HL Deb 13 May 1983 vol 442 cc715-23

11.31 a.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Cowrie)

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we take this order together with the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1983, which was also laid before the House on 10th May. I take it that there is no objection to the suggestion that we whould take the two orders together.

The effect of this order is to extend the period of direct rule by 12 months until July 1984. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, the interim period of direct rule cannot last for more than a year without being extended by order. That Act not only provided that the Northern Ireland Assembly elected in the previous year should be dissolved; it also provided that, during direct rule, legislation for Northern Ireland which would have been passed by the Assembly could instead be passed at Westminster by Order in Council, and that the executive responsibilities of the Northern Ireland administration should be exercised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

It is necessary to extend these direct rule provisions even though, following the passing of the Northern Ireland Act 1982, an Assembly has once again been elected in Northern Ireland. That Assembly has entered with energy on the task of scrutinising the activities of the Northern Ireland departments, but, as the House will be aware, responsibility for all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs remains with Parliament, and with Ministers of the United Kingdom Government who are answerable to Parliament, pending any devolution of powers. It is therefore necessary to renew the provisions for this direct rule.

The Government recognise both the strengths and the weaknesses of direct rule. Although I do not believe that direct rule aggravates the differences in Northern Ireland society, and may indeed to some extent neutralise them, it does not offer the prospect of a settled and stable political framework for the long term. That is why the Assembly has been elected in a positive and constructive attempt to respond to the particular needs of the Province. We hope that in time the elected representatives of all constitutional parties will move towards agreement on devolution in the Assembly. Meanwhile, the machinery of direct rule must be maintained, and I accordingly commend this order to your Lordships.

I now turn to the security situation and to the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act for a further six months' period. There are two questions: are these provisions needed, and, if they are, should they be renewed in the same form? I know that the House is well aware that violence in Northern Ireland, although greatly diminished over the past decade, still continues at a high level, and that the threat of further violence remains very real. So far in this year, 10 members of the security forces and 10 civilians have been killed by terrorists; the last of these incidents occurred just two days ago in Londonderry, when a wife who was trying to protect her husband was murdered while he (a soldier) and her sister were wounded. Only last Monday night, four bombs were planted in and around the centre of Belfast causing extensive damage but, mercifully, no further loss of life.

Your Lordships will appreciate that the absence of further tragedies on the scale of last December's explosion at Ballykelly is not due to any lack of effort on the part of those violent men; in a small part, it could be attributed to good fortune. But I remain convinced that it is principally due to the care and vigilance of the security forces, and to the co-operation of the whole community in Northern Ireland with them. One can well imagine the devastation which the 500lb bomb which was intercepted by the security forces on 26th April on the Falls Road could have caused in a busy street or shopping centre. The Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding strongly believe that, if it were not for their emergency powers to carry out operations based on the provisions of this Act, their ability to protect lives and property in Northern Ireland would be seriously eroded.

The same arguments can be applied to the operation of the courts in Northern Ireland. Many of the special provisions in the Act relating to the trial of what are called "terrorist-type" offences are designed to overcome problems caused by intimidation of both witnesses and jurors—a problem that has also had to be faced, as your Lordships will be aware, in the Republic of Ireland. Over the years, terrorists have demonstrated their ability to try to circumvent or subvert the judicial system. They have ruthlessly attacked the judiciary—the murder of Judge Doyle being the latest example—and have also attacked members of the public who have had the courage to act as witnesses against them. As we have seen from the pressures put upon these witnesses, which have included threats of violence against their families made in open court, these men of violence are deeply concerned about the damage which such evidence can cause to their own organisations. I am convinced that we must ensure that the courts have the powers to withstand these pressures and to arrive at the true facts. Without the special procedures introduced by this Act, the courts would encounter serious difficulties in ensuring that justice is done.

I recognise that there are those who have reservations about certain of the provisions in this Act, notwithstanding the fact that they may in principle agree to the need for its continuance. I do not intend to take up time at this stage with detailed arguments for the renewal of each separate element of the Act. Your Lordships will be aware of the review which has now been set up to inquire into the Act, with a view particularly to ensuring that—however difficult—a proper balance is maintained between the liberties of the individual and the need to give the security forces and the courts adequate powers to protect the public from a unique and awful threat. The review is being undertaken by Sir George Baker, who has already started work. I have myself in this week had a meeting with Sir George. I am sure that it would not be right to make any changes to the legislation by allowing any particular sections to lapse until Sir George's work is completed. It is then, not now, that the Government and your Lordships will want to consider the nature of the provisions. For all these reasons, I believe that it would be imprudent and prejudicial to do anything other than extend their life for another six months, and I seek your Lordships' agreement to that. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)

11.39 a.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I always find it useful to follow the noble Earl, because, in general, I find that his approach to these serious problems is one which is in line with the views of myself and my colleagues. I join him in his tribute to the effectiveness of our security forces. Naturally, we regret that continued violence and terrorism necessitates renewal of the emergency provisions order. Although it is generally accepted that the basic cause is men of and violence, nevertheless the serious economic and social conditions which we have debated on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House are also contributory causes. That is one reason, apart from others, why we supported the recently debated move towards industrial incentives.

We on this side of the House have always regarded the six-monthly consideration of the renewal of the order as an opportunity also to discuss the operation of the emergency provisions. As the noble Earl has said, for some time there have been reservations, particularly by those on these Benches and by my colleagues in the other place, about certain aspects of the emergency provisions. I agree with the noble Earl that this is neither the time nor the place to go into the details. First, your Lordships discussed many of these points in the recent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Secondly, as the noble Earl has said, the review, which we have repeatedly urged, is now to take place. We shall await the report with considerable interest. I was pleased to note the stress laid by the noble Earl on the terms of reference: that the review must balance the interests of individual human rights and the liberty of individuals against the need for security. This, we noted, was the attitude adopted by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This we all welcomed. I am pleased to note that this attitude is to be adopted by the review to which the noble Earl has referred.

Despite the general election, I hope that this will be the last occasion when there will be a need to renew the order and that the review will enable new legislation to be introduced. In the event of a change of Government, my colleagues and I would wish this review to be completed before the order again has to be renewed. I hope this will also be the attitude of the present Government if, unfortunately, they are returned to office.

Over and above whatever steps have to be taken which are thought to be necessary in the interests of security, it is generally recognised that eventually there must be a political settlement. The last day of this Parliament is not the occasion to have a detailed debate on the future of the political situation in Northern Ireland. However, as we are debating the renewal of the order which continues direct rule, some comments must be made about it. We recognise that the continuing circumstances necessitate the renewal of the order, but we do so with reluctance. We on these Benches have never believed that direct rule could or should be a permanent or satisfactory system of government for Northern Ireland. We on these Benches gave support to the Northern Ireland Bill. We hoped that the Assembly would be able to establish a local form of administration which would receive the broad support of both communities.

Speaking for myself, I have been encouraged by the reports of discussions in the Assembly. I echo the plea of the noble Earl that even at this stage the constitutional parties and the other parties which have elected representatives at the Assembly will participate in those discussions. I am also pleased that the Secretary of State and the noble Earl have made it absolutely clear from time to time that they would not propose any steps towards devolution which did not command cross-community support. We cannot tolerate for many years the administration of Northern Ireland by Orders in Council. Although it may seem trivial to refer to it, our recent debate on the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order showed clearly that matters which ought to be the subject of primary legislation should not be dealt with by Orders in Council. That order introduced, as was mentioned in the debate, primary legislation which should have been the subject of a Bill.

We have considered the emergency provisions. These orders go together. We on these Benches have declared our desire for reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland and, ultimately, reconciliation between North and South. However, we have no illusions. Reconciliation cannot be achieved overnight. We have also declared unreservedly that any constitutional change would require the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I have no desire to engage in electioneering on a matter of this kind. However, noble Lords may ask about the policy of the party which sits on these Benches. In our campaign document, which undoubtedly will be part of our election manifesto, we make this clear declaration. We aim to establish an agreed devolved administration; in the meantime we shall continue with direct rule. We shall also initiate early discussions between the British Government, the Irish Government, the Irish Labour Party, the trade unions on both sides of the border and political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland on how best to proceed with our policy of unification by consent.

It is in that spirit that we support renewal of the first order, which continues direct rule, and also the renewal of the emergency provisions order, for the reasons outlined by the noble Earl, which we support. In the meantime, it behoves everyone who believes in constitutionalism to be careful in their words and actions. Eventually there has to be a political settlement. Security measures are required now, but at the end of the day there must be political action to deal with this problem. If we cannot in our own civilised way deal with the problem of Northern Ireland, the outlook for the wider problems of the world remains dismal.

11.48 a.m.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I am not very well up on dissolutions, but instinct tells me that this is not the time for lengthy debate. I shall speak to both orders together, and briefly. My party supports the present Northern Ireland Assembly, favours its deliberations by elected members and looks forward to a return to power sharing in the Province. One hopes that this could then be followed by the rolling devolution of powers, in place of direct rule from Westminster.

I was attracted by a misguided, while welcome, suggestion that a good answer to the Irish problem would be a united Ireland hack in the Commonwealth, but realism forces one to accept that that idea is not attractive to a majority of the people concerned. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have supported the guarantee that Northern Ireland should stay within the United Kingdom, so long as a majority of people clearly wish it. It would be immoral as well as unwise to go back on this guarantee.

We would welcome participation by the nationalist SDLP in Assembly affairs. We admire the work of the non-sectarian Alliance Party of Northern Ireland which is seeking with effect to bridge the divide between the two communities. We believe that consultation must certainly also proceed with Dublin. We recognise that security will have to be maintained at a very high level and that greater cross-border co-operation needs to be further encouraged. The major responsibility for security lies with the RUC and the UDR, supplemented when necessary by British armed forces. The need to protect citizens from violence and intimidation remains. Emergency legislation needs to be kept under constant review, and we anticipate Sir George Baker's review with interest. The operation of temporary provisions requires constant vigilance.

At the same time we are in no doubt that it is better to have one's liberty mildly interfered with than to suffer the ultimate in the loss of life or limb in a bomb outrage. In general, we believe that the situation in Ulster is very slowly improving and that great patience is necessary—particularly when depression sets in over renewed acts of violence and terrorism. As always, we repeat our thanks to the security forces for their courage and efficiency. We offer our support also to the great number of good people in the Province who are working—not without effect—for a better day.

I thank the noble Earl for introducing this order, but will ask him just one question. I understand that neither of these two orders needs to be renewed before the end of July. Why, then, are they being rushed through today? Since they have been passed in another place, however, it is clearly unthinkable in any case that we should oppose them now. We support them.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I should like briefly to express my support for what has been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and I will just take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, about the early renewal of these two orders, one of which does not expire until the very end of July. Mine is a completely non-controversial question, but I should like to know whether the period for which these orders are introduced—12 months and six months respectively—will run from today or from the day on which these orders would otherwise have expired?

11.52 a.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, It would take a much braver person than I to prolong the debate of this particular Parliamentary Session by more than a few minutes; but I believe we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland whose lives are fundamentally affected by the powers contained in these orders not to treat the passing of them as a mere formality.

On the first order concerning direct rule, it seems entirely appropriate that we should use the opportunity of this debate to examine the machinery of direct rule and to ensure that it is working as well as it possibly can. It is an important moment at which to remind ourselves of the existence of all the other frameworks available for working towards a final political solution for Northern Ireland which exist.

Frameworks exist to take the strain off all the vulnerabilities which prevail in the present system of direct rule. We are very grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for telling us how the new Northern Ireland Assembly is working. We all wish it well. It looks to be surviving, and discussion continues there. That is of great importance. We are also extremely grateful that such a thorough examination was made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, into the workings of the PTA, and we are pleased to hear that Sir George Baker has already started on a review of the EPA. We should like the Government to give constant support to the enormous amount of community work that is in progress in Northern Ireland—without which no political policies could be of any avail. We must also ask the Government to remember that the economic conditions in Northern Ireland, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, will be almost impossible to improve without a political solution.

From the point of view of the other frameworks, we hope the Government (if they are returned) will remember that there is, first, a very good relationship between Dublin and London. This sometimes suffers from the most terrible hiccups, and we have seen that happen very recently. It is all the more reason why the work of finding a solution for Northern Ireland should be based on mutual trust and good relations. Another framework is that presented by the EEC. Again, we should like the Government to remember that, in order to establish a framework that eases the tensions of direct rule, we should like them to think again about the report offered by the European Parliament on the political and economic crisis. If something were to come out of this, it would be advantageous to the people of Northern Ireland.

With regard to the second order before us, the noble Earl himself was saying that we must concentrate on the balance between the need to maintain law and order and the need to preserve civil rights for the people in Northern Ireland. Getting that balance right is of critical importance when one is involved in a struggle with paramilitary organisations of such a horrific nature.

I welcome the review. We on this side of the House have been asking since 1981 for this review and we eagerly look forward to its findings. As the noble Earl said, many of us are concerned about particular areas. We are concerned that the people of Northern Ireland cannot get justice from these courts. They are worried about the length of time that suspects are held by the police for interrogation. It is a well known fact that if someone is held for seven days, all kinds of problems and repercussions result; for example, a man may lose his job if he is so detained. This is of great concern to the people who live there and who may suffer under the particular powers in these orders.

I should like also to ask the Minister just two further questions. First, will the Government remember that it is important that any preventive programme carried out either in the social services or among community workers should aim to reduce the incidence of crime and the potential for it among young people in the Province? While the rate of unemployment is particularly high in the Province, juvenile crime in Northern Ireland is very often brought on by boredom and frustration. Once a young person becomes involved in crime in Northern Ireland, the next step might be for him to enter one of the paramilitary organisations. Preventive work is of enormous importance in the area of security in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, does the noble Earl the Minister not agree that in order to help all those responsible for religious communities in Northern Ireland to maintain security, the press and other media of this country would be encouraged to give a more balanced view of what is going on there? I am constantly made aware of the fact that people here have no idea of the sterling work that is being done among the communities of Northern Ireland to overcome their own problems. This is very much the fault of the media, which should give some encouragement and a more balanced view of what is happening, which would be highly supportive to all those people who are working for a better future. Having said that, I should like to support the passing of these orders.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I wonder whether I may be permitted to add just one sentence? I was fortunate enough to win the first place in the ballot for 25th May in respect of a Motion favouring a united Ireland. The general election will no doubt bring many benefits to many people but unfortunately it has had the disadvantage of postponing that Motion. Indeed, I believe that I have to start all over again and there is no certainty that I shall be so successful. I should just like to assure everybody that I shall not only do all in my power to ballot again but also to exercise any influence that I may have to bring a Motion of that kind before this House as soon as possible. I am very glad that the attitude of our party as stated by our deputy leader, my noble friend Lord Underhill, is as he described it.

12 noon

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I am most grateful for the general tone of the short debate on these orders, and the supportive line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, from the Opposition Benches. I would like to thank both noble Lords for their conduct of Opposition throughout this Parliament while they have had that task. It is, I think, immensely important, far more important than many people recognise, that there should be some continuity and balance of policy in respect of Northern Ireland between the major political parties here, simply because Northern Ireland politics, which we all know are very difficult and intractable, are fundamentally about Northern Ireland issues and not about issues which directly affect the parties within the rest of the United Kingdom.

Of course, one of the reasons why we agree with the Benches opposite that direct rule is not satisfactory is not because it has not provided stability and equity of administration—I believe it has, under successive Governments—but because the different political system in Northern Ireland means that there is no input from the Northern Ireland electorate to those who govern them, and in the long term that must be a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is for those reasons, rather than for any sinister constitutional ambitions or for any desire to tinker around with a sensitive and difficult area of politics, that we have determinedly and against great odds tried to assemble together some form of local political debate and movement, with the prospect at least of the possibility, however hard it may be to achieve, of that Assembly taking back some regional responsibility for matters which, as all noble Lords have said, are deeply the concern of the people who live there.

Having thanked the noble Lords opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in particular—for supportive conduct of Opposition, I do, I must say, slightly regret (and I say this in no electioneering spirit, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware; Northern Ireland is not fundamentally an election issue in Britain at this time) the line taken by the Labour Party about unification by consent, because in a way this somewhat obscures the issue and the difficulty. The position of the British Government, of successive British Governments, has been very clear, that if consent were forthcoming there would be no great pressure from the rest of the United Kingdom against Irish unity being achieved. But in a way it makes the position harder in Northern Ireland if any expectations are stirred, whether here or in Northern Ireland itself, that this consent will be very likely to be forthcoming. It seems to me that it will not be forthcoming foreseeably, certainly in nearly all our lifetimes, and that therefore we must slowly start thinking, both here and in the province, and indeed among my compatriots and those of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in the Republic of Ireland, about what I would prefer to term plural or pluralist solutions, because foreseeably in the island of Ireland there will for a very long time be a British orientated population and an Irish orientated population. Those are the facts of life and we must seek to live with them. I believe that a policy which instead of remaining relatively neutral comes out for unification by consent may make the solution even harder.

That point aside, may I quickly come to some of the questions which have been put to me. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, why these orders were being put through now rather than waiting until the normal time of July and the outcome of the British general election. It seems to me that there is an important issue of confidence here. One of the problems of Northern Ireland politics is that the calling and holding of British general elections, as I have suggested, takes place in a context which is not concerned with Northern Ireland affairs. Therefore, protagonists in Northern Ireland politics are able to use British general elections as a method of putting across rather different sets of attitudes and different appeals for one kind of policy or another. It seemed to us that it was, therefore, important to make it very clear that Parliament as a whole, and all the major parties in Parliament, were concerned to underpin stability with continued direct rule during this electoral period. It makes sense, therefore, to have these orders in good place in good time before the relevant expiry dates get too close. As to the specific point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, after renewal and extension direct rule and emergency powers will run for 12 and 6 months respectively from July, not from the date of this debate.

I very much agree with the tenor of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. Did time permit—we have, I think, gone over this during economic debates—I could tell the House about the special programmes for young people and the support systems we are seeking to provide. We have some advantages over the rest of the United Kingdom. We are smaller and more intimate in scale, and we have been able to get some of these programmes off the ground rather faster than has been the case here in Britain. I am glad to report that they are working quite well.

As to the appeal the noble Baroness made—I do not know whether this was made to me or through me—for a more balanced presentation by the media, I am glad to be able to remind her and the House that the recent Northern Ireland marathon got admirable coverage on television and in the papers here. I think it did surprise and please many people, not only here but in all parts of Europe, to get television coverage showing people of all persuasions, including some members of the security forces, running through West Belfast in an amicable spirit and being cheered by large crowds of onlookers. This serves to remind us that normal life has been breaking out all over in Northern Ireland, and whatever the intractable nature of Northern Ireland politics and whatever the threats to security, which still regrettably mean that I have to come before your Lordship to renew the second order in particular, in fact the general tenor of life in the Province has immensely improved for the better.

The last word I would say is that I am very sorry, because I was looking forward to the debate that has been referred to; but the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is not the first aristocrat to become a victim of the guillotine; I rather bleed for him in this respect, as I was looking forward to going over the issue with him. That is, I am afraid, the luck of the game. My commiserations, and I hope he will be fortunate in the next Parliament.

On Question, Motion agreed to.