HL Deb 23 March 1982 vol 428 cc943-52

4.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in operation for a further year the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. Unless renewed, the Act is due to lapse tomorrow. The order was approved in another place on 15th March. I will remind your Lordships briefly of the context in which the Act's renewal is being sought. The Provisional IRA bombing campaign in London last October and November is still fresh in our minds. On 10th October, a nail bomb exploded outside Chelsea barracks. Two civilian passers-by were killed and more than 40 soldiers and civilians wounded. On 17th October, Lieutenant-General Sir Steuart Pringle was severely injured when his car blew up. The shock and injuries he suffered might easily have caused his death; I am sure your Lordships shared the admiration I felt at Sir Steuart's recovery.

On 26th October, the Provisional IRA placed two bombs in Oxford Street, one of which exploded, killing Mr. Kenneth Howorth, the Metropolitan Police bomb disposal officer who was attempting to make it safe. The other was defused by a colleague of Mr. Howorth. The murder of Mr. Howorth is a tragic but salutary reminder of the considerable debt we all owe to those whose job it is to protect us from the evil of terrorist violence. On 13th November, the London home of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General was severely damaged in a bomb blast. Fortunately, those responsible had miscalculated; my right honourable friend and his wife were away at the time of the explosion. On 23rd November, the IRA filled a toy pistol with explosive and placed it where any child might have picked it up, on the roadway outside Woolwich barracks. It blew up, injuring two women.

Against that background, it is perhaps surprising that the use of the Act in Great Britain over the last year has in general been at a considerably lower level than in earlier years. As your Lordships will know, the police can under the Act detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority, and for a further five days if my right honourable friend agrees. Since the Act came into force, and up to the end of February this year, more than 5,300 people had been detained under the Act in Great Britain, 257 in the last year. During the course of the year, 50 extensions of detention were granted beyond 48 hours in Great Britain. Under Part II of the Act, my right honourable friend has the power to exclude from Great Britain, or from the United Kingdom as a whole, those whom he is satisfied have been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. Since 1974, the police in Great Britain have made 320 applications for exclusion, of which 277 have been granted. The equivalent figures for the past year are 13 applications and eight orders signed. None of those excluded in the past year made representations to have their cases considered by one of the independent advisers, whose work my right honourable friend and Secretaries of State of all Governments, have always much appreciated.

The figures relating to the last year are the lowest for any year since the Act was introduced. But it would, I believe, be wrong to argue from that that the Act is less necessary or less effective than it has been in the past. It cannot be doubted that the powers that it provides for the police operate as a deterrent to those who would come here to commit acts of terrorism. That applies not only to those who have been excluded by my right honourable friend or his predecessors, but also to those who acknowledge the difficulty—as indeed they sometimes do, under questioning—of slipping through the port controls operated by the police. The police are themselves fully aware that while their primary task is the protection of the public, they must carry it out in such a way as to cause the minimum inconvenience to ordinary members of the public.

Your Lordships will know that a scheme was introduced in 1979 to review exclusion orders three years after they are made, if the excluded person wishes it. This provides an opportunity for those who have given up all involvement in terrorism to demonstrate this to the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend considers all such cases personally. Under these arrangements my right honourable friend has revoked nine exclusion orders since I last reported to your Lordships, and has confirmed two others. Eleven cases are currently under review. Altogether 12 exclusion orders have been revoked as a result of a 3-year review, 14 following representations to an adviser, and six for other reasons.

Most of the Act's provisions apply in Northern Ireland, as well as in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland in 1981, 495 people were arrested under Section 12 of the Act, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland granted 403 applications for extension of detention beyond 48 hours. He also excluded 11 people from Northern Ireland, or from the United Kingdom as a whole.

When my right honourable friend sought renewal of this Act in another place, he emphasised that he did so in no routine spirit, but only after the most careful consideration, and with the deepest regret that these powers remained necessary for a further year, and I echo those sentiments. The Act contains powers which those of us who care for the liberty of the individual cannot be happy to see remain on the statute book, albeit as temporary provisions only. But the list of crimes with which I began my speech will have reminded your Lordships, should such a reminder be necessary, that we are not dealing here with a normal situation. What we have is a group of very violent men and women who express their alleged sense of political grievance by means of bombs, and who do not scruple to murder and maim innocent members of the public if they believe that that will somehow further their political cause.

My right honourable friend remains convinced that for the coming year these extraordinary powers will remain a vital weapon in the fight against terrorism. But we recognise, and indeed we share, the concern expressed in both Houses over the years as to the effect of the powers on those freedoms which in this country we rightly value so highly. As my right honourable friend has announced in another place, he has decided that the time is now right to hold a review of the operation of the Act—a matter which has been raised in the House on previous renewals of the order. It will be recalled that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, carried out a most valuable review in 1978, and the present review will have the same terms of reference; namely: Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism, to assess the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, with particular regard to the effectiveness of this legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject, and to report. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe has agreed to conduct the review. The intention is that it should be completed, and the report published, before the Act is next due to lapse.

As a result of Lord Shackleton's report, a number of improvements were made to the operation of the 1976 Act. One of the purposes of my noble friend's present inquiry will be to examine how these have worked out in practice. It will also examine all the powers in this legislation, consider their use since the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reported, their benefits and drawbacks, and any complaints that have been made about them. The review will, I hope, help us all to be better informed when we discuss the question of whether the Prevention of Terrorism Act is being operated as we would wish. In the meantime, my right honourable friend and I are convinced that we continue to need the protection which the Act affords. I therefore ask your Lordships to support the Government in the Motion for renewal. My Lords, I beg to move.

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

4.5 p.m.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, the more that we are called upon to debate orders of the kind that is before your Lordships this afternoon, the more distasteful the experience becomes, and none of us relishes the prospect of debating the renewal of this temporary legislation. I have not the slightest doubt about that. We regard the legislation as repugnant, principally I suppose because of the appalling nature of the criminal acts which led to the introduction of these laws in the first place, and the acts which have been perpetrated since then and which have led to the repeated renewal of the legislation. I am sure that we are united on that. I hope, and feel certain, that we are also united in the view that these laws are unpalatable because they offend the rights, freedoms and liberties which we in this country hold dear; and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was right to acknowledge that yet again today. I should like to thank him, too, for his valuable and comprehensive survey of the operation of the Act over the past year.

Last year I said I felt that, despite our feelings of repugnance towards these provisions, the time had not yet come to abandon the legislation, and I think that that view, shared widely among so many of us, has been borne out by the further grotesque acts of violence and terrorism that we have seen in the past 12 months. Here I would join the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in condemning in the strongest possible terms the actions of the criminals responsible. We would also want to express our sense of deep sympathy for the victims and their families, and to underline what has already been said about the courage of those involved in these ghastly incidents—not least the gallant Royal Marines Lieutenant-General, Sir Steuart Pringle (to whom reference has already been made by the Minister this afternoon) whose cheerfulness and fortitude since sustaining his injuries have been an example to all, and indeed the Metropolitan Police bomb disposal officer, Mr. Kenneth Howorth, and the others involved in the incidents to which the Minister has referred.

I hope, too, that our gratitude and feelings of admiration can be passed on to all those in the emergency services in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the police, fire and ambulance services, the bomb disposal personnel, the armed forces, and others who helped to deal with, and prevent, acts of terrorism. I know that those are feelings that are shared in all parts of your Lordships' House, and by my noble friend Lord Blease and my other noble friends.

I now turn to the question of the continuance of the powers in the Act. Let me say at once that I welcome the decision of the Government to hold an inquiry into the working of the Act. However, it is a matter of regret that it has taken the Government so long to come to that decision. My right honourable and honourable friends in another place were urging that course upon the Home Secretary a year ago when the powers last came up for debate, and although we on this side of your Lordships' House did not then press for such an inquiry—for it had just been rejected in another place—we noted with some approval that that call had been made.

It is clear that a further review of the Act is overdue. In our debate last year I had occasion to point out that, as the statistics then showed, mercifully rather less use had been made during the previous year of the powers of the Act than had been the case before that, and from the figures just produced for 1981 (to which the Minister has referred this afternoon) it is clear that substantially less use of the powers of the Act has been made over the past calendar year than has been the case since the provisions were first brought in on 29th November 1974. The Minister has reviewed those figures, and I therefore do not propose to refer to them in any further detail this afternoon.

The figures for exclusion orders, too, are even more significant than the figures for detentions compared with the previous year; for whereas a year ago we were able to say that the use of detention in 1980 was well down on the previous year, exclusion orders in 1980 were about the same as in the two previous years and were more than double the numbers for 1977 and 1976. But last year, 1981, not only detention orders but also exclusion orders were well down; and, again, the number of extensions of detention, granted last year, 1981, as I think the Minister pointed out (and I quote the recent statistical bulletin published by the Home Office in January) was much lower than in the previous year. Perhaps I may just say here that those statistical bulletins, thorough as they are, are very helpful indeed.

So, clearly, there has been a very significant drop in the use of all these powers in the Act over the past year. We probably cannot say for certain why that is, but it may be—certainly I like to think it is—because of the efficient way the powers in the Act are being used and because of the deterrent effect of this legislation on the terrorist. But it could be because there are fewer acts of terrorism, which in itself could be a measure of the effectiveness of the Act, or it could be (let us face it) because the terrorist is becoming more cunning or the Act is being used less effectively, or both, though I doubt that combination of factors.

Whatever the reason, what these figures do at least is to help to justify the need for a thorough, fresh, independent inquiry into the workings of the Act. But let me acknowledge at once that it is never going to be possible precisely to evaluate or, indeed, to publicise the effectiveness of all activities connected with these matters, involving, as they do, the security of the state; nor connected with the deterrent effect of this sort of legislation, for we are never likely to know about all the crimes which have been prevented.

I would also welcome the Government's choice of the person who is to carry out this inquiry to which the Minister has referred—the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. He is a most distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, a man with an outstanding service record, and one who has also served as an armed services Minister—not unhelpful in these circumstances. Incidentally, that is a qualification he shares with the other distinguished Member of your Lordships' House to carry out an inquiry into the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts; namely, my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who, as the Minister noted, undertook the first inquiry and reported in 1978. Indeed, that was a most valuable report. Furthermore—here the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, shares another distinction with my noble friend Lord Shackleton—he is a respected former Leader of this House.

We note that the terms of reference for this new inquiry are to be the same as those laid down by my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary, Mr. Merlyn Rees, for the inquiry conducted by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. The Minister has quoted those terms of reference in full this evening, so I do not propose to quote them again, but I would just recall the opening words: Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism…". I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, will at the very least not discourage the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, from looking into the question of whether this particular piece of anti-terrorist legislation is or is not now needed at all. Even if the Home Secretary cannot quite bring himself to ask the noble Earl to examine that fundamental point in his inquiry, I hope he will not discourage him from doing so; for it is in my submission certainly open to the noble Earl to interpret the terms of reference as enabling him to look into that and to recommend accordingly.

Because, as we have seen, the terms of reference begin with those words that I quoted: Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism…"— not specifically for this particular piece of legislation against terrorism because, as your Lordships know from the fact that this very week the Taking of Hostages Bill was given the Royal Assent—in fact, only yesterday—there is other anti-terrorist legislation as well. So it is in our submission fully open to the noble Earl to consider that fundamental point if he chooses to interpret the terms of reference in that way without necessarily being specifically asked to do so, though it would he much better if he were to be either asked to do so or, indeed, as I have suggested, at least not discouraged from doing so.

The noble Earl might perhaps also be asked to consider—and here I would raise this point specifically with the Minister—whether the Act should be re-introduced as a Bill next time. This is a matter which has been suggested in our previous debates by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I have had occasion to support him more than once in this respect. In my submision it would be very useful indeed if that was another matter which could be looked into by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he comes to undertake his inquiry. Because, of course, one of the difficulties in which we always find ourselves when considering an order of this kind is that we do, as your Lordships know all too well, simply have to take it or leave it; there is no opportunity whatsoever for the amendment of it. In saying that about the review of the Act, I appreciate, of course, that the ultimate decision about whether or not to retain this legislation is for the Government and for Parliament.

I have paid tribute to a number of valued public servants tonight, and so has the Minister, and I hope I shall not be straying too far from order if I mention one other. Indeed, he has a distinguished record in helping to counter terrorist activity as well as in other respects, so your Lordships may feel that it is in fact relevant. Many of us will have been sorry to hear of the impending retirement of Sir David McNee as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and anyone who has had the good fortune to work with this outstanding officer will know of his high qualities. I should like to pay tribute to him for his splendid work for the public—indeed, for us all here in London, in Scotland and elsewhere. I wonder whether the Minister can say anything further about the advice that he may have received from the police as to whether or not the Act is continuing to prove of use and should be continued.

I have only one other point. I feel, as perhaps many of us do, that we cannot allow this moment to go by without deploring the continued support given over the past year in the United States by a small minority of people (mercifully, only a small minority of people) to the fund-raising activities of the criminals, like those in the IRA, who perpetrate these atrocities, who kill and maim innocent children, women and men, and who destroy the homes and means of livelihood of those unfortunate souls who are affected by these obscene acts. Unfortunately, we have heard more of this sort of support recently. All decent Americans abhor these money-raising activities. I hope that still more will be done by the Government, and indeed by any of us with contacts and connections there, to try to get this despicable traffic in blood money (as it can only be called) stopped.

We all look forward to the time when we no longer need to debate orders and laws of this kind. We also look forward to the report of the noble Earl, and I hope the Minister will say that he will do what he can to ensure that it is debated as soon as possible after it is ready. In the meantime, I certainly would not advise my noble friends to stand in the way of this order.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his introduction of this order. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in his condemnation of those who make the order necessary by their evil deeds, and in his praise of those with the courage to stand up to the unfortunate results. I think it is a safe assumption that no one in this House is in favour of terrorism. The order is to continue for a further 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976. Therefore it might be assumed that everyone would support it automatically, but I have heard it said that if the Russians moved into Northern Ireland then terrorism would very soon be brought under control. I believe that this highly improbable situation has an element of truth in it and it illustrates the point that one can feel that the processes of suppression of terrorism can be taken too far.

The full title of the Act whose continuance we are discussing is the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provision) Act 1976—and I repeat, "Temporary Provisions". We are worried that this Act may be treated as a permanency, something for which it was never intended. It is perhaps worth noting that virtually everyone who speaks on it, whether in this House or in another place, says that he regrets it; but Governments of both major parties press on seemingly regardless. Let me re-emphasise lest I be misunderstood that we hate the vicious action of the terrorists as much as anyone; we want to see the power of the IRA broken beyond repair. It is just that we are not convinced that the somewhat automatic approval of this order is necessarily the best way forward.

I have great respect for Mr. Gerry Fitt, Member for Belfast West in the other place, in whose considered opinion the retention of this Act on the statute book is exactly what the IRA want. This is at times a mad world, but the bombing campaign carried out in Northern Ireland at the time of the debate in another place confirmed two things. First, IRA must have wanted the order to be opposed; and, secondly, if we did not know it before, we are dealing with madmen who will use the bullets and the bomb without mercy to gain their evil ends.

Probably no one would disagree with the opinion that it would be better to be wrongly detained in a police station overnight than, as an innocent person, to be blown to bits by some mindless criminal. But we have to reassure ourselves that the civil liberties are interfered with as little as possible. I will mention here a point that I suggest is particularly disturbing. The principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty is basic to the English legal system. But I submit that under this Act is it the innocent person who must sometimes establish his case. Once detained (and although released without charge) the great majority of those held under the Act are frequently referred to by the Home Secretary as terrorists. It is a tragic result of the evil policies of the IRA that to be an Irishman can be sufficient in some cases to be held to be guilty. That is just what the IRA want.

We would not deny that the powers to make exclusion orders and the powers of detention have proved their worth and that the Act as a whole has played its part; but I must say that we are unhappy about rubber-stamping its continuance too easily, even with the review promised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. We on these Benches would prefer another course of action which was proposed by my noble friend Lord Wigoder in the debate on the renewal of the order last year and to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, referred. It was supported then, as now, by the Opposition Front Bench, as I understand it. This is that, while this Act should be allowed to remain on the statute book—it is inconceivable that we should oppose this order—there should be introduced a new Bill to take its place. This would be subject to proper parliamentary scrunity in all stages in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will look at this as a constructive proposal designed to see that any legislation serves its purpose to the full and, most important, with the minimum of interference with our civil liberties.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, having been responsible for introducing the 1974 and the 1976 Bills to the House, I should like to speak briefly and to welcome on behalf of my noble friends the decision of the Home Secretary to invite the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to conduct the inquiry. I think that four years after the inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is about right. I think that the Home Secretary has been right to ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, with his wealth of experience of public service to undertake this inquiry and I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in saying that I hope that once we have the result of that report we shall have an early opportunity of debating it in this House.

I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in paying tribute to the retiring Metropolitan Police Commissioner, though I hope that we shall have the opportunity to do so later on nearer to the date of his retirement. I think that Sir David McNee has played a notable part in the battle against terrorism in this country, and it is right to recognise that. The only other point I would make is that I have little doubt, having been involved in this matter for a number of years, that, if it had not been for the passage of the 1974 and 1976 legislation, many people now alive would be dead. That was the case for the legislation.

4.26 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the reception they have given to this order. It gives no pleasure to the Government—as it gave no pleasure to the previous Government—to introduce these orders, but we believe they are necessary. I am grateful to your Lordships for sharing that recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me a specific question about the attitude of the police to the necessity for these powers under the 1976 Act and the supplemental order. I would join with your Lordships in paying my tribute also to Sir David McNee, the retiring Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police stand in the forefront of the operations against terrorism, and Sir David has shown splendid leadership, in this respect as in every other way, during his time as commissioner.

My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, is this: The police tell the Government that the powers contained in the Act remain a vital weapon in their fight against terrorism. It might help to put it in context if I refer to a recent case where the use of the Act was instrumental in the success of a police operation. In April last year, a routine check was made at a postal sorting office in Glasgow of three parcels posted in Canada to addresses in the Strathclyde area. The parcels were found to contain arms and ammunition. After inquiries, 19 people were arrested under the powers of the Act. As a result of interviewing these people, and after extension of detention beyond 48 hours had been granted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, a further quantity of firearms, ammunition and detonators was discovered which had been destined for use in Northern Ireland by members of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Of the 19 people detained, nine were subsequently charged with offences including conspiracy and contravention of the Firearms, Explosive Substances and Prevention of Terrorism Act. Eight of the nine were found guilty and received sentences of imprisonment ranging from four years to 11 years.

That is a concrete example of the effectiveness of these powers and the use of the powers made by the police. The review which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has agreed to undertake will show us whether the powers taken as a whole are being used as we would wish and whether changes to the legislation are necessary. While the threat from terrorism remains at the current level, I believe that it would be folly to allow the powers to lapse and that is why there are the introductory words to the terms of reference which my noble friend has accepted.

I should therefore like to say, in answer to the direct question which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put to me, that taking into account that there are those introductory words which make it clear that in the Government's view it is necessary to continue to have legislation against terrorism, my noble friend's terms of reference do not preclude him from looking at possible changes in the content of the Act, nor would they preclude him from considering the question of the Act becoming a permanent part of our legislation.

May I finally say that I very much agree with Lord Boston's remarks about the dangers of arms coming across the Atlantic. Arms smuggled from the United States have been used frequently in terrorist attacks, including murders of members of the security forces and civilians. The United States Government are well aware of that, and they continue to take energetic measures to prevent such traffic. I hope that recent publicity will have brought the same point home to those who make financial contributions to terrorist front organisations.

Those are the reasons why this order again comes before your Lordships' House. It comes on this occasion with the undertaking that there is now to be a review of this legislation. I believe that is right. I am grateful to your Lordships for welcoming that.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he will accept one small correction in my own remarks I referred to the Taking of Hostages Bill as having received the Royal Assent yesterday. In fact it passed through your Lordships' House and received a Third Reading here before going on to another place to be considered there. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bishopston for that correction.

On Question, Motion agreed to.