HC Deb 19 March 1997 vol 292 cc1011-30 11.16 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler)

I beg to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved. The draft order will continue in force for 12 months, from 16 June, the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. The Act comprises a range of provisions, almost all of them temporary, which supplement the ordinary criminal law for the purposes of combating terrorism in Northern Ireland. It provides the police and the Army in Northern Ireland with specific operational powers to assist them in successfully deterring and disrupting terrorist attacks, and to enable them to bring to justice the perpetrators of serious terrorist crime. It also strengthens the criminal justice systems in certain important respects.

In particular, the Act provides for the Diplock system of non-jury trial, with its associated safeguards; for the classification of certain offences as terrorist offences unless certified otherwise by the Attorney-General; for the police and Army in certain circumstances to have powers of stop, arrest, search, entry and seizure beyond those found in ordinary criminal law; for roads to be closed; for offences against public security and public order; for the detention of terrorist suspects without trial, although that particular power is currently lapsed; for the regulation of the provision of private security services, historically a sector in which terrorists have been active; and for the special regime that operates in the police holding centres, where terrorist suspects are interviewed. The Act also provides for independent scrutiny of military complaints procedures.

I should remind the House of events as they unfolded during the early part of 1996, because it was against that background that the emergency provisions Act, then a Bill, passed through its parliamentary stages. I shall not list the atrocities. Hon. Members remember them vividly. They remember the two innocent people murdered at South Quay. They remember the people injured there, at Aldwych and in Manchester. They know that, as a result of those atrocities, many more lives were blighted for ever by terrorist thugs who think that they will get what they want by killing, maiming and bullying.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

In the light of his recital of those events, and bearing in mind the fact that in our perception the ceasefire was a sham, will the Minister accept, on behalf of his fellow Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is responsible for education in Northern Ireland, our congratulations on having given a sharp educational lecture to Senator Kennedy when he suggested that Sinn Fein could come into talks straight away, without a credible ceasefire?

Sir John Wheeler

I am grateful for those remarks. I can always count on my right hon.—perhaps I should add "and learned"—Friend to give sharp lectures when they are appropriate and needed.

Under cover of darkness, the terrorists continued their nightly punishment attacks, and behind the scenes they continued to train, to organise and to plan more evil.

Then, on 7 October, the provisional IRA detonated two car bombs, one shortly after the other and without a warning, inside Thiepval barracks, Lisburn. Thirty-eight people were injured, and Warrant Officer James Bradwell later died of his injuries. More recently, Lance-Bombardier Stephen Restorick was murdered by the provisional IRA while checking a car at a vehicle checkpoint in Bessbrook.

Those incidents are notable on account of the casualties; they are also notable in another respect. The Thiepval bombing illustrates the provisional IRA's callousness in deliberately placing the second bomb outside the medical centre—the one place that, as a result of the first bomb, could be guaranteed to be crowded with the injured and those attending to them.

The Bessbrook incident, a sniper attack at a vehicle checkpoint, illustrates starkly the provisional IRA's complete disregard of the general public, and of anything or anyone that gets in their way. Even schoolchildren merit no special consideration. Only yesterday, security forces recovered two mark 16 mortars close to a school in Derrylin, County Fermanagh. There are countless other similar examples.

In January and February this year, serious terrorist attacks were occurring at the rate of one every three or four days—and that does not include attacks aborted or thwarted. Already this year there have been two deaths, including the brutal murder of Mr. John Slane last Friday at his home in Belfast.

Here I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported as always by their family members, and to the armed forces, to whom the people of these islands owe so much. Their professionalism is reflected in the considerable catalogue of successes achieved against the terrorists in recent months.

Repeatedly, terrorist operations have been prevented, some at advanced stages of preparation, weapons have been recovered and arrests made. Last December, for example, five significant finds of arms were made. Nine such finds were made in January, eight in February, and four in the first week of this month. Since the beginning of January, there have been 155 arrests in connection with terrorist crime, and 57 people have been charged with terrorist-related offences. Several terrorist operations have been disrupted at an advanced stage.

Among the significant quantity of weaponry recovered since the end of November are 17 mortars and rocket launchers, over 5,000 lb of explosives and a number of firearms, including several automatic weapons and nearly 2,500 rounds of ammunition.

Several of these finds would not have been possible were it not for the special powers that the emergency provisions Act provides—powers to search, for example, or to stop. There can be no doubt that lives have been saved because of successful security forces operations, and because the security forces can rely on the emergency powers.

Mr. Phil Gallic (Ayr)

My right hon. Friend referred to a number of successes achieved by our armed services.

Does he agree that the armed services are always working on a knife edge, and that they never know when danger will strike? On that basis, does he agree that their performance has been absolutely superb? Is it not remarkable that so few errors of judgment have been made over many years by members of our armed services who have perhaps acted marginally out of line with their instructions?

Sir John Wheeler

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. I understand the special interest that he espouses in connection with the skills of our armed forces serving in Northern Ireland.

Special provisions of the kind contained in the Emergency Provisions Act have been in place in Northern Ireland since the early 1970s. Successive Governments have felt them necessary, and successive Parliaments have voted to keep the provisions. As the House is only too well aware, in the intervening period the people of Northern Ireland have experienced only a brief respite in the evil campaign, which, but for their resilience and successive Governments' resolve, would have destroyed the fabric of their society.

The Government have consistently said that their aim is to see the emergency powers dismantled, and that the powers will remain only for as long as they are necessary to counter terrorism. It is important that emergency powers of the kind I have described are regularly reviewed and questions asked about whether they continue to be needed and about whether they have been used fairly and properly, as Parliament intended.

For this reason, the Act incorporates a mechanism to ensure that it is reviewed annually. To inform the House's debate this evening, we shall rely on the report published earlier this month by Mr. John Rowe QC, the independent reviewer of the operation of the Act during 1996.

I take this opportunity to say that the Government are especially grateful to Mr. Rowe, who, at short notice, completed his review and produced his report to a much more constrained time scale than normal to accommodate this year's curtailed parliamentary calendar. Mr. Rowe has examined both the use made of the various provisions of the Act against the background of the prevailing security situation in Northern Ireland and their utility in terms of deterrence since it came into effect in August last year.

Mr. Rowe's conclusion is unequivocal: Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year. There is continuing terrorist activity, and there is a real threat of more of it. He adds—and the House will, I know, be reassured by this—that, so far as he can see, the provisions of the Act have been used fairly and carefully and he has not seen any examples of abuse, nor has he been told of any.

Mr. Rowe notes: During the course of my reviews of the PTA and EPA I am reminded that the United Kingdom is bound by the Treaty obligations of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which require national laws to comply with principles and standards regarding the rights of individuals". He adds that these make specific provision for arrest according to law, and proper judicial and trial procedures, and they should be borne in mind when considering whether the emergency legislation has been used fairly and properly.

Mr. Rowe goes on: I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights. A State must have a right to protect itself, but the means of protection may limit the freedom of the individual. In addition to the invaluable role performed by Mr. Rowe, we are fortunate to have the services of a number of other distinguished independent observers, who monitor particular areas of the emergency legislation. I am happy to say that the recently published reports of the independent commissioners for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. Bill Norris, and of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures, Mr. David Hewitt, provide further reassurance that the emergency powers are not being abused.

For the fourth successive year, the independent commissioners have said that they have found nothing to give anyone the slightest cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in police custody by uniformed officers at the holding centres. For his part, the independent assessor of military complaints procedures notes the continuing low level of formal, non-criminal complaints against the Army—24 in 1996—despite the increase in Army patrolling in response to the renewed threat.

The Government share Mr. Rowe's view that the provisions are still needed. They accept his conclusions, and urge the House to continue the Act in force for a further 12 months. Against the background of South Quay, the current Act—then a Bill—completed its parliamentary stages. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, drafted against a peacetime scene, has a lifespan of two years.

Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that, following the Provisional IRA's renewed campaign, there were calls for the Act's lifespan to be extended. The Government resisted, in the hope that sense would prevail and the ceasefire would be restored—a genuine ceasefire. They had already requested Lord Lloyd of Berwick to consider the future need for counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The lifespan of two years would allow the Government to consider Lord Lloyd's recommendations for proposals for a new legislative framework.

In the event, Lord Lloyd reported in October 1996, against the background of the intensifying campaign by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. He has said that, even if there were lasting peace in Northern Ireland, permanent counter-terrorism legislation would be needed to meet the threat of other kinds of terrorism, both domestic and international. He makes a series of other recommendations, all of which assume lasting peace.

The Government acknowledge the considerable contribution that Lord Lloyd makes, against the climate he was asked to assume, but as announced to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 20 February in a written answer to a parliamentary question, in the continuing absence of a lasting peace, the Government believe it is too early to reach a firm view on possible fundamental legislative change.

We hope sincerely that there will be a renewed and permanent cessation of violence, which would enable us to re-open Lord Lloyd's idea of a new legislative framework for combating terrorism. Meanwhile, the Government intend to produce in due course proposals to strengthen existing controls on terrorist finances, along the lines of Lord Lloyd's helpful analysis.

The Government continue, through the talks process currently adjourned until 3 June, to seek to secure a comprehensive political settlement, which would take account of the different aspirations of the two traditions in Northern Ireland. We seek to establish political institutions that command cross-community acceptance and thus to remove all excuses for those who would pursue political change by means of violence.

With the notable exception of Sinn Fein, which has excluded itself from the talks process, representatives of all political parties successful in the elections held on 30 May last year are working with the Government and the Irish Government to help to bring about a lasting political solution. Sinn Fein knows what it must do to get to that table. It must realise that democracy imposes obligations: it is not all rights.

Now is not the time for the House to divide on an issue such as this. I urge Opposition Members to vote with the Government tonight to continue in force the provisions of the Act and in doing so to send a clear message to the terrorists: "You haven't gone away. Nor have we. You must rethink your strategy, because we will never give in to violence. By violence, you will continue to achieve nothing. You should end it now."

11.34 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)

May I pay tribute at the outset to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler)? I believe that the following debate will be his last appearance at the Dispatch Box. Being on the Front Bench and having responsibility for security is not in the normal run of political experience, and I pay tribute to him for his unfailing courtesy and helpfulness. His respect and admiration for the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security services were evident in his speech: he has come to have a deep respect for those at the sharp end in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that they will hold him in deep respect for the contribution that he has made.

In the present circumstances, there might be a tendency, especially at this time of night, to nod through the continuance order and move on to other matters, but that would be wrong, because of the importance of the issues and because it would certainly be discourteous to the advisers to whom the Minister referred, who have invested a great deal of time in considering how the legislation has operated.

As the Minister said, we are aided by four pieces of research: the Lloyd review; J. J. Rowe's report; the report by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. Norris, the independent commissioners for the holding centres; and Mr. Hewitt's work as the independent assessor of military complaints procedure. The most important, ultimately, will be the Lloyd review.

This is not a criticism, because we did not make the point at the time, but in retrospect it seems unfortunate that the Lloyd review's terms of reference were so predicated on the continuation of the ceasefire. When the ceasefire did not continue, the tendency was to think that the review was not immediately relevant; that is not so.

In setting up the review we had the knowledge that terrorism is endemic in the modern world; we want legislation that responds to that fact. Unfortunately, the threat of all kinds of terrorism may be there in perpetuity. We should also remember that terrorism, using the definition of it as the use of violence for political ends, continued during the ceasefire.

The Government's response to Lloyd has been disappointing. Lord Lloyd himself said that many of the procedural provisions in the Emergency Provisions Acts might have taken a different form given the existence of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. He also said that once lasting peace had been established in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom there would be no need for separate Acts: one would suffice.

Of course we all hope that there will be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, but if there is not, what have the Government learnt from the Lloyd review which would lead to a change in the legislation? One of Lord Lloyd's useful contributions was to formulate a set of principles about anti-terrorist legislation.

Lord Lloyd said that legislation against terrorism should approximate as closely as possible to the ordinary criminal law and procedure and that additional statutory offences and powers may be justified, but only if they are necessary to meet the anticipated threat; and that, as the Minister acknowledged, such measures must strike the right balance between the needs of security and the rights and liberties of the individual.

Lord Lloyd said further that the need for additional safeguards should be considered alongside any additional powers and that the law should comply with the United Kingdom's obligations in international law. Those are useful yardsticks against which to judge the Emergency Provisions Act.

I found J. J. Rowe's assessment of the working of the EPA disappointing this year. I understand the constraints to which the Minister referred, but it is a thin document and often simply describes background events or the contents of the Act. There is little that is analytical or reflective. For example, nothing is said about internment, except that the power should remain lapsed. However, let me take particularly the section on scheduling.

Scheduling takes an offender into the Diplock court procedure rather than into the normal criminal court procedure. We and others in the past have suggested that instead of cases being automatically scheduled unless the Attorney-General certifies them out, the presumption should be that they would normally be dealt with by the criminal courts unless certified in to the abnormal procedure of the Diplock courts. Rowe says I do not think that the time has yet arrived when this can occur". However, appendix D of the report shows that a remarkable change has occurred between 1990 and 1996.

In 1990, 51 per cent. of 908 offences were taken out of scheduling. In 1996, 85 per cent. of 1,522 offences were taken out of the Diplock procedure and out of scheduling by the Attorney-General. Unless I have misread it totally, that seems significant. However, the matter is even more significant than that. The principal characteristic of the Diplock courts is that the judge sits without a jury to avoid intimidation of jurors, but in 1996, out of 170 offenders, 128 pleaded guilty. Those people were dealt with under the Diplock procedure, so in a sense, the services of a jury would not have been necessary anyway. Only 42 people pleaded not guilty, of whom 21 were found not guilty.

Although J. J. Rowe seems not to have noticed, the Attorney-General appears to have moved to certifying in. Only a tiny number of people in the Diplock procedure would need juries because 75 per cent. of the offenders involved pleaded guilty. It is almost as if the Attorney-General has taken the suggestions that we have been making—and we are not against this—and is moving the procedure away from the Diplock system.

I have a question about waiting times. With smaller numbers, waiting times for trials have fallen slightly, but the average time from remand to committal is 27 weeks, or just over six months. The average wait for trial, as far as one can tell from the figures, is 45 weeks, or just under a year. Averages can conceal a great deal. Would it not be valuable to include in the statistics the spread of times that people waited? We should know the maximum and minimum times waited for trial, and not only the average figure. The average seems large, although movement is in the right direction.

I commend Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and the assistant commissioner, Mr. Norris, for their report on the operation of holding centres. It is a model of what Parliament needs to consider—whether we need holding centres and what their regime should be. When Sir Louis Blom-Cooper pays tribute to the RUC by saying that over four years we have found nothing that might have given the public of Northern Ireland the slightest concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in police custody by officers at the Holding Centres", we have confidence in his statement because the rest of the report is so questioning and probing.

Can the Minister give us answers to the following questions set up by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report? Just what plans do the Government have—just what plans are the Government leaving—about the future of Castlereagh holding centre? This is the fourth time that Sir Louis has said that it should be closed. He has said: We think the time has come, if it has not long since passed, when Castlereagh must go and go today and not tomorrow. We find it intolerable that the substandard conditions at Castlereagh should disfigure a system which, in almost every respect, conforms to the required standards of treatment for detainees. Sir Louis says that even if a new building is not planned, as he believes that there should be—probably for joint use with a new police station—it would be better to close Castlereagh now that the numbers are so much reduced and use Gough barracks and Strand Road. The Government should have a position on that.

Why have the Government been so slow on the issue of silent video recording? The Secretary of State said on 12 June 1995 that he intended to introduce electronic recording. That is not far off two years ago. We considered the Report stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill on 19 February 1996, exactly 13 months ago, so why has the consultation period only just come to an end on a code of practice on silent video recording? No installation of the equipment has taken place yet.

When will Sir Louis and the rest of us receive a reasoned answer to his proposals on the circumstances in which disclosure of audio tapes could be allowed?

He made detailed proposals for safeguards. Silent video recording is restricted in what it can tell you. Sir Louis in his report used a football analogy about what one can tell about what might have been said by one person to another during a football incident. One cannot tell accurately what was said. Audio recording would be much more useful. It has particular appeal because it would deal smartly with the problems associated—the Minister will remember our interchanges in previous discussions on the Bill—with what is known as the voir dire argument and would save weeks of court time. Is it not time that Sir Louis had an answer to his proposals?

I should like to put to the Minister a couple of points made by the independent assessor of military complaints in his report. Mr. David Hewitt remits his post at the end of this month. I sincerely thank him for his work, which has been valuable to us. We thank him in particular for the work that he did in 1993 and 1994 in revising the complaints procedures. He pays tribute, with which I concur, to the Army for improving its procedures. I have only one question and it relates to appendix C, but Mr. Hewitt does not concern himself about it in his text. There is a large difference between the number of informal complaints lodged against 3 Brigade, as compared to 8 Brigade and 39 Brigade. In 1996, there were 192 informal complaints against 3 Brigade, compared with 36 each against 8 Brigade and 39 Brigade. What were the reasons for that? I appreciate that there may be reasons of geography, or the tensions of the time, although the complaints seem to be fairly well spread throughout the year.

I regret that I have raised so many issues on the Minister's last day at the Dispatch Box, but he would not have expected anything else of me. They are important issues, in terms of justice and civil liberties. Even if the Minister cannot fully answer the points that I have raised today, I have at least told the civil service the questions that an incoming Labour Government will want to have answered.

We shall not vote against the order because it is important to safeguard the people of Northern Ireland. I should like the Minister to respond to the points that I have raised.

11.49 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)

First, I offer the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), the good wishes of my colleagues and myself as he retires from the House. It is one thing to resign one's seat; it is another to fight and lose; but it is a far worse thing when the boundary commission destroys one's seat and takes it away. I do not know whether in his mind there is a feeling that it is some sort of conspiracy to get rid of him altogether from the House, but we wish him well and I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland would join us in that.

The Government and the security forces will ignore at their peril the warning contained in John Rowe's report on the annual review of the Emergency Provisions Act. On page seven, he says that, since the end of the IRA ceasefire, there has been a marked increase in the level of terrorist activity, both in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I am particularly dealing with Northern Ireland; activity there is attributable to terrorists on both sides. There have been deaths caused by explosion, firearm attacks and assaults. Indeed, within a few days before the writing of this, a British soldier was killed by a sniper's bullet at Bessbrook. There are persistent serious attacks on the security forces. There is the regular movement and preparation of firearms and munitions; and searches reveal such things. Robberies are carried out for the purpose of funding terrorist organisations. In preparation for terrorist attacks like these, ordinary dwellinghouses are taken over by terrorists, who intimate the householders. Terrorist organisations maintain their structure and influence. There is intimidation of local communities and businesses, and there is overwhelming intimidation of people who would otherwise be witnesses in a court of law. Paramilitary 'punishment' assaults take place regularly. That is a solemn comment on what is happening in Northern Ireland at this very moment.

In the past fortnight, our Province has tasted more of the IRA's unremitting evil. On Friday, a terrorist bomb seriously injured soldiers and police personnel in east Belfast. Seven days before, soldiers to the west of the city escaped another Provisional IRA bomb. On Friday, a Roman Catholic man was shot dead in his home. Only by the mercy of God have many other attempts on the lives of soldiers and civilians failed to produce the number of casualties the IRA has planned for our Province.

There are some credulous people who publicly suggest that those bombing failures are, in fact, planned failures and that the IRA is in some way planning to miss its targets in a phoney war to keep its more militant members happy. I have never listened to such nonsense being spoken about the ruthless and murderous intent of the IRA. Anyone who believes that the IRA is not intent on mass destruction should take a few minutes to go to the spot in Bessbrook that marks the place where young Stephen Restorick met his death—brutally murdered by the IRA on Ulster's frontier with the Irish Republic.

Many more soldiers, police officers and civilians will be sacrificed in a war with terrorism that should have been won years ago. John Rowe's firm conclusion is that the EPA is still required on the statute book, but I urge the Government—whatever Government are in power—to take the next vital step and start enforcing those measures, so that they have a greater effect against the terrorist.

I welcome the success that the security services have had. I notice that several terrorist suspects have been brought to the courts on serious charges, resulting from arrests in west Belfast last week; I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that in certain areas the IRA has been put under pressure and hunted down. However, I believe that its members must be targeted for round-the-clock surveillance and they must be caught and put behind bars for a long time. These people will not be reformed. They are murderers and intend to murder, and they must be punished as such.

I join others in the House in paying tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, to the members of Her Majesty's forces and to all who serve the community to give us protection. I also pay a tribute to people who are often forgotten—the dear mother who, every morning, says goodbye to her husband and lover, the father of her children, not knowing what will happen during the day. Many members of my church serve in the security forces and I know how mothers feel, how wives feel, and especially how children feel when their Dad goes out in answer to the call of duty. Those are the really brave people in Northern Ireland, whose voice is seldom heard, who soldier on from day to day. I lay a wreath of tribute to them tonight.

The Government have embarked on a course that I feel is a tragedy: they believe that they can woo the men of violence. I think they will live to regret it. Already, the IRA has made fools of the British and Irish Governments and of the American Government. I spoke to Bill Clinton when he was in Belfast. He thought that he had the IRA converted and he thought, because Gerry Adams had shaken his hand on the Falls road and he had received such a good reception at the city hall, that it was all settled and he would go home as another saint. Of course, the nationalists would have protested at having a St. Bill or a St. William; that would not have been in keeping with their vocabulary.

I said to Bill Clinton, "You would not bring the murderers from Oklahoma to the White House. You would not shake hands with them. You would not say, 'Keep your guns.' You would not say, 'There is a place for you in government.'" Says I, "What do you think of me? You've said you want to know how an Ulsterman ticks. How I tick is the way you would tick. You would kick me out of this room if I suggested such things. Well, I feel like kicking you out of the room when you shake hands with Gerry Adams, his hands stained with the blood of five of my European constituents who lost their lives in the Shankhill road."

The IRA has played one phoney ceasefire on the Government and would like to do so again. I trust that no British Government will be fooled again, because all the IRA wants is to attain its goal. Let not the people of the Irish Republic think that members of the IRA are their friends, for what they would do in Northern Ireland they will do in the south of Ireland to get their way.

The IRA campaign is tragically for real. The IRA is not interested in peace; it is interested only in total victory for itself. A Government who do not realise that to be the case will feel it their duty to protect the citizens of this kingdom. The attendant facets of terrorism continue with unrelenting accuracy. They are targeting for murder, paramilitary beatings, money laundering, racketeering and all manner of criminal activity, including the drug business, destroying youth and children.

Any society that has been threatened by the level of criminal violence witnessed in Ulster during the past three decades must protect itself in the most meaningful way that it can.

A great deal has been done to alleviate the position of those who have been charged with terrorist offences. I know that conditions, for instance, in the Castlereagh holding centre are not great; but I know worse conditions in which our soldier boys and police men are serving tonight. I have seen how some of them do not even have their own beds. They get out of bed and another man gets into it. I think we should get our priorities right: we should first look after the men who are doing the job on the ground for us.

Anti-terrorist legislation is vital. All too often it is misinterpreted as anti-civil liberties. The fact is that it is in place to uphold our civil liberties—the liberties of the peaceful majority against the murderous evil of terrorism. I want the powers that we have to be effectively used. Some time ago a television documentary programme carried out an investigation into the activities of Martin McGuinness. He is going to be a "respectable" candidate at the election, standing against my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).

After the documentary's revelations, I called for McGuinness's arrest; so did many other hon. Members. Was he ever questioned for directing terrorism? Was he ever taken to a police station or to Castlereagh? It would not suit the Government to take a leading republican such as Mr. McGuinness. There would be an outcry. Indeed, there was a outcry recently when bail was not granted to a prisoner in this country. I heard a Member of the European Parliament from the south of Ireland tell Europe that she, the prisoner, was being tortured in a London gaol!

We need to be tough on terrorists, whichever side of the fence they come from. The Government must be more creative in pursuit of republican terrorism—and all terrorism. They should use the measures at their disposal instead of just threatening to use them. What is the use of the Act if it is not used? It just becomes an annual farce, not an annual renewal.

12.2 am

Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)

I echo the regret expressed by others that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), is having, perforce, to leave the House. It is an unfortunate fact that before someone can come here, he must have a constituency; in that constituency he has to get folk to vote for him; and the right hon. Gentleman managed both things—but just as he was getting settled in, finding a useful job to do in Northern Ireland, along came the boundary commission and swept his constituency away.

The very opposite applies in Northern Ireland, of course. At the behest of the Dublin authorities, people run around changing the boundaries to ensure that some Members of this House who rarely attend can remain in it.

Many of us have come to know and respect the right hon. Gentleman. We regret his leaving, and the fact that other constituencies did not have the good wit to take him aboard. He would have been an asset in any new Conservative Government responsible for Northern Ireland. If the Conservatives are elected again, they will face a certain difficulty in the Northern Ireland Office— most of its occupants seem to be going, going or gone.

My eye, like that of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), was caught by chapter 3 of Mr. Rowe's report. I shall not weary the House by reading out what the hon. Gentleman has already read out; but I was surprised to see Mr. Rowe talk about dwellings being taken over by terrorists who intimidate the householders without going on to point out that cars were clearly stolen to order by the same terrorists. Sometimes, cars turn up with false number plates. They are usually the same colour and often the same make as cars that are sitting 20, 30 or 50 miles away. The idea that the attacks mounted by the IRA are put up on the spur of the moment is blown out of the window by that fact alone.

We also have the statement at the bottom of page 7 that There is intimidation … and there is the overwhelming intimidation of people who would otherwise be witnesses in a court of law. When the Minister opened the debate, he drew attention to the Diplock courts. I am surprised that Mr. Rowe did not mention that one of the reasons why we have Diplock courts is that the IRA would not only intimidate witnesses; it would murder jurors who dared to find IRA members guilty. People who think that members of the jury could hide away in a society as small as Northern Ireland are wrong: they could not. While I believe that many people would serve honestly in juries, others simply would not be willing to do so, because of the fear that would be caused to them and the dangers to their families while they were doing that work.

In that chapter, we see clear hints of the methods that the terrorist organisations use. But there is more to it than that. They not only use those methods; they take care to terrorise first the Roman Catholic population. If some of them are prepared to stand up against them, they are eliminated or intimidated into silence and acquiesence with the IRA and its activities. Once they have finished with the Roman Catholic population and had it silenced or moved out, they attack the Protestant and Unionist population.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman wait a moment?

The terrorist organisations carry out attacks on Protestant and Unionist property for two reasons: first, to create a Republican ghetto, in which they are left in complete control; and, secondly, to raise the temperature. We had two such incidents last night: one in Bellaghy, which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) knows well, where an Orange hall was burnt; and a second in Clough, where another Orange hall was burnt. There has not been too much of that during the past few months, but it is now on the up, to ensure that the temperature rises.

Rev. Ian Paisley

May I just mention that that was clearly seen in the murder of young Stephen Restorick? The woman who was beside him when he was shot has come under so much threat that when a memorial service was held in Bessbrook, the young boy's mother and father could not invite her, as she would be under more threat. One can have no stronger threat than that: people being intimidated when they go to a memorial service for a person whom the IRA has murdered.

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman's remarks will no doubt be heard and, I hope, absorbed by the few people in the House to hear them. I have other personal knowledge of the intimidation that has been practised on Roman Catholics.

The horror is that, for the past 25 years, the Northern Ireland Office has treated IRA-Sinn Fein as if it was simply another political pressure group that will at some time reach a compromise deal. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has sadly left the Chamber, went down the same foolish path as he often goes down, when he insinuated that there is an economic and social solution. The same concept breaks through the surface periodically whenever people talk about doves and hawks in the IRA. I have always believed that those people are all hawks. I have never believed the soft words and crocodile tears that we get from people such as Mr. Adams. Those people are the best of actors; they would all have been worthy of an Oscar, had they gone into films. They are not in films, however; they are in murder. That is what they are about. They use every concession as a stepping stone. They do not look upon a concession given to them as a way of edging towards an agreement. They look upon those who give them concessions as bloody fools; then they seize the concession and say, "What's next?" They immediately stop talking about what they have been given—that fades into that past—and they move on to their next demand.

Reference has been made to the events of last summer. We should compare that with what has emerged over the months since, especially in the Prime Time TV programme, in which it was revealed that the entire confrontation on the streets of Northern Ireland had been planned by the IRA for three years. It did not drop out of the blue. It was not genuine protest by residents. It had been planned for three years, in the words of Mr. Adams himself. He subsequently complained, because the world saw what he said.

There has been much talk about processions in Northern Ireland. It is surprisingly difficult to get proper figures as to what sort of processions they are. The police list them as loyalist, republican and other. I can think of many different organisations in the broad unionist community, some of which might describe themselves as loyalist, but others would not. I can also think of organisations that might not be too happy to be labelled republican because of the connotations that that term has acquired in Northern Ireland over the years.

There was a parade through my local village of Dungiven on Monday—a perfectly peaceful parade. I am not sure whether those people would each or all describe themselves as republicans. They have had their own troubles with Sinn Fein, IRA and their fellow travellers down the years. I hope that when the police compile statistics in future, they will be rather more precise, so that we can see who is marching, where they are marching and what it is all about.

I also hope that the House and hon. Members on the two Front Benches will learn the simple fact that IRA-Sinn Fein already has its targets chosen for street confrontation in 1997.

The Minister is right. The IRA has not gone away. It never went away. It simply threw a fairly thin smokescreen round itself. Some people were foolish enough to believe that, but we on this Bench were never among those who believed what the IRA said. We have lived among IRA members, we know them and we have had to put up with their horrors, in the present case for nearly 30 years. Some of us in the B Specials, such as myself, in the 1956–61 campaign went out and fought them in the roads, controlled the roads and beat them. I believe that they could be beaten again.

The campaign has been running so long and its roots have now run so deep that there is no easy answer. The first bitter lesson that hon. Members on the two Front Benches and the Northern Ireland Office as an official body must learn is that the IRA is constantly intent on trouble. It has no interest in peace. The reason for its existence is to cause trouble, to create constitutional change in Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom. So many people for so long have ignored that simple fact.

I believe that in the coming year, whatever Government are in power, whoever the Ministers are and whoever the Chief Constable is in Northern Ireland, they can do nothing more than select the path that diminishes the possibility of violence and keeps it containable. They will not achieve that by doing what the police did last year.

The legislation is necessary. As the Americans found out when dealing with the Mafia and its drugs and thuggery, normal law is not enough in some instances. It is not enough when one is dealing with a terrorist organisation of the type that we face in Northern Ireland. It is not enough to bring peace. The extra muscle embodied in the legislation is needed.

The IRA will not sit down peacefully at any table to discuss the future of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It is not interested in peace. It is interested, as has been said, in victory. It must be convinced, and it is not yet convinced, that it will not be victorious. It must be brought to the conclusion that it will not succeed. If that happens, it will vanish, as it has vanished before. Its numbers will diminish, as will its power, and we shall have peace again. That will not come about while we have the nonsense that so often fills the air in Northern Ireland and across the Chamber.

12.14 am
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

The Minister of State, who introduced the debate, has attracted expressions of good will from both sides of the House, and I associate myself with them. Those of us who have not been Members for Northern Ireland cannot know and understand how different Members' responsibilities are there. Perhaps more compellingly, those of us who have not been Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office almost certainly cannot appreciate the particular burdens, obligations and responsibilities that service in that office undoubtedly creates. I express my good will to the Minister of State and the Secretary of State, who was in the Chamber only a short while ago. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have served in the Northern Ireland Office with great distinction and great dignity.

It seems that there will not be a Division on the order. If there had been a Division, in accordance with the practice of my right hon. and hon. Friends for many years, I should have advised them to vote for the order. I and they would not do so with great enthusiasm, but rather because I regard the order as a regrettable necessity. I would vote for the order with considerable reservations because I profoundly believe that the rights, protections and civil liberties of all United Kingdom citizens should be the same wherever they live, and that only in the most unusual circumstances can a departure from those principles be justified.

On the evidence that we have heard so far, some of it rather chilling, and on the basis of our own knowledge, we are entitled to conclude that the circumstances still obtaining in Northern Ireland justify once again the renewal of the order. Those circumstances justify powers that in other circumstances would undoubtedly be regarded as draconian. These powers should not be maintained for an instant longer than is necessary. They should be grudgingly tolerated. We in this place, and our successors, should work with all the power available to us to withdraw them at the earliest possible date. They represent a serious incursion into the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom, which they are entitled to expect wherever they live.

Why is it that the powers continue to be justified? That is the position only because it appears that the cancer of terrorism lies still at the heart of life in Northern Ireland. The powers contained in the order will not eliminate that cancer; at the very best they may contain it. Unless and until a political settlement that commands the support of the entire community of Northern Ireland is achieved, we are likely fo face the sort of terrorist activity that so affects our judgment of these issues.

Before us is an issue to which we shall clearly return— those of us who are here—in the next Parliament. I understand that new primary legislation will be required. I express the hope that that legislation will not be treated simply as a routine repeat of the primary legislation that gives rise to the order that we are discussing. When that legislation is considered, it will be regarded with public confidence only if it is appropriate to the circumstances of the time.

For the moment, the order should command our support. Indeed, it would be most curious if at this stage of the Parliament the House were to reject it for any reason. That would be akin to Alice in Wonderland. I divine from the speeches so far that that is not likely to happen, but the fact that we have to deal with this each year reminds us that what we are doing is of great significance, and it is something that will have quite startling and significant consequences for the civil rights of a large number of members of the United Kingdom. We should never do it lightly, but in the circumstances that prevail, I believe that we are compelled to continue to renew the provisions of the order.

12.19 am
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I shall be brief. My speech is prompted by Mr. Rowe's report. I should like to ask the Minister a question, but before I do, I offer him my compliments. In my dealings with him, he has always responded in a most courteous and helpful way, and I know that I will receive a courteous response this evening. As one who hopes to return to this place in a few weeks' time, I would like him to know that he may have gone but he will not be forgotten.

My view has always been that those convicted in our courts of acts of violence should receive condign punishment. Not so very long ago, at the High Court in Glasgow, I think—the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) might correct me on this—a loyalist terrorist was found guilty, rightly and properly, and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for arms trafficking. He was attempting to run arms across to Northern Ireland. A few years ago, when I was on the review committee of a prison in Scotland, twice in about seven months I interviewed two prisoners, both of whom were under assessment for release under licence and had been sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment for running arms across to Northern Ireland, so I have a little experience of these matters.

I remind the Minister that he quoted from paragraph 2, page 5, of Mr. Rowe's report, which says: I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to a young woman who is detained in a London prison, and said that an MEP had claimed that this young woman had been subjected to torture. That is an absurd claim, I believe that the circumstances surrounding her detention leave much to be desired. In my view, when a person suspected of acts of terrorism is arrested and detained, they should be treated in a way that does not infringe their basic human rights.

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, in Cornton Vale prison in Scotland, when a pregnant woman prisoner has her baby, she is certainly not manacled at any time before, during or after the birth. She is allowed, if she has the wherewithal psychologically and physically, to take care of her child for 12 months. At the end of that period, for understandable reasons, the child is sent to carefully chosen foster parents—and I mean carefully chosen—or to the family of the detained woman. I say to all hon. Members, including the Minister, that that treatment should be afforded to Roisin McAliskey in Holloway prison. It know that it is outwith the Minister's terms of reference, but I hope that he will bring my remarks to the attention of his right hon. Friends.

Mr. William Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman

I shall give way in a minute.

I have no truck with those involved in such dastardly activities. That young woman is a remand prisoner. In a Scottish prison, such as Cornton Vale, she would be treated differently. I have written to Mr. Richard Tilt telling him that. I have also written to The Irish Times, because one of its journalists, in a recent article on Ms McAliskey's unsuccessful bail application, thrice referred to the British prison system. I pointed out to the editor of The Irish Times that his journalist should have referred to the English prison system, because there is an important different between the two systems. A pregnant woman would be treated differently in Cornton Vale prison, irrespective of the crime of which she is suspected or convicted.

It is in the interests of the child that he or she should not be separated from the mother, whatever she has done. As long as the child's safety is regarded by everyone as paramount—I need hardly say that to this audience—a woman remand prisoner or a woman prisoner who has been convicted in a court of law should be afforded the same treatment as would be afforded to one of my constituents who may have committed a heinous crime.

I am making no excuses for this young woman, but her treatment, as it is portrayed in the international media, gives valuable ammunition to primitive republicans everywhere. I was talking to someone in Australia.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The House knows that I do not mind passing references to matters that go slightly wide of the issue under consideration, but the hon. Gentleman is dwelling on this point, and it goes beyond the scope of our considerations.

Dr. Godman

I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman

May I finish my apologies to Madam Deputy Speaker? I have said before that you are renowned for your gentle strictures, and I shall not risk another one so close to the end of this Parliament. I just want to say that in my view this young woman should be transferred to the prison in Northern Ireland that has mother-child facilities.

I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I hope that he does not get me into trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he is a terrible man.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The prisons in Northern Ireland and their treatment of prisoners are excellent. I have acted as a prison chaplain, and I have also been a prisoner, so I should know. I was passing no strictures on the circumstances of the case. I was simply saying that a southern Ireland MEP said that the treatment was virtually torture, which was completely and totally untrue.

Dr. Godman

I know of the hon. Gentleman's prison career. I am not sure that he was ever incarcerated in a woman's prison, which would have been grossly unfair on women prisoners.

Mr. Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman

Just let me say that I did not impugn the hon. Member for North Antrim. I said that he had referred to an MEP who had made that wild allegation.

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a person who is held on an extradition warrant being transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland. I inquired about that, and my understanding is that that is not possible. The individual has to be held in either a Scottish or an English prison, such as Holloway, and cannot be held elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There is certainly no place in the system in Northern Ireland for such a prisoner. Surely the hon. Gentleman's strictures on the holding of pregnant women in prison apply to all such prisoners in English prisons. That is the understanding that we have been given by the Minister of State, Home Office.

Dr. Godman

I am not saying that special privileges should be given to a specific prisoner who has been detained under these measures. I think that, if Scottish female prisoners are treated in such a way—rightly and properly, in my view—female prisoners south of the border should be treated in like manner. I remind the Minister, who is a decent. fair-minded man, of what he said in his speech, and of the direct quotation that he offered from Mr. Rowe's report: I bear in mind also that a balance must be struck between the measures necessary to combat terrorism on the one hand, and on the other the extent to which those measures infringe human rights. I have dwelt on the point for far too long, and I apologise for that. In this case, however, I think that there has been an infringement of basic human rights, which has provided propaganda for primitive republicans and their supporters not just in the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. As I said, I spoke to someone in Australia who expressed concern.

Of course it is right and proper for the security forces to pursue such persons with the utmost vigour, but when persons are detained they must be treated fairly and properly in our prison systems. I believe that, whatever the technical difficulties, the best course would be to transfer Roisin McAliskey to a prison in Northern Ireland so that her child can be born there and mother and child can be together. That is the plea that I make to the Minister.

12.31 am
Sir John Wheeler

I shall endeavour to be brief in replying to this important debate, but it would be churlish of me not acknowledge the kind references made to me by all who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I have enjoyed responding to his numerous detailed questions over many hours in the Committee Room and elsewhere during our service on opposing Benches. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and, of course, to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). It has been a great privilege to serve the people of Northern Ireland, and the House, in my present capacity, and I am sorry that I am to be the first and last Member of Parliament for Westminster, North.

As I have said, this has been an important debate. All the issues that have been raised are serious. In particular, the remarks of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie gave notice to Northern Ireland Office officials of the answers that they would need to have ready should he find himself in Stormont castle in six weeks' time. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I very much agree with him about the Lloyd review and its importance to the anti-terrorist law, and the procedures that the House should consider in the next Parliament. There are indeed elements that must be considered very carefully when the next Parliament comes to consider the basis of that legislation—but that is for the future and not for this evening.

The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked about the certifying in of scheduled offences. Parliament has decided with good reason that, because of the situation that has existed in Northern Ireland, certain cases need to be scheduled. The Attorney-General, indeed successive Attorney-Generals, may certify out certain offences on the recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions if a particular case has no connection with the emergency situation. It would be invidious for the Attorney-General, who is responsible for prosecutions, to be given powers to confer a restrictive mode of trial in particular cases instead of relieving it, as he may do at present with those cases not associated with terrorism.

A year ago, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and I exchanged our thinking about that matter in Committee. The statistical change to which he referred reflects the fact of the ceasefires. I am sure that he will be reassured that that has been the case, and it does not change the basic argument in favour of certifying out.

The hon. Gentleman asked about silent video recording. Responses to the recently concluded consultation exercise on codes of practice governing such recording are being assessed. Tests on the necessary equipment are well advanced, and I assure him that that project is being taken forward with real purpose. I am confident that his points will also be taken into account in assessing that.

Remand waiting times will require some detailed research, but it is still within my gift to undertake it, and should the hon. Gentleman be interested in the outcome during the general election campaign, I shall ensure that he has some additional reading.

As the House knows, the decision to introduce silent video recording was based on the Chief Constable's advice and it represents a compromise in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland but, as with all these things, it is certainly kept under review.

With regard to military complaints, the increase in the number of informal complaints is partly due to the Army implementing recommendations made by Mr. Hewitt at paragraph 4.3 of his current report. That is the basis for the change in those statistics.

The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raised an issue that is not, perhaps, really the subject of the debate or within the order, but I hope that I may be allowed to comment on it briefly as he raised a matter of humanitarian importance. The Government believe that prisoners held on remand, who are innocent until proven guilty, are subject to all the proper medical care and treatment. I understand that the remand prisoner in question will be allowed to keep her baby while in prison and that proper facilities are available, but she is facing grave charges, which are accountable in Germany. That is why she must remain in Holloway prison unless a court of law determines otherwise.

Elsewhere in the debate, the hon. Member for North Antrim touched on the appearance of a Mr. Martin McGuinness in a television programme. May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is never inhibited from investigating crimes and allegations, certainly not by this Minister or by Her Majesty's Government, but bases its investigation on the facts and, alas, the House will be surprised to know, not all television programmes are precisely accurate.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry made many profound remarks about terrorism and its on-going character. I greatly appreciate and agree with what he said. He made an important point about the Diplock courts, which protect jurors as well as witnesses. That is why it is essential that that procedure must continue in the present circumstances in Northern Ireland, in view of the odious list of punishment attacks that occur every 24 hours.

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East in that nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to say to the House, "The legislation is not necessary any more, and we can do without it." It is right that we should constantly examine the need for such legislation; that is why the House of Commons exists.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It has been an important one.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisins) (Continuance) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.