HL Deb 21 February 1985 vol 460 cc721-48

6.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which made no comment.

This order is made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act which your Lordships placed upon the statute book not quite a year ago. Subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Act provides that it shall remain in force for 12 months from the date on which it was passed and that thereafter it can be renewed for not more than 12 months at a time. The total life of the Act is limited to five years. The purpose of this order is to provide the first renewal of the Act and so provide it with its second year of life, starting on the 22nd of next month.

When the House debated the report in Committee, a number of your Lordships were concerned that a measure which touched the civil liberties of individual citizens so closely should be subject to more than usual scrutiny once it was in operation. You felt, in particular, that the House should be informed of the way in which the authorities had used the powers which it gave them and that this information should be available before I came to the House for a renewal. When your Lordships discussed the Bill at the Report stage I undertook that an independent person of stature would be appointed to report on the working of the Bill, and that his report would be available before the debate on renewal took place. Your Lordships will know that Sir Cyril Philips was appointed last year to consider the working of the Act. His report has been received and it was placed in the Printed Paper Office last Tuesday. My right honourable friend replied to the report, and to specific points and suggestions in it, by letter and that letter was placed in the Printed Paper Office yesterday.

I think your Lordships will agree that Sir Cyril, who has had the considerable advantage of four years' experience as chairman of the Police Complaints Board, has gone to considerable lengths to do his job thoroughly. The result has, I believe, been a broad endorsement of the way in which the powers that the Act provides have been used; but it does not amount simply to blanket approval, and your Lordships will note that he has made a number of detailed comments on the way in which the Act is operated. These touch in particular on the way in which custody record sheets are maintained, on the identification of complaints made about the way the powers given by the Act are used (31), on the numbers of landing and embarkation cards that ought to be filled in, and on the way in which inquiries are made after embarkation cards have been completed.

My right honourable friend responded specifically to each of these points in the letter which your Lordships have before you, and I shall not repeat what he has said. On the fourth point, however, which deals with landing and embarkation cards, he did say that he hoped to make an announcement today. The question at issue is whether or not every passenger travelling between the Republic of Ireland or the Province of Northern Ireland and ports in Great Britain should be required to complete a landing or embarkation card. The proposal for this was made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in his report on the working of the earlier Act, and my right honourable friend has already had it under consideration. Since the recommendation was made, he has received a report from Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary on the work of the police operating the port controls provided under the Act. We welcome the thorough and perceptive study which Her Majesty's inspectors have undertaken, and the detailed recommendations in the report are receiving careful consideration. In the context of the same study, Her Majesty's inspectors were asked to assess the implications for resources of the recommendation by my noble friend that all passengers on commercial flights and sailings between Great Britain and the island of Ireland should complete landing and embarkation cards. In the light of their conclusions, and taking into account all the views that have been expressed on the security and other considerations, my right honourable friend has decided that it would not be appropriate to implement Lord Jellicoe's recommendation, and that in general a more selective use of these cards is to be preferred.

As your Lordships will recall, the present Act made a number of changes to the 1976 Act of the same name, most of which followed recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in his review of the earlier Act's operation. Your Lordships may like to have an indication of the practical results that those changes have produced. Perhaps the most significant change was the extension of the powers of arrest and detention under Section 12 of the Act to those involved in international terrorism. My noble friend drew attention to the growing threat from this source: this comprises not only terrorism that is directed deliberately at British citizens or British interests, but also the wholly unacceptable use of our country as an arena for quarrels in which we have no interest and for which we have no responsibility. The events of the past 12 months have demonstrated all too clearly that this threat has in no way abated. Only weeks after the Act was passed, we saw the foul murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in St. James's Square. In the period from 22nd March to 31st December, 44 people suspected of involvement with international terrorism were detained at the ports or inland under the prevention of terrorism legislation. In 18 of these cases my right honourable friend authorised extensions of detention beyond 48 hours. In eight cases criminal charges were brought and in 13 the person was either deported or removed under the Immigration Act 1971. In only one case in which the person was held for more than 48 hours was he released without charge and allowed to remain in this country.

During the passage of the Act the Government responded to the legitimate doubts that were raised about the scope of these new powers by giving the assurance that they would only be used when there was some prospect of a criminal charge in this country or of deportation. I believe the figures show that the police and my right honourable friend have kept very closely to these criteria. Another important change in the present Act was the introduction of flexibility to the Secretary of State's power to extend detention. Under the earlier legislation, it was possible only to authorise a single extension of five days; it is now possible to grant one or more extensions of any shorter period of up to a total of five days. Our intention was greater control of the use of extended detention so that detainees might spend less time in custody as a result. In the period to 31st December, of the 147 people held under the Act in Great Britain, 35 had their detention extended. In only 11 of these cases was there what one might call an "old style" single extension of five days; in a further 10 there were two extensions totalling five days; and in the remaining 14 there were single extensions of between one and four days. It seems that this change is having the result we hoped for from it. Your Lordships will see from the figures I have given that 112 of the people detained were held for fewer than 48 hours. And there is another change.

The current Act, unlike its predecessor, deals with international as well as Irish terrorism. In order to see the change therefore we need to look specifically at cases in Great Britain relating to Irish terrorism, for which we have figures over a number of years. If we take the total number of detentions, whether extended or not, we find that in 1975, when the use of the powers was at its height, there were 1,067. In 1984, on the other hand, there were only 159, which was in fact 32 less than in 1983 and the lowest so far. There has also been a reduction in the number of exclusion orders for Irish terrorism from 50 in 1975 to merely three last year, which is also the lowest ever and 12 less than in 1983. This continued reduction is very heartening and it will surely be welcomed by us all. But it does not mean, however, either that these powers are now unnecessary, or that the system of controls directed at Northern Irish terrorism can now be dismantled.

After a year which has seen the bombing of the Grand Hotel, Brighton, in a cold-blooded and barbarous bid to blow the democratic process in this country to smithereens, we surely need no other reminder of the constant threat posed to the mainland of Great Britain by Irish Republican terrorism. But equally, if we were to abandon these powers, we would be turning our backs on the Province itself, where that threat and its realisation are facts of daily life. In Northern Ireland, there were 908 detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1984; and in 533 of these cases extensions of detention were granted. These powers represent a vital weapon for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in their continuing struggle against the forces of violence. We have consulted the police not only in Northern Ireland, but also in England and Wales and in Scotland. They are united in their conviction that it is essential that these powers remain available to them. They are determined to win the battle against terrorism and the Government are equally determined to do all we can to support them.

The draft order that is before the House seeks to continue the Act for 12 months in its present form. It would be possible to continue only selected provisions of the Act and to allow the remainder to lapse. Last year we debated specific proposals that separate orders should be made in respect of different portions of the Act in order to concentrate attention on whether there genuinely was a continuing need for each of the various powers. I do not believe the time is yet ripe for any such piecemeal approach to this legislation. It is, as I have said, not yet a year since we completed our consideration of what was then the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. We debated it most fully and most carefully, word by word, line by line. Since then, at Brighton and in St. James's Square, we have been horribly reminded that the threat of terrorism has in no way abated. We have a package of powers that Sir Cyril's report shows are being used sensibly and with restraint when they are necessary. The changes that were introduced last year have, as I have shown, proved themselves successful. In the light of all those factors, it would be most unwise at this stage to contemplate change.

We do not ask lightly for your Lordships' approval of this draft order. It has not been introduced without real thought and genuine consideration of the continuing need for these wholly exceptional powers. The Government are convinced that they are indeed necessary, but they are convinced also that they should remain in force for not a moment longer than they continue to be necessary. On that basis I ask your Lordships to agree to the order which has been laid before you. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved.—(Lord Elton.)

6.41 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, as the noble Lord the Minister has said, the provisions of this Act were carefully debated in your Lordships' House last year. We realised then, as we realise now, that there are possibly three fundamental principles which we have to consider, and we have to see where the balance of advantage lies in regard to those principles.

The first principle is the need to contain and, if possible, to remove from our land what is perhaps one of the greatest scourges of our time: that of terrorism. The noble Lord is quite right when he reminds us of the black days which are written in our contemporary history: Harrods, Hyde Park, St. James's Square and the death of the gallant policewoman, the Libyan killings, and Brighton.

The second fundamental principle is to maintain what is possibly the greatest jewel, and the most precious one, in our national crown: that is the freedom of the subject and all our law which goes to defend it. I could not put it better than did the noble Lord the Minister on the Second Reading of what was then the Bill, on 6th February 1984, at col. 885. He said—and how I agree with him, as do all my noble friends: There is something repugnant to the British spirit in the limitations to the rights and freedoms of individual citizens which such legislation as we now contemplate necessarily provides. It is for that reason that Parliament doles out these necessary powers so reluctantly and for such short periods of time. The Home Secretary, upon whom responsibility for internal security rests, is not given these powers indefinitely, or for the duration of a particular state of affairs, or even for the life of a Parliament. Year by year the Home Secretary, and his predecessors, have had to come to the House of Commons and justify their continuance—just as I, and my predecessors, have had to come to this House to convince your Lordships that they were still necessary.". I end the quotation there, and I repeat: it is a principle; they are words with which all my noble friends, so far as I know, profoundly agree.

There is a third principle, which is the need to maintain public confidence and public co-operation in such provisions as are laid down in this Act; the need to see that that co-operation is not removed from citizens who feel that powers are being wrongly used or that wrong powers are being given. And, if I may say so, that particularly affects Irish citizens—honourable Irish citizens—both in Northern Ireland and in this country. It is a difficult matter, when you consider those three principles, to weigh the balance; so difficult indeed that I suppose it splits the views of people in various political parties. Parliament, in its wisdom tried to emphasise the need for such care before renewal approval was given to the provision of this Act when, in a Standing Committee in another place, and on a free vote, it was decided to put into the Short Title of this Bill the words "Temporary Provisions".

Another question arose when the Bill (now the Act) was discussed in your Lordships' House and the noble Lord the Minister fairly referred to these matters. Your Lordships may remember that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and, I believe I am right in saying, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others on all sides of the House, wondered whether, when we came to review the provisions of the Act and sought to see whether there should be an order to renew, there should not be separate consideration of the various parts of the legislation. I remember, as will your Lordships, too, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, moving with some eloquence, as we would expect of him, an amendment which dealt with the separate consideration by your Lordships of parts of the legislation when the review took place. On all sides of the House—and particularly, if I may say so, on this side of the House—concern was expressed on the need for review, and it is good to see that tonight we are actually participating in such review.

However, I have to remind your Lordships of a particular point, if I may. I do so without any discourtesy at all to the noble Lord the Minister, and later I shall be saying a personal word regarding my continued respect for him—a respect that all of your Lordships have. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was withdrawn upon a series of undertakings being given (as reported at col. 415 of the Hansard of your Lordships' proceedings) on the 8th March 1984, at the Report stage of the Bill. I shall be forgiven—because it is so important—if I quote the undertakings that were given. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said this: Your Lordships have undertakings that, except under circumstances that make it impossible, your Lordships will have an ample opportunity to debate the Act. Your Lordships have an undertaking that the Secretary of State will consider with great care which points from such a debate might be included in a revised order. Your Lordships have an undertaking that the debate will be conducted in the light of the report of the person we shall proceed to appoint following our debate on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11". The noble Lord the Minister then went on to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson: The noble Lord was kind enough to say what I had intended to point out to your Lordships, that that cast a different light on the need for supervision in the way that is now proposed. I hope that your Lordships, with those three substantial undertakings, will feel that you have done your job as constitutional watchdogs for the liberties of the private citizen, and will be content without this further device". The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said at col. 416—and I quote his remarks— the noble Minister's undertaking in Committee has been reinforced again just now by an undertaking he has given on behalf of the Secretary of State. For these three reasons I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment, though not for the real technical objections. I do not regard them as having any validity at all. Fairly was it said by the noble Lord the Minister that a report of how this was working out, upon which the whole of this debate was meant to take place, was put in the Library 48 hours ago; namely on Tuesday. The letter from Sir Cyril Philips dated 15th February, which accompanies the report states, As you suggested it takes the form of a personal enquiry"— this is of course addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department— intended to assist Parliament when considering any order laid before them by the Government for the continuation of the Act". Is it really good enough, when everybody is saying that this review must take place with the greatest care and with all the information before the House, and in the light of a report to be made, that that report is available to the membership of your Lordships' House only 48 hours before the debate takes place?

I wish that my complaint ended there, but it does not. This debate upon the provisions of the Act, and the question of its renewal, is taking place when, so far as I know, I may be the only person who happens to have the Tenth Report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights for 1983–84. I do not know whether anybody else has that privilege. That is a commission described by the Secretary of State in the following terms, which are quoted in the report: I greatly value the independent role of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and shall continue to look to it for advice on human rights matters generally, while taking account of the responsibilities of other statutory bodies". This report was available for the first time at three o'clock this afternoon. It has in it matters affecting the provisions of this Act, its renewal and advice and recommendations in regard to it, to which I shall refer your Lordships later. There is no opportunity at all for your Lordships to consider this important report of the commission on the working of this Act, on the question of renewal and on what ought, or ought not, to be renewed. As I said, I shall be referring to those matters hereafter.

But my first and almost poignant observation is this. It is not the way in which your Lordships' House ought to be treated, especially when—and I say this without any disrespect personally to the Minister who, I am sure, is not responsible for the delays—there have been undertakings to your Lordships' House about the possibilities of this debate affecting the mind of the Secretary of State in deciding what ought to be done in regard to the renewal of the final order, and when we were told that we would have one month between a debate taking place in your Lordships' House and in another place and the laying of the final order.

So I start with that observation and say that it is not easy to know whether one ought, in those circumstances, to oppose or approve the order on the basis which I have just mentioned. But I know that your Lordships will expect me, at all events, to deal with some of the specific points which I think ought to be borne in mind by the Secretary of State.

The first point to which I come is exclusion orders. The House will remember the concentrated debate that took place upon a provision so alien to our laws, our customs and our traditions, that people should be excluded from parts of the United Kingdom and also excluded specifically by another section of the Act from Northern Ireland. We insisted upon certain safeguards. We did not like the provision, but in the end it was maintained in the Bill with certain safeguards that were inserted in regard to it.

What are the figures? The noble Lord the Minister referred to them very briefly, but may I remind you Lordships of what was said in the report of Sir Cyril Philips? In paragraph 38 of his report he drew attention to the fact that, During 1984 three exclusion orders were made, two being in respect of persons not detained under the Act. This is a small number by comparison with recent years. There were, for instance, 15 in each of 1982 and 1983". That is an indication, one might think, of whether we really need to renew provisions relating, for example to exclusion orders.

If I merely had to leave it at that, it would be a matter for your Lordships to consider and to consider, without a recommendation from anyone, whether exclusion orders should no longer be renewed and the power to issue them should no longer be renewed. But this is the relevance of my having referred to the report of the commission which was available only at three o'clock this afternoon, while we are debating this very serious matter at around seven o'clock this evening, because this is what the commission says in paragraph 40 on page 15: We acknowledge that implementation of the Jellicoe recommendations has considerably limited the power to exclude persons from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa, but we remain unconvinced of the need for its retention. Since the passing of the Act, only three persons have been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and one from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Even in its limited form this power is, we believe, contrary to the spirit of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and to Article 12(1) (right to liberty of movement and to choose one's residence) of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Last August the Government announced that it has withdrawn its notices of derogations from both the Convention and Covenant and we hope that in this context it will now be possible to allow these extraordinary powers to lapse". I suspect that the Minister himself did not know before he walked into the Chamber, or certainly at some hour this afternoon, of the existence of this important report and this recommendation. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that if he had been aware of it he would have said, when referring to the exclusion orders and the ways of renewing them, that there was a report of a commission of the importance of the Standing Advisory Commission of Human Rights which had recommended to a senior Minister of the Crown that these exclusion orders should no longer be retained.

There are other recommendations made by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, but because of the lateness of the hour, the desire of other noble Lords to speak and the length of the agenda, if I may so term it, of your Lordships' House today, I shall be very brief about them. There is the whole question, for example, of Section 11. Again, your Lordships were very doubtful about Section 11. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this is the provision which makes it a criminal offence not to pass on to the authorities information which you happen to have which may relate to terrorist activities. We were all doubtful about that. We allowed it to go through. I was looking—I am sure your Lordships were—for something in the report of Sir Cyril Philips about how many prosecutions had been brought and whether it was necessary really to keep Section 11. I cannot see anything on that in the Philips Report. The noble Lord the Minister did not tell us how many prosecutions there had been, or what use there was in Section 11, so again I say to the House from these Benches: is there really a need to keep the powers under Section 11?

In the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, to which I have referred so many times—it is almost a mockery that I refer to it when your Lordships have had no opportunity to see this important document but are asked to come to some important decision tonight—there is also a firm recommendation that there should be integral legislation relating to Northern Ireland, because at the present moment there is this Act, there are the Emergency Powers Regulations and there is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It means there is a complete difference between the provisions that apply to England, Scotland and Wales and those which apply to Northern Ireland, and the law in regard to Northern Ireland is in such a jumble by virtue of the situation to which I have just referred.

I could go on with other matters relating to this order, but I feel that your Lordships have been patient enough and that all sides of the House will share our disappointment at the lack of time and opportunity that we have been given properly to consider whether all or part of this order should in fact go forward. It is with some dismay that I say this, having regard to the solemn undertakings that were given to this House.

7.3 p.m.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation of, and his comments on, this order, and also, indeed, for his assistance in trying to help those of us who were interested in the order to receive at the earliest possible moment the report by Sir Cyril Philips and the riposte by the Secretary of State.

The object of our proceedings this evening has been made clear particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It really arises as a consequence of the amendments that were moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and myself, when the Bill was being considered in this House, in which we endeavoured to ensure that the different parts of the Bill, or the Act as it now is, might be considered separately and renewed, if necessary, or not renewed, instead of us having to take the Act as a whole and renew it en bloc as a result of our not being able to amend the order. The Government proposed as an alternative the somewhat cumbersome procedure upon which we are now embarked, under which we apparently have a debate on the renewal order about a month before the Act is in fact due to be renewed, and the Government will then consider whether sufficiently strong representations have been made today to warrant their changing the order and reintroducing it during the next month.

That, as I understand it, is the object of the debate this evening, and I propose to confine myself entirely to that and not to embark on a consideration of any of the wider issues. We have been much helped, of course, by the report of Sir Cyril Philips, who has monitored the working of this Act. I am happy to say that that arises in the first place as a result of proposals made on the Liberal Benches in another place. I note that this Act became law on 22nd March 1984. The undertaking was given by the noble Lord the Minister before that date that there would be a monitor. So far as I can see from the report of Sir Cyril, he was not in fact appointed until December, some eight or nine months later. If that is so, perhaps that explains why, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, we have had had this report for only a matter of 48 hours. After all, Sir Cyril has been working on the matter for only some five or six weeks, and he has really done rather well perhaps to get a report ready at all in that time.

I do not particularly complain about the 48 hours. It is a short report, and I found it perfectly possible to digest it in that period. However, I cannot help wondering why there was the delay in asking Sir Cyril to take up the position in the first place, and whether the intention was not always that the monitor should be there 12 months of the year supervising the way in which the Act was working.

I come, then, to the main areas of concern in the Act in order to try to see whether there is any real case for seeking to persuade the Government that certain parts of the Act ought not to be renewed at this stage by order. I begin with a matter that has concerned us all—the provisions for detention and particularly for extended detention up to a period of seven days. I note, if I have understood Sir Cyril's figures correctly, that of those who were subject to extended detention during the year, seven of them were charged, one of them with a very serious offence. I note, on the other hand, that of those subject to extended detention, some 19 were not charged at all and in due course were set free.

I do not know—and I have made this point before, in other debates on this subject—how one draws an arithmetical balance. I accept, of course, that there must have been the gravest hardship, the gravest inconvenience and in many cases the gravest wrong to those 19 who were detained and then not charged. On the other hand, I cannot help but reflect on the number of lives that might well have been saved as a result of the fact that seven people were in due course charged because of the provisions for extended detention. In those circumstances, my own feeling at the moment is that, on the whole, the balance is in favour of leaving the provisions for extended detention in the Act for another year.

I note that in paragraph 20 of Sir Cyril's report he comments that there have been cases—"instructive instances"—in which the Secretary of State declined to grant applications for extended detention. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could assist us in due course as to the number of such cases in which there have been refusals by the Secretary of State.

The second main area about which many of us had and still have doubts concerns the exclusion provisions. One cannot help but notice—it is a very remarkable figure—that during the year only three exclusion orders have been made. I think the time may very well come within the next year or two when there will be agitation in your Lordships' House to remove that power from the Act when this order is continued. I venture to think that it might be perhaps a little premature at this stage, in the first 12 months of the Act's working. So far as I am concerned, I would not at this stage want to support any such course.

The third matter of importance is the extension of the principles involved in this Act to international terrorism. I certainly would not disagree, and did not disagree, with those proposals then. I note that some 44 people have been detained on suspicion of acts of international terrorism. Eight of those were in due course charged, and apparently 13 were deported back to their own countries. If it is not confidential information, it might be interesting if the noble Lord could tell us to which countries those 13 people were in due course returned.

The final matter in the Act which aroused much comment at the time was the provision in Section 11 making it a criminal offence not to disclose information, and about which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already commented. I assume from the fact that Sir Cyril does not mention this matter that there have been no such cases during the year. In fact, I believe there have been no such cases most years since 1976. There has only ever been the very occasional instance, usually involving a number of defendants in the one case. That strengthens the argument again that that section of the Act is unnecessary. But as we passed this Act only 11 months ago, perhaps it is a matter upon which we ought to reserve judgment at this stage.

When I consider the Secretary of State's response, there is only one matter about which I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to provide help; that is, where he deals with the subject of tape recording, Sir Cyril suggested it was important that interviews with suspects under this Act should if possible be tape recorded. The Secretary of State says that some aspects of the kind of cases dealt with under the Prevention of Terrorism Act raise particular difficulties in this context. I am not quite sure what is meant by those words. It might be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to elaborate upon them when he replies.

One's overall view of this order and of the progress made over the past 11 months is this: first, we passed a new Act of Parliament only 11 months ago after—as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—very careful discussion and debate in your Lordships' House. In principle, it would be wrong—unless a very strong case was made out of the evidence—to make alterations to a new and carefully considered piece of legislation so quickly.

My second conclusion is that the legislation is effective at the moment. I do not mean effective in the sense that it will ever provide a long-tem solution to the dreadful problems of Northern Ireland; however, it appears to be having an appreciable effect in our fight against dangerous, desperate and evil men. In those circumstances, there seems to me to be no sufficient evidence at this stage to warrant asking the Government to take this order away and to amend it, so that particular sections may be omitted from the renewal process. On this first occasion, I am certainly prepared not to oppose the renewal of this order.

7.13 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his concluding words. Whatever doubts or anxieties any of your Lordships may have as to particular provisions of the Act, it is a very new Act, to which this House directed close and detailed attention not very long ago. It has not been operating very long, and the independent report upon it by Sir Cyril Philips certainly does not appear to me to reveal any serious or severe failures in it. Therefore, whatever your Lordships or the Government may decide to do in future years, it would seem that, on this occasion, to seek to dismember the Act to some extent would be at the very least premature. I therefore find myself wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is perhaps the most skilled debater in this House; and the skill with which he fastens on any weak point in his opponent's case was demonstrated right at the beginning of his speech when he took the wholly reasonable point—with which I have complete sympathy—that it is a pity that we should have received Sir Cyril Philips' report only 48 hours before discussing this order. However, as the noble Lord said, it is not a very difficult document. Most of us with any experience of digesting documents would not have taken long to digest it. But it is true that many noble Lords have other preoccupations and commitments, and so I would say to my noble friend that it seems to me somewhat inconvenient that this document could not be made available somewhat earlier. On that limited point, I found myself not in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.

I would quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he spends a great deal of time, and lays much emphasis, on the report of the Standing Commission on Human Rights. I am not very sure how much experience the distinguished personages who serve on that commission have of the problems of dealing with terrorism. I rather suspect that they are, from that point of view, inhabitants of an ivory tower. The brutal realities of terrorism—Irish and international—with which we have to cope today are a new factor of recent years in the whole situation of the Western World. It is not possible to adhere to some of the old high principles of the past in the face of the kind of attacks to which we are subjected at the moment.

The noble Lord will recall the old tag, inter arma silent leges—and it must be the case that the highest and most liberal of principles need to be examined very critically, and perhaps their operation suspended, when society is faced with the kind of situation with which our society has been faced. We seek to renew this order at the end of a most ghastly year. I will not describe the many incidents because other noble Lords have already done so. But within a matter of months of the attempt to destroy the British Government at Brighton—a brutal, calculated attempt (as the noble Lord opposite said) to destroy democratic government—is it not inconceivable that your Lordships should decide to abandon any of the limited restrictions on normal liberties involved in the order?

It is utterly unrealistic to believe that we can cope with that kind of subtle onslaught under the normal principles of English law by which we are bound. It is necessary to take some exceptional powers. But in looking at these powers, my noble friend, Lord Elton, might well say, with Warren Hastings, "I am astonied at my own moderation". There are very few countries in the world who, faced with a similar situation, would be so moderate or restrained. Can noble Lords envisage what would happen in the Soviet Union if an attempt had been made to assassinate the Presidium and if bomb attacks had been made on every outside activity thought to be vulnerable? There would not be very much careful weighing of the extent to which liberties might have to be suspended. There would have been action far more downright than this.

I am not suggesting that we should in this respect, or in any other, seek to emulate the Soviet Union—but it is significant that we in this country, faced with such a situation, should still be worrying ourselves quite a bit about such moderate and modest restrictions. Let us take the exclusion orders. Great play was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of the fact that only three have been made under the Act. Whatever else that shows, it certainly would seem to show that the power to make those orders had not been abused. It has been exercised with great moderation. However, that is not necessarily an argument for giving away the power. It may indeed have some deterrent effect. It is certainly causing—if any hardship or unfairness—only hardship and unfairness on a minimal scale. In so far as it has been so moderately used, that would appear to be an argument equally susceptible to the view that it had been exercised with the kind of moderation that one would expect of our authorities in this country.

We are faced with an order for renewal of the whole of the temporary provisions of this measure. It seems difficult to see how, faced by the situation with which we are faced—by the horrors that have been and the horrors that may well be to come—any responsible legislature could do other than say at least for another year that it must be continued and continued in full.

7.21 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I have read with interest the debates that your Lordships had in this Chamber on the subject of the Bill, as it was then, during its passage through the House last year. I have also read—admittedly only in the past hour or so—the report by Sir Cyril. I have not as yet, because I heard about it only a few moments ago, had the ability to read the report of the Standing Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. If I take, as I do, the quotes which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave in regard to that report, I find it very disturbing that we do not have it in front of us today, or—should I say?—that we have not had it made available to us in due time to consider it with our deliberations today.

I must also bring to my deliberations on this subject my experience of the world about us. As your Lordships may be aware, outside this hallowed Chamber I am an ordinary citizen. I have an ordinary job. I mix with, one might say, normal people. I have none of the trappings of wealth or pomp and circumstance to set me apart from the community. I am glad. I meet and converse with a wide variety of people—English people, of course, and Scots, Welsh and Irish; Conservatives, Socialists and Liberals; authoritarians and civil libertarians.

I must advise your Lordships at this stage that from what I have read and heard from my community, I believe the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 to be a bad Act. I shall do everything in my power to oppose its continuance. I shall address myself to a few specific features of the Act and try to explain why I seek your Lordships' support in opposing it. It allows for the penalty of banishment without benefit of judicial procedure or right of appeal. It allows for detention without trial, or even charge, for seven days. It is discriminatory against Irish people, and I believe that it fosters terrorism.

Many centuries ago the barons of this land—one might say the natural antecedents—met at Runnymede, just a few miles up the river from here, and curtailed the absolute powers of the executive of that time. I believe that it would be a good thing if we did something similar today.

Such powers as imprisonment without trial and banishment were used by Germany, Italy and Spain during their Fascist periods in this century. But I suspect—and I am no legal authority; I am an engineer by profession—that even they were subject to judicial review, even though their judiciary may have been very much emasculated during those periods. Here I must remind your Lordships that the fight against Fascism did not begin in 1939 but started in the early 1930s; and that from 1945 until the death of Franco we had a Fascist regime in Spain, and a brief but devastating resurgence of Fascism in Greece during the period of the Colonels' Junta. I have a great aunt who was a citizen of Italy, who can testify about living as an exile from her country during the period of Fascism in Italy. It is interesting that her most prized possession of that period was a box which contained the wherewithal to make forged papers.

I hope that I shall not be misconstrued in my statements just now. I do not argue that we have descended to a Fascist regime in this country, but we must be aware that such powers as are contained in the Act in front of us take us part way down the very slippery slope towards such a state. We must be aware of perceptions as well as realities. That this Act is discriminatory against Irish people is a reality.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for this contribution during the Committee stage of the Bill last year. At col. 892 of Hansard of 23rd February 1984, he quoted the case of the Nazi parson liable to internment under regulation 18B in force during the great patriotic war. That was Hitler's war. With your Lordships' leave, I shall quote the noble and learned Lord: but we did put the case to him so that he could answer, put his views forward and we could understand and go through it. But we did put the case to him and we acted as much judicially as we possibly could, consistently with the security of the state". I refer also, as reported further down the column, to the case of Mark Hosenball, when he was subject to deportation on the request of the CIA. The noble and learned Lord said: It is quite true that there was an inquiry, I think it was a tribunal". That was how an Englishman and an American were treated, and yet 275 Irish people have been banished without any form of justification being offered or without having any judicial inquiry into their specific case.

While on the subject of advice from our noble and learned colleagues, I wonder whether I may raise two questions. I do not know whether it will be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or some other noble Lord in our Chamber, to answer these questions, but I pose them in the hope that answers may be forthcoming. Apart from the powers of the Secretary of State to deport aliens and those powers contained in the immigration Acts, when did banishment by the executive last occur? I suspect it was probably before the Middle Ages. Also when did banishment by due process of law last occur? I suspect that that was probably in the last century when deportation to Australia was still part of the criminal statutes. However, it might be interesting to have answers to those questions.

My final and most compelling reason for opposing this order tonight is that the Act is counter-productive. In some circles it is even hailed as the, "Promotion of Terrorism Act". May we consider for a moment the effect of the worst provisions of this Act? As has been quoted before, 275 people have been banished under either the terms of this Act or alternatively those of the predecessor Acts. Here I must make the point that we are not just discussing an Act that was passed in isolation last year.

Lord Elton

My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to give way?

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, may I just finish this point? We are talking about legislation which has been on the statute book continuously since 1974, under the heading of "Temporary Provisions".

Lord Elton

My Lords, if the noble Lord has finished with, what he is pleased to term "banishment", there is no point in this intervention. If he proposes to go on, I should like to point out that banishment is being sent away from your home and that is prevented from happening under the Act.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, I find this very curious. I am trying to understand how, if someone is excluded from the United Kingdom, that is not banishment from his home. Can people take their homes with them somehow?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I probably should not keep intervening. However, if the noble Lord reads the Act he will find that it applies to different parts of the United Kingdom and cannot be applied to the part in which a person lives.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I have read the Act. So far as I can gather, my understanding is that an exclusion order can be served on someone who, for example, lives in Birmingham, to make him go to Northern Ireland. Am I wrong?

Lord Elton

My Lords, that is wrong, yes.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, then I am thankful for that intervention. I must admit I appear to be labouring under a misapprehension. The powers under these Acts appear not to apply to the Secretary of the State forcing someone to live where he does not wish to live. Is that the correct interpretation of the Act?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I do not think the rules of procedure allow me to conduct a sort of Committee stage exchange with the noble Lord. The facts are as I have given them. If I have anything to add, I will add it in my reply to this debate.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I must admit that I appear to be labouring under a misapprehension. I apologise to the House if that is the case.

As I was saying, 275 people have been subject to detention without charge and trial and subject to exclusion orders. If we can make the assumption that each of those people will have on average two children, we are dealing with a situation where 550 children are affected. If the person subject to these powers is innocent of any involvement in terrorism, then I submit that he will be very aggrieved by these procedures and I should not blame them for beginning to listen to the propaganda promoted by the terrorists. If, on the other hand, he is inclined to terrorism, I suggest that being subject to these kinds of power would only reinforce his attitude to the British Government.

I have three small children. I do not want them, in 15 or 20 years' time, to be subjected to the kind of terrorism with which we are faced today on the basis that we have apparently caused injustice to people in the Irish community. I think we have a duty to people outside this House who seek to support human rights and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, to do what we can to demonstrate our belief in those principles and to argue it for them in this House, but, at the same time as arguing for them, to demonstrate our support by, if you like, going through the Lobbies. That is one of the reasons why I should have sought to divide the House this afternoon.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has introduced the fact that the report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland has not been available in time for this House to take it into consideration in its deliberations on this order in front of us tonight. In view of that, I trust that the Government will not push this order to a Division tonight, in the hope that, following the full availability of the necessary papers, a better consideration of the order can be given by your Lordships.

7.37 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, my intervention will be very brief. I confess that I was drawn into taking part in the debate mainly because of my anxiety on the score of the official attitude of the Labour Opposition. That is not to say that I have any quarrel with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has already said, was delivered with his customary skill and moderation.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Skill, anyhow.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

However, as the noble Lord well knows, in the other place the official Labour Opposition has stated that it intends to divide against the order. I feel that that is a most unfortunate thing to be happening on a measure of this kind, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon and others, have rightly said, we have to try to hold a delicate balance—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put it quite eloquently—between the liberty of the subject and the safety of life and limb of the community. In the event, he made a cogent point that we did not have the report of the human rights comission. That is a fair point. It would have been desirable. As my noble friend Lord Elton his already been told, it would also have been desirable if we had had the report of Sir Cyril a little earlier. However, it is a pretty simple report and even I could take it in in 48 hours.

I feel concerned that there should be this division between parties on something which I feel goes right to the heart of the safety of the whole community—both the safety and liberty of the subject and the safety of life and limb.

I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The noble Lord has made a speech. He obviously feels very deeply about this and he has even had the benefit of a short seminar from my noble friend on the Front Bench about what the law is on the matter, from which I hope he will have benefited. However, his final comment was that he had three children who he was worried about preserving from the injustices this order might contain. The Government have a responsibility to be concerned about preserving those three children and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, from being destroyed altogether by one of these bombs. That is the reality that we live with today.

It is not of course just the bombings by Irish bombers. Unhappily today, as we see by the Libyan example, terrorism works on an international scale. Certain religious sects think nothing of suicide if they can achieve their end by destroying something that is a symbol of the society or of a nation they do not like. Goodness knows! we have seen this on an appalling scale in Lebanon over recent years. It occurs in other countries in the Middle East. And some of these people come here. We really have to defend the community against such things. As my noble friend rightly said, not only do we want to defend ourselves but also we do not want our country to become a battleground for others to come and fight out their quarrels.

These powers are directed to a very practical necessity. That is really the only point that I wish to make. Other noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have dealt ably and fairly with the issues mentioned in the admirable report by Sir Cyril. I should like to thank him. I have found the report most helpful. It gives us a clear picture of what is happening. As years go by, we shall get an even clearer picture. It is however fair to say that, at the end of it, we would feel justified—I certainly would—in supporting my noble friend and enabling him to get his order and to proceed with it for another year.

Exclusion is of course a desperately serious punishment to inflict on anyone. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in saying thank goodness that there were only three. That is much to be welcomed. It is evidence of moderation as well as evidence of the fact that the day may perhaps come when we can get rid of this power altogether. All of us would be very glad. However, we certainly want at least another year before we consider shedding that powerful additional safeguard.

With those few remarks, I support my noble friend and express the most sincere wish that noble Lords opposite, with their wisdom and moderation, may be able to influence their right honourable and honourable friends in another place so that, for another year, we might collectively, on all sides, be able to support the measure and show that it has the support of the whole community.

7.43 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, in previous years, in common with other noble Lords, I have expressed concern about the impact of this Act on community relations. I hoped that this would have been a matter to which Sir Cyril Philips gave some attention. I hoped that he would consult not only organisations connected with community relations in Northern Ireland and the Irish associations in England but also organisations connected with refugees and with Commonwealth citizens. It is not clear from his introductory letter or from paragraph 2 of his Report that he has extended his consultations beyond what he calls officials and the police. However, that is not the main issue that I wish to examine.

I should like to turn to the relative inefficiency of the Act in so far as it concerns Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, listed the major explosions that we have experienced in recent years. I can claim, I think, to have suffered from the Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombs in that they torpedoed a modest amendment that I was attempting to move in your Lordships' House that very afternoon. None of these explosions was prevented by the mere existence of the Act.

The Act, of its nature, must be something of a broad and blunt instrument. If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, can say in his reply that it is now being used with the precision of a stiletto, that will be extremely welcome. The fact, however, remains that no fewer than 5,905 people have been formally detained since 1974 under the Act and its predecessors. That is an average of about 600 people a year. But 87 per cent. of those people were subsequently released without charge. Only 5.6 per cent. of those detained were convicted of any offence after detention, and a mere 2.25 per cent. received a custodial sentence of more than one year. I am well aware that crude percentages of this kind are not entirely conclusive. Nevertheless, I feel that they are indicative.

I come to the question of port powers. One can well understand that the duties of police officers and customs and immigration personnel at the ports must, of their nature, be boring and difficult to interpret in a humane way. Nevertheless, I see a danger that people passing through the ports—shall we say?—dressed in jeans and with long hair, are the ones who are detained. They appear to conform to the stereotype of the revolutionary, while the bomber who is disguised in a three piece suit and is perhaps equipped with a rolled umbrella and briefcase, may so easily slip through. I should like to question just how effective these port powers are, given that there is, first, a very nearly open and very long border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and secondly, that there is somewhat open access to all the British coasts by fishing boats, yachts and other pleasure vessels not to speak of the possibilities of light aircraft making landings rather further inland.

Finally, I should like to re-emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and ask the Government whether they will consider and act on chapter 4 of the tenth report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which was only published this morning. In particular, will they look most carefully at paragraph 40 concerning exclusion powers? Will these powers be allowed to lapse following the withdrawal of the previous derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights that took place last August? I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the points that I have so far made. I should like to add another and to apologise to the noble Lord for not giving him notice of it. I refer to the impact of this Act and of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act on training of police forces. Will he ensure that adequate instruction is given so that powers are not exceeded and so that innocent persons whenever possible are not arrested or detained?

7.48 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I will begin by making a few comments on the last two speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked, at the beginning of his speech, why Sir Cyril Philips had not consulted a number of people before submitting his report to the Home Secretary. That may be a reasonable point—but of course subject to one rather important qualification. That is, as my noble friend Lord Wigoder pointed out, that Sir Cyril Philips was appointed in only December of last year. He has had six or seven weeks in which to write this report. In my view, he has done a notably successful job in producing such a high quality report in so limited a period of time. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be able to say why Sir Cyril was not appointed until December.

As to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, with which I very much agreed, the noble Lord called for a spirit of bipartisanship on this measure. I very much agree. It is a great pity that in the House of Commons this has become a party issue. The Act was brought in by a Labour Government. And so was the exclusion power. This is a point which we should always keep at the forefront of our minds when discussing this question.

It is important to come now to what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said in his interesting speech. I fear that I am not able to agree with the general thrust of his argument. It was introduced because of the very substantial loss of life that took place in the public-house bombings in Birmingham. The Home Secretary met his advisers the following Sunday. He produced the draft Bill to the Cabinet on Monday morning and it was put through Parliament in that week, going through all its stages in this House on the Thursday. On the Friday morning the powers were brought into operation at all ports and airports in this country. I think that says something for the spirit of bipartisanship we had at that time. I repeat that I hope very much we will stop this process of dividing the country along party lines on matters of this kind, which are so central to the security of every man, woman and child living in Britain.

The only other points I should like to make refer to the report of the Standing Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to study this report, but certainly I shall do so. Whatever it may have said on the exclusion order power, I think it is only right to remember that these matters have been investigated with great thoroughness, first by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and then by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who went into this matter in infinitely more detail than the Standing Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland could possibly have done. If I may say so, on this point I agree with the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.

I think it is quite clear that, without the powers which are contained in this Act, we would have to face the situation that a number of people who are now alive would be dead; it is as simple as that. I can speak as a Home Office Minister to whom these matters were referred when the 1974 Act first went on the statute book. I must tell the House quite bluntly that the evidence before us was quite overwhelming: that the people who were excluded were in fact involved in a conspiracy to create explosions, to make attacks in this country and to cause loss of life. The reason we had to use exclusion order powers—we should have preferred to use the criminal law—was that, although the evidence was unmistakable, some of this evidence came from sensitive sources which it would have been quite impossible to produce in an open court.

Even if the court hearings had been in camera, there would have been substantial problems, because there would have been a risk that some of the sources of information would have been revealed; and if those sources had been disclosed, those people would have been killed by the IRA. Again, it is as simple as that. That being so, it seems quite clear that these powers are necessary. Speaking for my noble friend Lord Wigoder and myself, and those on these Benches, I can say that if the noble Lord, Lord Monskwell, does divide the House—I hope very much that he does not—we shall certainly go into the Lobby in favour of the order.

Now I should like to come briefly to two other matters which, if I may, I shall describe as concerning non-IRA violence, non-IRA terrorism. First, there is the question of the Libyan students. As one of those who was extremely critical—and, I may say, remains critical—of the way in which we tolerated the establishment of the revolutionary embassy in St. James's Square, I welcome very much the fact that the Act has now been extended to deal with terrorism which has as its basis terrorism outside Northern Ireland. Certainly after the kind of evidence we heard yesterday at Manchester Crown Court about the threat which is represented in this country by Libyans trying to murder opponents of Colonel Gaddafi it seems to me self-evident that powers of the kind we have on the face of this Act are highly necessary.

Lastly, there is a question which I should like to put to the noble Lord. I am not asking him to give an answer tonight, because I have not given him notice, and he may well prefer to deal with it by correspondence. I refer to the general problem of terrorist violence in the European Community. This, as we know, has been growing at an alarming rate during the last 12 months. We have seen for the first time some co-ordination between the terrorist groups operating in France, in Germany, in Belgium and in Italy. As a result of an initiative by the last Labour Government, in 1975 the Government put to the European Council, meeting in Paris, a proposal that there should be regular meetings of European Ministers of the Interior to discuss problems facing police forces and security organisations within the EEC. I assume that these meetings have been continued, at both ministerial and official level, since then.

If I may say so, nothing has been clearer in recent weeks than the scale of the very dangerous threat to which we are now likely to be subjected through the increasing scale of terrorist violence on the mainland of Europe. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is that I hope very much that the initiative launched in December 1975 has been followed up with energy by the Government and that the important consultations between Community partners are continuing.

Having said that, as I have indicated, and as my noble friend Lord Wigoder has indicated, given the fact that this Act was put on the statute book in its present form only last year, in our opinion it would be far too early to consider any substantial amendment to it. Therefore, if by chance there is a Division tonight, we shall vote with the Government.

7.58 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, it had not been my intention to speak in this debate tonight. It is less than two years since my home was burnt in the city of Belfast, in Northern Ireland, and I had to take up residence in this country. With every day that passes I find that I see the troubles in Ireland with a completely new perspective. I never realised the pressures under which I was living in Northern Ireland until I had left. No longer is my home attacked by petrol bombs and by bricks and bottles, and no longer do I live under the threat of the IRA because I was opposed to each and every one of its actions.

As I say, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I want to put something on record in regard to the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Act by the former Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, in 1974, in the wake of the terrible bombings in Birmingham. It was emergency legislation. I was opposed to emergency legislation because I lived in Northern Ireland under the Special Powers Act. It was there before I was born and it has been there for all the years I have lived. I have never gone into the Lobby in support of emergency legislation, and certainly I shall not be going into the Lobby tonight.

The comments that have been made tonight by my noble friend Lord Monkswell bring me to my feet. His remarks were made with great intensity. He said that this Act seems to discriminate against Irish people. As I stand here tonight, I believe that I am the only Irish-born Member of this House present; I leave myself open to contradiction. There are other Irish people in this House, including two former Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland, and another person who at present represents it. My noble friend Lord Monkswell said that this Act seems to discriminate against Irish people. It does do so, and that is why I opposed it on so many occasions in another part of this building. However, I point out to my noble friend that it was Irish people—and I say this with a sickening feeling in my stomach, and with a great deal of regret—who were responsible for the terrible bombings (and I do not put them in any chronological order) in Birmingham and at Harrods, Chelsea Barracks, the Old Bailey and Hyde Park, for the murder of Airey Neave and for the bombs that were placed in the Tower of London—and even then I have given a very short list. There was the bomb which exploded on the bus just outside Manchester, and which killed a lot of young servicemen and their wives and children. For the incidents which I have not been able to remember tonight I apologise, because all those incidents left behind bereaved fathers and mothers, daughters and sons, wives and children.

The IRA, as was said recently in Belfast, are responsible for this Act being placed on the statute book. Everyone with a television at their disposal will have seen the events that took place over the weekend, and only today. Had I been determined to vote against the continuation of this legislation tonight, as I have done in the Commons over many years, I would have been prevented from doing so by recalling the events of last Sunday outside Armagh Cathedral, when a prison warder was brutally and callously murdered in front of his own two children. Only this afternoon a young policeman was murdered in Killyleagh. This Act is an attempt to isolate the people who are guilty of such terrible murders.

I recognise that in legislation such as this the innocent will suffer. That is why I have always opposed this type of legislation. My noble friend Lord Mishcon has said that he is opposed to the exclusion orders which are part of this legislation. I have always opposed them as well, because it is my honest belief that people have been excluded from this country who have absolutely no involvement with terrorism. It is also my honest belief—and I hope to have an opportunity to raise it in this House—that people have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment in this country in the wake of the hysterical atmosphere created by a whole set of IRA terrorist circumstances. I express those reservations now.

However, I say to my noble friend Lord Monkswell that it is not easy to envisage all the consequences of this legislation. There are noble Lords on either side of this House who have a conscience about human rights. I refer immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He is an Englishman who lives in England. He does not live in Belfast or in any other part of Northern Ireland where one listens to the news every hour and one listens to the sirens of the fire brigades and the bomb disposal squads. I say to my noble friends on this side of the House as well that one has to live in that atmosphere before one can be truly aware of the tragic situation which exists in Northern Ireland.

I can quite understand and fully sympathise with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Monkswell when he says that he is interested in human rights. I am interested in human rights as well. I do not need to have an NCCL brief sent to me. Some of the people on the National Council of Civil Liberties who draw up briefs to send to Members in the House of Commons and to my noble friends in this House are people who have never set foot in Northern Ireland, who have never heard an explosion or who have never seen the mangled remains of someone who has been killed. I am not going to accept a brief which has been sent to me by some of those organisations.

I refer again to my noble friend Lord Monkswell, who has said that he is interested in human rights. All those people to whom I have referred, including the policeman who was killed this afternoon, also had human rights. The warder who was killed coming from his Holy Mass on Sunday with his two little children also had human rights. All the people who have been murdered had human rights, and to my mind their human rights are far more paramount than the reading of a brief sent to me by someone who has never lived under such circumstances.

As I have said, it was not my intention to speak in this debate tonight. I have always opposed emergency legislation. However, the one thing which will keep me out of the "No" Lobby, irrespective of the sentiments expressed by my noble friend, is the fact that this evening there is an RUC man lying dead for committing no crime other than carrying out his duty. There is a warder who was buried only yesterday for doing exactly the same thing. I detest legislation such as this, but I detest even more the people who make it necessary.

8.7 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the importance of the subject with which we are dealing, and the deep emotional chord of personal experience which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just struck, would make this a suitable occasion for the measured oratory of a prepared speech in reply. However, my duty is to reply as best I can to the questions and, if I may say so, to the charges which have been raised during the course of this debate, and I shall stitch them together out of the material which I have for that purpose.

I suppose I should begin with the point with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, led after an introduction of great responsibility in which he pointed to the difficulty of balancing one issue against another and the prime concerns which we should have in striking that balance. Within the imcomparably thick velvet of his glove was the noble Lord's mailed fist when he reminded your Lordships of my undertaking to this House less than 12 months ago and suggested that I had in some way—he was kind enough to say it was not at my own choice—failed to honour it in full, or had at least been discourteous to the House. Others of your Lordships have reflected that view.

Let me start by telling your Lordships what it was that Sir Cyril Philips was appointed to do, and why it was intended that he should be appinted not at the beginning of the operation of this Act but late on in its operation, by quoting the exact words which I used in the undertaking that I gave on 8th March last year. I said: Without attempting to curtail his role, I shall describe what he would do and how he might do it. First, he would not be an appellate authority. It would not be his task to say that the extension of the detention of Mr. Smith was wrong but that of Mr. Jones was right. It would be his task to look at the use made of the powers under the Act. To consider, for example, whether he saw emerging any change in the pattern of their use which required to be drawn to the attention of Parliament. To enable him to see such a pattern"— and I ask the noble Lord to pay particular attention to this sentence— and to contain his workload, we envisage that he should carry out his work in a concentrated period once a year to provide a snapshot of the use made of the powers". [Official Report, 8/3/84; col. 405.] In that debate I undertook that we would hold the debate a month ahead of renewal. Your Lordships are aware that that leaves only 11 months of the Act to run before we have the debate. It was important that we should have the right man, and I am certain that we have him. Your Lordships only have to read his biography reference, if you have not met him to know that. We appointed him in December. Had he reported earlier, it would have been a report not on 11 months but on 10. Your Lordships are entitled to say that that is what you wanted; but it was not what I undertook to give you.

We have therefore had a very short time in which to present his report. It was received on the 15th February, which is Friday of last week, and my right honourable friend placed it in both Houses by Tuesday, having read it over the weekend, and he replied the following day. I greatly regret if your Lordships find that discourteous. It was certainly not intended to be so. I believe that the work done was properly done. I believe that to have started it sooner would have reduced its value, and to have received it sooner would not have been possible. Therefore, while I regret the shortage of time—and your Lordships might want us to play it a different way next time—it seems to me that I honoured both the letter and the spirit of the undertaking.

The second charge which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, courteously made against me was that there was completely inadequate time to consider the Tenth Annual Report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights for Northern Ireland. That report deals exclusively with Northern Ireland affairs. It covers a period of 12 months ending on 31st October last year. It is printed in a volume of 111 pages, of which rather fewer than two are devoted to the workings of the Act, which I am asking your Lordships to review. We do not control the date at which it is published because the Standing Committee is independent and its arrival today is a coincidence. I should have found it even more upsetting had it arrived tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is about to tell me that it was forwarded under a letter dated 7th December. That is perfectly true and this is also a document published by the Stationery Office in great detail, and I am told that that is the time that it takes to produce. I freely admit that I had given no thought to the availability of this document for this debate because so far as I can discover, it has never been referred to in earlier debates on previous legislation in this context. The fault is mine; but, on the other hand, it is two short pages and the most pungent parts have been ably quoted to your Lordships at dictation speed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.

As I am on the subject of this report, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked why various people were not consulted. I refer him to the very first paragraph of the report of Sir Cyril Philips. He says: For this purpose I have drawn on three main sources—the relevant statistics and some hundreds of official files of cases, and my personal consultations with police and officials concerned. Those the noble Lord acknowledged. Secondly, consideration of the role of the Home Secretary and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, the views of interested people and groups including those Members of Parliament who have approached me and the officers of the National Council for Civil Liberties and of the Cobden Trust who have been monitoring the operation of this Act. I believe that he was remarkably thorough in the time available to him.

I revert to the report of the Standing Advisory Committee for a moment because it has been mentioned. There was a remark that there has been one exclusion order from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. My advice is that there were two exclusion orders from Northern Ireland, one in July and one in September, and both were exclusions from the whole of the United Kingdom. There were only three exclusion orders the other way round. Three exclusion orders were made despite the very small numbers in 1984, which we welcome. There remain some 240 extant exclusion orders. The Government would certainly not be happy for the subjects of many of those orders to be allowed to return while the present level of threat continues.

Under the present Act all new orders have a limited life and orders under the earlier legislation are now due to expire in March 1987. We shall be reviewing each case carefully in the next two years, and I assure your Lordships that a fresh order will be made and exclusion maintained only where there are very cogent grounds to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, predicted, there have been no prosecutions under Section II of the Act. It is a section which is rarely used and it has been the subject of wide debate. I shall not dwell on this because I dwelt on it at length in Committee on the Bill, but may I say to your Lordships that we believe that its power is largely deterrent and that its existence on the statute book improves the supply of information.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked specifically about tape recording. As my right honourable friend said in his letter to Sir Cyril, he will be deciding as soon as possible whether interviews with people detained under this Act should be included in the tape recording field trials. While it is clearly desirable that a person so detained should, so far as possible, enjoy the same safeguards as anyone else in police custody, there are a number of particular difficulties. For example, a copy of the tape made is given to the defence. There is provision for it to be edited to remove sensitive material, but even an edited tape would suggest the extent of a terrorist's co-operation with the police and lay him open to reprisals from his colleagues. There is a clear risk of deterring confessions and the giving of incriminating information.

On the figures for extensions of detention in a more refined form, I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as I shall, if it proves proper for me to do so, on the subject of the destinations of those deported.

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested that we were harassing the Irish. I can assure the noble Lord that, in spite of the roll of dishonour which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, repeated in part a moment ago, there is no question of the Act being used to harass the Irish community in Great Britain. It is a measure designed to protect innocent people of all racial and religious groups from the activities of a minority who seek to promote political change through violence. I refer the noble Lord to what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said earlier.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested that there was harassment of stereotypes, and the noble Lord drew a stereotype of a man in jeans and a ragged beard, suggesting that the intelligent terrorist would wear a bowler hat and a well-pressed suit. If the noble Lord had travelled on the shuttle as often as I have, he would have noticed that there is sartorial continuum among those who are detained by the police at all, who are as wise as he is to the tricks of the infidel. I instantly regret that word; it has a religious connotation. I mean the tricks of those who seek to do terrible things in this country.

The police controls at ports are necessary and they are necessarily selective. Those operating them are certainly well aware that terrorists are likely to adopt different forms of dress. I am saying in someone else's words what I said a moment ago in my own words and although they may be better, I shall spare your Lordships' repetition.

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked why a person who is excluded does not have access to judicial review. Where the power of exclusion is used, much of the evidence against a person is such that it cannot be produced in court. The case may rely heavily upon sensitive intelligence which could easily be traced back to its source if it became known to the subject of the exclusion order or to his friends and associates. This would prejudice the source and even in extreme cases lead to the death of the informant. I ask the noble Lord, who reminded us about his children, to remember the children of those who might die as a result. Other police operations and the flow of information which leads to convictions in the courts might also be adversely affected.

Nonetheless, people subject to an exclusion order can make representations in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The function of the advisers is to protect the interests of the subject of an exclusion order by ensuring that any representations he makes are given an impartial second scrutiny following which my right honourable friend personally reconsiders the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the derogation which had been removed from the ECHR protocol. I note that the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights for Northern Ireland welcomed this decision. We do not believe that any changes are required in United Kingdom law as a result. The withdrawal of the derogations took account of the fact that legislation on internment and on detention without trial is no longer in force, and the view of the Government that remaining emergency powers are consistent with international law.

Your Lordships want to conclude this. Since others have been kind enough to quote my speech of 6th February 1984 I shall quote another part of it (col. 931): One of the paradoxes of democracy is that, in order to defend its essential components from those who seek to destroy them entirely, it is from time to time necessary to constrain some of those components themselves. Here there is a question of balance; for it is not much consolation to be free if, as a consequence, you are also dead". That is the question of balance in your Lordships' hands. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will not ask your Lordships to strike that balance, because I do not believe that it would be consonant with the normal way we conduct things. It is of course for him, but I ask your Lordships under no circumstances to deny to Her Majesty's Government and the security forces the powers which they need to protect your Lordships and your kindred from terrible things.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for giving way at this point.

Lord Elton

I have not.

Lord Denham

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, wishes to intervene, there is a formula. He says, "Before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer the following question?".

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he answer the following point? I should like to say to the House in passing that I apologise if any inconvenience and upsetting of the normal channels has been forthcoming. I make the point that I shall seek to pursue my case if the noble Lord gives me the answer that he would fail to withdraw the order.

Lord Denham

My Lords, this is getting to be a little more than a conventional intervention. Before my noble friend finally replies and then sits down, I think the noble Lord may not be aware that if he divides the House on an order without having given notice that he is going to do so he is breaching a convention which has never been breached before in this House. Personally, I would take it very hard if such a convention were breached.

It was agreed by all parties for this reason. Divisions on orders very seldom take place, and unless one knows that a Division is going to take place on an order the expression of the House will not be a true expression, because no noble Lord would have had the notice that there was going to be a Division on it. This agreement has been made between Leaders and Whips of all parties, and indeed between the Cross-Benches, and this is a convention which has never been broken. I have received no notice from the party opposite, or indeed from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that a Division was going to take place. Therefore, if a Division were called I would regard that as a total breach of this convention, and a breach of trust.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the Government Chief Whip sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Elton, respectively sits down, may I be permitted to make the position of the official Opposition quite clear? We recognise the correctness of what the Government Chief Whip has just said. We would add to it, having had this intimation of a Division—which I still hope will not be called, and I ask my noble friend to listen to my words, if he would—that, as I understand it, the Government were good enough to honour their pledge by seeing that the debate on this order took place this afternoon. It is by sheer coincidence that the other place has not yet reached this on their Order Paper. It would again be contrary to our tradition if we were to vote against the democratically elected House on an order, and it is by sheer chance that we do not know what the decision of the elected Chamber is. For those two reasons the official Opposition would not wish to participate in any Division.

Lord Elton

My Lords, if I may rise from my noble friend's lap, as it were, I would welcome first the helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on what is a very serious matter. I will secondly say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that if I did not by that speech convince him of the Government's determination to get these powers, I do not know how I ever shall.

8.26 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone)

My Lords, the Question is, That this Motion be agreed to?

As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"?… To the contrary, "Not-Content"? … I think the "Contents" have it.

Clear the Bar.

Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place.

I declare that the "Contents" have it.

Motion agreed to.