I beg to move:

That the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

With regard to the Liverpool incident, how many people were subsequently arrested and held, and for how long?

I could certainly find out and let my hon. Friend know. I was cautious not to comment on the precise case in Liverpool, tempting though it is, because it is sub judice and two men are before the courts. At that time, when I was Home Secretary, there was no doubt that the police were anxious to make sure that, whether in Liverpool or London, we were not at the outset of another spate of attacks. Two had taken place in Liverpool and London, and it was the responsibility of the police to act in a protective way to make sure that there were no killings. Ten pounds of high explosives, 17 incendiary devices, seven electric detonators, and so on, are not there just for fun.

My right hon. Friend has spoken of a para-military force. Will he confirm that there is more than one in Northern Ireland, and that we are dealing with terrorism from not one but two sides? So far my right hon. Friend has mentioned only one side.

Of course, because I am dealing with this part of the United Kingdom. There was one occasion just before my time in this office when another organisation was involved, but I am dealing with the Provisional IRA on this side of the water because it is the only organisation proscribed under the legislation. If at any time any of the other organisations were seen to be a danger on this side of the water I should have no hesitation in proscribing them, as in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend must believe me. I am not unaware of the other organisations, of which there are large numbers, but I am dealing with the danger on this side of the water, because my legislation is in general concerned with that. Exclusion is a different aspect.

"the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or …is attempting or may attempt to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."

I refer by right hon. Friend to Section 7 of the Act. Is it not a complete charade that someone can make representations to the Secretary of State or to an adviser without having any indication whatsoever of the evidence against him? In the case of one of my constituents even the adviser had no indication of the evidence against my constituent.

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has been in touch with my Department about that case. I was dealing with cases where a person has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, and I shall come in a moment to what I can do in individual cases. But I do not find that the adviser system is a charade. It is not a judicial system. That is why I am making clear that it is an executive procedure. It is not a judicial procedure and should not be discussed as one. The exercise of this system depends on the quality of the advisers, and 1 pay tribute to the work of Lord Alport and Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC.

My right hon. Friend recognises, does he not, that a person held for up to seven days in England and Wales can be held incommunicado because of the proviso to the Judges' Rules about not impeding investigations. But in Scotland a person cannot be held incommunicado. He has a statutory right to have access to a solicitor, which, a fortiori means the ability to tell his family where he is. If it is a perfectly proper and safe thing to have north of the border, how is it that we cannot have it south of the border as well?

My hon. Friend is quite properly raising the question of the use of the Judges' Rules not only under this legislation but in general. I shall willingly look at that. I have been looking at this matter in general terms, not in terms of legislation, because there is concern about the Judges' Rules. Again, this is something to which I intend to refer later.

What my right hon. Friend says is interesting but not surprising. After all, the police are trained and expected to be able to anticipate crime. Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear whether or not he is saying that the success of the police in the case that he mentioned arose from the powers that have been conferred on the police by the Act that we are now considering?

I am not so sure that the police in general are trained to anticipate crime. If that were the case, a great deal of crime would not happen. With terrorism, however, it is often more important for the police to build up information because they are dealing not simply with drugs or theft but with people dying.

Answer the question.

I will answer it, but my hon. Friend used the word "anticipate", and this is an important factor to take into account. I know that the information that the police build up in this way is absolutely vital. I am not prepared to say exactly that there was a connection between the powers we are discussing and the case I referred to. The information is collected by the police over a period of time, and that could not be done without this legislation. If we did not have this legislation we would be putting at risk the lives of people, and I am not prepared to do that in the light of the judgments I have to make.

I am sure that the House recognises the seriousness of the right hon. Gentleman's point. Is he going so far as to say, however, that the value to the police of the detention provisions is in gathering information and that, therefore, if they are to be effective the police must surely be seeking to detain those who are not concerned in the preparation or instigation of terrorism? If those people were so engaged that would give rise to charges against them. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is a much wider purpose—perhaps a necessary one—which does not appear on the face of the Act and has not so far been advanced by the Government.

It is not a question of picking up people ad lib. People are involved in the way that I have described. A careful study of the wording reveals that the Act covers this point adequately.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that the Questions are not planted?

If my hon. Friend means whether I asked him to put them down, he is absolutely right in saying that I did not. If he is asking whether I am pleased that he puts them down, he would be absolutely right in assuming that I am.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Act covers Northern Ireland and that it gives powers to exclude from Northern Ireland to Great Britain a person who does not belong to Northern Ireland but whose terrorism is not necessarily IRA terrorism.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I do not blame him for making the point because it is important for Northern Ireland. The point I was making is that a major part of the Act is concerned with Great Britain and that there is separate legislation for Northern Ireland. Exclusion, however, is for the United Kingdom as a whole.

"the Provisionals would start the violence again in Britain with what it described as a devastating effect if they deemed it opportune".

Accepting what my right hon. Friend has said on account of the threats by the Provisional IRA, which will continue as long as that organisation is in being, I still maintain that there is a case for saying that renewal of the powers should be on a six-monthly basis rather than annually. Since the original legislation was for six months, maximum parliamentary scrutiny is necessary.

I was coming to that point. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I reduced the period of renewal of the Northern Ireland Emergency Powers Act 1973 from 12 to six months in accordance with a view that I expressed in opposition. But that is very much more powerful legislation—the Army is involved and the power to detain is much more comprehensive than it is in this legislation. If the Northern Ireland legislation was at this level I would not have felt so strongly about the six-monthly basis.

I want to get this clearer still. I understand that at the moment completion of the cards is not mandatory on passengers because the form is not prescribed under the relevant order. Is the Home Secretary saying that that situation will be changed by his new order or will it remain the same?

What it means now is that the authority will be clearer for the passengers to see. Some passengers may have been in doubt about whether the Act empowered the use of cards if that was so desired by the police concerned.

Although the use of cards will in future be specifically empowered under the Act and there will be no doubt about it, it does not follow—so I understand—that the use of cards will be made mandatory by the prescription of the form.

It is not a matter of being mandatory. If the police decide to use the cards they are covered by the legislation. That we thought to be the situation before, but apparently there was some dubiety about it. I have gone into this in great detail because I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is concerned about it. If he has any particular point in mind perhaps he will make it and I shall reply to it later. This is not a major change. It is simply a matter of clarifying something that was thought to be in doubt.

Is my right hon. Friend saying that there will be some kind of inquiry into the workings of the Act? If so, will he consider publishing the findings—not all the evidence—of that inquiry?

Yes, I understand my hon. Friend's last point, because there is no point in simply reassuring myself. I am talking about aspects of the Act and its working which, after three or four years, could be looked at again. In no sense would the information be given to the outside world about this, but I will consider the points that have been made because I want to reassure people about this, and I consider that it is my responsibility to reassure them.

The Home Secretary's speech has underlined two things. The first is that he takes seriously his accountability to Parliament for the great powers that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has provided. I am grateful to him for that and personally I trust him completely in this if not all other matters.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in one thing —that the legislation can at best be described as a detestable necessity. Those of us who are concerned with civil liberties must regret the need to cut back on that area of freedom in the way that the legislation does.

May I put this point in the hon. Gentleman's mind? Very often, what this Act provides is a benefit to the police in the deployment of resources. Every time there is an incident like the Balcombe Street siege, they have to take large numbers of people away from ordinary civil policing, and hon. Members then complain that their constituents are not getting the cover. Frequently, because this Act exists, the police are able to use their limited resources much more economically, and therefore there is a sideways benefit which comes in cases like the Balcombe Street siege because the Act exists.

That is the hon. Gentleman's point of view. It is not necessarily mine. I think that the effective mobilisation of police manpower does not depend upon the particular powers of detention that they have under this legislation. That is as far as I would take it, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will see the reason why many of us are concerned about other uses to which this legislation has been or might be put.

But it is not just a matter of what is said. These so-called preposterous brigade commanders in Belfast shoot and kill every day. They are not preposterous, and I have never found them to be befuddled.

They are befuddled in their ideas. I think that few of us would disagree with that proposition. This legislation was introduced for the United Kingdom in the wake of the Birmingham bombings. It was introduced because it seemed at the time to outraged public opinion that there was coining to the mainland a wave of terrorist violence so extraordinary, so extensive, that only the most extraordinary measures to counter it could be expected to have success. That is not exactly the situation today. There may be a further urban terrorist onslaught on the British mainland. We pray not. But I am saying that it is possible now at least to consider a more speedy process of scrutiny and, if necessary, renewal of this legislation than was the view of Mr. Roy Jenkins a year ago and is the view of the Home Secretary today.

I begin by agreeing in part with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) but disagreeing with him in part. I agree with the case for the six-month renewal. I argued for such a period on an amendment I proposed to the Bill originally. We are fortunate tonight that the arrangement of business has allowed us a longer debate on the subject than we would have had otherwise. All we would have had under the normal procedures would have been one and a half hours. We have a little longer tonight. One and a half hours a year is precious little time in which to debate such major issues as civil liberty and terrorism itself. We should be reconsidering this legislation more frequently than we are allowed to do, and devoting more time to it.

That is not my case either. I was saying that we should not wait for repeal of this legislation until all violence has vanished from the other parts of the United Kingdom.

I am glad to have that comment from the hon. Member for Derby, North. I took the hon. Gentleman to be suggesting that although the trend might continue the violence itself would recede. I am glad that he is as realistic as I feel we have to be in these matters. Let us not fool ourselves by supposing that we can have satisfactory temporary provision legislation. Let us not fool ourselves by supposing that these are necessarily short-term incursions into civil liberties. We must face some of the harsh realities, and that must lead us to consider this legislation in a rather different light.

When the hon. Gentleman asks that question, has he asked the police themselves? Does he know what their view is? The Home Secretary gave it. The police want it.

The hon. Gentleman is in a rather special position. He is able to put one kind of official view to the House. The Home Secretary has put forward the view of the chief constables and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, but policemen vary in their views. That is bound to be so. It is unfair to the police to put them on the spot and expect them to make public judgments and public statements about legislation that they have to carry out. In this House we must ask questions and seek to answer them. To some extent I accept that there are things that cannot be said clearly and openly. It would be wrong to expect the police to become involved in the political question of how far we are entitled, in representing the British people, to abrogate civil liberties to assist them in their work. We listen to the police individually and we listen to their organisations but as legislators it is for us to make the final judgment.

The police are not competent to judge the area of counter-productive political consequence that flows from having such a wide net available in their operations? Surely they are not competent to make that judgment.

I do not agree that the police are not competent. I know of many policemen who have to make just that sort of judgment, but it is a fact that it is easier for us as Members to draw the attention of the community to such considerations. It is not an area in which we should expect the police to have to make public comment. We should not call upon them to do so.

"is or has been concerned …in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question on that point? I am truly interested. I was making a point about the Judges' Rules and said that they apply to the people who are detained in the same way as to people on normal charges. When the hon. Gentleman says that people have not been allowed to see solicitors, is he making that as a general point or does he have any particular case in mind?

I was making the general point that several provisions of the Judges' Rules, including that one, are not necessarily available to people detained under this legislation. The Minister will recall that I sought, by amendment, to make it a feature of the legislation and to write the Judges' Rules into the statute.

I shall come back to that point later. My understanding of the matter is that an undertaking was given by my predecessor due to concern about the Judges' Rules. It is contrary to the information that I have been given that there have been cases arising from the Judges' Rules. I understand that they do apply in exacly the same way. The hon. Gentleman, who shows great knowledge of this, speaks as if that is not the case with regard to detention. Has he any knowledge of a chief officer not carrying out the instruction that has been given?

There is much concern, not simply in relation to this legislation, that the facilities of the Judges' Rules are not made available to all persons detained. There are specific cases that have been raised by the National Council for Civil Liberties that show that they are not being followed.

Will the hon. Gentleman, for the Minister's benefit, reinforce the point about access to legal advice under these circumstances where the period of detention has been increased 250 per cent.—from two days to seven days? In that period there has been no access to solicitors. We need advice from the Home Secretary for the 243 people for whom detention orders were issued and any such requests for them to have access to solicitors.

The advice that was given to me prior to the debate was that the Judges' Rules have not been applied in all circumstances. If the Home Secretary can give any assurances to the contrary they would be welcome, but such assurances would be questioned in a number of quarters. It would be surprising if the Home Secretary were able to say that he was satisfied that both in this case and in police procedure generally the Judges' Rules were being observed for all types of detainee. It would be a remarkable new development if he were able to give such an assurance.

What the hon. Gentleman says is extremely important, and I go along with it apart from one small but important point. He says that the inquiry should be held only into the question whether the Act is necessary. But that is not the real question. We have to assess the balance of the advantage and disadvantage of the benefits accruing from the Act and whether they are enough to justify the intrusions into civil liberty and intrusions into people's private lives caused by it.

That is precisely the question to which we in this House must address ourselves. The difficulty that we face is in asking the related question of how far the Act is necessary and justified and testing that against our judgment. We, as legislators, must make the judgment. We should then consider, in the light of the report, whether the necessity for the legislation justifies the particular incursions into civil liberty involved. We can make that judgment. The difficulty that we have had is in fairly and correctly assessing the needs that the security forces face in the task that we have given to them. We have had to take on trust statements that have been made by the Home Secretary. No hon. Member is suggesting that we cannot quite trust the right hon. Gentleman. There is a great deal of trust in the Home Secretary's personal integrity.

I thank the Home Secretary, in opening the short debate, for making clear —if it needs making clear in this House or outside—that those who have from the beginning expressed concern about the provisions of the Act are in no way pro-IRA. We are concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has just said, to weigh up and assess whether the balance of advantage that has been given by the Act over the past three years has justified the undoubted incursions and intrusions into civil liberties. That is the point in a nutshell.

I am not certain how the right of silence has been eroded by the Act. Evidence will still have to be produced to show that information has been withheld. This would not be incumbent upon the accused. Will my hon. Friend explain why he believes that the right of silence has been eroded?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. Perhaps I should have phrased my remarks more carefully. We have created an offence in respect of which not passing on information can result in a person's being charged. I accept that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that a person knowingly had the information and did not pass it on. I did not mean to overstate the position, and I am sorry if I did so.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is claiming that a precedent has been created that might appear in other Acts. I do not know why he said that. If he possessed information pertaining to possible terrorist acts involving the killing or maiming of innocent men, women and children, would he not feel that it was reasonable to make it an offence for such information to be withheld? If he withheld it, would he not become virtually an accessory to the murder of innocent people?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says and I imagine that every other hon. Member would share that view, but we must make up our minds whether a person has the information. The fact that a police officer says that I knowingly have information about terrorism and have not passed it on does not make me guilty. Hon. Members will remember that when the Act first came before the House it was proposed that the mere possession of a piece of paper relating to, for example, proscribed organisations would be an offence. The then Home Secretary was persuaded to remove that provision. It could affect any one of us, because we often receive unsolicited pieces of paper and circulars through the post.

I do, by golly.

—provided that he has a logical reason, because the neighbours would not give him a second look knowing what we do for a living. However, in the case of an engineer and a copper at the factory gate saying "Please may I see Mr. Brown?", that raises suspicions, particularly if the person concerned has an Irish accent. People put two and two together and make five before one can do the arithmetic.

I can understand those who have spoken from a desire to preserve civil liberties. All hon. Members would like to do that. However, we must also recognise that we have a duty to deal with those who put the civil liberties of the innocent at risk.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed to the key question before us. The key question is not whether we find terrorism abhorrent, because we all do. The description by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) of the horrors that go on in his part of the kingdom moved all of us. But that description, with respect, was not relevant to the judgment which we have to make about the Act. We have to judge the balance of advantage and disadvantage. No one disputes that there are disadvantages in the Act. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that clear in strong terms. Most political judgments—for that matter, most other judgments—are a balancing of advantages and disadvantages of different options which are open as courses of action.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that we have put a couple of thousand people in prison. Will he explain how that has happened, and what part the courts have played in that operation?

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that

"Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage".

Is it not a fair bet that action by the anti-minority putting people in Long Kesh, and all the rest of it, in Northern Ireland has been counterproductive and has caused many people to become attracted to the campaign of terrorism as a consequence?

That may be so. I do not speak with any intimate knowledge of events in Northern Ireland. I therefore speak about them with deference, diffidence and humility. I am talking about the general principle of the facts which we know and those which we do not know. I repeat that we do not know what advantage, if any, there is in this interference with civil liberty.

"The Secretary of State may by order add to Schedule 1 to this Act any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and connected with Northern Irish affairs".

There is far more Draconian legislation in Northern Ireland under which a variety of organisations are proscribed. The Act has a general heading because of my exclusion powers in the United Kingdom as a whole. There is only one body proscribed in the early part of the Act because, as I explained, there is no problem from other organisations. Some people may say "Not yet". But that does not affect my exclusion rights. During the last three years a small number of members of Protestant para-military organisations have been excluded to Northern Ireland. I should prefer to leave the matter at that general answer.

I take my right hon. Friend's point. The exclusion order Part, Part II, is not concerned with Schedule 1. Therefore, the point I am making does not apply to Part II, and I do not raise it in connection with Part II. I raise it only in connection with Part I. if it is right that Part I is intended to apply only to terrorism on the mainland, why does not Section 1(3) say so? It could easily have done so, saying "occurring in England, Wales or Scotland" instead of "in the United Kingdom". This will not do.

I intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech because, although there have been no terrorist acts by other organisations on this side of the water, many of us, including myself, have been threatened. On advice from the Special Branch, I changed my telephone number, and it has been changed again since. These are realities. The Act should refer to any para-military terrorist organisations, not just one side, because the threats do not come only from one side.

I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, and therefore I shall not comment on what my hon. Friend has just said.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) does not seem to think that the order is desirable and is apparently threatening to vote against it, should it appear another time. The hon. Gentleman said that about 2,000 people had been questioned under the order but only a few had been proceeded against. But surely, if the few who were proceeded against would not otherwise have been unearthed, if the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his wish to see terrorism stamped out he must agree that it is worth while to put this Act into effect.

I read in my newspapers from time to time about things called secular killings, which I understand refer to cases in which a man is murdered for no other ground than that he goes to a different Church. That strikes me as not merely a crime but a blasphemy. As I understand it, both Catholics and Protestants have been murdered, but I do not believe that the IRA murdered the Catholics.

Oh, yes!

I turn now to another aspect of the order. Some of us would like to see, instead of this annual debate, the Government taking action to introduce into the House a Bill to implement the European convention on terrorism. We should like to see this probably within the next 12 months and before the order is next due for renewal. We have a fairly easy timetable now, and a lot of time available.

With the experience that he gained in Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary will be all too aware of the great emotions that can be aroused in debating this legislation—both in Britain and in Northern Ireland. He will also be aware of the very strong reservations that were voiced by many Labour Members when the Bill was orginally enacted, and again on every subsequent renewal. I have heard many contradictory arguments advanced this evening, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify the position.

Did the hon. Member take any action on that matter? It is clearly something on which action should have been taken.

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I would be prepared to go to Liverpool with the person whom I have mentioned and identify the policeman concerned. I have strong suspicions that it is the same policeman with whom I had dealings at Liverpool one evening. Some of my hon. Friends and I were travelling home from this House and the plane could not land at Aldergrove but was diverted to Liverpool because of bad weather. As I was about to board the boat, I was apprehended by the same Special Branch officer. He knew very well who 1 was, but he insisted that I had to show him some means of identification. As soon as I began to do so, he told me to go ahead. [Laughter.] I must tell my right hon. Friend that I do not think that that is funny. I believe that that officer was exceeding his duties. If he was trying to be smart at the expense of a Member of Parliament, one can imagine how he would act against other people going to and from Northern Ireland.

As I understand this matter, I think that there is more to the story than my hon. Friend has told the House. There are existing complaints procedures, let alone the new ones. Complaints have to be made to the chief constable. My hon. Friend has only to write to him and the process will be started immediately.

On the question of detention, I should like to put forward a purely hypothetical case. Let us suppose that someone going to or from Belfast is detained for two days, that nothing is found against him and he is released. Three months later, he goes back to Liverpool and is stopped by the Special Branch and asked for his name and address and whether he has ever been detained there before. He has to say that, three months before, he was detained. It is highly likely that this time he will be detained for four days.

It was the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) who said that he hoped the public would not think that those who spoke against the order were in favour of the IRA. I hope that no Labour Members will think that because my hon. Friends and I support the Home Secretary in seeking to renew this order we wear our respect for civil liberties lightly. The fact is that those whom we represent would never understand it if tonight the order were not to go through.

"They not only say that they do not want it; there is a hint that they think that it would be positively deleterious.

They believe that a control which is designed to identify terrorists should concentrate principally on examining and assessing the travellers themselves rather than relying entirely on the documents they carry. Although it may seem paradoxical,"

"they see certain positive advantages in there being a variety of documents, which enable them in certain cases to engage in conversations with travellers as to why they are carrying particular documents. This may lead to some more useful information than going through the routine passport check as is done in other cases. That is the essential difference."

"In that case, why is it thought desirable to use at certain airports in the London area immigration cards to be completed by travellers from Northern Ireland?"

"A variety of methods is used, but they are not subject to the normal checks through immigration officials. There is a difference in the relationship of the police and immigration officials to movement, whether between Northern Ireland and Great Britain or between the Republic and Great Britain."—[Official Report, 28th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 569–70.]

We are not discussing whether we approve or disapprove of the use of violence in settlement of political issues; we are here to decide whether we can justify the arrest and detention of 2,443 people, almost all of whom have not been charged, and the deportation of 58 people, without charge, trial or any normal process of adjudication that anyone here would recognise, in order to arrive at an unknown number of convictions. The Home Secretary was unable to tell us how many, if any, individuals have been convicted within the terms of this legislation.

The hon. Gentleman has made a very important assertion. He has said that people are losing their jobs because of detention under the Act.

Yes.

Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence to support that assertion? Can he actually say that he knows of any case in which that has happened? This is very important. He makes a general assertion, but the House ought to know specifically what evidence he has of particular cases.

I have had the evidence of two people who have come to me to explain how they lost their jobs following their detention for a few days. There was no explanation. Their jobs were filled in their absence. The right hon. Gentleman should remember, too, that there is another effect of this sort of thing. It is not simply the immediate terror of being descended upon in one's own home by a large number of policemen; it is what goes on in the person's mind afterwards, and how his neighbours see him thereafter. He is no longer the same person. Incidentally, society is no longer the same. I have had vivid evidence of that. Society no longer looks the same to someone who has had that experience, and the institutions of law enforcement no longer seem the same to such a person.

My hon. Friend has serious allegations about this case and I have called for a report on it. I wonder whether I can give him the facts now rather than later. Mr. Girvan was arrested in connection with a hoax telephone call about a bomb. The facts of the case are being considered by senior officers. As my hon. Friend has fairly said. Mr. Girvan was not detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. No complaint has been made. There has been a great deal of publicity, although no one has made a protest, except at a distance, and the police feel that it is most important that Mr. Girvan should be interviewed. I hope that my hon. Friend will go to the police and make his claim on this case and the wider aspects. At the moment what is happening is that we are reading about it in the newspaper but nothing is being done about it in practice.

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is the victim—

In view of the fact that it has just been disclosed that this case does not arise under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. it hardly comes within the ambit of the discussion and debate that we are having.

I thank you for that piece of guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary is a victim of a police hoax. The man was harassed by the police after being released. I was obliged to visit the police myself to establish what was going on. The police were obliged to lie to me in order to cover the facts. The man has been harassed, in the sense that he has been refused admission to all the pubs in the district. The police deny that they had anything to do with it but claim that he was banned from these pubs because he was found drunk and disorderly a month ago.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have indicated their opposition to terrorism from whichever source it emanates and has emanated over recent years. Indeed, many Labour Members, if they had any way of getting a message to the IRA, the UVF and others who have been involved in terrorism, would simply say, "Put away the bombs and the guns and get down to a political solution of the Northern Ireland issue." Unhappily, we have little opportunity of getting that message over.

If they are true.

I said "If"—I did not say that they were. The Act gives extensive powers to the police and no proof exists to show that those powers have in any way restricted terrorism in the United Kingdom. It is not difficult for associates of the Provisional IRA to be traced by the police and to be excluded. In many cases people are excluded having had no opportunity to see the evidence upon that which the exclusion is decided.

While I question the need to renew the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, I want to make it plain that I am as much opposed to terrorism as is any other hon. Member. It is my opposition to terrorism and my belief that civil rights are important that make me question the need to renew the Act. If we are not careful, by eroding civil rights even more we shall begin to produce a State terrorism. That makes me feel strongly that we should question the renewal of the Act now and work hard to remove it from the statute book.

We must try to clear up this question about the Judges' Rules. The Judges' Rules now apply to detention for 48 hours and the impeding of proper inquiries. The whole point is that the Judges' Rules themselves need re-examination, because of the possible extra five-day period. The point is not that the Judges' Rules should not be used but that there should be fresh rules to allow access to a solicitor within that time.

I accept that the Judges' Rules could well be strengthened because of the extra period of time, but we should be examining whether the Judges' Rules are applied in those cases up to 48 hours, because there is a lot of evidence that they are not. It is particularly important to allow access to solicitors and the right to let relatives know where someone is. One of the most frightening aspects of a totalitarian State is that there may be a knock on the door and someone disappears. No one is suggesting that in this country they could disappear for long, but to worried relatives 24 hours, 48 hours or a week is a long time, and that will cause a great deal of worry and anxiety.

I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear, as has every one of my hon. Friends, how all of us in this House are completely opposed to acts of terrorism. None of us wants to say or do anything which would give any comfort to those who commit these mindless acts of terrorism, from whatever part of the religious or political spectrum they may come, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.

"If any person gives, lends or otherwise makes available to any other person, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property, knowing or suspecting that the money or other property will or may be applied or used for or in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this section applies, he shall be guilty of an offence."

The outstanding fact about the legislation now before the House in the form of an order is that it was born in panic as a result of public clamour and it continues as a monumental failure and a suppressor of human liberty. When public opinion is shocked and horrified by horrendous killings of the type to which we are all opposed, it is all too easy to go along with the first thinking of public opinion, with the natural fear that all of us share as a result of the horrific bombings that took place. Immediately we do that, democracy suffers and retribution is on the agenda. That is a bad guide and has nothing in common with the reasons for which I was sent here and came here. The witch hunt then begins to take over, and it has begun to take over.

"One of the fundamental tenets of the English legel system is that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Under this Act over and over again it is the innocent person who must establish his case. The attitude amongst supporters of this Act seems to be that this shift in the burden of proof is unimportant after all, innocent people have no need to fear."

I have listened to the debate this evening somewhat stunned that all the opposition to the renewal of the Act and the careful examination of its terms have come, mainly, from this side. I would have thought that on a matter of civil liberties we would have a more representative debate, pulling in more hon. Members to consider the problems involved. I am also saddened that some of my hon. Friends have exaggerated their cases and over-egged their puddings to such an extent that, although the kernel of what they were saying is correct, it can be shown that they were wrong in the excesses of their comments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) earlier made reference to the number of arrests in Liverpool. I should briefly like to bring to the attention of the House the number of arrests on Merseyside in general and Liverpool in particular.

"how many persons have been detained by the Merseyside police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; how many have been prosecuted or released; and how many are still pending."

"566 people were detained up to 25th February 1977. Of these, 43 were prosecuted; 16 were removed under exclusion orders; 504 released; prosecutions were pending in two cases; and one person was still in custody."

"how many persons have been convicted on Merseyside under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and what sentences have been given."

"The 43 prosecutions include five people charged with conspiracy to cause explosions, three charged with attempted murder and four charged with causing explosions".—[Official Report, 4th March, Vol. 927, cols. 327–8.]

I support the renewal of the Act. However, I went on this occasion, as I have on every occasion that we have discussed whether the 1974 and 1976 Acts should be renewed, to raise the question of the Judges' Rules, to which reference has already been made in the course of the debate.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that he was prepared to accept a considerable modification of civil liberties in the interests of defeating terrorism. I agree with him, and I shall try in these brief remarks to tell him why.

The right hon. Gentleman was not the first to use these special powers against para-military organisations. Ministers of Home Affairs of Northern Ireland had used them earlier.

I take the point. It is important to make the point that the Act can be used against terrorism wherever it comes from. I hope that we shall always remember that as a fact.

So there is a "but"—"We are against terrorism, but—".

No. It is right that the Home Secretary should look into genuine and definite complains, and I think that he will. There is no "but". It is just a question of looking into genuine and definite complaints. Whilst I think that that is right, I should have grave doubts, some of which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) raised in my mind, about any formal inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman decided to have a formal inquiry, that decision would question the Government's resolve. It would raise a "but" whether they were determined against terrorism. Looking into individual complaints from hon. Members is a proper democratic process under any Act. Deciding to have a formal inquiry into the Act is a different matter, and I have grave doubts whether it would be wise.

Was not the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Government who had the Compton Inquiry and the Parker inquiry into the things that happened in Northern Ireland? Those were formal inquiries, and very useful, too. They were the ones that eradicated torture on the part of British personnel. Was not that rather useful?

I will not be led into that matter. I have strong feelings about some of the things that happened and some of the balance that went wrong in that issue. The matter raises all sorts of issues outside this country, and I shall not return to it. I have great anxieties whether some of the inquiries held in those cases helped in dealing with terrorism. I think that some of them did not. That is a lesson I have learnt from experience. I am very dubious about such inquiries. There may have been some reason for them, but whether they were right when seen in retrospect I am not too sure.

Is the right hon. Gentleman implying in his last few words that if we vote against the Act we are for terrorism?

The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I never said any such thing.

The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see in Hansard.

It will not say that, if Hansard reports what I thought I said. If I did not say what I thought I said, very well—the hon. Gentleman can argue what I said. But I thought that I said that I very much hoped that hon. Members would not vote against renewal. If one is firmly against terrorism one would believe it right to renew these provisions for another year. That is my firm belief and that is what I hope will be done. If there is a Division I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the renewal.

I begin by dealing with two points concerning Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) raised the question of the interpretation of the legislation. I think that the difference is that it is one thing to be prosecuted under the early part of the Act on the question of proscription, but it is something entirely different to be detained and then charged with murder. That charge is laid not under this Act but simply on the basis of murder.

So the position is changed which hitherto was that completion was on a voluntary basis, as stated by the Minister on 12th June 1972. Completion where cards are issued is to be on a compulsory basis.

Use will be compulsory only where the police want to do it. It will not be done on a large scale.

But my right hon. Friend can never be sure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) is good at making points, but his arguments are never crystal clear or logical.

On my right hon. Friend's earlier point, I suggested that the commitment that he made was not really a commitment. It was made in a very wishy-washy way and did not seriously convince anybody.

On the first point, if my hon. Friend regards what I said as being wishy-washy he knows what to do. But he said that whatever I said he would vote against it. That is the point he made the first time round.

Will my right hon. Friend make a statement in the House?

At the appropriate moment, yes.

I beg to move,

That the Police (Withdrawn, Anonymous, &c. Complaints) Regulations 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

Can the Minister confirm that if a complaint is made orally, possibly by a complainant who is illiterate, none the less the withdrawal must be In writing?

I can confirm that, and it would be signed—as I have just said—on behalf of the complainant if he could not write.

Can the hon. Lady tell us where the meaning or definition of the words "disapplies" in Section 3(2) can be found? It does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, the supplement to the OED, Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary or Webster's New International Dictionary. Has the word been invented by the Home Office tonight? Why does it not appear in the interpretation clause? Can the hon. Lady also tell us what is the significance of the comma that appears immediately before "disapplies"?

The comma is a misprint for which I apologise. I agree that the word "disapplies" does not appear in the interpretation clause. If I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman of the Home Office's definition of the word.

Perhaps I may draw the hon. Lady's attention, and yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to column 900, 901 and 902 of the Official Report of the other place for Monday 7th March. The hon. Lady really need not make her speech, because word for word, precisely, it is all there, as it was read out in the other place. Of course, this shows a remarkable and good degree of consistency. However, I should have thought that the hon. Lady might conceivably have changed one comma or one word.