HL Deb 28 February 1992 vol 536 cc493-512

11.34 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Prevention of Terrorism Act is an exceptional measure, justified only by the wholly exceptional threat which this country faces from terrorism. Today I would like to invite your Lordships again to approve the continuation of the Act in force. It remains an essential part of our defences against terrorism. These defences cannot be lowered while the terrorist threat remains high. And the House will know that there was no let-up in the terrorist campaign last year nor indeed this year.

In Northern Ireland in 1991, 94 people died and over 900 were injured as a result of republican and loyalist terrorism. On the mainland of Great Britain in 1991 there were more terrorist incidents than at any time since 1975. There were more incidents in 1991 even than there were the year before. So the threat continues and remains high. In 1991, attacks were aimed at a variety of targets—military, political and economic—and a variety of means were used. Three people died and 39 were injured.

Your Lordships may recall a few of them: the explosion at Victoria station last February in which one man died and a number of children were injured; the mortar bomb attack on Downing Street in the same month; and the large number of incendiary devices which were planted in shops and on trains. More recently, a bomb was planted in a telephone kiosk in Parliament Street which mercifully, and by the professional competence of the police, was successfully defused before it did any damage.

This morning I have been to London Bridge where a device exploded at 8.20 a.m. The details have yet to be confirmed, but I understand that it has all the hallmarks of the IRA. A telephone call was made to Ulster Television with a registered, recognised code word to say that a device had been planted in London stations. No indication was given as to which station it was or whether it was a British Rail station or an Underground station. The result was that a device exploded in a gentlemen's lavatory on a platform at London Bridge station. There was far too short a time in which to clear the station and prevent injury.

I understand that there was very little panic, but that some 22 people were injured and taken to Guy's Hospital. Fortunately, no one was killed. I congratulate the police and the emergency services which, as usual, arrived on the scene very quickly and conducted the work which they do with the efficiency, professionalism and calm one associates with them. It would be the expression of the views of the whole House and indeed of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to pass our sympathy and condolences to those people who have been affected by such wicked behaviour.

It is ironic that yet another device should be set off in London on the day when your Lordships are debating the continuation of the measures for the prevention of terrorism. There can be no greater reason why your Lordships should pass this order today. Such incidents heighten even further the contempt which everyone has for organisations of this nature with these objectives, which use such inhuman methods against innocent people going about their daily work and having every right to live in peace and quiet. No words can be sufficient to condemn these people and organisations. But the robustness of the British people is well known.

We should be under no doubt today about what it is that we face. It is a ruthless campaign of murder and destruction both in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland. It is a campaign which is conducted regardless of the risk to innocent people. It is a campaign which is conducted by terrorists who are committed fanatically to causes in which there is neither rectitude nor justice. The Prevention of Terrorism Act provides powers which are essential to counter this terrorist campaign. Without the powers the police would be severely hampered in their work of fighting terrorism.

In urging your Lordships to continue the Act for another year I am glad to say that we have the backing of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who carried out the independent review of the operation of the Act during 1991. I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude, and that of the House as a whole, to my noble friend for his report and for the time and effort which he expended in compiling the information which formed the basis of it.

I should like to explain what the Act's powers are and why we need them. The first is the power to proscribe in Great Britain organisations which are concerned in, or which are promoting or encouraging, terrorism which is connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

At the moment the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army are proscribed. Without the Act those organisations would be free to meet openly in this country, to recruit new members and to raise funds as openly as any other political party. That would be a quite unacceptable situation, as I am sure your Lordships agree.

Then there is the power of exclusion. The Act permits a person to be excluded from all, or part, of the United Kingdom. The purpose of that is to limit the areas where terrorists may carry out their activities. Ideally, it would be possible to charge such people and to bring them before the courts. In practice, though, this cannot always be done as our information comes from sources which we cannot disclose without risking people's lives. The power of exclusion is, therefore, a valuable one in limiting the sphere of operation of the terrorists, and by so doing these exclusion orders help to protect the public.

It may be helpful if I give an example of the use of the exclusion power. The House will recall the recent incident in Coalisland in which four men, including Kevin O'Donnell, died. O'Donnell had been stopped in north London with firearms in the boot of the car he was driving. He was acquitted of possession of firearms with intent to endanger life but the Home Secretary was satisfied that he had been involved in terrorism and therefore excluded him from the mainland of Great Britain. Following his recent death the IRA boasted that O'Donnell had been a member of its terrorist organisation since 1988 and had been active in operations throughout the United Kingdom. Without the powers of the Act the Home Secretary would have been unable to exclude O'Donnell.

Decisions to exclude are not made lightly, and the person who is excluded has the right to make representations to an independent adviser. My noble friend Lord Colville, in his review of the Act, said that he cannot find anything to criticise in the way in which decisions were reached. He also stated that the exercise of the power has been modest in 1991 and that the balance, which had been imparted by the advisers, has shown its worth.

There are then the powers of arrest, examination and detention. The police may examine people at ports and airports in order to determine whether they are involved in terrorism. They may arrest and detain people on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism and they may detain people without charge for an initial period of 48 hours, and for a further period of a maximum of five days on the authority of the Secretary of State. Those powers would not exist but for this Act, and they are essential for the investigation and the prosecution of terrorist crime.

It is pertinent to remind your Lordships that careful consideration is given to all applications for extensions of detention. My noble friend Lord Colville acknowledged that in his review. He also noted that the lengths of further detention were, in his words, "astutely fitted" to the stage at which the police had reached in their investigations. I can, therefore, assure your Lordships that not only are these powers necessary but that they are used with all due care and attention to the rights of those who are detained.

I must now refer to the provisions for dealing with financial assistance for terrorism. These measures have given the police an additional and invaluable investigative power which has enabled them to obtain information, not only on the funds themselves but also on the movements and the activities of the terrorists.

I know that my noble friend Lord Colville has repeated in this year's review his criticisms of those financial provisions. We have examined the provisions of the 1989 Act, as we undertook to do, and we have identified some improvements. We hope to introduce them as soon as we have a suitable legislative opportunity.

The Government are determined to continue the fight against terrorism. If this Act were not renewed a vital part of the means for that fight would be removed. In view of the events which have happened today I do not think that any of your Lordships can underestimate the need for the continuation of these powers. There must be no reduction in the powers by which we can resist and overcome terrorism. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)

Lord Richard

My Lords, perhaps I may start by echoing the words of the noble Earl in relation to the incident at London Bridge this morning. Noble Lords on this side of the House will wish to be associated with his expressions of sympathy and outrage. I also agree with him that words are not enough. The litany of our language has almost run out in expressing condemnation of the IRA. On behalf of these Benches I merely associate myself with his expressions of sympathy and outrage, which we all share.

This Act is debated and renewed each year and, in a way, there is a sense of déjà vu about the debate today. Many of the issues to which the noble Earl referred have been aired in the continuation debate each year and if the Government are returned I suspect they will be aired in the continuation debate next year. Therefore, it is important that we put the Act against the context and background of what seems to be happening.

This consideration takes place against a background of escalating terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland. Recent terrorist outrages have plunged the Province into new depths of gratuitous violence, which we all condemn and deplore. In the aftermath of these events the Prime Minister has taken the unprecedented step of calling a meeting of representatives from all the main democratic parties in Northern Ireland. Such meetings are of course welcome. Indeed, I understand that one is taking place this very day. However, it is abundantly clear that putting an end to the cycle of violence in Northern Ireland and promoting dialogue between the two communities will require great effort and imagination on the part of the British Government. It is against that background that we have to consider the renewal of the Act.

I make no apology for saying at the outset that in our view the reform of the Prevention of Terrorism Act can play a vital and necessary role in the process of negotiation and discussion. What are the principal aspects of the Act? The noble Earl outlined them in detail and perhaps I may follow him. First, it bans organisations such as the IRA and the INLA, which are involved in the promotion of terrorism, from operating in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Secondly, it takes steps against the funding of terrorism and provides for the seizure of such funds. The noble Earl reiterated today what the Home Secretary said in another place; that if the Conservatives win the election they will introduce further amendments to the Act dealing with money laundering and with drug trafficking.

Thirdly, the Act permits the exclusion of a person from all or part of the United Kingdom. Fourthly, with respect to powers of arrest, examination and detention, the Act permits the police to examine people at ports and airports to determine whether they may be involved in terrorism. It also allows the police to arrest and detain on reasonable suspicion of such involvement, and to detain without charge for an initial period of 48 hours with the option of an additional five days in custody on the authority of the Secretary of State.

What are the main points raised in favour of renewal of the Act in its present form? First, as the noble Earl said again today, terrorism continues to take a heavy toll of human life in Northern Ireland where, in 1991, 94 people were killed and 900 injured in terrorist incidents. The Home Secretary noted the increase in terrorist attacks on the mainland. The argument that he put up in another place was that put up by the noble Earl today. He said that the defences allegedly provided by the Act, cannot be lowered while the terrorist threat remains high". —[0fficial Report, Commons, 24/2/92; col. 689.] I repeat at the outset, if it needs repeating, the Labour Party's abhorrence of terrorism. We share the Government's views in that regard. However, we believe that reform of some of the aspects of the Act would help and not hinder the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

The Home Secretary told the House of Commons that the Government are committed to providing sufficient resources in terms of manpower and equipment to help combat terrorism. He also informed the House that, the central co-ordination of anti-terrorist activity across the country, on the whole, has been achieved".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/92; col. 690.] I ask this question not in any combative spirit. Is that really so? If the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, could address himself to that question, I should be grateful.

We believe that cross-party agreement is crucial to fighting and defeating terrorism but this cannot be achieved by the Government, in effect, staking out a position and expecting the Opposition to go along with them. A Labour government will be willing to work with other parties to help rebuild consensus with respect to defeating terrorism. I echo the tributes paid to the work of the police and security forces in dealing with terrorism and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for carrying out his independent report on the operation of the Act during 1991. A Labour government will implement a wide-ranging review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and this process will involve cross-party support where it can be achieved. We shall work positively and hard towards the restoration of consensus.

With reference to the banning of terrorism organisations, I emphasise yet again that no one likes proscribing political organisations but in the present difficult political climate in Northern Ireland it is necessary and we support it. I say again, if it needs repetition, that we also support action to prohibit the raising of funds to finance terrorism. Parts I and III of the Act should remain, but tougher powers and harsher penalties must be imposed on those who raise funds for terrorism. I also repeat the call made last year for the Home Secretary to consider extending to England and Wales the special powers available under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.

Part IV of the Act relates to the powers of arrest and detention. One of the main problems encountered in the fight against terrorism, and one which has been highlighted by, among others, the Bar Council, the Law Society and indeed the police, is that of obtaining convictions in terrorist trials. It should be emphasised that those bodies all emphasise that Part IV of the Act does not improve the judicial process. Indeed it is clearly not designed to. This, and civil liberties arguments relating to the operation of certain sections of Part IV, all highlight the need to look again at this section as part of a wider review of the operation of the Act.

We accept the principle that a period of extended detention even before charge might be necessary but we question how extensions are to be approved and we question what treatment the suspect is to receive during the period of his detention. That is significant when we remember that the suspect is arrested on reasonable suspicion alone; and it is even more important when it is considered that last year 153 people were detained but only four were charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

We are also concerned about the issue of extended detentions of up to seven days being made by ministerial, as opposed to judicial or quasi-judicial, authority. Against this background we supported the demands of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made last year, for a "bold new initiative" to set up a new tribunal, drawing on Scottish and Channel Island methodology". That is, an independent and quasi-judicial authority to oversee these powers. This, as my right honourable friend Mr. Hattersley said, is, why the Scots, unlike the English, have not been arraigned before the European Court for the way in which they extend detention from 48 hours to seven days. It is why the Scots, unlike the English, are not in breach of article 5 of the convention on human rights".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/92; col. 699.] We believe that the judiciary should approve extended detentions, and that the proposed tribunal should be judicial. Ideally it should be a judge sitting in chambers so that he can approve the detention without any risk of leakage of security information.

With respect to suspects detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, or subject to an extended detention, we do not accept that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act will protect those detained, as the Government claim. I am fortified in that view by the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, who has emphasised that the safeguards governing rules of evidence that are common in this country do not apply to detention under the Act. We have therefore called upon the Government to take steps to remedy the situation. A Labour government would introduce as many police and criminal evidence safeguards as are reasonably practicable and possible, including the taping of interviews, which is crucial both in principle and in practice if convictions are to be obtained. I am disappointed that this has not yet been introduced. That was echoed, if I remember rightly, in the annual report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.

I turn now to exclusion orders. Both the noble Earl and I pray in aid the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on exclusion orders. The noble Earl seemed to find approval in it. I find in it somewhat gloomy resignation to the renewal of that part of the Act. The Labour Party believes that these orders are wrong in principle and counter-productive in practice. They stigmatise Northern Ireland as a dumping ground for terrorists and alienate its law-abiding citizens. Furthermore there is the danger that exclusion orders, by returning excluded suspects to their colleagues, merely serve to transfer the danger from one part of the United Kingdom to another. What should happen is that these people should be convicted. That can be effectively achieved only if the Prevention of Terrorism Act is changed in such a way that the courts will respond to it. The noble Earl referred to the case of Mr. O'Donnell. By excluding him from one part of the United Kingdom—the mainland of Great Britain—the problem was transferred to Northern Ireland. It did not cure Mr. O'Donnell's terrorist activities. It moved the problem from one part of the United Kingdom—the mainland —over to Northern Ireland. I question whether that in itself is necessarily desirable or effective or whether it aids the general fight against terrorism itself.

From looking at the arguments on both sides, I do not believe there is a vast amount between us but what there is is important. We have offered on a number of occasions a cross-party approach to try to achieve a consensus on this most difficult issue but, regrettably, that has been spurned yet again. I now wish to say something to which I hope the Government will listen and of which I hope they will take account. They really must not be allowed to elevate legitimate criticism of a measure which quite rightly has to be approved annually into some kind of litmus test of patriotism or political will, even in this run-up to a general election. Our criticisms are detailed. They are based upon a belief that the Act as it stands does not contribute as fully as it should to the fight against terrorism. As such, we cannot, I regret, support its continuance in its present form.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Richard, perhaps I may say that we are vividly reminded this morning by the tragic incident at London Bridge of the significance of the order whose renewal we are discussing. From these Benches I should certainly like to associate ourselves with the noble Earl's understated but nonetheless extremely eloquent expression of sympathy to the individuals concerned. We are now clearly confronted with people whose motives can no longer be described as idealism gone sour; we are confronted with people whose sadistic disregard for normal civilised life has gone beyond the pale. I think that the lack of adequate warning which the noble Earl described is an indication of the attitude of the kind of people with whom we are dealing. I shall return presently to the detailed security implications involved.

At this point, I had intended to ask the Government a slightly critical question about the management of these incidents in terms of London stations and London traffic. However, what I had intended to say is, I believe, slightly misplaced in the light of the circumstances that the noble Earl described. If the warning given was simply that the bomb was at "a station", one can understand why the police felt obliged to close all stations. But let us try to generalise our experience of these impudent incursions in the mainland by the IRA over the past year or so. I invite the noble Earl to consider whether there is a way in which we can try to minimise the impact on London.

Quite obviously, the instincts of the police and of the counter-terrorist squad will be to do everything they can to ensure that no life is lost which does not need to be lost. They will tend to be as secure as they possibly can. I am too young—except, that is, as a small boy—to remember the war. However, there will be noble Lords who remember that during the war one of the important things was not to give the enemy the satisfaction of spreading confusion. It certainly gives that kind of satisfaction if London as a whole is repeatedly brought to a standstill.

There is a balance to be struck. It is not an easy balance. But we would be giving the terrorists a kind of prize if they felt that they could easily bring London to a standstill, create enormous traffic dislocation and close down every station so that the acute tragedy of those who have actually been injured and died is mirrored by traffic problems, traffic incidents and mainline junctions being completely jammed for half a day. I take it no further than that. When he responds, I invite the Minister to say whether he thinks that there is a balance that can be struck between total security and, at the same time, showing the IRA that it cannot bring the city to a total standstill.

I have a second point to make about the incident. I believe that it proves the desperate need for the Government to maintain the twin-track policy of political progress and tight security. It can be no coincidence that the incidence of terrorism in Northern Ireland and the incursions into the mainland have risen very sharply since the Brooke talks came to a halt and failed. There must be some connection between the hopelessness of the political vacuum and the terrorists' intensified activity. I should like to return to detailed questions of security in a moment. But if there is a connection between the absence of any hopeful political dialogue and terrorism, then we must ensure all the more that the political process is maintained.

There will he universal support in the House for the very hopeful meeting between the Prime Minister and the new Taoiseach. One senses that the shutters are being opened and there is willingness on the part of the Taoiseach and of the Irish political parties to consider the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. That would be a very major prize for the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. But, by the same token, if talks are now to resume —and I gather that there is promising information on that score—then it is for the Unionist leaders also to consider what they can surrender, what they can give up and what they can bring to the party; in other words, what they can do to help promote the peace process and thereby advance it further.

When the noble Earl replies—and I realise that these are sensitive matters—perhaps, in view of the Downing Street meeting, he can give us a sense of the likelihood of the all-party talks between the constitutional parties and the British and Irish Governments being resumed. It would be most interesting to hear more about that aspect. I have only taken the time of the House to talk about that matter this morning because I do not believe that we can consider a prevention of terrorism order in isolation from questions of political progress.

Perhaps I may return directly to the question of security. Given the dramatic escalation in terrorist activity and the signs that the Protestant paramilitaries are growing in strength and intensity of activity, I do not believe that there can be any confusion about the renewal of the order. I want to say quite unambiguously from these Benches that we believe that the order is a necessity. Of course, it is a regrettable necessity; but, nonetheless, it is a necessity. We support its renewal. There can be no two positions on it. Everyone should know where the parties stand. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that there is not much between us. But, on this issue, there can be nothing between us. We must have absolute clarity. Any confusion damages the consensus bi-partisan approach which is our strongest weapon in standing up to these people.

Both noble Lords who spoke before me expressed the appreciation of the House for the work of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I really think that he deserves our thanks. He is one of the unsung heroes of this whole process with the conscientious and thoughtful reports that he produces for Parliament on the operation of security. There is one aspect of his report that I should like to raise with the Minister. I refer to the question of the allegations of assault during detention. As policemen are not angels, quite obviously there will be occasional lapses and occasional assaults. There will also probably be quite a few cases in which people will complain of assault in order to cause trouble. Therefore, we have to deal with both real assaults—a few, I trust—as well as complaints and allegations of assault which are made precisely to cause trouble and to take up time.

I wonder whether it is wise—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—that so many of those claims appear to be settled out of court. That point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. He believes that there is good documentary evidence on which such mendacious claims of assault could be rebutted. If that is so, surely it would be far better that such cases should be fought and that documentary evidence is produced to prove the contrary. Everyone knows that there are very few real cases. A settlement out of court does have the slightly murky implication that if you are prepared to pay something in order to settle the matter then there is something in it. That does no good to the reputation of the police in such cases.

By the same token, perhaps I may extend the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, during the previous year; namely, the videotaping of interviews. I know that the Government are most reluctant to move on that issue. However, if they did, I think that they would do a great deal to reassure public opinion throughout the world and certainly in Northern Ireland that there is nothing to be hidden. The noble Viscount recommended that course. I am surprised that the Government have not in this instance taken up his recommendation.

The last point that I should like to raise in connection with the noble Viscount's report is that of cash for terrorists. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned the point. The noble Viscount is mildly critical in that respect. What more do the Government propose to do to ensure that the life-blood of the supply of weapons, ammunition and of explosive materials is cut off from the terrorists? They are surely right to have identified that the cash line has to be cut off; but it looks as though we are still not totally effective in doing so.

From these Benches last year, my noble friend Lord Harris referred to the idea, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Richard, introduced, of a national agency to deal with terrorism—a sort of British FBI. At that time, my noble friend welcomed the better co-ordination of intelligence and crisis action. But he expressed misgivings about the concept of an operational, national agency. Since then we have read rather detailed reports in the press that the security chiefs at MI5 are asking—perhaps they are impelled to ask this because of the end of the cold war and the necessity to find an enlarged role—that they should take over some or all of the police responsibilities for counter-terrorism. I know that the Minister will say that he cannot comment on intelligence matters. I understand that that is the tradition. However, if he cannot comment, perhaps I can—and in this way. I believe that any movement of those responsibilities from accountable policemen, who are the servants of the community, to the intelligence fraternity, who are the all-too-unaccountable servants of the state, would be a matter for Parliament. Whatever the merits of that, it should be a matter for Parliament. It should not be resolved privately and administratively.

Before I sit down, in supporting the renewal of the order, perhaps I may urge the Government not to let the very natural reaction of fury and frustration at these continuing acts of terrorism find expression in a renewal of internment. Voices are raised and, each time such an incident occurs, people say, "Let's bring back internment." However, we must remind ourselves not only that internment is a direct affront to civil rights and civil liberties and is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights but also that in 1974 it demonstrably did not work. It created martyrs where before there were villains. It increased the number of terrorist incidents manyfold. When they are thinking about security, may I please ask the Government to reassure us on that question of internment?

12.12 p.m.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I want to speak in this debate because a few years ago I was invited by the then Home Secretary to carry out a study of anti-terrorist legislation. My particular reason for wishing to speak is to make it clear that, despite some of the things that were said in another House, the Labour Party is wholly committed to the battle against terrorism. I am grateful that the Minister did not throw anything at the Labour Party on this matter. He gave us a balanced speech. I agreed also with most of what my noble friend Lord Richard said, although I am sceptical about the desirability of a judge in chambers replacing the present arrangement under which the Minister is directly responsible for appeals and reviews of both detention and exclusion orders. That is rightly an executive action and it should be seen as such.

I hope that the Government will give further consideration to the recommendation by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in favour of a different kind of tribunal. I am against having any form of judicial tribunal at this stage. I do not think that that would be right and I believe that the Government are right to resist it.

A number of suggestions have been made and it is worth the Government looking at them. However, I want to make it clear that, as my noble friend Lord Mason said recently, I too am utterly opposed to terrorism. I think that it is a pity—and I will say so —that the Opposition in another place voted against the order. There are, however, grounds for complaint, for criticism and for inter-party talks. I make a plea to the Minister that he should not reject such talks out of hand. He should urge his colleagues to give further consideration to the possibility of some inter-party co-operation in this area. If ever there was a subject on which there should be agreement and action between the parties to win this battle, this is it.

I do not propose to say any more, but I am interested in some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, which I hope will also be given further consideration. I am very nervous about interfering in intelligence matters, having been in the intelligence field myself. It is not an easy area for Parliament to intervene in, but perhaps a little more thought could usefully be given to the matter.

The other area of concern is the accusation of torture. At the end of the report by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is a report from the United Nations containing a deplorable series of accusations. It will not be possible to provide satisfaction on this but, having had to deal with this sort of thing when I was the Minister in charge of Aden, perhaps I may say that I never knew whether there was improper treatment, if not torture, of people in detention. Forms of behaviour less severe than torture can involve a degree of pressure. I know that sensory deprivation has now long gone, but I hope that we shall continue to do our utmost to make it clear that our hands in Northern Ireland—in Castlereagh—are clean. I do not think that the Minister should shrink from holding further inquiries involving outside people. This is a matter of the British reputation. It should always be made clear that we do not indulge in such things. That should be fully demonstrated. Other than that, I support the order and hope that it will be agreed to without any serious disagreement in this House.

12.15 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, in the first two months of this year Northern Ireland has seen some of the most brutal atrocities since the beginning of the troubles in 1968. The Minister referred to incidents and deaths that have occurred here on the "mainland". Some people in Northern Ireland do not like that term. However, by far the greatest tragedies of the opening months of this year have occurred in Northern Ireland when almost totally innocent people have been brutally murdered. I refer, for example, to the Teebann murders, when eight innocent workmen were blown to their deaths by a purely sectarian terrorist organisation. Its members killed those workmen because they were employed in building security positions in Northern Ireland. Then we had the answer to that—the brutal murder of innocent Catholics in the bookmaker's shop in Belfast. Northern Ireland lives with the reality of terrorism. Whatever incidents may have occurred here in Britain, the people of Northern Ireland have to live with that fear every day, every hour and almost every minute.

I totally agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Richard. We must bear in mind what the Home Secretary said in another place about exclusion orders. People in both the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland find what has been said in justification of the exclusion orders to be highly offensive. I should like to quote what the Home Secretary said at col. 693 of Commons Hansard. When justifying exclusion orders, he said: The purpose is to limit the areas where terrorists may carry out their activities. That sounds all very well from the Dispatch Box of this Parliament, but the area to which those activities are being limited is Northern Ireland. It is possible that some of those who were killed, such as O'Donnell, may have been involved geographically in mounting the attack in that area that killed those eight innocent Protestant workmen. That is how the people of Northern Ireland see it. The Home Secretary continued: The power of exclusion is a valuable one in limiting the terrorists' spheres of operation. To remove it would be to remove an important part of our ability to protect the public". —[0fficial Report, Commons, 24/2/92; col. 693.] It is up to the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom to protect the public in every area of the United Kingdom—not to restrict his protection to the major part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has suffered grievously in the past few years.

I sometimes wonder whether the British people or the police in this country have ever tried to discern the mind of the terrorist. Recently, whenever it has been trailed that the four leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties were going to meet, the IRA has immediately set out to draw attention to its case. When the Prime Minister called the four leaders of the Northern Ireland parties to Downing Street a fortnight ago, anyone with any experience of the terrorist mentality in Northern Ireland could have told him that the IRA would mount what they called a "spectacular" to divert attention from the meeting and to establish its interest. What happened? On the day that the four leaders were to meet in Downing Street and Vice-President Quayle was to meet the Prime Minister, the IRA deliberately got into Downing Street to set off the bombs.

What was even more dangerous, within 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour of the bomb in the telephone box being defused, in an exercise which must have been organised, many IRA supporters marched past Nelson's Column into Whitehall shouting, "IRA all the way". Those people obviously did not gather there by accident. They were IRA supporters in London —the capital of the United Kingdom—who knew that the bomb was going off. That bomb could have brought with it untold tragedy, and yet those people were prepared to gather in the Strand and march down Whitehall. So far as I am aware, none was arrested.

The four Northern Ireland constitutional party leaders are meeting today in London—that meeting has been trailed as a great hope for Northern Ireland —and we again have this morning's tragedy at London Bridge station. Every time there is an attempt by the constitutional parties to get together—I believe that some of the meetings may have been for the benefit of their own supporters or the press, with not a great deal behind them—it can be predicted that some attempt will be made by the IRA to draw attention to its own case, as happened this morning. I do not, however, suggest for one second that the police or the security forces could have predicted or prevented what happened at London Bridge station this morning, because all other stations would also have had to be protected.

On proscription, I remember that for many years in another place I took the view that if the organisation was a terrorist organisation it was entitled to be proscribed. I never objected to the proscription of the IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force, but if there are to be proscriptions then the Loyalist organisation which is now carrying out murders in Northern Ireland (the UFF—the murderous wing of the legally constituted UDA) should be proscribed. We cannot proscribe a selected few of the terrorist organisations. The net must be cast widely. Many people within the Catholic and Protestant communities have for many years been asking why the UFF (that part of the UDA which carries out the murders) has not been proscribed.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that terrorist activity in Northern Ireland might be brought to an end, lessened or prevented if the political parties had some success. I hope so, but I have reservations. My reservations are born of an intimate knowledge of the political differences which exist in Northern Ireland. I listened to Radio 4 yesterday morning. I heard that the newly elected Taoiseach was to meet the Prime Minister to discuss ways ahead in Northern Ireland. For the first time for many years I heard that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was also to be on the table. That has never been mentioned throughout the 20 years of murderous activity in Northern Ireland. That is understandable. On the face of it, if Articles 2 and 3 are to be discussed, the Government of Ireland Act should also be discussed. However we often talk in this House about perceptions. Once I had heard that broadcast I telephoned friends in Northern Ireland. I said, "Rather than being helpful, that will create more difficulties because Articles 2 and 3 and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 are not comparable". First, Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution represent a territorial demand. They say that the six north-eastern counties of Ireland belong to Ireland and should be under its jurisdiction and are excluded only temporarily.

Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act makes no claim to the territory of the Republic, but there are certain sections of the Act that I have queried over many years. For example, Section 5 clearly states that there should be no discrimination in Northern Ireland. That patently has not worked since the creation of the state. Another section (Section 6 or 7) talks about discrimination, but says that the masonic lodges in Northern Ireland should not be encompassed in the legislation. That was clearly discrimination in favour of the masonic lodges in Northern Ireland. There are other matters which could be looked at.

The Unionist majority in Northern Ireland will see the inclusion in the talks of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as a further erosion of their position. It was that Act, which created partition and divided the island of Ireland, which gave Unionists their little part of the world—the six counties of Northern Ireland. It gave them what they would call their cultural and religious identity in that part of the United Kingdom. They see the consideration of Articles 2 and 3 as an attempt to water down Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, which states clearly that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate that the Government of Ireland Act has been put on the table for those discussions, because the perception of the Unionists is that it is another attack on their way of life in Northern Ireland.

In the press statement the newly elected Taoiseach said that we could perhaps look at European models with a pooling of sovereignty. That, again, is seen by the majority in Northern Ireland as an attack on the way they are governed. They are being asked to accept some nebulous European model. I have yet to find out what it is. The suggestion is a pooling of sovereignty. At the moment the Unionists in Northern Ireland think that they have quite enough pooled sovereignty, with the Government of the Republic, through the agency of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the British Government both trying to control them in what is almost a joint authority.

So long as the territorial demands and divisions as to who will own the land of the six counties exist, it is far easier for the IRA and other terrorist organisations to continue their murderous campaign. The IRA will say, "We want to abort the border. We want to include Northern Ireland in the Republic". The other murderers, the UVF, UDA and other murderous Loyalist gangs say, "You're not going get us, we're engaged in this campaign to prevent that ever happening". A great responsibility lies on the elected politicians in Northern Ireland to do nothing, to say nothing which would in any way give justification to those terrorist organisations.

I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton and by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is unfortunate that there has not been unanimity of purpose between the Government and the Opposition in another place in relation to the order. It is sad that in our attempts to curtail the activities of the terrorists, party matters appear to be raising their head. I am glad that the atmosphere here this morning is rather more controlled than in another place. We must not forget that a Labour Government were in power between 1974 and 1979 when the Labour Party was forced to put the Act on the statute book because of the terrible, murderous bombings in Birmingham. In those years from 1974—and I was a Member of the other place, right up until 1983—there was unanimity of purpose and concern between the Government and the Opposition.

The terrorist situation in Northern Ireland is so serious that we cannot afford party political divisions in Parliament. I would not feel in any way justified in uttering a single word in opposition to the re-enactment of the order. I believe that it is necessary. My only hope is that I live long enough to see the day when it can be taken off the statute book because peace has returned to Ireland.

12.30 p.m.

Lord Bottomley

My Lords, if it had not been for the kindness of the honourable Member for Newham North West in another place, Mr. Tony Banks, I doubt whether it would have been possible for me to be present today. As the noble Earl said, London Underground stations are closed and there are tremendous bus queues. Tony Banks stopped at one of the queues to pick up passengers. He then spotted me and was kind enough to say, "Come on, Arthur, join me on the trip to Westminster". During the journey we saw car after car driven by owners, with no passengers. Is it not possible on occasions like this for the Government to give wider publicity asking owner drivers to pick up passengers? Perhaps the BBC and ITV in their radio and television broadcasts of the sad incidents, such as the one this morning, could make a special plea for passengers, who are queuing up for buses, to be picked up. I ask the noble Earl to consider the suggestion.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I compliment the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers and my noble friend Lord Richard on the constructive and reasoned way in which they have approached the debate on the order today. Other noble Lords who have spoken have used measured tones and it is to be noted that the debate took place in this House in those terms.

The order and the legislation present us with complex problems of law and order, security, individual freedoms and human and civil rights. These are measured and valued against a background of rising crime, violence, terrorism and other serious offences, as well as the provisions to prevent such crimes.

Not only are these matters and the provisions of the order difficult for the public and also, as it appears, the media to comprehend, but much of the political wrangling over the issues has led to confusion. That in turn has given rise to great public anxiety and anger in some cases about personal safety, the safety of family life and property and, I may add, the future of parliamentary democracy. The reasons for terrorism are directed at that.

Briefly, I support the view that there is an urgent need for an official parliamentary review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I suggest that such a review should include the obvious matters which have already been mentioned: the inclusion orders and the report of the noble Viscount Lord Colville. In addition, I suggest that it should include the memorandum of the three police federations which was submitted last week by the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. There is also a need for special training and co-ordination of officers and officials who carry out the provisions of the PTA.

Much has rightly been made of the Irish affair and its effects on the situation in Northern and Southern Ireland. I firmly believe that there ought to be an awareness of what will be required in terms of internal controls with the opening up of the ports and air0ports when the single European market arrives. This will considerably add to the burden, and therefore a great increase in appropriate measures is required for co-ordination and for the effective training of personnel at these sites to enable them to cope with the situation. I cannot leave this House without saying that I support the proposed measures.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful for the manner in which your Lordships have dealt with the order. It is a sensitive issue and there is no doubt in anyone's mind—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, emphasised this—that every party is keen on the prevention of terrorism. Whatever side of the House we sit on, we all dislike it. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that for his part he supported the order. Obviously, there are differences of approach. I accept that, even though I find it hard to agree with some of the proposals put forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that there was not much between us. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that there should not be anything between us on being against terrorism. There is nothing between us. I should like to think that there was nothing between us concerning the order. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he found that he could not support the order.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, rightly said that he hoped he would live to see the day when the order was not necessary. I sympathise with the view and concur with it. None of us wants the order. It is an offence to the dignity of the life which we have in the United Kingdom that such orders are necessary. However, without question they are necessary when we are subjected to the kind of terrorism which we have suffered over the past few years. Of course, we shall consider all that your Lordships have said about the order. Various aspects do not have the agreement of all noble Lords. But we must be clear about one thing. And this is where I differ slightly from the noble Lord, Lord Richard. While there is the possibility of terrorism and of that terrorism having the effect which it has had in the United Kingdom, then it is the Government's duty to do all they can to protect the people from terrorism.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, were concerned about the exclusion orders. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that that was using Northern Ireland as a dumping ground. The Northern Ireland dimension is a United Kingdom problem but it is primarily a problem of Northern Ireland. If people wish to conduct their lives as some do in Northern Ireland and decide to escalate the problem and to project their views and aims into the mainland of the United Kingdom, then it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to say that we do not wish to see those people escalate their own actions against the interests of those on the mainland. Therefore it is appropriate to return them from whence they came. If people deliberately leave Northern Ireland in order to perpetrate their crimes here it is not unreasonable to protect the people on the mainland by returning those people from whence they came.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised the question of judicial supervision. If we were to establish a tribunal or any form of judicial supervision of applications for the extension of detention, its conclusions would often be based on strong intelligence that the person concerned was involved in terrorism. It is very difficult for such intelligence to be given as factual evidence. People would be required to give their evidence and would be reluctant to do so. The sensitivity of the information would often be such that if a case went to a tribunal or was considered by a judge or a group of judges neither the detained person nor his legal advisers could be given any details of the case. There would be no proper means of representation. The judge or chairman of the tribunal would be obliged to do what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary does at present.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was concerned about the co-ordination of anti-terrorist investigations. The Government recognise the importance of an effectively co-ordinated national effort against terrorism. That is why the commander of the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist branch was appointed national co-ordinator of investigations into the activities of the Provisional IRA on the mainland. The anti-terrorist branch has specialist skills and the experience and resources upon which provincial police forces may draw in their fight against terrorism.

The noble Lord said that he was worried by the fact that there was a different system in Scotland for extending detention. I can tell him that all extension of detention applications are dealt with in the same way throughout the United Kingdom. They are all considered by Ministers. In Scotland the applications are dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland and in England and Wales by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

The noble Lord was also anxious about the financial provisions. He suggested that the Government should extend to Great Britain the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which are concerned with the proceeds of paramilitary racketeering. Those provisions are addressed to a problem which is specific to Northern Ireland and cannot readily be altered to apply to Great Britain. However, as I said in my opening remarks, we have some improvements to the financial provisions in mind and we shall introduce them when we have an opportunity for legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—to whom I am grateful for the measured way in which he reacted to the order—asked about the talks. The position is that the Government are now talking with the political parties in Northern Ireland on the basis of giving information to the parties about the machinery of government. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the Northern Ireland parties are meeting together without the British Government being present. The two national governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are involved and the Downing Street meeting provided a welcome and valuable opportunity for discussion.

The noble Lord also referred to video recordings. The position is that whatever arrangements were to be made to facilitate and safeguard the video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects, we believe that its introduction would seriously jeopardise the process of the investigation of crime. The position remains as set out in the report of the Bennett committee of inquiry into interrogation procedures in Northern Ireland which recommended that closed circuit television should be installed in the holding centres but that video recordings should not be introduced. Suspects would be less prepared to offer information to the police, which might be necessary to save lives and prevent crime, if they knew that a permanent record was being made of their co-operation with the police.

Lord Richard

My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, can he say whether that also applies to sound recordings?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it refers to video recordings. Sound recordings are a synopsis of the investigation which takes place. That synopsis of the investigation is given to the person being questioned to find out whether he agrees with the result. In other words, it is not the full verbatim recording, for the very same reason. It would be as undesirable from the point of view of the person being interviewed as a video recording.

With regard to assaults in custody, I was interested by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colville. His report has, of course, only just been received and we shall study it with care.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to warnings and asked what could be done to prevent London being upset and thrown into a state of relative chaos. He said that if the IRA achieved that, it would have made some inroads into achieving its target. There is a difficult balance which has to be maintained. The security forces, police and emergency services have to take care of people in London. One cannot prevent people from planting bombs. All one can do is take as much preventive action as is necessary to ensure that that risk is as small as possible. Where such information is received police have to take action and that will inevitably cause some form of disruption.

The noble Lord also referred to the working group on intelligence responsibilities. We seek continually to ensure that arrangements for countering the terrorist threat are as effective as possible. That is what the Government have always done and it is what we shall continue to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, wondered whether reform of the Prevention of Terrorism Act could be part of the dialogue. Discussion between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland over matters of terrorism is bound to take place and it is right that it should. If the noble Lord was referring to dialogue between the political parties, then by all means let the noble Lord and his party explain to us what his party wishes. However, I am bound to tell him that we do not at present see how one can possibly lower the guard against terrorism. That means that one has to have the provisions that are sought in this measure. They are hard provisions. They are provisions which no government would ever request of Parliament were it not for the fact that they are necessary. I do not believe that people would wish to see those preventive measures reduced. Nor do I believe that people would expect any government—in particular after an incident such as we have had this morning—to lower their guard against terrorism and their reaction to it.

If the noble Lord or his party wish to offer some suggestions, by all means let him do so. However, I am bound to say that we would find it difficult to lower the principle that it is the Government's responsibility to protect the people against terrorism which comes about in a totally selfish and inhuman way.

Having said that, I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, together with most other members of his party, would be wholly against terrorism. That is something that we must be united about. I can only return to what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said at the beginning: there should be nothing between us. I hope that that will be so. Despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, found it difficult to accept that the order was necessary, I hope that he will nevertheless realise that it is prudent and proper that the order should be passed. I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.