| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : I congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing the measure and in particular on introducing-- [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Only one hon. Member at a time may address the House.
Mr. Allason : I also congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing an aspect of PACE--the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1983 --into the prevention of terrorism legislation. The idea of recording--and, I hope, eventually video recording--will be of great assistance, not just in obtaining convictions but in protecting the rights of police officers who conduct investigations, particularly during interrogations at police stations. An advantage of PACE tape recordings is that we have been able to get away from suspects' claims of having been "verballed". I hope that it will be successful if it is extended to counter-terrorism measures.
I offer a word of caution to my right hon. and learned Friend. The key to beating the Provisionals or any other terrorist group is good intelligence. There have been several examples of poor intelligence. He mentioned in his summary of recent cases the suspects arrested at Dyfed. It would appear to many observers that that occurred not as a consequence of good intelligence work but because of the cock-up theory, as opposed to the conspiracy theory, of history. It was an example of people being vigilant and reporting the information to the police, with a surveillance operation then being mounted. In other words, it did not originate from good intelligence.
Similarly, more than a year ago, two photographs taken by Provisionals of themselves for false identity documents were found in a flat in south London. Those photographs were widely distributed, yet it seems that one of the suspects was on the loose in Nottinghamshire and the north of England. That, too, was an example of poor intelligence.
I urge the Home Secretary to consider undertaking a serious review of the performance, structure and role of the Security Service. I hope that a consequence of the changes that have taken place in eastern Europe will have been a change in the Security Service's targeting of eastern
Column 836
European embassies. If we can move some of the counter-intelligence surveillance experts who keep suspect intelligence officers from the eastern bloc under surveillance to counter-terrorist duties, it will be extremely useful.I have one small plea. In the post-Lockerbie era, it is clear that not only intelligence, but co-operation between intelligence services of different countries, is vital in the fright against terrorism. I regard it as a disappointment that the European security group, which meets regularly in Brussels and elsewhere to discuss common security problems, includes Canada and Israel, but excludes the United States. I hope that its membership will be reconsidered as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the House.
11.20 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : I oppose the order. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the first person in this country to be arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act was Paul Hill, a constituent of mine, who was arrested after the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings. It later transpired not only that he was not in Guildford or Woolwich and, therefore, did not plant any of the bombs--he was not guilty and could not have been--but that the other three who were imprisoned as a result of confessions that were extracted from them under the Prevention of Terrorism Act could not have been guilty. They served 15 years in prison and an enormous campaign was mounted for their release. They were released because of that campaign, the widespread national and international support that they received and the admission that was finally made by the Director of Public Prosecutions that he had no further evidence to offer against them. Lord Lane acquitted them and the Home Secretary appeared at the Dispatch Box to make a statement on the acquittal. I remind the House that at the time that Paul Hill, Gerry Conlon, Paddy Armstrong and Carole Richardson were arrested and convicted, many hon. Members called for the restoration of the death penalty. Had the death penalty been restored, we should have been talking about a royal pardon for four people who had been wrongly executed. I also remind the House that the use of confessional evidence, which is the basis of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, has led to the imprisonment of the Birmingham Six, who have now served almost 16 years in British prisons. I have visited them in prison several times. It is a humbling experience to go to a prison and to talk to people about all the things that we have done in the past 16 years of our lives when the only experience that those six men have had is being inside a series of British prisons--and being badly treated in them initially.
I am convinced that no one in the Home Office or in the Government believes that the Birmingham Six are guilty. We know that there is new evidence which the Home Secretary is considering. I hope that the Home Secretary will give us an idea tonight of when he will be able to reply to the new evidence that has been submitted on behalf of the Birmingham Six.
The House will commit a serious act if it passes this legislation. We shall be saying that it is all right to imprison people on the basis of confessional evidence, to hold people without recourse to legal assistance, to have
Column 837
the principle of internal banishment within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to fly in the face of a great deal of legal and judicial opinion and to set ourselves apart from what we consider to be civilised legislation anywhere else in the world.My experience of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is that it has nothing to do with the prevention of terrorism and everything to do with policing and patrolling the Irish community in this country. I have lost count of the number of occasions that I have had telephone calls late at night from Irish people who live in my constituency, who were expecting a son, a daughter, an uncle, an aunt or a father to come across to visit them from Dublin or from Belfast, but who find that they have not arrived. They ask me, "Do you know where they are?" I have no idea where they are. We then start an amazing series of telephone calls to find out whether someone is being held under the Act. A Kafka-like mystery surrounds it and it is not clear whether that person is being held until lawyers make contact and eventually application is made for a writ of habeas corpus.
If we are serious about a judicial legal system and about a system of real justice, we should not agree to the order. It flies in the face of everything that we understand about justice. Too many people are in British prisons because of confessional evidence and because of the Act. Many people have been stopped, searched, held, interrogated and subsequently released without any charge, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. The Act gives the power to investigate, to hold without due process and to collect a great deal of evidence about the activities of the Irish community in England, Wales and Scotland and the views of those who may believe that Ireland should be united and not part of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly legitimate to hold such an opinion.
I hope that the order will not be passed, although I suspect that the payroll vote will ensure that it is. Instead, we should concentrate on the serious miscarriages of justice. I have mentioned the Guildford Four, who, thankfully, are now free. I also mentioned the Birmingham Six, who I hope will soon be free. There are many other people in British prisons because of the collection of confessional evidence, which is enshrined in the Act, such as those imprisoned after the Broadwater farm riots. Again, confessional evidence was used there. It is a serious step to enshrine that permanently in legislation and I hope that the House will not agree to that.
11.26 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who is the only Labour Back-Bench Member to get up and debate the issue, which I think is one of great importance. As I have told him before, I am aware of how seriously he takes these issues and I respect the way in which he deals with them--even though, as he knows, there is quite a gulf between our attitudes.
The hon. Gentleman made something of the position of the Birmingham Six. It is not for me to say whether he was in order to do so. The Birmingham Six were not arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. However, I can tell him that
Column 838
my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are studying with great care papers put to the Home Office about that matter. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make an announcement as soon as he is in a position to do so.I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) for his welcome for the order and for the congratulations that he extended to my right hon. and learned Friend. In many ways, however, the scene was set in the first speech by a Conservative Back Bencher, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) clearly and precisely drove home the fact that we are talking about a preventive power. We are trying to prevent things from happening. It is all too easy to lose sight of the preventive element in the Act--a theme that I intend to develop.
It is often suggested that the exceptional powers provided by the Act are unnecessary because the ordinary criminal law should be adequate to deal with offences committed by terrorists. As I understand the Labour party's emerging new policy, its stance is that the ordinary criminal law is adequate to deal with terrorist offences. I do not think that it is. The Labour party's stance is not realistic. I agree with everyone, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that terrorists are common criminals. We are firm in our belief that, once they are brought to justice, there should be no special treatment for common criminals and no special status for self-styled terrorists or freedom fighters--a point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
I am sure that the substantial number of Unionist Members here this evening, who have first-hand experience of these matters--which I shared with them for two and a half years--agree that terrorist organisations present a special problem for the security forces, requiring a response which, alas, goes beyond the powers available in the normal criminal investigation of alleged offences or the prevention of outbreaks of criminal activity. In the case of terrorist organisations such as the IRA, their systematic ruthlessness, destructiveness and organisation are far in excess of those of organised crime anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Irish Republican terrorists have staged a campaign in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years which is unparalleled elsewhere in western Europe. No other country in western Europe has put up with the things that we and those in the Province have had to endure over the past two decades. I do not accept that the persistence of the terrorist threat is a sign of the failure of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Without it, there would be still more victims and still more destruction, and fewer of those responsible would be brought to court. On that point, I think that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)--I was about to call him my hon. Friend--and I are in complete agreement.
In our resistance to terrorism, we are rightly bound by the rule of law. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook alluded to that, but it was only subjected to close examination by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in his thoughtful and
thought-provoking speech. We are bound by the rule of law and the principle of democratic accountability, to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred. But terrorists could not give anything for democratic accountability or the rule of law. I guess that
Column 839
the Opposition have begun to forget that in their opposition to the prevention of terrorism legislation since 1982.Terrorists have a disregard for the lives of others and for the democratically expressed wishes of the people in both communities in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water. It is a positive tragedy that we cannot rebuild bipartisan agreements between both sides of the House to attempt to defeat terrorism. There is obviously everything to be said for the official Opposition, ourselves and every party in the House seeking to rebuild the consensus which I guess exists tonight between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democratic party, and in many senses between us and the Ulster Unionists, my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and others.
Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst) : Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of Members of the Labour party--men of honour--could not see their way to opposing the measure and will be conspicuous by their absence from the Division Lobbies?
Mr. Patten : My hon. Friend draws our attention to the importance of reading the Division lists tomorrow to see which hon. Members were not here to vote against the order.
I was asked specific questions by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He said that the Act did not seem to prevent anything and he wanted hard evidence of successes. Sometimes, as in all crime prevention, it is hard to judge when legislation has prevented something from happening. That is common ground on both sides of the Chamber.
Let me give a recent example which was close to home in the Chamber. I hope that hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench are listening. Three people arrested in Wiltshire were held for seven days under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Those three people were later convicted of conspiracy to murder my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They were sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment.
Is that not good enough for everyone on both sides of the House as an indication of the need for the Prevention of Terrorism Act? I dread to think what would have happened on that occasion had we not had the provisions of that Act.
Mr. Hattersley : The Minister of State may recall that the previous Home Secretary gave this example when we were debating these matters in a slightly calmer vein a year ago. Let me repeat a question that I put earlier tonight--not the one that he has not yet begun to answer. I shall put it to him in exactly the terms of his example. Last year the former Home Secretary told us that three men had been found in the grounds of the house belonging to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The three men were carrying offensive weapons and had no legitimate reason to be in those grounds. Is the Minister of State really asking what would have happened had the Prevention of Terrorism Act not existed? We know what would have happened. The three men would have been arrested, just as three men carrying firearms in any other grounds would have been arrested. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was not needed for that.
Column 840
Mr. Patten : The right hon. Gentleman has just given an excellent example--[ Hon. Members :-- "Answer."] I am trying to do so. I have just been advised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that an appeal is outstanding and that, therefore, the case is sub judice-- [Interruption.] No. That is a reference to the situation in the past. I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend that I cannot go further, any more than I could, in detail-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Attorney -General, through the Minster of State, has just informed us that an appeal on this matter is outstanding. Obviously, then, it is not in order for Ministers to speculate. As the case is sub judice, should not the Minister withdraw--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The sub judice rule does not apply to legislation, and this is delegated legislation.
Mr. Patten : There are also other cases, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred in his opening speech--such as the Dyfed case and the Iranian arrests.
Mr. Barry Porter : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Patten : I have very little time, but I shall give way.
Mr. Porter : If people had been convicted for carrying offensive weapons they would not, without the Prevention of Terrorism Act, have been given 25 years, even if I had been the judge.
Mr. Patten : I had better be guided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and refrain from discussing examples that might be seen as too close to home.
Let me return to the second point of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The fact that the police do not bring a charge does not invalidate the grounds on which a detention was made. The information may be too sensitive to bring before the court. This point was referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The powers are preventive, and they may frustrate terrorism.
Let us consider the cases that have arisen since the Brogan judgment--the incidents that we have had in Great Britain which, alas, have escaped the attentions of the ordinary forces of law and order, and have escaped the attentions of provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I refer to incidents such as the bomb at Turnhill barracks on 20 February 1989 ; the bomb at the Royal Marines school of music on 22 February ; and the car bomb discovered and defused outside the home of the commander of the United Kingdom field army on 15 November 1989. The Opposition do not seem to treat this very seriously.
Then there were the car bomb that exploded at the married quarters in Colchester on 18 November 1989 ; the car bomb that exploded outside the Combined Services recruitment centre in Leicester on 20 February 1990, on which one Leicester Member, by his comments immediately afterwards, covered himself with such glory ; and, most recently, the bomb that exploded at the Army recruiting office in Halifax on 25 February 1990. What a
Column 841
litany that is. But, alas, the Labour party does not want powers to enable the forces of law and order to deal with a terrorist threat that is unique in western Europe.Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Surely the argument that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be scrapped because it has not been successful in every case is fallacious. The same argument could be applied to the criminal law, and that would put us all out of business.
Mr. Patten : I can add nothing to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is entirely right but, for reasons that I cannot understand, that point is lost on Labour Front-Bench Members.
Mr. Hattersley rose --
Mr. Patten : Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not give way? [Interruption.] I have three more questions to answer in five minutes.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the length of detention in this country under the PTA, as opposed to that in other countries. We have heard a good deal about seven days' detention without charge being draconian. In Belgium, detention by the police lasts for 24 hours, and is followed by indefinite detention without charges while investigations are carried out. In France, suspects can be detained for two years without charges. [Interruption.] I do not think that Labour Front-Bench Members like hearing the facts. In Italy the detention period is two years ; in the Netherlands it is 106 days ; in West Germany it is indefinite. Yet the Opposition insist on criticising our wish to allow detention for up to seven days to deal with the most serious terrorist threat in western Europe. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was our justification for the exclusion order provision in the PTA. The power of exclusion is intended for those whom the Secretary of State is satisfied have been involved in some form of terrorist activity, but who cannot be prosecuted successfully- - [Interruption.] --Opposition Members should listen before breaking out into uproar and outrage--because the evidence cannot be presented in court without endangering the sources of intelligence on which successful counter-intelligence depends. That point was made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland--but I suppose I have already praised the hon. Gentleman too much this evening ; three tributes are too many for any speech. Exclusion is a preventive measure, and one that the police firmly believe to be very useful in the fight against terrorism. They do not consider that any of the suggested alternatives would be effective. I think it wise to listen to people who are much more experienced in the prevention of terrorism than I am, and we have cited a number of Conservatives with such experience ; but why does not the right hon. Gentleman listen to what has been said by his noble Friend Lord Mason? I shall not quote what Lord Mason said in another place, but in an interview with the Sunday Times
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : When?
Column 842
Mr. Patten : On 13 February 1988. May I ask the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to listen, rather than laughing and joking on the Front Bench? Lord Mason said of the Act :
"There is no telling how many lives it has saved."
All that Lord Mason gets from Labour Front-Bench Members is derision. But he knows more about the prevention of terrorism than all the Labour Front- Bench Members put together. They understand nothing about it. Tonight they have shown themselves to be in total intellectual confusion about their position, unable to explain their change in 1982 and why they will not back the renewal order, which I commend to the House.
Question put :--
The House divided : Ayes 227, Noes 136.
Division No. 106] [11.44 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allason, Rupert
Alton, David
Amess, David
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Ashby, David
Atkins, Robert
Atkinson, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Baldry, Tony
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Batiste, Spencer
Beggs, Roy
Bellingham, Henry
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Buck, Sir Antony
Budgen, Nicholas
Butler, Chris
Butterfill, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Cartwright, John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cran, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dicks, Terry
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dover, Den
Durant, Tony
Dykes, Hugh
Eggar, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Fallon, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Forman, Nigel
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Fox, Sir Marcus
Freeman, Roger
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Goodhart, Sir Philip
Goodlad, Alastair
Gregory, Conal
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hanley, Jeremy
Hannam, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Harris, David
Haselhurst, Alan
Hayes, Jerry
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Hayward, Robert
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Hind, Kenneth
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Hunter, Andrew
Irvine, Michael
Jack, Michael
Jackson, Robert
Janman, Tim
Jessel, Toby
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Kennedy, Charles
Key, Robert
Kilfedder, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Kirkhope, Timothy
Kirkwood, Archy
Knapman, Roger
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Knowles, Michael
Knox, David
Lang, Ian
Latham, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
| Next Section
| Home Page |