HC Deb 01 August 1975 vol 896 cc2447-59

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

I intervene shortly beause I know that other hon. Members wish to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. The Bill was described on Second Reading as an act of faith. We then made it quite clear that we welcomed it as a first step forward. We had certain reservations which came out in Committee and I shall not repeat those points now.

I must place firmly on record that there are a number of flaws in the Bill which might be highlighted by a renewed campaign of violence in this country and elsewhere. These were points very much in the mind of the Committee. For instance, we could be faced with citizens of the Republic who escaped from here after causing explosions. I mentioned these difficulties at the time.

The Minister of State mentioned the question of reciprocal legislation in Dublin. We understand that all stages of the Bill will not be completed in the Dail for some time. Indeed, they may not be completed until Christmas. Therefore, we are entitled to express the view that not too long a period should elapse before the legislation comes into operation. We must recognise that the Dublin Government have recently acted with admirable firmness against certain people. We should not criticise them on that account.

When the two Bills become law—I am referring to the Minister of State's remarks in Committee—and are operable, perhaps the question of a further meeting between Irish and United Kingdom judges could take place, similar to the meetings of the Law Enforcement Commission, to make a further examination of this difficult problem.

The delays that have occurred have made this legislation appear somewhat irrelevant to a number of people in Northern Ireland. It was drawn up to deal with a problem that was regarded in December 1973 as urgent and serious. If it does not become operative until 1976, it appears that, in the absence of any retrospective provisions such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) mentioned on Second Reading, it will deal only peripherally with the problem that it was originally designed to meet.

It is not my intention to pour cold water on these provisions. I wish to draw attention to what I think we all understood was second best legislation. None the less, the positive aspect exists and must be stressed. I hope that all those who are thinking of any new campaign of terror will look upon this legislation as a warning. It is certainly a symbol of democratic Government in London and Dublin, designed to unite and defeat armed terror. For those reasons, we welcome Third Reading of the Bill.

11.46 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

When a country is faced with terrorist attacks there is a great need for the necessary machinery to be available to resist and to defeat such attacks. No country in the world has ever had to face guerilla attacks like Northern Ireland so greatly ill-equipped. At the beginning of the trouble in Northern Ireland the lines of defence were removed by the folly of this House of Commons. There was the destruction of Ulster defences, the disarming of the RUC and the disbanding of the Ulster Special Constabulary. We then discovered that we did not have the machinery in law to deal with terrorist attacks. Therefore, Northern Ireland found itself in a difficult position when facing up to terrorism.

The Bill is important, because I suppose it is the first time since the Irish Treaty that the Dublin Government and Her Majesty's Government have co-operated in a piece of legislation of a constitutional nature. As a representative from Northern Ireland I must look at this legislation carefully. The Minister of State, referring to the process of the Bill in Dublin, said They are at the moment, as we are, discussing amendments and we hope for a speedy process for the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 1st July 1975; c. 18.] The Bill has not had a speedy process in Dublin. It has not been welcomed or given any blessing by the Opposition in that Parliament.

On 28th November 1974 the Bill was introduced in the Dail. It was to have a Second Reading on 12th December 1974. Something happened to it. It became lost and was not discovered until 9th April 1975. It was then withdrawn completely from the Lower House. It was introduced to the Senate of the Dublin Parliament on 10th April. A unique thing happened to it. There was a vote on First Reading, which is an unusual occurrence on a Bill in that House. It scraped through only by a very narrow majority. It continued its passage in Committee, and only now has it finished the process. It cannot be reintroduced into the Dail until October. I understand that the Government have a majority of only two in that House. The Opposition have made it clear that if the Bill is passed they will challenge it in the courts. Immediately it is challenged in the courts I understand that it cannot be operated as the law of the country. Consequently it could not come into operation until very late in 1976. It is not making speedy progress in the Dublin Parliament.

The second matter is that it is quite likely—and we would be blinking our eyes at the obvious if we did not face the fact—that if the Convention in Northern Ireland comes up with some sort of solution to the problem of government in Northern Ireland, there will be those in Northern Ireland intent on destroying the possibility of that solution taking effect by legislation. They will be intent in a campaign of the most dastardly and diabolical violence on overthrowing any solution that the Convention may suggest. Members of the Convention must face the fact that if they are successful they will face renewed violence.

The trouble is that we have not the necessary control under this legislation to deal with such an outbreak of violence which could occur as a result of the Convention succeeding in making proposals generally acceptable for the government of Northern Ireland. So Northern Ireland finds itself in a very difficult position.

We have had—and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) referred to them yesterday in his speech on the Adjournment motion which I was reading this morning—the killing of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the killing of members of the British Army and the killing of members of the civilian population, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. In the past few days we had a brutal and dastardly murder in Dungiven where two police officers sought to do their duty and to keep that town from having a bombing in its main street. One was shot down in cold blood. The other was very seriously injured and after he was shot those guilty of the murder robbed him of his weapon. We do not know where those assassins are. They could be across the border in the South of Ireland. If they are, this legislation does not help us at all. I do not blame Her Majesty's Government for this. I believe that the blame lies with the Southern Government for not being prepared to have a straight extradition treaty.

Mr. Orme

This is a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). If an act of criminal violence takes place and the person or persons responsible enter the Republic, whatever citizenship they have they could then be tried under this legislation and be brought to justice if they were arrested. This legislation will ensure that people in either part of Ireland can be dealt with. It is not exactly the type of legislation that the Government or this House may have wanted. There are more simple and straightforward means of dealing with this situation. But we have to deal with it as we find it. However such a case as that outlined by the hon. Gentleman could be dealt with.

Reverend Ian Paisley

I am afraid that I must take up this point with the right hon. Gentleman. This is very important. He is not right in what he says. This legislation is not retrospective and the Prime Minister of the Republic has given an assurance that those responsible for any crimes committed before this Bill becomes law in the South of Ireland will not be dealt with at all. Those are the facts of the situation and the right hon. Gentleman should be aware of our concern about those facts.

Mr. Orme

I take the point fully. I accept that the legislation is not retrospective. When I intervened just now I was referring to an incident which might occur when this legislation had become law. We can move in that direction only when it is on the statute book and accepted by both Parliaments. From then on, any crime can be dealt with. But I accept that this legislation is not retrospective.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I was dealing with the killing of the police officer in Dungivan and using it as an illustration. But we have also had the dastardly killing of four members of the British Army in Fork Hill. We have had the killings on the Newry Road. If the people responsible are now across the border, this legislation will not help us at all to bring them to justice.

I am trying to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that this state of affairs does not exist because of the attitude of his Government or of the previous one. It is because of the resistance of the Dublin Government to a straight extradition treaty.

We have heard a great deal in this House about the Irish dimension. We have also heard a lot about the United Kingdom dimension. But let us be clear that this Bill has no United Kingdom dimension. That is its great weakness. The right hon. Gentleman should know that there could not only be a terrible campaign of violence too horrible to contemplate in Northern Ireland but that it could be brought across the water. Acts of terrorism such as that which happened in Birmingham could be repeated on this side of the water. The tragedy of this Bill is that we have not the United Kingdom dimension in it, and it is a serious weakness.

I turn to another matter. If this Bill goes before the Dail Eireann and certain amendments are made, and if the Government there have to make certain concessions to the Opposition to get it through at all, can the right hon. Gentleman say today what he will do? Shall we have to scrap this Bill and have an entirely new one? It could be that amendments moved and accepted in the Dail Eireann would weaken some of the matters in this Bill that we have sought to strengthen. If those matters are diluted in the Dail Eireann, shall we have to have new legislation? What procedure will the United Kingdom Government adopt? The right hon. Gentleman had better face the fact that this Bill will run into the heaviest of water in the Dail Eireann.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

indicated assent—

Rev. Ian Paisley

I see that the hon. Member for Belfast, West agrees with me. We know the situation in Dublin in regard to this Bill. We know the savage attacks which have been made upon the Law Officers of the Crown in Northern Ireland in the course of the debate in the Senate in the South. We know about the savage and uncalled for remarks about the RUC and the British Army.

We have before us a piece of legislation which does not deal positively enough with the situation. I know that the hon. Member for Abingdon said that we should welcome it although it was second best. We welcome anything which will help in this matter. We cannot get all that we want, and therefore we must he prepared to accept some sort of compromise. But our feeling is that this is more than a compromise. Our feeling is that there has been a failure on the part of the Government to force this issue on the Dublin Government.

Let me quote from the report of the Law Enforcement Commission from which this legislation came. The British judges made a vital point which has never been answered by Dublin. Here we come to the kernel of the argument. There is no internationally recognised distinction between the propriety of trying a fugitive political offender and surrendering him to the authorities of the place of the offence. The Dublin Government are saying that they will try him in their territory. They have tried to say that this is because of international law. However, the British judges have emphasised that there is no difference in international law and that he could be delivered up to the authorities in Northern Ireland and be tried in Northern Ireland.

I suggest that the only way of tackling this matter is to have a straight extradition treaty. The Lord Chancellor, speaking in the House of Lords, demonstrated that this is the real difficulty for Dublin. He said about Dublin, It has been ruled there time and time again that if a man who is a terrorist appears before a court in the Republic and says 'Yes, but I did it as a member of the IRA', and then it is immediately classified as being an offence of a political character and therefore not extraditable."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th February 1975; Vol. 357, c. 558.] This is the great problem before us. The Government must again take up this matter because the South of Ireland, which to a certain extent has not suffered from this terrorist campaign, could in the near future have to face a serious terrorist problem. While we give a Third Reading to the Bill we should put up the warning lights for Northern Ireland and let the people know that until the Bill becomes law in another place it cannot help the situation and there is no machinery to face the present bleak prospects on terrorism in Northern Ireland. We need to face that fairly and squarely this morning.

We, in Northern Ireland, are fighting for our very existence and our lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the United Ulster Unionist Coalition Party, said yesterday that while others in this House are concerned about the well-being and comfort of their constituents during the recess, we are concerned about the very lives of our constituents.

This morning as we pass the Bill let us not think that it puts into the hands of either the Government or the security forces any immediate weapon that can be effectual in dealing with the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland. As we pass the Bill let us have the right attitude to what is happening in Northern Ireland and what can happen there. There is a situation in which the Government of the United Kingdom do not have the power to get these criminals back from the South for proper trial in Northern Ireland. Extradition has been a one-way street—we have been extraditing to the South of Ireland but the South has not extradited one person accused of a terrorist crime. Let that be put fairly and squarely on the record.

I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be voting against the Bill. We shall be giving it our support, but we should point out that it does not help us in the present dark hour we face in Northern Ireland.

12.5 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Before the House parts with the Bill on Third Reading I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State should formally repeat—as I know he is able to and will—the assurance about the Bill being brought into effect. The clear understanding is that this Act will not be brought into effect by the Secretary of State unless and until the Secretary of State is satisfied that simultaneously equivalent legislation will come into force in the Irish Republic. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State at an earlier stage has said this, but he will appreciate that the importance is such that it is only right that it should be confirmed upon Third Reading, which is our last opportunity. That is the more cogent, for a reason which has just been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

The House, on Report a few minutes ago, made a last amendment to the Bill upon the basis that it would thereby be in unison with the Bill before the Irish Parliament. However, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, it may well be that the Irish Government, in order to secure the passage of their Bill, will have to accept or will decide to make appreciable amendments to the corresponding legislation. In that case I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government will find themselves in a difficulty because unless those are very minor matters, the Secretary of State will be unable to alter this legislation. That is why the Government have been unwise and have disregarded advice in this respect which was given earlier to clarify this situation through all the stages of the Bill before a similar point had been reached in the Irish Republic.

Therefore, we now require—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand this—that the assurance shall be not only that this will not be activated without the activation of the same legislation in the Republic, but that if the legislation in the Republic is appreciably amended, this Bill will not be put into effect without the corresponding amendments having been made here. I am sure that this is implicit, but I am equally sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it has to be made explicit at this stage.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I wish to make one other point. It is, unfortunately, a point which may become very live in the coming months. Therefore, what I am saying, like so much that is said from this bench, is very much in the interests of Her Majesty's Government. After this Act has become effective, if it ever does, and if outrages were committed in Great Britain by persons who then sought refuge in the Irish Republic, there would then be an outburst of criticism against Her Majesty's Government for having failed to secure for this legislation what my hon. Friend called a "United Kingdom dimension".

We all understand the difficulties. The right hon. Gentlemen may find what I am asking him to do a help in days of trouble. On Second Reading on 19th June the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General recognised the desirability of what we may call the "United Kingdom dimension". As reported in column 1740 he referred to a gap in the protection which we seek to give by this legislation. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government have recognised publicly that there is a gap in that protection. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also recognised that the point was taken by Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, that they had considered whether they should not have, as it were, a dormant provision in this Bill so that if the agreement of the Republic to a United Kingdom application was obtained, that could be put into effect at once.

He finally said: We"— that is, Her Majesty's Government— should no doubt see whether the Irish felt that that degree of extension of their legislation as well as of ours, might be put into effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 1740–41.] What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is simply to confirm the implication of those words of his right hon. and learned Friend so that if the unhappy event which I have indicated should occur, then at any rate Her Majesty's Government and we on these benches can say, "At any rate, it is perfectly clear that the United Kingdom has done everything in its power, has made all the representations it could, to secure that there is reciprocity not merely between Northern Ireland and the Republic but between the United Kingdom and the Republic." At least that will be some protection to him and to us if that day of trouble comes and people ask why they are not given the redress that they would have if the crime had been committed in Northern Ireland for a crime which has been committed in Great Britain.

I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to respond to both those appeals.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.

12.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme)

I thank the House for the brief but significant debate we have had today on Third Reading.

The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) made some welcome remarks about the Bill, as did other hon. Members. The Government recognise that this is not perfect legislation. I think that someone said this moning that it was imperfect. We live in an imperfect world. We should not underestimate the changes which will take place when this legislation, we hope, has gone through the Dail and through both Houses of our Parliament. I shall say something about the position in the Republic, as the Government understand it, in a moment.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Abingdon regarding the judges, and whether it might be useful to have another meeting when both Bills have become law. The Government will take due note of that point and look at it at the appropriate time.

At this stage I should like to pay tribute to the co-operation of the Garda from the South and the RUC in the North. The co-operation between these two police forces has never been better. There is an understanding about dealing with terrorism on either side of the border, a border which we are all well aware is about 300 miles long. It takes a great deal of work to monitor and cover it. The co-operaton is to be welcomed.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised the question of what would happen if the parallel Bill were substantially altered in Dail Eireann. I think that we can take confidence from the fact that that Bill was passed in the Senate by 25 votes to 13, and the Bill was not weakened but strengthened. We are hopeful that the Bills will go through both Parliaments without major amendment.

Coming to the specific point, however, it is only correct to say on behalf of the Government that unless the two Bills are substantially reciprocal, they cannot work. I do not want to deal with a hypothetical question today. I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, North was not posing a hypothetical question, although he asked what would happen if such-and-such amendments were made. We have confidence and we take note of the strength of the desire on the part of the Irish Government that this legislation will not be significantly altered. In fact, the amendment I moved earlier this morning, which strengthened the Bill, was to meet a claim made in the Upper House of the Irish Parliament that on this one aspect the Irish Bill was tougher than the British Bill. Therefore, we have strengthened our Bill.

The right hon. Member for Down, South asked me to reiterate in the House the statement I made in Committee that the Bills will be put into effect simultaneously. They will be enacted simultaneously. Obviously, the two Bills are reciprocal and they go in tandem. One Bill would not be of any value without the other. The Government accept that. Therefore, we would want to see a joint date for the operation of the major part of this legislation. There is a minor part, as has been recognised, that we can implement as soon as we have obtained the Royal Assent, but it would be the Government's intention—it is the only logical thing—that the two Bills should come into force simultaneously and operate from an agreed date, we hope. Therefore, I hope that that meets the point raised.

The right hon. Member for Down, South raised a further point regarding the operation of the Bill within the United Kingdom. I can confirm that should the situation warrant it, Her Majesty's Government will not hesitate to take up again the question of the extension to the United Kingdom with the Irish Government. I give that undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Powell

That is very helpful. I wonder whether I might make a minor addition to it, if I can take the right hon. Gentleman so far. He said, "If the situation warrants it, then"—and that is hypothetical, too—" in the future the Government would take certain actions". What I am putting to him is that it would be advisable for Her Majesty's Government, as well as for all of us, before there is time for such a situation to arise, to be already in communication with their opposite numbers in the Republic and to be able genuinely to say that so far as they are concerned, they are endeavouring to secure that extension. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not limit his assurance to something which starts only after something we do not want to happen has indeed happened.

Mr. Orme

I am trying to help the House and the right hon. Gentleman, and to take the point as far as it is possible to take it today from the Government's point of view. There are continual discussions, obviously, as I have outlined, between the RUC and the Garda, for instance, affecting terrorism and about halting terrorism. I take the point the right hon. Gentleman has made, I cannot go beyond what I have said. I am certain that this debate will be read not only throughout the United Kingdom but also in the Republic. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would want to act at the earliest opportunity if the situation warranted that. Perhaps I could leave the matter at that point. I think I have gone a long way to meet the right hon. Gentleman.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point that my right hon. Friend was putting. It is not a matter of acting if the situation should warrant it. It is a matter of acting if the situation should warrant it. It is a matter of making preparation now against that evil day. What my right hon. Friend is asking the right hon. Gentleman to impress upon the Secretary of State is that he should now have discussions with the Government of the Republic to deal with the eventualities. As my right hon. Friend has said, it is often too late to act.

Mr. Orme

I take the point, and I think that I have gone a long way to meet it. I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the remarks made this morning and I am sure that they will be noted both in the Republic and by Her Majesty's Government.

The Bill is a positive step forward. Extradition has been mentioned, and that was the British Government's first position. Despite the political reality, we must not underestimate the courage of the stand of people in the Republic in facing up to their situation.

With those words, I hope that the Bill be given a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.