HL Deb 10 March 1997 vol 579 cc9-22

2.57 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking Mr. John Rowe QC for his report on the operation of the legislation in 1996. He concluded, following wide consultation, and an entirely independent scrutiny of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1996, that the Act remains necessary and that it should be renewed, in its entirety, for a further 12 months. The Government share his view and accept his recommendation.

It is now 23 years since the prevention of terrorism legislation was first enacted. The present Act was passed in 1989 and, like its predecessors, it was intended to be a temporary measure—one made in response to an exceptional threat. Very regrettably, the threat that we face from terrorism remains as great today. Within our midst, a callous, murderous minority remains determined to use violence to achieve its ends.

Last year, this House renewed the Act under the dark shadow of the bombing of South Quay. the deaths of two people caught in the blast, and the formal ending of the IRA's ceasefire. This year we must consider the need for its provisions against the background of a continuing campaign by the Provisional IRA in Great Britain and of a return to violence in Northern Ireland. The past 12 months reveal an all too familiar legacy of destruction: destruction of lives, of families, of homes, of livelihoods and of communities.

Following the South Quay bomb there were further attacks on the mainland and another death. These culminated in the bombing of Manchester city centre on Saturday 15th June. Over 200 people were injured in that outrage. It was a miracle that no one was killed, and a testament to the skills of all those who worked so quickly to move more than 80,000 people to safety.

In Northern Ireland, the IRA stepped up its targeting and readied its resources for a full return to violence in the Province. This came with tragic consequences, on 7th October. Two car bombs were detonated, one shortly after the other, and without warning inside Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn: 38 people were injured. As the House knows, Warrant Officer James Bradwell later died of his injuries. As your Lordships will remember, the second bomb had been placed outside the medical centre. It was deliberately timed to catch those trying to help those wounded in the first explosion. Such acts speak volumes about the kind of people with whom we have to contend.

That attack has been followed by numerous others, many of which have either been abandoned or have been successfully disrupted by the security forces. But only last month, on 12th February, Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick was murdered by the IRA while checking a car at a vehicle checkpoint in Bessbrook. Stephen's parents hope that their son's tragic death will inspire renewed efforts on all sides to find a peaceful solution. I urge the IRA to listen to them and abandon violence for good. I urge the Loyalists to listen to them lest they fall into the trap of retaliation set for them by the IRA.

I can assure the House today that the IRA's atrocities have not and will not hold up the search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland. The talks process remains the only democratic alternative to the futility of further violence.

The IRA and its supporters think terrorism will achieve results which cannot be secured through negotiation and the ballot box. They are wrong. The multiparty talks began on 10th June without Sinn Fein. They were adjourned last Wednesday until after the general election and the local elections in Northern Ireland. The talks will resume on 3rd June. And they will continue in the next Parliament. Delegates representing the vast majority of opinion in Northern Ireland are engaged in a real effort to achieve an acceptable political settlement and a lasting peace. The Government want to see Sinn Fein join the talks. But this is entirely in its hands. The IRA knows what it must do. It must deliver an unequivocal ceasefire; it must stop its paramilitary activities; it must abandon violence for ever.

The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on the mainland since the appalling attack on Manchester is no thanks to the IRA. The credit for this must go in large part to the vigilance of the police and security service. They have had several significant successes in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the past year.

For example, the police and Security Service believe that in July last year, with the discovery and seizure of a large number of devices in London, they foiled a serious and imminent terrorist attack on the mainland. Anther joint operation led to the seizure in September of a substantial amount of explosives, weapons and other terrorist equipment in London. The haul included over six tonnes of home made explosive, enough in fact for several bombs the size of the one which exploded in Manchester. These achievements and many others in Northern Ireland did not come easily. They were hard won by the determination, skill and vigilance of police officers and of the Security Service. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

We must not forget another key factor in these successes: the powers contained in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. This Act gives police the powers they need to prevent whenever possible, and otherwise to investigate, terrorist attacks and to bring the perpetrators to justice. The Government are convinced that the powers in the Act are still necessary. This is why I am asking the House to renew them today.

As Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to arrest and to extend detention under the Act are vital weapons in the fight against terrorism. In Great Britain in 1996 there were 84 detentions under the Act. Of the 23 suspects who were held for more than the initial 48 hour period, 13 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist related offences.

In Northern Ireland, 569 people were detained under the Act, 48 of whom were held for more than the initial 48 hour period. Of those 48, 20 were subsequently charged with serious terrorism related offences; 135 other detainees were charged with other offences.

In 1996, the powers of detention under the Act were used on two occasions in respect of suspected international terrorist activity, though neither detainee was subsequently charged. The Government are convinced that these powers are needed both in relation to international terrorism and to terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will recall that two people, both of whom were originally arrested under the Act in 1995, were convicted last December of the car bombing in London of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish charity in 1994. Each is now serving 20 years. An Algerian national, who was also originally arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1995, remains in custody here, subject to an application by the French authorities to extradite him in connection with the bombing campaign in France in 1995.

I know that some people believe that extensions of detention should be granted by judges rather than by a Secretary of State. Mr. Rowe has re-examined this issue in his report. Drawing on his own experience of the way in which the English and Welsh courts deal with public interest immunity hearings, he concludes that while judicial involvement might be possible in principle in England and Wales it would not be possible in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland. He thinks that it would be inappropriate for there to be different systems for granting extensions of detention in different parts of the United Kingdom. He concludes that judicial involvement in the process should not be introduced anywhere in the United Kingdom at the present time.

The Government do not believe that it would be right to involve the judiciary in the extension of detention process. This is because decisions to authorise the detention of terrorist suspects for periods beyond 48 hours are often taken on the basis of sensitive information which cannot be revealed to a suspect or his legal adviser without compromising the source of the intelligence. To reveal such information might create a serious risk to persons assisting the police or lead to valuable intelligence being lost. Any new procedure which allowed a court to make what amounts to an executive decision, on information not presented to the detainee or his legal adviser, and without the giving of reasons or the possibility of an appeal, would represent a radical departure from the principles which govern judicial proceedings in an adversarial system. It would create a very real risk of undermining judicial independence as the judiciary would be perceived as part of the investigation and prosecution process.

Mr. Rowe is right to say in his report that the courts in England and Wales are more familiar now with public interest immunity hearings and that in such cases the courts consider sensitive material sometimes at an ex parte hearing without the defence team present or even being aware of the application.

However, PII is concerned with rules of evidence, not with executive acts which determine whether an individual should be detained for questioning in relation to an investigation. In PII applications, the judge knows what the issues are for both sides. He has the prosecution statements and depositions and it will be clear from them what the defence case is. If it is not, he can ask the defence. In addition, the court has a duty to continue to monitor the disclosure issue. If it becomes clear that material which has not been disclosed would assist the defence then the court must reverse its previous decision and order disclosure.

This is very different from involving the court in an executive act to detain a suspect in circumstances where the court would be required to act on the basis of material which would not be disclosed to either the suspect or his legal adviser. Moreover, involving the judiciary in the process of granting or approving extensions of detention would create a real risk of undermining its independence as it would be seen as part of the investigation and prosecution process.

The Act contains other provisions which play a vital part in disrupting and combating terrorism. Again, as Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to stop, examine, and search those coming into, or leaving, Great Britain or Northern Ireland form a vital part of our defences. Of great importance too are the powers of the police to investigate terrorist finances and to obtain production and explanation orders in relation to funds and other material found.

As the House well knows, the Government added to the powers available to the police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act last April. We gave the police additional powers to stop and search individuals for articles of use in carrying out terrorist acts; to seal off the streets to prevent, or investigate, a terrorist attack; and to search non-residential property and unaccompanied freight at port. These additional powers are already proving their worth as Mr. Rowe's report makes clear. The police have, I understand, made extensive use in recent investigations of the power to search, under warrant, non-residential premises, without having to specify in which particular one they believe the terrorist material for which they are looking may be found. The additional powers to stop and search have also had an impact; the police believe that they have a significant deterrent effect and have disrupted the ability of terrorists to move themselves and their equipment around at will.

Perhaps the most sensitive power in the Act—and one about which some noble Lords opposite are concerned—is that of exclusion. The Government are convinced of the need for these powers. Exclusion orders disrupt and deter those bent on carrying out terrorist attacks and deprive the terrorist organisations to which they belong of some of their most experienced operators. That is also Mr. Rowe's clear conclusion. If the power helps us combat the terrorist menace then we must keep it.

Some have suggested in the past that the process of making exclusion orders is arbitrary and unfair. Mr. Rowe's report makes it clear that it is not. He has looked at all files relating to the cases which were dealt with in 1996. And I am pleased to note that he finds that all those involved in making the orders carried out their task carefully and fairly.

The powers are used sparingly not least in recognition of their exceptional nature. There are currently 23 exclusion orders in force. This is the lowest number ever since the power was introduced. It is possible of course that further orders may be made. But each case will, as now, be considered very carefully on its merits.

There are those who suggest that since the number excluded is now relatively small it would make little difference if all the orders were revoked. The Government do not accept that. We believe that they are needed and that they are effective. The alternative—mounting surveillance operations on all those currently excluded—would have enormous resource implications. It is simply not realistic, particularly when the police and the Security Service are fully engaged on preventing further attacks and investigating those which have already taken place.

Having explained why the Government believe that we should renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act for a further 12 months, I would like to turn briefly to the future.

In December 1995 the Government asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to consider the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. His report was published in October 1996.

Very regrettably, the conditions he was asked to anticipate do not exist at present. That is why the Government believe, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 20th February, that it is too early to reach any firm conclusions on the more fundamental legislative changes which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has proposed.

I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we hope that there will soon be an end to the violence. With a permanent cessation of violence we shall be able to look again at the possibility of providing a new legislative framework for combatting terrorism.

But the Government are determined that the police should have all the powers they need to combat the current threat from terrorism effectively. That is why we intend to bring forward proposals in due course to strengthen the existing controls on terrorist finances. These will build on the very helpful ideas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.

I have explained why the Government believe that it is essential that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be renewed, in its entirety, for a further 12 months. We still face an exceptional threat from terrorism. The spate of recent attacks in Northern Ireland speak for themselves. No one should be under any illusion that the absence of an attack on the mainland since the Manchester bombing means that the threat here has disappeared.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act gives the police the powers they need to fight terrorism. We must ensure that the powers remain available to them—and for as long as they are needed. The Government are committed to keeping them. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)

3.15 p.m.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know, her speech very closely followed that made by the Secretary of State in another place. One of its many virtues is that whereas the Secretary of State spoke for 38 minutes, the Minister spoke for only 17. But she made all the important points which the House needs to consider, bearing in mind that we have been considering such orders for 23 years. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich introduced the Bill to this House 23 years ago. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead initiated the policy which led to the Bill which led to the introduction by my noble friend Lord Harris at that time.

However, as on previous occasions, I wish to refer to the remarks made at that time by my noble friend Lord Wigoder. Although not speaking from the Government Benches, as did my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, my noble friend referred to the importance of safeguards. He asked, first, whether the proposed legislation matched the emergency, and reluctantly said that he believed that it did. He asked whether the encroachment on liberty which was inevitably involved was the very minimum necessary. Again, reluctantly, he concluded that it was. But in referring to the encroachment on liberty, he said that any such encroachment should be in no danger of drifting into becoming the permanent law of the land. When the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made those remarks 23 years ago, I do not believe that any Members of your Lordships' House really believed that that legislation, and its successor legislation of 1989, would be occupying us as it does today. It is a great sadness that that is the case.

Nevertheless, sharing all the sentiments expressed by the Minister about the sad circumstances again in Northern Ireland, we have to be careful that we do not start referring to our customary annual debate. This should not become part of a predictable spring ritual, almost a tradition of Parliament. It remains acutely important that both this House and another place examine the proposals that the Government of the day may bring forward and consider seriously whether they should be continued for yet another year.

I take the view that if these proposals are acceptable to Members of this House and to Members of another place then, however reluctantly, we should be prepared to support them. I do not take the view now, and have not previously believed, that there is any room effectively for abstentions. Either these are necessary measures, as from these Benches we reluctantly believe them to be, or they are unnecessary measures; and there is no halfway house in that respect.

The Minister referred to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. In speaking in the debate on 16th March 1995, I urged that the long-term review, about which there had been some discussion, should be set up without further delay. There was a delay until December 1995, but there is no point in complaining about that now. Again our sadness is that at the time the review was contemplated, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was given his terms of reference, we all believed, as the noble Baroness said, that he was dealing with a situation in which peace had been restored in Northern Ireland. We believed that he was reviewing the need for the legislation in the light of the success of the peace process and the cessation of terrorism. Certainly I hoped at that time that the spirit of sanity and hope would endure and that apart from looking at the new situation in Northern Ireland the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, would be able to turn to what is referred to in Chapter 4 of Mr. Rowe's report: the threat of wide international terrorism. We have to recognise that even if we resolve the tragic problems of Northern Ireland, international terrorism is still with us.

I merely make a point which follows from our previous discussions and from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd; namely, that we should not assume that precisely the same legislation would be required if we were no longer dealing with the Northern Ireland situation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred in passing to judicial participation, mentioned by Mr. Rowe in paragraph 79 of Chapter 10, on page 27 of his report. I examined the paragraph very carefully. On these Benches we have been anxious to see, if not judicial participation as widely drawn as that term, judicial authorisation in some other matters that have occupied this House. But having read the paragraphs in Mr. Rowe's report relating to the difficulty of reconciling what might be possible in England and Wales with what might be impossible in Northern Ireland, my present tentative conclusion, subject to further reflection before we are faced with a similar renewal, is that the case has been made by Mr. Rowe against moving to judicial participation of the kind that he discussed and we have examined before. We need to approach this matter again next year, when we shall be clearer about the overall situation with which we are dealing.

I regret that we are faced with this renewal today. I am sorry that the process of renewal has now gone on for 23 years. However, for the most part I find myself endorsing the remarks of the noble Baroness the Minister and wish to add nothing further to today's discussions.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to this as being a "spring ritual" and regretted that fact. For one reason, I regret it as much as he does: it is that we still have terrorism in Northern Ireland. Those who have followed the events of the past year since the abandonment of the ceasefire in February 1996 can have no doubt that the IRA, although it has on many occasions been frustrated, intends to continue with the policy of the Armalite as well as the ballot box. For that reason we cannot resist the argument for the continuation of exceptional measures, even when they are described as temporary provisions.

From another point of view, however, I do not regret the fact that we debate this matter every year. It is true that temporary provisions ought not to carry on for 23 years. It is a commonplace in local government that nothing endures as long as "temporary" planning permission. However, it is desirable that we should be reminded of the conflict between the need to combat terrorism by all necessary means and the loss of civil liberty that is incurred thereby.

I yield to nobody in my recognition of the horror of terrorism. It is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, describes it in his report, a campaign against society, a campaign of people who are at war with society. But at the same time it is valuable that Parliament should be reminded of what we lose because of the activities of the terrorists of the IRA.

We must without qualification be grateful to the Army, the police and the Security Services for the relatively low loss of life in terrorist activities over the past year. That represents a very considerable success— perhaps in relation to the provisions of the Act and the continuance order; certainly in relation to the professionalism of those who have taken part. Even, paradoxically, when they were not so successful—as when the IRA succeeded in gaining access to Thiepval barracks at Lisburn when nobody thought that they could do so, which must be thought of as a failure for the Army and Security Services—the very success on that one occasion of the IRA serves to reinforce our determination to see that they have no further successes.

Therefore we take the position that we have taken for the past two or three years. We do not, either on the substance of the matter or on procedural issues, intend to oppose the order.

However, there are two issues for debate. They were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and it is necessary that they continue to be debated. The first is the judicial element in determining extensions of detention. Before I proceed to the substance of the issue, I, too, observed how closely the noble Baroness's opening remarks followed the remarks of the Home Secretary last Wednesday. There was, however, one significant difference. I wonder whether she will be good enough to consider it and respond to this point. The Home Secretary said: In Northern Ireland, 569 people were detained under the Act, 48 of whom were held for more than the initial 48-hour period; of those, 20 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist-related offences; and 135 other detainees were charged with other offences".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/97; col. 9201 It is not clear from the Home Secretary's remarks whether, when he said "of those", he meant "of the 569 people who were detained" or of the 48 who were detained for more than the 48-hour period. The Minister made it clear in her introduction. She said "Of those 48, 20 were subsequently charged". It would be interesting to know whether she was right and the ambiguity of the Home Secretary's statement was purely accidental.

I do not believe that either the Minister or the Home Secretary does justice to the conversion of Mr. Rowe in his report, and in particular in paragraphs 84 to 94. Mr. Rowe started with the position last year that the practice of judicial intervention would be, unusual and a straining of the judicial function"; and that is the conclusion that the Government reach today. But Mr. Rowe changed his view in the course of the year. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, agrees with Mr. Rowe's previous view. I wonder whether he will agree with what Mr. Rowe now says. He says that the role of the judges has increased, in particular in relation to public interest immunity hearings, which have become more and more common. He continues: It seems to me that the gate has been opened by them; judges are used to the one-sided procedure; they apply themselves to a judicial attitude of holding the balance for the absent defendant. Thus my original objection has gone. Furthermore, while I repeat that there is no criticism of any participant in the present procedure, I myself would prefer a judicial participation in it. If possible, decisions about liberty should he made by judges and not by the executive". As the Minister said, Mr. Rowe goes on to point out practical difficulties in Northern Ireland, although not in England and Wales, in relation to judicial intervention.

However, I was disappointed to find the Minister repeating the arguments which Mr. Rowe himself rejected and claiming, as Ministers did in the early debates on the Police Bill, that judicial intervention would be an involvement of the judges in the process and would take away from their independence.

This House persuaded the Government and the Home Secretary that that was not the case when it came to intrusive surveillance—bugging. The Home Secretary has now accepted that the intervention of particular judges—commissioners—in the authorisation process for intrusive surveillance is a proper intervention and does not compromise the judges. Why can the Minister not take the same view? Why cannot the Government take the same view now? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, takes the view not only that it is right for there to be judicial authorisation, a judicial element in determining extensions of detention, but also that it is workable. I am the first to acknowledge, of course, that he does so in the context of a report on what legislation would be necessary with a lasting peace. We do not have a lasting peace. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, states that in England and Wales, or at any rate in England, the chief metropolitan stipendiary could be nominated as the relevant judge. In Scotland, the sheriff principal of Lothian and the Borders could be the relevant judge. The noble and learned Lord goes on to say that that post is lacking in Northern Ireland but could be created.

Under those circumstances, is not judicial intervention in the extension of detentions not only desirable, as Mr. Rowe and the noble and learned Lord agreed, but practicable'? Is that not one of the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, which could be implemented without waiting for the lasting peace which we all desire? In that respect, we believe that the Government are not responding adequately to civil liberties concerns. We shall see to it that judicial intervention is introduced as soon as possible.

The second issue which we have to debate again is the issue of exclusion. It has been pointed out that the number of exclusions is declining. We have been told again today that there are only 23 exclusion orders in force and none has been issued since 1994. But how, then, can the Home Secretary and the Minister be right in saying that there would be substantial resource implications? At col. 923 of the Official Report for 5th March, the Home Secretary said in another place that there would be substantial resource implications in the continuing surveillance which would be necessary if exclusion orders were no longer to exist. The surveillance of 23 individuals at the ports and borders between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom cannot be such an expense as to justify the continuation of something which has been defended on the grounds of necessity but which could now be abandoned, bearing in mind the facts and the desirability of not having exclusion orders.

Exclusion orders revive a power which has not existed in this country since the time of Henry VIII—the power of internal exile. I do not believe that they work. I believe that they are in conflict with basic civil liberties and are likely to be in conflict with international law. Since we are now in a position where they could be got rid of without excessive expense, surely that should be a high priority for the Government, as it will be for a Labour government. There is no reason now why we should not say that no further exclusion orders will be issued and that those in force will, after proper examination, be revoked.

The debate may be a spring ritual, it may be of interest only to a limited number of people. But for those of us who are concerned about the twin issues of civil liberty and terrorism, it is essential that the debate should take place. Of course we accept that the fundamental breach of civil liberty takes place not because of the order and the law, but because of the activities of terrorists. That is the fundamental fact which leads us to support the order. But unless we bear those two points in mind, we shall not be doing justice to the seriousness of the issues before us this afternoon.

3.35 p.m.

Lord Merlyn-Rees

My Lords, I wish to intervene to ask the question picked up by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Two pieces of legislation affect Northern Ireland: the Emergency Provisions Act, which is tailored for the needs of Northern Ireland, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which applies in the whole of the United Kingdom. The EPA is the one that concerns Northern Ireland. Why is there a need to use the Prevention of Terrorism Act to such a degree in Northern Ireland, given that there is separate legislation which is the lineal descendant of the legislation put through the other place and this House by Mr. Gladstone, for example, in the last century? It has been in existence much longer than 23 years: it has been with us a long time. I am sufficiently gloomy about the whole affair to believe that, although my noble friend Lord McIntosh said "While we are awaiting peace in Northern Ireland", we shall wait a jolly long time for peace to come about. The problem has been going on for a long time. My question is: why use the Prevention of Terrorism Act to such a degree and on what issue in Northern Ireland, given the special legislation available for that country?

I have just come back from Dublin. The Republic has its own special legislation, which, in many respects, is more draconian than anything we use in Northern Ireland or here. It has been in existence for a long time, it will be there for a long time to come and it is as well to ask why we need the two pieces of legislation.

3.36 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, first, I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I understand precisely the context in which he gave his welcome to the renewal order. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed concern about the exclusion order powers and the objections which can be made to it on civil liberties grounds. May I say at once that I fully understand those concerns, but as the noble Lord knows, the powers are exceptional. Sometimes circumstances are such that we have to accept measures which in normal circumstances we would not contemplate.

The hard realities are these. The IRA and other terrorist groups in Northern Ireland have the weapons and the explosives with which to carry out further attacks. They have the personnel and, more significantly, the will to use them. The exclusion order powers are an important part of our defences against that threat. The Government believe that it would be irresponsible to abandon them while the need for them so clearly remains.

As regards extensions of detention under Section 14 of the Act, I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considers each case very carefully on its merits. He examines the case put to him by the police and their reasons for seeking to detain the suspect. Those can include the need for further inquiries or searches to be made; for forensic tests to be carried out; or, particularly where international terrorism is suspected, for suspicious material to be translated. The Home Secretary takes account of any intelligence we might have about the person or persons concerned, and where an extension of detention is necessary for investigative purposes, it is granted for that purpose.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the length of my speech, for which I am grateful. He will know that in this House we are more self-disciplined than in the other place. I am sorry that I did not recognise the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who was instrumental in putting the first measure to Parliament. I share with him the regret that here we are, 23 years later, still inviting Parliament to consider renewing what is, at the end of the day, a temporary measure.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that it is acutely important—I use his words—that any renewal should be very carefully considered against any matching circumstances and the need for those special measures. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I make no apologies for the fact that we have to consider this measure each year. I believe that it should be properly considered by Parliament each time that we invite consideration of an extension.

Mention was made of the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. Again, I remind the House that the context was in the event of a lasting peace. Sadly, we do not have that. But we all look forward to considering longer term regulation against more peaceful times. We must, however, use the caveat mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that terrorism, even following a peace settlement in Northern Ireland, will continue to need to be a consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked if I would confirm what he detected as a difference of emphasis or even fact about the numbers in the two speeches. I can assure him, as I said in my opening remarks, that of the 48 held for more than the initial 48-hour period, 20 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist offences.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was very concerned about judicial involvement. Again, we need to understand the context of renewing the temporary measures and that any need to address this involves matters for the longer term. When he carried out his work, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was talking about the advent of a lasting peace. The government amendments to the Police Bill at Committee stage in the other place, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made reference, do not give commissioners the decision on whether to bug. They allow them, in certain sensitive cases, to approve authorisation given by chief officers applying the "reasonableness" test. It is therefore a supervisory role and does not give commissioners operational powers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I shall not pursue the issue in relation to the Police Bill. I have not seen the Government's amendments on those points. If they are so limited as she says, it may be a cause for concern. Perhaps I may remind her that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in the last full review of these powers, came to the conclusion that he was against their renewal or replacement, even though he was not concerned only with the situation under a lasting peace. He was concerned with the situation now and he took a different view from that of the Government.

Baroness Blatch

That may be so, my Lords, but Parliament—Parliament is sovereign in these matters—has considered that point and considered on each occasion that these measures should be renewed as temporary measures. The Government have taken the view that these measures are needed and Parliament has supported it. So, while we take seriously any reservations that anybody may have, nevertheless, Parliament does properly consider this matter and we have considered the matter. Certainly, since the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made his reservations known, Parliament has determined the matters.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to Mr. Rowe's proposals that could be implemented. As I explained, the Government do not believe that it is possible to involve the judiciary in the extension of the detention process. The proposals of neither the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, nor Mr. Rowe answer the difficulties that we have identified: for example, the lack of information which can go to the detainee; the lack of challenge possible to the intelligence picture; and the impossibility of appeal. We believe that those are very important matters to the defence which need to be given consideration.

Frankly, I simply disagree with the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is sometimes said that, instead of excluding people who are thought to present a terrorist threat, the police should keep them under surveillance. I believe that was the point made by the noble Lord. But to anyone—I repeat anyone—who knows about these matters, that is quite unrealistic. Surveillance is very resource intensive. The cost of keeping even one single person under effective surveillance is very high indeed. We believe that it would be a substantial resource issue to keep 23 or more people under surveillance anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am sorry again to intervene but surely those are people who are thought of as very dangerous terrorists and they are being confined to Northern Ireland. Are they not under surveillance in Northern Ireland? What is the difference between surveillance in Northern Ireland and surveillance in the rest of the United Kingdom, if they were to come here? I cannot see the difference in resource implications.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, it is a matter of containing and managing the0surveillance of such people. We simply must agree to differ with the noble Lord. If he believes that these are not important measures and can be dispensed with, it must be for him to use the parliamentary process to make that view known. After very careful consideration, we have taken the view that the exclusion orders have played a useful part. We believe that there is a very strong case for keeping them in play.

The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, spoke with enormous experience, and he has a great deal more experience than I have of these matters. He asked the straightforward question: why do we need these temporary measures? It has been the subject of consistent debate every time the measures have come forward for renewal. I understand that the Prevention of Terrorism Act contains different powers from the EPA; for example, extensions of detention and exclusion orders, which are not contained in the legislation referred to by the noble Lord.

I described the threat that we face. The Government believe that this legislation forms a vital part of defences. I believe that the vast majority of the people in this country support the measures contained in the Act. The public want to be protected. They do not want to have their lives blown apart, their families shattered or their businesses destroyed. They want the police and the security forces to have the powers and the resources that they need. They understand the road checks and searches which now form part of our lives; indeed, it is clear from Mr. Rowe's report that many welcome and feel reassured by them. I believe that we face a very real threat. This is a proper and measured addressing of that threat. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.