Skip to main content

Prevention Of Terrorism

Volume 980: debated on Tuesday 4 March 1980

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

11.27 pm

I beg to move,

That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in operation for a further period of 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, which will lapse, unless renewed, on 25 March.

The House will know that I do not put this proposal forward as a matter of routine. Like my predecessor, as the person who has to operate the Act I feel that I am responsible for it and that I must justify it personally to the House at whatever time the House chooses to debate it. It is my duty to report on it personally, and I accept that.

My previous experience, both in opposition and in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, my experience since last May, as Home Secretary—has given me a firm basis from which to propose this renewal. While later on I want to give my view of the present terrorist threat that we face, and the role that this Act can play in combating it, I propose, first, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to report to the House on the use that has been made of the Act in the past year. This will provide the House with a basis for its consideration of the draft order. For the convenience of the House I hope, if it is required, to reply to any points raised by hon. Members at the end of the debate.

Part I of the Act makes it an offence to take part in the activities of a proscribed organisation or to collect funds for it. Until this year only the IRA was proscribed in Great Britain. On 3 July 1979 the Irish National Liberation Army was added to the list. This followed the murder of Airey Neave in the precincts of this House on 30 March.

No one would claim that merely proscribing a terrorist organisation will stop its more hardened members from operating; the value of proscription lies elsewhere. It has a deterrent effect on people on the fringes of a group's activity; it puts a clear legal obstacle in the way of raising funds or seeking publicity; and it marks out those organisations whose acts of violence against the community are abhorrent to the people of this country and prevents them from operating under the cloak of legality.

This act of rejection and the ban on self-publicity that accompanies it is of considerable importance. Everything that the terrorist does, ranging all the way from giving interviews on television to acts of murder in the streets, is aimed at influencing public opinion to bring about a change in policy.

Part II of the Act gives me certain powers and enables me to exercise them so as to prevent acts of terrorism, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland.

Under section 4 I am empowered to prohibit a person from being in or entering this country if I am satisfied that he or she has been or may be involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

Between 29 November 1974 and 29 February this year a total of 220 exclusion orders had been made, 54 of them in the past 12 months. The power to exclude is an executive one and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. I have to weigh the need to protect the public against the adverse consequences for the individual of preventing him from entering Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Therefore, I must be absolutely satisfied on each application that the person concerned has been involved in terrorism and that the safety of this country requires his exclusion.

If Mr. Charles Haughey, the present Prime Minister of Eire, came to this country, would he be excluded, in view of the fact that he was caught up in the IRA arms trial some years ago?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not have powers to exclude people under other legislation than this?

I am talking about the powers under this legislation. That is what we are addressing our minds to tonight. I hope that I can proceed with what I have to say, because the time for the debate is limited. Hon. Members will have their chances. The more time that I take up the less time they will have, so I think that it would be better for me not to give way unless it is absolutely essential.

There can be no doubt that to exclude someone from Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole, if he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, is to infringe his civil liberties. For this reason the Act provides for my decision to be considered, if the excluded person so desires, by an independent adviser, who then gives me the benefit of his opinion.

Altogether 37 people against whom exclusion orders have been made have had their cases considered by an adviser. As a result, 12 orders have been revoked; six other orders have also been revoked for other reasons, making a total of 18 revocations since the Act came into force. In the past year, of a total of 54 cases in which an exclusion order was made, 14 were seen by an adviser following representations and in five of those cases—of which four fell to be considered as a group—the orders were revoked. The rest were confirmed. Of the 199 people removed under exclusion orders since November 1974, 167–44 in the past year—went to Northern Ireland and 32—five in the past year—to the Republic of Ireland.

I mentioned the work done by my advisers, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Alport and Mr. John Newey, QC, for dealing so promptly and thoroughly with the cases referred to them.

Very quickly. I shall find out and let the hon. Gentleman know the exact time in most cases, if he so wishes.

As well as conferring powers on me the Act gives the police power to detain a suspected person for questioning both inland and at the ports. Section 12 empowers them to detain anyone whom they reasonably suspect has committed an offence under the Act or is involved in terrorism.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I want to give time for as many hon. Members as possible to take part and I shall only harm their chances if I give way.

The police can detain a person for up to 48 hours in right of arrest and they use this time to consider whether there is enough evidence to charge him with a criminal offence, whether an applicaion should be made to me for his exclusion, or whether he should be released.

It is sometimes said that the Act is unnecessary because the police have adequate powers without it to deal with terrorists under the criminal law and that it is a measure of the Act's failure that detention under it does not necessarily result in a prosecution. It is also said that people who are excluded because I am satisfied that they are involved in terrorism walk free once they are excluded. But exclusion is not an alternative to a prosecution; it is a supplement to it. If a prosecution can be brought, it will be brought.

Moreover, the purpose of exclusion is, as the title of the Act states, to prevent terrorism. It creates some specific offences designed to bring terrorists and their supporters more directly within the ambit of the law. It gives the police the time that they need to investigate the possibility of bringing substantive criminal charges, and it enables me to remove potentially dangerous people before they have a chance to perpetrate violence. Nevertheless, a number of charges do follow detention under the Act.

From the time that the Act came into force in 1974 up to 29 February this year a total of 307 people—51 of them in the past 12 months—have been charged after detention with various offences, including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to cause explosions, offences under the Firearms Act, robbery and theft, and offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act itself.

I have said that the police can detain for up to 48 hours in right of arrest, and that applies both inland and at the ports. It sometimes happens that a period of 48 hours is insufficient to enable the police to complete their inquiries. For example, the preliminary examination may have revealed some indication of involvement in terrorism and the police may need time to assess the weight and the extent of that information and decide what action to take. In those circumstances, the police can come to me or to the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and ask for the period of detention to be extended by up to five days.

A total of 4,586 people—724 in the past 12 months—have been detained in Great Britain since the Act came into force in 1974 and in 549 of these cases—170 of them in the past year—an extension of detention was granted.

Hon. Members will recall that renewal of the Act was last debated in conjuncfor Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), also con-piled by Lord Shackleton. As a result of Lord Shackleton's recommendations the period of detention at ports was brought into line with that inland, and advice was given to chief officers of police aimed at improving the conditions under which people are detained and ensuring that the fullest possible records are kept of interviews with detained persons.

My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) also considered whether to accept Lord Shackle-ton's recommendation that section 11 of the Act, which makes it an offence to withhold information about terrorism, should be dropped, and concluded that for the time being it should not. He did, however, say that the position would be reviewed in a year's time.

I have accepted that commitment and have considered whether section 11 could be dropped. I have consulted the police, who are firmly of the view that section 11 is still an important weapon in the struggle against terrorism. The fact is that a total of 13 charges have been brought under section 11 since it came into force in 1976, 12 of them in January 1979. Having considered the matter very carefully, I have concluded that section 11 should be retained.

The only other recommendation outstanding from Lord Shackleton's review is that consideration should be given to a scheme for assisting the families of excluded persons. I have considered the possibility of providing assistance towards the removal expenses of such families, but I have come to the conclusion that such a scheme could not be justified.

Lord Shackleton also recommended that exclusion orders should be reviewed after a period to see whether they could be revoked. I agree with that recommendation. If a person who has clearly given up his involvement in terrorisrm wishes to come to this country he should be allowed to do so. Accordingly, I announced on 18 June last year that work was now being put in hand to review all exclusion orders three years after the date of their making.

Up to the end of February this year, of the 83 people who were eligible to have their case reviewed 23 asked for review. As a result, I have revoked one order and decided that 11 should remain in force. The rest are still being considered. Before revoking an order I need to be satisfied that the person concerned has ceased his involvement in terrorism and that it would now be safe to give him unrestricted access to this country. In making that judgment I have to take into account the current level of threat to this country from the Provisional IRA and other groups.

Before I ask the House to consider my assessment of that threat and the reasons why I seek the renewal of this Act I have one procedural change to announce. It relates to the Prevention of Terrorism (Places of Detention) Direction 1976. At present the direction provides that prior to removal an excluded person may be detained in police custody for a maximum of seven days from the time of his arrest under the Act. Thereafter he must be held in prison until removed. Sometimes it is not possible to serve the exclusion order papers on the person concerned before the seven days have run out. In those cases, even if the excluded person has already consented to removal from the country he has to be taken to a prison until the papers can be served on him.

It therefore seems sensible to provide, as I have done in the new direction which will come into force on 25 March, that an excluded person may be held for a further 24 hours in police custody if arrangements are being made for his removal within that time. I shall place a copy of the new direction in the Library of the House.

I come now to the reasons why I firmly believe that we need to preserve for another year the powers that this Act gives us in the fight against terrorism. We should of course all prefer, from the point of view of civil liberties, to see those powers brought to an end, but the fact is that the violence that this Act is designed to prevent is still a threat.

The determination of violent men to gain their ends by the use of terror both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere has continued in the last year. Sir Richard Sykes, our ambassador to the Netherlands, was shot dead in the Hague on 22 March 1979. Airey Neave was blown up by a car bomb as he left this House on 30 March. Earl Mountbatten of Burma, together with members of his family and a family friend, were brutally murdered off the coast of Ireland on 27 August, and on the same day 18 soldiers were murdered at Warren point, in Northern Ireland. In June, letter bombs in Birmingham injured four people. More letter bombs were sent from Belgium on 13 December, three of which exploded, causing injury to two Belgian postal workers and burns to two of our postal workers.

Nor has violence been confined to the Republican terrorist organisations. Members of the Ulster Volunteer Force carried out pub bombings in Glasgow in February 1979, which injured five people, while the number of sectarian murders in Northern Ireland increased significantly in the last quarter of 1979.

The police have an extremely difficult task in protecting society from men such as these. I have the greatest admiration for the work that the police do, and I am sure that the House will wish to join me in recognising the contribution that they make, often at great risk to themselves, in protecting us. The diligent and often dangerous work of preventing violence is the best possible way to tackle the terrorist. I believe that this House has a clear duty to provide the police with an effective framework of law within which they can protect society.

I am in no doubt that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should be renewed for another year. The threat of terrorism has not receded. Indeed, in admitting responsibility for the murder of Colonel Coe in Bielefeld on 16 February, and again in the past week, the Provisional IRA indicated that it would repeat such attacks whenever it could. I know that we would all agree that the sooner we can do without this Act the better, but the time is not yet. I ask the House to acknowledge that, and agree to renew the Act for a further year.

11.46 pm

The primary legislation on which the order is based covers the whole of the United Kingdom, as the Home Secretary explained, and other Secretaries of State are therefore involved. I shall confine my remarks to the powers used in England and Wales and, to some degree Scotland, but I shall briefly conclude by mentioning Northern Ireland.

The renewal of such an Act must make us consider whether it is still required. It is concerned only with terrorism arising from the problems in Northern Ireland. It is not designed to deal with the spill-over from the Middle East, which is to some degree manifest in this country. Fortunately, we have not experienced terrorism arising from issues in Great Britain.

Does terrorism still exist? The right hon. Gentleman gave details of incidents, some in the past but also the letter bombs and tragic killings last year, including that within the Houses of Parliament.

The Official IRA has not, as far as I am aware, been involved in violence in this country since the Aldershot killings. The Provisional IRA, which is a break away anti-Marxist group, as it puts it, certainly has. INLA, which is associated with the political wing of the IRSP, has certainly been involved in violence. The UVF, which is a Protestant group, has been involved in violence in Scotland, to some degree in Liverpool, and on one occasion in London.

Although not a very important point, it is six years ago today since I went out in this country or elsewhere without an armed man alongside me. I know that terrorism exists. No one believes that it does not. The question is, what laws are needed to deal with it?

I shall deal briefly with the various aspects of the Act. Regarding the exclusion orders, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that a person:
"is or has been concerned…in the commission preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is attempting or may attempt to enter…with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."
I believe that that is a reasonable test.

For example, there are those in the Maze prison who have identified themselves by the nature of their organisation in prison as members of such organisations. I want to be sure that when such people arrive in this country they are asked why they have come. That is an elementary test, whether under this or any other legislation. The exclusion orders are a necessary part. We know why the movement takes place. It is important to contact people in this country.

My information is out of date, but perhaps I can speak more freely. Until a year ago I was informed of groups' movements and was told that contact had been lost. Information was not coming readily. There were groups moving around in different parts of the country. Although I do not know the details, I am sure that the arrests that were made in December 1979 prevented bombing from taking place in this country. The legislation was important in that respect.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which was inserted into the legislation as a result of Back-Bench activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) moved the amendment, which the Government then took over. It was based on section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which deals with penalties for assisting offenders. This power in the Act is not foreign to the law. Nevertheless, Lord Shackleton recommended that it should lapse. When I was Home Secretary I said that I would consider it within the year.

The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was satisfied that the provision was necessary. Perhaps in winding-up he could explain in more detail why he thinks that section 11 is necessary. I considered the matter a year ago and left it open. I respect what the right hon. Gentleman said.

I now refer to section 12, and arrest without warrant and detention for up to 48 hours and for a further five days with the Home Secretary's approval. The procedures are the same. I turn to the most important intervention. Many allegations are made about ill treatment while a person is held. Ill treatment does not arise as a result of the legislation. If there were ill treatment it would arise whether or not this legislation were on the statute book.

Today I checked. The judges' rules apply to detention under the Act and access to solicitors. I assume that that provision still applies. Under the judges' rules communication with friend and relatives is permitted. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) deny that those matters come under the judges' rules? It would help me if he would say so.

The right hon. Gentleman should know that the judges' rules are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

That is a matter for the Minister.

Many of my hon. Friends will remember the occasion when we discussed whether friends and relatives were being notified if someone was held longer than the normal period. The following provision was inserted as section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977:
"Where any person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled to have intimation of his arrest and of the place where he is being held sent to one person reasonably named by him, without delay or, where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary."
What was important was that at that time it was requested that the various police forces send reports to the Home Office. There was a certain amount of grumbling by many individual policemen that I met in different parts of the country, who claimed that yet again they were spending their time filling in forms rather than acting as policemen. In the end a relatively simple form was devised and submitted to the Home Office.

The hon. Member for Burton gave his view on whether, under the judges' rules, the information about the number of people who are held without being allowed to contact a person reasonably named is now known to the Home Office. The figures had not emerged in any detail, as I recall, before I left the Home Office. It is most important that we should know something about those returns because allegations are made and they depend on whether people are allowed to contact a person so reasonably named.

A short time ago one of my constituents was held, and his wife, who was six months pregnant, came to me in great distress and asked if her husband was held by the Merseyside police in the Day Street police station. When I asked the police they refused at first to comment. I pressed them, and eventually they agreed that he had been held and later released.

That is precisely the point that I am referring to, but I tell my hon Friend that there is power in the legislation. Where a family is not notified the Home Office monitors the figures, so that the extent of the omission and the reason for it are known.

On this, again, it is important that we should know the result of the Home Office investigation.

There are allegations about ill treatment, but in my view they do not arise out of this legislation. They would arise even if the legislation were not on the statute book. Nobody is suggesting that if a person is suspected of being involved in terrorism he or she should not be held by the police. What is at issue here is whether it should be under this legislation.

With regard to the position at the ports, the increase in the size of the Special Branch in recent years is due to the fact that we have an advantage over the Continental Powers, in that it is possible for us to keep an eye on the ports. The increase in the Special Branch is largely for this purpose. It is known that there has been a change in the activities of the Provisional IRA, certainly. Of course, it is sometimes extremely difficult, because when Mr. Airey Neave was killed the Provisional IRA claimed credit for it within a number of hours, and sometimes people claim credit when they have not been involved. But there was a movement a year ago, with the Provisional IRA moving into Western Europe because of the difficulty of moving around this country when 99 per cent. or more of the population—unlike the position in other parts of the United Kingdom—are prepared to co-operate with the police and information comes freely even from the Irish community.

There is no doubt that the Provisional IRA have moved into Western Europe, and probably they no longer come in transit through London airport, where observation is carried out, but go by other routes into Western Europe, and because the Irish Republic is a member of the EEC there is freedom of movement without documentation straight into Western Europe itself.

The co-operation of the police forces of this country, and particularly Scotland Yard, with the police forces in the Low Countries and Western Germany is developing because some of the activities that have taken place, including the shooting of the corporal last week and of the officer some weeks ago, are an indication that the target is easier in Western Europe that in this island community, where it is much more difficult to get through.

I said at the beginning that I should like to refer very briefly to the question of the use of this legislation in Northern Ireland. I shall not go into it in detail. I simply want to ask a question and make a suggestion.

The right hon. Gentleman does not apply this Act in Northern Ireland, neither does the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does. From time to time we debate the Northern Ireland emergency provisions legislation in the House. It is more appropriate that section 12 of the Act and the other parts of the United Kingdom legislation should be discussed when we are debating Northern Ireland because the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and this legislation mesh together.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that the time has come to look at certain aspects of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, but tonight is not the time to do so. All I am arguing is that we cannot have a sensible discussion on the use of this legislation in Northern Ireland because the whole nature of our discussion is in the context of its use in England and Wales and to some degree in Scotland, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here tonight. There may be other methods by which that could be debated.

In this country we decided to use legislation of this nature. In Northern Ireland there is the emergency provisions legislation. It would be worth while for just a moment or two to look at the legislation in other countries, because what is at issue is whether this is the appropriate legislation. I am sure that we should not follow the legislation that is used in the Republic of Ireland, with the special courts and powers that are far more Draconian than are ours.

It is true that exclusion orders do not apply in the Republic of Ireland, but I invite the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to look at the legislation overall. I simply say that the Southern Irish legislation is not the sort of legislation that we should have.

The Irish Government take seriously the fact that the Provisional IRA is the enemy of that country. On several occasions when the Secretary of State and I, in opposition, have had something to do with the Provisional IRA, the Government of the South made abundantly clear that they did not like an independent power near them dealing with the Provisional IRA, which was an enemy of the three major political parties in that country. They feel so strongly about it that they have legislation that is very different from ours. The legislation that we need is the sort of legislation that we have had for four or five years, with the changes that I announced last year and the change that the right hon. Gentleman announced tonight. There is a terrorist problem, but tonight we are not discussing the political aspect. Our concern tonight is to renew this legislation, and I am sure that it should be renewed.

12.4 am

Like his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done the House a service by coming here to justify personally the extension of these Draconian powers. As he said, no one likes them and they should exist only while they are indispensable to the safety of our country.

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's approach to the Shackleton recommendations. He is right to retain section 11. No one likes it, but it is of considerable assistance to the police service, in which I declare an interest. My right hon. Friend has taken the right decision in agreeing to review all the exclusion orders after three years in each case, but both he and his officials in one sense have made a stick for their backs.

I can think of no more difficult decision than to agree to relieve from an exclusion order any person who may have been at any time guilty of terrorism. I remember our colleague, Mr. Reginald Maudling, saying to me once that he found it much more difficult to agree to let out of gaol a person who had committed some terrible offence when the Parole Board recommended his discharge that it was, in many cases, to put the man in in the first place. The securing of the public, which must come first, has always to be balanced against any rights of a person to be relieved of an exclusion order.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision but I am bound to say that he will have many exceedingly difficult choices to make. I hope that he will invariably err on the side of caution.

I should like to turn to three questions that, because of the pressure of time, I can put to my right hon. Friend briefly. Can he say more about the incidents in Germany? I follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the former Home Secretary, in suspecting that because security has improved here there is a great deal more of a problem in terrorists, or would-be terrorists, who circulate in Western Europe.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can say anything about the evidence that now seems forthcoming of collaboration between terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland and those in Italy and Germany and in the Middle East. Proof is difficult to establish. I cannot help feeling, however, that there is more collaboration both in the procurement of weapons and in intelligence among the terrorist organisations of Europe, the Middle East and, perhaps, the IRA than most hon. Members may recognise.

I should like to direct my right hon. Friend's attention to section 10 of the original Act. It says:
"If any person gives, lends or otherwise makes available to any other person…any money or other property, knowing or suspecting that the money or other property will or may be applied or used for…the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism…he shall be guilty of an offence."
I cannot think of a more precise description of some of the actions that take place in the United States where people give, lend or otherwise make available to other persons money or other property that will or may be applied for the preparation of acts of terrorism. During my visit to the United States this summer I became aware, as, I am sure, did many other hon. Members, of the auctioning of a rifle among Irish groups in New York. That rifle had been allegedly used to kill between 20 and 30 British police and Service men. It was reported that the rifle was auctioned in New York for about $100,000. That money was used, directly or indirectly, to procure weapons used to terrorise innocent people in this country.

I pay my tribute to the authorities in the United States who are now doing their best to limit the flow of arms or money from the United States to the IRA. I believe that increasing success has been achieved by the Americans and by ourselves. It is regrettably the fact that moneys from the United States, one way or another, are being used to procure weapons from third countries—for example, North Africa or the Middle East—which, sooner or later, arrive in Northern Ireland and are used for terrorism. I believe that the United States needs to do a little more in restricting the actions of its citizens in procuring moneys that, according to the language of section 10, would instigate terrorist acts.

Is not it unwise, to put it mildly, for the Secretary of State quite so quickly to snub the offers of help that came genuinely from Governor Carey and Mr. Speaker O'Neill?

I do not think that I can agree with that. I had the pleasure of speaking to Governor Carey and Senator Kennedy about this issue in New York. On the whole their interventions have not been helpful.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he had to consider all the acts that might be calculated to advance the cause of terrorism. He mentioned interviews on television. Having spent much of my life newsgathering and editing, I should be the last person to want to restrict a free press and television. I should be grateful, however, if my right hon. Friend could say a word about the BBC's policy in respect of the televising of interviews with terrorist leaders.

Are enough officers available to the Special Branch and the security services? There has been a welcome strengthening. There are enormous demands on the police service here and in Northern Ireland to deal with the rising tide of crime, the threats to public order from extreme Right and Left and with drug running. May we have an assurance that, having had 10 months to examine the morale, organisation and efficiency of the Special Branch and the special services, the Government are satisfied that they have the numbers and resources to do the job?

12.12 am

Many of my colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall restrict my remarks. The legislation is regarded as racist by many Irish people in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. They fear that it is directed against the Irish population in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The numbers involved prove that. Since the Act was passed 4,500 people in Great Britain have been arrested and 91 per cent. have been freed without a charge against them. In Northern Ireland, 733 people have been arrested under the Act and only 38 have been charged—and they were charged under section 11.

Over 90 per cent. of those charged, detained and interrogated are innocent of any crime. That is causing a serious situation. I recognise that it is easy to become intimidated by the atmosphere in the House. If one opposes such legislation one fears that some people feel that one is trying to support those engaged in the war of violence. I hope that my bona fides show that I have never supported the men of violence. I am speaking on behalf of the innocent people.

I was disappointed at the rejection of that aspect of the legislation. I refer to the repugnant clause that permits exclusion orders within the United Kingdom. We have protested against the exile of Sakharov—but that is what is happening here. People are being excluded from one part of the United Kingdom and exiled to another. I am quite certain that that has been brought to the attention of the Home Secretary.

I wish to cite the case of one of my constituents. He is a reluctant constituent. For the past 19 years he has lived in Britain. He is married to an English girl, and he reared his family in Britain. Within the past two or three months he was arrested, taken into detention, and served with an exclusion order. He does not know why he was excluded, what the charges were, or what suspicions were laid against him.

He was taken, at the expense of the State, to Northern Ireland. His wife and children, who speak with English accents—some of his children have never visited Northern Ireland and his wife has been there on only one occasion—were left behind in Britain. Having been taken to Northern Ireland, he immediately came under suspicion there, not only by the security forces but by loyalist paramilitaries. He became an immediate target.

He was not given any priority for housing in Northern Ireland. I approached the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but it said that he was not entitled to a house because he was a stranger. He is unable to bring his furniture to Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary told me that he had considered the case. If that is so, I hope that he will consider it again, this time with some humanity and compassion.

When Lord Shackleton considered the question of exclusion orders he said:
"exclusion is not a judicial proceeding and it involves no charges, trial or court, nor is it a punishment."
If an exclusion order is not a punishment, I do not know what is.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman shouting "Order"? He should go back to Banbridge.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member addressing the House to do so from the space immediately in front of the Gangway?

If a person is excluded in such circumstances, and no charge has been proven against him, his wife and children should be allowed to join him. After all, the Russians allowed Sakharov's family to go to Gorky. Yet we are always proclaiming how just our British law is.

The question of exclusions is causing a great deal of distress, anger and resentment among the vast majority of Irish people in Britain. Their resentment can only be to the advantage of the Provisional IRA. That organisation builds on resentment. There may be extra recruitment to that organisation because of the injustice of the law on this matter.

I ask the Home Secretary again to reconsider the question of exclusion orders. He said that after three years there may be the possibility that the orders could be revoked. From my communications with him, I find that that is highly unlikely. If a person is excluded, his family should have the right—at the expense of the State—to join him.

There is an atmosphere of near-hysteria attached to the legislation—the way in which it is introduced, the way that it is debated, and the way that it is renewed. If someone is charged under the Act, there is a presumption on the part of the British people that he is guilty before he appears in court. I know that many of my hon. Friends are frightened of this legislation. They regard it as repugnant and extremely distasteful, but they are afraid to take their conscience into the Lobby in case some of their constituents point the finger and say that in some way they are giving support to terrorist organisations.

I detest the Provisional IRA and its men of violence, but so long as this legislation remains on the statute book many innocent men and women will remain in prison. One of them, Mr. Conlon, died just recently. I believe that he died because of the atmosphere that surrounds this legislation. I can tell the Home Secretary that many people in Northern Ireland, who will have nothing to do with the Provisional IRA, will not rest for a second until they have proven Mr. Conlon not guilty.

12.21 am

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I welcome the attitude that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken in regard to this serious topic. He showed in his remarks—I am sure that every hon. Member would agree—that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is not a piece of legislation that any of us wants to see on the statute book for a moment longer than is necessary.

I read the Act with care, and I re-read it this afternoon. My view, in contrast to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—whose courage and integrity is not in doubt—is that the principle of exclusion orders is an acceptable one. After all, the oldest sanction in the British legal system—I think that it is nearly 900 years old—is that of binding over to keep the peace.

As magistrates, including myself, over the centuries have never hesitated to do, we can bind over a person who is threatening to make trouble and in the course of so doing we can restrict him to a particular neighbourhood or forbid him to go into a particular neighbourhood. In effect, that is an exclusion order but, like the exclusion order, it does not carry any imputation of guilt on whom it is imposed. That is not to say that anyone likes exclusion orders, but I do not think that we can describe them properly as wholly alien to the British legal and executive system.

However, I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West and the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in hoping that by the end of this evening my right hon. Friend will have answered many of the fears that have been expressed by those who feel that the Act imposes an intolerable burden on those who come into conflict with it. For example, it is apparent that of the 4,000 or so people who have been detained under the Act only a tiny number have been convicted of any offence. That does not necessarily reflect badly on the Act. As the Home Secretary said, the reason for detention is not that a crime is suspected or that a charge for any offence will be brought. But that feeling is there, and this House exists to redress grievances if they are sincerely held.

There are also objections to the photographing and fingerprinting of the large number of people who are held in detention. I would support my right hon. Friend if he felt that it was necessary for that to be done, and for those records to be kept permanently after the individual concerned has been released.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the photographs and fingerprints of people who are released and found innocent should be kept on file? That is a disgrace.

I intended to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to indicate in his reply whether or not those records are permanently kept. Clearly, in the normal course of events one would agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry). However, I am simply asking for facts; I am not seeking to pass judgment.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to the difference between the letter of the law, and, in some cases, the spirit with which it is carried out. On the question of access to families and to lawyers, there is great bitterness among the Irish community in Britain, who feel that they are being singled out for specially harsh treatment. I hope that however firm the law requires us to be—I support any measure that the Home Secretary and the police may think it necessary to take to protect our fellow citizens against terrorism—the law in its execution will not be unnecessarily vindictive. The fewest possible hostages to fortune should be given in the way of restraints that are not lawful under the Act and that cause distress and resentment. I do not think that there would be disagreement about that.

I hope that the Home Secretary will say more about his decision on financial compensation. He knows more than I know about the deprivation of individuals and their families who are caught up in the detention and exclusion procedure. But to the man in the street it would seem that if a person is detained without charge and without guilt being alleged, and if as a result he or his family suffers financial loss, a great part of the resentment that is felt—rightly or wrongly—would be assuaged if the House demonstrated that it was willing to go some way towards compensating people for the loss that they suffered.

On the question of the necessity or otherwise of the Act, and the question whether other legislation is available, I endorse the judgment of the Home Secretary. The Act provides the police with powers, and there is evidence that it has helped them immeasurably in the containment of terrorism.

It is said that the Act has curtailed legitimate political activity. I should like to know whether the Home Secretary regards one of the effects of the Act as having prevented free speech by persons legitimately and sincerely seeking to contribute to the political debate. Is there a point at which the apprehension and detention and, if necessary, exclusion of persons with terrorist links may have impinged unnecessarily on the rights of political free speech?

Will the Home Secretary also tell us a little about the mechanism of the investigation that his nominees carry out when an exclusion order is under consideration? It is said that the accused person, or the person who is about to be made subject to such an order, has no opportunity to call any witness, to cross-examine any witness, or to have any idea of the alleged facts on which the Home Secretary's nominee gives his advice. I do not know the rights or the wrongs, but it would be helpful for the House to be reminded of the rights, if any, that a person has who is under consideration for such an order. We know that this is an Executive act and not a judicial one, and that the question of appeal to a court of law does not arise.

The anxieties that I have expressed and ventilated are held not only by the Irish community but by others. They need to be answered. They should be answered, and I have no doubt that they will be answered tonight. However, they do not lead me to question the validity of the Act or the acceptable principles that lie behind it. If the implementation of the Act has not been as merciful as is consistent with safety in the past, I have no doubt that it will be in future.

12.31 a.m.

I think that everyone in the House would like to see the Act leave the statute book as early as possible. However, I give full support to the Home Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in their request for its renewal. I do not believe that the time is right to do without it.

We are not playing a game; we are dealing with murderers, terrorists and those who are prepared to kill and maim innocent people at will. If we need an exceptional measure—as the Act is—to deal with such people, I support that measure.

I understand that a number of hon. Members propose to vote against renewal. I am rather shocked. I express the hope that none of them will ever have any IRA activity in their constituencies. I have had it in mine. I have suffered from the IRA in my constituency. I have had a policeman killed. I have had large quantities of arms and explosives discovered in my constituency. On one occasion a large quantity of extremely volatile explosives was discovered stored in a shed at the bottom of a multi-storey block of 104 fiats. If the whole lot had gone off the block might have come to the ground, killing hundreds of people. That was an example of the activity of the IRA.

It is sometimes said that we do not need the Act, but we must consider more than merely the number of people who are questioned and eventually prosecuted. There are two purposes in the Secretary of State's having the power of detention for 48 hours and the power of extension up to seven days. One purpose is to achieve prosecution, but the second purpose—possibly the more important—is to obtain information. There is much evidence that about 91 per cent. of those detained are eventually released. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us about the information that is gained because the Act remains on the Statute book. I have reason to believe that the store of explosives to which I have referred was discovered as a result of information obtained from someone who had knowledge but was not connected with that activity. It is important for the police to have this information so that they can prevent other terrorist activities and thereby save lives.

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) said when he referred to people who are detained for up to seven days and eventually released without a charge being pressed. In certain circumstances some kind of financial compensation could be considered if that person loses his job or a week's pay. I think that that should be looked at sympathetically.

I hope that the Home Secretary will also reconsider the deportation or exclusion of an individual. There is an irony about deporting someone from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Perhaps some other area than Northern Ireland could be found to which such people could be deported. Having said that, when there is a deportation order, consideration should be given to helping the wife and children of the husband with travel and removal expenses so that they may join him.

I hope that the House will vote overwhelmingly in favour of continuing this Act for at least another year. I also hope and pray that the time will come when the Act will no longer be necessary, but in the light of my experience in my constituency I firmly believe that we still need the Act and that we need to give every support to the police in their campaign against terrorism.

12.36 am

I completely disagree with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). From the line that he has taken it would seem that he is virtually supporting a police State. I know all about the IRA and the problems at our ports. Both the Dublin and Belfast boats berth in my constituency.

Since the Act has been on the statute book, 4,500 people have been detained and arrested, 1,100 of them on Merseyside. That is more than a quarter of the total arrests that have been made. Of that 1,100 only four have been convicted under the Act.

In addition, 40 people have been convicted of other crimes, and I am convinced that they could have been dealt with under other Acts. About 40 people were thus excluded, leaving a total of more than 1,000 innocent people who were detained and later released.

I intervened earlier to explain the traumatic experience of one of my constituents, whose wife had approached me in tears. After I had pressed the police on the matter that gentleman was eventually released and no charge was brought against him. That young man was born in my constituency. I have known him all my life. He has never been involved in any terrorist activities and has not been a member of a proscribed organisation. He is a good-living man and a good Christian, who would not support such an organisation.

I detest terrorism from whatever side it comes. I abhor cowards who murder innocent people. Nevertheless, I believe that the holding of innocent people for a period and then releasing them drives them to adopt an anti-police stance.

I do not know whether the Home Secretary appreciates that people who are held under this Act and who are subsequently released without being charged feel that a stigma is attached to them. In many cases they have lost their jobs because they were detained.

Therefore, as a democrat and someone who supports civil liberties, I will willingly go into the Lobby tonight, as I have in previous years, and vote against the renewal of these provisions.

12.40 am

I suspect that we have only a few minutes left. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for many of them.

It is a disgrace that we should have to debate this matter in only one and a half hours. It deserves the attention of the House for much longer than that.

I accept that the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) are very strong, but there is a suspicion—perhaps more than a suspicion—that the powers of arrest and detention are used in practice when there is no reason to suspect that a person is involved in terrorism. Indeed, the figures show that to be the case. In the last three months, 146 out of 179 people detained were released. Therefore, I have doubts about the continuation of this legislation. I wish that we could debate it at six-monthly instead of 12-monthly intervals.

I should like to put two questions to the Home Secretary. Surely there is now a difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain, in that a solicitor has to be present within 48 hours under the Bennett rules in Northern Ireland, whereas that does not happen in this country. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that people are detained for six or seven days without being allowed access to a solicitor. Surely the Home Office should deal with that matter promptly. Anyone who is detained should have access to a solicitor almost immediately.

I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not agreed to the provision of financial assistance to relatives and others. Is there not provision within the police force to provide such financial assistance anyway? At a reception held by the Home Secretary I sat next to the deputy commissioner of police and got away with £20 for one of my constituents who had coughed up £20 for her son, who had been wrongly arrested in Newcastle. In fact, the Metropolitan Police provided the finance for his fare for his trip back. I think that such help should be available and should not have to be provided for in legislation.

Finally, I am disappointed that the Home Secretary has decided to retain section 11. I realise that there may be some cases pending and this may be sub judice, but until recently the section had hardly been used. I do not like that section at all. I hope that within the next 12 months it will be dropped.

12.42 am

I want to make one brief point. The fact that these measures are considered by my right hon. Friend to be sufficient for dealing with the serious problem of terrorism in this country, notwithstanding the list of atrocities that has been referred to by himself and by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), is due, in my view, to the efficiency, devotion and loyalty of the security services, particularly the police force and its Special Branch.

This moment ought not to pass without someone saying how grateful we all are to the police and the security services, particularly for their help and activity on election day. There was an opportunity for the terrorists to strike. They were unable to do so—they failed to do so—because of the efficiency of the police and security forces. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to express very strong and sincere thanks to those forces for bringing us here safely, so that we can take part in these proceedings.

12.43 am

I do not think that there is any chance of anyone converting anyone else in this debate. A handful of hon. Members will vote against the legislation, as we have done consistently. Contrary to what some hon. Members may think about us, we are all lovers of constitutional liberty and have fought against illiberalism for all our lives.

First, I protest that this legislation has to go through at this time of night, and at the failure to give us sufficient time to debate it. One of my hon. Friends suggested that I should speak for only a few minutes. He had to do that; but I regret it. I should like to speak for much longer.

The fact that we are having to debate the renewal of these powers is due to the political failure of both sides of the House to solve this terrible problem. We have failed to grapple with the problem properly in political terms precisely because the House can fall back on such illiberalism as the renewal of the order. Until we make an attempt to grapple with the problem we shall go on with these pitiful renewals.

The Act is a positive minefield of illiberalism, which endangers the civil liberties of innocent citizens and fails to bring to account almost anyone who is guilty. Under the pretext of preserving law and order it not only fails to prevent terrorism, it terrorises the innocent.

The Act also threatens the labour movement. The innocent have their fingerprints taken and they are kept on file. I do not know why that is done, but it is a fact. In addition, the Act is racialist. It encourages naked racialism against the Irish community in this country.

No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for far too long, which is why not all of my hon. Friends who wish to take part in the debate will be able to do so.

As far as I know, there is no evidence that anyone has been found guilty under the Act who would not have been found guilty if the Act had never existed. If that is untrue, I should like to hear the evidence.

The trite tribute that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) paid is the sort of thing that he does regularly.

The Act terrorises the innocent and not the guilty, who carry on regardless, just as murderers would carry on even if we accepted the views of those who believe in capital punishment. The Act was born in the hysteria after the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. It was born in an atmosphere of witch-hunt and retribution, which continues. That is the only result of the Act.

The measure does not prevent terrorism, but it does prevent legitimate political activity, and it gives carte blanche to anyone, in uniform or not, to harass and terrorise innocent people. Massive evidence of that can be given by any of my hon. Friends.

I particularly regret the terrorising of the Irish community in Britain, but the Act infringes civil liberties on a considerable scale. For example, as soon as the Act was passed, Tetley brewers told their licensees not to allow meetings in their pubs. That immediately stopped Irish societies from holding meetings in Tetley pubs.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), whose wages we do not know about, will take note of a recent article in the Police Review on public order and the police. It said:
"A much simpler action to prevent many of our present troubles would be to declare the National Front, the Socialist Workers' Party or whatever party is causing trouble to be a proscribed organisation under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976."
There is the spirit of witch-hunt and retribution, calling for the proscription of groups that have nothing proven against them under the Act.

The powers of arrest and detention are such that the police may arrest any person whom they "reasonably suspect" to be guilty of an offence under the Act. Thousands are arrested and may be kept initially for 48 hours, but, if the Home Secretary says so, for another five days as well. We have been told that only four such people have been found guilty, and they could have been found guilty even without the Act.

We do not have much time, and I must conclude. I have always been unconvinced that the Act is necessary. I prefer the European Convention on Human Rights, which says:
"Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
This pernicious and illiberal Act prevents that. I shall therefore vote once again against the order.

12.50 am

I wish to make it clear that along with those of my hon. Friends who have criticised this Act, I am totally opposed to any act of terrorism. However, the Act may have the reverse effect; it may shove people towards terrorism rather than prevent it.

I have a family in my constituency in which the father was kneecapped for refusing to give his car to a hijacker. He came to my constituency in order to get away from the troubles. One of his sons was sentenced to imprisonment in Northern Ireland for a non-political offence. He served his time. He was given home leave, with the full approval of the governor, to visit his family. The governor notified the Special Branch that he was coming to my constituency. Of course, it obliged by turning up armed at Leeds-Bradford airport. The man was arrested and put inside Armley goal. At the end of that time he was prevented from seeing his family. He was sent back to Belfast prison.

At no other time was that man outside prison, except when he was transported from the prison to the airport in Northern Ireland. How can the Home Secretary justify putting an exclusion order on a man who was in detention under the control of a fellow Cabinet Member? The family has now broken up. Perhaps the Home Secretary made a mistake. I wish that he would admit it. The problem is that he probably will not. An innocent person therefore suffers. On release from prison this man was confined to Northern Ireland. His family lives in my constituency. The mother has returned to Northern Ireland with some of the children in order to start a home there. The father has remained in my constituency but he is waiting to return.

This family, the O'Hagans, has been broken up by the arbitrary fiat of the Home Secretary. There has been no trial. No charges have been brought. There is an aura of arbitrary decision about the case. It has drawn that family nearer to the troubles that they wished to avoid. That is why I shall oppose this order.

12.53 am

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Fryer) asked whether I would admit a mistake. Of course I admit mistakes. The hon. Member knows that advisers look at exclusion orders. That is only proper. I have great difficulty in making up my mind about such cases. Of course, should be the first to admit it if the adviser said that I was wrong. The order can be revoked. It has been done in the past and it will be done again.

I cannot possibly hope to answer all the questions that have been put to me. I regard this Act and its justification as very important. I therefore personally undertake to write to every hon. Member who has raised a point. I shall give them the facts myself. I shall do so because I am personally responsible. As time is short, that is the best way to help those hon. Members to whom I am unable to reply tonight.

I do not accept the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who said that the purpose of the Act was to protect innocent people in this country. We should look at the innocent people from time to time.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked why section 11 was necessary. He realises, of course, that 13 people have been charged under that section. He remembers the 11 that were charged when he was in office. It is too early to be sure that that part of the Act is unnecessary.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned section 62. Statistical evidence for 1978 was published in the annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Constabulary. Statistics for 1979 will be published shortly in a Home Office statistical bulletin.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) for his remarks. He asked about co-operation with other countries. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, South knows, that co-operation has been developing successfully in recent years.

In the past few weeks I have seen the Minister of the Interior for West Germany, Herr Baum, and the French Minister, M. Bonnet, and we discussed some of the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. We exchanged valuable information. I believe that it would be quite wrong for me to go further than that.

My hon. Friend asked me about the strength of the Special Branch of the security services. I hope that it is adequate for the purpose. If not, I shall soon be informed.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for what he said about the police, and I thank other hon. Members who made similar remarks.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked me about access to solicitors. That is being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. We should await that report before deciding what action should be taken. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) was worried about records being permanently kept. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) also mentioned the matter. The answer is that records are kept, and as long as the Act is in force they will be. It comes back to what the hon. Member for Itchen said. The records provide valuable information, and in doing so they play a part in saving lives, which is quite proper.

I note what has been said about financial compensation, but I am afraid that that was the view that I reached, and I feel that I must hold to it.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) asked about the length of time that advisers take to consider cases referred to them under section 7. I am afraid that I cannot give him an exact time. It depends on a number of factors—whether the interview has been requested, how quickly the excluded per-

Division No. 215]


[12.57 am

Alexander, RichardGoodhart, PhilipPowell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Ancram, MichaelGower, Sir RaymondRees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Arnold, TomGriffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)Rhodes James, Robert
Aspinwall, JackGriffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bendall, VivianHarrison, Rt Hon WalterRoss, Wm. (Londonderry)
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)Hawkins, PaulRossi, Hugh
Berry, Hon AnthonyHawksley, WarrenSainsbury, Hon Timothy
Best, KeithHeddle, JohnShaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Blackburn, JohnHooson, TomSilvester, Fred
Bradford, Rev. R.Hunt, David (Wirral)Sims, Roger
Bright, GrahamHunt, John (Ravensbourne)Speller, Tony
Brinton, TimJopling, Rt Hon MichaelSpicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Brittan, LeonKershaw, AnthonySproat, Iain
Brooke, Hon PeterLang, IanStainton, Keith
Brotherton, MichaelLawrence, IvanStanley, John
Browne, John (Winchester)Le Marchant, SpencerStevens, Martin
Bulmer, EsmondLester, Jim (Beeston)Stradling Thomas, J.
Butcher, JohnLloyd, Peter (Fareham)Tebbit, Norman
Cadbury, JocelynMacKay, John (Argyll)Thompson, Donald
Carlisle, John (Luton West)McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Marland, PaulTrippier, David
Chalker, Mrs. LyndaMarlow, TonyWaddington, David
Chapman, SydneyMather, CarolWakeham, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinWaldegrave, Hon William
Clegg, Sir WalterMeyer, Sir AnthonyWalker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)Waller, Gary
Cope, JohnMills, Iain (Meriden)Ward, John
Costain, A. P.Mitchell, R. C (Soton, Itchen)Watson, John
Cunningham, George (Islington S)Moate, RogerWells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Dickens. GeoffreyMolyneaux, JamesWheeler, John
Dorrell, StephenMorris, Michael (Northamoton, Sth)Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesMorrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)Whitney, Raymond
Dover, DenshoreMurphy, ChristopherWickenden, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)Nelson, AnthonyWilliams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Eyre, ReginaldNeubert, MichaelWolfson, Mark
Fenner, Mrs PeggyNewton, Tony
Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesPage, Rt Hon Sir R. GrahamTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Forrester, JohnPage, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)Mr. Robert Boscowen and
Garel-Jones, TristanParris, MatthewMr. John MacGregor
Golding, JohnPercival, Sir Ian


Alton, DavidDalyell, TamHolland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)Dobson, FrankLamond, James
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)Dubs, AlfredMcGuire, Michael (Ince)
Campbell-Savours, DaleFitt, GerardMcKelvey, William
Cook, Robin F.Flannery, MartinMarshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Cryer, BobGarrett, W. E. (Wallsend)Maxton, John

son submits substantive representations, and whether the adviser—as he sometimes does—requests further information. Those are the factors that determine time. If I can go further than that I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

I have done my best in a few minutes to reply to many of the substantive points made. Perhaps I may return to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I must tell him that I believe that the exclusion orders are necessary to protect life. They have done so and can be seen to do so. At the same time, I recognise that they are, as he says—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 ( Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 26.

Maynard, Miss JoanRoss, Ernest (Dundee West)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Parry, RobertSoley, CliveMr. Ian Mikardo and
Race, RegStallard, A. W.Mr. Dennis Canavan.
Richardson, JoTilley, John

Question accordingly agreed to.


That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.