House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Mar 1993

Mr. Blair : That is an outrageous suggestion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that, while he wants detention to be extended by executive act, we believe that this should be achieved by way of judicial intervention. I am surprised that he should find this extraordinary. Judicial intervention is the normal course in the rule of law. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that after

Column 963

four days a person would walk free. The evidence would be presented to the judge in exactly the same way as it is presented to the Home Secretary. As the European Court found, and as a previous Home Secretary from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party was prepared to confirm, the difference here is the difference between proper judicial intervention and executive action. This goes to the very heart of the issue.

Mr. Clarke : The judge would be carrying out an executive act. The difference is that he would be new to the case. Judges do not normally take executive action of this kind. A judge presides at judicial proceedings in which competing evidence is openly exchanged and he makes a decision. That is the role that is most appropriate to a judge. Let me state what I see as the difference between us. I am confronting the reality of the need to deal with terrorist incidents. I am dealing with the reality of what is required for proper investigation of allegations of involvement in terrorist activities on this side of the Irish sea and in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman is using detailed points, which in my opinion are not sustainable, to justify opposition to the renewal of these powers.

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : Why does the Home Secretary say that Lord Colville never recommended judicial intervention? In the report in which the noble Lord was specifically critical of extended detention, saying that it must be examined again, he said that the new model ought to follow the example of Scottish and Isle of Man procedure, which involves judicial intervention. That is why Scotland was not arraigned before the European Court. Why does the Home Secretary say that Lord Colville took up a position opposite to that which, in fact, he did take up?

Mr. Clarke : I repeat that my understanding of Lord Colville's report of 1987 is that it did not take up that position. Lord Colville, having supervised the operation of the Act, recommends the renewal of all its powers. On the basis of my experience so far in this office, I believe that to be good advice, and I commend it to the House. I believe that our power to investigate and prevent terrorism in Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be greatly weakened if this order were turned down by the House.

Mr, John Greenway (Ryedale) : My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to those who have to face the reality of action against terrorists. I am sure he agrees that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the other security forces in Northern Ireland do an absolutely superb job. Does he know that, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited Belfast recently, the deputy Chief Constable of the RUC pleaded with its members to see that the emergency provisions were renewed, lock, stock and barrel?

Mr. Clarke : I am aware of that. Perhaps I was naive in hoping that that point could be brought home effectively to the Opposition in the course of this debate. So far, we have not succeeded in that respect.

Let me turn to Lord Colville's report. The noble Lord gave the operation of these powers a clean bill of health. On the question of exclusion orders, he observed that the power had been used sparingly in 1992 and that the

Column 964

machinery was working effectively. He emphasised the importance of the work of the three independent advisers who, having reviewed the cases of those wishing to make representations against exclusion, advise the Secretary of State as to their findings.

I agree wholeheartedly with Lord Colville's observations. The advisers fulfil a most important role, each undertaking his work with very great care and diligence. I do not undertake always to accept their advice, although, so far, it has invariably been accepted. These people provide another important check on the use of the power and a safeguard for the individual. Lord Colville's report also records his finding that the proper criteria are being carefully observed in considering whether extensions of detention should be granted.

With regard to the other powers under the Act, the report goes on to present a good picture of the way in which the police have responded to complaints from members of the public about the conduct of checks under the Act. I am glad to hear it, because the co-operation of the public with the police is essential.

Lord Colville's report on the operation of the Act last year approves of the way in which the powers are being exercised and recommends their renewal, and--I repeat--the Opposition are scratching about trying to find some means of justifying the rather surprising repetition of their vote this evening.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : The law of Scotland was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but he has got the law of Scotland wrong. Even if he had not, and if he had visited the Province, which I am sure he has, this is nothing to do with a religious war ; it is purely a mafia operation which, I regret, is funded by the money thrown at Northern Ireland by the British Government, and the sooner we recognise that the better.

Mr. Clarke : I shall come later to the money-gathering activities of the terrorists. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that, as the difficulties continue, it becomes more and more clear that large numbers of terrorist organisations are heavily involved in arguing over the proceeds of criminal activities to finance what they are doing. The border between criminality and politics is becoming ever increasingly blurred in the continuing campaign-- [Interruption.] --so far as the objectives of the terrorists are concerned. So far as the politics of the Opposition is concerned, their tactics are not criminal--I have always conceded that-- they are just careless and an attempt to justify their past activities.

I have obtained a quotation to confirm what I said about Lord Colville. In addition to the clean bill of health that he has given, I now have his recommendation for this year, which has been ignored by the Opposition. The December 1987 report deals with the detention powers and sets out in chapter 12 the attractiveness at first sight of the argument that the decisions should be made by a High Court judge.

In paragraph 12.1.3, Lord Colville said :

"On reflection I believe that such a change would be wrong. It would be cosmetic rather than substantial".

I shall not continue to quote, but Lord Colville supports the argument that I am making. [Interruption.] I can read it all if the Opposition wish, but I do not think that they are open to argument. In paragraph 12.1.6, Lord Colville concludes :

Column 965

"On examination, therefore, this proposition adds nothing to safeguards for civil liberties".

Mr. Hattersley : I think that the Home Secretary quoted from the 1987 report. Let me quote Lord Colville in 1991 when he called for a bold new initiative which he regarded as irresistible since the power should be changed. He said :

"It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal will be set up to oversee the powers"--

that is what we are calling for--

"it could draw on Scottish or Channel Island methodology" that is what we are calling for. That is four years after the quotation that the Home Secretary has just given us.

Mr. Clarke : The Opposition are calling for a judicial involvement in the extension of the powers. The right hon. Gentleman may wave his finger, but he is not on the Front Bench now. What is being called for is judicial intervention. The arguments against that were set out by Lord Colville in 1987. They were substantial and they remain substantial. I agree with them. I have one advantage over both Opposition spokesmen, in that I have operated the powers. I can assure them from experience that they would weaken the Act if their vote were successful. I assure them that, as they know perfectly well, they are going in the teeth of the up-to -date advice of Lord Colville that we should renew the powers that we are seeking today.

Mr. Blair : Lord Colville's point is not that a judicial intervention would inhibit the security services, which is the Home Secretary's argument ; on the contrary, he is saying that he believes--I disagree for reasons that I shall give--that it will not safeguard the civil liberties of the detainee. The Home Secretary's argument is that if we put in judicial intervention that will inhibit the security services. It is that argument that Lord Colville specifically rejected.

Mr. Clarke : He rejects it rather more strongly than that, if we are to go into the detailed argument. He points out the difficulties of doing it that way at all. In paragraph 12.1.5-- [Interruption.] the hon. Gentleman raised the point, so he must listen--Lord Colville says :

"In Northern Ireland and Scotland the number of High Court Judges is small enough to bring some consonance. In England and Wales, however, the practicality is different. These applications by the police would be made as a matter of urgency in the force area. The Senior Circuit Judge would often sit as a Deputy High Court Judge for the occasion ; he or she would have great difficulty in communicating with colleagues who had been faced with similar applications. It is not a recipe for consistency. Apart from such Deputies, there are over 100 real High Court Judges who might have to make the decision."

A whole range of different people would be involved in making those decisions.

It is right that, as Lord Colville says, no improvement in civil liberties would result. In my judgment--it seems to me to be reinforced by Lord Colville's recommendation that we renew the powers this year--the practicality would fall down in every possible way. It is the most effective way of handling these things that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that further detention is justified. It would weaken our effectiveness in dealing with allegations against terrorist suspects if the power were changed in the way that the Opposition recommend.

Column 966

Mr. Blair : I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily ; I simply say that, after the passage to which the Home Secretary referred, Lord Colville concludes :

"On examination, therefore, this proposition adds nothing to safeguards for civil liberties."

That is why Lord Colville is questioning the provision. At no stage in any of his reports--indeed, as I shall show, a previous Home Secretary said that he wanted judicial intervention--does Lord Colville say that it will prevent us from getting terrorists. That would be a substantial reason for rejecting our position. What is not a substantial reason is the reason given there.

Mr. Clarke : With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is scrabbling about. In 1974, a Labour Home Secretary introduced the Act. Its powers were essential. The Conservative party has voted in favour of them consistently in opposition and in government ever since. In 1982 the Labour party went through what I would like to believe was a temporary period of left-wing aberration and, no doubt at the behest of some of its less desirable Members, things got completely out of hand and it suddenly started to vote against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) are meant to be leading figures in the attempt to rescue the Labour party from the murk of the 1980s and to get it back on to a sensible course of cross-party agreement in those things that are essential in the fight against crime and terrorism. So far, neither of them is up to it. The Opposition have carried on having this silly vote each year, and they are scratching about to try to find reasons for it.

The power is used sparingly by the security services and police who are successfully making strides in combating terrorism in this country. It is time that the actions of the Opposition began to match their rhetoric, and they would best be matched by a vote in favour of continuing the provisions this evening.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to Scottish methodology. There is no such thing. Fortunately, our law is based on principle, as is our party and as is our commitment--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. It is clear that that is not a point of order for the Chair ; it is a point of information ; a point in debate.

Mr. Clarke : Let me explain some safeguards that are already built into the emergency provisions legislation and which are being strengthened in two ways in Northern Ireland in order to try to meet legitimate concern, if it exists, about the way in which the emergency powers are used.

First, on 16 December last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the appointment of Sir Louis Blom- Cooper to the post of independent commissioner for the police holding centres. His principal role as commissioner will be to observe, comment and report on the conditions under which terrorist suspects are detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the holding centres of Castlereagh, Gough and Strand Road. He will provide an independent check that the statutory and administrative safeguards are fully complied with. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is preparing codes

Column 967

of practice under section 61 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, governing the detention, questioning, treatment and identification of suspects detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The codes will be modelled closely on the existing codes made under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, amended to take account of the emergency legislation. The codes have been issued for public consultation, and it is hoped that they will be laid before the House in the near future.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : How will Sir Louis Blom-Cooper ensure that those matters are carried out in his absence?

Mr. Clarke : I am assured by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is in his place by my side, that a substitute will soon be appointed.

The question of terrorist finances was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). We have for several years been aware of the determined criminality of the provisional IRA's fund-raising methods. There is now reliable information that loyalist terrorist groups are becoming increasingly involved in serious and complex frauds and crimes of dishonesty. One effective way of undermining terror campaigns is to starve the terrorist groups of the funds that they require. The financial provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are a significant component of our efforts to combat terrorist racketeering in connection with Northern Ireland. They have been used to good effect in stemming a number of traditional sources of terrorist funding and are regarded by the RUC as invaluable in its continuing efforts to combat terrorism.

Lord Colville has long advocated strengthening the Act's provisions in that respect, and his recent report recommends that the Government should seize the opportunity provided by the Criminal Justice Bill--presently under consideration in another place--to make some amendment to that legislation. That is just our intention. The Government will be introducing amendments to the Bill in Committee, with the aim of bringing the law on terrorist finances into line with many of the changes being made in the same Bill to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

I will mention as briefly as possible two further Government measures taken during the course of the year. Last May, I announced that the lead for intelligence gathering against Irish republican terrorism in Great Britain would pass from the Metropolitan Police special branch to the security service. I make it clear again that the security service has not taken over responsibility for counter-terrorism from the police, who remain responsible for prevention and detection of terrorist crime, as for other forms of crime, and retain a national role in intelligence work.

The new arrangements came into effect on 1 October last year. Thanks to the efforts of both services, they are working well. As I intended, they are making the best use of the experience and expertise of each service, and we are steadily gathering more intelligence all the time. The new

Column 968

arrangements do not change the position in Northern Ireland, where the RUC retains primacy in all operational security matters. The second measure is the extension of tape recording to terrorist cases in England and Wales on a trial basis for two years, from 1 December last year. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of those trials, which are being monitored by a broadly based steering group. If the trials conclude with a recommendation that such cases should be brought fully within the ambit of the PACE code of practice on tape recording, I shall welcome that- -but difficult and serious issues must be considered first and, for the time being, I am keeping an open mind on that subject.

I have sought to remind the House of the terrorist threat and to explain as briefly as I can why it is important to ensure that the powers in the prevention of terrorism measures continue in force. Those powers are obviously used carefully and with discretion, backed by established safeguards that we keep constantly under review. The key point is that they continue to provide an important and necessary weapons in the fight against terrorism. At a time when we are achieving successes, it would be the height of folly to dispense with those powers.

I believe, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield often says, that this ought not to be an inter-party issue. We are entitled to expect the Opposition's support in our stand against terrorism in practical form, but their record since 1983, when they started voting against the Act, clearly shows that they are not yet ready to do that and to adopt the position that they occupied in Government in the 1970s. I am genuinely disappointed by that.

It appears that this year only the rhetoric will be changed slightly. The points being made and the policies are exactly the same. The origin of that policy goes back to a difficult time in the Labour movement, which the Opposition are no doubt trying to forget. If the Opposition are trying to forget and to break away from that, they should start changing Labour's actions. It would be welcome and reassuring to many if Labour did not just raise a smoke screen about talks but withheld its opposition to the renewal of the powers this year.

5.15 pm

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield) : We certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to our police and security services for their excellent work recently, and the new find of explosives announced today. They often work in circumstances of great danger and difficulty, and we pay tribute to them.

This legislation is debated every year because, as every Home Secretary who ever introduced it has said--at least until this year--it involves serious and fundamental departures from the normal processes of British law. It grants powers of detention and exclusion in respect of subjects of the United Kingdom which would otherwise be condemned without hesitation as contrary to the principles of British justice.

In the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Parliament decided the reasonable outer limits of powers of detention and restraint, but the measures before us go beyond them. The majority of those arrested for terrorism could have been arrested under existing criminal law, rather than under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. Those powers, introduced before the 1984 Act, are to cater for

Column 969

cases in which, it is said, ordinary powers are insufficient. We should not forget that they are unique powers, to deal with a unique situation.

That is emphasised by the title of the legislation : the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The first Labour Home Secretary to introduce the power, in 1974, said that he did so with great reluctance. His opposite number on the Conservative Front Bench, now Lord Joseph, spoke of his "distaste" for the laws, although he supported them. In 1982, Lord Whitelaw stated that the Act "makes considerable inroads into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud",

and he urged particular scrutiny of its powers. That is why they are subject to constant review.

Lord Shackleton reported in 1978, following pressure from the House that it would not agree to renewing the provisions in the absence of such a review, and Lord Jellicoe reported in 1983. In 1984, an annual process of review was established, first under Sir Cyril Philips, and then under Lord Colville. Following reviews, changes were made. The annual nature of this debate emphasises the serious nature of the order. Of particular cause for concern are the speeches of recent Home Secretaries, especially that of the present Home Secretary today. Expressions of distaste, of concern, and of vigilance to ensure that we were not doing more than was necessary to combat terrorism, and the belief that the 1989 Act might be a necessary evil, have grown rather weaker with time. Today, for the first time, the Home Secretary made no such mention at all.

I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member believes that we should simply rubber-stamp an order of this nature. It comes before us every year precisely because we should carefully scrutinise its provisions. Those right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom are evidently among those on the Government Benches now, who believe that we should just rubber-stamp the measure--[ Hon. Members :-- "No."]--and who show by their attitude that they think that it is wrong even to raise doubts about the measure's contents do not pay sufficient attention to the nature of our parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh) : I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. May I ask him a simple question? A Labour Government introduced this measure, but for the past 10 years a Labour Opposition have opposed it. Were the Labour Government wrong to introduce it, or are the Labour Opposition wrong to oppose it?

Mr. Blair : I shall explain the precise reasons for the position that we have adopted. I hope to show the hon. Gentleman exactly why our position is entirely reasonable and justifiable ; I simply ask him, and other hon. Members, to listen to the argument.

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary quoted the words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Let me refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory : the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that the measures were necessary, and that we should not have the deaths of our citizens on our conscience. I support those sentiments : they were right then, and they

Column 970

are right now. Rather than just talking about getting tough with terrorists, why does the hon. Gentleman not give his support to the people who put their lives on the line?

Mr. Blair : We shall explain the nature of our objections. The hon. Gentleman should realise that Labour is prepared to separate the issue from party politics ; it is the Conservative party which insists on turning it into a party political issue, despite our objections. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, will listen to our objections to the order. I shall allow him to intervene if he considers those objections unreasonable.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair : I should like to get on with my speech.

There are two fundamental flaws in the order as it is now drafted. Exclusion orders, and the absence of a judicial review of the extraordinary power of detention. Exclusion orders were seen from the beginning as the most temporary of the temporary provisions that we are discussing. Lord Shackleton expressed deep unease about them in 1978 ; Lord Jellicoe called for them to be severely restricted, and possibly removed altogether ; Sir Cyril Phillips, the first independent adviser under the annual review, said that such powers were no longer justifiable ; and Lord Colville, the present independent adviser, in 1987 and subsequently called for their removal.

It is not true that Lord Colville has resiled from his earlier view, as the Home Secretary said. He has done no such thing ; he has merely accepted that it is not the Government's view. He has also repeated in his review this year that he believes the powers to be unnecessary. Conservative Members may disagree with the point that is being made. They may believe that exclusion orders are necessary. It can hardly be said, however, that objecting to exclusion orders is extreme or unreasonable.

Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair : Conservative Members will not even listen to what I am saying. Objecting to exclusion orders can hardly be described as unreasonable or extreme, given that their abolition has been sought with increasing firmness by every independent adviser to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Nicholls : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for extending his usual courtesy and giving way to me. I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said of exclusion orders :

"It would be most sad 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."

Much as I respect the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I must put it to him that he is now dissociating himself from the judgment of his hon. Friend because he knows that if he does not do so he will be unable to carry the left wing of his party. He stands condemned, in the House and the country, for putting the unity of his party before the priority of taking a stand against terrorism. That is the point that he ought to answer.

Mr. Blair : That is not often said, I must say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made it clear at that time that he believed that exclusion orders were necessary. If the hon.

Column 971

Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) reads the speeches made at the time, however, he will see that it was specifically said that those powers should be the first to go. The reason why there was an independent review-- [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will at least listen to my replies to their questions. The independent review was set up precisely to establish whether measures such as exclusion orders were still necessary. The independent reviewer reported that they were no longer necessary, and his successor has said the same. That is why the position is different today.

It is not hard to see the reason. The section of the Act which provides for exclusion orders says that they can be made either to prevent someone in Northern Ireland from entering Britain, or to prevent someone in Britain from entering Northern Ireland. No restriction on freedom is imposed on such people when they are in Northern Ireland, or in Britain. To make such an order, the Secretary of State must be satisfied--not merely have grounds, even reasonable grounds, for suspecting--that a person entering either Northern Ireland or Britain is a terrorist, or is about to engage in terrorism.

Self-evidently, the power has been subject to attack, for a very simple reason. Either someone is a terrorist, in which case he should be in detention, or he is not, in which case he should be able to move freely. If such a person is under suspicion, he should be under surveillance, whether in Northern Ireland or in Britain. That is precisely why the Government's own independent advisers have sought the abolition of the power.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Blair : Perhaps I may be allowed to finish.

I quote the words of someone who was never considered to be soft on terrorism--former Member of Parliament Enoch Powell--who said in February 1987 :

"The inherent objectionableness of a power to exclude from one part of the United Kingdom into another is undiminished, but the evidence for utility continues to diminish. I hope that we shall see the end of it, certainly no later than the new edition of this Act, and preferably when we come to consider renewal in a year's time. An indication of that indeed came from the Home Secretary."

At that time, the Government were themselves saying that they could see the end of the exclusion powers. Mr. Powell continued : "There is no reason why we should perpetuate this division of the United Kingdom into mutual exclusion zones. We should probably never have done this in 1974. It was probably based on misconception The power is no longer welcome, certainly not in Northern Ireland."--[ Official Report, 10 February 1987 ; Vol. 110, c. 277.]

Conservative Members may disagree with the point being made, but they can hardly say that it is so extreme that no reasonable person could ever contemplate it. Their own advisers support it, and even Unionist Members of Parliament believe that the powers have outlived their usefulness.

There are Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who are opposed to exclusion orders although they themselves suffer terrorist threats and abuse. If hon. Members will not listen to us when we tell them of the use to which their views are being put as propaganda for the IRA, at least let them listen to those who have to live with the threat of the IRA day in and day out.

Column 972

Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) : Conservative Members do not like it either. No one wants the Act to come before the House. What the hon. Gentleman misunderstands about our position is that we also want to prevent terrorism. The whole point of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was saying is that the power to issue exclusion orders was used only twice last year. The hon. Gentleman is right : there must be reasonable doubt. Until he sees that the purpose is prevention rather than punishment, the Labour party will not gain the respect it should for its so -called tough stand on crime.

Mr. Blair : That is the very question which fell to be considered. Does the advantage of the exclusion order, in the small number of cases to which it is applied, outweigh the disadvantages so well known to those who live and work in Northern Ireland? On balance, are those people better off or worse off? The independent advisers concluded that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages, and that is our conclusion, too. I am not saying that that conclusion is obvious, or that no reasonable person could reach a different view, but I ask the hon. Gentleman at least to accept that our objections are not being raised lightly or superficially. They are objections which can be sustained, even on the basis of the reports of the Government's own advisers.

Judicial intervention is the second ground of objection. This is perhaps the most important point that we can make. Under the criminal law, as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a suspect, whether it be a murderer, an armed robber, or a rapist, can be held for up to 36 hours. After that time, the suspect must be brought before the court. The court then has the power to detain further, prior to a charge being made.

Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the initial period is 48 hours, not 36 hours. That is one difference. The principal difference, however, is that after 48 hours the Secretary of State is given the power to extend detention for up to another five days, making seven in all. The Prevention of Terrorism Act therefore allows an extension of detention not by the judiciary but by the Executive.

It must be accepted, as it was accepted when the power was introduced, that prima facie the power is offensive to the basic principle of the rule of law, which is that deprivation of liberty should be through the courts and not through politicians.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the preservation of life is an even more important principle, and that the precise reason why this power must lie with the Executive and not with the courts is because the information which leads the Executive to believe that the man is a terrorist is of a nature which cannot be given in open court on account of the danger to the lives of witnesses? Those extra five days give the police the opportunity to find information which can be used in court.

Mr. Blair : The hon. Gentleman has made two points. I shall deal in turn with each of them.

The hon. Gentleman said that these matters cannot be dealt with in open court. No one has ever suggested that they should be dealt with in open court. The courts have the power to sit in camera. That power would be used in such a situation. The hon. Gentleman also said--the Secretary of State says it, too, when he is being somewhat

Column 973

economical with the truth in these matters-- that after four days the extra period of detention is necessary or we may let out a terrorist. In other words, we may just about be putting our hands on the evidence that we are missing when the detention period ends and we have to let the terrorist out.

That is a misunderstanding of what has been said. Nobody suggests that we should abrogate the detention period. What is being said is that the decision whether it should be extended should be a judicial decision and not an Executive decision.

Mr. Brazier : Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to come back on that point?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair : I will deal with the point, and then I will give way. The Home Secretary often gave way to me, so I will give way to him.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Next Section

Home Page