House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Feb 1992

Column 695

there. The former Northern Ireland Secretary, Roy Mason, speaking in the House of Lords-- [Interruption.] Labour Members are sneering at his name, but he was a member of the Cabinet, of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was also a member, which fulfilled this Act. He said :

"To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers, and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available, and that is what I urge my party and this House to do"--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 1988 ; Vol. 493, c. 573.]

With all the irresponsibility that comes from absence of experience and high office, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook thinks that he knows better than his former colleagues who had to bear those grave and serious responsibilities.

The right hon. Gentleman should note that if, by using the Act, a Home Secretary had excluded only one terrorist who would otherwise have been engaged in acts of murder in this country, the Act would have been worth while. I should have thought the example of the O'Donnell case, which I cited earlier, would give even him pause to think.

Mr. Skinner rose --

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) rose --

Mr. Baker : I shall not give way as I am dealing with the views of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.

Last year, the right hon. Gentleman, in the conclusion to his speech, recommended that there should be inter-party talks and I dare say that we shall have that stale, meaningless camouflage trotted out again today. It is pathetic that the Labour party is going to call for a committee to fight terrorism. One does not fight terrorism with agendas. One does not reduce terrorist activity with minutes. One does not deal with terrorists by composite resolutions. One does not do it by talking tough and acting soft. What the public want is the prevention of terrorism, not a convention of terrorism. While all that talk goes on, what will happen to the 91 people who are excluded under the Act at the moment? Presumably, they will all be allowed in.

The policy that is now strung round the neck of the Labour party on terrorism is the particular invention of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He persuaded his party to change its course and policy back in 1983. He knows that police forces want the Act retained with all its powers. The chief police officers of our country made that clear in their evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and various other senior police officers have also made that clear in recent days. Yet the right hon. Gentleman persists in wanting to weaken the powers that exist. I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to take a personal interest in this policy, as he aspires to a post in which he would have responsibility for national security. He should decide the Labour party's policy and take that power away from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The policy of the Labour party is hugely unpopular and it is irresponsible. Over the years the right hon. Gentleman has demeaned himself by trying to find weasel words such as "inter-party talks" and "searching for a national consensus". I tell him

Column 696

what the common purpose is. The common pupose is to fight terrorism with all the means at our disposal and with all the powers within this Act. That is what this country wants. That is what the country will get from this Government.

4.13 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : There was a moment 12 or 13 minutes into the right hon. Gentleman's speech when I thought that, for once, he was going to behave like a Home Secretary. That hope was dashed in the final five minutes of party conference sub-rhetoric.

I have to tell the Home Secretary straight away, although I wish to approach the subject with a more reasoned tone than he adopted, that we do not propose to take any lessons in dealing with terrorism from a Government who gave safe passage out of the country to the murderers of WPC Fletcher in order to avoid trouble with the Libyan Government. Nor do we propose to take any lessons on terrorism from a Home Secretary who presided over that matter when the two men most wanted for terrorism escaped from Brixton prison. He has not yet told the House how involved he was in the special branch farce leading to their escape.

The whole issue needs to be discussed in a far calmer way than the Home Secretary seems capable of these days. He behaved today as we have come to expect of him. He discussed the battle against terrorism in the language of an eve-of-poll rally and his last speech from the Dispatch Box has confirmed the reputation that he has established during years in this House --the cheapest Home Secretary this century. I do not propose to reply in kind but to tell the Home Secretary that the record of the past 13 years shows that the Tory Government have been no more successful in their battle against terrorism than in their fight against crime. The shouting that we have heard today was intended to obscure failure. In government, the Labour party will fight terrorism with no less passion than the Government have shown but with more practical determination. Consequently, we shall have more practical success. I therefore propose to set out the practical changes that are needed.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : No.

I repeat the view that I expressed a year ago--indeed, it was less than a year ago because, for reasons that we can only guess, this debate has been brought forward : the fight against terrorism would be best conducted with all-party agreement about methods and objectives. The idea that all-party agreement requires committees seems to have been developed by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), yesterday. Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) rose--

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) rose--

Mr. Hattersley : If the Home Secretary is taking his lead from the Minister of State, no wonder he gets into so much trouble so often. Last week and again today, the Secretary of State rejected the idea of all-party agreement or an attempt at consensus because he is clearly looking for

Column 697

single-party advantage. I must make it clear to him that, once the election is over, we shall renew the offer. We realise that all-party agreement is necessary if terrorism is to be defeated.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, or is he frightened?

Mr. Hattersley : The hon. Gentleman terrifies me. That is why I am not giving way.

We realise that all-party agreement cannot be obtained by one side of the House--the Government--taking arbitrary decisions and expecting the other side of the House--the Opposition--to fall into line. If the Government want a common view on the subject, they must discuss what that common view should be. That will be our intention after the general election.

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : No. I must make some progress.

There is already complete agreement between the parties on three parts of the Act. Parts I and III of the Act should not cause contention between us. None of us likes proscribing political organisations, yet all of us agree that, in the present circumstances, proscription is undoubtedly necessary. The IRA has no legitimate existence in a democratic society and we wholly endorse the part of the Act that makes it clear that it has no legal or legitimate role. We also agree that is essential to prohibit the raising or provision of funds to finance terrorism. In our view, parts I and III of the Act must remain. Indeed, I repeat the view that I expressed last year-- tougher powers and harsher penalties should be imposed on those who assist in the raising of funds for terrorism or who provide funds for terrorists.

Last year, I asked the Home Secretary whether he would consider operating in England and Wales the special powers available under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I believe that they should be extended to England and Wales, and I regret that the Home Secretary has not had the resolution to make that extension, which we would certainly have supported.

Part IV of the Act relates to arrest and detention, and requires more detailed examination. The subject needs to be examined against three principles. The first is the necessity to have within the criminal justice system special procedures that deal explicitly with the threat of terrorism. The second obligation is to accept that the special procedures must be consistent with the rule of law. The third obligation is to ensure that the special procedures are effective and obtain the results claimed of them.

Every authority--the Law Society, the Bar and the police--now says that one of the major obstacles in the fight against terrorism is the difficulty of obtaining convictions in terrorist trials, a subject with which the Home Secretary might have dealt when he considered the O'Donnell case. The Home Secretary was explicit in his

self-congratulation--one of his great talents on having made an exclusion order against O'Donnell after he had been acquitted. How much better it would have been if O'Donnell had been convicted in this country.

Mr. Hind rose --

Column 698

Mr. Hattersley : The Law Society, the Bar and the police all specify that a major problem that must be overcome is the difficulty of obtaining convictions in terrorist cases. They unanimously agree that part IV of the prevention of terrorism Act does not assist in that process.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Hattersley : I will give way, first, to the hon. Gentleman who is hailing me.

Mr. Nicholls : Before the right hon. Gentleman indulges in behaviour of that sort, he should look at some of the other Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.

The right hon. Gentleman's desire to see IRA terrorists convicted would carry a little more conviction if, every time one were convicted, one of his hon. Friends did not campaign to secure the terrorist's release.

Mr. Hattersley : For a number of reasons, that is one of the most disgraceful comments that I have ever heard in the House. I do not say that in defence of my hon. Friends, who can defend themselves, but on behalf of those men and women who were wrongfully convicted and were allowed out of prison only because of the campaigns of my right hon. and hon. Friends. For the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to make that charge is not simply an attack on Labour Members, but a suggestion that those men and women who were imprisoned for long periods and then released should not have been released. That is a disgraceful thing for him to say. I shall now give way to a more reasonable Member.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : I share the right hon. Gentleman's aspiration to achieve convictions in terrorist cases where guilt can be established by proper and civilised standards. However, I hope that he is not suggesting that we should reduce the standards of proof applied in the criminal courts of this country or the rules of evidence in terrorist cases. Does he not agree that, if the choice is between a potentially unfair conviction and an unfair exclusion order that leaves the subject at liberty, one has to choose the exclusion order every time?

Mr. Hattersley : Of course, I am not arguing for a reduction in the rules of evidence or the standards of procedure. Had I not given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would have discovered that I am arguing for something different, perhaps quite the opposite. Every authority--the Law Society, the Bar and the police--makes exactly the same point : part IV of the PTA does not assist in the process of obtaining convictions. The civil liberties arguments about how sections of that part work are overwhelming, but so is the practical argument that, if we are to improve the prospects of terrorists being convicted in British courts, it is essential to make some changes to that part.

I accept that a period of extended detention, even before charge, may be necessary ; but the question is : how is that extension to be approved and how is the suspect to be treated during the period of the detention? That becomes particularly important when we recall that the suspect is arrested on reasonable suspicion alone ; and doubly important when we realise that last year 153 persons--an extraordinary figure--were detained, yet only four of them were charged under the PTA.

In last year's report Lord Colville, to whom I offer my congratulations as the Home Secretary offered his, dealt at

Column 699

length with extended detentions--extended up to the limit of seven days, extended not by judicial decision but by ministerial fiat. I do not doubt for a moment that the Home Secretary looked with great care and in person at each one of these orders, yet--this ought to concern a democratic House of Commons--is it right that a period of imprisonment can in effect be imposed by a Minister of the Crown, for that is what this provision amounts to?

I agree entirely with Lord Colville's general conclusion on the subject. He said last year :

"It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal be set up to oversee these powers. It could draw on Scottish and Channel Island methodology."

He called for a "bold new initiative". This was not said by some Back-Bench Members of the Labour party about whom the Home Secretary has nightmares, nor by some radical in a civil rights organisation : it was said by the noble peer invited by the Home Secretary to conduct an inquiry into his own procedures. And the noble peer called for a bold new initiative on the way in which detention orders are extended. I make it clear today that we will provide--

Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) : Would my right hon. Friend like to add that this noble peer is also a former Tory Home Office Minister, yet he is making these criticisms of the Act?

Mr. Hattersley : All these things add up to a formidable biography which should encourage the Home Secretary to take the noble Lord's words seriously, to weigh them genuinely and to react to them sensibly.

The Home Secretary knows that by referring to the Scottish and Channel Island methodology Lord Colville was invoking a system that involves an independent--indeed, a quasi-judicial--authority to approve extended detentions. That is why the Scots, unlike the English, have not been arraigned before the European Court for the way in which they extend detention from 48 hours to seven days. It is why the Scots, unlike the English, are not in breach of article 5 of the convention on human rights.

It is true to say that Lord Colville does not believe that the judiciary should approve extended detentions, since he said that that is not consistent with our legal traditions. That is why he talks about a new tribunal, but I make no apology for saying that I believe that the tribunal should be judicial--ideally, a judge sitting in chambers so that he can approve the detention without any risk of leakage of security information. As the Home Secretary knows, that was the view of the previous Home Secretary, too. He discussed this reform with the judges who were unwilling, or felt themselves unable, to co-operate in that scheme. I have no doubt that, if pressed by a determined Government, they will accept the scheme, so that this breach of the European convention, this damage to the reputation of our legal system and this deterrent to obtaining convictions, will thus be removed.

Mr. Hind : Lord Colville clearly supports the idea of detention orders and believes that they are necessary. Does the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hattersley : Of course I do, which is why I said so five minutes ago. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I can repeat what I said. I accept that in special circumstances in the fight against terrorism extended detention may be

Column 700

necessary, but I believe, with Lord Colville and unlike the Home Secretary, that there should be judicial review before there is an extension from 48 hours to seven days. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now concentrate so that he will not have to ask me to repeat what I have said.

This leaves the question of how we treat the suspect while he is in detention or the subject of extended detention. I take at its face value the assertion of previous Home Secretaries that the object of detention is not to trawl for information--it is not a haphazard intelligence-gathering exercise. It is a genuine attempt, after detaining a man or woman on suspicion, to prevent an offence from being committed, or to prosecute and convict the man or woman for an offence that has been committed. That requires common sense as well as respect for the rights of the suspect during the process of interrogation.

The suspects of whom we speak are not protected by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, that is the protection, the safeguard, which the Home Secretary insists on claiming would protect them and prevent a recurrence of the miscarriages of justice which have sent so many innocent men and women to prison in the past 20 years.

If the Maguires, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were charged again today, they would not be charged under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, with all the safeguards that that involves, but under the PTA without any of those safeguards. It was making exactly that point that led the new chairman of the Criminal Bar Association to say on television last week that it was no wonder the courts would not convict in terrorist cases, when the normal safeguards of interrogation were not available during the period between arrest and trial.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : Perhaps I could help the right hon. Gentleman to make himself clear. He says that if the Birmingham Six were charged today they would be charged not under PACE but under the PTA. Charging is quite different from the arrest or holding of people in custody, which is done under the PTA. But the charge would be what it was-- murder--and the criminal law would be used, not PACE.

Mr. Hattersley : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he makes my point with a precision that I wish I had used. They would have been detained under the PTA. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing up the argument that I was trying to address. As they would have been detained under the PTA, they would not have enjoyed any of the protection that would have been available to them under PACE. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary wishes to argue with that contention, he will have to do so against all authority because that is undoubtedly the case. It is precisely because of that point that the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association said on television that it was not surprising that courts would not convict when detention did not carry with it safeguards governing rules of evidence that are common in the country. That is a tragically dangerous state of affairs and steps must be taken to remedy it. I understand that it was in order to defeat that difficulty that the Home Secretary ordered the pilot scheme by which interviews conducted with PTA detainees in Liverpool and London are now being taped. I am surprised that the Home Secretary is arguing the point. I

Column 701

have twice discussed the issue at length with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He made it plain to me that he does not think that there should be any legislative change until the results of the pilot scheme are available. However, he puts the case for universal recording with such clarity that he needs a wider audience. I think that the Home Secretary has a copy of the letter that the commissioner sent to me. That is surprising, but I do not complain about it. As the Home Secretary will know from his oversight of my private correspondence the commissioner said :

"There is a strong argument that because interviews with all other suspects are recorded, the courts, juries and the public will see this as normal and accepted practice."

The commissioner then commented on how some lawyers would behave and went on to state :

"it is all very well saying that the law exempts such cases, but it is the effect on the jury that must be of concern."

I have made it plain, and I am happy to repeat it if the Home Secretary wants me to, that the commissioner went on to argue the opposite case and gave his view that no changes should be made until the results of the pilot scheme were announced. I could not have put the commissioner's view more clearly.

It is also suggested that some of the problem lies in Northern Ireland, and that the Home Secretary would act to provide PACE-style safeguards if he did not feel that that would prove detrimental to the position there. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with that point when he winds up the debate. We should not forget that, last year, Lord Colville told us that some members of the Northern Ireland judiciary were now pressing for the recording of interviews with suspects, and pressing for that to be done quickly. Let me make it clear that we shall introduce as many PACE safeguards as possible, and that the taping of interviews will be one of them. It is right in principle and necessary in practice, if convictions are to be obtained.

The third contentious area is, of course, part II, which deals with exclusion orders. Such orders have been described--not least by Sir Cyril Phillips, another of the distinguished gentlemen invited by the Home Secretary to conduct a review of the Act--as "internal exile". Sir Cyril, the first examiner of the Act, said that they should be abandoned, as their advantages were

"difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way."

In 1987 Lord Colville--I shall not give details of his impeccable pedigree- -said that he believed that outright abolition of exclusion orders was the proper course. A year later, he said :

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

Twice, the Home Secretary rejected the recommendation of his own adjudicator. In 1987, Lord Colville accepted--as was required of him--that the last word rested with the Home Secretary. This year, he has observed-- rather gloomily, some would say--that, while the rules governing exclusion orders have been meticulously observed--and I do not doubt that--where renewal was concerned,

"It is not for me to argue otherwise."

We shall accept Lord Colville's advice. We believe that exclusion orders are wrong in principle, and counter-productive in practice. It must surely be offensive to parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, to be treated like a dumping ground for terrorists from the mainland, and that certainly alienates law-abiding citizens who are caught unjustly by the provisions.

Column 702

It is not only those who are excluded who are inconvenienced, temporarily imprisoned and, by implication, mortally insulted. Only 11 new exclusion orders were made last year--that is shown in table 9 of the statistics--but 10 times as many people were detained at ports and told that they were being considered for exclusion orders. I can think of nothing more likely to alienate the law-abiding Northern Ireland citizen from the process of law in this country than being treated in such a way.

It is, overwhelmingly, the question of exclusion orders that provides the illusion of activity ; yet it may well be that, in the case that the Home Secretary chose to cite, the exclusion order did no more than transfer danger from one part of the United Kingdom to another--and, indeed, intensify the danger when the excluded man was returned to his colleagues, comrades and fellow conspirators. I want such people to be convicted, and they will not be convicted unless the prevention of terrorism Act is changed in such a way that the courts will respond to it in the manner that I believe even the Home Secretary hopes that they will.

In the time available to me, I have made two positive suggestions for change. I conclude as I began, by saying that those changes will come about ; but I still believe that much would be gained in the fight against terrorism if they were agreed and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Only the terrorist can secure anything approaching benefit from the kind of display that we saw from the Home Secretary, and from the suggestion that we are not resolute in our determination to beat terrorism. Although we may disagree about the ways in which it can be achieved, our common purpose is to drive the terrorist out of the United Kingdom once and for all.

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

Mr. Hattersley : No ; I am finishing my speech now.

No one who has heard what the Labour party has to say on this subject could possibly interpret our view in the way in which the Home Secretary has chosen to interpret it today. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, continue to do so between now and polling day, but that does not diminish us ; it diminishes him. We shall go on saying what is right and necessary and when we are elected in six weeks' time we shall put that into operation.

4.39 pm

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He is, if I may put it in my own words, a very distinguished parliamentary relic. What he has said about the measure is of very great importance. In the few moments that I have, I intend to touch on some of those issues. I am bound to say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's speech lacked any potential for exciting intestinal commotions, due to its curious construction and the way in which he sat on the hedge when it came to some of these very complicated issues.

The right hon. Gentleman's reference in his opening remarks to the Libyan embassy incident of many years ago was, frankly, both shameful and unfortunate. His attempt to link my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with the escape from Brixton prison was unworthy of him. I am sorry that he chose to introduce those remarks into the debate when there were serious questions to be considered, which he subsequently went on to discuss.

Column 703

The difficulty for the House is that all of us on both sides, regardless of party, are united in the belief that we should prefer to do without this Act altogether. It is an exceptional Act to deal with the exceptional activity of terrorism. The very nature of the terrorist act requires measures to be available to those who have to fight terrorism in a practical way. The justification for these measures must be whether the police and the law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom think that the Act and its measures are necessary and desirable. My advice is that they do. They have said so to me on a number of occasions. As long as the police and the intelligence agencies make their case--that they require the provisions of this Act--it behoves the House to give them the support that they deserve.

Mr. Hind : Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that we expect that the Labour party will vote against the order sends entirely the wrong message to those who are actively involved in terrorism, both on the mainland in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland and elsewhere--that in some way we are divided over this vital matter which affects the protection of our community not only in Britain but in Northern Ireland itself? Does my hon. Friend feel that this is a shame and that it should be rectified, and that on this occasion the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his supporters should think again?

Sir John Wheeler : My hon. Friend is right to make that point. If the suggestion is that we should repeal the Act and replace it with a committee of the House, which seems to be the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, it would appear that, somehow or another, the institution of Parliament is not united behind the police in giving them what they say they require in order to maintain their prosecution of terrorism.

Mr. Hattersley : I must let the hon. Gentleman into a secret. The point that he makes about a committee of the House is a simple absurdity. From time to time Ministers of the Crown, even as illustrious as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ask their opposite numbers to discuss with them matters that they believe to be in the national interest. I am happy for the Home Secretary to make public every occasion that he has made that request to me. What I am saying is that this is one of the occasions when a similar technique should be operated. The idea of a committee is an invention of the Minister of State and by definition, therefore, is trivial.

Sir John Wheeler : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes his position clear. If, as I understand it, he implies that there should be an occasional meeting of right hon. Members who are members of Her Majesty's Privy Council to discuss the operation of the Act, or how it should be amended, or what further additions should be made to it, I have to point out to him that that is what happens today and that it has prevailed for many years.

Mr. Hattersley : Oh, no, it has not.

Sir John Wheeler : It is perfectly possible for Privy Councillors to have discussions of the kind that he suggests without there being a vote against the Act, or a

Column 704

repeal of the Act, because there would flow from such discussions any changes that were thought to be desirable. As I have already said, however, the substantive reason for retaining the Act on the statute book is that the police and the law enforcement agencies believe it to be essential. Are we to go against the overwhelming weight of professional advice when the incidence of terrorism prevails in the United Kingdom as well as in Northern Ireland?

Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir John Wheeler : Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish this point.

Statistical information relating to the operation of the Act provides evidence that we are also dealing with a rising tide of international terrorism, which is also caught and covered by the provisions of the Act.

Sir Anthony Durant : Does not my hon. Friend find it surprising that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not answer the Home Secretary's question about Lord Mason and Lord Jenkins, both of whom are distinguished members of his party, who support the Act?

Sir John Wheeler : My hon. Friend is right. Two distinguished Privy Councillors have expressed a view. Whether there would be any further purpose, therefore, in a wider gathering of Privy Councillors to cogitate on the progress of the Act seems to me to be doubtful. It sounds to me very much like a case of avoiding the principle of the issue. There are some in the Labour party who are resolutely opposed to the Act and who intend to vote against its continuance. I understand the difficulty that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook faces in that context.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the exclusion orders. The statistics show that there have been few such orders. They can be subject to independent review by the three adjudicators, the so-called wise men. Provision has been made for that. Adjudicators are thought to be desirable. They are used only in extreme cases and remain a valuable tool.

The right hon. Gentleman also touched on the tape recording of interviews and, allied to that, the video recording of interviews.

Ms. Short : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Wheeler : Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to develop this point, and then I shall give way.

Of course, the tape recording of interviews is a thoroughly desirable objective, with which I have considerable sympathy, as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis set out in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman and as he has said to me in conversation. The difficulty, however, if there are tape recordings or video recordings of interviews with terrorist suspects, is whether they subsequently become available to the courts and thus come under public scrutiny and put in jeopardy the lives of people who are fighting terrorism, or the lives of would-be informants, or the lives of the individuals themselves. The behaviour of suspects during interviews and the statements that suspects may make in private to the police and other officers are often significant and helpful in the combating of terrorism. That is the danger--terrorism is exceptional and cannot be treated in the same way as fraud, auto-crime or burglary.

Column 705

Ms. Short : May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the question of exclusion orders? It seems that the logic of exclusion orders is to remove from Britain people who are thought to be dangerous and who might be involved in killing people for political purposes and to send them to Northern Ireland where the network of those who kill for political purposes is more powerful. Those people are, therefore, more likely to kill, so the logic is that life in Northern Ireland is less important and less valuable than life in Britain. That is outrageous. Our laws should seek to convict those believed to be involved in terrorism rather than to dump them in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Wheeler : I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she raises issues to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred. As she must know, herein lies the difficulty of obtaining convictions for criminal offences committed by persons who are called terrorists--there is no such thing as a crime of terrorism. A person must be arraigned before a jury in England or Wales and charged with a criminal offence. Evidence must be obtained and presented to the jury, which must be able, without any qualification, to convict on that evidence.

As the hon. Lady will know, it is very difficult to obtain that information in the case of terrorists. One reason why it is difficult is that some information that comes into the possession of the police and others cannot be made public in the court room without putting in jeopardy other anti- terrorist operations. These are the difficulties which the House, the police and the judicial system suffer. In Northern Ireland one-judge Diplock courts must operate because of the threat that terrorists make to would-be jurors. We regret that, but we must face reality.

The hon. Lady also said that it was wrong for people excluded from England, Wales and Scotland to be returned to Northern Ireland. But if they hail from Northern Ireland they must go back to the Province if that is where their home is. She then said that such people could be a further threat to the citizens of Northern Ireland. Some hon. Members may make the case--and I have heard some do so to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland--for selective internment so that such people do not pose a threat to the citizens of Northern Ireland. I shall not make that case--I leave it to others who may choose to do so--but that is the implication of the hon. Lady's intervention.

Next Section

Home Page