HL Deb 23 March 1981 vol 418 cc1027-40

6.52 p.m.

Lord Belstead rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1981 be approved. The purpose of the order is to continue in operation for a further period of 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The Act is due to lapse tomorrow, unless renewed. The order was approved in another place on 18th March.

The continuance of the provisions over the next 12 months remains a necessity, however regrettable. It is right that Parliament should require the Government to justify that view and that Parliament itself should debate the issues and reach its own decision on the renewal of the Act. I shall try to describe to your Lordships the extent to which the Act has been used, and I shall follow that, very briefly, with some more general points concerning the need for the powers.

One of the major powers which Parliament by the Act has vested in my right honourable friend is that of making exclusion orders. The power may be exercised only where by right honourable friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that someone is, or has been, concerned in the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or may attempt to enter Great Britain for that purpose. Therefore these cases have to be very carefully considered. In total, 269 exclusion orders have now been made, 49 of them since I last reported on these matters to your Lordships.

Exclusion under the Act is an executive, non-judicial procedure. Those of your Lordships who have taken an interest in these matters since the emergency powers were originally introduced will be aware of that fact. But the Act provides a safeguard for an excluded person by entitling him, or indeed her, to make representations to an independent adviser. His right—if I may speak as though the matter relates to men all the time I think that that would be for the convenience of the House—to do so is explained when he is served with an exclusion order. He is also informed that, if he wishes it and has not agreed to be removed from Great Britain, he is entitled to a personal interview with the adviser. On the basis of the interview and the examination of any representations and all the relevant papers, the adviser will produce a report for my right honourable friend, who will reconsider the case on the basis of the adviser's recommendation. In total, 43 people—eight in the past year—have made representations against exclusion, and 14 orders—two in the past year—have been revoked following consideration of the cases by my right honourable friend, or his predecessors.

My right honourable friend has made clear in another place how grateful he is to his advisers for the work that they have done, and I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Alport, for the care and judgment with which they carry out this delicate task. I should also like to thank Mr. John Newey, QC, who has recently stood down as an adviser following his appointment as a circuit judge. I am pleased to tell your Lordships' House that Mr. Hugh Carlisle, QC, has accepted my right honourable friend's invitation to become an adviser on these cases.

Following a recommendation by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his valuable report on the operation of the Act, in 1979 a system was established for reviewing exclusion orders. In essence, any excluded person who wishes to have his case reviewed may do so three years after the exclusion order is made. A letter is sent to the last known address of the excluded person, to inform him of this right. So far this year 105 people have become eligible to have their orders reviewed; of that total 27 have requested review. Twenty-two reviews have been completed, and three orders revoked and 19 confirmed as a result. The remainder are still under review.

I am sure that your Lordships are aware that under the Act the police may detain people, either inland or at the ports, if they suspect them of being concerned in terrorism. On their own authority the police can hold such people for up to 48 hours. In order to pursue their inquiries further the police must apply for an extention of detention of up to five days. From the time that the legislation came into force in 1974 until 28th February this year the police have detained a total of 5,101 people under its powers—3,666 of them at ports and 1,435 inland. The equivalent figures for the past year are 419 people detained at ports and 96 detained inland. In 669 cases—120 of them in the past year—an extension of detention has been granted. It might help to put the figures relating to ports, at least, in perspective if I point out that more than 80 million people passed through ports in Great Britain last year.

In the Government's view the powers are still necessary and should be renewed for the coming 12 months. It is clear that the terrorist threat posed by both the IRA and the so-called Loyalists has not diminished and that it extends to Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will recall the placing of bombs outside the Territorial Army Centre in Hammersmith on 2nd December 1980, as well as the bomb explosions at gasholders at Bromley-by-Bow on 31st December, and the placing of an incendiary device, surrounded by flagons of petrol, in barracks at RAF Uxbridge on 8th January. The Provisional IRA admitted responsibility for all those incidents. Although none of them resulted in serious injury, they could have proved deadly. But for some very quick thinking, the device at Uxbridge, in particular, could have killed a large number of people.

We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude in these matters to the police, whose patient and skilled work has contributed so much to the reduction of terrorism in recent years. This is a preventive role, which does not lend itself to spectacular successes. The work requires watchfulness and care, and the painstaking addition of detail to detail until eventually a picture is built up. Used with discretion and skill, the powers provided in this Act play their part in preventing acts of terrorism. I accept that the powers in this Act infringe civil liberties—and that is a very serious thing to say—and can inconvenience members of the travelling public. I deeply regret this. But while terrorist groups remain dedicated to continuing their vicious campaigns of violence both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, my right honourable friend believes that it would be wholly wrong to deny the police such assistance as the Act provides in fulfilling their duty to protect the public at large.

The port and internal controls act as a deterrent to would-be terrorists. The provisions proscribing organisations and prohibiting displays of support for them prevent the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army—groups whose tools of persuasion are the bomb and the gun—from operating with even a veneer of legality. The power of exclusion, which has always been applied with great discretion and care by my right honourable friend and by his predecessors, has reduced substantially the number of those concerned in terrorism in connection with Northern Ireland who can legally come into Great Britain.

For these reasons I ask your Lordships' House to support the Government's view that the continuance of this Act is necessary. I believe that the public would rightly condemn us if we allowed the Act to lapse before it was safe to do so. I therefore move that this Act be renewed for a further 12 months.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)

7.2 p.m.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, once again we are embarking on a course which I have no doubt we all regard as repugnant—the consideration of an order to renew for another year the powers in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I have no doubt at all—and, indeed, it is perfectly clear from what he has said—that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, views this task with as much distaste as do the rest of us; and I should like to thank him for the thorough way in which he has reviewed the operations of the Act over the past year and reported to your Lordships about it.

The task is unpleasant for two main reasons: first, because the powers in this Act curtail severely, as the Minister himself has indicated, the civil liberties which we in this country cherish so deeply; and, secondly and perhaps even more importantly, because of the grotesque actions of those involved in terrorism which made us take these powers in the first place. The powers have been in force now for nearly six and a half years, since 29th November 1974, when the original Act came into effect; and it is a source of regret that we are still having to extend these temporary measures. As your Lordships will know, an order like this one was approved in another place last Wednesday, and on the same occasion an Opposition call was made for a new inquiry into the workings of the Act, while at the same time the Opposition Front Bench there did not seek to oppose the order itself. There were, I believe, significant merits in the arguments put forward by my right honourable and honourable friend for a new inquiry, the most important of which is perhaps that if we are to continue for the time being with powers which make great inroads into the civil liberties we have so painstakingly built up—and indeed, at times, painfully had to preserve in this country—we must feel completely justified in doing so by the exceptional nature of the circumstances and, in this case, the real and present threat from terrorism.

In December 1977, as your Lordships will recall, my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary, Mr. Merlyn Rees, set up the inquiry into the Act carried out so thoroughly by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who reported in August 1978. That inquiry was initiated almost exactly three years after the original Act came into force. Another 3½ years, nearly, have gone by now, so on the basis of timing it could not be argued that the moment for a new inquiry had not arrived. Quite apart from the excellence and value of the report my noble friend produced—and it led to many improvements following the acceptance of almost all my noble friend's recommendations—I believe that the very fact that those operating the Act were brought under that close scrutiny (in which, I might say, they co-operated magnificently) was itself beneficial and made it all the more possible for us to satisfy ourselves that the powers were being properly exercised and were in all the circumstances justified. However, the call for a fresh inquiry was rejected, as we know, in another place last week, and I will accordingly not press for one again here, though I do believe your Lordships might wish to note the point made by the Minister's right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that if he feels justified in doing so he will come forward with his own proposals for an inquiry later.

Let me also make it perfectly plain now that so far as the order itself is concerned the Minister has my full support in asking the House to approve it. But let me add this, too. It is now two years—it was on 22nd March 1979—since the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggested that the next time the Act came up for renewal the Government should consider reintroducing it as a Bill, so that its provisions might be subjected to detailed examination and, if appropriate, amended—for, of course, we cannot amend an order. Then, last year, on 17th March, I, too, raised his suggestion, and he did so again himself as well. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said (at col. 76) that the suggestion would certainly be very carefully considered before the legislation comes before Parliament again in a year's time". Accordingly—and this is the first question I should like to put to the Minister tonight—I would ask him what consideration has been given since then by the Government. I would add this point. In the absence of a fresh inquiry into the working of the Act, the proposal for the Act to be brought forward as a Bill next time, if it is indeed still—

Lord Elwyn-Jones

The working of the order, not the Act.

Lord Boston of Faversham

No, my Lords. The point I was seeking to make was this. In the absence of a fresh inquiry into the working of the Act—that was the proposal which was called for in another place last Wednesday, an inquiry into the working of the Act—the proposal for the Act to be brought forward as a Bill next time, if indeed it is still needed in a year's time, is I believe even more apposite, so I would also ask the Minister whether he would assure us that this suggestion will now be given further and most serious consideration.

As to the order itself continuing the Act in force for another year, I am myself in no doubt whatsoever that that should be done. Mercifully, as the statistics which the Minister has mentioned to your Lordships tonight show, rather less use (I think it is fair to say) of its powers have been necessary over the past year. The use of detention is well down, though exclusion orders are about the same as in the two previous years, and in fact more than double the numbers for 1977 and 1976. But there have been further acts of terrorism over the past year, as the Minister himself has indicated; and there was, in particular, the near tragedy at Royal Air Force, Uxbridge, to which he has referred. I should like to commend the heroic action taken, which led to the undoubted saving there of many lives.

There is also the point that the whole purpose of the Act is to prevent terrorism and there is the associated point that it has a deterrent effect. This is a point which I have always regarded as wholly valid and I have no doubt that those who have ever had any responsibility for anti-terrorist activities, and therefore access to relevant information, have evidence and reason to support that view; it was a view also accepted by my noble friend Lord Shackleton in his report. By its nature, it is never possible to evaluate precisely the extent of that deterrent effect but that it exists I am in no doubt at all. I believe that we must continue to arm our forces of law and order with the powers needed to enable them to protect our most fundamental of freedoms and civil liberties, the right to life.

I have only three other comparatively minor questions to put to the Minister. Two of them concern the review of the exclusion orders to which he referred in his speech. We, the last Administration, accepted Lord Shackleton's recommendation that there should be a review of exclusion orders. We decided that each order should be reviewed after it had been in force for three years, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, announced his Government's acceptance of that commitment, too. I wonder whether the back-log which existed when these reviews were first started has now been cleared; because when the reviews were instituted, the Act already had been in force for five years. Also, can the noble Lord give us any indication of how long, approximately, a review tends to take? I appreciate that circumstances are different and, therefore, the times will be different; but if he can give any sort of indication that would be helpful.

The other point concerns Section 11 of the Act which, as we know, creates an offence for withholding information about terrorist activities. I believe that it is worth noting that that provision, which is understandably one of the Act's most controversial provisions has been of value over the past year, with the prosecutions and convictions that have taken place; and, no doubt, that section, too, has its own particular deterrent effect. I wonder whether there are any trials still pending arising out of changes under Section 11.

I have referred to one act of heroism. Not all are so dramatic as that one. Many go unnoticed publicly and others, mercifully, are made unnecessary because of the dangers that our security forces, the bomb disposal squads, the police and the other essential services, place themselves in as a matter of routine, in rooting out terrorists and in preventing terrorism. I hope that our thanks can be passed on to all of them. We all, and, perhaps, they above all, look forward to the day when these powers can be cast aside. That time, I believe, has not yet come. I join in support of this order.

7.14 p.m.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, this being the fifth occasion on which your Lordships have debated an order in similar terms to this, I do not pretend that I can find anything new or significant to say. The threat which the IRA, in particular, poses is one which needs no underlining from me and is one which is recognised by all of us. It is not only a threat to life and limb but to the very foundations of our society. It is a threat carried out, as is perhaps not always recognised, by a gang of people in very close touch with other gangs of people similarly motivated throughout the world. I might remind your Lordships of the words of Lord Chalfont recently when he commented that the IRA have nothing politically in common with the Baader-Meinhof group or the PLO; nevertheless, they share everything that makes their operations successful. They exchange weapons, they engage in joint operational planning; they use each other's training areas and provide each other with administrative and logistic support. I believe that the evidence for that is overwhelming and it is odd that the present Government should find no inconsistency in opposing the IRA with such vigour and yet espousing the cause of the PLO with equal vigour. But that is perhaps another story.

That this legislation has proved useful is beyond doubt. I am not sure that the prescription section of the Act has had more than a cosmetic attraction, but I have no doubt on the evidence that the exclusion powers, the powers to make exclusion orders, have proved their worth. There is, I think, a safeguard in the assistance given by the advisors. I join in the gratitude expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Alport for their service in that regard. The powers of detention beyond question, I think, have proved their worth. I have been involved in cases myself, in which there is no doubt that it was only because people were able to be detained for as long as seven days, that the police were enabled to bring very dangerous men to justice.

I have a little doubt and always have had, about Section 11 of the Act, which makes it an offence to fail to give information about acts of terrorism. That seems to have been always a trifle unrealistic. There has been one case in the history of the Act in which that section has been used; it did not result in any prison sentence being imposed and I cannot believe that it has served any useful purpose. But that the Act, as a whole, has played its part, I am in no doubt. I know that, under these powers, innocent people may suffer. I accept that. I think the objective must be to see that the fewest number of people suffer unnecessarily and suffer the very minimum of inconvenience. In the last resort, I think I would sooner be an innocent person wrongly detained in a police station overnight than an innocent person blown to hits by some mindless criminal. It is true also that this Act inevitably impinges upon civil liberties. On reflection, most laws do so. It is because of that simple fact that bodies like the National Council for Civil Liberties understandably find it difficult to be enthusiastic about any piece of legislation which is ever brought to the statute book. But there is this element and it is an element which must be considered with care when we are reviewing this Act.

There has been a proposal, which was debated in the other place at length, that some further review in line with that carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, should now be started. I must confess that I found in the course of that debate very little evidence to justify a new inquiry of that sort so soon after the previous one had been completed. But, in principle, it is desirable that this Act should be constantly under review and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for supporting the suggestion that has been put forward by me and by others that perhaps the most helpful way in which a thorough review of this Act could take place at some time in the near future is that, while this Act still remains on the statute book, there should be introduced a Bill to take its place which could be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny in all stages in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that suggestion might commend itself to the Government as a constructive way to ensure that this legislation serves its purpose and does so with the very minimum intrusion into our civil liberties.

7.20 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I should like to speak fairly briefly to this order. Members of the House may recall that I was in fact the Minister who introduced the first of the Prevention of Terrorism Bills in 1974 after the Birmingham public house bombing and then the Bill in 1976, when we were enabled to take the matter at a more leisurely pace than was possible in the emergency situation which confronted us at the end of 1974. As has been made clear in the speeches that we have heard this evening, there are two clearly defined issues before the House. The first is, should there be some form of further inquiry into the Act? This was proposed in the House of Commons by Mr. Hattersley and repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I was not tonight—and I am sorry if I did not make it clear—proposing an inquiry along those lines. I was noting the fact that the point had been made in another place last week, but, because it had been rejected, I was not putting it forward again today.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble Lord touched on the matter that had been deployed at rather greater length by his right honourable friend in another place. Let us at least agree on that.

The second question is of course the more fundamental one. Should the powers be extended at all? I shall first deal with the inquiry point. It was, as the House will recall, announced by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Rees, in December 1977 that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had been asked to conduct this inquiry. I should like to remind the House of the precise terms of reference of that inquiry: Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism, to assess the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976 with particular regard to the effectiveness of this legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject, and to report". On page 80 of the report the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, gave a substantial list.

I should be grateful if the Opposition Chief Whip would allow me to continue my speech because it is rather difficult to speak if one in fact is hearing a rather substantial amount of conversation just by one.

On Appendix D the point that is made in the Shackleton Report is this: that he consulted a very substantial number of different organisations: the Association for Legal Justice; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Association of Liberal Lawyers; the British Institute of Human Rights; and a very large number of other organisations. He paid a very large number of visits to various police forces. He conducted a series of discussions with chief constables and with the special branches of a number of forces, both the Metropolitan Police and a number of forces outside London. He then wrote in conclusion this report (which is on Page 48 at paragraph 156): When the Home Secretary introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in 1974, he remarked that the struggle to eradicate terrorism in this country might not be a short one. There is, he wrote, a delicate relationship between the resolution of an urgent problem by the introduction of new powers and the longer-term effects of such measures. It is not sufficient merely to enact powers of this kind. They need to be subject to continuing analysis. Equally it is salutary to remind oneself of the words of horror expressed at the time of the Birmingham bombs. It is all too easy to criticise the legislation and the police in times of comparative quiet". That is precisely the position.

I do not see—quite bluntly—how it can be seriously argued that there is, only two years after the report of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a case for yet another inquiry. What is the inquiry to be directed at? It surely can only cover precisely the same territory as was covered by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, only two years ago.

I have no doubt about the admirable motives of those who have put this proposal forward; but I do not, with respect, consider that it is sensible at a time when there is a continuing threat from the IRA and very, very heavy pressure on the special branches of the police forces, both in London and outside it, to have yet another inquiry going over precisely the same ground, which will take up an immense amount of time of both members of the police service and a very large number of other people as well.

I should like to make the further point that it is also increasingly difficult to get serious-minded people to agree to conduct such inquiries if they are simply going over precisely the same ground—I repeat—only two years later.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me for interrupting. He overheard my noble friend saying that no one in this House was suggesting that there should be such an inquiry. This eloquence is interesting but quite irrelevant.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I am grateful as always to the noble and learned Lord. But I am answering a speech which was put forward by the official Opposition in another place. They chose to divide the House of Commons on the issue. I am, in fact, pointing out why I believe that the recommendation made by the official Opposition and voted upon by them, as the noble and learned Lord may recall, was in fact in my view wholly undesirable.

I must repeat this. I think that it is a very great pity, in terms of dealing with terrorist legislation, when we start having party divisions in either House of Parliament. I think the risk of terrorist attacks is such that there is a common interest among people of all political persuasions to try to preserve national unity on this particular matter.

I turn now to the second question. Should the powers be extended at all? I should like to say to the House quite bluntly—and I do not think there has been any disagreement expressed on this issue today, though there was I think in another place—that if we do not extend this legislation we are taking the gravest risks with the safety of the public of this country. May I deal first with exclusion orders. Without any doubt whatever, a very substantial number of those who have been excluded since the passage of the legislation in 1974 would have undoubtedly been involved in acts of terrorism if they had not been excluded from this country. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary reminded us this evening that 269 orders have been made which in my view, given the extent of the problem, is in no sense an excessive number.

The second question is the power given to the police to detain on suspicion—and with the agreement of the Minister of the Crown—for a further five days people whom they suspect may become involved in acts of terrorism. I think the case for this was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who has a substantial amount of professional experience so far as this is concerned. There is no doubt at all that a number of those who have been arrested and subsequently convicted would only have been convicted because of the possession of these powers.

There is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pointed out in his speech, that this problem of terrorism is not in any sense a problem unique to this country. It affects virtually all the Members of the European Community with the exception of Greece, Luxembourg and Denmark.

If the Opposition Chief Whip would like to interrupt my speech, I shall gladly give way to her. I do find this constant conversation makes it extremely difficult to concentrate in making a speech to your Lordships.

Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

My Lords, I am so sorry that the noble Lord finds it difficult to concentrate. I am not interrupting him; I do not feel there is much need to because his speech is, if I may say so, not awfully relevant to what noble Lords in this House have said.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. That is the type of courtesy which I have come to expect from her, I regret to say.

My Lords, I turn now, if I may, to the question of the balance that we have to strike on this matter of terrorism. It is undoubtedly an extremely difficult one. A problem which in fact, as I have pointed out, affects a very large number of countries outside our own and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said, there is no doubt that the powers which are contained in this legislation represent a significant encroachment on the civil liberties of the subject. In fact it is foolish for anyone who is in favour of this legislation to deny this proposition.

I repeat that without these powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said in his speech, people would have been deprived of the most important civil liberty of all: the capacity to continue to live. I am afraid we have to recognise in the IRA a murderous enemy who is prepared to use the utmost violence in order to achieve its objectives and I think it would be quite extraordinarily reckless for Parliament, in the circumstances I have described, to deny the Government the powers for which they are asking this evening.

7.31 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, after the erudite speeches which have preceded mine, I am very awestruck in taking up the cudgels in support of this order. I am going to ask for the extreme indulgence of this House if I do not stick absolutely directly to the subject of this order. The alternatives which we have from Northern Ireland are, very often, to try to put down a Motion and debate it or else to be slightly out of order when speaking on a Motion in front of this House. Therefore I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I have only a tenuous touch on one or two of the subjects I am going to raise about this particular order. No doubt your Lordships will tell me when I have gone too far.

I should like to thank my noble friend for his introduction of this order and, needless to say, I support it very strongly. To do otherwise, living as I do in the North of Ireland, would be utterly irresponsible, for, although this has been discussed tonight mostly in a "Great Britain" atmosphere, it is from the Northern Irish point of view that I see it. When not only the lives of others but possibly your own life as well are at stake, it greatly concentrates the mind. So, if I look at this from a Northern Ireland point of view I am sure that I shall have your Lordships' support, even at some stretch of your powers of imagination as regards keeping within order.

This Act is a terribly important Act on two counts. The first is that it will convince the terrorist that the whole of the United Kingdom is against him. Secondly, it convinces all the people of Northern Ireland—and I can only speak for them—of the Government's intention to destroy terrorism and wipe it out. That is almost the most important thing—this belief in the determination of the Government to win, so far as the population which is under attack is concerned.

My Lords, this is where I shall begin to ask for your indulgence. Those of you who have followed the rather tortuous announcements which have been made from Dublin and the silence which has come from this side of the water about the Prime Minister's discussions with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic will realise the problems that can exist when you get an alliance as a result of a complete identity of view between the Reverend Paisley and Mr. Haughey. They both have an identity of view because they are both standing for election. The interest of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic is to make the summit an important occasion when the totality of relations between London and Dublin is being raised and when the constitution of Northern Ireland is at stake. The Rev. Ian Paisley, the honourable Member for North Antrim, has an identical interest in presenting the threat to our constitution.

Both these particular threats raise the problem of terrorism on either side, and this Act is about the prevention of terrorism. It is for that reason I feel it is terribly important that we should continue this Act and realise the dangers that are involved by allowing something which can be interpreted by anybody in the way they like. Public opinion in Northern Ireland is rather like public opinion was in this country during the war. People listen to every news bulletin and they believe the worst always.

This has been a very major problem and it remains so. Only yesterday—and this is one of the reasons why I came winging over today to raise this tenuous subject—the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic stated on one of the radio programmes that the new institutions under discussion would mean a united Ireland within five years. If the Foreign Minister was correct, then we should be discussing not this Act but an Act with far more violent terms in order to contain the violence that would surely erupt. But the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic only a week or so ago said very different things and t should like the Government, if they can, to comment on this. I have just seen on the tapes that in fact the Northern Ireland Office have said something about it.

There are many things in this Act which I believe should be subject to summit talk: for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, mentioned a subject very dear to Ulster hearts: the seven-day detention or the five-day extension of arrest for interrogation. I believe that, in the summitry which goes on and when this Act is reviewed and comes before this House again, it should be a joint treaty Act so as to make sure that the Gardai in the Irish Republic have the same powers that our police have here.

The question of the review of this Act has been very well dealt with, but I believe that any review should in fact be done as part of a joint operation between Dublin and London. We surely should be able to accept together the common threat which exists to our civilisation. The papers no longer report very many of the activities of the terrorists that go on in Northern Ireland. In the last six weeks we have had eight major efforts, and luckily they have all been failures. Only last week the police arrested six people, who were highly armed with very sophistacted weapons, six miles from my home. The exclusion order could not have done any good to them because they came across without the exclusion order, but the seven-day interrogation and detention has done the job and they are now charged; so, my Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting this order.

7.38 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. In case anyone may think that your Lordships' House takes the annual renewal of this Act, which has such serious implications, on the nod, I think that the speeches which have been made this evening will show that that is in no way the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Boston, was good enough to make a point which he has made previously: namely, the enormous importance of this legislation so far as prevention is concerned. The noble Lord also expressed his thanks, as I know all the rest of your Lordships do, to those who are responsible for the operation of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, although he drew attention to certain areas of criticism and difficulty in the Act, expressed, as I understood him, his support for the need for continuation—again because continuation at the moment will lead to the best chances for prevention.

I accept the point made very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that this Act contains powers which all of us who share a concern for civil liberties wish we could do without. I, no less than any other Members of your Lordships' House, look forward to the day when the Act can safely be allowed to lapse. But—and I cannot emphasise this too strongly—that day has not yet come. If the police are to continue to protect life and property from the threat posed by terrorism, they need our support and the powers which this Act gives them.

The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me whether any trials were still pending on charges brought under Section 11 of the Act. The answer to that question is, no, there are no trials pending on charges laid under that section. The noble Lord also asked me about the backlog of three-year review cases and whether this backlog has been cleared. The answer to that, on the other hand, is yes, the backlog of these cases has now been cleared.

However, when the noble Lord asks me how long a review of a case takes, the answer is not quite so easy. The time that these reviews take depends on a number of factors and it is difficult to give any single figure. Once an excluded person has signified his or her wish to have an order reviewed by filling in and returning a questionnaire, the views of the police are sought and an interview with the excluded person may be necessary before the case is considered by officials and submitted to my right honourable friend for a decision.

My noble friend Lord Brookeborough gave his support to the passage of this order. I can well understand why he feels so strongly about this, living as he does in an area where he sees the need to prevent terrorism by any method possible—terrorism which, of course, led only recently to the tragic deaths of Sir Norman Stronge and his son James. My noble friend mentioned the remarks which were attributed to the Foreign Minister of the Government of the Republic, Mr. Lenihan. In a statement about those remarks, which was issued early today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it clear that the joint studies which are going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic are intended to examine matters of common interest, including, incidentally, security, between the United Kingdom and the Republic. The studies are to improve relations between the two countries. The studies have nothing to do with, nor have they touched on, nor will they touch on, the internal government of Northern Ireland or its constitutional position. The Government and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have repeatedly made this clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Boston, referred to the proposal which has been made previously by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as to why the Act should not be reintroduced as a Bill. I recognise that in November 1974 the former Act was introduced rapidly in an emergency. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us in his speech, it is only some three years since the Shackleton Report was drawn up, involving very wide consultations. It is just over five years since the present Act was introduced and that, in its turn, was the subject of detailed and intense scrutiny in Committee in this House and in another place over a period of some four months.

Certainly, on behalf of the Government, I responded to the proposal which was made on a previous occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that this matter should be properly considered. But, as I reminded your Lordships earlier on this evening, three vicious acts of terrorism occurred at about the turn of the year, and I am bound to say that in present circumstances my right honourable friend does not feel it right to repeat the process of going through the Act as a Bill, line by line, at the present moment.

But in saying that, I am not suggesting that the Act is perfect. My right honourable friend made it clear in another place last week, that he was prepared to consider the proposals for review which the Opposition had made during the debate on this order in another place. Equally, the suggestions made by your Lordships this evening and the general attitude of your Lordships—if I may put it in that way—to this order this evening will be carefully studied and considered by my right honourable friend. This is a subject which demands and requires considerable detailed thought, and I would not pretend that with the present Act we have all the necessary elements in a perfect blend. But in the Government's view, there can be no doubt about the need for this legislation. I therefore move that this Act be renewed for a further 12 months.

On Question, Motion agreed to.