HC Deb 14 July 1975 vol 895 cc1191-202

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

10.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ronald Moyle)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I intend to move the Third Reading formally. I shall ask the permission of the House to speak in reply to the debate.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

We have already debated the Bill at some length during Second Reading and more briefly, but I hope constructively, in Committee. It is not my intention to cover the same ground tonight. We welcome the Bill as an essential measure in the present conditions in Northern Ireland. I reiterate my disappointment that the Government did not see fit to incorporate in the Bill measures for the punishment of the organisers of terrorist acts. It may well be that they will have to take action, especially in relation to the use of threats when recruiting for proscibed organisations.

The Bill and the principal Act which it amends cover the whole area of security policy. It is about the general principle of that policy that I wish to raise some points. The Secretary of State summed up his policy on Second Reading when he spoke of: the policies which the Government are pursuing in an effort to bring about the de-escalation of violence which permeates both communities—My objective is a permanent end to violence"—[Official Report, 27th June, 1975: Vol. 894, c. 905–7.] In Committee the Secretary of State said: It is my aim to phase out detention in the context of…a genuine, sustained cessation of violence an unfolding situation."—Official Report, Standing Committee J, 8th July 1975; c. 28.] The Opposition support and applaud those objectives. What concerns us is the strategy that is being followed to reach those objectives.

Fortunately, we have had a substantial reduction in Provisional IRA violence. We also have the incident centres, providing continuous contact with Government officials. I want to raise two points about these centres because the Secretary of State has repeatedly told the House that they fulfil a valuable rôle. He did so last Thursday in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). As I understand it, when a violent incident occurs the Provisional will either say that none of their members was involved or that they did it to administer punishment to the security forces for arresting someone or as a punishment for investigating some crime.

I have no wish to make the position more difficult. It seems that it is just such breaches of the cease-fire by the IRA that the incident centres are designed to prevent. Can the Minister of State tell us whether representations were made to officials through the incident centres before acts of violence were perpetrated? If, as the Minister indicated, there was "nothing of substance" in the complaints but, rather, that they were "an excuse", may I ask him to say whether in his opinion the "excuse" was sought by some local hotheads or by the leaders of the Provisional IRA? Can he say what the position has been about the use of the incident centres on those occasions, and whether representations were made to officials before acts of violence were carried out?

My second general point concerns the detention policy and the current security situation. The Secretary of State has told us that he believes that the kind of violence we have recently experienced in Northern Ireland is best dealt with by normal policing methods. We agree that that is largely true, but we would like to know to what extent progress is being made in reintroducing the RUC into those areas from which it has been absent and where there is still not a normal policing situation.

Detention was introduced to deal with the co-ordinated terrorist campaign against the security forces, but it is primarily a preventive measure. I should like to ask about the use of the term "prisoner of war". On 10th July, in answer to me, the Secretary of State said I cannot treat people in detention as prisoners of war who can be held until the end of the campaign."—[Official Report, 10th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 244.] It is surely a mistake to draw the conclusion that because people are not prisoners of war they must be let out even if there is a danger of renewed violence. There is here a mistaken analogy, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be drawing that conclusion. I suggest that "prisoner of war" is an inadvisable term to use for those who are being detained in Northern Ireland.

The terrorists have their strategy and the Government have theirs. We have to consider both, hoping that the Government will be able to keep the initiative. In considering cases for release, the current situation has to be considered not only in relation to whether a full-scale IRA campaign is in progress, but in relation to whether a dangerous terrorist organisation is still in existence; whether it maintains its capacity to organise violence; whether it maintains influence and power in the areas to which released detainees are likely to return. I have drawn attention to this before. If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative and we are still releasing admitted IRA members of rank and experience on to the streets of Ulster, the future outlook could be very serious and it is our duty to draw attention to that possibility.

Concern is widely felt on the subject, as is well illustrated in The Guardian today in an article on the front page. Certain suggestions are made in it which should be refuted. It says: Throughout the cease-fire negotiations between Provisional Sinn Fein and the Northern Ireland Office the IRA has insisted on its right to maintain an armed force in Ireland. That organisation is protected now to some extent by British promises to curb army and police activities in Republican areas of the North. The Government should refute that statement. We will accept their assurance, but the statement should be publicly refuted. It expresses all too clearly what many people fear, and the House should be reassured.

My final question relates to arrests by the security forces. It is possible that the Secretary of State misunderstood the question I put to him last Thursday when I asked him if the Army would continue to be ready to arrest known terrorists on criminal charges. I meant persons still at large. He did not answer that. He said that arrests had been made, and he applauded the actions of the security forces. It is important to reassure people in Northern Ireland that the present policy confers no immunity on known terrorist leaders, especially those of high rank. We should have the Secretary of State's answer clarified. I should have thought that such persons were at least subject to charges under this Bill for membership of proscribed organisations, not to mention other charges or offences listed in the schedule. The powers under the Bill are essential for the security forces and the Government. We fully support the Bill although the way in which the powers are operated is most important. We should like to wish the Secretary of State well in his search for peace, but we should be failing in our duty if we did not ask questions where there could be misunderstandings. I hope that in that spirit the Secretary of State will accept the comments I have made this evening.

10.10 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

The Bill deals with the powers of the Government and the security forces to deal with terrorism. However, there is one matter which the Bill has not really dealt with, and that concerns the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is deep feeling among the ranks of the RUC that the Government have failed in not listening to the representations made not only by the police representative authorities but also by the Superintendents' Association and other officers of high rank in the RUC.

The Act makes provision that the section which refuses bail applies to persons who have attained the age of 14 and are not serving members of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces. Therefore, members of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are not dealt with under the section which refuses bail. However, a distinction is made concerning the members of the RUC.

There is no doubt that the police are doing a signal job at present in seeking to defeat terrorism. We have been told by the Secretary of State that it is his intention to bring more policing into operation in Northern Ireland and to seek, as it were, to phase out the Army operations in the policing area and to let the RUC do the job that it is equipped and trained to do. When I raised the matter on Second Reading the Secretary of State said that this was a very important Committee point. However, as there is no Report stage to the Bill an amendment could not be tabled on Report and in Committee the point was passed over completely. Evidently none of the members of the Committee, including the United Ulster Unionist Member, realised the depth of feeling about this matter. No one appreciated that there had not been a realistic appraisal of the representations made to the Attorney-General upon this matter.

I am wondering whether the RUC will have a sympathetic hearing from the Government. At present it is carrying on this battle. Its members have been cruelly cut down when discharging their duties with integrity and courage and yet their representative voice—I am not talking about an individual but about the united voice of the men and the officers—has said to the Government "When you are considering the Bill, please look at this and please give us the same protection as you are prepared to give to other members of Her Majesty's Forces". All the police ask is that when a member of the RUC is performing his duty he should have the same protection under the law as is afforded to other members of Her Majesty's Forces. No member of the RUC who engages in terrorist activtiy will be shielded in any way by his colleagues. It is quite wrong to suggest otherwise.

However, when an IRA man is arrested and refuses to go into a police tender and force has to be used to put him into the tender, the IRA man concerned will immediately charge the police with assault. The police concerned are then brought to court and refused bail, as has happened in Northern Ireland in certain cases. These facts cannot be denied.

When the police made these pleas to the Attorney-General and representations to the Government, surely the voice of the RUC should have been heeded. I have raised this matter on two previous occasions. I trust that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will be able to give us a satisfactory assurance so that the RUC will know that their praise is not only praise on the Minister's lips at the Dispatch Box, but that the Government are prepared to stand by them in their battle against terrorists.

I trust that in another place the Bill can be so amended that a police officer carrying out and performing his duty has the same protection as the rest of the members of Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Michael Mates (Petersfield)

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is alleging discrimination between the police and the rest of the security forces. He will be aware that when a soldier is bailed it is a technical matter, because there is provision in the Army Act for him to be held in military custody. There is no such provision for a policeman to be held. Therefore, the discrimination is not as real is the hon. Gentleman is making out.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The hon. Gentleman does not know the feelings of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Nor is he aware of the representations that have been made on this matter not only by the ranks but by high-ranking officers of the RUC.

At present, as I have illustrated, if a policeman attempts to arrest a member of the IRA and that man resists arrest so that force has to be used, that IRA man can bring a charge of assault against the police officer and that police officer cannot get bail in the lower court. Therefore, he has to be held in custody on a charge made by a terrorist.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)

Alleged terrorist.

Rev. Ian Paisley

If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that members of the IRA who have been tried and found guilty of terrorist activities are alleged terrorists, he may do so. I am referring to people whom the courts have found guilty of terrorist activities and are now serving terms of imprisonment. Justice has taken its course. A person has been tried in a court of law. The evidence has been put before the judge, the judge has tried the case, the man has been found guilty, has been sentenced, and is now in prison. That is the type of man who has brought charges against members of the RUC. Naturally, the police feel very sore about this matter. It is not a case of the RUC engaging in terrorist activities. If a member of the RUC were to engage in terrorist activities, none of his colleagues would want to try to justify what he did. It is as simple as that. This is an important matter on which I trust we shall have some satisfaction from the Minister.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I wish to ask the Minister of State about the relationship between this Bill and the law in England and the situation of someone who is charged with perhaps a terrorist offence in this country and is also charged with an offence under this Bill in Northern Ireland. Shall we extradite him to Northern Ireland? For example, under Clause 15 it will be an offence for someone to train a person in the making or use of firearms, explosives or explosive substances". If there is a charge outstanding against someone in Northern Ireland under this provision and he is found in this country in possession of explosives, shall we extradite him to Northern Ireland?

The House will appreciate my concern and anxiety from the discovery of 500 lbs. to 700 lbs. of gelignite, togther with rifles, sten guns, ammunition and a machine gun, in a rather tatty terraced house in my constituency. Although, according to the tape only an hour ago, the police have denied that there is a terror campaign in this country, no one can believe that this is an isolated case. We in the North-West are very concerned. The story of the death list is perhaps a little exaggerated, and I have no proof about it, but there is no doubt whatever of the plans which were discovered to blow up Army and police installations in the north-west.

If a person charged with such an offence is extradited to Northern Ireland on a more minor charge of having trained somebody or having taking instruction in explosives, we shall not feel that that is very satisfactory. I am glad that the Secretary of State is shaking his head.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The person concerned cannot be extra- dited to another part of the United Kingdom, whatever else can happen.

Mr. Page

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for correcting the word I used. Perhaps "extradited" was not the right word. Let us suppose that the person is transferred for trial in Northern Ireland. If there is a number of these cells, particularly in the North-West, as we have every reason to believe from the facts which are emerging, I should not like anybody charged with the offence of accumulating a quantity of explosives, ammunition and guns here to be transferred to Northern Ireland for trial.

I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give me an assurance on this matter. It is extremely worrying. Each day more information becomes available about this particular case, and the public is in no way calmed about it. If by passing legislation in this House relating only to Northern Ireland we are relinquishing our right to try anybody charged with these offences in this country, I hope that the House will not stand for it.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Moyle

With permission, I should like to reply to the debate.

The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) raised a number of matters concerning the incidents centres in which the contact is the Provisional Sinn Fein. They are valuable as they serve to clear up many incidents which might otherwise be obscure, and it would not help if they were left in that fashion. I do not wish to add anything more other than to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the numerous statements on the incidents centres made in the House in the last few months by my right hon. Friend since the institution of the cease-fire.

The hon. Member for Abingdon was anxious to discover what progress had been made in the return of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to areas where hitherto they had not been in force. There has been an RUC presence in all areas of the Province in various forms, although not perhaps in as active a form as we might like. Primarily, the organisation of the operation for increasing the policing of the areas to which he referred is the responsibility of the chief constable who must make his judgment on the facts as he sees them and act accordingly.

The hon. Gentleman was anxious to clear up the question of what he referred to as the prisoner-of-war status of detainees in Northern Ireland. The key to the question is that we cannot use them as hostages. My right hon. Friend cannot leave them there for the duration of the campaign. He must review each case on the merits of the situation as he sees it at the time and accord a release or otherwise as his judgment informs him when he considers the case. That covers the release of detainees to areas where the hon. Gentleman thought that there were active guerrilla forces in operation. My right hon. Friend is determined that the release of detainees and the rôle of the Army shall continue in accordance with the statements which he has made in the House several times in the past few months.

Mr. Neave

Does not the Minister think that the use of the term "prisoner of war" is emotive in this context and rather unsuitable? On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to this kind of activity as not being open and honourable warfare. Would it be better to cease using that expression when referring to these activities?

Mr. Moyle

The Government are in total agreement with those remarks. I cannot think how any misunderstanding of that matter could have arisen. We do not regard any of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers as prisoners of war. It is as simple as that. Our attitude to them is not informed by those considerations.

The Government can give without reservation the assurance sought on the question of the arrest of terrorists on criminal charges.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised an interesting point about the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the possibility that its members might be refused bail or released on bail, whereas members of the Armed Forces are allowed to leave court without putting down bail. The Government understand that this might lead members of the RUC to feel that they are being unjustly treated or that they are not being treated in accordance with the way with which other members of the security forces are dealt. If he had wanted to, the hon. Gentleman could have put down an amendment on Report. My right hon. Friend amended the Bill in Committee.

We shall discuss the four cases in which bail was refused to members of the RUC. Three of those cases relate to one incident at Cookstown. That is the extent of the problem in numerical terms.

Mr. Carol Mather (Esher)

I wished to take part in the debate but, unfortunately, I was detained. I wished to raise the point concerning the RUC. There is strong feeling amongst the RUC on this issue, as members of the Armed Forces are dealt with differently. The hon. Gentleman must do something about this if he is to maintain the confidence and the high standard of morale of the RUC.

Mr. Moyle

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the morale of the RUC is high. The last thing my right hon. Friend and I want to do is to give members of the RUC the impression that they are second-class citizens. One of my jobs in Northern Ireland is to keep day-to-day contact between the RUC and the Government, so I see a lot of the RUC. In spite of the great dangers to which the members of the RUC have been subjected in years past, and in spite of the tremendous strain placed upon them in terms of long hours on duty and decisions that have to be taken in difficult circumstances, the RUC is a first-class force. It is now a very young force. Over half the members have joined the RUC since the emergency began. It is a keen, well-trained force, and my right hon. Friend and I have every confidence in the ability of the members of the RUC to undertake their duties. Therefore, it is no intention on our part to treat the members of the RUC as second-class citizens that has caused the differentiation in treatment to come about.

The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) put his finger on the point that members of the Armed Forces are subject to the Army Acts. Legislation gives greater powers over individual members of the Armed Forces than legislation gives to senior officers of the RUC over members of the RUC. The Army officer suitably appointed can come into court and say with his hand on his heart that if a member of the Armed Forces is given bail he will return to court on the appropriate day, because the Army can hold him in barracks until the appointed day of the trial. No similar legislation exists for members of the RUC, who are people just like the hon. Gentleman and myself. They are civilians whose business it happens to be to apprehend criminals.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Surely the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The Act provides that members of the RUC can get bail from a judge in a higher court. What is the difference between a judge giving them bail in a higher court and a magistrate giving them bail? Will the Minister confirm that the representative body of the RUC has made strong representations to the Attorney-General on this matter?

Mr. Moyle

That is an entirely different point from the one raised originally by the hon. Gentleman. It is the desire of the Government, as enshrined in the new emergency legislation, to ensure that so far as possible there is standardisation in decisions on bail. That is why the matter is now being dealt with in higher courts than those originally intended. There are many magistrates' courts and fewer High Courts. There is, therefore, less likelihood of trouble arising when people are shunted about from one court to another in Northern Ireland. So there is also a security argument for the general policy we are pursuing.

The members of the RUC are dealt with in exactly the same way as are all other civilians and not dealt with in the same way as the Armed Forces, because the Armed Forces have special legislation which to a great extent restricts their freedom in special circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman says that he wants the same protection for the RUC as there is for the Armed Forces, he is in effect asking the Government to introduce legislation to restrict the freedom of members of the RUC compared with that of other civilians. Members of the RUC should reflect deeply on that issue before they press their case further. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do so as well.

One vital point raised by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was answered by my right hon. Friend. The general principle is that where people have committed offences they should be tried in the place where the offences have been committed. Broadly speaking, the more detailed matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the Liverpool area are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rather than for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.