HL Deb 20 February 1986 vol 471 cc728-56

4.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved. [10th 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. It will be the second renewal of the Act, which is limited to a total life of not more than five years subject to renewal at intervals of 12 months. The draft order renews all the provisions of the Act, which I shall briefly describe.

The Act provides, in relation to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, powers to proscribe terrorist organisations; to exclude terrorists from a part or the whole of the United Kingdom; and to detain for questioning persons suspected of involvement in terrorism. The latter power is also available in relation to international terrorism. The Act also establishes offences of supporting proscribed organisations, breaching or helping to breach exclusion orders, contributing to acts of terrorism, and withholding information about terrorism. Finally, it provides an order-making power under which arrangements are made for security at ports and airports. The only sections of the Act that do not extend to Northern Ireland are Sections 1 and 2, dealing with proscribed organisations.

I need not remind your Lordships of the continuing grim struggle against terrorism in Northern Ireland. The 54 deaths last year, including 23 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is the highest annual total since the present troubles began, tell their own story. We can, however, be thankful that there has not been a major terrorist outrage in Great Britain since the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1984. In 1985 it was the police who had their success. I have in mind particularly the plan by the IRA to bomb a number of seaside towns last summer, which I reported in some detail to your Lordships at the time of its discovery. Only one bomb was planted but material was found that could have been used to carry out a widespread and devastating campaign of violence. The indiscriminate nature of those attacks would have been as horrific as the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974, which caused the introduction of the precursor to the 1984 Act.

Another incident of which your Lordships will hardly need to be reminded was the attempted bombing of Chelsea Barracks by the Irish National Liberation Army on 11th November. The bombs were fortunately discovered and made safe before they could explode. A number of arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act followed and two men have been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. Only two weeks ago in Manchester, the trial of five people charged in connection with a planned bomb attack on a retired army officer was concluded. Two men who pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges were convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. A third was convicted of an offence of withholding information under Section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

As I have already mentioned, the Act deals with international terrorism as well as terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Last year, the most significant development was the growth of terrorist activity here connected with India. Since the storming of the Golden Temple at Amritsar and the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi in 1984, the tensions between some Sikhs and the Indian Government, and the polarisation of the Sikh community itself, have been reflected in this country. We are not concerned here with the legitimate expression of political opinion, which is not the province of the Act, but with acts of violence.

Since November last year, there have been several attacks on prominent members of the Sikh community apparently carried out by Sikh extremists. The most recent attack resulted in the death of the victim, Mr. Tarsem Singh Toor, who was well known as a moderate. One person who had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been charged with conspiracy to murder Mr. Toor and two other people. Last October, four Sikhs arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Leicester were charged with a conspiracy to murder the Indian Prime Minister during his visit here. International terrorism is not inhibited by national frontiers. The trail began this week of three Iraqis and another person in connection with the damage by explosives of a consignment of batteries at Eastleigh Airport. In September, a package of explosives and detonators was found and two Jordanians have been charged.

I hope I have said enough to demonstrate that we are still facing a substantial terrorist threat. We have again this year consulted the police in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who have confirmed that the prevention of terrorism legislation is of great assistance to them in preventing and countering terrorism and that they strongly support renewal of the Act. The Government have therefore decided to seek the renewal of the Act in its entirety.

In reaching that decision, we have had the benefit of Sir Cyril Philips' very thoughtful and thorough report on the operation of the Act in 1985. Sir Cyril was appointed to carry out a yearly survey of the Act's working in accordance with the undertaking we gave to your Lordships at the Bill's Report stage. The Act touches very closely the civil liberties of individual citizens and it is important not to forget that it provides exceptional powers. The annual survey by Sir Cyril is a valuable safeguard against abuse. He undertakes a strenuous programme of visits and discussions and is given very wide access to Home Office papers on particular cases, including any where a complaint has been made about the way in which the Act has operated. He brings to bear on the subject his wide experience as a former chairman of the Police Complaints Board and, before that, chairman of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. We are very grateful for his work this year.

Last year, some of your Lordships asked whether the report could be made available somewhat earlier to allow more time to consider it before the renewal date. I hope your Lordships will consider that we have got the timing right this year by placing copies of the report in the Library and the Printed Paper Office on 30th January.

This year, Sir Cyril Philips suggested that Parliament should pay special attention to the exclusion powers under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Those sections provide a power to exclude British citizens from either Great Britain or Northern Ireland if the appropriate Secretary of State is satisfied that they are concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. In another place yesterday my right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained why we consider it essential to retain that power in present crcumstances. There is no doubt that it is one of the most potent means at our disposal to restrict the movement of terrorists and to contain and prevent their activities.

Equally, there is no doubt that the exclusion power very considerably infringes normal civil liberties. We certainly would not quarrel with the view of Sir Cyril Philips that the power is objectionable in principle. We also take note of the views of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in its 10th annual report, published last year, although we are not persuaded by its view that the exclusion power is inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. We accept many of the strictures against that power but we believe that in present circumstances it is essential to retain it to safeguard the lives of innocent people.

It is important to read carefully what Sir Cyril Philips has to say about the exclusion power. Some reports have suggested erroneously that he recommends that Sections 4 and 5 should not be renewed this year. That is not the case. He advises that it would be prudent to retain existing exclusion orders in force pending the completion of the current review of orders made under the predecessors to the 1984 Act. I am sure this is necessary because so far the review has identified many cases in which exclusion has had to be maintained to protect the public. Last year 58 orders were reviewed and exclusion was maintained in 25 of these cases. I very much hope that your Lordships will accept Sir Cyril Philips' advice and that the exclusion power will be retained in force this year; otherwise we would face the readmission of a large number of committed and active terrorists whose presence here would place the public unnecessarily at risk.

Sir Cyril Philips would like to see the review of exclusion orders as a stage on the way to phasing out the exclusion power altogether. Although we are now able to be rather more selective in the use of the exclusion powers than was once the case, we cannot yet accept Sir Cyril Philips' suggestion that the Government might undertake not to make new orders against persons who have not previously been excluded. Last year seven new exclusion orders were made, six of which are still in force. That was four more than in the previous year. There has certainly been a declining trend in the frequency of new orders since 1980, but this reflects partly the cumulative nature of the power and partly the more sparing use which is now made of the powers. I hope that it will be only a matter of time before we can take up Sir Cyril Philips' proposal, but I am afraid that that time has not yet arrived.

Before concluding, I should like to respond to a few of the other points raised in the report. In paragraph 22 Sir Cyril refers to a procedural difficulty which arose in the application for exclusion from the United Kingdom of a long-term prisoner who took part in bombing attacks in Great Britain in 1974. The order was revoked after the person who was subject to it had made representations to one of the Home Secretary's independent advisers. Sir Cyril suggested that difficulties which arose in the preparation of the application could have been avoided if the application had been made rather earlier. Arrangements have now been made to ensure better liaison within the Home Office, and between the Home Office and the police, in future cases of this kind.

In paragraph 25 Sir Cyril Philips refers to the report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary on police port units. We have had to calculate the financial implications of some of the report's recommendations, and carry out consultations within Government and outside on the response to this report. We expect to reach conclusions in the near future. But it is relevant to point out that the financial resources available to the police to carry out this work will be substantially increased as a result of my right honourable friend's decision to increase the police grant from 50 per cent. to 51 per cent.

In paragraph 38 Sir Cyril Philips refers to the difficulties which would arise if interviews with persons held under the prevention of terrorism legislation were tape recorded. We are discussing this problem with the police in the context of the current field trials for tape recording of police interviews with suspects. As your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend is under a duty to make an order requiring the tape recording of interviews with persons suspected of the commission of criminal offences, and to issue a code of practice. We would hope to reach conclusions before too long on whether any special provisions should be made for tape recording interviews with terrorist suspects.

This debate provides an opportunity for a careful examination of the continued need for these exceptional and indeed objectionable powers. Thanks to an invitation by your Lordships during the Act's passage through Parliament, the debate is informed by Sir Cyril Philips' careful review of it. Concerns about the Act should be thoroughly aired, and I shall at the end of the debate try to answer the points raised.

There are just two points I should like to emphasise in conclusion. First, the most exceptional power under this Act—more so even than extension of detention for five days—is the power of exclusion. In Northern Ireland that power is exercised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in Great Britain it is exercised by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Successive holders of these offices have regarded those cases as among the most difficult they have to deal with. They are always considered personally and thoroughly by the Secretary of State. Those responsibilities are taken very seriously indeed and exclusion orders are made only on convincing grounds. Second, in what we say today let us consider the message we send to the terrorists. They made the first move, not us: this Act's predecessor was introduced after 21 innocent people were murdered in the Birmingham pub bombs. Just as soon as they stop their murderous activities, we shall be in a position to drop this Act. The evidence shows that they have not yet stopped.

This is an important order. It gives us an opportunity to strike further blows in the fight against the evil of terrorism, which is so much a scourge of the world we live in. I wholeheartedly commend the order to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)

4.25 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he dealt with the order now before us. I imagine that there are three matters on which your Lordships will all be in agreement, in whichever seat your Lordships happen to sit. The first is that terrorism is the complete plague of our era. Secondly, it is the duty of Government and those who hold responsible positions in your Lordships' House, and elsewhere, to recognise that the security of our citizens is left in our care and, furthermore, that those who are guilty of terrorism should be brought to justice, if that be possible, and that the powers-that-be should not be deprived of the necessary instruments to bring them to justice. Thirdly, and as importantly, is the duty of Parliament to maintain a tradition that we have had for centuries and that we value so much; that is, the tradition of the liberty of the subject, with the rights that that gives him in law and in practice.

Therefore, it is against the background of those three principles that we look with anxiety each year at the proposal to renew all the provisions of the Act which the House is now discussing. Because we were so concerned Parliament decided that, since there could be no practical committee review of all that was happening in pursuance of the powers of this Act, someone whom the whole nation would respect should monitor what happened each year and should report in good time to Parliament so that Parliament should properly be able to consider what to do when the question of annual renewal came up.

I readily thank the noble Lord the Minister for doing what we asked him to do last year, and not only from this side of the House. I remember support from the Cross-Benches in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I remember even getting some support—I say this in his absence, but since I am saying it as a compliment that does not matter—from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that I had a point in complaining about the lack of time between the report and discussion of it. We have had time to consider the report on this occasion, and I repeat my own personal gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister, and to his colleagues, for having made that possible.

However, there is no point in expressing that appreciation unless, of course, Parliament does carefully consider what the person in whom we repose this confidence has reported and recommended. Sir Cyril Philips, as the noble Lord the Minister rightly said, is very well versed in criminal matters. He is an eminent judge, was the chairman of a Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, and, as your Lordships have been reminded, he is the chairman of the Police Complaints Authority. He has made two preliminary statements in his report. The first, which is in paragraph 4, confirms that in the intensive preparation for this review he has: consulted well over six hundred files mainly on exclusion and detention orders, held meetings with over one hundred different individuals or associations and completed over three thousand five hundred miles of necessary travelling". Your Lordships will know, as one would expect of Sir Cyril, that a very thorough job has been done by one who is well aware of the first two elements which I ventured to say to your Lordships would be present in your Lordships' minds throughout the debate: the need to defeat the scourge of terrorism and to bring terrorists to justice, and in that battle the need to preserve, where possible, the civil liberties of our community.

I shall turn immediately to one of the matters to which the noble Lord the Minister referred. This is such an important matter that if the Minister will forgive me and if your Lordships will be patient with me, I shall venture to quote more than I would normally do from Sir Cyril's report in regard to the policy of exclusion. I am looking at paragraphs 16 onwards of that report.

First, he reminds us of what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, recommended in his review of the operation of the Act of 1979, and I quote from Lord Jellicoe: The power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases … and the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers". He goes on to say in paragraph 19: In the debates leading to the Act of 1984, Parliament accepted that the power to exclude was in many ways the most extreme of the powers in this Act, the most severe in its effect on civil liberties, the most divergent from the normal criminal process, and that it had aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who may well support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation". He then deals in detail with the reasons why he makes a certain recommendation. He does not do it lightly; he does it with a very detailed, logical sequence of arguments as to why, in his view, something ought to be done now about the exclusion provisions in this Act. Before I recite those reasons, I should like to remind your Lordships of the letter accompanying this report where he says, without any doubts in his language, that he has had extensive consultations, as I told your Lordships. He also says in paragraph 1 of his report that after consultation this review: was seen as part of Parliament's annual review and intended to ensure that in future years the different parts of the Act should be capable of being considered separately and renewed if necessary, instead of the Act having to be taken as a whole and renewed en bloc" With the leave of your Lordships I shall deal with some of the changes which he says have occurred which led him to make his recommendation. What a shame it is that the Government did not have enough faith in Parliament to be able to come forward in the light of the monitor's report and recommendation to say, "Well, we are going to give an opportunity to Parliament to see what it feels about Part II—which are the exclusion order provisions—in regard to this Act. If we can test the opinion of Parliament, then maybe the rest of this Act can go forward just as it was before." No such procedure is being adopted, and in your Lordships' House there is no power to amend because one either has to take the order or leave it. It is in these circumstances—since we have no power to amend the order, and indeed no power to adopt the suggestions of the monitor in this connection—that I shall advise my noble friends to abstain, if, indeed, there should be any vote upon the approval or otherwise of the order.

I turn now to the reasons which are advanced. I shall deal with this as my main item, though there are many other provisions of this report with which I should have liked to deal. However, there are other speakers and I shall not trespass upon your Lordships' time to a degree which will make me even more unpopular than I otherwise may be. He says at paragraph 20: (a) The making of new exclusion orders appears to have become less and less important as an effective means of preventing terrorism, and is now of diminished significance". That is a finding to which he comes after seeing the police and after seeing all those files, dealing mainly with matters of exclusion and detention. (b) In the context of an increasing emphasis on the need for general and co-ordinated action against terrorism the strategy of transferring suspected terrorists from one part of the United Kingdom to another appears to have diminishing relevance and application. (c) As from the start of 1986 the police in England and Wales are for the first time enabled to exercise in full the powers made available to them under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;"— I pause to say in parenthesis that this is a matter which was not dealt with in any way by the noble Lord the Minister, in spite of the fact that there is, of course, a new set of circumstances since we last dealt with this matter; namely, the provisions and the powers contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984— and this radical change may reasonably be seen as offering an appropriate opportunity to scrutinise afresh the usefulness of exclusion. (d) Sections 4 and 5 can now be used only against persons who have not ordinarily resided in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, continuously since 1982. Exclusions which may have seemed necessary in earlier years when the police were less well equipped and informed have become more doubtful with the passage of time, a process indicated by the high level of revocations in the current, progressive review of orders now being undertaken under the 1984 Act". He goes on: For these reasons the time would appear to be right for Parliament to take this opportuniity of considering afresh the need for sections 4 and 5". I say with the deepest respect that the noble Lord the Minister did not quote those words. He merely said that Sir Cyril was not, in fact, recommending that these exclusion powers should cease but was merely seeing a way of phasing them out. The important matter is, as he says, that the time would appear to be right for Parliament to take the opportunity to consider afresh the need for Sections 4 and 5. It is perfectly true that almost by way of a compromise, as it were, he suggests the phasing out by something deliberate being done this year, with an undertaking that there should be no new exclusion orders.

I make the following points briefly. First, the Government in the light of the report should have tried to sound out Parliament and had enough confidence in Parliament to decide whether the recommendations should be followed. We have no such opportunity. We either swallow the whole order or vote against it, and I am not prepared to advise my noble friends to vote against it. That is the first thing that I say.

The second thing that I say is this. Surely the report deserved more consideration by the Secretary of State. It is dated 27th January, with an accompanying letter of that date. The reply of the Secretary of State turning it down in the most polite terms, but nevertheless turning it down, is dated 29th January, two days later. That is a rapidity with which I would hope to be faced in the future when matters are dealt with by that worthy government department. Within two days a two-page answer was all ready, saying "No, we do not intend to adopt your recommendation", and dealing with other things too.

That means one of two things. Either the Secretary of State reacted with too much speed or he had had—and I cannot tell whether that is so—discussions with Sir Cyril previous to the report when the Secretary of State or his officials were given the idea that that was the sort of recommendation that he would be reporting. In those circumstances Sir Cyril would presumably have had the Government's reaction. If the alternative be right, it will be apparent to your Lordships that, in spite of what he might have been told about the Home Office reaction, he still issued the report on 27th January.

As I said, there is nothing that I can do other than to plead with the Government from this Dispatch Box to take the advice of Sir Cyril, with his great experience. He has examined files which your Lordships cannot see. We should have faith and say that as from now at all events, as the first phase, this business of issuing exclusion orders which he says has faded completely in importance should not occur, with the existing ones taking their normal course by way of review.

I shall raise only one other small matter. In sheer civilised behaviour I think that we should all be limited to a total of some 20 minutes. I wish to deal with one other recommendation. Your Lordships may think it a trivial one, but on humanitarian grounds I do not. It was not referred to when the noble Lord the Minister dealt with the various recommendations and the answers. I am endeavouring to find it, but while I am looking I can tell your Lordships what it is.

Sir Cyril draws attention to the fact that those who are released from an exclusion order, regardless of inquiries as to whether they have a home and where they are going, are handed the great total of £2.50, and they are left to it on that basis. He says in so many words that something ought to be done about that because it is terrible. The Secretary of State, possibly because he wanted to deal with the matter so promptly and had only 48 hours, does not mention that in his letter of 29th January; in dealing with the recommendations the Minister did not mention it, but I mention it and I ask what is to be done.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the order in the way that he did and particularly for bringing it before your Lordships' House some four weeks or so before it is due to take effect. As I understand it, and I know that I shall be corrected if I am wrong, that is in order that, if there were a sufficient weight of opinion on one or more than one aspect which required reconsideration by the Government, they could do that before the order came into force in the middle of next month. That is the cumbersome procedure that we devised last year so that we should not necessarily have either to take or to leave an order en bloc, but, if necessary, could try to persuade the Government to amend parts of it. I am grateful too to the Minister for arranging that the comments of Sir Cyril Philips, as monitor, should be made available to us in good time. That is a great help and a great advance on the unfortunate position that arose last year.

I wonder whether I may raise as helpfully as I can one comment about the timing of the debate. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in his place on the Front Bench. It seems to me extremely inconvenient for Members of your Lordships' House to have to take part in a debate within some 18 hours of the subject being debated in another place. I say that because Hansard is not available. When it came this morning from another place it had no report of the debate there. There was only a somewhat ill-printed, almost illegible proof copy which could be obtained with difficulty. Facts were given in another place about which in the ordinary way your Lordships would not be aware. That means that we may have to ask questions of the Minister that might easily have been avoided. I accept that where an order is urgently required it may be necessary for the two Houses to debate it in rapid succession. But where there is no such urgency, as in this case, it would be of great assistance if in future years we could be given the opportunity to read the debate in another place before participating in our own.

I come now to the principal issue raised by proceedings this year and by Sir Cyril in his report, the question of the exclusion orders. It is perfectly clear that they are the most drastic orders that can be made under the Act and they may have serious consequences for individuals and their families. It is of interest to note how rapidly the number of new orders has been declining in recent years. In 1984 there were three orders exluding people from Great Britain and in 1985 seven. If one takes the five years from 1981 to 1985 inclusive, the average number was only 10. That contrasts remarkably and encouragingly with the previous seven years, 1974 to 1980, when the average was 38. That means that the number is dwindling rapidly and markedly and the need for the power is becoming much less.

In Northern Ireland the situation is even more remarkable. There were no new exclusion orders made in 1985 and there have been only eight made altogether in the past four years.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will forgive me. I interrupt him only for clarification. I saw the figure in that report but equally I saw above it, and it may well be a misprint, that two such exclusion orders were made in 1985. If one looks at the statistics there is a nil, and I therefore wonder whether the figure of two is a mistake, or the other way round.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, I also noticed that there was an apparent contradiction between a 2 in one place and a nought in another place. I do not know, but I took it that the figures in the statistical column were correct. In either event, nought or 2 is a very small number. It is because the number of orders has now become so small that, clearly, serious consideration was given by Sir Cyril, and is being given by the Government, to the question of whether Sections 4 and 5 should remain in the Act or whether, as an alternative proposal, put forward by Sir Cyril, it might be possible at least for the Government, while keeping Sections 4 and 5, to undertake not to make any new exclusion orders in future.

One looks, of course, at the reply made by the Secretary of State—the very rapid response to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred—and one sees that the Secretary of State is unwilling at this stage to agree to any modification in the proposals for making exclusion orders. The Secretary of State refers, as the noble Lord the Minister has done today, to the small, but nevertheless significant, number of terrorist offences that were planned in this country during 1985, and also to the fact that it was necessary to make some seven new orders during that year.

These are the matters that one has to weigh up. It is esssentially a matter of balance. I must confess that, personally, I find it a very difficult matter of balance. I think that, marginally, I come to a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think, marginally, I come to the view that the Secretary of State has made out a reasonable case for saying that, at this stage, he would not wish to review the procedure under Sections 4 and 5, or their continued operation, for a further 12 months. I am sure, however, that he recognises that, with the very rapidly diminishing number of orders being made, the time is not very far removed when it will be possible to adopt certainly Sir Cyril's second suggestion, and maybe also his first suggestion, and remove Sections 4 and 5 altogther from the Act.

I wish also to refer to the extended detention powers. Again, that is a matter in which it is self-evident that innocent people may suffer. So far as I can see from the report by Sir Cyril, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has, on occasion, declined applications by the police for extended detention orders. But it appears to me from the report that the Secretary of State here has never declined a single application. I note, too, as appears to be the case—the noble Lord the Minister will be able to confirm it—that last year the Secretary of State in this country did not refuse a single application for an exclusion order. I hope that the moral to be drawn from those somewhat remarkable facts is that the police are being extremely careful and erring on the cautious side before suggesting that there should be extended detention orders made or exclusion orders made, and that the other possible inference—that the Home Office is perhaps over-rapidly agreeing with any suggestion made to it—is not the accurate one.

The power of extended detention is a formidable one. I can find nothing in Sir Cyril's report providing figures to show how effective it has been during 1985. If I have read correctly the somewhat garbled accounts, which is all I have been able to obtain, of proceedings in another place, the figures appear to show that 94 orders for extended detention were made during the year, and that in 64 of those cases the person was in due course charged. If that is right—this is what the figures, so far as I am able to read them, appear to say—it unfortunately makes out the case for continuing the power of extended detention. It means that 30 innocent people, or 30 people, at any rate—it is not necessarily the same thing—were never charged but clearly suffered hardship. But if, in fact, 64 people were charged as a result, two-thirds of those detained, the power is clearly justifying itself.

One must, of course, bear in mind that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act it is now possible to detain people on application for up to, I think, 96 hours. It might be of interest if the noble Lord the Minister were able to give any figures as to whether the extended detention periods in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Act justified their value in the period after the 96 hours that might have been available in any event under what is now the criminal law of this country.

The question has arisen whether, during those periods of detention, interviews should be tape recorded. This is perhaps a matter on which the Minister can help a little. I find it difficult to follow the Secretary of State's suggestion in his letter to Sir Cyril Philips that tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects raises quite different issues from those in relation to ordinary suspects. I find it difficult to follow because the mere fact that something is tape recorded does not make it admissible in evidence, as the noble Lord the Minister knows perfectly well. If it is not tape recorded, it is no doubt going down in an officer's notebook in any event. Whether the contents are to be used at the trial is a matter for the judge in the light of all the circumstances. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could elaborate a little on the special considerations that make tape recording in itself an undesirable method of dealing with an interview with a suspected terrorist.

The last matter that I wish to raise is this. There is under Section 11 of the Act an offence created of withholding information. It has always seemed to some of us that this was really not a very sensible offence and not one that in any way strengthens the Act. It is unrealistic in terms of what human life is like when people happen to hear about a possible terrorist offence. Sir Cyril does not record any such prosecutions for that offence having been brought in 1985. Indeed, I do not think that they have been brought for most of the years that the Act has been in force. The noble Lord did refer to a case in Manchester a couple of weeks ago in which someone was convicted of that offence as part of a terrorist trial. I think that I am right in saying that, although convicted, nothing happened to him. That, if anything, rather supports those of us who contend that it is an artificial and unreal offence that serves no useful purpose and should not have been put into the Act at all.

On balance, looking at the whole of this order and the way that it has worked over the last year, my noble friends in the Alliance take the view that if we, as a House, and if the Government, were to amend this order or to withdraw any of the provisions at this stage, it might be a mistake and, if it were a mistake, the consequences might be truly appalling. Bearing that in mind, we take the view that it would not be responsible for us to oppose the making of the order for which the noble Lord the Minister asks today.

5 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, at the outset I should like to refer to the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he referred to a paragraph in Sir Cyril's report which he could not find and which he paraphrased. I very much agree that this is something which should be brought out into the open and recorded in Hansard. If I may, therefore, I shall quote the relevant passage from Sir Cyril's report. He is drawing attention to the fact that somebody who is released after an exclusion order is provided with enough money to travel to his destination, with no more than £2.50 in his pocket". After saying that this amount is the regulation payment to a deportee he says: Such a meagre provision in this instance seems calculated to push the person concerned back into the company of his former associates". Those words are well worth having on the record, and I am sure that the whole House would wish the Government to look at that paragraph very carefully and not send people who have been released from exclusion orders away with only £2.50 in their pockets. They apparently do this whether or not they know that there are any relatives or friends that the man can go back to.

I should like to start, having referred to paragraph 23, with very sincere thanks to Sir Cyril Philips for the clarity of his report and the elegance of its writing. It is not often that one is able to say that of an official document of this sort. Not only is it clear and elegant, but it also gives confidence to the reader; and confidence in this matter is absolutely essential and of vital importance. I endorse the words of Sir Cyril from his report of last year, when he said, In a liberal and constitutionally governed society special powers call for exceptional scrutiny of safeguards for the suspect". Not only that, but he referred to the practical consideration in containing terrorism—which is what we all want and what this Act is about—saying, the police need is not only special powers but also the support of the public". In my view, Sir Cyril's report is invaluable to Parliament in its annual task of exceptional scrutiny of safeguards for the public. It is as well to remember that it was due to the efforts of this House, and the compliance of the Government with its wishes, that this annual report is made.

Secondly, I should thank Her Majesty's Government for this year's programme of debate and dealing with the report, as contrasted with last year. I think that it is just about right now although, as has been said, it cannot be very satisfactory that the Home Secretary replies two days after receiving the report of Sir Cyril. Perhaps I might say that last year—when things were not so good—the Home Secretary took five days to consider the report before he replied. There has this year been enough time between the receipt of the report by Parliament—together with the Home Secretary's reply—and the Motion for approval on the continuance order, and enough time between the approval of the continuance order and the date when it comes into operation. Next year I think that we must seriously consider—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said—how Parliament can amend the Act, as it is enabled to do by the provisions of the Act itself.

I should like to ask the Minister one question in this context. Suppose, my Lords, that the Home Secretary came to the conclusion, for whatever reason or reasons, that it would be desirable to revoke Sections 4 or 5. Is he enabled to do so by order within the next year; or does he have to wait until this time next year when the order has to be renewed in any case? I believe the answer is, yes, he can; but I should like to know, because it gives that kind of flexibility so that he can judge exactly what is the right time to revoke these two sections which I think we should all like to see off the statute book. That repeal would give that extra degree of confidence which the public need to show to those in authority when they are dealing with this very important and sensitive matter.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for a moment? I ask this question because I am interested to know the answer. On what grounds does the noble Lord think that Sections 4 and 5 can be revoked by the Minister without the matter coming to Parliament?

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I am sorry, I did not suggest that. If the Minister were to bring in an order within the year—that is, perhaps, next month or in six months' time—instead of waiting until this time next year, he could then bring the order for Parliament to pronounce on.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, how does the Minister have the power to bring in such an order? What enables him to do so?

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I think if the noble Lord turns to the relevant provision of the Act, whose continuance we are discussing, he will find the power there.

In my submission there remains one complaint about publication still. I believe that Sir Cyril's report, and possibly the Home Secretary's reply, should be published as a Command Paper. At the moment we have a Question for Written Answer, and then the typescript of this report is put in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the two Houses. That is good, but I do not think it is good enough. After all, what Erskine May says about Command Papers, in the 20th edition, is that they are, those papers"— that is, Command Papers— which are considered to be of interest to Parliament but whose presentation is not required by Statute". This falls squarely into that category. It is non-statutory because the undertaking was given right at the end of proceedings in the second House, no amendment was made, and it was accepted by Parliament, as all such undertakings are, as binding.

I believe that publication would be for the convenience of both Houses of Parliament because if they are published as a Command Paper they are bound up in a series and are readily available next year or the year after, when one might wish to refer to them. As it is, even if one has a super efficient filing system, one may well have lost last year's report—let alone that of the year before last. It therefore seems to me not just a nit-picking exercise but something of great importance.

Furthermore, I think not only Parliament but the country should be informed. If Sir Cyril's report is laid as a Command Paper then the debate in the country might be much wider than it is now. As it is, it is published in this rather hole-in-the-corner way and, excellent report though it is, it does not receive the publicity which I think is its due.

I am extremely grateful to Sir Cyril for his extended review of the exclusion procedure. These are most valuable paragraphs in his report and they have been quoted from extensively by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I shall therefore not review those paragraphs, although they are well worth reading.

I think that Sir Cyril is giving the Government an opportunity to phase these orders out if they possibly can. He proposes that that should be done this year. In my view—although that proposal was only put forward as a first prudent step—this is something which the Government should consider doing continuously. They should not wait until next year, but should consider continuously the balance of advantage in having exclusion orders which they may think necessary for one or two people. I believe that there were something like seven last year. Against that they must consider the damage that exclusion orders do to the generality of public opinion. The Act would be much more acceptable if that important section of the Act was dispensed with.

I would go along with the Home Secretary in the thought that he cannot "in present circumstances"—those are his words—comply with Sir Cyril's suggestion, but would ask the Home Secretary to consider carefully the implementation of that suggestion at least by this time next year, and possibly within the months until this time next year. After all, I think that this time next year will be a better time to take this first prudent step—and this is the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—because the working of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act will have been evident. After all it only came into operation at the beginning of this year. By this time next year we shall have the advantage of one year's operation of that Act.

Another important pledge given by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons was that the operation of these procedures will be, as near as possible, equal to statutory procedures. We know that there are some areas which are slightly different. There is a difference of period for which you can be detained without the benefit of seeing people or being released. There is a difference of between 36 hours and 48 hours. That is something which should be watched carefully, too. There are other differences of that sort which I would recommend under that heading, which is no more than implementing an undertaking given by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons.

Apart from that I have only a few things I should like to say. The words of wisdom of Sir Cyril in paragraph 38 on tape recording have already been referred to. Frankly, in his paragraph 40 on complaints, I should have thought that it was important that the general public should know that the complaints have been about legislation and not about police behaviour. That is important, and the public should know of it. For the sake of police morale alone this is an observation by Sir Cyril which should be made known publicly. Of course there will be complaints about the Act. I think that the complaints will be far fewer if exclusion orders are removed. But to have it said by Sir Cyril that the complaints against the police behaviour are very few is most comforting.

Lastly, concerning terrorism with international connections—paragraphs 43 and 44—we are referred to comments made by Sir Cyril in paragraphs 44 to 46 of last year's review. I am quite prepared for Sir Cyril to economise by referring us back to his report. Incidentally he does so on three occasions, and to something like 15 paragraphs. That is a considerable argument in itself, that his report of last year should be readily available in printed form so that we can turn up that report to see what he said.

In the case of terrorism with international connections, I had the curiosity to look up Sir Cyril's report, and I found there statistics of considerable value. This year he does no more than refer us back to those paragraphs of last year's report, and I would ask whether it would be possible for his statistics of a year ago to be updated.

With that, I should like to join in what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, that this is not the stage for any change to take place, but that I look forward to a flexible approach by the Home Secretary during the coming year.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, unlike previous speakers, I rise to oppose this renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. To explain my position and to persuade your Lordships to support my case, I shall endeavour to give some practical reasons and also present a constitutional argument which also has wider practical justification. One of the problems with which we are faced is some people's lack of appreciation of what the Prevention of Terrorism Act actually does. Of course this does not apply to your Lordships, but for those who are not so well informed and who are listening to the debate, or who will read the record in Hansard, I must quickly explain two features of the Act which particularly concern me.

First, the Act allows the police, with the consent of the Home Secretary, to arrest and detain people without charge for seven days. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows for an arrest and detention without charge, or the case being put to a court of law, for only one and a half days. Secondly, without recourse to a court of law or judicial review, the Home Secretary can make an exclusion order against a British citizen.

Such an order prevents that citizen from living in, or even visiting, some particular province or part of the United Kingdom. Even a judge sitting in court does not have the power to impose that penalty on a convicted criminal. For hundreds of years, since the abolition of feudalism and the freeing of the serfs, British citizens have had the right of free movement within the country.

Although opposition to this Act is Labour Party policy, this side of the House accepts the convention that the House does not divide on parliamentary orders. However, my opposition to this Act is not based on the acceptance of party policy, but on a deeply-held view that in practice the Act is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism, and offends the unwritten constitution of our country.

The practical effects of detention for long periods allowed under the Act and exclusion orders are, on the one hand, if the individual is of terrorist inclinations, to warn him that he is under surveillance; he is being watched by the special branch, or whatever; and hence to make him more security conscious. If the individual is completely innocent of any terrorist inclinations, all that happens is that we reinforce the propaganda weapon that we have handed to the terrorists by using this Act; the propaganda that the British establishment is inhuman and unjust, and that therefore inhuman and unjust actions must be taken to combat it.

In fact the recent case before the courts in Manchester has demonstrated two things. First, that the police may be wrong—for example, in their recommendations to the Home Secretary about exclusion orders; in fact two of the five people charged were declared innocent of all crime—and that exclusion orders may prevent the arrest of guilty people. It was reported by a reputable newspaper that the mastermind behind that particular terrorist plot was subject to an exclusion order, and for that reason lived outside the United Kingdom and outside the reach of the police or the courts.

Two aspects of our constitution that I would emphasise today are, first, the relationship between the Government and the people and, secondly, the independence and fairness of the judicial system. To explain simply, our democratic system of Government allows the citizen who does not like the rules to change them if he can persuade enough of his fellow citizens to agree to this point of view. Our system of justice is based on the belief that the citizen who is suspected of a crime should be told what he is charged with and have the opportunity before the court to rebut those charges. We hold dear to us the belief that our citizens are innocent until proved guilty by a court of law. If we depart from these two aspects of the constitution, we are opening a Pandora's box of horror. There are myriads of different groups in society that hold views that are at odds with the establishment. Their actions are held in check only by their belief in these aspects of the constitution.

This Prevention of Terrorism Act threatens that belief. At a more mundane level, what of the children whose parents are subject to these exclusion orders? The Government do not even know how many are affected. These children will grow up and perhaps, in 10, 20 or 30 years, they may harbour a grudge against the British establishment that prevented them visiting their friends and relations as a family. Are we sowing the seeds for terrorism in the future by using these exclusion orders?

The reasons for opposing this Act are so imperative as to outweigh party allegiance or the custom and practice of this House. At the end of this debate, I shall press for a Division, and I ask for the support of all noble Lords who oppose terrorism to join me in the Lobby against this Act.

5.23 p.m.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I do not propose to answer the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I can only say that I hope that he has read the reports of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and myself, and all the many debates that we have had on this subject. I remind him that part of our constitutional freedom is the freedom not to be destroyed by bombs or terrorists. The purpose of the Act, originally introduced by a Labour Government, is still, for the same substantial reasons, being maintained. If I thought there was a danger of this order not being carried—I think there is no danger—my inclination would be to vote for it.

I have other arguments that I might use against the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Our voting on orders is not a party issue. I remember one occasion when the Conservative Opposition voted against the Labour Government when I was Leader. That was on the Rhodesian order. I remember it because there were more Bishops in the Lobby than there were on the Sunday Trading Bill. The Government were defeated by about seven votes. A month later, the order was re-introduced in a similar form. But the consequence was the end of the discussions on parliamentary reform and the House of Lords reform, which if carried through would have given this House the right and the power effectively to have voted against orders by sending them back to be considered again.

I feel this order is necessary, but this is not to say that I do not have some severe reservations. I should first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because it was he who uniquely, with some others, was responsible for the introduction of the Sir Cyril Philips Report. The Government have got into a tangle on it. Last year they did not publish it in time, and this year there was a tremendous rush. Obviously, Sir Cyril Philips did not post his report to the Home Office, for they would not have had time between 27th and 29th. I conclude that the sensible thing that must have happened is that the Home Office had at official level an advanced sight of the report. Whether the Home Secretary has seen it, I do not know. It is curious; and I am sure they could have got their timing better. Sir Cyril had made clear that he was producing a snapshot. He set aside December and January for this purpose. He must have completed his snapshot and developed it quickly to get it in before the end of January.

However, I welcome the report, though I am not in agreement with those noble Lords who think that exclusion orders should be dropped at the moment. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we might want a further opportunity, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Mishcon, to debate it separately. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will tell us whether it will be possible in another year to produce two new orders: one dealing with certain sections of the Act and another dealing with Sections 3, 4 and 5. Nevertheless, if they had done that this year, I should not have accepted it—on the judgment that Lord Jellicoe made and that I and others made having gone deeply into a consideration of this matter, and hateful though the exclusion orders are. We all accept that they are a gross interference with our historic freedom, with those lives at stake.

I do not say, however, that exclusion orders are not perhaps the most unpleasant of the powers in the Bill: they are. But I still state my personal dislike of Section 11. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, considered this and took the view that it probably was necessary. But it is an obnoxious provision. I should have liked to have dealt with it separately. I hope Sir Cyril Philips will give some consideration next year to the effectiveness of Section 11, which has an unsavoury ring about it and one that strikes me as being objectionable from a constitutional point of view.

There are one or two items which the Minister, in the 24 hours in which he had to consider this matter, was unable to deal with. He said hardly anything about the points made in Sir Cyril Philips' report on the subject of better provision of facilities at the ports. He said: At the major sea-ports, at Stranraer and Fishguard, for example, the facilities within which the police at the control points have to operate appear to have improved little since Lord Shackleton in 1978 and Lord Jellicoe in 1983 reported adversely on them". The Home Secretary said: I hope to reach conclusions in the near future (which will have a bearing on your comments in paragraph 27)". That is seven years late, This was raised seven years ago. Insufficient reference is made to some of the other provisions about conditions under which people are kept. I hope that the Home Office will give some further thought to those conditions.

People are kept for seven days of detention virtually in solitary confinement, under not the most pleasant conditions. I should like to know whether facilities have been improved. We have heard that detainees have been given baked beans every day for seven days. That is not very civilised. During this period of detention, which is not a judicial procedure—it is important to make clear that many of these powers are not judicial—conditions should be ameliorated.

In Sir Cyril Philips' report and on the application of the Act in the face of international terrorism, undertakings were given in explicit terms by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that they would not be applied unless a charge was forthcoming. Is it true that some hunt saboteurs were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act? This is reported by the National Council for Civil Liberties.

Incidentally, I hope the Minister will take account of some of the points made in the report. If he likes, I can go into this at length, but there is a suggestion that the superintendent in this particular case said that people were being detained. I am not defending the hunt saboteurs; I know how my noble friend Lord Paget would want to deal with them! However, a telephone inquiry to the superintendent from the National Council for Civil Liberties about the detention of 10 hunt saboteurs at Daventry police station received confirmation that they had been held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I find this almost incredible. Either it is true or it is not. If it is not true, it will be just as well to nail up this particular can.

Nonetheless, this problem of the application of the Act in relation to international terrorism continues to cause me worry. When we were debating the Bill, I moved several amendments, and indeed an amendment on Third Reading, to require the Government to incorporate in an order, if they could not do so on the face of the Bill, the instructions or the advice that would be given to police so that it would not be applied unless there was the prospect of a charge in the courts. The Government took the view, "Well, we cannot even really give guidance", although I notice that in a letter to Mr. Soley on a particular case, in another report, the Home Secretary talked about advising chief constables.

There was the case of the European representative of SWAPO. He was detained at Heathrow. When he asked why, he was told that he was the representative of an international terrorist organisation. Yet at practically the same time Mr. Sam Nujona, who is the leader of SWAPO, was being received by the Government and very specific undertakings were given that this should not be applied in the case of, for instance, African national activities unless their terrorism was going to be applied in this country.

It is alleged—indeed, it was claimed in a letter by the Home Secretary to Mr. Soley, MP—that this detention took place under Section 13 of the Act and, in particular, the supplementary provisions of an order that passed through your Lordships' House at the time of the passing of the Act, which was two years ago. I knew nothing about it, and I have not found anybody else in your Lordships' House who knew that there was this order in existence. Ministers have never referred to it; it was a negative order only. This derives from the Act, and is revived again by the order that we are debating today.

I would ask the Minister whether he will look into this case and why it was that Mr. Kaukungua was detained. It is of course applicable to anyone who is suspected of terrorism which they might intend to bring into this country. However, this particular gentleman was well known, and had passed through the Customs many times. He was only kept for an hour and a half, but I think this is somethng to which rather more attention should be given.

I do not intend to take up much more of your Lordships' time. I think, regrettably, that this Act is a necessity. Everyone who has been involved in it, every Minister who has looked at it, in any party, has said how objectionable it is. Yet I think we should pass this order today. I hope my noble friend—because otherwise he will achieve no good for his purposes—will refrain from dividing the House on a matter on which it would be inappropriate to do so.

5.38 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I wish to intervene for a few moments before the Minister replies, in view of the course the debate has taken. I should first like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for intervening during his remarks. He was perfectly right: under Section 17(2)(b), tucked away at the back where I had not seen it, there is a provision such as the one to which he referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the debate in another place last night and to the great difficulty and inconvenience that arises when a debate takes place so short a time before our debate. I too had great difficult in finding the corrected typescript of the debate that was obtained by the librarians, because the debate took place after Hansard had gone to press. The noble Lord quoted some figures that he found there. I have found others also relating to the number of people who are detained and then released, which were given by my right honourable friend Mr. Kaufman.

I have drawn attention on earlier occasions to these kinds of figures. I want to do so again because what concerns me most about this Act, as I have said on three or four previous occasions, is the number of suspects or the number of people who are detained by the police and who then have no charges of any kind brought against them. The figure given by my right honourable friend showed that since the passing of the Act which preceded this one, the 1974 Act, until the end of 1985, of all those persons who were detained under the Act 92 per cent. were not charged; only 3 per cent. were charged with offences under this Act; and only 0.5 per cent. of those detained were found guilty of offences that attracted more than one year's imprisonment.

The 1984 Act states in Section 12 that a constable must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person he detains is guilty of an offence under the Act or that he has been involved in terrorism. As I have said before, if only 3 per cent. of those suspected on reasonable grounds of being guilty of offences under the Act are actually charged, the constables must be extremely suspicious people. As several of my honourable friends said in another place last night, there is a strong belief amounting to certainty that the Act is being used for the gathering of information about people from Ireland and with Irish names and so on, and that there is in many cases no justification whatever for detaining them.

My noble friend Lord Monkswell has spoken against this order today. I have always been opposed to it and I have also always said so. However, what surprises me is this, and I should like to draw attention to it. He was until now the only speaker on any of these Benches to speak against the order; and yet, less than 24 hours ago in another place, there was a combined attack from the Labour Benches on the renewal of the Act. There was a Division which by House of Commons standards was a close Division: 169 to 109. No Division list was available in the Library when this debate started so I cannot say how the Alliance voted in another place. But if the majority was only 60, it is quite clear that there must have been very great agreement among members of my party and I assume that they were accompanied by some members of the Alliance.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, probably I could answer for myself in view of the representative capacity that I suppose I have in speaking from the Dispatch Box. I expressed certain criticisms. I supported some recommendations of Sir Cyril. Therefore the speech of the noble Lord and that of my noble friend Lord Monkswell are not the only speeches in criticism of the Act. I explained to your Lordships, in terms that I think were clearly understood, the recommendation that I would make to my noble friends if there were a vote on this matter. I made my position abundantly clear.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me if I indicated that to the best of my knowledge the Alliance as a whole did not vote in support of the Labour Party last night in opposing the Motion; although, as I understand it, it may be that there were the odd one or two who went into that Lobby.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. I tried to find out how the Alliance voted and I was unable to do so. I am surprised that most of the Alliance Members abstained. I am surprised that the majority was so relatively small. As far as my noble friend is concerned, I would only say that he indicated, I think, that if my noble friend Lord Monkswell succeeded in dividing the House he would not, I understood him to indicate, vote against the order. That would be taking a different line from that taken by all my honourable and right honourable friends in another place.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, the point that I think my noble friend does not understand is that this order has been passed by another place, which is a democratically elected Chamber. This House, which has a different composition and a distinguished composition, is a revising Chamber. We do not by tradition oppose orders which have already been passed by another place.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, may I say that that tradition does not go back very far? I have been in this House and actually voted with the Labour Party against an order; so that there is nothing very deep-rooted in that tradition.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, at the risk of turning this into a Committee stage, it was in fact the Ullswater order, which I think was about 30 years ago.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, actually it was not.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I remember having an argument something along these lines when last my noble friend Lord Monkswell tried to divide the House. I think it was on the same order, a year ago; but the years have gone very quickly. I must say that I do not see the logic about the position taken on not opposing orders. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi talks about another place being a democratic assembly, but of course we do not have any hesitation in voting against legislation—

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, amending legislation.

Lord Kilbracken

Well, my Lords, we amend legislation; we disagree with Commons Reasons for disagreeing with our amendments, and so on. But perhaps I am not the right person to lead a discussion on constitutional and procedural matters. I only want to say, no doubt to the relief of my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, that if my noble friend Lord Monkswell were to succeed in dividing the House I would go into the Division Lobby against the renewal of this order, but I do not intend to act as a teller.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I have listened to this debate with great care and great interest. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he said words to the effect that a topic such as this is of great concern to all of us. Of course it is. Nobody can be in any doubt about that, having listened to what has been said. I have to say also that there are no easy answers to many of the problems which are raised. But I believe that there is a clear case for retaining the special powers which the Act provides to assist the police in fighting this scourge, this evil, which concerns us all. It is I think a matter of no more than common sense that the Act helps to prevent terrorism and, as I have said, we have seen this clearly demonstrated by the successes of the police last year.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, surely the contrary to the noble Lord's last statement is true. This Act or a similar one has been in existence for 11 years and it has not yet succeeded in preventing terrorism.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord gives expression to his ignorance of the facts in the case of the London bombing at the Rubens Hotel.

The necessity for renewing this legislation, as I have said, is regrettable. It is not only the continuing menace of terrorism which we deplore but the fact that the measures necessary in the fight against terrorism make inroads on ordinary civil liberties, which is also a matter of regret. This is an area in which a balanced judgment (to use the words which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, used) is necessary. We must consider both the seriousness of the threat and the impact which the special powers have on the rights of the individual. These are questions which must be addressed with particular care in relation to the exclusion orders, as this debate has reminded us.

The Government accept the view of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that exclusion should be the first power to go. But that time has not yet come. It would be courting disaster to discontinue the exclusion powers this year. It would immediately give free rein to over 200 excluded persons who have all been seriously involved in terrorism and many of whom are still committed and active. It would be quite unreasonable to expect the police to maintain vigilance over the activities of so many people.

I shall turn now and pick up some of the points which have been raised. Perhaps it might be appropriate if I start by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was quite right when he spotted what he thought was a mistake in the statistics: the fact that the text—

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, with some indignation may I say that it is only a sign, I hope, of the fact that I had read the report that I got up myself and made the point. Therefore I do not intend to allow the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to take any credit for it at all.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I humbly apologise to both noble Lords I wrote down one name on one piece of paper and then put down the wrong name on the next piece of paper. Of course it was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and he was quite right. There is a mistake. The text does not tally with the chart. In Northern Ireland no exclusion orders were made in 1985. I apologise for this I will make sure that it is corrected in any other version.

On the question of the tables of statistics, to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, we will certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to Sir Cyril's attention. It is up to him now to approach his task, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, although we ensure that he has any assistance for which he may ask. I am sure he will be interested to note the noble Lord's remarks.

It seems that last year's debate and this debate have been filled to some extent with criticism about speed of response or the time that the document lay in front of your Lordships before it was debated. Perhaps I can say in response to both Sir Cyril's report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the charges that perhaps not enough time had been given to consider the report, that I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that the most careful thought was properly given to all the issues involved. I assure your Lordships that the fact that it was only two days has not stinted our study of this most careful report, and I hope your Lordships will accept that in the spirit in which it is intended.

In regard to publishing the report as a command paper, which was again a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, the real problem here—and indeed it surrounds the whole question of the renewal of the Act—is the timetable for publishing. The timetable for publishing a command paper is so much longer than for putting it in the Library that the whole timetable for which your Lordships asked would be thrown out. Sir Cyril Philips' report would be out of date when Parliament saw it and it would not cover the full calendar year.

On the timing of this debate, following the debate in another place, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I have not seen a copy of Hansard either, and that has not been a particular help for me. However, it is a matter for the usual channels and, again, it is bound up with the whole problem of timing generally.

As to Parliament having the option of debating this before the order is laid—which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he took up that particular paragraph in the report—the Government must offer a draft order to which Parliament can react. There is no option for alternative in this particular case. In relation to the report, perhaps I may say that the Act must be renewed in good time before 22nd March each year. Sir Cyril's report should cover as much as possible of the period under review, as I have said, but it must be available to Parliament in good time. Therefore there are serious timing problems and I assure your Lordships that we have done what we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and said that I did not mention it. He asked whether the prevention of terrorist powers were still needed now that the extended detention provisions under Part IV of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act have come into force. Extended detention under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is available only for persons who have been arrested for a specific offence. The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains the power to detain a person on reasonable suspicion of being involved in terrorism, sometimes when an act of terrorism is being planned or prepared or at a stage when the police have not yet obtained sufficient information to bring charges referring to a specific terrorist offence or where the information they have is too sensitive to be used in court.

Both the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Henderson, raised the question of the discharge grant. May I explain to them that the discharge grant is not a gratuity? It is an advance payment in lieu of social security benefits to which the released prisoner would in any case be entitled. For this reason, discharge grants are never payable to prisoners who do not proceed to an address in the United Kingdom after release. We do not believe it would be right to treat excluded persons more favourably in this respect than deportees. It is a fairly complicated provision and I do not think it would be appropriate to go into it in more detail now. I have just given your Lordships the main thrust of the point.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord the Minister, without wishing to detain the House, will he at least give an assurance that the point will be considered very carefully and that possibly a Question can be put down later? This is a recommendation by Sir Cyril, who would not have made it lightly, and of course the position of those excluded people is rather different from that of those who are refused immigration and who are asked to leave our shores. Some of them may of course be British subjects who have not resided for three years, as is statutorily required.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I realise that Sir Cyril would not have made that suggestion lightly. I will certainly look at it and perhaps correspond with the noble Lord and explain more fully in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the question of tape recording. While it is clearly desirable that a person detained under this Act 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 recorded tape 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 could lay him open to reprisals from his colleagues. There is a clear risk of deterring confessions and the giving of incriminating information.

It is also a fact that some terrorist groups train their members to resist interrogation, and a full record of police procedures and methods during extended questioning would clearly be helpful in that training. We are discussing these difficulties with the police in the context of the current tape recording field trials. We hope to reach conclusions before too long on whether any special provisions should be made for the tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects when my right honourable friend brings forward the relevant order under Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Both the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Shackleton, referred particularly to Section 11. They suggested that perhaps it infringes a person's right to silence; and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, recommended that it be allowed to lapse. It has been argued that by removing in certain circumstances a person's right to remain silent this section infringes civil liberties and that its value cannot be justified by the prosecution or conviction which may be obtained.

The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, paid particular attention to the use of this section. He concluded that it had been of value to the police and that it should remain, provided that there were adequate safeguards against its abuse. The 1984 Act implemented both his recommendations in this context. It made explicit the fact that a person is not required to incriminate himself, and the suspicion of an offence under this section is no longer grounds for an arrest under Section 12.

Guidance has been given to the police in paragraph 3 of Home Office Circular No. 26 of 1984 on interviewing relatives of terrorists. The police were advised of Lord Jellicoe's view that a threat of prosecution under Section 11 could be justified only in extreme cases where the withholding of information might lead to death, serious injury or the escape of a terrorist offender. We must keep in mind constantly the general point that the prevention of terrorism legislation is an exceptional measure, designed to deal with an exceptionally serious problem. I do not think anyone would deny that; and, if there is any infringement of a person's rights, we must accept that this is part of the price we must pay if we wish to protect society from the activities of violent and ruthless terrorists.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the fact that no applications for extension of detention or exclusion—

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, will the noble Lord say how many times Section 11 was used last year? I did ask him.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I will come to that in my next answer. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that no applications for extension of detention or exclusion were referred by the Secretary of State in Great Britain. Arrangements have been made by the police in England and Wales to channel applications for extended detention through a unit in New Scotland Yard. That procedure acts as a preliminary sift, and I think that may to some extent explain the phenomenon; but in any case extensions and exclusions most certainly are not rubber-stamped in any way at all. As it happens, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already this year refused two exclusion applications which were connected; that is, in 1986.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked whether the statistics given in another place yesterday were right. I believe that they are right. In 1985, 94 persons were detained for more than 48 hours and 64 were charged, deported or removed. As to the value of the extended period of detention, that is not strictly measurable but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State grants extensions only if a very clear case is made out that an extension is likely to be of value in the prevention of terrorism. As to the question of Section 11 usage, I do not have those figures. If the noble Lord will allow me to find out what they are and let him know, I shall be most grateful. I do not have them in front of me.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, raised the question of whether or not Section 4 or Section 5 could be revoked during the year, and he thought that they could be. Certainly that is my understanding, too. If the noble Lord looks at Section 17(2) of the Act, he will see: The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide … (b) that all or any of the said provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force". I think that covers his point.

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me a number of questions. As regards hunt saboteurs being arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I am advised that the answer is: No, that is incorrect information. So I hope that that puts the noble Lord's mind at rest. So far as Mr. Kaukungua is concerned, on his arrival at Heathrow Airport Mr. Kaukungua was seen by an immigration officer and then examined under Article 4(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order 1984. I understand that his papers were examined by a special branch officer, who satisfied himself that Mr. Kaukungua did not appear to be a person who was, or who had been, concerned with terrorism within the terms of the 1984 order. Mr Kaukungua was allowed to leave Heathrow after an examination which lasted just over an hour.

I can repeat the assurance given in 1984, that there is no question of members of SWAPO living here being detained under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act because of their activities in Africa, unless, as was said then, there is a prospect of charges before a United Kingdom court or of deportation under the Immigration Act 1971. There must be some procedure for establishing whether there is a prospect of a charge or of deportation, and that is the procedure under Article 4. It can, I know, be a tiresome procedure, but it is applied to hundreds of innocent travellers each year and is an essential part of the counter-terrorist work of the police.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, has the noble Lord finished on that point? That is precisely the point that is worrying one. There has to be a basic suspicion to make use of Section 13 and these particular supplementary provisions. The Government have since argued that it does not apply to Section 13, and therefore the supplementary provisions; but it does. There is a slight inconsistency. I fully accept that the police and the immigration people must have the right to stop people of whom they are suspicious. But Mr. Kaukungua was well-known, and he was stopped because he was accused of being a member of a terrorist organisation. Perhaps the noble Lord could look a little further into it. I take his point, but it is not entirely satisfactory in a very awkward area.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I entirely accept the noble Lord's point of view. It is a little difficult to get into the realms of particular cases. But may I pursue that further and correspond with him? I note the point that he made.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, perhaps in that case the noble Lord will ask Sir Cyril Philips to look more closely. He made a reference to it and said he was satisfied, but he also said that he did not look at individual cases. Perhaps he could look at some of these.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am sure that Sir Cyril will look at the noble Lord's remarks.

Turning to the question of facilities at ports, which is another point that the noble Lord raised, because of the attention paid to port control by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Jellicoe, the Home Secretary asked Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary in 1984 to carry out a review of staffing facilities and arrangements for co-ordination. The review was received early in 1985. It has taken some time to consider it, because we have had to calculate the costs of some of the recommendations and to carry out consultation with the police. But I assure the noble Lord that we expect to reach conclusions very soon, and I hope that that reassures him.

As to conditions of detention, guidance on the conditions of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act was given in Home Office circulars in 1979 in response to the review of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and in 1984 in response to the review of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The attention of the police was drawn to recommendations that Prevention of Terrorism Act detainees should be supplied with clean bed-linen, mattresses, blankets and a pillow, and that they should be offered a varied diet. So I have no reason to suppose that those conditions are not being adhered to.

I have covered a number of points, and I will study what has been said. If there are any points that I have missed, I shall gladly come back in writing to those concerned. But I think the most important question in this debate has been whether or not to retain exclusion orders. The number of orders made recently has declined. That is a good thing. The Government readily acknowledge the objectionable nature of the power, and we will continue to do all we can to keep down the numbers of orders and to ensure that they are made only in the most serious cases.

But we bear a heavy burden of trying to protect innocent people from the murderous attacks of cunning and vicious terrorists. The Government are reluctantly, but very firmly, convinced that exclusion orders will remain at least for the next 12 months an essential instrument of protection. Parliament has a duty towards those innocent people—people like the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—who may become the next victims of terrorism. There has been no reduction in the terrorist threat since this Act was last renewed. During that period powers of arrest and detention have been used to good effect, and the power to make exclusion orders, though it has been exercised sparingly, continues to be necessary. That is why I believe it is essential in the interests of the public that the Act should be renewed this year.

6.7 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne)

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.

Lord Monkswell

Not-Content!

The Deputy Speaker

Clear the Bar.

Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.