HL Deb 16 February 1976 vol 368 cc312-30

2.59 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The House will recall the circumstances in which the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was passed in November 1974. It was introduced into Parliament within a few days of the public house bombings in Birmingham in which 21 people were killed and 170 injured, and within a week of those explosions the Bill was on the Statute Book. In the brief debate which took place in this House last November when the order was approved renewing the existing Act for a period of four months, I explained that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did not feel able to allow these temporary powers to lapse; indeed, events in London in the past 72 hours have demonstrated all too clearly the need for a renewal. My right honourable friend considered it right to proceed by way of a new measure, in order to enable Parliament to debate the substance of the Bill in detail for the first time.

I shall deal first with the pattern of terrorist activity in the period since the Act first came into force. The House is all too familiar with the details of the outrages which have been perpetrated in the last 15 months and I shall metion briefly only a few of the more significant events. During this period, the police have discovered large quantities of explosives and bomb-making equipment in Liverpool, Southampton and London. A police officer, PC Tibble, was shot dead in Hammersmith nearly a year ago, and five police officers were attacked and wounded in Southampton at the end of 1974 and in Liverpool and Manchester last July. Then, from August to December, a series of terrorist incidents in London and the South-East caused the deaths of nine people with injuries to over 170. Some of the victims of these outrages were selected targets; others were ordinary members of the public, or simply passers-by. I will mention only one by name, a man of great devotion and courage, Captain Roger Goad, who lost his life defusing a bomb in London last August. We have seen in the last few days just how much we all owe to the explosives officers of the Metropiltan Police.

Our principal defence against these activities is the vigilance, the skill and the courage of the police in their efforts to resist and overcome the evils of terrorism. I am sure your Lordships will join with me in an expression of our gratitude to the police for their work in combating the activities of terrorists. In reviewing the Act of last year and preparing this Bill, we have paid particular attention to the views of the police. We are anxious that the measures we introduce should be of Practical help to them in combating terrorism. This is not the occasion to create an elaborate structure of measures which look splendid in theory, but which do not make a significant practical contribution.

Noble Lords will be well aware of the incident at Balcombe Street last December which led to the apprehension of four people. They will appreciate that I cannot comment on the details of this incident, which is resulting in court proceedings. I should, however, like to pay tribute to the remarkable feat of police planning and organisation which enabled movements of a number of people to be observed and followed through the crowded streets of this city, and in such a way that, although shots were fired, neither bystanders nor policemen were injured. I personally have had a close knowledge of the planning of this operation, and can assure your Lordships of the difficulty and complexity of mounting such an exercise and of the energy, determination and skill with which it was carried out.

I now turn to the Bill before the House. I shall concentrate on giving an account of the way in which the major powers under the current Act, which are broadly reproduced in the present Bill, have been exercised in the past year and in drawing to your Lordships' particular attention the new provisions in the current Bill. Part I of the Bill, which relates to the proscription of organisations concerned in terrorism in the United Kingdom which is connected with Northern Irish affairs, has been introduced virtually unchanged. The drafting of Part II of the Bill, which deals with exclusion orders, has been extensively revised, but there are only three changes of substance. First, Clause 5 of the Bill introduces, for the first time, power for the Secretary of State to exclude a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from Northern Ireland. There was a good deal of pressure in another place for the inclusion of a power of this kind, on the grounds of logic;on the principle that such a power may be needed in the future, and that its omission could represent a legitimate source of grievance for the people of Northern Ireland. The Government recognised the strength of feeling on this issue and put down Amendments on these points.

The two other changes of substance in Part II of the Bill relate to the procedures for making representations against an exclusion order. The time in which representations may be made has been increased from 48 hours to 96 hours from the time when notice of the making of the order is served. In addition, where a person includes in his representations a request for an interview with an adviser and has not at that stage been removed with his consult, that right will be automatically granted if the Secretary of State refers the matter to an adviser, as he is bound to do unless the representations are frivolous. Here, I should take the opportunity to express the Government's gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and to Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, for their work in acting as advisers under the terms of Section 4 of the present Act.

It might be helpful here if I outline for the benefit of the House the use of the powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made 70 exclusion orders. Notice of the making of an exclusion order has been served on 62 people, 57 of whom have been removed, 40 to Northern Ireland and 17 to the Irish Republic. Sixteen of the 62 made representations objecting to the order. The order was revoked in five of these 16 cases. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made one exclusion order, and the person concerned was removed to the Republic of Ireland.; the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey has made three exclusion orders and the people concerned were removed to Northern Ireland.

The Act requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied before an exclusion order is made against a person, that that person is concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is attempting, or may attempt, to enter this country with a view to being so concerned. We believe that the use of the exclusion order powers has removed the most experienced leaders of both the Provisional and the Official IRA in Great Britain, has disrupted both these organisations, and has protected the people of Great Britain from persons whose actions here might have been very dangerous indeed.

Part III of the Bill begins with two new clauses. Clause 10 creates a new offence in respect of fund raising for terrorist purposes. This offence is wider in scope than the existing offence in Clause 1, which relates only to proscribed organisations. The problem of fund raising for terrorist purposes is not one which can be dealt with absolutely by legislation, and we well recognise some of the difficulties of proof that are bound to arise. But the new clause is an attempt to strengthen the present provisions in response to the considerable degree of concern which has been expressed on this matter over collections, allegedly for terrorism, but not apparently in contravention of the present provision of the Bill.

Clause 11 creates a new offence of failing to disclose information in connection with terrorist offences in relation to Northern Irish affairs. This has been introduced after lengthy discussion in another place. Although it represents a considerable extension of the powers in the Bill, I believe that it is a step which we can usefully take to improve our preventive measures and to ensure that information about terrorist incidents continues to flow to the police;and information must be given to the police as soon as possible if lives are to be saved and terrorists caught. Proceedings in connection with both these new offences will require the consent of the Attorney-General, and the maximum penalty for both offences is, on summary conviction, six months' imprisonment and a fine of £400, or both, or, on conviction on indictment, five years' imprisonment and a fine, or both.

The Government are still examining the precise wording of both these new clauses in the light of comments made in another place and, if we can find any way of improving it, I will invite your Lordships to consider Amendments at the Committee stage. The broad purpose of these provisions, however, is sensible and reasonable, in the context of the present terrorist threat. The powers of arrest and detention in Clauses 12 and 13, which enable the Secretary of State to provide for a travel control at ports, are substantially the same as the equivalent provisions in the 1974 Act.

The power of arrest under Section 7 of the Act extends to persons who are suspected of having committed offences under the Act;or of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; or of being subject to exclusion orders. The persons so arrested may be detained for only 48 hours unless the Secretary of State authorises an extension of detention for a further period of up to five days. An extension of detention has been approved in 190 cases. A further 447 people have been held for less than 48 hours; that is, the police have released them rather than applying for an extension of detention. At ports, examining officers have powers to detain people for up to seven days, or if the Secretary of State directs, for a further five days. Seven hundred and fifty-four people have been detained under this power, but only 122 of these were held for more than 48 hours.

Sixty-seven people who have been detained under the powers in the Act—that is, both at ports and under the provisions of Section 7—have subsequently been charged with criminal offences. These charges include eight of murder, three of attempted murder, 10 of conspiracy to cause an explosion, one of causing an explosion, seven of unlawful possession of explosives, six of conspiracy to possess or procure explosives with intent to endanger life, two for fire-arms offences, and a number of lesser charges.

It is right that the House should be kept informed of the use which is being made of these particular powers; but we should also consider the general effects and results of the use which has been made of the Act. In particular, I would stress the importance of the examining officers' powers at ports, which enable us to maintain better surveillance and higher control over people travelling through ports than was possible before the Act came into force. These powers undoubtedly have a considerable deterrent value; in addition, they provide a valuable opportunity for the police to question persons who are suspected of coming here otherwise than for an innocent purpose. I believe that the powers in the Act are justified, and that they have made a significant contribution to our efforts to safe-guard the lives of people who might otherwise have been the victims of terrorist attacks.

The only changes of substance in the supplemental and transitional provisions which make up the remainder of the Bill are in Clause 17. First the renewal period for the main powers in the Bill has been increased from six months to 12. The Bill gives us a chance to consider the form which temporary provisions regulations of this kind should take, and I hope that the House will agree that it would be safe for these powers to be capable of renewal for up to 12 months at a time in the light of the extensive consideration which the present proceedings allow. Secondly, the power to reactivate parts of the Bill after they have been allowed to lapse has now been included in the list of temporary provisions. This is to avoid a situation, which could arise under the corresponding provisions in the present Act, whereby powers in the Act could be reactivated by order after a long period, during which the Act had been dormant on the Statute Book; and, of course, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intends to dispense with the powers entirely as soon as he feels that conditions will allow him to do so.

My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House as the right contribution which the Government and Parliament can make to the efforts of the police and the public as a whole to overcome the threat of terrorism. Nevertheless, as the new bomb attacks in London have illustrated, no law can give us total security against terrorism. The powers conferred on the Government and the police have made a significant contribution towards reducing the potential level of terrorist violence. Armed with these powers, the police have had a remarkable series of successes against the IRA. Today I ask the House to approve this Bill, which will continue and, to some extent, extend those powers, and will assist the police in their struggle to protect the lives of our fellow citizens. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

3.13 p.m.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, when the original Bill on the prevention of terrorism was introduced into your Lordships' House we dealt with it with the urgency which was demanded at the time, following the Birmingham disaster, and it was passed, quite rightly, with the minimum of delay. The Bill now before your Lordships is being introduced with the experience of a year's working of the provisions of the previous Act, and following full debate both on the Floor and in a Committee of another place. Basically the new Bill repeats in. almost identical terms the former measures, but with one or two notable amendments. I am sure it would be the wish of your Lordships for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his very clear explanation of the purposes of the Bill, of the amendments which have been made to the former Act and of the reasons for them. We on this side of the House express our gratitude and thanks to the Minister and to his right honourable friend for the positive consideration given to the proposals which were made in another place by our Party.

The questions which we have to ask are, first, whether the former Bill in fact achieved its purposes. Did it prevent any acts of terrorism from being perpetrated, and will the new, amended Bill prevent further acts of terrorism and improve the procedures and measures used in such prevention? Then, in taking these measures, to what extent and on what legal basis are the liberties of the subject being curtailed? Above all, we must ask whether these measures will be effective in contributing to a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland—an intrinsic and integral part of the United Kingdom.

Having posed the questions, we have of course already heard some of the answers from the noble Lord, although it is impossible to quantify the exact number of contemplated acts of terrorism which may have been averted. But I think I am bound to say that the number of exclusion orders indicated by the noble Lord definitely proves that some effect must have been achieved. Out of the 70 orders applied for, I think the noble Lord said there were 58 which were served and that, of these, 57 involved orders being made. Here, we on this side of the House join with the noble Lord in expressing our deep gratitude and admiration to the police for their remarkable resourcefulness, courage and ability in dealing with these very many difficult and dangerous problems.

The observance of the principle of reciprocity, introduced into Clause 5 at the request of members of my Party, is certainly a most welcome improvement. Northern Ireland and Great Britain are now given precisely the same treatment in regard to exclusion orders being made against persons in either part of the Kingdom, and we certainly welcome it. It is believed that the holding of suspected persons for questioning up to 48 hours. with the extension of a further five days, giving the police powers of arrest without a warrant in certain circumstances, has also undoubtedly contributed both to the gathering of information and to the stopping of certain acts of terrorism. It is of course understood that the police have to use these additional powers with considerable care and caution. It is also undoubtedly clear that they have done so with great clarity, and that they have been extremely fair in their treatment in I this regard.

We welcome also the introduction of Clause 10, relating to the control of fund-raising in this country. It must admittedly be difficult to legislate in this area, and we appreciate the concern which the Government had in drafting this particular clause. It must of course be difficult to know if there are any grounds for suspecting that money which has been given will be applied to terrorism, and, as the Secretary of State said, it will not be sufficient to say that the tin did not have "IRA" written on it. It may be difficult to implement due to threats and the kind of protection rackets which are being carried on in places where there are groups of people with interests in. Ireland, and I understand that this happens not only inside and outside pubs but also outside churches on a Sunday morning. This obviously involves a certain element of difficulty, in its being put under control. So although this clause may not have a great effect, it does draw this matter to the attention of those people who might otherwise contribute and who, knowingly, will not now do so due to the introduction of this clause.

The new Clause 11, relating to information about acts of terrorism, raises one question which has already been raised in another place, and I would ask for the consideration of the noble Lord in this matter. Whereas in Great Britain it might be considered a comparatively simple matter to phone through information to a constable, as referred to in Clause 11(1), in Northern Ireland I understand that this is not so. Persons who may be perfectly public-spirited and willing to pass on information could be in fear of their lives if they were to telephone through to a constable as such, and would thus be impeded from giving such information. On the other hand, they would willingly do so to some other person in authority. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he might look at this point and consider some alternative wording to the term "constable" in so far as it relates to Northern Ireland; and perhaps this point could be considered at the Committee stage. The incidental value of this section is that it has been partly responsible for the gathering of intelligence material—a key to the effective prevention of terrorism acts—and again, of course, we give great praise to the police for the way in which they have been dealing with this matter.

My Lords, one of the tactical objectives of terrorist activity is, of course, to acquire publicity for their cause, and here I think an appeal should be made to what is always known, I believe, as the mass media, or anyway the means of communication to the public, that minimum publicity should be given to such acts of terrorism. I think this would contribute to terrorist activities being less effective and to a decline in such activities. We observe, regretfully, that the constant flow of reporting reduces the victims to statistics but enhances the fears of the public as to the criminal activities of named individuals. Despite these measures which the Government are taking, and which we on these Benches certainly support, it cannot be expected that terrorism as such will be prevented.

The purpose of terrorism is to weaken the resolve of Government and push them either into taking excessively repressive measures or into withdrawing totally from their responsibilities. The measures proposed do not in any way imply either of these courses and therefore we strongly recommend the success of this Bill. The loss of civil liberties which may be incurred through this measure must be seen within the context of the corresponding duties of the citizen to the community and the right and duty of the State to impose limitations and restrictions for the preservation of public order and the protection of the citizen. It is sometimes forgotten that the purpose of these measures is to provide protection for the most basic of human rights for all individuals, which is the right to live and to live in peace. These must be overriding considerations. We certainly support the recommendation contained in Lord Gardiner's report of the committee to consider civil liberties and human rights relating to measures to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, when he said in paragraph 15 on page 6: While the liberty of the subject is a human right to be preserved under all possible conditions, it is not, and cannot be, an absolute right, because one man may use his liberty to take away the liberty of another and must be restrained from doing so. Where freedoms conflict, the state has a duty to protect those in need of protection. My Lords, we endorse this recommendation. No solution to the capture of terrorists either within the United Kingdom or within the Irish Republic will be achieved without close co-operation between the police forces of both countries. I think that we had an inspiring example of the excellent work of the Irish police in co-operation with our own during the case of Dr. Herrema and I am sure that all noble Lords would wish us to express our gratitude not only to our own police but to those in the Irish Republic. Just as the activities of the IRA cannot be contained, but are spilling over—indeed, they have already spilled over—into other parts of the United Kingdom from Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic also will be only too well aware of the criminal activities which are taking place within their own capital.

These tragic events will perhaps bring home to the Government of the Irish Republic that, when insufficient measures are taken against criminals, it is their lives, as well as those of United Kingdom citizens, which are at risk. It is there-fore urgently hoped from these Benches that there will be closer co-operation between the Governments to resist the criminality which we all seek to prevent. No civilised country can wish knowingly to be the harbourer of known criminals and take no measures against such persons. The measures which are before the House show the determination to repress with all possible measures the terrorists and acts of terrorism which are confronting our people in this country today. Therefore, I have no hesitation in recommending my noble friends on this side of the House to support the Bill.

3.23 p.m.

Lord WIGODER

MyLords, when the original Bill came before the House my noble friends on these Benches felt it proper to support it, for three reasons. First, because stringent though many of these measures were, they were warranted by the immediate dangerous threat to the safety of the realm; secondly, because the infringement of civil liberties inevitably involved had been kept down to an absolute minimum; and, thirdly, because it was recognised by the Government that this legislation should be temporary and emergency legislation and not become any permanent part of the Statute Book. All these considerations still apply and therefore, in our view, it would be right to support this new Bill. In the circumstances I would desire to draw attention to only two of the new clauses in order to make comment on them to which we would propose to return at the Committee stage.

First, there is Clause 7 which now provides for the first time that a person subject to the making of an exclusion order shall be granted a personal interview, in certain circumstanees, with the adviser. I have had occasion to meet some of those who are subject to exclusion orders. They are people who will find it extremely difficult to comprehend the proceedings before the adviser and will be totally unable to put their own case with any clarity. I am not seeking in any way to make what I recognise must be an Executive procedure into a judicial one, but it would be of real assistance to some of these people if they could have either a legal adviser or a friend with them in order that they may put their case properly. I think that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary said in another place that he was prepared in many cases to allow that. I should have hoped that it might be possible to allow it in all cases, and that the clause might be amended specifically to ensure that that might be done.

My Lords, Clause 11 is one about which I am bound to express some anxiety. This clause makes it a criminal offence for a person to fail to disclose information about a projected act of terrorism. May I say that I fully recognise the importance of the disclosure of such information. The police are very dependent indeed on receiving such information in order to prevent serious outrages. I would not dispute that there is a moral duty upon a person who obtains information about a possible act of terrorism to disclose it to the authorities. My anxiety arises as to whether it is wise to make it a crime to fail to do so, and whether that is not rather an unrealistic approach to the present situation and a somewhat unjustified extension of the criminal law.

I think it is an extension of the criminal law. There is, I believe, still the offence of misprision of treason, although it is unlikely to he used. There was, until1967, the offence of misprision of felony, but I believe that that was always held to apply only where a person had concealed the fact that a felony had been committed and not the fact that a felony might be committed in the future. There are offences under the Official Secrets Acts of harbouring people who have committed offences under the Acts and also of failing to give information where a police officer has demanded that information should be given; but I know of no other precedent for making a criminal offence out of the failure to give information about the possible commission of an act of terrorism or of another crime.

The difficulty, I feel, is this. There are, unhappily, in Northern Ireland substantial areas where the military and the police are unable to guarantee the security and the well being of those who live there. It seems to me that this offence contemplated in Clause 11 is likely to be committed, for example, by the Irish Catholic building worker who is over here in this country, who goes to a public house in Kilburn, gets into conversation with a friend or friends who tell him that some terrorist activity is about to take place. To make it a criminal offence for that man to fail to go to the police is, I think, perhaps shutting one's eyes to the realities of the situation. That man, inevitably, will have a family in Northern Ireland—his wife, his children, his parents—and he will be terrified that if he gives information it will be discovered and that reprisals are bound to follow. I believe that in those circumstances it is simply not in accord with what I might call the facts of life to make it a crime for such a person to fail to report such matters to the police. Indeed, if that is so in Kilburn, it is so even more in Northern Ireland itself; and, as I understand it, this clause will apply to people who are in Northern Ireland and who fail to disclose to the police information about acts of terrorism.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, may I ask a question? I can understand the purity of the legal reaction to making this a crime, but has the noble Lord any other sanction to replace it, if it is not extended as a crime, which will make it possible to act against people who will otherwise keep such valuable information to themselves?

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, I do not believe that any other sanction is possible. I hope there are people who will in fact disclose such information. To make it a crime under Clause 11 will discourage such people to give information. I am bound to suggest that to pass Clause 11 into law as it stands at the moment is to pass into law a clause which everybody knows is going to be entirely ineffective and entirely inoperative. Although I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that it is desirable that such information should be given, it is not practicable to make it a criminal offence to fail to give such information. This is a matter which I invite the Minister to consider again with care—I am sure he has done so already—before we come to a later stage of this Bill.

3.31 p.m.

Baroness PHILLIPS

My Lords, I should like to welcome the Bill. I intervene on only one clause, one which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I do so on behalf of my colleagues in the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. This point is a slightly different one. The present position, as I understand it, in relation to revealing facts is that although a worker in a Citizens' Advice Bureau has no special privilege on account of being a CAB worker, and obviously can therefore be subpoenaed and asked to give evidence in court, nevertheless the Criminal Law Act 1967 would imply that no offence is committed if a CAB worker merely fails to pass on the information about a crime or suspected crime, provided this is not done for pecuniary gain. In 1967 the CAB took Counsel's opinion, and there was confirmation that this view was justified.

Clause 11, as we have already heard, seems, on the other hand, to suggest that if a client in a bureau informs a worker that he or she is going to commit an act of terrorism, the worker will be committing a criminal offence if he or she fails to pass on the facts to the relevant authority. Obviously, this means the CAB worker will have to make three decisions. First, whether the act described was committed or going to be committed. But can the CAB worker really judge whether the story told by a client is so accurate in every respect that this judgment should fall upon members of the CAB rather than upon the court? Secondly, the CAB worker will have to decide whether the act described is an act of terrorism. While that is presumably defined in the Bill, or elsewhere, it is open to the interpretation of the courts. The third point is whether, after bearing all these flatters in mind, the CAB worker feels able to take the risk entailed in abiding by the organisation's rule on confidentiality.

This clause states, "without reasonable excuse" but there is no guidance from the Government about possible interpretation. If the CAB service—with which many of your Lordships are probably conversant—has to sacrifice its principle of confidentiality in order to meet this Bill, it will be destroying the trust which previously clients have put in the workers. This may have nothing to do with terrorism, but it may affect a service which for many years has been able to assist people and, indeed, the law. I hope that in the later stages of the Bill we may be able to reconcile these two factors.

3.36 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, may I begin by expressing gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and my noble friend Lady Phillips for the welcome they have given to the Bill. I will briefly go through the detailed points they have made. Obviously those concerning Clauses 10 and 11 will need to be gone into at the Committee stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to various improvements in the Bill, as compared with the 1974 Bill, which had taken place as a result of discussions in another place in which a number of her honourable friends were involved. I agree that the Bill is a better one, subject to some of the qualifications which were inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The noble Baroness was right in saying that honourable friends of all Parties in another place played an important role in improving this Bill. It is right that this should be so because the problem of terrorist violence affects people of every political persuasion in this country. It is right that in an issue of this sort—on which there is a high degree of public concern—there should be inter-Party collaboration. The Bill, as I indicated, has emerged strengthened as a result of that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to Clause 11, dealing with a point related to Northern Ireland. We will come to that at the Committee stage. She also raised the point about the problem of the way in which the media handle reports of terrorist incidents. It is extremely difficult to know what is a reasonable position for the media to adopt in matters of this kind. Certainly no one—or very few—in this House would be in favour of any degree of censorship being imposed. We live in a free society which means the "electronic media"(as it is sometimes described) and the ordinary Press have a very difficult balance to strike in how they should approach the reporting of terrorist violence, whether in Northern Ireland or this country. Broadly speaking, they do their job extremely well. Many of the people covering events in Northern Ireland are exposed to great danger and do their job deprived of any protection of the kind which the security forces enjoy. Nevertheless, there is a problem here and I am sure journalists are aware of this. Undoubtedly sometimes mistakes are made; journalists will be the first to recognise that. But it is a difficult problem and, speaking from this Bench, though no doubt from time to time errors of judgment are committed, we would be loath to attempt to impose any form of censorship on the way in which the media carry out their duties.

The noble Baroness talked about the collaboration between the police forces in this country and in the Irish Republic. In the two years or so I have been a Minister at the Home Office, dealing with this problem, there has been a remarkable improvement in our working relationship between Scotland Yard, British provincial police forces and the Garda in the Irish Republic. As the noble Baroness said, this relationship was particularly strengthened as a result of the events which took place over the kidnapping of Dr. Herrema. That operation was conducted with a great deal of skill and a high degree of competence. It was one of those occasions when, as a result of an approach we received from the Garda, we made available on that occasion, a number of specialists from Scotland Yard who assisted the Garda in carrying out their duties.

I now pass on to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. He raised two particular points, one related to the exclusion order process. He referred to comments made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place concerning the question of circumstances where it would be reasonable for a person who was making representations against an exclusion order to one of the advisers nominated by the Home Secretary to be accompanied by either a friend or lawyer. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to this point in some detail and referred to comments made by my right honourable friend, for the sake of avoiding any misunderstanding I will quote from column 527 of the Official Report of another place of 28th January. On that occasion, my right honourable friend said: In the first place, there is no question of someone who goes before an adviser being denied the right to have consultations with and advice from his solicitor before he sees the adviser. That has been the practice and I will certainly ensure that it is the practice in future. As far as I know it always has been the practice in the past where the person against whom the order is served has a legal adviser and wishes to consult him. I would also be prepared to say that, when the adviser takes the view that it is reasonable in the circumstances, the person should be accompanied by someone, by a legal adviser or a friend or relation if that is thought appropriate. But I must hold the position that in certain cases which could be very difficult and sensitive the question must be whether the adviser, knowing what he has to deal with, thinks that that is a reasonable procedure. I think that that is the position of the Government in this matter.

I do not think we could give an absolute guarantee, in any circumstances, that there could always be a third party present. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, indicated, this is an Executive act which we are discussing, not a judicial or a quasi-judicial act and, in view of the kind of people with whom we are sometimes dealing, and the kind of problems with which we are sometimes confronted, I do not think it would be right to give an absolute guarantee; infact, it would be impossible to do so. I hope that my right honourable friend went some way to satisfy the noble Lord on this point, but I do not think I can go any further today.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, then went on to discuss the question of Clause 11 making it, as he said, a crime to fail to pass on information about terrorist offences, be they projected or otherwise, and he posed some difficulties which would arise in that situation, as did my noble friend Lady Phillips. I quite accept that there are difficulties here, and I indicated earlier that at the Committee stage we would look again at the precise language of Clause 11, without giving any guarantee that we shall necessarily be recommending any amendment, although we may be in a position to do so. We shall certainly not be able to meet the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his opposition to this clause, because we have come to the conclusion that it is right to have a provision of this kind.

I must say to my noble friend Lady Phillips that there are problems confronting not only people working in citizens' advice bureaux but many other people who are in similar positions. I accept that fact. But what we also have to accept is that if we do not make this an offence we are possibly being prepared to endanger the lives of many scores of our fellow citizens. Let me take one example. Let us say that somebody had knowledge last week that a bomb was to be left in Oxford Circus underground station. If that bomb had gone off, it might have killed scores of our fellow citizens. It seems to me that the House must face this matter directly. If someone has information or knowledge that such an offence is likely to be carried out, it seems to me right that it should be an offence not to disclose that information at the first available opportunity.

I recognise that we are moving into new territory here, but we are confronted with a totally new situation in this country where the lives of our fellow citizens are being threatened, on a day to day basis, by groups of terrorists in this city and outside it. Certainly, when we come to the detailed provisions of this clause, I will look most carefully, with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and my noble friend Lady Phillips, at whether we can deal with the problems which they have raised. But I can give no assurance at this stage that it is possible to give an absolute guarantee of this kind.

As I indicated earlier, these are new and exceptional powers; that goes not only for Clause 11 but for many other provisions of the Bill. That is why this is a temporary provisions Bill, and why the Government have to come back every 12 months to secure the assent of Parliament to extending those powers. Confronted as we are by a group of terrorists who are determined to try to maximise the loss of life to people in this country, I am bound to say that we shall have to move into the position of having the new and exceptional powers that are conferred on the Executive by this Bill. I make no apology for that, but I certainly accept that there is undoubtedly a potential risk to the civil liberties of some of our fellow subjects as a result of this measure; and that is why it is a temporary provisions Bill. Subject to the qualifications I have made, we will certainly look at the detailed provisions to see whether we can satisfy the noble Lord and other Members of the House.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.