---

Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): Will the Home Secretary also tell the House that, despite his statement that the Bill is a matter of importance, the Conservative party could not muster 40 people so that the Bill could proceed?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had wanted that Bill to proceed to the statute book in accordance with what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, he could have gone into the Division Lobby last Friday and helped to get the numbers up to the 40 that was required. The hon. Gentleman sat on his hands, in full knowledge of the consequences of his action.

Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Government to incite Front Benchers--his own and others--to interfere in private Members' legislation? Some of us think that the Labour Front-Bench team behaved properly by being neutral on the matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Lady's point is a matter of debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Howard: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Garscadden arrive in the Chamber at this point. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) may wish that her party was neutral. That is fine, but the Labour party Front-Bench spokesman said that the Bill had the support of that party. If it did, the least that could have happened last Friday was that the right hon. Member for Garscadden and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North could have gone into the Division Lobby to help bring the numbers up to the quota that was required to make progress on the Bill.

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East): Why is it that the party which claims to be the Government of Britain

5 Mar 1997 : Column 925

cannot get 20 of its own Members of Parliament out of bed in time to come to the House to help carry legislation that the Government want?

Mr. Howard: If we are assured that a private Member's Bill has the support of the Opposition, we are entitled to expect that they will support it. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would say that we ought to know better by now than to rely on assurances from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman that the party supports a Bill. In fact, the Bill was torpedoed by hon. Members sitting on the Labour Benches.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given that issue a fair run. We must return to what is immediately before us.

Mr. Howard: I am happy to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As for the attitude of the Opposition to the prevention of terrorism Act--

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Such a measure should not be left to a private Member's Bill. May I ask him a question concerning the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the scheme of things? On Scottish police operations, will he confirm that such matters rest with the Secretary of State for Scotland and not with himself?

Mr. Howard: I am not entirely clear to what matters the hon. Gentleman is referring. He referred to "such matters", but I am not entirely clear what he means. The responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are well known.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the legislation we are discussing will not cover Algerian or Sikh separatists who are plotting terrorist activities in their own countries from this country? Will he confirm that, on the basis of what happened on Friday, they will have a free run for another year?

Mr. Howard: Broadly speaking, my hon. Friend is correct. If the activities of those to whom my hon. Friend referred specifically relate to plotting to carry out murder, and if that can be established, they are covered by the law. If they are plotting to commit acts of terrorism generally, my hon. Friend's analysis is entirely correct.

Every year from 1983 to 1995 the Labour party opposed the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. The right hon Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the leader of the Labour party, continued that stance when he became Opposition spokesman on home affairs. Then, last year, there was an abrupt change. While mortars were raining down on Heathrow in 1994, the Labour party voted against the Act; last year, in the aftermath of South Quay, the Opposition abstained.

5 Mar 1997 : Column 926

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave a curious reason for the change of policy. He said:

"we do not want any message going out to them"--

the IRA--

"that they could glean any idea from our position that there could be any kind of excuse for the renewal of bombing by them".

The logic of the hon Gentleman's argument is that, for the previous 15 years, Labour had indeed been giving the bombers an excuse. The logic of his argument is that that is exactly what the Labour party was doing when his leader had responsibility for shadowing home affairs. But last year the Opposition abstained. On that most fundamental measure for the protection of the people of this country, they had no view. Could anything more clearly demonstrate the fact that they are wholly unfit to govern?

Mr. Mallon: The implication of the Secretary of State's remarks is that anyone who votes against the legislation is somehow providing succour, help or assistance to the IRA. As someone who lives in south Armagh; who has fought against violence from the Provisional IRA for the past 27 years--not from the comfort of a debating chamber but out on the roads and streets of south Armagh--and will continue to do so; and who will vote against this legislation, may I ask: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that I am giving any help, succour or assistance to the Provisional IRA?

Mr. Howard: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's record. The implication which I drew did not flow from my words, but flowed directly from the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn which I quoted. However, I will go further and say the following to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), while acknowledging his record. It is not good enough for him or for the Labour party to claim allegiance to the objective of defeating the IRA--to the end of defeating the IRA--if they are not prepared to support in the Division Lobbies of the House the means by which that objective can be attained. The two cannot be separated and divorced in the way I believe that the hon. Gentleman would seek to do; they go together.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again, because he has put his finger on the point that I hope to make, and which I have been making for the past 11 years in our annual debates. The ways and the means of doing it need not necessarily be those represented by the legislation that we are discussing. The empirical evidence is that the approach is not the right one, because for 27 years it has failed. Even at this late stage, I ask the Secretary of State, is it not time for the present Government to consider different ways and means? As I say to the IRA, one cannot separate the means from the objectives. If the methods are wrong, they hinder progress towards the objective.

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but, in discharging the responsibilities I have for the protection of the people of this country, I am more inclined to take advice on the necessity for these powers from the police, the Security Service and the independent reviewer who has been appointed to inquire into these matters than I am from the hon. Gentleman.

5 Mar 1997 : Column 927

I have explained why the Government believe that it is essential that the prevention of terrorism Act should be renewed, in its entirety, for a further 12 months. We still face an exceptional threat from terrorism. The spate of recent attacks in Northern Ireland speaks for itself. No one in the House today should be under any illusion that the absence of an attack on the mainland since the Manchester bombing means that the threat here has disappeared. There is no complacency in the Government or in the security forces. There should certainly be no complacency among hon. Members.

The Act gives the police the powers they need to fight terrorism. It is our duty to ensure that those powers remain available to them--and for as long as they are needed. The Government are committed to keeping them. I urge Opposition Members to vote with us to renew the Act. A united House tonight will send the clearest possible message to the terrorists that their actions cannot, and will not, be tolerated; that they cannot win; that the bomb and the bullet will never triumph over the wishes of the vast majority who want peace and democracy.

I commend the order to the House.

4.52 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): In his report on legislation against terrorism, Lord Lloyd of Berwick devotes an important part of his introduction to a discussion about the nature of terrorism--what makes it different from, and so much worse than even other serious crimes. He suggests several possible reasons. The first, he suggests, is that a single incident of terrorism may cause many deaths, but, as he says, there is nothing special about terrorism in that respect--the same applies to any multiple killing.

The second possible reason that Lord Lloyd discusses is the "indiscriminate nature" of terrorist offences, but he then says that that, too, does not distinguish terrorist offences from other serious crimes as, on one hand, the victims of many crimes are unknown to the perpetrator, and on the other, many terrorist acts are directed at specific known individuals.

Lord Lloyd suggests, therefore, that

"neither of these reasons . . . serve sufficiently to explain the singular sense of horror and revulsion created by terrorist crime".

He concludes that the reason why terrorism produces that singular horror and revulsion is that

"terrorist crime is seen as an attack on society as a whole, and our democratic institutions. It is akin to an act of war."

Those are powerful words, but they accurately define the nature of terrorism and the threat that it poses to our society.

Those scores of thousands who went into the city of Manchester on the beautiful Saturday morning of 15 June 1996, expected to be going about their business, shopping, serving in the shops or simply enjoying the sunshine in one of the most vibrant city centres in the United Kingdom. That expectation was suddenly shattered by the huge bomb placed there by the Provisional IRA, with no concern for the safety of the public or for the future of that city. It was thanks only to the professionalism and courage of the police, the other emergency services and

5 Mar 1997 : Column 928

the public that--astonishingly--no one was killed. Hundreds of people could have been murdered in that blast, and 200 were indeed injured.

For those caught up in the blast, and for the whole country, the planting of that bomb, like every other outrage perpetrated by the IRA, amounted to an act of war, not just against a democratically elected Government but against the whole of our society.

As I saw when I visited the area later, the scale of the destruction could not properly be conveyed by television or photographs: it had to be seen to be believed. The great city centre of Manchester looked like Beirut at the height of its civil war. Colleagues who represent the city may wish to say more about the impact of the bomb and its aftermath. I simply want to pay tribute to all who were there that day and to the extraordinary efforts made since by the city council, the chamber of commerce, businesses and community groups, and by the Deputy Prime Minister, who I know has been most helpful to the city.

As we have heard from the Secretary of State, terrorist acts have continued in Northern Ireland, and major devastation on the mainland has been averted only by the skill of the security forces and the police. I pay tribute to all of them.

I also endorse the Home Secretary's appeal to the IRA to end its violence, and his appeal to those on the Unionist side not to be provoked into violent retaliation.

Because of the particular and terrifying nature of terrorism, there must be, so long as a threat remains, specific anti-terrorist legislation in respect both of terrorist offences and of procedures for preventing and detecting the commission of those offences. It might be helpful at this juncture if I remind the House of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when, as shadow Home Secretary, he spoke in the renewal debate in 1994:

"It is not in dispute, and never has been, that we need anti-terrorist legislation . . . We in the House share a total and complete abhorrence of terrorism and a desire to defeat it."---[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 300.]

It was of course the Labour Government who introduced the prevention of terrorism Act in 1974 and who ensured its renewal every year they were in government. Last year, we helped to ensure that the renewal order went through; we shall do so again this year. In government, so long as the terrorist threat remains and there is no lasting peace, we shall maintain and operate the powers in the PTA, with two changes with which I shall deal in a moment.

Last year, too, we showed our active support for anti-terrorist legislation when we ensured the rapid passage through this House and the other place of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act. It gave the police additional powers, in clearly defined circumstances, of stop and search and of control of bomb threat areas. As it turned out, the legislation was more timely than might have been imagined by some. When I spoke to the police in Manchester after the bomb outrage, they told me that the additional powers had proved very useful.

The threat of terrorism comes not just from the Provisional IRA. Both the Rowe and Lloyd reviews spell out the much wider terrorist threat to which a great many countries, including the United Kingdom, are still subject. The Lloyd review contains a rather chilling statistic, at paragraph 1.8, to the effect that between 1990 and 1995

5 Mar 1997 : Column 929

Europe's share of attacks by international terrorists rose from 18 per cent. of the world total to 62 per cent. of that total.

We have long been committed to two changes in the PTA. The first concerns the introduction of a judicial element in determining extensions of detention. At present, under section 14 of the PTA, a police officer may arrest and detain a suspect where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he may be concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

By contrast, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arrest and detention in respect of a non-terrorist offence are possible only where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the commission of a particular arrestable offence. Under section 14 of the PTA, reasonable suspicion goes much wider than the commission of a specific offence. Indeed, the phrase in section 14, as Lloyd pointed out, which refers to being concerned in the commission of an act of terrorism, is not in itself an offence.

Under PACE the initial detention may last for only 36 hours and may be extended only by decision of a magistrate for a further two and a half days, to make a total of four days. Under the PTA, however, the initial detention is for up to 48 hours. Thereafter, the detention may be extended for a further five days by decision of the Secretary of State, to make a total of seven days.

The case for a wider power of arrest and for potentially longer periods of detention than those laid down in PACE is a practical one connected with the particular nature of terrorist offences and their more complicated investigation. The argument is well aired by Lord Lloyd in chapter 8 of his review. He concludes that he has

"no doubt that [these powers] have been of great value to the police."

I do not in the least argue with that conclusion, but like so many before me, I argue that it is inappropriate for a decision about an extension of detention in these circumstances to be made by a Secretary of State, however careful and fair he may be, rather than by someone of judicial standing who is clearly independent of the Executive.

The present position is, in our judgment, wrong in principle and has brought us into conflict, as Lord Lloyd points out, with our obligations under the European convention on human rights, as a decision of that European Court in the Brogan case clearly established.

The European convention on human rights is one of the proudest creations that we have achieved for the whole of Europe. Our continued adherence to it is, happily, not a matter of party dispute. The Home Secretary told the House on 20 February that

"the advantages of our continued adherence to the European convention on human rights and to the European Court outweigh the disadvantages. Therefore, I think that we should continue to adhere to that convention."--[Official Report, 20 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 1034.]

The need in principle for judicial involvement in PTA decisions has long been accepted by Ministers. In 1989 the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), said:

"We continue to look for a judicial mechanism".--[Official Report, 30 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 65.]

5 Mar 1997 : Column 930

Lord Colville used to carry out the annual reviews of the PTA. He was of the resolute opinion that there should be judicial involvement, and he said so in his 1989 and 1990 reviews. He was succeeded a few years ago by Mr. John Rowe QC.

In past years, Mr. Rowe has argued against judicial involvement, but this year he said at paragraph 84 that his view had changed, not least because judges are now much more involved in one-sided, ex parte and secret hearings in respect of applications for public interest immunity certificates.

I understand the argument that the Secretary of State advanced--it has a familiar ring for those of us involved in discussions on the Police Bill--about the need not to embroil the judiciary, where there is not a good reason for doing so, in decisions that must be decided ex parte and might involve intelligence.

Mr. Rowe points out, as the reason for his change of mind, that

"Judges are now accustomed to hearing public interest immunity applications, in which the prosecution make an application for a judicial decision as to whether documents should be disclosed to the defence; often the prosecution's contention is that it should not make disclosure, on the ground that to do so would reveal the existence and identity of an informer or other sensitive material. One could well describe such material as 'intelligence'. Often it occurs that the defendant and his lawyers are not aware of the fact that such an application is being made; sometimes they know but are not present at it. The judge hears only the prosecution; and he hears details of the 'intelligence'."

Mr. Rowe was compelled by that argument to accept in principle that there should be judicial involvement in decisions on extensions of detention. Unfortunately, with reasoning that I frankly did not find convincing, he then concluded that, although a judicial element could be introduced in England and Wales, it could not be introduced in Northern Ireland.

Lord Lloyd also considered the issue and in his report he was firmly of the view that judicial decision should replace that of the Secretary of State in extensions of detention. Lord Lloyd makes practical proposals for achieving that. He said that, in England and Wales, it would be by the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and that, in Scotland, by the sheriff principal of Lothian and the Borders. He added that, in Northern Ireland, there is

"at present no office which compares with these, and it might be necessary to create a new appointment".

As we all know, the whole of Lord Lloyd's recommendations are based on the assumption, which is written into his terms of reference, of a "lasting peace", but, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged, although some of Lord Lloyd's recommendations could not safely be introduced until a lasting peace, some can be and, in our judgment, that one should be. It is worth noting that Lord Colville was of the same view when terrorist outrages were at their height.

In government, we shall take an early opportunity to introduce that judicial element. That will be part of an overall strategy by us to ensure that the judicial system in all parts of the United Kingdom commands the greater confidence of all law-abiding citizens, including those of all communities in the north of Ireland.

---