House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Mar 1991

Mr. Hattersley : The Home Secretary says that he has just explained what that means, but he has not explained why he mentioned the figure of 28. However, I shall not pursue his error any further.

Mr. Baker : I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand, because we have been talking about it for enough years. The six offences relate to offences under the prevention of terrorism Act, which are usually quite minor offences, such as offences against exclusion orders. The other charges relate to serious criminal offences--for example, the possession of firearms. Such serious matters can be legislated against by the Act.

Mr. Hattersley : Those are exactly the serious matters about which I have argued in the past. The Home Secretary has been kind enough to quote me as having done so--

Mr. Baker : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : I shall give way in a moment.

Given the chance, I shall argue again that such serious matters should be pursued under normal criminal law. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways and say that he is operating a criminal law and that special powers are necessary.

Mr. Baker : The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the nature and purpose of the legislation, which, as I clearly stated, deals with cases where there is suspicion of general and terrorist activity. It does not deal with specific offences, where the criminal law operates and action can be taken. That arises from these investigations. I am staggered that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to dismantle those powers and discard them in such a cavalier way.

Mr. Hattersley : The Home Secretary simply reiterates his original error. I shall pursue the matter in detail, in the hope that he will come to another conclusion and answer the question that he thinks he has already answered.

What, in practical terms, is the Act supposed to do which cannot be done under criminal law? The Home Secretary urged me to turn my mind to that matter and I am doing so now. I did so last year and the previous year. I asked the Minister of State, during his wind-up speech, why criminal powers could not be used in the majority of cases and he answered with an example of his own

Column 34

choosing. He referred to three men who were found in the garden of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and told me that they had been detained under the prevention of terrorism Act. I said to the Minister of State that, were three armed men found in my garden, I would expect them to be arrested, whether a prevention of terrorism Act were in force or not. Why did not the rule apply in that case? The Minister of State then told me that the case was sub-judice and that he could not speculate any further. Because of an indiscretion by the Secretary of State for Defence, the case is sub judice no longer. Therefore, I shall ask again, hoping that the Minister of State will answer when he winds up the debate, why, if such cases were prosecuted under criminal law 10, 20 or 35 years ago, is the prevention of terrorism Act necessary?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : I shall let the Minister of State intervene in a moment. I wish to cite another case, and he can answer the two questions together--two for the price of one.

A similar case arose in my constituency. An elderly doctor who was held under the PTA was eventually charged with possessing explosives, but was acquitted. If the police believed that she possessed explosives--a crime by any standards--why was she not held and prosecuted under normal criminal law?

Mr. John Patten : I do not know the details of the second case ; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will provide me with further details. I well remember our exchange during the declining moments of the debate last year. The three people detained in the garden in Wiltshire to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred were not, as I understand it, armed. The Secretary of State was satisfied that they had been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, so he made orders excluding all three from the United Kingdom. The fact that there eventually proved to be insufficient evidence to convict them for conspiracy to murder does not mean that they were not involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

This will have to be a lengthy intervention because the right hon. Gentleman set me two lengthy tests. He asked what this Act could do that was not possible under general law. It can give the police powers to examine, detain and exclude, although after that process is completed the preference is always to use the ordinary criminal law to bring charges related to murder or explosion.

Mr. Hattersley : I think that I understand what the Minister of State is saying, and I shall quote him making the same point more starkly in Committee. That leads me to the first rational assumption that has been made over the years, which the Minister of State came near to repeating today. The PTA is used to trawl for information, rather than obtain specific convictions--undoubtedly, it was once used for the latter purpose.

In 1983, Sir Leon Brittan, then Home Secretary, was explicit about this. I asked Sir Leon :

"Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?"

Sir Leon replied :

Column 35

"It has been made clear that that is a legitimate use of the power."--[ Official Report, 24 October 1983 ; Vol. 47, c. 56.] -- [Interruption.] I see that some Conservative Members are nodding emphatically. However, since Sir Leon said that, subsequent Home Secretaries in different Governments have made it emphatically clear in the House and in Strasbourg that the PTA will not be used for trawling for information in that way. Therefore, we are left to find another intention of the special legislation. I hope that we can take it for granted that its principal purpose is not that given to the Committee by the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who said :

"under PACE the powers of arrest can only be exercised where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed."

He continued by saying that the PTA was necessary for occasions "where one cannot prove or does not have reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of a specific offence."

If one does not have grounds to suspect the commission of a specific offence, why is the man or woman detained? Is it on reasonable grounds, a hunch, prejudice, guesswork? Fortunately, the comments of junior Ministers are not held to be the law. Were that the case and that were the official justification of the Act, every man or woman who was detained would be off to Strasbourg complaining that they had been held unreasonably, arbitrarily and unacceptably. The Minister of State wants to intervene again.

Mr. John Patten : The right hon. Gentleman has done me the favour of quoting some of the excellent words I used in Standing Committee B. I wish that the right hon. Gentlman had learnt something during the past four or five years when he has been addressing his mind to the issue. There is indeed a difference between the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the prevention of terrorism Act, which is to stop people preparing themselves for the commission or instigation of acts of terrorism. That is the difference between the two Acts. I made it clear in Committee and I am happy to do so again this afternoon.

Mr. Hattersley : It is simply silly to answer the question by being rude to me, which is the easiest thing in the world. We are discussing a serious point. There is a distinction between arresting someone on reasonable suspicion and arresting somebody when reasonable suspicion does not exist. I shall make my point--and I believe the Labour party's point-- altogether clear : I am opposed to arresting people when reasonable suspicion does not exist. It turns out that the Minister is not. I do not believe that anyone who has heard what he has said today, which, to my surprise, confirmed his words in Committee, can do anything other than believe that we are now debating a most damaging erosion of our liberties. There are practical objections--involving the politics of Northern Ireland- -to the practical erosion of those liberties.

I repeat without hesitation that it prejudices people in Great Britain, people abroad and people in Ireland--the men and women who should be wholly on our side--against us and against the steps that we are taking to defeat terrorism. As an example, I take the powers of detention set out in section 4 of the Act. Under those powers there is no charge, no court appearance and no consultation

Column 36

with solicitors. Detainees are held on the authority of the Minister and on nothing else. That power has been ruled unlawful in the European Court. In his report in 1988, Lord Colville referred to "worrying indications about the level of charges brought as a proportion of detentions made".

Since then, the situation has got worse. In 1990, 193 persons were detained under the Act. Six or 28 of them--the Home Secretary can choose his figures --were charged with something, but the others were not. One hundred and sixty-five individuals were detained and denied access to a lawyer. They were then released without explanation or apology. There was no prosecution and no acquittal. They were simply told that, having been held without charge, they were now free to go. It is difficult to imagine the resentment which must have built up in them and in their families.

Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : I shall give way when I have finished this point. We argue--as the court in Strasbourg has argued--that such detention-- especially if extended from 48 hours to five or seven days--is tolerable only if it is subject to a judicial examination. The Home Secretary treats the House with less than his normal courtesy when he says that in other parts of Europe individuals are held for longer under emergency powers. In other parts of Europe, individuals who are held under emergency powers are subject to court hearings. The case for holding them is heard by judges. That is what we ask of the Home Secretary and it is also what the court in Strasbourg asks of him.

If the Home Secretary were prepared to introduce a system under which a judge or judges would consider a case if the initial 48 hours had to be extended, we should examine the whole issue from a different perspective-- from the perspective that the rule of law rather than the rule of ministerial fiat was operating. Lord Colville, the Home Secretary's own nominee, has reached a similar conclusion. The full recommendation of his report stated :

"It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal be set up to oversee these powers. It could draw on Scottish and Channel Isle methodology, but nothing except a bold new initiative seems likely to deflect a continuing divergence of procedure between the rest of Europe and ourselves."

I repeat my offer on the terms set out by Lord Colville. We are prepared to co-operate in examining the "bold new initiative" which is essential to the successful continuation of the Act.

The recommendation that I read out is not the judgment of a man who shares the complacency about the working of the Act which the Prime Minister exhibited last Thursday and which the Home Secretary echoed today.

Mr. Jones rose --

Mr. Hattersley : I offered to give way and I shall do so.

Mr. Jones : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, not long ago many of my constituents came near to losing life or limb on the St. Albans to London railway line. The wriggling that he exhibits today can only convince them that he is interested not in the civil rights of the majority of travellers but in those of a tiny minority who are charged--or not charged- -under this legislation.

Column 37

Mr. Hattersley : Civil rights always apply to a tiny minority. If we say that they do not matter because they apply only to a few, we are not talking about civil rights at all. The hon. Gentleman can put it in personal terms if he wishes. I am not fully aware of the details of what happened to his constituents, but 15 years ago six of my constituents were killed in the Birmingham pub bombings. I take the view now--as I did then-- that the steps that we must take against terrorism must be consistent with belief in a free society and they must be effective. What I have tried to argue today--the House will judge with what success--is that in many ways those new steps are not effective.

Mr. Bowis : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : No, I must get on.

I must draw the House's attention to Lord Colville's judgment on detention and the need to inject some judicial review into the process. What the Home Secretary has uniquely done today is virtually to reject the conclusions on every major point of the report by the man whom he requested to examine the operation of the Act.

Mr. Bowis : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : Very well.

Mr. Bowis : The right hon. Gentleman has referred again and again to Lord Colville. Lord Colville pointed out two things : that some 400 charges were brought and that incidents of terrorism stopped. If the right hon. Gentleman has his way tonight and the House votes down the order, we will have not an improved Act, but no Act at all. If that happened, what reassurance could the right hon. Gentleman give to my constituent who was injured as a result of the bomb at Victoria station and who may never walk again?

Mr. Hattersley : The hon. Gentleman's constituent must judge whether the Act is being as effective as his Member of Parliament clearly believes.

I have been meticulous in describing the words that Lord Colville used to criticise the major powers in the Act. I shall now outline, having given way for the last time--

Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose --

Mr. Hattersley : No, I have given way for the last time. Lord Colville reported--the Home Secretary again, disingenuously, read simply the brief words at the end of the paragraph--that the rules governing exclusion orders--part II of the Act--were meticulously observed. Of course they were ; we expect no less. What the Home Secretary was less precise about, however, is the fact that Lord Colville does not believe that there should be exclusion orders. He came to that judgment three years ago--he was opposed to exclusion orders in their entirety.

The exclusion order provision, described by a previous Attorney-General as "internal exile", was equally opposed by Sir Cyril Phillips, who reported on the Act, at the Government's invitation, before Lord Colville. Sir Cyril Phillips, in masterly understatement, described exclusion orders as possessing advantages which it was

"difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way".

He went on to describe them as "objectionable in principle". Lord Colville was even more categorical. I quote from his report of 1987 :

Column 38

"I renew my recommendation that Part Two of the Act should not be renewed in 1988 or replaced in the new Bill".

It was, of course, replaced in the new Bill and we discuss the replacement this afternoon against the explicit, repeated advice from the man whose judgment on the Act the Government requested. Whatever the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) may say, it is not simply the civil liberties aspect that we regard as cause for concern. Frankly, it is absurd to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they are an integral part of the United Kingdom if we then take powers to require individuals who are suspected of terrorism to leave the mainland and live in the six counties. Northern Ireland should not be a dumping ground for terrorists. If it was a simple requirement that a terrorist should return home and a Belfast terrorist was required to live in Belfast, there might be some justification for that power. Under the Act as it now stands, however, a Birmingham born and bred terrorist, a Manchester born and bred terrorist or a Mole Valley born and bred terrorist might be required to live in the six counties. When Northern Irish men and women read that provision of the Act it is not surprising that they ask, "Why do you pretend we are part of the United Kingdom with the normal rule of law running here as it runs there when this special provision is made that applies to us in a way in which it does not apply to other parts of the United Kingdom ?"

I should like to refer to another aspect of Lord Colville's report--the confiscation of the proceeds of terrorism or funds built up to finance it and the prosecution of those who finance terrorism. We supported the measures when they came before the House of Commons and we must therefore share with the Government blame for what Lord Colville describes as a legislative shambles.

I repeat to the Home Secretary what I said in an intervention. Of course we shall support the proposals in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill that toughen up the law against terrorist funds. If, after advice, the Home Secretary decides that the provisions can be applied to Scotland, Wales and England, we shall support an extension. I hope that the Minister will be clear about one proposal and one issue that the Home Secretary got wrong. He said that without those powers, which, after all, were introduced only a little more than a year ago, there would be no ability on the part of the Government to act against terrorist funds. That surely cannot be right. What the Government tried to do two years ago, what we supported them in doing and what we both found to be inadequate in Lord Colville's judgment was a toughening up of the procedure and a more effective administrative way of denying terrorists the money that they want.

Clearly, under the normal law, anyone who provides money to assist in murder, destruction, arson or bombing would have to be subject to some prosecution were they apprehended and brought before the courts. That is a minor error that the Home Secretary made. The important point is that we are prepared to see the extension of the emergency powers, and if there can be a toughening of the process we should gladly vote for it and discuss it with the Home Secretary as part of the discussions that I still hope will be held.

Mr. Kenneth Baker : The right hon. Gentleman implied in a letter to me last week that he would say something new today. At the beginning of his speech he said that he would

Column 39

say something new today. He has said nothing new today. All his comments and the limitations that he seeks to introduce have all been well rehearsed by him and his colleagues in the past. He wishes to water down the powers in the prevention of terrorism Act because he rightly says that they impinge in some way upon civil liberties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) said, his constituents could have had their civil liberties eroded by being killed by the action of terrorists. The right hon. Gentleman is far too cavalier in saying that it is only 22, and six and so on. We must act. If the right hon. Gentleman ever held responsibility in this role--I do not think that he ever will--he would have to act to protect public safety. He is not trying to create a bipartisan approach today. He has drifted further from the Act. He wants to dismantle, water down and weaken the Act. The people of this country will not understand him and they will not understand his case in the next general election, either.

Mr. Hattersley : Again, I urge the Home Secretary to listen to the final passage of my speech with as much calmness as he can muster, for he was uncharacteristically over eager in saying that I have made no suggestions. I am about to do that. I am about to offer to the Home Secretary five ideas. None of them is brand new, but few ideas are these days-- [Interruption.] I see that there has been no change in Government policy--it is just as it ever was. We have been arguing that for the past 100 days and the Home Secretary has been denying it. I am glad for his admission that things are as they ever were. Let me proceed with my suggestions about the Act. I have one or two suggested improvements. First, we should accept the view of the European Court and Lord Colville that detention should be extended only after the case has been reviewed by a judicial tribunal. Secondly, we should abandon exclusion orders. Thirdly, we should toughen up provisions affecting the financing of terrorism. Fourthly, we should consider the feasibility and desirability of setting up a national agency--a British intelligence bureau--to provide an effective countrywide response against terrorism. I should make it clear that we remain wholly committed to the principle of local police forces, but some threats can be dealt with only nationally. In our view, terrorism is one of them. [Interruption.] We shall extend our suggestions on special request from Conservative Members not only to No. 5 but to Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

Fifthly, we should fully and immediately introduce the Colville suggestion of video-recording of interviews of all suspects in police custody. Our proposal and the Colville proposal are completely reasonable. We should also, as Lord Colville recommends, remove internment from the statute book and introduce an independent complaints procedure for the Army.

On the basis of those five proposals I reiterate, and I shall continue to reiterate, my strong view that there is everything to be gained for the country in a demonstration of common purpose. I regret that the Home Secretary did not accept the offer today, but chose more and more as his speech went on to make the speech not of a Home Secretary but of a failed chairman of the Conservative party. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is not

Column 40

only a failed chairman of the Conservative party but a failed Secretary of State for Education and Science and a failed Secretary of State for the Environment.

I prefer to rely on the Prime Minister's assertion that we are all equally opposed to terrorism and all wish to work against it. Only the Provisional IRA has anything to lose from a common view on how terrorism can be combated. Again, if the Home Secretary comes to the idea that interparty talks would be an advantage, we are available for that purpose. It is in the national interest that they should be held, and we are available to hold them.

4.45 pm

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution. Along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with total incredulity. He would have us believe, and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is seriously and sincerely opposed to terrorism, but nothing that he said carries conviction, and his speech seriously undermines that declaration.

I wish to make only one main observation because it is at the kernel of the debate. I accept that the overhelming majority of Opposition Members are sincere in their opposition to terrorism and in their search for means to combat and defeat terrorism. However, they undermine their argument. There is a fundamental flaw in their argument because they have failed to analyse correctly one essential aspect of terrorism. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke about the Act being an erosion of civil liberties. We have heard the debate many times on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and a sense of deja vu descends on those who have previously taken part in the debate.

It is not true that the erosion of civil liberties creates the oxygen on which terrorism can thrive. The reverse is the case--terrorism thrives on the exploitation of the hallmarks of a free and liberal society. Terrorism exploits the freedom of the press, it exploits the open society, and it exploits our judicial system. Thererfore, it is absolutely essential in resisting terrorism that temporarily and in set circumstances we take the measures outlined in the Act so that we can deny terrorism that oxygen.

With respect, when Opposition Members talk in terms of an erosion of civil liberties as promoting terrorism, they are fundamentally wrong. The reverse is the case--terrorism exploits freedom, and it is by a voluntary curtailment of freedom that terrorism can be defeated.

4.49 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : The Home Secretary began the debate by outlining the history of the terrorist outrages that this country has suffered during the 12 months since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act was last debated. It is a tragic tale, and the tragedy continues. It is quite clear that terrorism has not been defeated. We must take all the measures that are necessary to support the fight against the lawless men and women who seek to intimidate the citizens of this country into accepting a certain political point of view. Those men and women must be pursued and defeated.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggests that there should be talks

Column 41

between the official Opposition and the Government. He cannot reconcile himself to the view that measures that were initially placed on the statute book by a Labour Government should be continued. His speech today did not indicate that there is much to talk about. He is undoubtedly right in saying that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has not defeated terrorism, and is not sufficient to defeat terrorism. No one could quarrel with that conclusion. However, the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion that the Act is not necessary is illogical. In drawing that conclusion, he not only is wholly mistaken but has sought systematically to misrepresent the views of Lord Colville, who has on many occasions reported on the operation of the Act. Lord Colville himself has asked questions about the effectiveness of exclusion orders, but he has not put in question his view that the Act as a whole is necessary. We are being invited by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to dispense with the Act as a whole.

During the corresponding debate last year, I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had had discussions with the authorities--in particular, the police--who are responsible for combating terrorism in Great Britain. I listened with interest to hear whether he had some answers to the points that those authorities have made to me and, no doubt, to others who have been willing to consult them about the practical consequences of revoking the provisions under which exclusion orders are made. It is a point that has not been discussed specifically by the Home Secretary in supporting the provisions. I believe that the police are wholly right in their view that exclusion orders are necessary if there is to be proper surveillance of people whose activities pose a major threat to the state. The manpower considerations that would be involved in continuing the surveillance of those who have been subject to exclusion orders if they were at liberty to wander the length and breadth of Great Britain, as well as the Province of Northern Ireland, simply could not be seriously contemplated by a responsible Secretary of State for the Home Department and it is Secretary of State for the Home Department that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook aspires to be. I can only conclude that the right hon. Gentleman has not discussed these questions with those who are responsible. Certainly, he has never brought forward their views in support of his case against exclusion orders.

However, this is not the main thrust of Lord Colville's examination of the working of the Act this year. Lord Colville has looked in particular at the provision for the review of detention, and I am glad that he has done so. There is no doubt that the provisions on detention have caused the greatest anxiety. They undoubtedly curtail fundamental rights and freedom, and they have been operated in a manner found to be in contravention of the European convention on human rights. In this regard, I refer to last year's judgment in the Brogan case. I am considerably reassured by Lord Colville's finding that the detention review procedures are effective. He believes that, at least so far as Great Britain is concerned, police officers who are responsible for the custody of people in detention act as something of a balance against those who conduct the interrogation. He rightly draws attention to the question whether the checks are as effective in Northern Ireland itself. So long as this legislation is on the statute book, the House of Commons must pay particular attention to that matter.

Column 42

The review procedures are important, and in that context I hope that the interrogation tape recording experiments that have begun will be followed with great interest and great care and, if possible, extended. Recording an interview should not be inconsistent with obtaining the truth. Like Lord Colville, I believe that much depends on very careful examination of the results of the experiments, which, I think, are being carried out in Paddington.

As I have indicated, the operation of the detention provisions constitutes a violation of the European convention--a violation that led to the Government's derogating from the convention in respect of these matters. Last year, I expressed my regret--and I repeat that expression of regret now--that the Government are unwilling to consider altering the examining system in any way to bring this country within the ambit of the European convention. As Lord Colville has pointed out, a look at the experience within the criminal justice systems in Scotland and the Channel Islands should enable us to meet the strictures of the European Court of Human Rights by means of some alteration of procedures in England and Wales. Today, however, the Home Secretary was adamant--he set his face against any such alteration.

The disadvantage of the method of initiating these inquiries in England and Wales is that it is misunderstood abroad. If we are found to be in contravention of the European convention, that is regarded as being a serious matter. Yet, Lord Colville is right to draw attention to the fact that in other countries, including France, people have been held for substantially longer periods than that allowed under this Act without conclusions having been reached as to their guilt or innocence or as to whether they ought to be charged. A fair look at the record of this country, by comparison with the records of other countries, will show that we do not come out badly. That is why the Home Secretary ought to consider other ways of meeting the finding in the Brogan case.

On this occasion, Lord Colville's main purpose was to draw attention to the mixed, and sometimes conflicting, legislation dealing with the confiscation of the assets of those assisting the terrorist effort. The Home Secretary has given the House a fair account of what he intends to do by way of consideration of the points that Lord Colville has raised. Lord Colville indicates that the provisions of the Act lack teeth. That is a matter that must give rise to concern. Not everyone in this House is anxious to whittle away the powers under the Act. Some of us are anxious to see the legislation made more effective. I hope that, before many months, the Home Secretary will come back with proposals to deal with proceeds that are being diverted to assist terrorist organisations. There is no doubt that that has maintained terrorist activity more effectively than almost anything.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook appealed to the House and to the Government to treat this matter in a bipartisan way. As a Liberal Democrat, I am naturally attracted to the idea of cross-party agreement when there is a genuine meeting of minds, but the right hon. Gentleman's speech neither gave support to any new proposals nor suggested that he was entering upon the proposed discussions in a bipartisan spirit. It appeared to me that he was, quite simply, failing to face up to the reasons why this Act remains on the statute book, and

Column 43

failing to recognise that all those who have had responsibility for the fight against terrorism have found that the Act has contributed materially to that fight.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook significantly misled the House about what Lord Colville said. The Home Secretary read out a passage of the report which I found persuasive. In a number of other passages, Lord Colville speaks of the effectiveness of the Act. In one passage he says, about the extension of detention in Northern Ireland, that in a number of cases admissions were made during further interrogations under extension orders. Prolonged interrogation can evidently still produce results although, in current circumstances, it is more likely that the extra period of detention is sought in order to carry out forensic, laboratory or other tests.

If such prolonged interrogation is producing results, and Lord Colville believes that it is, then that is a powerfully persuasive argument for retaining these powers.

Mr. McNamara : Lord Colville also said, in relation to Northern Ireland, that extended interrogation should be videoed. Does the hon. Gentleman support that suggestion ? Does he know why the Government have rejected that part of Lord Colville's recommendations ?

Mr. Maclennan : The hon. Gentleman must have been out of the Chamber or not listening when I spoke about that. I said that I thought that that was a valuable recommendation but I understood Lord Colville to be saying that the experiment that was being conducted in Paddington should be studied with considerable care and that it would be desirable to extend it, if possible. I do not believe that he went as far as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also seriously misrepresented Lord Colville when he said that Lord Colville had felt that the move to set up a new tribunal to oversee these powers was now irresistible. Lord Colville did not say that. He put it in the interrogative form and the Home Secretary gave his answer. I am not happy with the Home Secretary's answer, for the reasons that I have given, but Lord Colville was nothing like as dogmatic about it as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggested. Throughout his commentary on Lord Colville, one had the strong sense that he was seeking to find an ally who was not there. Lord Colville has been more careful in his consideration of the effectiveness of the Act than has the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He seems to be more moved by party political considerations than consideration of the security of the realm. I greatly regret that. This stance should not be taken by the shadow Home Secretary, nor by someone who, as a member of the Cabinet, supported the Act when it was first introduced. It is not responsible to overlook the advice that was given by Lord Mason of Barnsley as recently as 1988, to which the Home Secretary sensibly and properly referred. The House will feel that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has, once again, failed to measure up to the challenge of terrorism.

Column 44

5.5 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : The House has been alerted to the necessity of applying its mind to the debate by the sad happenings of the past year. The awful catalogue that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to read out should put the darkest possible shadow over the Chamber and impose solemnity as we seek to tackle this problem. What happened in the past few days in this city has brought home to the House just what terrorism is really about and what it can accomplish.

Each one of us has a pass to the House which we wear outside this Chamber. That gives our identity, but the Government have not applied themselves to the fact that all our citizens should be identified. It would aid the police in the execution of their duties if, when a terrorist attack took place, those in the immediate vicinity could be identified and eliminated from their inquiries. The House needs to apply itself to that problem. If we feel that we can defend ourselves against an attack in this way, our citizens have a right to say that they should be defended in the same way.

It may be argued that such a scheme would take away civil liberties because everyone would be asked to carry an identity card, but no reasonable person could argue that. We are all identified in various ways for different affairs. Why should we not be identified in the battle against terrorism, which is taking such a sad toll of our citizens? The Home Secretary should apply his mind to this affair. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) struck an important chord when he said that, in the fight against terrorism, society has to surrender some part of its liberty. This is, of necessity, true. When a nation is at war, every citizen has to sacrifice part of his liberty. This battle with terrorism is a war. It is not fought by the rules of any Geneva convention. The soldiers who fight in it do not identify themselves. Instead, they carry on a campaign of cowardly attacks on ordinary men and women and against the forces of the Crown which seek to give law and order to, and ensure the liberties of, all citizens of this United Kingdom. We must remember what the hon. Gentleman said--we must all surrender some part of our liberty so that others may be brought to book for their offences against society. I noticed that the Secretary of State said that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had the will to achieve the end, but was refusing the power. It is with deep respect that I say to the Secretary of State that that is exactly what the people of Northern Ireland are saying about his Government. I am not exonerating Members on the Labour Front Bench from the charge that the Secretary of State made against them, but there are many people in Northern Ireland who would say that this Government and, indeed, Labour Governments have not had the will to win this war. I should like to pick the Secretary of State up on what he said about Sinn Fein--indeed, I am sure that he would expect me to do so. Sinn Fein is no different from the IRA, and the IRA is no different from Sinn Fein. That is not what I say--it is what the police and the authorities say. The highlight of a Sinn Fein conference is when a masked gunman gives a report to the political party about the progress of the armed struggle.

We in Northern Ireland find it strange that Northern Ireland Office Ministers are absolutely adamant that they will not talk to Sinn Fein, because its members are IRA

Column 45

men, yet they say to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, "You have to sit in councils and carry out the business of the affairs of this Province with IRA members."

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to draw attention to the hypocrisy of Northern Ireland Office Ministers in that respect. Does he agree that the approach of those Ministers is also inconsistent, because, although they say that they will not talk to Sinn Fein, through intermediaries or otherwise they have dealings with Sinn Fein people?

Rev. Ian Paisley : The hon. Gentleman has made that point in the House and elsewhere. Thank God, I do not have to answer for Northern Ireland Office Ministers, but no doubt they will make their own reply to him.

Members of my party who serve on councils and whose loved ones have been murdered by the IRA are expected to take part in council business with men who, when the council suggested that its members should stand in silence for a moment in memory of the slain, opposed and objected to that motion while eulogising the gunmen and murderers. That is what we find strange. Of course, the Home Secretary is not in that position, because he does not have to serve on a council in Northern Ireland.

The right hon. Gentleman will, however, have to take some more advice about Sinn Fein's success. I also find it strange that on the one hand he is trying to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA while on the other hand he is trying to say that the IRA's standing can be seen from Sinn Fein's election results. He cannot have it both ways. The Secretary of State has said that Sinn Fein is losing in all elections, but it is not. The last two election tests have been the by-elections in Cookstown and Dungannon, in both of which Sinn Fein made big gains, averaging 10 per cent. Therefore, the Secretary of State was wrong to say that we are winning the war against the IRA and that the Sinn Fein vote is decreasing. We must face up to the fact that we are not winning the war.

That is why we are here today discussing emergency provisions. Although this is supposed to be an "emergency", it goes on and on, into permanency. That is cruel proof of the fact that we are not really winning the war. I cannot say to my constituents who have had their loved ones murdered that we are winning the war. I cannot say that we are winning the war to the people whom I shall be visiting this week because they do not believe it. They are not convinced that the war is being won.

I do not like to think that Northern Ireland is a dumping place for terrorists. That point was argued by Northern Ireland Members in the House when this legislation was first introduced, but, although it was well argued, that point was not answered. I do not like that fact, and I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that is the attitude of Northern Ireland Members. However, I would tolerate that if we were making the headway against the terrorists that needs to be made. There are certain things that we shall be forced to do. What worries me is the fact that the land border between the Republic and the United Kingdom is practically forgotten while the water border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is treated as the border between the Republic and the rest of the United Kingdom. Many people from Northern Ireland resent the fact that, when they travel by aircraft and enter

Column 46

their own country, they may be stopped and asked to sign a card which will admit them into their own country. I have to fill in such a card when I travel through Gatwick, but not when I travel through Heathrow. I can never understand that. Gatwick must be a clearing place for republican travellers and unionists must travel via Heathrow. I understand that the same happens at Luton, Liverpool and Manchester.

If signing such a card would bring us nearer to defeating terrorism, the people of Northern Ireland would be quite prepared to put up with that. However, instead we find that the land border is open. I recently asked a friend to test how many times he could cross the border without being stopped. On just one day he crossed the border 27 times but was never stopped. I ask the Home Secretary : what is the use of having an open land border and of trying to deal with terrorism only on the water border, which cannot be policed sufficiently?

There will always be people who raise the issues of human rights and civil rights and there will always be those who object if the battle against terrorism gains ground because of legislation passed in this House. However, the Secretary of State should face up to some of the matters that I have raised. Dealing with the identity of the citizens of this land would be a major step forward in dealing realistically with what could be mounting attacks from terrorists. In conclusion, we do not know what will be the spin-off from the Iraqi defeat in the Gulf. We do not know what terrorist groups will be released upon our country. We should have the best possible measures in legislation to deal with what could be a new and mounting threat.

5.19 pm

Next Section

Home Page