Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Hansard, 13 March 1989)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
It is not often that events demonstrate so vividly and tragically the need for a particular piece of legislation as is the case with this Bill
Since the beginning of this year 18 people have been killed in terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland and a great many more have been lucky to escape death or serious injury. The explosion at Tern Hill barracks last month and the finding of explosives and arms in London and Yorkshire have shown the continued determination of the Provisional IRA to pursue their deadly campaign in mainland Britain.
The terrible tragedy at Lockerbie showed us the potential for evil by other terrorist groups. Death and terror have been the backdrop to this Bill, and I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House forgets that for a minute.
Our society is put under severe pressure by the threat of terrorism. The Government—whatever government it is—have a right, indeed a duty, to seek to protect their citizens. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill is part, and an important part, of our defences against the remorseless attack by terrorists on civilised society.
I have not during our debates pretended that this Bill is the only answer to the menace of terrorism. Quite clearly it is not. But it is a vital part of our armoury to bring terrorists to justice and to try to prevent further outrages and needless deaths.
All your Lordships share an abhorrence of terrorism, but we have not always taken the same view of the measures which we believe to be necessary and justifiable to tackle the menace—and 9 that is perfectly understandable. Exclusion is one such measure. The Government firmly believe that it is a regrettable necessity in order to prevent acts of terrorism. I recognise that there are sound grounds of principle for objecting to the exclusion power, but it is notable that among those who believe that it should be retained are those on different sides of the House who have had direct experience of the exercise of the power.
I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, or the noble Lord, Lord Mason, support exclusion merely to defend their own previous actions. They support exclusion because they have had first-hand experience of the value and the effectiveness of that power. I appreciate your Lordship's disappointment that during the passage of the Bill through the House it has not been possible for me to outline the Government's considered response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. I can assure your Lordships now, as I have done previously, that the work is in hand—and urgently. I can also say that we hope to be in a position to announce that response later in the spring—and I hope that because I can say that now, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—who is nodding his head in a peculiarly vigorous fashion—will acquit me of any deliberate prevarication when I deliberately did not give him an assurance on the previous stages of the Bill that it would be before the Summer Recess.
The measure of agreement on the provisions in the Bill which are designed to tackle terrorist finance has been gratifying, and I am particularly grateful to noble Lords for the understanding attitude which your Lordships have displayed, even over matters on which your Lordships have taken a different view.
The Bill has been generally welcomed inside and outside Parliament. It is understandable that those who will be affected should be concerned about the impact of the new provisions, particularly those with responsibilities in the financial world. I am grateful for the constructive way in which these problems have been approached during the passage of the Bill. The provisions come into force next week, and we are keen that they should be effective very quickly.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary on this occasion. The Bill has been throughly considered. Particular attention has rightly been given to both those parts which are new and which give rise to concern for those affected by the new provisions and those parts which affect fundamental freedoms.
The debate has been enhanced by the contribution made by those of your Lordships who have direct experience of the problems of terrorism associated with Northern Ireland, either as previous members of government who have had responsibilities in Northern Ireland or as members of the community who have been most affected by terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not, I think, fit neatly into either category, but I believe that we all have cause to be grateful for the generous understanding and ever-articulate way, given the necessarily compressed timetable, in which he has 10 approached the Bill and its important but complex new provisions. His patience, as always, has been remarkable; so has his comprehension; and also his eloquence. The House is grateful and is the richer. I beg to move.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, at once I respond to the gracious remarks of the noble Earl. They are typical of him and of this House. Having said how grateful I am, I thank the noble Earl also for the courteous manner in which he has dealt with those in your Lordships' House who feel a great urge to work with the Government in the common fight against the bestialities of terrorism.
As the noble Earl rightly said, the only difference separating Her Majesty's Government from Her Majesty's Opposition in the House has been the criticism we have expressed through no other desire than seeking to persuade Government that they should not introduce measures which might be counter-productive. The noble Earl referred to exclusion orders, debated in your Lordships'House on the basis that it was not only Her Majesty's Opposition here which took a certain view. We were supported by the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who was asked by the Government on two occasions to examine all these matters. The noble Viscount came to the conclusion on two occasions that exclusion orders should be excluded from the Bill.
The House has taken a decision; it is right that it should. My only regret is that the opportunity has not been given to Parliament when it considers these matters once a year by statutory instrument to decide whether the provisions are affirmed for a further year. I moved a Motion before this House which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who is in his place, that there should be a separation of the statutory instruments so that one could decide upon exclusion orders year by year as a separate matter from the whole of the rest of the Bill and the question of renewal.
I welcome what the noble Earl said about the Brogan case. I tried unsuccessfully—a habit that I am accustomed to in your Lordships' House—to find a solution to the Brogan problem and so assist the Government to come to a speedy conclusion on an issue that is urgent. I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The noble Lord was unable to support me on other matters but agreed about the need for an urgent decision. No one could ask for more than the assurance that the noble Earl has given—that a decision on the matter will be announced by Her Majesty's Government this spring. Our seasons are not all that certain. I hope that we shall all recognise when spring comes; that in this instance it will come early; and that the Government's decision will therefore be announced early.
Again, I thank the noble Earl for the courtesy he has shown to all parts of the House in the presentation of this important Bill. However much we may regret the necessity for a Bill of this kind, it is 11 an important measure that has now reached Third Reading stage.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, I warmly welcome what the noble Earl has said about the Brogancase. He has put at rest some of our anxieties. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the announcement that we are to have in the spring is a substantially better assurance than that which I sought from the noble Earl earlier in the proceedings on the Bill.
Secondly, like the noble Earl, I agree that this legislation is essential to deal with the major terrorist threat with which we are confronted; not only from the IRA but also Middle Eastern terrorism. I fear that the exclusion order powers may be necessary for some time yet, but I am sure also that the noble Earl will recognise the anxieties that are held on this issue on both sides of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has indicated. For my own part I recognise that they are likely to remain with us for some time.
On the issue of terrorist finance,I believe this is a major improvement to our anti-terrorist arrangements. The police service has developed a considerable amount of expertise in this area as a result of the arrangements we have made for dealing with the assets of drug traffickers. Thereare, I accept, major problems involved and we all recognise the anxieties of the banks in this matter. Nevertheless, I believe that the powers that the Government have asked for are right and entirely justified. I wish the Bill well on its way.

Lord Dunleath
My Lords,I hope that I may be forgiven a brief intervention. I fully realise that the point I make should have been made during Second Reading, Committee or Report stages, but unfortunately I was briefed on it only at the end of last week. The matter I should like to put to the noble Earl is that perhaps it is unreasonable for a bank official to be held responsible for making a decision about whether a transaction is likely to be connected with terrorist activities. One can imagine the busy situation in a banking hall with queues of customers coming in to make transactions, withdrawals and lodgements. Is it fair to ask a bank official to have to carry that decision on his own shoulders? I apologise for intervening in this way.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the way in which the Bill has been welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reiterated his quite fair apprehensions and concerns about exclusion orders. We respect those concerns. We wish that exclusion orders were not necessary, but we believe that they are. The House has taken the same view.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for the way in which he reacted to what I said about the Brogan judgment. It is difficult. It is a problem to which we are trying to find a solution. I am glad that he is prepared to accept what I said.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said that he was worried about bank officials having to take such 12 responsibility while a great deal of work was being done and the bank was full of people. That is a perfectly natural feeling to express on behalf of any bank official. The Bill seeks to ensure that those who are responsible for finances at least report their belief that funds are going to terrorists. It is important that that fact should come to light.
Inevitably, more constraints will fall upon the banks. I accept that fact; I understand the reason for concern. However, if that constraint enables terrorist funds to be apprehended and denies access to funds that terrorists would otherwise have had, the power is justified. It is not the intention of the authorities deliberately to make life difficult for those who operate the banking system. It is intended to make it an offence for those who know where the funds are going to say, "I did not really know". That is too easy an answer to give.
The powers we are taking in the Bill are exceptional. They should be rigorously scrutinised, as they have been during the passage of the Bill. Parliament will not lose sight of these powers once the Bill becomes law. The need for renewal of the powers, at least annually, should ensure that they continue, and that they should be retained on the statute book, only for as long as they are necessary. The continued independent scrutiny of the operation of the powers will also assure Parliament and the public that the powers are being used responsibly and with due regard to the rights of the citizens. I commend the Bill to your Lordships