• Home /
• Statewatch Database /
• PTA debate [1991] (1)

PTA debate [1991] (1)

01 May 1991

On March 4th Parliament voted by 303 votes to 138 votes to renew the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 for another year. A few days before the debate the Labour Party, which had been opposed to the Act since 1982, offered to participate in all-party talks to secure a new approach to combating terrorism. During the debate the Home Secretary rejected the initiative and argued that "rhetoric against terrorism is not enough: one has to be prepared to act". The PTA has been found to be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. In November 1988 the European Court of Human Rights held in the case of Brogan and others that it constituted a breach of Article 5(3) because none of the four applicants were brought "promptly" before a judicial authority. The Government's response was to enter a derogation - a refusal to comply - to the Convention in December 1988. Since that decision, there has been another challenge from two more people who were held for more than four days without charge and without being brought before a judge. The case was declared admissible by the European Commission at the beginning of March. Following the release of the Birmingham Six on March 14th, the Home Secretary made a statement to Parliament announcing the setting up of a Royal Commission into the criminal justice system. He pointed out that the Government had already introduced various measures in recent years which would make it less likely that a similar miscarriage of justice would occur. Roy Hattersley, however, challenged the Home Secretary and pointed out that arrests made in similar circumstances to those of the Birmingham Six would not attract the protection provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE). The Home Secretary responded that there were a number of provisions under PACE which would apply. He did not however point out the crucial differences in the police powers, custody provisions and detention regimes for those detained under the PTA in comparison with those detained under the ordinary criminal law. During the debate there were only two references to the PTA.