are in the present Act and therefore are the subject of this order—need particularly close scrutiny in a free country; that is, the police power to hold a suspect for up to 48 hours followed by a further five days if the Home Secretary gives his authority, the power of search, if necessary without warrant and the exclusion order power.

I understood from the report of what the Home Secretary said yesterday that 581 people have been detained by the police for up to 48 hours or longer, with 61 of them subsequently charged and 31 made subject to exclusion orders. I would be interested to hear the equivalent figures for the ports, where I believe examining officers have even greater powers of detaining. But whatever the figures show, would it be correct to assume that the period of time during which suspects can be held is vital for intelligence against the IRA? This is an infringement of liberty. Although the police must use their extra powers with very great care, would I he right in claiming that these powers are vital if terrorists are to be apprehended and charged or excluded? As to justification of the right to search, that, I think, would appear to have been borne out by events, notably the recent discovery of some 400 lbs. of explosives in Southampton.

But on the matter of the third power, I admit to some disquiet over the power to send a suspect back to Northern Ireland. I do not question the overall purpose of exclusion orders. I accept that the power to exclude is an executive act, though it has been supported during the last year by what is called the "advisory procedure" which has been operated by my noble friend Lord Alport and by Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC.

However, it seems that there is no escaping the fact that we are simply taking some terrorists and then setting them at liberty in another part of the United Kingdom. I am, therefore, concerned that this provision appears unamended in the new Bill. Perhaps by the New Year, the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, which has already passed through Parliament and provides for extraterritorial trial of offenders who escape across the Irish Border, will at last have passed through the Dail. Nevertheless, I hope that we may be able to have another look at this when the next Bill comes to your Lordships' House. Having said that, let me acknowledge the undoubted effect which this Act is having.

I wish to recognise the work of the police, on whom counter-terrorism must be placing a very great strain in terms of manpower, the work of examining officers at the ports and bomb disposal officers. It is, of course, the design of the IRA to cause such revulsion that the British people will wish to leave Northern Ireland to its fate, but the skill and efficiency of our Security Forces is preventing this subversion. But I have two questions to ask. First, has the time not come when the Government should require all detonators to be marked and explosives to be registered and signed for? This matter has been raised before in this House and I would add only that it is now becoming less easy to understand why the law does not require the very weapons which are used for destruction to be identified.

Secondly, does the Home Office feel that it is easy enough for people to be able to get advice on how they should take prudent security measures? After all, the bombing campaign has not been concentrated solely on military targets. Each of us needs to be vigilant, and local authorities, members of trade associations, custodians of buildings, transport undertakers and sports associations, to select a few examples, may all need to obtain the best security advice available. Is advice being asked for and, if so, is it available?

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that there are some detailed points which it will be better to raise when the amending legislation arrives, but there is one new and rather grim feature of the Bill. If Parliament agrees, its main provisions will be in force not for six but for twelve months. I believe that this may serve as a reminder of how necessary these provisions are. Clearly, they have done much to reduce the worst excesses of terrorism and I believe that, if we remain firm, those who live by violence will in the end forfeit even the most clandestine support and it will be that which will bring peace once again to the Irish scene.

3.31 p.m.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, may I welcome the course which the Government have taken in introducing this order and a new Bill? It has two advantages. It will enable your Lordships to discuss at length on another occasion the principles of the Bill—exclusion, detention, proscription and so on—and, at the same time, it indicates the Government's determination that this should be regarded as emergency legislation and not as a permanent feature on the Statute Book. In the circumstances, I shall make my general observations on the other occasion, but I should like now to raise two matters of some urgency which can be dealt with before the new Bill arrives from another place.

First, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris—and I have given notice of these matters—whether the Home Office is clear in its own mind that exclusion orders under Part II of the present Act are administrative and not judicial orders, because I suggest that they should be administrative orders. I raise the matter primarily because, in the recent Guildford bombing case, a number of people who were arrested and eventually convicted made long, detailed, written statements in which they incriminated a number of other named people as prominent IRA terrorists who were living in London and who had taken a part in those activities. The police arrested those other people, but because there was in law no admissible evidence against those other people—only matters contained in statements by people who were themselves being charged with offences —the prosecution felt obliged to offer no evidence against them and they had to be discharged. My information is that those other people, against whom there was abundant information, are still here and moving about London, because the Home Office took the view that it would not be right to make exclusion orders against them on an administrative ground, because the magistrates had decided that there was no admissible legal evidence against them. I should like to ask whether that is correct and, if so, whether the Home Office could take a more realistic—not legalistic—view of its powers to make exclusion orders.

The second matter is of a similar kind. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is aware of the fact that a person was recently arrested as one of a group of people alleged to be concerned in the manufacture of bombs for the IRA, and was committed for trial by the magistrates because there was found to be a prima facie case. Not unnaturally, bail was refused by the magistrates, but the matter came up before a senior criminal judge and, despite the rigorous objection of the police, that person was released on bail and is. I understand, moving freely around London.

I raise these points as matters of urgency because, if my information is correct, it appears that, despite the Act, as the law is being administered there are people whose identities and addresses are known and who are known to be prominent IRA terrorists, but against whom no action is being taken. I recognise that it is not for the Home Office to give directions through the Judiciary as to the granting of bail in any particular case, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will express the opinion that it would be highly undesirable, and, indeed, should be regarded as unthinkable, for a person against whom there is found to be a prima faciecase of involvement in such activities to be released on bail.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I believe all of us will wish the Home Secretary to have the power to act in cases of terrorism both to discover conspiracies before they occur and to find those who are guilty when they do occur. In considering a proposal of this kind, it is extraordinarily difficult to find the right balance between the correct action for these extreme cases and the normal law of civil liberties. As the spokesman from the Opposition Front Bench said, these proposals include actions which will limit civil liberties. I want to say at once that, in a not unrelated case, I came to have such a high appreciation of the humanity and wisdom of the Home Secretary that I have no doubt that in such cases he will act with those qualities. Nevertheless, in the legislation which has been in operation and in the legislation which is to be introduced, there are fundamental restrictions of our civil liberties. I am thinking particularly of the case mentioned from the Opposition Front Bench of detention for a period for interrogation and I hope that, when the amending Bill is introduced, every possible step will be taken to ensure that civil liberties as we understand them shall, within the limits of this exceptional situation, still be observed.

3.38 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Wigoder, and my noble friend Lord Brockway have said on this order. I should like to deal first of all with some of the detailed points about the order. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, recognised that some of the questions which he raised really apply to the new Bill and, when that is brought forward, those issues can be discussed. On the detailed points which he raised concerning the marking of detonators and information to the public, I believe that on the first matter he is misinformed. There is a marking system for detonators. It is difficult in public to go into this in detail but we are at the moment satisfied with the system. However, it is clearly right that all these matters should constantly be looked at and that is done by the explosives inspectorate and others concerned.

The question of information to the public is a difficult issue. The matter was brought up in Tuesday's debate by a noble Lord opposite who pointed out that recent targets had been restaurants. Before that, they were public houses, and other targets may be attacked by the IRA. It is therefore difficult to give general advice which has an overall application to every conceivable type of target. Nevertheless, we clearly have an obligation to do everything we can to assist members of the public who are concerned with this problem. As a result of that, a number of police forces have already given detailed information to large employers of labour, shopkeepers, and so on, and, as I indicated in the debate on Tuesday, there are crime prevention officers in all the major police stations able and willing to give advice to members of the public. Recently the Home Office has given advice to local police forces which can form the basis of more general advice to members of the public and that is now in the hands of every police force in the country.

I turn now to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I was very relieved to hear the last point he made. I do not think it would be right for me to comment on a decision by a judge regarding a bail application. I am sure that the judge concerned will read what the noble Lord has said. On the other point the noble Lord is quite right; the decision regarding an exclusion order is a decision of the Executive. It is not a judicial decision. That is why we have done our best to avoid the use of the phrase, "an appeal procedure"; because although it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and Mr. Waterhouse advise the Home Secretary in matters of this kind when representations are made by a person who has been subject to an exclusion order, nevertheless it is obvious that it is for the Home Secretary to be satisfied, and in the final analysis it is his decision. Therefore, there was no misunderstanding on our part about the intention of the Bill and what the general effect is.

On this occasion, at the end of this brief debate, it is only fair to say how grateful we all are—my right honourable friend said this yesterday in another place —to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and Mr. Waterhouse for the very considerable amount of work they are doing at the moment on behalf of the public of this country in dealing with these representations made regarding exclusion orders. This is an extremely time-consuming responsibility for them. They do it at considerable inconvenience and, as my right honourable friend said, with a very high sense of public duty. We are all extremely grateful to them.

On Question, Motion agreed to.