---

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Is the Home Secretary aware that we join in the tribute to those who, day in, day out, risk their lives and use their skills to protect the whole community against terrorists? Is he aware that we welcome the decision to get rid of exclusion orders, which we have wanted for some time and which has twice been recommended? Will he include in his review the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996--which was rushed through the House in about a day and a half, with his support--so that we can engage in more measured consideration of its provisions?

Is it not clear, as the Home Secretary says, that, even if a peace settlement is secured in Northern Ireland, there will remain a need for anti-terrorism legislation because of the existence of threats from many different quarters? Such legislation must therefore contain sufficient safeguards to be capable of being placed permanently on the statute book. Does the Home Secretary recognise that it must safeguard the life and limb of members of our communities, but must also not hand a victory to terrorists by taking away basic liberties to which we have grown accustomed, but about which they care not at all?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.

The Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996 was indeed pushed through the House very quickly with the support of the official Opposition. I make no apologies for that: the powers were needed, and--despite the claims made by, I think, the Liberal Democrats that they would somehow lead to the end of civil liberties and civilisation as we know it--the simple truth is that they have been effective, and have been used proportionately. I am not aware of a single allegation of abuse of those powers.

Of course, as we are considering permanent legislation, we shall consider all the existing temporary legislation and whether it should have a place in the permanent legislation. That includes the additional powers Act.

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, right to say that, in framing legislation, particularly permanent legislation, we must secure a balance between the importance--the imperative--of protecting the public and security forces, and the importance, which he mentioned, of not handing a victory to terrorists by stooping to their methods. That is what we aim to do in the consultative process, and in the legislation that will follow.

Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's approach. A

30 Oct 1997 : Column 1034

proper and permanent law, framed in a way that respects both the rule of law and democracy and the fight against terrorism, is long overdue. What disturbed so many of us in the past were the exclusion orders, which were outside the rule of law and not only damaged the country's international reputation but were a permanent and continuing propaganda victory for the Provisional IRA.

Will my right hon. Friend not worry too much about sniping from Conservative Front Benchers? At the same time as lecturing us some years ago on the prevention of terrorism Act, they were engaged in secret talks with the Provisional IRA--although, of course, they denied that until forced to admit it. I think that a little less hypocrisy in general on the issue is welcome, as is the reassertion of British values, democracy and the rule of law. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Whose is that telephone that is switched on? I shall not call another hon. Member until it stops.

Mr. Straw: I am happy just to listen to questions, but I fancy that hon. Members might like answers as well.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and pay tribute to him for his unstinting work in the search for peace in Northern Ireland. He is right to chide some members, not all, of the previous Administration. I recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made much about our approach to exclusion orders. It happens that, during the ceasefire, he lifted 39 exclusion orders. When it had broken down and terrorist activity was resumed, he lifted more exclusion orders than I have lifted until today. The facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): Will the Home Secretary always bear it in mind that measures which may build confidence within some parts of the community can also lessen it in others?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I can, and for that reason we have paid careful attention to the balance of the proposals, and shall do so all the way through this process.

Mr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): Were all 12 of the exclusion orders that my right hon. Friend has today revoked signed against republicans? Does he not agree that, notwithstanding the need to be ever vigilant against the vicious activities of terrorists, internal exile and internment should have no place in a mature parliamentary democracy?

Mr. Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend's last point is yes. In reply to his first point, I can tell him that, of the 12 orders which were outstanding this morning, 10 were in respect of alleged IRA terrorists and two were in respect of alleged loyalist terrorists.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I generally welcome what the Home Secretary has said. In particular, I welcome the fact that he will ensure that the police and security forces will have the powers they need. Having served in Northern Ireland and seen the effects of internment, I am ambivalent about it. However, should

30 Oct 1997 : Column 1035

the RUC wish to keep the reserve power of internment in its locker, will the Home Secretary take notice of what the RUC says and keep it?

Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we are not ambivalent about internment. We do not think that it has any role to play in combating terrorism and I understand that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary supports our proposals to remove the powers of internment from the statute book.

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan): My right hon. Friend will be aware that not many people here today voted for the prevention of terrorism Act in 1975. I was one of them, and I continued to vote for the PTA until it became apparent that some elements of that temporary measure offended human rights. One of them was on exclusion orders. During my time as Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, I very much opposed the provision of those exclusion orders in the PTA.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the story that I told him about John Matthews, a young man who was arrested--

Madam Speaker: Excuse me. We have questions on statements, and I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stott: My right hon. Friend would be aware--would he not?--

Madam Speaker: Order. I am trying to protect the interests of the many hon. Members who are seeking to put questions. There are many such Members, particularly on the Government side, not all of whom will be called if we go on in this fashion.

Mr. Stott: I take your admonition, Madam Speaker.

A young man was let free from a magistrates court and then rearrested, and an exclusion order was placed on him. In opposition, my right hon. Friend promised me that, once in government, he would get rid of this. I thank him for his promise today.

Mr. Straw: I remember the detail of the case, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Putting this legislation on a permanent basis is obviously a good idea and the Home Secretary is to be complimented for it, but will he pause for a moment and think about this proposition? He seems to be saying that, because exclusion orders are not used very often, they need not be on the statute book. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire(Sir B. Mawhinney), he said that he had taken account of the advice from the security forces and, a few moments ago, he said that the Chief Constable had positively advised against internment.

What was the advice on exclusion orders? I suspect that it was not that the security forces were calling for the removal of exclusion orders--it was just that they were saying effectively that they could live with their removal. Which was it?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I said in my statement and again in

30 Oct 1997 : Column 1036

answer to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that I had taken full account of the advice on security matters. I am not going to go into detail on the advice, but, if I had been advised that it was unsafe to lift the exclusion orders, I would not have done so.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. This legislation has been long due for an overhaul. Since my election to Parliament, I have voted against all anti-terrorist legislation. I share his and everyone's desire that terrorists should be caught, but the bottom line is that we should not hold terrorist suspects incommunicado for up to seven days and nights without access to the protections that suspects in other serious criminal cases enjoy. Will he give an assurance that, when the review is completed, the new legislation will protect the rights of suspects, so that some terrible mistakes will not be repeated?

---