|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before we hear the Statement on the prevention of terrorism Act, I take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I therefore come before the House today to apologise for this regrettable error for which I take responsibility. I also wish to explain what happened and to advise the House that I intend to revive these provisions, by order, as soon as practicable, subject of course to the approval of this House and the other place.
"Section 16A makes it an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes. Section 16B makes it unlawful to collect information likely to be useful for terrorist purposes. Together they form Part IVA of the Act.
"Section 16C provides the power to impose a police cordon in connection with a terrorist investigation, with Schedule 6A setting out the powers that may be exercised within a cordoned area. Section 16D imposes parking restrictions in a specified area. Together they form Part IVB of the PTA.
"The powers in Sections 16A and 16B were brought into the PTA in 1994 and Sections 16C and 16D in 1996. They continued in force each year until March 1998. It was then both my intention and my understanding--and I believe the understanding of the House--that these provisions had continued in force following the renewal debates in both 1998 and 1999.
"However, this has turned out not to be the case. Earlier continuance orders had referred collectively to Parts I to V of the Act, a formulation which obviously includes Part IVA and IVB. It was however as a matter of policy proposed by Ministers and agreed by Parliament that in the 1998 and 1999 orders, Part II relating to exclusion orders, should not operate. The 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, following the omission of Part II, listed separately Parts I, III, IV and V in a way which--inadvertently--did not include Parts IVA and IVB. This drafting subtlety
"It has indeed only come to light as a result of an eagle-eyed author of an article in issue 19 of the Criminal Law Week of 24th May 1999. As soon as it was drawn to my attention, I sought advice; and once the status of the sections was clarified the police were advised not to rely on these provisions. I very much regret that these provisions have not in fact been in force since March 1998.
"My information is that six people have been charged with offences under Sections 16A and B since 1995 but no convictions have thus far taken place. One person was on bail awaiting trial for offences under Sections 16A and B which were alleged to have been committed after 22nd March 1998. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has told me that steps have been taken today to quash the indictment. Three other people--referred to as Kebilene and others--are also currently on bail charged with offences under Section 16A of the PTA but the alleged offences occurred before 22nd March 1998. None of these alleged offences relates to Irish terrorism.
"Records on the use of Section 16C--the power to raise a police cordon--are not held centrally. But I understand the section has been used reasonably frequently in recent times. The Metropolitan Police alone, for example, have used the provision 86 times since 22 March 1998. However, there have been no convictions under Section 16C for breach of a police cordon during the period in which this provision has not been in force.
"Notwithstanding the ceasefires in Northern Ireland, we still face the threat of terrorism from many quarters. In these circumstances I think that it is right that the earliest practicable opportunity is taken to revive these measures, so restoring what we all believed to be the status quo. I have therefore today tabled a draft order to bring Sections 16 A, B, C and D back into operation. This order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the revival of the provisions before they may be brought back into force. These debates will take place as soon as practicable.
"There is a separate but related point about Sections 16A and B of the PTA which arises in the case of Kebilene and others. This is a judicial review case which is scheduled to be heard by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords on 19th July. The case turns on whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should continue to give his consent to the prosecutions for offences under Sections 16A and 16B of the PTA if they are incompatible with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The Government believe these provisions, in their current form, are not incompatible with the ECHR and are an important part of the armoury in the fight against terrorism. It is entirely consistent with this
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement. I am sure that your Lordships will also have sympathy with the Minister for having to confess that lawyers, even parliamentary draftsmen, let alone Home Secretaries and other Ministers with legal qualifications, can err. But this error arose directly from the regrettable fact that the Government did not continue all the provisions of the PTA. They intended to drop Part II and accidentally dropped Parts IVA and IVB too. This is a most serious matter.
As I understand the position, it is not now an offence to possess articles for the purposes of terrorism. That means it is not an offence to possess a gun, explosives or detonators for the purposes of terrorism under this Act. It is not an offence to possess disguises, masks, goggles and all the other apparatus of terrorist attacks. Nor is it an offence currently--as a result of this error--to collect information for the purposes of terrorism such as lists of targets, details of the movements of potential targets and other particulars. Of course these have not been offences since March 1998, originally because of the unrealised error. But that error was realised and indeed made public apparently on 24th May, nearly a month ago. Therefore, these have not been offences--with the Home Secretary's knowledge--for over four weeks.
What is more, the Home Secretary confirmed in another place that he had known about this matter since 26th May, if I heard him accurately. As I understand the position--perhaps the Minister will confirm this--they are not offences in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. What is more, it would seem that they will not be offences for another few days because the Home Secretary has decided not to use the urgency provisions which I believe to be available to him. If he had used those provisions, the necessary orders could have been brought into force immediately and confirmed by Parliament subsequently.
The drafting point has been described as subtle, technical and obscure. Indeed, it was buried in the text of the orders. However, once pointed out, it is not at all a complex point but an extremely simple point of drafting. It is important that it is corrected at the earliest opportunity.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister when the police were advised of the position. We understand from the Statement that the Metropolitan police have relied on the cordon powers 86 times since the provisions were
So far as concerns the future, the provisions are necessary and important. They were supported by all sides when introduced by the previous government; everyone thought they were being renewed and everyone supported their renewal. We will facilitate the passage of the new order which has been made today. We are disappointed that the Home Secretary has not used the urgency provisions which, in this case, would have been entirely appropriate. I have obtained the permission of the Opposition Chief Whip to say that we are prepared to debate and pass this order tonight or tomorrow, should the Government so wish. We will do everything we can to facilitate the passage of the order at the earliest opportunity.
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide ... that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force". So it is envisaged in the machinery of the Act that it should be expressly declared in the regulations that are passed under this Act that those provisions which continue in force should be named; and that those provisions that should cease to be in force should also be named. That was the way in which the statutory instrument itself was drafted; namely, continuing certain parts of the Act and declaring that the provisions at Part II of the Act shall cease to be in force.
Be that as it may, this is not a moment for sackcloth and ashes for the Home Secretary because he has made some dreadful error, some dreadful mistake; on the other hand, it is not a moment for spreading the blame to other people in this House or in the other place. I was on the Front Bench when the 1998 order was passed; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was also in his place. If there is any suggestion that members of other parties failed to stop this matter and are in some way to blame, that is entirely wrong. The Government should not adopt by family motto--Ar Bwy Mae'v Bae, "Who can we blame?"--and seek to spread the responsibility any further than where it rests. We are entitled when we come to the House to assume that if there is a technical or a mechanical defect, then the Government will take
My question to the noble Lord is: if the order is now to go through and the earliest practical measure is to be brought before the House, when is that to be? I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said; why not straightaway? Why do we not do it now if it is so urgent?
My final question concerns why the Government have made a pronouncement on a pending case, which is before the Judicial Committee of this House, concerning the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. Why did the Government make a reference to that case and firmly state their position on it when it is a matter that is to be decided at a later date? Is it right and proper for the Government to take that stance?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Home Secretary would have been manifestly derelict in his duty if he had come before another place, or asked me to repeat a Statement in this House, without telling your Lordships the fullest possible related background detail. He has behaved absolutely properly. He said quite clearly in the Statement I repeated that there is a separate but related point. It is quite separate but it is related. The Home Secretary takes the view--which I share--that in speaking to Parliament we ought to be as candid, as open and as helpful as possible. The Home Secretary has behaved entirely properly.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the Home Secretary has said that in adopting this course of action the Government are not attempting to pre-empt or in any way influence the outcome of the appeal. Indeed, I take the noble Lord's point further because I think it is an entirely mistaken one. The point that the Government will submit, through their lawyers, to the Appellate Committee will be that we believe that the statutory provisions are convention compatible. That is simply a recitation of the Government's position. It does not determine the outcome; it does not influence the outcome. As the Home Secretary said, it is deliberately intended not to affect the outcome.
I do not know who was the author of the article in Criminal Law Week. It may have been a woman. I do not assume that all legal knowledge reposes in the male sex. But he or she will have this undoubted continuing moment of glory and, I dare say, free drinks in legal circles for some time to come.
In reply to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, there are related offences in Northern Ireland which correspond to Sections 16A and 16B and there are comparable, although slightly different, powers that correspond to Sections 16C and 16D. But those do not depend on this legislation; they depend on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
My understanding is that the article was published on 24th May. It was brought to the personal attention of the Home Secretary on 26th May, in his Box. He then asked for advice to be taken. When advice was taken and, I believe, Law Officers were consulted, he thought it right to come immediately to the House to explain what had happened. He was absolutely right not simply to put into action the emergency procedure to which reference has been made. That would have been seen, with some justification, as a device to avoid responsibility and to avoid above all the duty to be candid to this House, which is what he has been. That means that if the affirmative procedure is used the House has the fullest opportunity to consider this matter. That is the proper, scrupulous way to treat, with proper regard, this House's interests. I do not know whether the Opposition Chief Whip has spoken to my noble friend Lord Carter. So far as I am concerned, we are ready to move as urgently as may be required.
There was a question about when the police were told. They were told informally that the status of the provisions had been queried on 27th May. There was no delay there. We had to obtain proper advice. As soon as that was available, at the end of last week, more authoritative guidance was given.
I stress that no charges have been brought in respect of Sections 16C and 16D, the cordon powers. Those powers do not stand alone. They have a relation to common law powers. The proposition was put that certain offences are no longer offences. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkley, if I noted his point correctly, said that possession of a gun, explosives, disguises and so forth would no longer be offences. That is not right. The fine point--and it is an important distinction--is that these two sections, which were wrongly thought to have been continued as part of Sections 4A and 4B, do not provide the foundations of criminal liability. But possession of a gun without a licence is in any event a criminal offence, and there are extremely severe penalties; so is the possession of explosives. If there is material such as disguises, masks and goggles, they can
I am not minimising the mistake that was made. The Home Secretary could not have been plainer than he was: "I apologise. I take responsibility". But we have to put this matter in the proper context. There have been relatively few charges. There have been no convictions. The powers that the law has to deal with the possession of weapons, explosives and similar devices remain utterly intact.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House should be indebted to my noble friend for repeating the Statement, and to the Home Secretary for acknowledging the mistake that was made. We hope that it will not be fatal. He acknowledged that mistake very clearly indeed. That is never an easy thing for any Minister. But we could not have expected him to have been more frank than he was. He was open. He spoke with integrity, and Parliament is indebted to him for that.
Will my noble friend comment further on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the speed with which the necessary legislation should be put through Parliament? I would counsel rather more delay than he suggested. It is important that we digest carefully, in this House and in another place, what has been said today. It would be the worst of all worlds if further mistakes were to be made. We must feel impelled to try to avoid that at all cost. It is important to get this matter right. I suggest that speed is not necessarily the best instrument to use when one is in a difficulty of this kind.