House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Mar 1993

Column 951

Church of England

4.7 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in England ; to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof ; and for connected purposes.

The main purpose of my Bill is to allow the House to start to consider whether the time is ripe to disestablish the Church of England in England. Hon. Members on both sides of the House--from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to senior figures in the Labour party, including the Leader of the Opposition, as well as my own party colleagues and hon. Members from the nationalist and Unionist parties--are now all discussing constitutional reform. It would be odd if the debate on what would be an appropriate constitution for Britain in the next century did not also address the question whether it is right and appropriate that in England, uniquely among the four countries in the United Kingdom, there should remain a direct and daily constitutional and practical link between the Church and the state--

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : Uniquely? What about Scotland?

Mr. Hughes : Uniquely in England in this respect. The position in Scotland is different, and I shall deal with that in a moment. If I were given leave to bring in my Bill I should seek to draft, carefully and with the co-operation of colleagues from both sides of the House, a Bill which would reflect the important elements of this subject. I seek to achieve maximum agreement and I am grateful to colleagues from other parties who have shown their willingness to support the measure, if leave to introduce it is given by the House this afternoon.

On a brief light-hearted note, I am also encouraged to believe that it is worth introducing a ten-minute Bill by the fact that about two years ago I introduced a Bill in which I proposed that the Queen should pay tax. That produced a result sooner than I had expected. Although I do not expect the disestablishment of the Church of England to be quite as easy a change to achieve, I believe that it is proper that such issues should be put on the agenda so that they can then be considered inside as well as outside the House.

For the record, I declare my interest. I am a member of the Church. I am an Anglican and I was baptised into the Anglican Church in England, although I was confirmed in the Church of Wales. I should add that I do not think I suffered any disadvantage from moving from the established to the disestablished church at the age of 11. The premise on which I base my argument is that the Church of England should, like the church universal, be a serving Church and not a ruling Church.

The matter has been the subject of regular review. Over 20 years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury set up a commission under Owen Chadwick which in 1970 reported on the relationship between Church and state. Under Lord Callaghan of Cardiff when he was Prime Minister, changes were brought about in the way in which bishops were nominated and chosen by the Prime Minister

Column 952

of the day. It is therefore not unusual to put the matter on to Parliament's agenda ; it has been on Parliament's agenda in one way or another for generations.

Ever since Henry VIII set up the Church of England, for a uniquely personal reason, questions have been asked about whether it is appropriate for the Church-state status quo to continue. The Church of Ireland was disestablished more than 100 years ago and we cannot argue that Christianity has suffered in Ireland as a result of that move. More than 50 years ago, the Church of Wales was disestablished and it cannot be argued that Christianity has suffered in Wales as a result of that move. There is an established Church in Scotland, but it does not have the same constraint on it--for example, in terms of the requirement to pass legislation for approval to this place, as the Church of England currently does. Anglican Churches around the world are not normally established or linked formally with the state. In general, other Churches around the world are not established either.

This initiative is not aimed at demoting the role of Christianity or of religion in society. My argument is not that we now have a multicultural and multi-ethnic Britain in which Christianity is less relevant. That is not an argument, because many who have come as immigrants since the war have been Christians, although from other cultures and ethnic backgrounds. If they are not Christians, many of them are people of other faiths. Many have a great commitment to the idea of a Christian or at least a theist moral underpinning of society. The last thing I would argue is that Parliament should undermine the Christian and other theological principles that many in our society hold dear.

I argue that structural changes should take place. My proposals do not mean that we do not want to keep a place for religious or Christian broadcasting. They do not mean that we do not want to keep a place for religious or Christian education. They do not mean that we do not want to keep one day of the week different from the others. Those issues have nothing to do with the established role of the Church and can all be guarded in separate legislation.

Four obvious changes need to be made. The first is timely, as Parliament is about to consider the measure passed by Synod to permit the ordination of women priests. Why should we continue with a legislative form of supervision based on the assumption that we cannot say no to measures from the Church without causing a constitutional crisis? That is a ridiculous state of affairs. Secondly, as we discuss what reforms to make in the composition of the other place, the second Chamber, the House of Lords, we should ask whether it is any longer justifiable that 26 bishops--two archbishops and 24 bishops by seniority--should have guaranteed places in the legislature of Britain, when neither the head of any other denomination of the Christian Church nor of any other faith has such a place. Lord Soper and Lord Jakobovits happen to be members of the House of Lords, but that is by individual selection and not on any other basis. In addition, Anglican ordained ministers cannot be elected to this House ; that may no longer be appropriate either. Thirdly, it is arguable that it is no longer appropriate for the Prime Minister of the day, if an Anglican or a Christian and even more so if an agnostic or an atheist, to choose the diocesan bishops of the Church of England.

Column 953

Fourthly--I am sensitive to the issue, but I raise it because it is important--one, two or many generations from now it may no longer be thought appropriate that the heir to the throne should have to be not just a Christian but an Anglican in order to succeed to the throne, when that person might otherwise be entirely qualified to do the job.

I seek to move the measure as a serious initiation of a debate which the House has deferred, although a wish to consider it has been expressed in earlier speeches and in early-day motions. I ask that the House allow the opportunity for the Bill to be introduced, printed and considered.

This proposal is not about undermining the Church or the faith in which I and many others believe. There is all the difference in the world between supporting the Church and supporting the Church as part of the establishment. I do not recall that Christ came to argue that the Church should be on the side of the establishment. The establishment of the Church of England is an accident of our history. I think that we can be just as Christian a country and arguably the Church could be much more effective a Church if it were disengaged from the constitutional shackles which so regularly impose themselves on it.

4.17 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) rose--

Madam Speaker : Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose?

Mr. Cormack : Yes, Madam Speaker.

I wish to speak briefly about the Bill which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wishes to introduce. I do not for a moment question the integrity of his motives, but I do not believe that it is a subject for a private Member's Bill. The hon. Gentleman is proposing the greatest change of its kind since the Elizabethan settlement of 1558. To do that by means of a private Member's Bill, let alone a ten-minute Bill, seems wholly inappropriate. Although all the subjects which the hon. Gentleman listed deserve proper debate in the House, I think that he has jumped the gun to some degree, perhaps encouraged by his success with his taxation measure of two years ago. Now he is after one of the Queen's titles.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the most important measure ever to come to Parliament from the Church of England--the measure on the ordination of women. Now is not the time to debate that, but it is proper to refer to it, as the hon. Gentleman did in seeking to move the Bill. That measure would introduce a great change. I believe that, if it is effected, the Church of England will have turned itself into a sect and will possibly have forfeited its right to be the established Church anyhow. That may be proper, or it may not, in the view of hon. Members, but it ought to be debated in great detail after the measure on the ordination of women has been dealt with. Parliament has laid down a procedure for dealing with the measure. First, it should come through the Ecclesiastical Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman and I are members. When that committee has decided whether it deems the measure expedient, there will perhaps

Column 954

be an opportunity for the Synod to reflect again, and perhaps not, and perhaps for the measure to come to the House.

At that stage, it would be wholly appropriate to have a debate on the future of the established Church and touch on all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That time is not now. Therefore it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to persist with the introduction of the Bill now and I hope that he will not be given permission so to do.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Thank you, Bishop, that is enough.

Mr. Cormack : The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might benefit a little if he went occasionally. Hope springs eternal in my breast, even when I look at the hon. Gentleman, although it takes some doing.

I respect a great deal of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. This is much too serious a move to be left to a private Member's Bill and a private Member, however exalted. Many hon. Members in the House still believe in the established Church. Many of us hope that the Church will come through its present travail and troubles and soon have a more decisive lead than it is receiving at present. I do not say "leader", because the present Archbishop of Canterbury will perhaps assert a leadership which, sadly, has been lacking to date. Now is not the time for this measure. I therefore seek to oppose it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. John Battle.

Church of England

Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in England ; to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the homily, it was suggested that the Church of Scotland was an established church. It is not ; it is a presbyterian church. I am an episcopalian and I do not know what "established" means, any more than I know what that silly word, Euro-fraternalist, means, which I brought to your attention yesterday.

Madam Speaker : The House has become enlightened by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A number of us clearly called "no" ; we are therefore puzzled as to why there was no vote on the proposed Bill. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The challenger did not call out "no" when I called again. I called twice. The Chair always calls twice to be absolutely clear. There are occasions when the House becomes sloppy in responding to me. This was one such occasion. When I do not hear a second cry, I must make a decision, and I have just done so.

Column 955

Prevention of Terrorism

Madam Speaker : Before I call the Secretary of State, I shall make an announcement. There is a lot of interest in the order and I plead with hon. Members to speak for only a short time so that I am able to call Members in all parts of the House.

4.24 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) : I beg to move

That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 is a vital part of our commitment to the defeat of terrorism. The Act is used much more frequently in Northern Ireland against both so-called loyalist and republican terrorism than on the British mainland. But here too, as we all know, Northern Irish terrorism continues to present the main terrorist threat.

Last year, the incidence of terrorist crime in Great Britain was higher than at any time since the Act was first introduced in 1974, and terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, remains at a high level. There is little doubt that the threat from terrorist crime will continue throughout the next 12 months. However, I can assure the House that it will meet with a continuing resolute response from the Government.

Let us look at what has been achieved over the past year as there have been considerable successes. In Northern Ireland, 404 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including 97 with murder or attempted murder. Last year, and also in the previous year, more people were charged with murder than in any year since 1984. More than 300 people were convicted of terrorist-related offences, and more than 200 weapons and two tonnes of explosives have been found.

Since the beginning of last year, 19 people have been charged in Great Britain with serious terrorist-related offences such as murder and conspiracy to cause explosions in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. All 19 were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 using just those powers that I am inviting the House to continue today. We are debating the continuance order against the background of another considerable success for the police force and the security service in this country, with the discovery of a large cache of home-made explosives in London only yesterday.

In the face of the continuing threat, continuing success and the good use of the powers that a Labour Government originally thought necessary when they introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, I am extremely disappointed by the post-election reaction of the new Opposition Home Office team. It has offered talks, as it always does.

On previous occasions the Opposition team has offered to sit down and talk about the Act through the agency, originally, of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He made it quite clear, as has the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that the talks will be held on two preconditions : that we accept the Labour party's opposition to the two most important provisions in the Bill and the two most important provisions in the order. That is an extraordinary attempt by the Labour

Column 956

party to sound reasonable by talking about holding talks with the Government, while it really lacks sense and is declaring a continued opposition to the purpose of the order.

I acquit my opposite number--the hon. Member for Sedgefield--of any ill intentions. I accept that he is as opposed to terrorism as I am, and does not intend to give help or encouragement to terrorists in this country, but he is in danger of doing so by accident. As we shall, perhaps, discover, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose of the order, the use to which it is put and the vital part that it plays in our defence against terrorist activity on both sides of the Irish sea.

Therefore, I shall begin by addressing the two issues said to trouble the Opposition. I hope to get the Opposition to understand what the prevention of terrorism measure is designed to do.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Is not the Home Secretary playing on dangerous ground? The House of Commons is usually divided on virtually every subject under the sun. However, one form of unity that we have is our opposition to and loathing of all forms of terrorism, not least from Northern Ireland. Therefore, would it not be unfortunate and dangerous for the Home Secretary to give any impression other than that, while we are clearly divided over the measure, there is no division in our opposition to terrorism? Why should we give the terrorists the satisfaction of thinking that anyone in the House of Commons has time for them?

Mr. Clarke : I have just said that I accept that the Labour party is, of course, opposed to terrorism--as, I trust and firmly believe, are all hon. Members. We were agreed on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) 1974 Act which, for eight years, was supported by both sides of the House after it was introduced by a Labour Home Secretary.

For the past 10 years, there has been a completely absurd division between Government and Opposition because the Labour party changed its mind about these powers. We have discovered that Labour is still withholding support for the Act. Although Opposition Members have not said so, as far as I can see they will vote against the order. As I accept that Labour opposes terrorism, I can only believe that it is giving encouragement to terrorists, who find these powers a considerable inconvenience, by accident.

The Opposition do not understand the purpose of the order, so I shall begin by trying to explain to them again the purpose of the Act and the order. I hope that I can get the Labour party to accept the failure of its opposition over the past 10 years and come onside in practice as well as in sentiment. The purpose of the Act

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield) : Does the Home Secretary understand that the first of the two principal objections that we have outlined, which relates to exclusion orders, has been supported by his independent adviser? Our second objection relates to judicial intervention and the period of detention, and was contemplated by previous Home Secretaries. Although the Home Secretary may disagree--I understand the reasons that he is about to give--how can he possibly say that we are giving some form of closet support to terrorism by voicing objections, one of which has been supported by his independent adviser and the other contemplated by a previous Home Secretary?

Column 957

Mr. Clarke : The hon. Gentleman's point about my independent adviser is deliberately disingenuous. Some years ago the independent adviser once expressed reservations. The independent adviser, Lord Colville of Culross, who I trust is accepted as independent by the hon. Gentleman, recommends the renewal of the order in full. The hon. Member for Sedgefield uses that argument to try to give some respectability to his opposition to exclusion orders, the merits of which I shall shortly address. It is not true to say that the up-to-date advice of independent adviser is for change.

I propose to address the arguments on the detention orders, which were the subject of the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is not a judicial duty to look at the extension of detentions beyond 48 hours. I shall again explain the reasons why we are satisfied that the police and the security services occasionally need to seek leave to detain people for more than 48 hours. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sedgefield standing up, looking steely-eyed, and declaring that his position is reasonable. He is trying to find reasons to carry on clinging to the year in, year out, objections of his predecessor to the renewal of the Act, and by doing so he opposes the renewal of important powers. To that extent he is, although unintentionally, giving great encouragement to the PIRA and others who find these powers so damaging.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : I served on the Committee that examined the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and all my attempts to resist such invasions of human rights or proof or anything else by the then Labour Minister and the Labour Government were opposed. If Opposition Members care to read Hansard they will see that. They damn well should read it.

Mr. Clarke : I believe that my hon. and learned Friend was mistaken in some of the arguments that he made against the Bill at that time. It was a new and uncertain power and, as he has said, he was opposed by Labour. When the Bill, which apparently was different as far as the Opposition are concerned, was being introduced by a Labour Government, the hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, North said : "It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."

The hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, North, who is now the Opposition spokesman, also said :

"While examining the detail, we cannot deny the principle or say under any circumstances that when our people are looking to us for support we in this House should deny it to them."--[ Official Report, 28 November 1974 ; Vol. 882, c. 700.]

That is what he said when a Labour Home Secretary sought those powers. It is time for some effect to be given to what ought to be a bipartisan consensus on how to tackle terrorism and for the Opposition to stop retreating into obscure arguments about the detail and to give us the powers that unfortunately, we continue to need.

Mr. Blair : The Home Secretary has begun by playing exactly the politics that one would expect of him, and it is unworthy of him to do so. Let me pick him up on that point, so that the House is in no doubt about the nature of our objection and the offer that we have made to him.

Column 958

On exclusion orders, the Home Secretary suggested that his independent adviser had resiled from his present position. Let me quote from this year's report, just published, in which Lord Colville says :

"My own views on this power"--

the exclusion power--

"are well-known, but it is encouraging that its use is diminishing."

He has in no sense resiled from his earlier view ; he has merely accepted that the Home Office has no intention of changing its view. Exclusion orders are still rejected by the Home Secretary's adviser. Judicial intervention, on which we have been found in breach of the European convention, was contemplated by previous Home Secretaries. In those circumstances, to suggest that we are against the entire nature of legislation to prevent terrorism is an outrage.

Mr. Clarke : First, Lord Colville has recommended that the Act and the powers be renewed in their entirety. The hon. Gentleman has disingenuously left out that point in all three of his interventions. When we talk about playing politics, the hon. Gentleman is making it sound as though he is suddenly more robust in supporting the Government and wants talks about how we can make the fight against terrorism more effective, but, as I think he will demonstrate at the end of the debate, he will then vote against the powers that we need.

The offer that he says he has made is to have discussions that will lead to the suspension of the exclusion orders, the ending of the exclusion orders and the introduction of a judicial process after 48 hours. He requests talks on the basis that the most important powers in the Act are not used.

If the hon. Gentleman considers that his case has merit and not simply a new type of Clintonesque style, let us move on to the issues.

Mr. Blair : Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Clarke : No. I am seeking to explore whether there is any substance behind the new smiling face on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. There are too many conversations and sub-debates. If hon. Members want to catch my eye, they should keep quiet now.

Mr. Clarke : As the House will appreciate, the Act is mainly designed to help the investigation and prevention of terrorism. People are not usually charged or brought to trial in the courts under the parts of the Act that are in dispute.

The Act is aimed at helping the investigation and prevention, where possible, of terrorist incidents before they happen. In attempting to prevent terrorism, powers sometimes have to be exercised in advance of a terrorist act. In some cases, preparations may not have reached the stage where there is any sustainable evidence of a specific crime.

In those circumstances, it is false to draw analogies with ordinary criminal law. When somebody is facing a charge for an actual offence, evidence is presented by one side or the other and there is a judicial determination. However, because of the threat of terrorism, we have to introduce in the Act specific powers designed to thwart terrorist acts in advance and to further the investigation of them. That is why specific powers are needed for the curse of terrorism.

Column 959

The first of those powers, to which the Opposition continue to object, is the power of exclusion. It is not used frequently, and I certainly use it with considerable care. It is used less than previously because I would not use such powers which genuinely run the risk of curtailing the civil rights of innocent people. It is a power to be used with great circumspection. I use it in cases where I am satisfied that a particular person is involved in terrorism--such people almost invariably have a history of that--and there is sufficient information to satisfy me that there is a risk of continued terrorist involvement.

In such a case, however good the information is it cannot be presented in court to secure the prosecution of someone who has committed a particular terrorist act. In general, we are talking about would-be terrorists, where I am satisfied that they are travelling to this country to plan a terrorist act, if they have the opportunity to do so.

As Home Secretary, I use the power to prevent terrorists from coming to this country to plan and to carry out those attacks. In a few instances, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland uses the power to stop people going the other way. We certainly succeed in disrupting the free movement of terrorists between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. I am quite convinced that the use of that power has a substantial effect in frustrating and disrupting the activities of terrorists. It has been suggested that an alternative to the power would be to mount surveillance operations on those who would otherwise be excluded. I am satisfied that that would not work in practice.

The Opposition claim to be leaping to the defence of some great civil liberty. In fact, they are trying to stop me overruling the right of people with a long track record of serious terrorism to come across the Irish sea. They pretend that they want to come to visit relatives, to have a holiday, or to exercise some other great civil right.

I remind the House that during the past year I have made only two new exclusion orders. There were 81 still extant at end of the year. I renew them when I am satisfied that the threat posed by a named person wishing to come here is sustained. That is the lowest total of exclusion orders for 10 years ; that is the exclusion order power that the hon. Member for Sedgefield insists is removed before we can have the fairly useless talks about the Act that he has offered. It is an important power used to prevent people who I am satisfied have an involvement in terrorism from coming to this country. It is used sparingly. It is absurd of the Opposition to try to construct some elevated arguments of principle for removing that important power, thereby making us look for some other method of keeping tabs on 81 people who have been involved in terrorism.

Mr. Blair : The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be unsure whether to argue that the power is a fundamental necessity because it is used so often, or whether it is fairly trivial because it is not used very often. His own independent advisers have said that only a small number of cases are involved, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges. The advisers--not just Lord Colville, but his previous adviser--said that the power could be used in a different way and that surveillance could be carried out in such a manner as to make an exclusion order unnecessary.

Column 960

I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that previous Home Secretaries have said that exclusion orders would outlive their usefulness at some point of time, which is precisely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's adviser has now advised. In those circumstances, how can he say that our proposition is extreme?

Mr. Clarke : I have said that it is an important power, which is used sparingly to ensure that there is no infringement of civil liberties. I am quite satisfied that the alternative of surveillance of 81 people on both sides of the Irish sea, wherever they might be at any given time, is not satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman is defending not an important point of civil liberty, but a silly position adopted by his predecessors, which he does not have the nerve to abandon. He takes the same position on the extensions of detention, which is the second power on which he tries to elevate an argument of great principle.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that two new exclusion orders had been made during the past year. Does he agree that almost all such orders arise out of intelligence gathered in Northern Ireland about people who wish to come to England, Scotland or Wales? Does not the exclusion of just two people say something about the level of hard intelligence that has been gathered, or has the capacity to be gathered, under the Act?

Mr. Clarke : We gather a great deal of intelligence in Northern Ireland, and we are strengthening the gathering of intelligence in Great Britain. The relationship between all those involved is extremely good. We use that intelligence in a whole variety of ways. It is true that there are 81 orders extant and that I have added only two new ones during the past year. They are based on sufficient information to satisfy me that a particular person is engaged in terrorism and that preventing him from travelling backwards and forwards between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain would disrupt his would-be activities.

That is not, in itself, a measure of the amount of intelligence that we have gathered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was encouraged by what I said at the beginning of my speech about the number of people being arrested, charged and convicted. I assure him that, through intelligence gathering and every other legitimate police activity, we will build on that success.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : I hope that the Home Secretary, through the very exchanges that are now taking place, is beginning to understand the need for the talks offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The issue is not just one of civil liberties, although that is important ; it is about effectiveness. Terrorist activity has gone up while the use of the Act has gone down.

The dangerous aspect is that the Act is still used by terrorist groups on both sides in Northern Ireland to indicate the political nature of the issue. It is the only case in which a politician can determine a judicial decision ; the matter does not go through the courts. Because of that, the terrorists--especially on the republican side, but also on the unionist side--make enormous propaganda use of the Act. It is counter-productive because it acts as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA.

Column 961

Mr. Clarke : I do not believe that. It is an important point that the Opposition should address. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about cases being matters for judicial decision when I come to deal with the extensions of detention, because the point applies strongly there. They are not judicial decisions ; they are not two competing pieces of evidence being examined and decided on by a member of the judiciary. By their very nature, they cannot be so. They are the sorts of actions taken by politicians in every other country when there is intelligence about terrorist activity by an individual. Constraints must be imposed.

If the arguments of the terrorist organisations were not given some credibility by respectable democratic politicians sustaining their opposition to the Act, the terrorists would not get anywhere in trying to persuade anyone other than their committed supporters that the Act was a justification for their actions or that it was helpful in recruiting.

We cannot make exclusion orders a judicial process--I do not think that anybody has ever tried. By their very nature, exclusion orders are based on the fact that we have sufficient information to satisfy a Home Secretary, answerable to the House of Commons, that a particular person has sufficient involvement in terrorism for it to be desirable to prevent his movement between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. It is an important power, the renewal of which was recommended by Lord Colville. It should be renewed.

Mr. Blair : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has alleged that our position on exclusion orders lends credibility to the IRA. Is he making the same criticism of his own advisers, who advised him to adopt exactly our position?

Mr. Clarke : The hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. Our adviser, Lord Colville, has recommended the renewal of the Act, which is what the hon. Gentleman opposes. He flies in the face of Lord Colville's advice. I advise him to stop citing Lord Colville in his support, because that is somewhat inconsistent.

The Opposition have criticised us for not bringing the Act into line with the outcome of the hearing that took place under the European convention on human rights. Let us look at that issue, which is narrow but important. It is true that the European Court has held that article 5(3) of the convention is breached if detainees are not brought before a court after four days' detention. The court is quite satisfied about the first four days, but it has said that, thereafter, there should be judicial intervention. This is the point that the Opposition are pursuing. Following the finding to which I have just referred, the British Government have always had a derogation from the convention. We do not believe that what the Opposition suggest is a practical way of proceeding, as I shall explain in a moment. In response to the claims that we are breaching civil liberties and providing a recruiting sergeant for the IRA, let me remind the House of the care with which this power is used. Last year, I granted only 17 detention extensions under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That is the lowest number since 1984. We are exercising these powers with great care. In 10 of the 17

Column 962

cases, detention lasted only four days, so in respect of those cases there is no dispute. Cases in which longer extensions are sought are considered very carefully by me.

There was a grand total of seven cases in which I concluded that detention should last more than four and up to seven days. In other words, the power is used very sparingly. However, these are serious cases. Terrorism is serious. Seven is a large number of cases when one is talking about people engaged in very serious, extremely dangerous, terrorist activity.

The cases in which detention beyond the first four days is necessary tend to be those involving serious investigation that has to be continued. Usually, but not always, this arises from the need for forensic tests. Sometimes it is the need for searches, sometimes the need to follow up leads from other contacts, and so on. Without this power in those circumstances, there would be cases in which people charged with terrorism could walk free. It has been said that extension beyond four days should be by way of judicial decision, that a judge should be called in to make a decision about the final three days. First, that was not the conclusion of Lord Shackleton in his report of 1978. Nor has it ever been the conclusion of Lord Colville, particularly in his report of 1987. So far as I know, the view of Lord Colville remains the same.

This is an executive rather than a judicial decision. It is with the greatest respect that I say that the decision of the European Court was wrong. The system here is different from that on the continent. On the continent, people can be detained for very much longer, the papers having been considered by a comparatively minor member of the judiciary, who is probably supervising the whole prosecution. We do not have the juge d'instruction ; we do not have the supervisory magistrate ; we do not have a professional investigative judiciary. What we have is the careful exercise of executive power. What we have here is an executive rather than a judicial act. In judicial proceedings, someone would present to the judge all the evidence upon which the further extension was called for. The defence would examine the evidence and would put arguments to the judge, and, on the balance of argument, a judicial decision would be made.

In this country, the suspect is not given the information that is being followed up. We do not reveal how alleged involvement in crime is being investigated. It would be the height of folly to do so. Such people are often anxious to get out as quickly as possible to frustrate the investigation. Thus, an extremely serious executive act has to be taken by the holder of my office. The Home Secretary has to be satisfied that there is good reason for extending the detention up to seven days.

If that power were not exercised, or if it were weakened, as, in effect, the Opposition would do, terrorists would be released after four days. They would melt into the population like snow off a ditch, and then the results of the forensic tests would reveal that the authorities had the right people in the first place and that they should have been charged.

Next Section

Home Page