HL Deb 16 February 1988 vol 493 cc565-85

7.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which did not comment on it. The effect of the order will be to renew the 1984 Act for a further 12 months from 22nd March. This is the last occasion on which the Act can be renewed, and it will expire in a year's time on 21st March 1989.

It is a fact that more than three years have now elapsed since the last outrage was committed by Northern Irish terrorists on the mainland. That is a tribute to the vigilance of the police. But the sombre threat remains undiminished. It comes from any and all parts of the world. In Northern Ireland last year, the terrible catalogue of terrorist atrocities was augmented by a further 83 deaths resulting from internal terrorist activity. But the international threat is a real one. In 1987, six murders in Great Britain were attributed to international terrorism.

There have been successes against terrorism, both on the mainland and in the Province. Those successes were due in no small part to the existence of the powers which are provided by the prevention of terrorism legislation which we are now considering. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said in the past that those powers are extraordinary. People are right to be concerned, both about the existence of the extraordinary powers and about their operation. It would be a victory for the terrorist if he were to force a government into exercising powers so draconian that he could claim, with credibility, that they were oppressive.

A difficult balance must be struck in which the powers are, on the one hand, effective in combating terrorism yet, and, on the other hand, result in the minimum curtailment of civil liberties. We believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act powers strike that balance. The powers are necessary to protect the public against the very real threat of terrorism. While that threat persists, they will continue to be necessary.

Because of the exceptional nature of the powers, when it considered the Bill which became the 1984 Act, Parliament rightly pressed for it to be scrutinised annually by an independent person. Last year the task was undertaken for the first time by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross when he reviewed the operation of the Act in 1986. His review of the operation of the Act in 1987 was placed in the Library on 8th February. I apologise if some noble Lords have not been able to get a copy of the review. In his scrutiny my noble friend makes it clear that he is generally satisfied with the operation of the Act in 1987. He gave many figures and statistics with which I do not propose to weary your Lordships this evening but which illustrate the way in which the Act was operated last year.

As the 1984 Act will expire in March 1989, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary last year asked my noble friend Lord Colville to widen his brief. In addition to the scrutiny of the operation of the Act in 1987, my noble friend was asked to undertake a wider review of the effectiveness of the legislation. That was published as a Command Paper on 9th December 1987.

I wish to express the gratitude both of the House and of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to my noble friend for the considerable effort and care which has gone into both of the reports. In the course of his work, my noble friend has visited no fewer than 49 air, sea and hoverports around the United Kingdom. He has acquired a degree of knowledge about the working of the port controls in which he can have few rivals. He has had discussions with a wide range of individuals and organisations which have an interest in the legislation, and he has taken care to represent their views in his reports.

In his main review of the legislation my noble friend made a number of recommendations for changes in the legislation. The most significant recommendation is that the central provisions of the prevention of terrorism legislation should become permanent and that they should no longer be subject to annual renewal. As my noble friend says in his report, it would be foolish, although it is a disagreeable and sad prospect, to pretend that terrorism in some form will not continue to threaten lives and property in Western countries in the foreseeable future. It would be equally foolish to pretend that we could contemplate dispensing with legislation against terrorism in the near future. It is realistic, therefore, that the powers should now be continued for as long as they are needed.

However, in recognition of the exceptional nature of the powers, we propose that the new legislation should be renewed and reviewed annually so that it will be the subject of regular scrutiny. It will require a deliberate decision by Parliament each year to retain it. It will remain possible to discontinue any part of it at any time. Since annual renewal is to be retained, we shall be going back to the position under the 1976 Act. The new legislation will not have a fixed life similar to the five-year term of the present Act. It will continue for as long as—but only as long as—Parliament decides.

The report of each annual independent scrutiny of the operation of the Act will continue to be published as at present so that Parliament can take an informed view of the way in which the Act is used. The Act will, as now, be renewable wholly or in part. My noble friend argues in his report that the provisions, which apply solely to terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland—proscription and exclusion—should be placed in a separate part of the Act and should be on a temporary basis. If the requirement for annual renewal and the power to discontinue any part of the Act are retained as proposed, Parliament will be able to drop those powers if and when it considers that they should be dropped.

The Government intend to accept my noble friend's recommendation that the port powers, which are now contained in the supplemental orders, should be enacted in primary legislation. The port powers include important provisions such as the examination, searching and detention of passengers, and we believe that it is right that they should become subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government have considered very carefully my noble friend's recommendation that the police powers at ports should be extended to ports which handle traffic which comes from outside the common travel area as well. The police already have the crucial powers to examine and detain people at any port in the United Kingdom in order to establish whether they are involved in terrorism. There is a small number of police powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act which apply only at ports which are used by people travelling within the common travel area. Powers under the Immigration Act 1971 provide a substantial measure of control at ports which are not covered by the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and we are not at present convinced that there is a case for extending police powers at these ports.

We see merit also in my noble friend's proposal that the procedures which apply to people in police custody in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act should also apply to those who are detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We are considering how best this recommendation might be implemented without compromising police investigations.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already announced the Government's conclusion that they cannot accept my noble friend's recommendation that the exclusion power should not be retained. The Government recognise that this is a severe power, restricting as it does the free movement of a person within his own country, and as such it is not used lightly. But until an alternative means is found of giving the public the degree of protection which is currently provided by exclusion, the Government believe that the power must stay.

My noble friend suggests that Section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act could usefully be extended to cover international terrorism, and that there should be further exploration of other means of acting against terrorist funds. The question of attacking the sources of terrorist finances is complex but the Government accept that they should look very carefully at how it might be possible to extend the existing provisions along the lines which are proposed.

The measures which I have outlined will form the basis of the Bill which the Government will introduce and which will replace the existing Act when it expires in March 1989. The contents of the Bill are subject to further consideration, but I thought that it was only right to give your Lordships an idea of the Government's thinking about the future of this legislation as your Lordships consider the renewal of the 1984 Act for the last time.

I hope that my noble friend's account of the use which was made of the powers under this Act will reassure your Lordships that they are exercised properly and with due regard to their special nature. The Government believe that this legislation should remain in force only if Parliament is satisfied that it continues to be necessary. I commend the draft order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)

7.42 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I make no apology and I do not think that the House would expect one, for asking the House to give the gravest possible consideration to the annual renewal and continuance of the legislation asked for by the order before your Lordships.

Before I address myself to the very important elements of freedom of the subject and breaches of our constitutional law, perhaps I may make two points abundantly clear. The first is by way of a protest which I hope I can make courteously in regard to a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has already referred. We are supposed to consider these matters in the light of the annual review. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has already been thanked by the Minister for his work in the review of the operation of the Act itself. deserves thanks, I am sure, for the work he put in in regard to the annual review for 1987. The review arrived in the Printed Paper Office while I was waiting for it precisely five minutes ago. That matter ought to be looked into very closely. Those of your Lordships participating in this debate—and I am included in that number—have had to read through that report with a rapidity which quite obviously does not do it justice.

My second point is one that I wish to make very clearly from these Benches. I imagine that there is nobody in your Lordships' House who, in any way at all, will wish to defend acts of terrorists or do anything but safeguard our citizens from such dreadful deeds and murderous enterprises. That is a matter on which there will be unanimity in your Lordships' House. However, we have to balance the threat to the security of our citizens and their homes against the invasion of our centuries-old liberties, which are dealt with most peculiarly and extraordinarily under the legislation we are now considering.

Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to quote the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in regard to the effect of this legislation, for example, on our Irish fellow citizens in this country and Northern Ireland and on the Irish in southern Ireland. On page 36, at paragraph 7.2 of his scrutiny of the operation of this Act in 1986 he says: The Prevention of Terrorism Act is extremely unpopular with the Irish community in Great Britain and, as with all the emergency legislation, in Northern Ireland too". He goes on to say: I heard from one staunch republican who denies the right of Westminster to legislate for the Province at all. Others denounce terrorism, whether domestic or international, but say the legislation has cast a blight over the Irish population in Great Britain and is counter-productive in Northern Ireland because amongst other things it alienates the population and discourages the public from any attempt to help in rooting out terrorism. It creates martyrs and tends to cause misplaced sympathy for people who on any rational view have committed terrible crimes. It is not for me to advise whether it would be possible to abolish all emergency legislation in Northern Ireland and rely on the ordinary criminal law, but it is a suggestion seriously made to me". One comes to consider the situation in 1988 in the light of the report made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in respect of the operation of the Act during 1987 and indeed all previous years. When one comes to consider that report I should like to remind your Lordships of what I endeavoured to say in the debate in your Lordships' House on 19th February 1987. I introduced that matter by quoting what the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said when introducing a similar order to the one that we are now considering. He said: The Government welcome the opportunity provided by the annual review, and by the debates on the continuance order in this House and in another place, for a thorough scrutiny of this legislation. The Government believe it should only remain on the statute book if Parliament is satisfied both that the powers it gives continue to be necessary, and that they are being properly used".—[Official Report, 19;2/87; col. 1241.] On that occasion, in regard to that remark, I said: Again on this occasion especially I ask the noble Earl to consult his right honourable friend and say whether, in their joint view, it is consistent with what is repeatedly said year by year, that we should consider these powers and pass them only if necessary, if we have no opportunity whatever of dealing with the powers separately". —[Official Report, 19/2/87; col 1242.] That is extremely material on this occasion because the Government have accepted in their wisdom a recommendation to which I wish to refer in a moment; namely, that we should have a permanent Act on the statute book dealing with the powers of the Government and other authorities in regard to fighting terrorism.

In that selfsame report there were two recommendations in the main that the Government have seen fit not to accept. They are in regard to exclusion orders, and Section 11 of the Act that deals with the offence of withholding information. Perhaps I may immediately refer to the passages of the report which deal with the question of exclusion orders. I am looking at the review of the operation. At page 37, paragraph 11.1.2, the report quotes what the Secretary of State can do by way of making an exclusion order. It states: The Secretary of State may make an exclusion order against any person who he is satisfied (a) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism: or (b) is attempting or may attempt to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism". If noble Lords refer to page 38 they will see the statistics for new orders made in Great Britain. In 1985 there were seven; in 1986 there were nine; in 1987 to 30th June there were 12. The figures for Northern Ireland are at the bottom of that page. In 1985 no orders were made; in 1986 no orders were made; in 1987 to 30th June one order was made.

I turn to the case against exclusion, which is contained at page 39. I intend to quote only from the first part of paragraph 11.4.1, which states: Exclusion orders deprive certain people of the right to move freely around the United Kingdom and to live where they please. The evidence against them is not tested in a court of law nor made known to the person excluded and it is possible that some of it may be inaccurate". At page 40 there is the assessment, from which I quote at paragraph 11.6.1. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, says: I renew my recommendation, made in the annual report on the Act for 1986, that Part II of the Act should not be renewed in 1988, or not replaced in the new Bill. The Home Secretary announced earlier this year that after careful consideration he had decided it would not now be wise to discontinue this power. I recognise that the alternative is a hard decision, but I express the view that it would be the correct one both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom and this country's reputation in that respect among the International Community". I address myself to the Minister and ask him this. First, is it not regrettable that again this year we are in no position to say that we approve of the order continuing the terms of the Act but we disapprove, for example, of this right of internal exile, as it has been called? We have no such power to do so in this House in spite of the fact that we have called for such measures as would enable us to do so when the Act came up for renewal as it does under the order today. I again make that protest to the Minister. I also say this to him. Will he kindly tell the House the reason why—after two years of labours in looking at the situation in Northern Ireland, and in general in regard to terrorism—the Government are not accepting this recommendation.

I turn to another recommendation made in the report with regard to Section 11 of the Act. At page 50 of the report, after dealing with Section 11 of the Act, it describes the power under that Act as follows: if a person has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism or securing the arrest, prosecution or conviction of a person for a terrorist act, it is an offence for him to fail without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as reasonably practicable to the police". After dealing with previous objections to the inclusion of that offence in the Act, on page 51 at paragraph 15.1.3, the noble Viscount says this: There does not appear to me to be anything special in withholding information about terrorism. If the police seek to pre-empt a terrorist attack, they can detain principal or subordinate personnel under Section 12 for questioning. The existence of an offence of withholding information provides at that stage no more than a point of pressure". Later in that paragraph he states: I am recommending elsewhere that a core of anti-terrorist legislation should be made permanent. So long as the Act was 'temporary' there may have been justification for retaining Section 11. For any other purpose, the law should not make peculiar provisions for terrorism. It should apply to all serious crime, and particular regard should be had to any conflict with the common law in Scotland". Again I say to the Minister what a shame it is—indeed, what a disgrace it is—that this House has no opportunity of saying to the Minister that this order should be continued but again Section 11 should disappear from the Act as an offence.

Perhaps I may make this general observation before I sit down. Parliament has the very treasured duty of safeguarding principles of our criminal law, the liberty of subject, and human rights that have been enshrined in our law for many a long day. Even in difficult times such as we have experienced with the acts of terrorism, both international and in Ireland, Parliament obviously has the duty of seeing that those rights, privileges and liberties are sustained if they possibly can be. They ought only to be infringed as a temporary measure where an emergency exists.

We on these Benches can see no reason at all why the annual review should not continue in the same way that it has done—except that procedural provision should be made for our being able to debate the various powers and offences under the Act, to see whether they should be reviewed. We believe it is a retrograde step to think in terms of any permanent legislation, especially at a time when tempers have been unnecessarily inflamed in Dublin, quite apart from Northern Ireland, by recent decisions of the Government that we on this side of the House have deprecated: namely, not to hold a public inquiry into the offences that were quite obviously committed by some minority members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

To make an announcement of permanent legislation at this time is—if one wants to be kind about it—an act of supreme tactlessness. If one wants to be unkind about it, then it is an act of supreme lack of diplomacy.

8.1 p.m.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, I totally disapprove of making the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act a permanent Act. I believe it will appear that we have given up and have actually thrown in the towel. It will be seen as a retreat; that we have failed and that will be a fillip to terrorism. I believe it would be far better to step up the anti-terrorist profile and show our people we are determined to root out terrorism.

Also, the timing of this announcement is a classic example of psychological silliness and insensitivity. I prefer the annual review as at present—a parliamentary debate that brings the Government to account. It also offers the hope that as we succeed against terrorism the provisions in the order will be eased and gradually removed from the statute book. That hope, which is the main aim of the annual debate, may well go. Permanency will overrule, and the declared permanency of temporary provisions will be indicative of our failure to defeat the terrorists.

The renewal of the order dealing with the prevention of terrorism has my approval. The powers contained in the order will be required for at least the next 12 months, as the Government initially requested. We must not forget that the objective of terrorism is usually to bring about political change by means of terrorising peoples and governments and through intimidation by bomb and by bullet, hoping to weaken the democratic will and effect a ruthless, military-style takeover.

One method is to create such a backlash against the forces of law and order that the democratic government of the day appear to be so dictatorially oppressive that they help win support for the terrorist cause. That situation must be avoided, and that is why orders to help prevent terrorism must be subject to democratic scrutiny before approval.

I should like to deal with this order in the context of Northern Ireland, although it applies also to the activities of international terrorists. Members of the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army visit Britain in their various guises. They are observed at the Irish exits and at the entry points to Britain; namely, ports and airports. They visit friends and relatives, mingle with football spectators at west coast football matches, attend boxing matches in London and other sporting occasions, and occasionally divert en route to leave a message at a covert drop, awaken a "sleeper" here and there, assemble an active service unit, collect and store bomb-making equipment, establish safe houses, and so on.

All the time there is in our midst some terrorist activity taking place by Irish terrorist groups and their friends in Great Britain. Constant surveillance is therefore absolutely necessary, and the maintenance of emergency provisions is an arm of the law that must be continued.

Our security and intelligence forces manning the airports and seaports of Northern Ireland and Great Britain must have the right, and the backing of Parliament, to watch all the faces, to track suspects' movements, and to recognise the "mug shots" of wanted men, especially those who manage to remain free after the mass escape from the Maze prison, that college of high learning in Irish nationalism, military discipline and terrorist activity. Yet even some of those men have escaped the net.

When we hear or read of some outcry concerning one or more persons being held at a port in Northern Ireland or Great Britain who protest their innocence (and they may well be innocent), we must recognise that the prevention orders in operation may cause some nuisance and inconvenience and that some libertarians may rise in anger at such intrusion into our peaceful and democratic way of life.

I do not complain when such people say our civil liberties are being breached again. I consider this: what if, among those persons that the Special Branch has held, there are a couple of people who wanted to effect a post drop, awaken a sleeper or activate an active service unit? In the time that those suspects can be held under the emergency provisions and prevention of terrorism legislation, it will become a failed mission. If there is insufficient evidence to prefer charges then, their return home or their objective having been frustrated their mission will have failed.

No doubt that has happened time and time again. There is no telling how many lives have been saved. Some completely innocent people may have been held with them, perhaps having been used as a shroud when only one in a group of travellers was a suspect. That is the price we must pay when terrorism and terrorists abound within our shores.

It is also important to understand that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and legislation extending detention have given police time to check forensic evidence they may have concerning fingerprints on guns or on bomb-making equipment and to match it in the time available. I ask your Lordships not to relax those laws this year. They are just as important now as at the time of their inception. There may be fewer terrorists in total but there are proportionately more hard-line, callous men.

In the light of all that I have said. I ask my colleagues also not to parley with Sinn Fein. That organisation and its councillors are the political agents of the Provo terrorists. I am aware that meetings have taken place, and still do. A number of Sinn Fein councillors are former Maze men. They are not ordinary criminals as we understand them. Having served a sentence and wiped the slate clean, they have been retrained, rested, refurbished, and are now more political too. Let us not be kidded by their political activity, with which they attempt to cloak their terrorism.

It is not just a ballot box and bullet policy now, frightening though that is. It is now the ballot box and mass slaughter—Enniskillen being the most recent example. Since the humiliation of Sinn Fein in the Republic elections it is clear that the hawks in the Provisional IRA have now been given a free rein; hence their attempts to import more sophisticated weapons of war and to raise the profile of terrorist activity. That is another particularly strong reason to maintain anti-terrorist provisions.

To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers, and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available, and that is what I urge my party and this House to do.

From my experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for almost three years, and from the protected life I lead—I know what the loss of privacy really means—I am left in no doubt that active service units still operate and are activated within our shores. Therefore the utmost vigilance is absolutely essential. Our security forces must be backed to the hilt, without cavil or complaint, because I believe that our freedom and security are in their hands.

8.10 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I apologise for failing to list my name as one of those wishing to take part in the debate. I have explained the position to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I should like to join with my noble friends who have already spoken in expressing appreciation of the difficult and extremely tortuous task undertaken by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. It was a difficult task to review this politically unsavoury legislation. I understand from his report, and from people from whom he received representations and views, that he made every effort to inform himself of the ramifications and implications arising from the operations of this PTA legislation. I am convinced that he did not put forward his report and proposals without giving considerable thought and care to the outcome for the community and to the possible political consequences.

The outcome of this renewal order and the proposed further legislation, and of the pending debate in another place, have received wide media coverage. That has not been unexpected. Throughout the United Kingdom there has been a growing public anxiety about the serious rise in organised terrorism, especially about the availability and use of sophisticated new technological weaponry and devices with lethal results for the security personnel and the general public. There is no doubt that in Northern Ireland there has been a build-up of such deadly equipment. It has been used with murderous intent against those responsible for the maintenance of law and order and to the imperilling of the life and safety of ordinary citizens going about their daily business.

I am concerned about the further enactment of this legislation, as are other noble Lords and responsible and peaceable citizens. I am unhappy about the territorial application of the inclusion orders. I am also concerned about some of the difficulties experienced by the overlap between the PTA and the emergency provisions Act, especially the difficulties as regards proscribed organisations.

I am pleased to learn from the Minister that the new arrangements for legislation will be considered in more detail and, it is hoped, will provide for a continuous scrutiny and review of the legislation. I hope that the provisions may allow for annual debate with amendments to the new legislation to be considered. I join with my noble friends Lord Mishcon, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and Lord Mason in their general concern about the stamp of permanency on the legislation. I hope that any consideration will give the lie to the idea that this is a no-hope situation.

Finally, in considering the order and whatever may arise from the renewal arrangements, I am compelled to take into consideration the situation in Northern Ireland. I am well aware that this legislation is concerned not only with terrorism in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom and internationally. I should like to voice my agreement with the words spoken by Archbishop Eames at the memorial service held last Sunday in St. Anne's Cathedral in Belfast for the killed RUC officers and other security personnel. He said: There is no alternative to a police service answerable to the community it serves and protects. There is no substitute for a constitutional police force serving the whole community with integrity, courage and devotion. There is no alternative to a police service that is seen to have only one enemy—those who challenge law and order". As with most people in Northern Ireland, my hopes are for a peaceable and prosperous community. Along with other law-abiding citizens, I fear not the police nor the rule of law but, sadly, I live in fear of the terrorist and a community dominated by ruthless paramilitaries. For those reasons I support my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I do not oppose the renewal of this 1988 PTA order.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I am not sure that your Lordships should pass this order tonight. In previous years my noble friend Lord Henderson and I have complained about the delay in the provision of the annual report. I did not know that it was available—although I ought to have guessed—until my noble friend Lord Mishcon mentioned it. I then went to the Printed Paper Office, where I was told that it had been received a few minutes before. My noble friend Lord Henderson had not seen it either. It is a major failure and it is outrageous that this House should be asked to pass the order without having had the benefit of considering the report. However, I have read enough of it to say that the important subject for discussion is the main review carried out by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I should like to congratulate him.

It is worth recalling that governments in difficulty always carry out a review. I had to undertake that in the days of the Labour Government; the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had to undertake that; now the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has done so. The noble Viscount's report is far and away the most thorough, far-reaching and valuable and we are grateful to him for it.

However, I am not satisfied. If noble Lords think that we should continue with the previous procedure I can say only that in my judgment it is very unsatisfactory. It is absurd that we are debating a major issue such as this, with all the points and recommendations in front of us, when we do not have time, when we cannot move effective amendments and when we devote only an hour late in the day.

I shall not enter into the arguments as regards the new permanent Act. It is not quite as bad as we were afraid it might be, because there will be an annual order. I assume that there will be an order and that it will be possible to discuss the workings of the Act in a way that has not been possible. Perhaps the noble Earl can comment on that in his reply.

I have supported this from the beginning and I still support it except with regard to one matter. I am not convinced about the question of exclusion. I should like to hear that issue properly debated, but we cannot do so. I appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about that matter. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate him on becoming Deputy Leader. In that capacity he has particular responsibility for the welfare of this House and for the conduct of its affairs. I hope he will take this matter seriously and ensure that there will be reasonable opportunities for debate. We shall have the Act, which will be fully debated, and in future years we shall have an order. Will it be possible in that order to drop major provisions from the Act? As I understand it, we could be doing that today if the Government were inclined so to do.

I am amazed that the Government are still persevering with Section 11. I objected to it strongly in my first inquiry. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, accepted that it should continue. We now have this thorough investigation with more powerful reasons than I put forward. I merely said that the provisions stank and did not state the reasons as given by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I appeal to the Government seriously to consider dropping Section 11 and the provision of a penalty if one does not give information, which does not apply in Scotland, as we have been told, or in other parts of the criminal law.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. We need this or similar legislation. I hope that the Government will pay rather more attention to making provision for adequate discussion when the new legislation is introduced in future years. There is a great deal of concern. Those of us who have gone into the matter thoroughly are convinced that it is necessary, but many people are not convinced. It is for Parliament to discuss this, to hear the arguments and then to make a decision.

I wonder about the need for a permanent Act. I really do not see the argument for it. I fully accept that the legislation will have to go on for many years yet. As I understand it, we do not have a permanent army Act. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, could tell me that. I do not know whether the Government will have a permanent army Act in future. This is a little unwise, and I hope that the Government will think further when they bring in the new legislation. There should be clear provision for making changes so that we do not go through this farcical procedure again.

8.21 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I should like briefly to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. on his fine report. We have all had the benefit of reading it. It was published before Christmas. I regret most bitterly, with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the report of the noble Viscount for 1987 was in our hands only about an hour ago. I note that the 1987 report is dated 2nd February so the noble Viscount cannot be blamed for this. Why it has taken from 2nd February to 7.30 p.m. on 16th February for the report to reach us, I am at a loss to understand.

In the letter introducing the report, the noble Viscount says to the Secretary of State in words that ring rather hollow: I hope that it will be useful to both Houses of Parliament when they debate the renewal order". How useful can it be when one receives it after the Minister has moved the annual renewal?

I must say this also to the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, whom I congratulate on becoming Deputy Leader of the House: when this quinquennial Act was passed, an undertaking was given that there would be a full report on each year's activity under the Act in time for the annual debate. I had discussions, as I am sure did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, with the then Leader of the House. We made representations that the annual report should be a Command Paper so that it should appear in time and properly printed in sequence with other important state papers. It was represented to us that it would not be possible to print It in time to be numbered in the command series if it was to deal properly with the year preceding the annual renewal. We therefore settled for a report in the kind of format that we now have in our hands, but only on the understanding that it would be available in plenty of time for the annual debate. That undertaking has clearly been breached. That is an important and regrettable breach of a parliamentary undertaking.

That said, I join other noble Lords in expressing my deep disappointment that it has not been possible to dispense with exclusion orders and. for that matter, with the offence of withholding information. I remember that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his report said that he found consideration of the system of exclusion to be the most difficult part of his work and that exclusion was in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, recommended its discontinuance, and the Home Secretary has turned down the suggestion that it should be dispensed with, no doubt for very good reasons. I cannot help but say that in future one must have the opportunity to question the Government each year and to propose in Parliament the discontinuation of exclusion orders. If not, the annual debates will have no reality.

I ask the noble Earl whether he will convey to the Secretary of State the feeling of the House that we are very anxious about the proposal permanently to renew these important provisions. I say this for two reasons. One has already been well covered by the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords. There is no need for me to dilate upon it. However, now seems to me to be not the opportune moment, to say the least, to make such an announcement.

Secondly, and for just as important reasons, I would say that for parliamentary and constitutional propriety this should not be done. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, I strongly support these terrorist regulations. Of course they are necessary. I would not wish them to be dispensed with for one moment. But are they to have parliamentary control? After all, the constitutional settlement, which is now 300 years old, determined that the army Act should be annual. If the army Acts are to be annual—they were until shortly after the last war, when they were made quinquennial, although annually renewable—surely important legislation such as this, which infringes civil liberties to a very dire extent, should also be quinquennial and subject to annual renewal.

Those were the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. In the report he suggested—and the Government agreed—assimilating the parliamentary provisions of the Armed Forces Act and the parliamentary provisions of the terrorism legislation. That seemed to me exactly right and just. Quite recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in an article in The Times drew attention to the importance in a parliamentary democracy of the Government's duty to observe parliamentary decencies and procedures. If Parliament requires the Armed Forces Act to exist only for a quinquennium, surely Parliament's view, which should be respected, is that the terrorism legislation should be considered likewise and not on a permanent basis.

8.28 p.m.

Lord Gifford

My Lords, I must express concern about the renewal of the Act and the proposals to enshrine it in permanent legislation. I should like to pick out what I believe to be two of its most obnoxious provisions. The first, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, is the exclusion order. It is a fundamental interference with human rights. We are trying to set an example. Our Foreign Secretary is in Moscow talking to people who are not allowed to leave their home country, yet we are approving continuation of a provision preventing citizens of this country from travelling freely round it, and we are doing so in the face of a recommendation from the Government's own adviser that the exclusion order is no longer required.

The second objectionable provision to which I wish to draw attention is the provision for detention for up to seven days under Section 12 of the Act. We now have one and a half years' experience—certainly over a year—of the workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which allows detention of suspects up to 96 hours subject to particular safeguards, including the appearance before a magistrate. However, subject to a magistrate's approval there can be detention for up to 96 hours.

Reading the provisions, people have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act but they can only be detained because they are suspected of being involved in crime; that is, acts of terrorism. Very few have been detained for more than 48 hours. The figures for 1987 total 19. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, does not specify how many were detained for more than 96 hours. I wonder whether he and the Government inquired as to what proportion of those detained could properly and legally have been detained under existing legislation without the need for the much more draconian provisions of the Act. The powers are not needed and if it had been possible to amend the order to have the exclusion of those two objectionable provisions I would have wished to do so.

8.32 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, may I say at the outset that, to put it as politely as possible, he has slightly overstated the case when he makes a comparison between the exclusion orders under this Act and the way in which political detainees are treated in the Soviet Union. His case is not strengthened by overstatements of that nature. I do not believe that that part of his contribution deserves a great deal of respect in the House.

However, on one issue I think we are probably all agreed; that is, that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has perfomed an outstanding service to the House and to the Home Office in carrying out this very thorough review. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and nearly everyone else, in expressing my substantial disquiet that this report was not made available until only a few moments before this debate commenced. After someone has worked as thoroughly as the noble Viscount, travelling to all parts of the United Kingdom conducting, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, probably the most thorough review possible of this legislation that has ever taken place, it seems little short of astonishing that these documents did not appear until just before we commenced this debate. If I did not know the Home Office to be a department which—and the noble Viscount will agree with me as we both served in it—does its best always to be courteous one would assume it was almost a studied act of discourtesy. I very much hope that following the observations made by a number of noble Lords we will receive an absolute guarantee that this problem will not arise on any future occasion.

This year's debate is taking place in a very different atmosphere from those which we have had on previous occasions. There are perhaps two reasons for that. The first is undoubtedly the suggestion made on television last night and in some of this morning's newspapers that the Government were proposing to make this temporary provisions Act permanent legislation. Admittedly it is clear that some of the worst fears that exercised some of us last evening and this morning have not been realised, because it is now obvious that we are at least to have the opportunity of a debate on the annual renewal order. However, I still question the desirability of making this permanent legislation.

I speak as one who broadly supports the general attitude of the Government on this whole question. But when there is serious disquiet expressed in many parts of' the House about particular features of this legislation, the idea that we shall be deprived of the opportunity of having detailed discussion of this legislation every four or five years seems to me unacceptable and I very much hope that the Home Secretary, his advisers and his colleagues in the Government will review the matter. If they do not they will, I believe, stir up a true hornets' nest.

The second reason why I believe that this debate is taking place in a very different atmosphere is the apparent impact of the announcement last night, repeated in this morning's newspapers, on Anglo-Irish relations. Following the whole series of problems created by the Stalker affair and at a time when it appears that serious problems are being encountered by the Attorney-General in obtaining the agreement of the Irish authorities to extradition arrangements it seems to me, to put it as mildly as possible, a very strange day to make an announcement of this character.

I do not want make heavy weather of the issue because the timing of policy announcements is a matter of considerable sensitivity and there may be more plausible arguments for the Government's decision than appear obvious to us. Nevertheless, I find it odd and, coming after a whole series of other problems in relation to Ireland, a most unfortunate business.

The issues involved in this order raise questions involving the safety of the public at a time when there is a continuing threat of Irish-related terrorism (and as the noble Viscount's report makes clear, international terrorism too) and also our civil liberties. The first issue before us is obviously whether this order should be renewed and it is clear from the speeches made that it will be. I agree with that. The House will recall that the legislation of 1974 on which this order is broadly based received Royal Assent only eight days after the Birmingham public house bombings in November of that year. At that time I was Minister of State at the Home Office and my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary. Certainly we had no doubt that the legislation would have an effect on the civil liberties of a number of our fellow citizens. Indeed, we said so during the passage of the legislation. However, we believed that its enactment was vital if we were to protect the lives of many of our fellow citizens; and so it proved.

I dealt at that time with some of the first applications for exclusion orders. There were many in the first months after the enactment of that legislation. I had no doubt, nor did my noble friend, that on the evidence before us, had those exclusion order powers not been included in that legislation many people in this country would have died. There is no doubt that at that time we cleared out of this country a number of extremely dangerous men and women who were involved in the organisation of terrorism in this country. When serious concern is expressed about the exclusion order powers it is necessary to realise what the consequences would have been if we had not had them.

I now turn to the issue of port controls, dealt with in paragraph 3.1.5. of the noble Viscount's report. Only a few days after the passage of that legislation 1974—indeed the day after it received Royal Assent—I remember going to Liverpool to watch the Merseyside police bringing those port controls into effect and for the first time cross-examining a significant number of passengers disembarking from ships in Liverpool. I do not doubt, and I did not doubt at the time, that many of those people bitterly resented the fact that they were questioned. I have no doubt that when they were delayed, as some were for a significant period, they were even more angry. However, in view of the terrorist threat I believe we were right to do it and like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I believe that those controls at our airports and seaports remain absolutely vital.

The terrorist threat to this country remains substantial. I believe it would be foolish to remove those controls, which act as a significant deterrent to the travelling terrorist. That is a view held by all the senior police officers who deal with our counterterrorist arrangements in this country and, again, I agree with them.

I close with one important and sensitive issue. The Home Secretary has decided not to implement or adopt a very important recommendation of the noble Viscount which relates to exclusions. As I have indicated, I believe that when they were introduced they were vital. The noble Viscount has reviewed the matter and, in the light of the different situation which now faces us, has come to a different conclusion. He adopted the same attitude in the last report that he submitted to the Home Secretary and was equally unsuccessful on that occasion. The noble Viscount has accepted in his report that there was unanimous police opposition to his proposal both by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Association of Scottish Chief Police Officers. He also accepted that recommendations for exclusion orders were processed with the greatest care by the Home Office, and I am sure that that remains the situation.

I am sure that many of my noble friends agree with the noble Viscount. I found it exceedingly difficult to come to a conclusion on this matter but on balance, speaking for myself, I came down on the same side as the Home Secretary. For the moment I believe the power is desirable but I would be deepy concerned were we not to have the opportunity of regular debate on this issue at a time when many responsible Members of this House and Members of another place take a contrary view. That is the case for regular review by Parliament and I hope the noble Earl will take account of that view and the whole range of issues involved in the idea of having permanent legislation. I believe I have made my position and the position of my colleagues clear. We believe the present order should be renewed, which is essential given the terrorist threat facing this country. I am sure that the House will agree with that conclusion.

8.45 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships who have spoken for the general support which has been given to this draft order. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was kind enough to congratulate me on becoming Deputy Leader of the House of Lords and to say that it was part of my business to ensure that your Lordships are happy.

I detect—one does not have to be very clever to detect—that your Lordships were not particularly happy with one aspect of this matter this evening. I am sorry that a matter as sensitive as the one we are discussing tonight should have had the jolt which it has had by noble Lords not having to hand the report of my noble friend Lord Colville. In fact, the Command Paper was in the Printed Paper Office on 9th December and the report was placed in the Library on 8th February, so it has been available. I realise it was not available in the Printed Paper Office. Inquiries I have made indicate that 25 copies which were sent over by my department to the Printed Paper Office were for some reason not there. I will conduct inquiries to discover what went wrong.

Nevertheless, the fact is that they were in the Library. I even answered a Written Parliamentary Question on 8th February from my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux in which I said: My right honourable friend has received the report from Viscount Colville of Culross on the operation of the Act in 1987 and copies have been placed in the Library".— [Official Report, 8/2/88; col. 94.] Therefore, they have been in your Lordships' House but I realise that they were not where your Lordships expected them to be and can only apologise profusely for the fact that something has gone astray. I shall endeavour to find out why and to ensure that that does not happen again.

It is unfortunate that a matter as sensitive as this should have had such an unhappy start. However, I am grateful to your Lordships for what has been said. I should like to take up the main point at issue and the main point of concern; that is, this matter being described as permanent legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the timing, and I think his words were that at best it was tactlessness and at worst a supreme lack of diplomacy.

The noble Lord, Lord Mason, who was himself a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — I was glad to hear him say this—said that we should not relax against the terrorists now, but on referring to the timing of this said it was silliness and insensitivity. Other noble Lords have also been concerned about that. I want to make this perfectly clear because there is a slight dilemma and a sense of misunderstanding. This is a law which at present requires renewal every year and is under an Act which lasts for five years. Next year it is intended that there should be a similar Act. The Act itself may be of a more permanent nature — in other words, it does not have a specific end to it —but the content of that Act will be subject to parliamentary approval each year.

The dilemma is this. Either one produces a Bill for consideration every year or one has a Bill, like most Bills, which is in operation until Parliament decides to repeal the law. We have tried a third alternative, which is to have a Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament but which is renewable every year. We have tried to do that in view of the fact that this is a particularly sensitive issue.

Therefore when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the way that he has of being extremely courteous but firing an Exocet at the same time, refers to this as a supreme lack of diplomacy, I can only say that if we are going to have Parliament approve an order every year, it means that there is a timescale. The timescale is that the new order has to be in by 22nd March. The undertaking given by the Government was that Parliament should have a month in advance of that time to discuss it. Therefore along come the Government. They produce a draft order for discussion by your Lordships and they are described as being insensitive, silly and lacking in diplomacy.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister, who is extremely courteous but is also extremely able in debate, remembers what is in fact the complaint. The complaint was not that the order was coming before the House at this moment but was about the announcement that temporary legislation was to be replaced by permanent legislation. In case he believes that I am peculiarly unkind from this Front Bench, which of course is quite inaccurate, I refer him to today's article on the front page of The Times which states: It is a move that will further exacerbate relations between Dublin and London which have already been severely strained in recent weeks by the Stalker affair and the failure of the appeal of the Birmingham public house bombers". I do not think that The Times is unfair to the Government, but that was its reaction to the announcement about the permanent legislation.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord is as usual courteous. In fact the newspapers and indeed the BBC got it wrong. What will happen is precisely what is happening now. There will be legislation as there is now, a similar kind of legislation, but that legislation will be renewable every single year as it is now. When the Bill comes before your Lordships then the whole panoply of the contents of the Bill can be considered. I really think that it is misrepresenting what is happening when the inference is that this legislation will be permanent and immutable. Even my noble friend Lord Colville—I say "even"; I should leave that word out. My noble friend Lord Colville has said that it is unreasonable to assume that the problem of terrorism will go away. If the problem of terrorism does not go away the Government have a right and a duty to bring in legislation to protect citizens against it.

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked whether we could discuss the workings of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made this point clearly too. He wanted to be able to discuss various aspects of the Act. It is possible to discuss all aspects of the Act under a regulation, but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, knows full well what the parliamentary procedures are. If an Act requires renewal, it is done by order. My understanding is that it is proper and usual for there to be one order. If there is concern about the contents of the Act the Government can remove various aspects of the Act in the order which they lay.

It is true that it is more difficult for noble Lords to remove parts of the Act by the order because the order has to be accepted as a whole or not at all. Of course if the worst were to happen the House would be perfectly justified in saying that it would not accept the order as it was. It could be renewed on another occasion. I am not inviting the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has suddenly perked up with interest at that prospect, to follow that course, but I am saying that Parliament has the right to say, "We will not accept the order as it is at the moment. Take it away and bring it back in a different form". Parliament has that capacity.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, a second and I hope a final intervention which the noble Earl has so politely allowed me to make: he knows as well as I do that there is a convention that the Opposition do not oppose orders that are brought in this way. If that were not the convention, I might, with some of my noble friends, have had to take a certain course tonight. I do not want our attitude to be misunderstood. We are obeying the convention.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that and for obeying, as he puts it, the convention. I would rather have said that he was following the convention. I shall certainly take account of the real points of concern which have come from all parts of the House this evening.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred to the effects of the order on the Irish population. I hope that the Irish population will understand that the Act is not aimed at law-abiding citizens in Ireland or in Britain. It is aimed at protecting us all from the scourge of terrorism, wherever it comes from, whether it be from Irish terrorists or international terrorists.

The noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord Mishcon, referred to the problems of exclusion, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I was glad that he said that, recognising the problems, he nevertheless felt that on balance the Government were right to include the exclusion provisions. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, because it is a tough measure and views differ. Exclusion is a severe power, but, as my noble friend Lord Colville acknowledges in his main review, there is at present no alternative means of giving the public the same degree of protection which the existence of this power provides. The Government have accepted a number of recommendations which will improve the administrative arrangements for exclusion in a number of respects. I hope that that will be of advantage.

The noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Gifford and Lord Mishcon, were concerned about Section 11. The Government have considered this proposal very carefully. In the exceptional case of terrorism, where lives may be at stake if a person does not disclose a vital piece of information, it seems to the Government right that it should be an offence to withhold information. The police believe that the power has value and it is proposed that that provision should be retained. Under Section 11 it is not an offence to fail to disclose information about one's own activities. The offence is to fail to disclose information about the activities of other people.

The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the powers of the police. The police may become aware of plans for a terrorist attack but the information may be insufficient to link it to a specific offence or an attempted offence, and to let events unfold until the point at which it is possible to make an arrest under the ordinary criminal law would be to risk a bomb going off or possibly even an individual being shot. The police must have the power to detain on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism in order to thwart a terrorist attack.

Lord Gifford

My Lords, surely in those circumstances the police would have reasonable suspicion of the existence of a conspiracy to commit an explosion. They have the powers under the existing law. I hope that before we debate it next year the noble Earl will look into that aspect of the matter.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I shall certainly look into it because it is a very important matter and these penalties are severe. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is that we realise these particular difficulties. We believe that it is right to continue these powers for the safety of the people as a whole, but I realise that there are drawbacks to which the noble Lord has reasonably referred.

Some noble Lords have referred to various points which I have not answered. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred to a no-hope situation in regard to this new legislation. It is not a question of a no-hope situation. It is a question of a reality. Terrorism is the use of violence to instil fear and thereby to extract concessions. Terrorists seek to achieve a political goal by intimidation, wherever that terrorism comes from. A principal means to this end is to demonstrate that the state cannot guarantee the safety of ordinary people. A secondary aim is to provoke the Government and the security forces into over-reacting. It is a difficult and delicate balance and the trap must be avoided. The measures that are taken must be effective but they must not be so severe that they risk losing the confidence and support of the public. I hope that we have the prevention of terrorism legislation correct and that it meets both these criteria. I realise that it is sensitive and I shall certainly stake into account all that your Lordships have said this evening.

On Question, Motion agreed to.