| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I accept that we are discussing a matter of urgency and of great importance to many patients. The noble Baroness will know that we have a great many hospitals in this country; we have a great many wards; and we have a great many beds. Indeed, we admit approximately 9 million people every year to NHS hospitals. It is a complex problem and the last thing I am sure the noble Baroness would want would be duff information.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister accept that, with the exception of some of the day operations and other such matters, for many patients the idea of a joint sex ward creates considerable distress? Could the noble Baroness at least give an indication to hospitals and health trusts when they respond to her that she would hope that they would approach the issue sympathetically and with due urgency?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. It is because the Secretary of State, Ministers, the Government and, indeed, myself are concerned about the issue that further action has been taken. It has been in the Patient's Charter, but the Secretary of State was not convinced that enough attention was being given to this particular aspect of the charter. That is why firm action has been taken.
Justices of the Peace Bill [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Knives Bill
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.--(Baroness Hilton of Eggardon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Policyholders Protection Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I wish to place on record my thanks to Mr. Gary Flather, Chairman of the Statutory Committee, the disciplinary committee, of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society who, through his wife, my noble friend Lady Flather, raised important considerations about the Bill on Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1997
2.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking Mr. John Rowe QC for his report on the operation of the legislation in 1996. He concluded, following wide consultation, and an entirely independent scrutiny of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1996, that the Act remains necessary and that it should be renewed, in its entirety, for a further 12 months. The Government share his view and accept his recommendation.
It is now 23 years since the prevention of terrorism legislation was first enacted. The present Act was passed in 1989 and, like its predecessors, it was intended to be a temporary measure--one made in response to an exceptional threat. Very regrettably, the threat that we face from terrorism remains as great today. Within our midst, a callous, murderous minority remains determined to use violence to achieve its ends.
Last year, this House renewed the Act under the dark shadow of the bombing of South Quay, the deaths of two people caught in the blast, and the formal ending of the IRA's ceasefire. This year we must consider the need for its provisions against the background of a continuing campaign by the Provisional IRA in Great Britain and of a return to violence in Northern Ireland. The past 12 months reveal an all too familiar legacy of destruction: destruction of lives, of families, of homes, of livelihoods and of communities.
Following the South Quay bomb there were further attacks on the mainland and another death. These culminated in the bombing of Manchester city centre on Saturday 15th June. Over 200 people were injured in that outrage. It was a miracle that no one was killed, and a testament to the skills of all those who worked so quickly to move more than 80,000 people to safety.
In Northern Ireland, the IRA stepped up its targeting and readied its resources for a full return to violence in the Province. This came with tragic consequences, on 7th October. Two car bombs were detonated, one shortly after the other, and without warning inside Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn: 38 people were injured. As the House knows, Warrant Officer James Bradwell later died of his injuries. As your Lordships will remember, the second bomb had been placed outside the medical centre. It was deliberately timed to catch those trying to help those wounded in the first explosion. Such acts speak volumes about the kind of people with whom we have to contend.
That attack has been followed by numerous others, many of which have either been abandoned or have been successfully disrupted by the security forces. But only last month, on 12th February, Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick was murdered by the IRA while checking a car at a vehicle checkpoint in Bessbrook. Stephen's parents hope that their son's tragic death will inspire renewed efforts on all sides to find a peaceful solution. I urge the IRA to listen to them and abandon violence for good. I urge the Loyalists to listen to them lest they fall into the trap of retaliation set for them by the IRA.
I can assure the House today that the IRA's atrocities have not and will not hold up the search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland. The talks process remains the only democratic alternative to the futility of further violence.
The IRA and its supporters think terrorism will achieve results which cannot be secured through negotiation and the ballot box. They are wrong. The multiparty talks began on 10th June without Sinn Fein. They were adjourned last Wednesday until after the general election and the local elections in Northern Ireland. The talks will resume on 3rd June. And they will continue in the next Parliament. Delegates
representing the vast majority of opinion in Northern Ireland are engaged in a real effort to achieve an acceptable political settlement and a lasting peace. The Government want to see Sinn Fein join the talks. But this is entirely in its hands. The IRA knows what it must do. It must deliver an unequivocal ceasefire; it must stop its paramilitary activities; it must abandon violence for ever.The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on the mainland since the appalling attack on Manchester is no thanks to the IRA. The credit for this must go in large part to the vigilance of the police and security service. They have had several significant successes in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the past year.
For example, the police and Security Service believe that in July last year, with the discovery and seizure of a large number of devices in London, they foiled a serious and imminent terrorist attack on the mainland. Anther joint operation led to the seizure in September of a substantial amount of explosives, weapons and other terrorist equipment in London. The haul included over six tonnes of home made explosive, enough in fact for several bombs the size of the one which exploded in Manchester. These achievements and many others in Northern Ireland did not come easily. They were hard won by the determination, skill and vigilance of police officers and of the Security Service. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
We must not forget another key factor in these successes: the powers contained in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. This Act gives police the powers they need to prevent whenever possible, and otherwise to investigate, terrorist attacks and to bring the perpetrators to justice. The Government are convinced that the powers in the Act are still necessary. This is why I am asking the House to renew them today.
As Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to arrest and to extend detention under the Act are vital weapons in the fight against terrorism. In Great Britain in 1996 there were 84 detentions under the Act. Of the 23 suspects who were held for more than the initial 48 hour period, 13 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist related offences.
In Northern Ireland, 569 people were detained under the Act, 48 of whom were held for more than the initial 48 hour period. Of those 48, 20 were subsequently charged with serious terrorism related offences; 135 other detainees were charged with other offences.
In 1996, the powers of detention under the Act were used on two occasions in respect of suspected international terrorist activity, though neither detainee was subsequently charged. The Government are convinced that these powers are needed both in relation to international terrorism and to terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will recall that two people, both of whom were originally arrested under the Act in 1995, were convicted last December of the car bombing in London of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish charity in 1994. Each is now serving 20 years. An Algerian national, who was also
originally arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1995, remains in custody here, subject to an application by the French authorities to extradite him in connection with the bombing campaign in France in 1995.I know that some people believe that extensions of detention should be granted by judges rather than by a Secretary of State. Mr. Rowe has re-examined this issue in his report. Drawing on his own experience of the way in which the English and Welsh courts deal with public interest immunity hearings, he concludes that while judicial involvement might be possible in principle in England and Wales it would not be possible in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland. He thinks that it would be inappropriate for there to be different systems for granting extensions of detention in different parts of the United Kingdom. He concludes that judicial involvement in the process should not be introduced anywhere in the United Kingdom at the present time.
The Government do not believe that it would be right to involve the judiciary in the extension of detention process. This is because decisions to authorise the detention of terrorist suspects for periods beyond 48 hours are often taken on the basis of sensitive information which cannot be revealed to a suspect or his legal adviser without compromising the source of the intelligence. To reveal such information might create a serious risk to persons assisting the police or lead to valuable intelligence being lost. Any new procedure which allowed a court to make what amounts to an executive decision, on information not presented to the detainee or his legal adviser, and without the giving of reasons or the possibility of an appeal, would represent a radical departure from the principles which govern judicial proceedings in an adversarial system. It would create a very real risk of undermining judicial independence as the judiciary would be perceived as part of the investigation and prosecution process.
Mr. Rowe is right to say in his report that the courts in England and Wales are more familiar now with public interest immunity hearings and that in such cases the courts consider sensitive material sometimes at an ex parte hearing without the defence team present or even being aware of the application.
However, PII is concerned with rules of evidence, not with executive acts which determine whether an individual should be detained for questioning in relation to an investigation. In PII applications, the judge knows what the issues are for both sides. He has the prosecution statements and depositions and it will be clear from them what the defence case is. If it is not, he can ask the defence. In addition, the court has a duty to continue to monitor the disclosure issue. If it becomes clear that material which has not been disclosed would assist the defence then the court must reverse its previous decision and order disclosure.
This is very different from involving the court in an executive act to detain a suspect in circumstances where the court would be required to act on the basis of material which would not be disclosed to either the suspect or his legal adviser. Moreover, involving the judiciary in the process of granting or approving
extensions of detention would create a real risk of undermining its independence as it would be seen as part of the investigation and prosecution process.The Act contains other provisions which play a vital part in disrupting and combating terrorism. Again, as Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to stop, examine, and search those coming into, or leaving, Great Britain or Northern Ireland form a vital part of our defences. Of great importance too are the powers of the police to investigate terrorist finances and to obtain production and explanation orders in relation to funds and other material found.
As the House well knows, the Government added to the powers available to the police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act last April. We gave the police additional powers to stop and search individuals for articles of use in carrying out terrorist acts; to seal off the streets to prevent, or investigate, a terrorist attack; and to search non-residential property and unaccompanied freight at port. These additional powers are already proving their worth as Mr. Rowe's report makes clear. The police have, I understand, made extensive use in recent investigations of the power to search, under warrant, non-residential premises, without having to specify in which particular one they believe the terrorist material for which they are looking may be found. The additional powers to stop and search have also had an impact; the police believe that they have a significant deterrent effect and have disrupted the ability of terrorists to move themselves and their equipment around at will.
Perhaps the most sensitive power in the Act--and one about which some noble Lords opposite are concerned--is that of exclusion. The Government are convinced of the need for these powers. Exclusion orders disrupt and deter those bent on carrying out terrorist attacks and deprive the terrorist organisations to which they belong of some of their most experienced operators. That is also Mr. Rowe's clear conclusion. If the power helps us combat the terrorist menace then we must keep it.
Some have suggested in the past that the process of making exclusion orders is arbitrary and unfair. Mr. Rowe's report makes it clear that it is not. He has looked at all files relating to the cases which were dealt with in 1996. And I am pleased to note that he finds that all those involved in making the orders carried out their task carefully and fairly.
The powers are used sparingly not least in recognition of their exceptional nature. There are currently 23 exclusion orders in force. This is the lowest number ever since the power was introduced. It is possible of course that further orders may be made. But each case will, as now, be considered very carefully on its merits.
There are those who suggest that since the number excluded is now relatively small it would make little difference if all the orders were revoked. The Government do not accept that. We believe that they are needed and that they are effective. The alternative--mounting surveillance operations on all those currently excluded--would have enormous resource implications. It is simply not realistic, particularly when the police and the Security Service are fully engaged on preventing further attacks and investigating those which have already taken place.
Having explained why the Government believe that we should renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act for a further 12 months, I would like to turn briefly to the future.
In December 1995 the Government asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to consider the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. His report was published in October 1996.
Very regrettably, the conditions he was asked to anticipate do not exist at present. That is why the Government believe, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 20th February, that it is too early to reach any firm conclusions on the more fundamental legislative changes which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has proposed.
I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we hope that there will soon be an end to the violence. With a permanent cessation of violence we shall be able to look again at the possibility of providing a new legislative framework for combatting terrorism.
But the Government are determined that the police should have all the powers they need to combat the current threat from terrorism effectively. That is why we intend to bring forward proposals in due course to strengthen the existing controls on terrorist finances. These will build on the very helpful ideas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.
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 speak for themselves. No one 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.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act gives the police the powers they need to fight terrorism. We must ensure that the powers remain available to them--and for as long as they are needed. The Government are committed to keeping them. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Blatch.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page