| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.48 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): I share the discomfort expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) about the provisions. I entirely accept the Government's right to do what they are doing, but it runs against the spirit of the human rights legislation that we are in the process of enacting and gives an inauspicious signal for the future, especially when the Lord Chief Justice is opposed.
Others are also opposed. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) mentioned the Home Office Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is a distinguished Queen's Counsel. In his previous incarnation as Labour home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords, he was very outspoken on this subject. He said that sections 16A and 16B were
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater):
The title of the order--the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Revival of Parts IVA and IVB) Order--describes accurately the bizarre situation we are in. In case it is thought that I am being ungracious to the Home Secretary, I point out that I applaud the fact that we are here tonight. The action that we are taking is correct. It is very important that the order is approved, and I hope that it will be. I am also grateful to the Home Secretary for responding to the request that I made last night that we should give a timetable of events since the information first became available to the Government, and I shall have some questions to ask about that.
I shall not enter into the argument, which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made, about whether we need the powers, because the Home Secretary has answered that, and we have the benefit of the report by Mr. Rowe to the Home Secretary as recently as February 1999, which made clear his views that the powers should be retained. Unfortunately, the comments made by the Leader of the House--in what I recognise was a difficult situation for her--did not do the House much credit, because this is a serious matter. Her answers were not especially helpful. The information that I have from the police is that the powers are important, for precisely the reason that the Home Secretary gave this evening.
The issue is not only how many people were charged and convicted, but how many were arrested under the power and what deterrent effect it has had. The Home Secretary is a lucky man, because those 86 cordons that were illegally imposed might have led to some difficult situations. There will be a bill to be paid in respect of those unlawfully detained, but it could have been much higher.
I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's comments about the timetable of events. I would be grateful if, when he winds up, he would clarify some points. The Home Office heard about the problem from the Law Officers' Department, which faxed a copy of the article to the Home Office on 26 May. When did the Law Officers first read that article? It took five days to decide to ask the Law Officers' advice and a further 16 to 17 days to get that advice.
I do not know whether the Law Officers regarded it as a serious matter or simply as part of the daily dross of their usual responsibilities, such as clearing up Home Office mistakes or clarifying problems in drafting. Perhaps they thought that that would work on it when they had the opportunity. However, we are entitled to an explanation as to why it took so long for them to do so.
We understand that the Home Office and parliamentary draftsmen will always be with us, and that, from time to time, they will make some pretty big howlers. My right
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has had to face some of the consequences of that possibility. One of the most important requirements of Ministers is to have good antennae and a good sense of smell, so that they can detect problems before they happen. I thought that the Home Secretary was the one Minister in this Government to have those qualities, so I am all the more surprised by what has happened.
I think back on my experience in government, under Margaret Thatcher. If I had had to tell her that we had forgotten to include two key elements in the prevention of terrorism legislation, and that, for a month, I had not wanted to press the Law Officers too hard because they had a lot on their plate, I can imagine her reaction only too easily. No Home Secretary under Margaret Thatcher would have survived it.
To avoid misrepresentation, I assure the Home Secretary that I am not calling for his resignation. However, I find the situation that has arisen absolutely incredible. I have had no satisfactory explanation as to why requirements considered essential by Parliament were accidentally omitted. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that Parliament had wanted those requirements included in the legislation because they were a necessary bulwark against terrorism, but nothing was done for a month after their omission became known.
The Law Officers are not present just now. Perhaps they are seeking advice--a wise precaution, if I may say so. I fail to understand their response. Surely any responsible Minister would have sought urgent advice from them and would have expected it on his desk the following morning. The Home Secretary knows well both the House and the attitude of all opposition parties with regard to prevention of terrorism, but, last night, the Leader of the House suggested that it was possible that the opposition parties would have considered it an affront to Parliament if the Home Secretary had remedied the mistake at the earliest possible moment.
The Home Secretary discovered the answer to that proposition as soon as he made his statement yesterday. It was that the mistake had to be rectified straight away. In his statement today, the Home Secretary has failed to explain how what I have called "this dereliction of duty" occurred.
The Home Secretary is a very lucky man. The police regard the two powers involved as important instruments in the fight against terrorism. What would have happened if incidents such as those that occurred in Manchester or Warrington had taken place again? What would have happened if there had been another terrorist outrage in this country?
For example, some time ago, there was an attempt, involving many people, to close down the power system in the City of London by attacking electricity substations. Let us suppose that a similar case arose, and that people had been arrested on a strong suspicion of being on their way to commit that terrorist offence, given that they were in possession of material and articles appropriate to the act. Even in such circumstances, the Home Secretary would have been required to tell the House that those people had been released because of a recently discovered
omission in the law whose rectification was still being considered. I suggest that such an admission would have had to be accompanied by his resignation.
Mr. Beith:
The right hon. Gentleman goes a little over the top by implying that the police would have sat back, saying that there was nothing that they could do. The police would have used existing powers, albeit with the weakness of a lower chance of ultimate conviction and the likelihood of a lower sentence on conviction. However, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to imply that the police would have done nothing if they had been in possession of the facts that he has outlined.
Mr. King:
The right hon. Gentleman may take his answer from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and from the Home Secretary who said--as he implicitly did earlier--that the powers are necessary. With my experience of those matters, I know the difficulties of finding sufficient grounds for arrest, or of establishing charges against terrorists, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands the problems.
"far too harsh and draconian"
and said:
"If we condemn our citizens to the possibility of 10 years' imprisonment on the basis of reasonable suspicion . . . we are in serious danger of giving terrorism a victory that it would not otherwise achieve."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1208-09.]
So it is not only the views of the Lord Chief Justice that we have to take into account, but those of someone who is now a Minister of State at the Home Office. Even if we do not take the Lord Chief Justice seriously, we should take Home Office Ministers seriously.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |