Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

HC Deb 18 November 1997 vol 301 cc168-217

Order for Second Reading read.

4.35 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram)

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

The Bill has two aims: to ensure that the criminal justice system and the security forces in Northern Ireland continue to have available the measures that they need to counter terrorism; and to protect the rights of individuals directly affected by the operation of the counter-terrorism provisions. It achieves those twin aims by extending the life of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which otherwise would expire in August next year, and by making some important amendments to the existing provisions.

It is important to place the Bill in the context of developments in Northern Ireland. Steady progress has been made in the peace process. The loyalist ceasefire of 1994 is holding and despite the recent speculation about resignations from the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein, the renewed Provisional IRA ceasefire is also intact. All but two of the local parties are engaged in talks aimed at achieving a lasting political settlement by May of next year. While we wish all parties to be present and to have their voices heard at the talks, we have a duty to press on in the negotiations with those who are willing to participate.

The most difficult tasks lie ahead. It would be misplaced optimism to underestimate the challenge that faces the two Governments and all the parties engaged in the talks. They will require vision and courage in their quest for peace. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing them continued steady progress and success.

On the security front, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Mr. Ronnie Flanagan, said recently that the Provisional IRA's ceasefire remains remarkably stable and that that has resulted in a significantly reduced level of terrorist activity. That is certainly the case, but some terrorist groups on both sides remain active and could destabilise the peace process. The Government are clear that there can be no question of leaving the security forces without the resources that they need to counter such activities.

I do not intend to catalogue recent incidents. Hon. Members are only too well aware of what has happened recently. However, I shall mention one incident to illustrate my point. On 30 October, the Continuity IRA left a holdall bomb in a public office of the Department of the Environment in Derry. Only the detonator of the device exploded. It contained a quantity of Semtex and petrol. Had it properly ignited, it would have caused serious damage to the building, and very possibly serious injury or death. The fact that that did not happen should in no way obscure the intent and purpose behind the planting of the bomb. It was carried out as a blatant calculated act of terrorism, with the underlying aim of derailing the talks process.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

The Minister pointed out that the holdall bomb in Londonderry was claimed by the so-called Continuity Army Council. Yet as he said, the bomb contained Semtex, and there is only one known source from which that Semtex could come—the Provisional IRA.

Will the Minister comment on that aspect, because the presence of Semtex in the bomb suggests that at some level within the IRA assistance, in terms of material, and perhaps more than that, was being given to that other organisation. What does that suggest about the strength of the IRA ceasefire?

Mr. Ingram

The hon. Gentleman is, in one sense, speculating on the basis of what may be a possible fact—that the Provisional IRA is the only known source of Semtex. I mentioned the possibility of fragmentation and what may flow from that. We have no direct evidence that there was a transfer of material from the Provisional IRA to the Continuity Army Council—or the Continuity IRA, as it is otherwise known.

As for the status of the existing ceasefire, I have said that the Chief Constable, who has a responsibility for assessing the security aspects of the situation, is clear that that ceasefire is still being maintained. It is a ceasefire very different from the previous one, and we all hope that that continues to be the case.

I have already pointed out that the device in question, and the other devices planted at Markethill and elsewhere, represented blatant calculated acts of terrorism. The terrorists have not gone away.

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is about time that the Secretary of State and the Minister, who has responsibility for security, made some calculated judgments on their own account. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he says with the words of Francis Molloy, who was sitting negotiating in the talks on disarmament yesterday, yet reassured IRA members that Sinn Fein's political policy 'was a tactic rather than an end in itself". I do not need to say more to the Minister. He understands the significance of those calculated words of Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Ingram

The hon. Gentleman has asked me to make an independent judgment of the security situation as I understand it, but I am sure that he is all too well aware that when assessing security events on the ground it is important to take proper advice from people such as the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. At the end of the day it is for Ministers to weigh such advice and to make judgments accordingly. However, the judgments have to be based on facts, not on leaps of supposition.

Mr. Maginnis

And my second point?

Mr. Ingram

I am coming to that. From here I cannot see for sure, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to be quoting from a press report of what was said. If he has a transcript—

Mr. Maginnis

indicated assent.

Mr. Trimble

indicated assent.

Mr. Ingram

—that may prove helpful. However, what I said at the beginning still holds. In the view of the practitioners on the ground, in the view of the RUC, the existing ceasefire is of a substantially different nature from the previous one. In terms of the quality of advice coming to Ministers, that is indeed the case. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) would prefer judgments to be made on such advice rather than on reportage in the press, or on interpretations thereof.

Mr. Maginnis

The Minister challenges me on my point. But I can tell him that there are those who have lived with the situation for years. May I explain my credentials? In June 1995 I told the Minister and other hon. Members that Martin McGuinness had said that the ceasefire had effectively ended. Now, with the same authority and the same background, I tell the Minister that there are those, such as Councillor Francis Molloy, who are reassuring the IRA that the political process is but a tactic, and that those people will go back to doing what they did best—they will use the iron fist. The Minister cannot deny that. He does not look like an ostrich, so he should not talk like one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. Interventions must be brief, especially if the hon. Gentleman wants the opportunity to put an argument himself in due course.

Mr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Gentleman has never made a brief intervention in his life.

Mr. Ingram

Some of the hon. Gentleman's interventions may be brief, but they are certainly full of insults. He is right that I am not an ostrich, and I do not intend to act like one. That is why we are, as I said, taking the best security advice. Of course I will listen to what the hon. Gentleman says about his experience, but the fact that in the past what was predicted came to pass does not mean that the same will inevitably happen a second time. A judgment must be made on the quality of the ceasefire as it currently exists.

It would be wrong for those who wish to move the peace process forward, constantly to try to be too predictive and gloom-ridden about what may or may not develop—

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

rose—

Mr. Ingram

I shall make some progress now. We have a long time for the debate and there are not many hon. Members in the Chamber. Those who are here will have the opportunity to make their own points in the debate—

Rev. Martin Smyth

rose—

Mr. Ingram

I may return to the hon. Gentleman later.

What I now wish to do—it follows on from what we have been saying—is to pay tribute to the security forces. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Ulster Unionist party will support me in that. In extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances, the security forces have striven with great professionalism to maintain order and to protect the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

I include in that tribute the Army, whose support has been necessary in tackling the threat posed by the terrorist groups. The police and the Army have sustained severe losses in the line of duty—along with many civilians in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years or so. It is therefore the duty of the Government and of the House to ensure that they continue to have available the means that they need to deal effectively with terrorism.

Against the backcloth that I have painted, there can be no question but that the case is made for the retention of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act in the short term. In the longer term, the Government wish to see an end to the present temporary arrangements, and our intentions are as set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the House on 30 October—the same day that the Continuity IRA left a bomb in the motor tax office in Derry. I shall return to my right hon. Friend's announcement on that occasion in a moment.

There will be those in the House who question why the Government are renewing provisions against which its members voted when in opposition. Let me make it clear that as a party we have never questioned the need for effective counter-terrorism legislation.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said from the Opposition Benches on Second Reading of the current EPA on 9 January 1996: We do not oppose counter-terrorism legislation; we oppose the nature of the Bill."—[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 42.] My party in opposition voted against the legislation in the past because of what we saw as particular basic flaws that it contained.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

Come on, try harder.

Mr. Ingram

If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the previous debate he will find that flavour running through it. My quotation was not selective. The Secretary of State and the Under—Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who will wind up the debate today, made such points throughout the debate, explaining why they opposed the legislation as it then existed. We are seeking in the Bill to address those flaws and to place the measure within the context of the Government's longer-term approach towards effective, permanent anti-terrorist legislation.

Let me return to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who told the House: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I therefore intend to present proposals to replace both the current Acts with permanent United Kingdom-wide counter-terrorism legislation. We intend to publish the proposals in the form of a consultation paper early in the new year. The paper will draw on Lord Lloyd's most helpful analysis and recommendations."— [Official Report, 30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 1029.] The Government's aim is to end the temporary arrangements that we have inherited and to put in place the best permanent legislation that we can devise for countering domestic and international terrorism. The new legislation must be flexible; it must address the changing situation in Northern Ireland and the changing nature of terrorism worldwide. The consultation exercise that we propose to launch in January will be an important first step.

Some will argue that the Government are taking a soft line on terrorism; I would argue that the contrary is the case. The Government's aim is to give the security forces permanent, effective powers to fight terrorism from whichever direction it may come. The Government are resolute—we shall never drop our guard in the fight against terrorism.

We are grateful to Lord Lloyd for his independent and comprehensive review last year of existing legislation. His recommendations were predicated on there being a lasting peace in Northern Ireland—a situation for which all of us in this House earnestly hope. As all of us know, however, that we remain some way from that position. The Government nevertheless consider Lord Lloyd's analysis of the existing legislation, and his recommendations for the shape and content of future legislation, to be very helpful. We shall be building on his ideas in the construction of that new legislation.

Let me now explain the specific provisions of the Bill. The Bill extends the life of the current Act by two years to 24 August 2000. It also maintains the arrangement whereby its temporary provisions, which form its substantive part, are subject to annual renewal. As the House is aware, for the purpose of the annual renewal of the temporary provisions, the Government appoint an independent reviewer, who reports to Parliament. In recent years, that duty has been admirably borne by John Rowe QC.

I remind hon. Members that the current Act contains a power to suspend many of its provisions. That power will be maintained; it is exercisable at any time during the lifetime of the Act if justified by changed circumstances. Therefore, should a political settlement be achieved, it will be open to the Secretary of State, when she judges it right to do so, to act to let lapse such provisions as she sees fit.

Further to that, other features of the existing Act are retained: the schedule of terrorist offences; the mode of trial for such offences, the Diplock courts; the additional powers of arrest, search and seizure for the police and the Army; the specific offences against public security and public order, including offences relating to involvement with proscribed organisations; the regulatory provisions for the private security industry in Northern Ireland; the regime for terrorist suspects held under section 14 of the PTA in the holding centres, together with the safeguards in the related codes of practice; and the appointment of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures—an important position, which will continue to be filled while the Army are needed in Northern Ireland.

The changes that the Bill makes to the current Act are small in number, but significant and in line with commitments given by the Labour party when in opposition. An important underlying aim of the Act is to ensure that the treatment of persons charged with terrorist crime is as close as it can sensibly be to that which applies in ordinary criminal cases.

The amendments that we propose move the legislation even closer towards that objective. In essence, this Bill amends the EPA in three critical areas: the scheduling of offences and the facility whereby offences may be certified out; executive detention, or internment, as it is known; and the operative regime in the police holding centres.

Let me deal with each of them in turn. First, on the question of scheduled offences, the Government accept that, for the time being, the Diplock court system must continue for terrorist crime; there is nothing to show that the system has produced perverse judgments or that it has lowered standards. The Government hope that, eventually, it will be possible to return to a system of jury trial. However, it is our judgment that that is not possible at present. We have therefore considered what steps we might take at this time legitimately to reduce the potential for cases to be heard by Diplock courts.

At present some scheduled offences must automatically be tried by Diplock courts; yet it is conceivable that, in certain cases, some such offences could be committed in circumstances not connected with the emergency. The Bill therefore amends schedule 1 to the current Act to add to the number of scheduled offences that can be certified out of the schedule at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and thus be tried by a jury.

The effect is that, of the scheduled offences, only those which are PTA and EPA offences—and indeed, not all of the latter—will in future be tried automatically by a Diplock court. It will be possible for all other scheduled offences that are committed in, say, a domestic or non-emergency context to be certified out for trial by jury. I shall not list the offences which by virtue of the Bill will become certifiable out; but offences such as the common law offence of riot and some firearms offences are examples.

Rev. Martin Smyth

Will the Minister include in the list of terrorist crimes the continued punishment beatings which, according to my information—and despite the fact that people are trying to cover them up—are up by about 75 per cent? Will punishment beatings be scheduled out?

Mr. Ingram

For one thing, I would not call them punishment beatings, as that term implies a justification for the action. I constantly refer to them as paramilitary assaults, as that describes more graphically the actions carried out. Where there is evidence that such an act has been carried out by a terrorist or paramilitary group, the perpetrators must be brought to justice. It is helpful if we put those actions in their proper context and do not classify them as punishment beatings—that is loose terminology which detracts from the seriousness of the acts.

In terms of the figures that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has given, the quality of the ceasefire—that includes such things as paramilitary assaults—is different on this occasion. There is no evidence this time that the ancillary or related activities of the paramilitary groups have continued as they did last time. We will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that information is made as widely available as possible if we are able to so identify the nature of the action carried out.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with his comments on punishment beatings. May I return to the question of certifying out? When Peter Archer—now Lord Archer of Sandwell—was shadow Secretary of State, it was the policy of the Labour party to argue for certifying in, rather than for certifying out. Can my hon. Friend outline the difficulties that made him abandon that policy?

Mr. Ingram

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know of his long-standing interest in the issue. We examined the idea in considerable detail and it is not for want of trying to find a formula for making progress that we have not proceeded with it. We decided that it was too complex and could cause difficulties when the judicial system had to be involved in judgments about what should be subject to a jury trial. Following advice from judicial colleagues, or from those with responsibility for such matters, we decided in the meantime not to proceed in that way. I will explain the background to that decision in more detail.

The change in scheduled offences will undoubtedly increase the work load of the Attorney—General, but that is the price to be paid for ensuring that, when it is at all possible and correct to do so, the normal criminal procedures are applied. We must take appropriate advice from those who have responsibility for such matters in Government, to ensure effective delivery of the judicial system.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

I note the Minister's point about how onerous it would be for the Attorney-General and his office if certifying in rather than certifying out were to be the standard. Does he accept that at present about 85 per cent. of scheduled cases are certified out by the Attorney-General's office and that certifying in the other 15 per cent. would be less onerous than certifying out 85 per cent.? The argument is really in the opposite direction.

Mr. Ingram

The harsh reality is that terrorist crime is a different type of crime, and that must be taken into account in making judgments. If terrorist crime disappears as a feature of Northern Ireland, the issue becomes less relevant. The problem for the Attorney-General's office is not only work load, but the way in which it could be compromised in making judgments about jury trials. That is the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) may be able to cite previous shadow Attorneys-General, but the current one is giving us the advice, and we want to proceed on the basis of that advice.

Mr. McNamara

I am sure that I am being thick, but I simply do not understand. If a judgment has to be made to certify out, and everything else goes in, why cannot a judgment be made to certify in? It would be the same judgment about jury trials, one way or the other. If the Attorney-General merely leaves a case in, he is saying that it is a terrorist offence, and if he certifies it in he is saying the same thing. There is no difference in the application of his judgment in that case. Whatever view former shadow Attorneys-General took, the logic of the present Attorney-General's case, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister, simply does not stand up.

Mr. Ingram

We could spend a long time debating the matter, but I think that I have set out the background. My hon. Friend will no doubt return to the matter and make his points forcefully in his speech, but for now I can

add nothing new to what has already been said. We gave serious consideration to his proposition and, on balance, we decided not to proceed with it.

The Government's position on internment is clear. The retention of the provisions, albeit in a lapsed state, was the single most compelling reason why the Labour party voted against the renewal of the legislation in the past. The truth is that the powers are draconian. They have not been used in more than 20 years, although of course the past 20 years has been one of the most active periods for terrorism in Northern Ireland. The fact that the provisions were not used during that period and did not prove a deterrent against terrorism exposes their redundancy.

The Government's clear view is that internment did not represent an effective counter-terrorism measure in the past; does not represent one now; and is not likely to do so in the future. The reality is that internment involves a decision by Government to deprive individuals of their liberty without trial and without the normal safeguards that the law provides for the protection of the accused. Its use would only ever have been justified as a last resort; it has never been seen as a means of achieving stability within the community. The Government believe that the effect would be quite the reverse: it would increase community tension; cause serious damage to respect for the rule of law; strengthen the terrorist organisations; create political prisoners; and ultimately prolong the violence.

Pending the introduction of permanent legislation, the package of provisions contained in the PTA and the EPA, as amended by the Bill, together with the experience and professionalism of the security forces and practitioners within the criminal justice system, will provide substantial measures for dealing with terrorism in a much more effective way.

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

Unlike hon. Members who have cross-examined him during his speech, I congratulate my hon. Friend—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend—on fulfilling a commitment that was given in opposition and is being brought to fruition in government. Some of us who have been dealing with Northern Ireland matters for many years have consistently stood out against internment, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on its discontinuation.

Mr. Ingram

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to all his work on the matter, and to the work of those who served with him on the Opposition Front Bench. Our fundamental objection to the previous legislation was that it included the internment provisions, and we are now removing them from the statute book.

Mr. Godman

rose —

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)

Can the Minister conceive of no circumstances in which the Government would want to reintroduce internment?

Mr. Ingram

I respect the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the issue, and of many related issues, because he served as a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am sure that, when he was doing that job, he would not have joined the "what if?" school of politics. People keep asking, "What if this or the other were to happen?", but we cannot proceed if we focus constantly on the negatives. We must consider the positive measures in the legislation.

Conservative Members should not be surprised at the measure. It was well trailed in advance of the general election, and independent experts have commented on the need to remove internment; or, to be more accurate, they have said that they see no purpose in its remaining, so the logic would be to remove it. We are doing that very thing and so sending a significant message, based on what I have said about respect for the rule of law and the way in which internment could exacerbate, rather than help, the situation.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) still wants to intervene—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is asleep."] Well, that is not my fault.

The third area in which we are seeking to amend the emergency provisions Act is in the introduction of audio recording in police holding centres where terrorists are taken for interview. Again, that should come as no surprise, since it was one of those issues for which the Labour party campaigned in opposition and which is now being delivered in government.

Mr. Godman

I can assure my hon. Friend that, as always, I have been listening to him very carefully. I welcome the proposal on audio recording in clause 5 of the Bill, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am sure, but when will such recordings be introduced—long before 2000, I hope?

Mr. Ingram

Yes. Clearly, the systems must be put in place. Also, silent video recording—a proposition that we inherited—is still not in place. The mechanism had to be assessed and we had to study ways in which it could be implemented.

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of the proposal. The independent commissioner for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and his deputy Dr. Bill Norris, have for many years argued the case for such recording. We are grateful to Sir Louis and Dr. Norris for their continuing work and for their thorough reports into that matter and to other aspects of the holding centres. I am pleased to be acting to put in place measures that they and others have long advocated.

The introduction of audio recording will provide additional protection for both interviewees and police interviewing officers against claims of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment. It will also assist the judicial process by providing the best possible record of interviews conducted, in the event that a criminal case ensues.

Those are the three main areas of amendment to the legislation. The Bill also makes a minor amendment to the existing provision on silent video recording, which will run separately and alongside the audio recording system because of the inherently separate purpose for which it is intended. The amendment addresses an omission in the current Act.

Occasionally, the police require to interview at a holding centre a person who is in custody in the care of the prison authorities. Also occasionally, a magistrate may order a person to be produced at a holding centre for questioning. The amendment will give authority for such interviews to be recorded on silent video in the same way as other interviews conducted in the holding centres.

I call on the House to support the Government in their move to renew the existing Act for a further two years and to support the changes that I have described. That will ensure that the criminal justice system and the security forces in Northern Ireland continue to be equipped to deal with the level of terrorist threat applying.

The measures set out in the Bill are sensible, constructive and consistent with the Government's overall aim of putting in place an effective and balanced approach to tackling the evil of terrorism. I commend the Bill to the House.

5.13 pm

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

I am grateful to the Minister of State for setting out the main provisions of the Bill and the principle changes that the Government propose to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

I must say at the outset that, as a responsible and constructive Opposition, we have no hesitation in supporting this vital legislation. Unlike the Labour party when it was in opposition, we shall not shirk from our fundamental responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. We have never had any doubt about the importance or the necessity of the emergency provisions. They are vital for the protection of the public and a crucial weapon in the fight against terrorism.

For 18 years, successive Conservative Secretaries of State came to the House to renew the powers contained in the emergency legislation. Year on year after 1981, Labour Members trooped into the Lobby to oppose us. More recently, they had a sudden change of heart and summoned up the courage to abstain. Many colleagues will recall their more lurid descriptions of the evils of that legislation as "draconian" and "repressive". Lame and pathetic excuses were ritually trotted out by Labour Front-Bench Members to excuse their behaviour and to appease the hard left on their Back Benches, even during the darkest days of the troubles internment. Finally, they came up with the issue of internment. For the sole reason that the power remained on the statute book, albeit in a lapsed form, they refused to support us.

I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me. I cast no aspersions on his abhorrence and that of his ministerial colleagues of terrorism, or on their commitment to defeat it, but the defeat of terrorism requires more than condemnation. As we have always recognised, it requires a willingness and a commitment to act. So it is not without a certain irony that we now see a Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box introducing another emergency provisions Bill.

Perhaps the most important area of bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland is the fight against terrorism. It demonstrates the total determination of both major parties in the House that terrorism will never succeed and that parliamentary government throughout the whole of the United Kingdom will be vigorously defended. Make no mistake, we do not like emergency provisions—no party does. They contain powers that, in normal circumstances, any democracy should abhor. We would prefer that they were no longer required, but they are required in Northern Ireland today, so I can assure the Government that, as long as they continue to sustain effective anti-terrorist legislation, even though we might differ on certain details, they shall have our full support.

Mr. McNamara

Where in his range of importance does the hon. Gentleman put the peace process?

Mr. MacKay

High, but the first and most fundamental duty of the House is to protect the people of Northern Ireland from terrorism and to ensure that we have a democracy there. That is the most fundamental part of the bipartisan policy, and I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman—as he well knows—that we fully support the political talks that are being engaged in. If he is talking about priorities, the first priority must be the fight against terrorism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his considerable experience of those matters, will concur.

Mr. McNamara

The peace process is the most important thing, because that is what will lead to an end to terrorism.

Mr. MacKay

That is as may be, and that is very trite. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is to be peace at any price, he is very much mistaken, as his Front-Bench team will agree. The first duty of the House is to protect the people of this country from terrorist attack and to ensure that we have democratic institutions in all parts of the United Kingdom. I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and I would have hoped and expected him to agree.

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

It is a small point, perhaps, but surely it is important that, while the terrorism legislation that we are discussing is tactical—trying to prevent things from happening—the settlement talks are the strategic element and so come higher in the list of priorities.

Mr. MacKay

With the greatest respect, as I told the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my highest priority and, I should have thought, that of every hon. Member, is to defend the whole of the United Kingdom against terrorist attack. On reflection, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) might like to agree, as his predecessors on the Liberal Democrat Benches have done.

Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

The hon. Gentleman is shifting his ground. He is talking about the defence of democracy as well, and he said so in the first and second responses, but not in the third. The defence of democracy requires a respect for the rule of law. The Labour party challenged the temporary provisions Act precisely because locking up people without a trial is opposed to the rule of law and democracy and did us enormous damage, as well as undermining the fight against terrorism. Will he commit himself, in the fight for the rule of law and democracy, to getting rid of internment provisions?

Mr. MacKay

There is a role for internment and, if the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a minute, he will hear me develop a clear case for that.

I shall come to the details of the Bill shortly, but first let me say that today's debate provides the House with an opportunity to consider the wider security and political context in which the Government are required to introduce the legislation. As the Minister pointed out, the most significant development has been the restoration of the IRA ceasefire on 20 July this year. We also note that the loyalist ceasefire has been maintained since October 1994. The Opposition welcome the IRA ceasefire and the fact that it has since been maintained; we also welcome the fact that Sinn Fein has now signed up to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and has, on that basis, been admitted to the Stormont talks.

We hope—as must the whole House—that that represents a genuine commitment, for we must all stand firm on the principle that there can never be any justification for the use or the threat of violence. Violence for political ends in a democracy can never be allowed to succeed. The IRA will never bomb Britain out of Northern Ireland, nor will it ever bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That message should continue to ring out from this House, loud and clear. Sinn Fein should take this opportunity to turn its back on violence for good and it must stick rigidly in the talks to the Mitchell principles—there can be no fudging on that issue.

In their response to the Ulster Unionist party's submission on Sinn Fein's continued participation in the talks, the Government said that both the British and the Irish Governments would react firmly to any infringements of the Mitchell principles". I look forward to the Minister reiterating that commitment when he makes his winding-up speech. There can be no equivocation on the part of Sinn Fein in its attitude towards IRA violence. The commitment to democratic and peaceful methods, as set out in paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration, means precisely that.

The Opposition wish the Minister and his colleagues well in the political talks. We share his objectives of a comprehensive political settlement and a lasting peace. The people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing less. However, stability will be established and new political arrangements will last only if they are built on the right foundations. The most important of those are the principle of consent and the triple lock of parties, people and Parliament. We look to the Government for a reassurance that the principle of the consent will remain paramount and that there is no question of breaking the triple lock. In particular, I ask the Minister to state categorically that, in the absence of agreement next May, the Government will not try to appeal over the heads of the parties and that consent, as it applies to the second element of the triple lock, means the people of Northern Ireland alone.

In addition, we believe that there will be serious engagement in, and a successful conclusion to, the talks only with confidence-building measures on both sides of the community. That includes the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives, without which the shadow of the gunmen will be cast permanently over the political process in Northern Ireland. So far, there have been no assurances from Sinn Fein that the IRA will contemplate decommissioning in parallel with the party talks—far from it. We therefore look to the Government to ensure that no party is allowed to stall on that central issue and that early progress is made in the decommissioning sub-committee and the independent decommissioning body.

Despite the welcome progress that has been made, it is vital that we do not lower our guard—after all, we have been here before. The Conservative Government took a number of justifiable risks and showed real political flexibility. For the period of the ceasefires, there was hope that the nightmare of violence had ended for good; but that hope was blown apart in the murder and rubble of Canary wharf and Manchester. The return to violence had no justification and demonstrated the enduring contempt for democracy that characterises the IRA. The Government should therefore not be deluded about the potential difficulties that might lie ahead in the political negotiations at Stormont.

The Government should recognise the misgivings of many people in Northern Ireland about whether their elected representatives are participating in the same process as Sinn Fein. There can be few more difficult acts for a politician in a democracy than to sit across the table from people who have so recently acted as apologists for terrorism. In the Government's own words, Sinn Fein and the IRA remain "inextricably linked". In that context, I pay special tribute to the way in which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has led the Ulster Unionist party through such a difficult few months.

During those months, and since the announcement of the ceasefire, there have been several developments that give cause for continued concern, some of which the Minister mentioned. So-called punishment beatings have continued-the latest count attributes about 30 to the loyalists and 21 to republican groups. We condemn unreservedly those vile and vicious acts, from whichever side of the community they come. They are clearly incompatible with a commitment to democracy and should cease immediately. I trust that the Minister will remind those parties in the talks that claim to have an influence with the paramilitaries on both sides, of their responsibilities in that respect.

We have also seen in the past few days reports of serious resignations from Sinn Fein and the IRA—including a purported member of the IRA Army Council and an entire battalion in south Armagh—opening up the prospect of more serious fissures in the republican movement in future. The Continuity Army Council and Republican Sinn Fein—itself the product of previous splits—remain implacably opposed to the ceasefire and have demonstrated their ability to threaten life and property. Only by good fortune has that threat been averted.

Meanwhile, representatives of the IRA told a republican newspaper that they would have problems with the Mitchell principles, so the Government must remain vigilant. They should not relax any security measures that cannot swiftly be reversed, nor should they be tempted to take decisions for political reasons. We want no more fiascos like the one over the proposed transfer of Jason Campbell. I want the Minister to reassure the House on that point and to reiterate that any measures to ease security on the ground should be taken only following the closest consultation with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable.

In that context, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay a special tribute to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces. It is they who have stood on the front line against terrorism for 27 years, carrying out their duties with the greatest skill, dedication and professionalism. We have always expected, rightly, the highest standards of them, and in all their activities they have been subject to the discipline of the rule of law. That is how it should be in a democracy. All of us owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. In turn, they deserve the support of all the people of Northern Ireland and all parties in the House.

We currently have peace in Northern Ireland, but, as the Minister will acknowledge, it remains a fragile and imperfect peace. That is the justification for our support for the Bill, to which I shall now turn my attention. In doing so, I express our gratitude for the work of Lord Lloyd in reviewing all the anti-terrorist legislation. As the Minister explained, the Bill extends the 1996 Act for two more years. It retains most of the powers contained in the Act passed by the last Conservative Government; but the Government also seek to make three key amendments.

The first amendment is made by clause 2, which amends schedule 1 of the 1996 Act, which deals with scheduled offences, so as to increase the number of such offences that can be certified out, at the Attorney—General's discretion, to be tried by a jury.

Secondly, as the Secretary of State foreshadowed at a Labour party conference fringe meeting, clause 3 repeals section 36 and schedule 3 of the 1996 Act, which provide for executive detention, or internment, of terrorist suspects. Clause 5 provides for the audio recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects, following the previous Government's introduction of silent video recording.

I shall deal with the second and most controversial of those points in some detail later. On audio recording, our approach in government was always largely guided by the advice of the Chief Constable. We recognise that the present Chief Constable has now concluded that he sees no obstacle to its introduction, and we accept his and the Government's position.

On certifying out, the Bill lists a raft of serious offences that will henceforth be eligible for trial by jury rather than through the Diplock procedure. I listened carefully to the Minister's justification for extending certifying out and to his exchanges with Labour Members, and I acknowledge what he said about such cases being a matter for the discretion of the Attorney-General, but I have several questions. Why do the Government consider it necessary to amend the 1996 Act in such a way now, especially in the light of the Home Secretary's welcome announcement of a review of all anti-terrorist legislation? How many charges have been brought under any of those offences in recent years other than those specifically related to terrorism?

It is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the Government are making unnecessary concessions to those who have always opposed the Diplock system, no matter how necessary it is and despite the fact that it discharges the highest standard of justice. We believe that the Government are being precipitate and engaging in the politics of tokenism—a very dangerous approach to Northern Ireland affairs.

The same is true of clause 3, which will finally remove the power of executive detention or internment without trial from the statute book. Let me make our position clear. No party can approach this subject lightly. Throughout our period of office, we were urged, not least in the aftermath of terrible atrocities, to consider introducing internment. We were also advised by several sources, regularly including the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), to repeal those powers.

At all times, our approach was consistent. Governments should consider invoking the power only if there were a serious deterioration in the security situation. It would be self-defeating to spell out the precise circumstances in which that would happen, but the facts that the power has not been used since 1975 and that it has technically lapsed, are not compelling reasons to warrant its removal altogether from the statute book.

It is worth pointing out that the equivalent power in the Republic of Ireland has not been used, to my knowledge, since the 1950s, but the power contained in the Offences Against the State Acts of 1939 and 1940 remains in force. It ill behoves this House to remove internment from the statute book when our friends south of the border are not planning to do the same.

At present, the Secretary of State can sign the order for internment, which then has to be approved by resolutions of both Houses of this Parliament within 40 days. Clause 3 will make such action impossible without the introduction of primary legislation, robbing the Government of the key element of surprise.

The history of Irish republicanism is littered with historic and bitter divisions. Does the Minister imagine that, in the event of an overall settlement, there will not be people in Northern Ireland, on both sides, who, following many precedents, cry betrayal and return to violence? Recent days have shown the potential for that to happen if a comprehensive settlement falls short of what is expected by some in the republican movement.

Does he not believe that, in such a scenario, the power to intern may prove necessary, or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, can he envisage no circumstances in which it would be necessary and right to use that power, particularly if he obtains a political settlement? It is naive beyond belief at this crucial time to take internment off the statute book when the Minister could easily keep it there without using it for the time being, as we did.

Mr. Ingram

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is going down a dangerous road. He says that, in the event of a lasting settlement, schisms in the republican movement are inevitable, and that it should be inevitable that internment should be applied in such circumstances. He obviously did not hear what I said. Internment creates divisions. It brings friends to the terrorist movement. I therefore caution the hon. Gentleman about the line he is adopting. I do not think that it will help the peace process or the current talks process.

Mr. MacKay

With respect, the Minister has not been listening carefully. I said not that I believe that a political settlement will automatically lead to splits among loyalist or republican paramilitaries but that history suggests that it is possible. It would then be up to the Government to consider internment. I am not telling him that he should automatically intern people in such circumstances but cautioning him that it would be wise to have the option of internment available. It is he who is making the mistake by removing it from the statute book.

To summarise, I believe that to throw away such a weapon of last resort is foolish and wrong. It is yet another example of a Government concession to republicanism that brings no tangible benefit. I hate saying this, but I regret that it is true: it is merely token politics.

Mr. Mallon

I listened with interest to the discussion of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister about what may happen after an agreed political settlement. Has it dawned on the hon. Gentleman that, under the terms of a new political dispensation, the process of justice might be dispensed not from this House but from within a new political settlement? Does that not reinforce the wisdom of the Government's decision to remove this power, which will never again be used in Ireland, from the statute book, here or elsewhere?

Mr. MacKay

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to second-guess what will happen at the political talks, what conclusions will be reached and whether they will be endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. I am saying that now, in November 1997, perhaps six months before the conclusion of those talks, there is no need to take internment off the statute book. We know that the Minister is not going to intern people in the foreseeable future; we did not use the power. We are saying that, if the political talks in which Ministers are engaged prove successful, and I pray that they will, there could be circumstances where terrorist splinter groups of both communities behave in such a way that the Government in the south and our Government might possibly think that internment was a suitable measure to introduce. I ask him to keep that option open. That is not an extreme or unreasonable request.

Mr. Soley

I hope that I may persuade the hon. Gentleman of something, because I get the feeling that he is persuadable. Is he so pessimistic and full of doom and gloom that he must assume that Northern Ireland will never be a normal society again? We believe that we should move forward by a series of steps and, above all, that we should restore the rule of law. Internment involves people being locked up without trial. It is inimical to the rule of law, and therefore to democracy. That is why it is important. I ask the Conservative party to try to come on board on this. It is a small but important step to say to the people of Northern Ireland, Unionist and republican, that they are not killing each other as they used to, so let us keep moving in that direction to make it a normal society once more.

Mr. MacKay

I respond to the hon. Member for Hammersmith by saying that I am not being—

Mr. Soley

I am not the hon. Member for Hammersmith.

Mr. MacKay

I am afraid I am not up to speed with the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in Northern Ireland matters throughout the time that I have been in the House and he used to represent Hammersmith.

I believe that I am being not pessimistic but realistic. I am not saying that internment is a good idea; I am simply saying that it is not inconceivable that, in certain circumstances, the Government and—equally important— the Government in the south, who are not removing internment from their statute book, might need to use it. Of course I hope that they will not. Of course I hope that the men of violence will never resort to violence again. Of course I am pleased that, at the moment, there is a ceasefire and there are political talks, but the House must be realistic, not naive.

In Committee and on Report, we shall table amendments that we hope will alter the Bill for the good. We shall do all in our power to persuade the Minister that we are not asking him to make a major reversal, but saying that those things should be delayed until there is a permanent peace.

Surely the right time to pass this measure would be when a real measure of political settlement had been agreed, and when new political arrangements in Northern Ireland had a degree of stability. At that time, we could think about scrapping internment permanently. Now is not the time to do that—especially not, as appears to be the case, for political rather than security reasons.

We have misgivings about the Government's wisdom in this matter and we shall ask them to reconsider. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government are right to re-enact the legislation, and we shall not use our objections to certain elements as an excuse to oppose the entire Bill. The legislation remains essential, and we shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government tonight.

5.41 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)

Clause 3 reads: Section 36 of, and Schedule 3 to, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (detention orders) shall cease to have effect. That clause alone justifies support for the Bill.

I listened to what the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said. I had not intended to quote my past words—I find it repulsive when politicians do that, but I shall be repulsive on this occasion—but I find that my past arguments match his arguments today. The first reason why we are dividing the House tonight is that we are against internment in principle. It is wrong, and it cannot hope to succeed. It will not succeed. If we uphold the rule of law, we cannot suspend it when the situation becomes a little bit ugly. We have to go through with it. We are against internment in principle whether on this side of the Irish Sea or in Northern Ireland, or if it exists in Southern Ireland."—[Official Report, 23 September 1971; Vol. 823, c. 274.] It was, and is, a matter of principle.

It is a matter of record that the worst disturbances—the killings, the shootings, the explosions—from both sides of the community took place while internment was in force. Only when the present Lord Rees started the process of ending internment in Northern Ireland did the incidents start to decrease.

The reason was that internment, like two other issues, became a recruiting cry, a rallying cry, for Provisional Sinn Fein. Armoured cars and tanks and guns Came to take away our sons was sung in clubs throughout Northern Ireland. The issue united a peaceful community against the Government because, no matter how many people from the other side might later have been interned, internment was regarded as patently unfair. The arrest of people in such circumstances was seen as fundamentally unjust.

Labour Members complained that the British Army was carrying out that task and we could not question it because it was being done under the auspices of the Northern Ireland Government. It took the case of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), which went to the House of Lords, to upset that situation and to get legislation through the House.

Interestingly, handwritten legislation passed through this House and the other place in 24 hours. The then leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, tabled the only amendment—which was not passed—and 15 of us supported him in the attempt. I am happy to say that there remain in the House nine hon. Members who voted against internment on 23 September 1971.

Internment became a rallying cry, as did two other things: Bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes. Sadly, all three happened when the Conservatives were in government. We are now rectifying the situation and ridding the statute book of one of the principal causes of recruitment to Provisional IRA. I hope that, later this year or early next year, we shall have a positive statement about Bloody Sunday, because that will do a great deal to heal community illnesses.

Unfortunately, we cannot resurrect people who have died. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State and the Minister are to be congratulated on this positive step. If for no other reason than the abolition of internment, the House should pass the Bill by acclamation.

I support the introduction of audio recording into interrogation centres. Combined with video recording, it will provide a powerful boost. It will protect the security forces without affecting their ability to inquire and find and interrogate suspects. In every terrorist case in this country, audio recordings have been taken at Paddington Green police station.

Most policemen I know wonder why they ever opposed audio recording, because it has proved a great tool when they interrogate suspects. Now people cannot say, "I never signed that document" or "I never made that sentence"—the evidence is there. It is a great safeguard for the police. It is a great safeguard for people who are detained.

I wonder what the outcry would have been if we had heard the statements that Roisin McAliskey alleges were made to her when she was first arrested and taken to Castlereagh. I wonder whether she or the police would have been proved correct. If she is correct, the police conduct was outrageous; if the police are correct, what she said about them was outrageous. In any event, the Bill will bring an end to public suspicion about what goes on in Castlereagh and elsewhere. We should welcome what has been decided. Not only Louis Blom-Cooper has commented about the need for the measure; Lord Colville and others did so in their reports.

I am sorry that I was perhaps a little vindictive towards my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the question of contracting out and contracting in. I am sorry that he has been sent to the House to do the Attorney-General's job for him. As we now know, it was the Attorney-General's decision that we should not have certifying in, but should maintain the present system.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General cannot have it in this way. An important matter of principle is involved. It is a question of getting as many cases as possible in front of juries in Northern Ireland. It is about seeking to achieve normality. His claim that it is because of the work load in his Department, when Northern Ireland by any account—even taking into consideration alleged terrorist offences—has the lowest rate of criminality anywhere in these isles, does not stand up as an argument. Even if it did, in terms of the enormous sums going into Northern Ireland, the cost of extra staff in the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with those cases would be insignificant compared with the boon of going back to proper jury trials.

I am glad that my hon. Friend did not advance the argument, as has been done from other Benches, that all the offences are really terrorist offences, so to certify some in as terrorist offences would be to point a finger at those particular offences. The finger is pointed by the fact that they are not certified out, so that decision is already made. The decision has important ramifications for the powers that are to be kept. It affects the admissibility of evidence, the loosening of the rules of evidence, changes in cases, and the burden of proof. Those are important matters. It would be far better to get back to normality.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to convey to our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the anger that is felt by his colleagues on the Back Benches who believe that he has made a serious error—or has he? I ask because I wonder what will happen under Lord Lloyd's proposals, and the decisions and the White Paper that will be issued by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

To what extent will Lord Lloyd's proposals be put into legislation? Although they introduce changes, they are not as liberal as they appear. One has only to read his footnotes on internment. Will the Diplock regime, for example, become the mode of trial in the United Kingdom if there is to be a universal system—if terrorist or terrorist-related offences or drug offences are included within an all-embracing piece of anti-terrorist legislation? It is not an easy matter.

Because we have not had in the United Kingdom the problems of jury nobbling or witness nobbling in terrorist cases, it is wrong to think in terms of an all-embracing Act. It would be far better for the legislation to apply only to Northern Ireland, where there is a special and different problem. Terrorism in the United Kingdom that is not Irish-related will be subject to the ordinary criminal law, as is Irish terrorism at present.

We have had no difficulty in the United Kingdom dealing with Irish terrorist offences under our rules of law, our rules of evidence and our system—except, perhaps, when the prosecution has been so perverse in the evidence that it has presented that it has produced the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family. Generally speaking, however, there has been no undue difficulty with jury trial.

If we want to return to a system of jury trials in Northern Ireland and get people ready to accept such a return to normality, we must surely have a system of certifying in and not certifying out.

I do not intend to delay the House much longer. I have put down markers about what I fear may be the result of implementing some of Lord Lloyd's proposals. I hope that as liberal an attitude as possible will be adopted in what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes in his White Paper.

I give two and a half hearty cheers for the Bill, but not the three cheers that I would like to give because of the failure over certifying in. Nevertheless, the decision on internment is historic and important, and should be welcomed by anybody who wants a return to normality and the rule of law in these islands.

5.55 pm,

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have some sympathy for the Minister. Introducing the Bill, he has been required to give a backdrop to the situation in Northern Ireland, and he has been constrained by the fact that the talks process is taking place. He certainly does not want to do anything that would jeopardise those talks, and neither do I. I, as much as he, want success in the talks process, but I cannot afford—and the Minister will be judged foolish by history if he tries to achieve—a virtual whitewash of the continuing problems that we face in relation to terrorism.

Terrorism is not peculiar to the republican movement. Serious terrorism has emanated from both traditions in Northern Ireland. Nobody tries to hide that fact. The better organized—not the more deadly, but the more sustainable—terrorism emanates from the republican movement and from the IRA, because it approaches its terrorism strategically. It is not reactive; it is not tactical; it is strategic and is based on the Armalite and ballot box philosophy which enables the IRA terrorist to use as much force as he considers necessary to make an impression on society in Northern Ireland and on the Government here in Westminster.

The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the factors that motivate terrorism. I know that he would be deeply offended if I suggested, and I will not for a moment suggest, that he is excusing terrorism on the basis of internment or Bloody Sunday or the hunger strike. When the hon. Gentleman talks about that, he should also mention Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Warrington, Regent's Park, Droppin' Well Inn and Warrenpoint. In those instances, there might have been an upsurge by the entire Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland, but that did not happen.

Despite the tragedy and suffering caused by those events, the greater number of people in the Unionist community said that violence was not the way forward. They want to support democracy and see it at work, but they expect their Government to provide adequate law and order enforcement measures.

I would like to be able to tell the Minister that he is not doing as well as the previous Government, but I think that he is probably doing just as badly. The previous Government did not meet their obligations in terms of the serious violence in Northern Ireland. The RUC and the Army are always expected to behave like a fire brigade: they rush out when something happens, but they do not have a strategy for dealing with terrorism, because successive Governments for the past 37 years have failed to provide that strategy and the political backcloth against which it can operate.

I return now to the IRA and its Armalite and ballot box philosophy. My party and I must judge the IRA on what it is doing today. Has it changed its strategy? Is it trying to adjust to the circumstances and opportunities that are presented through the talks process? The answer is clearly no. The IRA leaders, who are now sitting at the table of democracy—the unreconstructed terrorists are sitting among those who, throughout their political lives, have been dedicated to democratic methods—have not told the rank and file, "You cannot achieve your objectives through violence."

The past 27 years have proved that decent people in both traditions in Northern Ireland are dedicated to a peaceful way forward, yet Gerry Adams stood in front of the city hall in Belfast and said, "The IRA hasn't gone away, you know." In Coalisland, Martin McGuinness said, "We intend to smash British rule in Northern Ireland." Only last weekend, a leading spokesman for IRA-Sinn Fein addressed a meeting of 150 IRA men in county Armagh. He referred to what would happen if the talks ended, and said: Whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best". Will the Minister tell the House that that will not involve violence—shooting, bombing and holding the civilian population to ransom for as long as the IRA can sustain it in the face of inadequate reaction by Government, who do not have a comparable strategy? This man has called for IRA, Sinn Fein and republican prisoners to unite as a "clenched fist" to force an end to British rule in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister pretend that that is not a threat to shoot and bomb the civilian population in Northern Ireland? Mr. Molloy, who thought that he was talking to his own people and did not realise that two journalists were in the room, then said:

Sinn Fein's political policy was a tactic rather than an end in itself'. It is the Armalite and the ballot box—I cannot emphasise that enough.

If the IRA does not condition its rank and file to move away from reliance on the Armalite and towards a total commitment to democracy, it is saying that the ballot box and the ballot paper are valid only so long as the Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and members of the Government are prepared to pay a ransom to keep the IRA at the table of democracy.

I shall not delay the House by rehearsing the ransom that has been paid—the danegeld that is paid weekly—to keep Messrs Adams and McGuinness at the table of democracy. The Minister knows as well as I do the reality of the situation. I see that the Under—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who has responsibility for education, is looking rather sceptical. I suggest that there will soon be an announcement regarding the creation of a university campus in west Belfast in order to provide jobs. Have hon. Members ever heard of creating a university in order to provide jobs?

Mr. Mallon

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis

No, I shall give way later.

I thought that university campuses were created to provide educational opportunities.

Mr. Mallon

rose—

Mr. Maginnis

I shall give way when I have finished this point. Will the Minister tell us whether that university will be created? We know that a large part of the capital funding for the project will come from a source outside the Government's immediate budget, but revenue used to sustain that campus will have an effect on primary schools, which are increasingly underfunded, and on secondary schools.

Mr. McNamara

Order!

Mr. Maginnis

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not be intimidated. This matter is relevant to how we deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Will the Minister try to tell me that secondary education is sustained at an adequate level in Northern Ireland and that the record is good? Has he not decided on swingeing cuts for grammar schools? Does he claim that he and previous Governments have not underfunded colleges of further education? Will he tell me that our university students will not have to pay tuition fees—initially £1,000 a year, but increasingly more than that?

For political reasons, the Minister is going to put an extra campus in Northern Ireland. We have one at Queen's. We have one at Jordanstown. We have one at Coleraine. We have one at Magee. We have a teacher training college at Stranmillis; and one at St. Mary's; and there are 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland. What nonsense are we getting into to pay the danegeld to the terrorists in west Belfast? I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) if he wishes.

Mr. Mallon

The hon. Gentleman posed a rhetorical question: did we ever hear of a university being set up to create jobs? Yes, it is called the university of Ulster, which was set up by a Unionist Government in the north of Ireland when, by any standard of justice, it should not have gone there. I thought it only right to remind the hon. Gentleman of his party's role in doing exactly that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. We should draw a line under that part of the discussion and come back within the terms of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will not respond further to that point.

Mr. Maginnis

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not respond to it. I think that I have made my point.

I implore the Minister to make his own judgment based on three things. He can look at the signs. He can decide whether he sees any evidence, in terms of the future for terrorism in Northern Ireland, that terrorism has been abandoned. I want him to look at history and ask himself whether, in terms of predicting what is happening and is likely to happen in respect of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we on this Bench have not done our best to give substantive guidance to the best of our ability. I think that we have been justified. I put it no stronger than that. The third piece of advice that I would give him is that he has to start thinking like a terrorist. He has to get into the psyche of the terrorist, because if he believes all that he is told he will eat all he sees, as the saying goes.

I do not know why the Chief Constable continues to tell us that the ceasefire is holding, when every signal that we are getting throughout the whole of Northern Ireland suggests that it is holding only because there are one, two, three, four—I do not know how many—further concessions that can be taken, which can be banked, before the terrorists return to the Armalite, as they have promised.

I shall deal now with loyalist terrorism. Their ceasefire is clearly becoming less stable, as much because of drugs and racketeering as of politics. Some horrible things are happening. The beatings and the intimidation are quite intolerable. I believe that it is happening because there is nothing to indicate to the people who organise such crime that the Government have real resolve. I say again that this Government are no different from previous Governments in that respect.

Having given the background to what we require, I shall look at one or two of the measures that we welcome in the Bill; one or two of the things that are missing; and one or two of the areas where I believe there has been an error.

I am delighted that the Minister has removed internal exile. It was an absolute insult to have internal exile within the United Kingdom. It is divisive and unnecessary.

As for the things that I believe are unwise, when video recording was introduced, we were told that it would protect those with responsibility for questioning terrorist suspects. Well, perhaps it protected the suspect and the person doing the questioning, but it was always dangerous for the police, because there are occasions, as history shows, when terrorists, faced with the reality of years—potentially—in prison, are willing to talk to those who interrogate them and become, to use the simple term, informers; to provide information and intelligence that is useful in the overall battle against terrorism.

Video recording makes that difficult, but it does not make it as difficult as audio recording. An audio recording can be sent for, I must assume, by the lawyer defending the accused person. That means that nothing can take place in the interrogation centre that will be of assistance to the police in the prevention of further terrorism. They cannot gain the confidence of perhaps relatively low-level terrorists, because, as soon as they are destined for court, they are told by their godfathers, "You must instruct your solicitor to get the audio recording." Knowing that, they will simply not be able to provide information that is of help.

Who is being helped by the audio recording—the terrorist or the ordinary member of society who depends on the police to do a very difficult job of bringing the villains to justice? If we are to have audio recording—the Minister tells us that we are—why does he stop at that? Why has he not considered the possibility of admitting telephone wiretaps as evidence? We know that if, as in the case of Adair, a policeman is wired for sound and has a tape recorder in his pocket, he can speak to a suspect and use the conversation as evidence in court. We know that he can bug a room and record what has been said in it and use the evidence in court, so why do we not give the police the opportunity to bring evidence that could be obtained through telephone wiretaps into court in the same way? It makes sense to me. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point.

Why has the Minister still failed to consider the issue of identity cards? He and I have identity cards—our driving licences. Most people who work for large companies have identity cards as part of the security of the company.

The Home Secretary has said that he will introduce a card to identify those who are old enough to buy cigarettes and alcohol. I am not sure of the details of his proposal but, given that such a card is apparently to be introduced, why is the Minister still failing to introduce an identity card that would help the security services to deal with terrorism?

Let me remind the Minister, in the words of Gerry Adams, that the IRA has not gone away. Let me add—in the context of the emergency provisions legislation and the way in which it works—the words of Mr. Rowe, who said in his report earlier this year: Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year. That is why we will support the Minister tonight, despite what we consider to be flaws in the legislation.

There is continuing terrorist activity, and there is a real threat of more. I agree with Mr. Rowe: as far as I can see, the EPA has been used fairly and carefully: I have observed no examples of abuse, nor have I been told of any. I believe that, if Mr. Rowe is right, we should endeavour to make the Act more, not less, effective. The terrorist will not respond to the payment of danegeld.

6.21 pm

Mr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

The gloomy forebodings expressed by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) sit ill on his shoulders. He is normally a good-humoured, affable man, and I sincerely hope that he is wrong on this occasion.

Mr. Maginnis

So do I.

Mr. Godman

As the hon. Gentleman implies—from a sedentary position—we all want the peace talks to be brought to a successful and satisfactory conclusion: satisfactory, that is, from the point of view of all the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland.

I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland has an assembly of its own, based on proportional representation, and with a power-sharing constitution. I am only sorry that some of the secessionists in Northern Ireland who seek to separate Northern Ireland from Great Britain are utterly unpeaceable—unlike those in Scotland who seek a similar separation, but through entirely peaceful and democratic measures.

Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I—who have long had reservations about the powers in the Act—will support the Bill, because of clause 3. Incidentally, I should point out to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that the very welcome proposal to abolish internal exile is not in this Bill, but in the prevention of terrorism legislation. Nevertheless, that proposal must be welcome to all who live, as we do, in a mature parliamentary democracy. Internal exile has no place in a society such as ours.

I welcome the proposal relating to the audio recording of interviews with those in detention centres. As I told him in an intervention, however, I hope that the procedure will be introduced long before 2000, because it will protect not only the rights of the person being cross-examined but the criminal legal procedure system itself.

May I ask my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who will wind up the debate—a question about access to legal advice? In the brief that it sent to the usual suspects, the Committee on the Administration of Justice claims that the number of deferrals of access to legal advice has increased recently. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to that claim. According to the committee, its members have viewed with considerable concern the government's inaction in this regard especially in light of recent figures, which indicate an increase in deferrals of access to legal advice. The whole of 1996 saw some 13 deferrals. However, the statistics for the first half of 1997 show an increase, with 19 individuals being refused immediate access to a lawyer. If that allegation is true, there is a serious issue to be sorted out by my hon. Friend and his officials.

I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North about scheduled offences, and about Bloody Sunday. I have made my views known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: I believe that the matter should be reinvestigated, but not under the aegis of a member of the English legal establishment.

Finally, let me impress on Ministers that the procedures contained in the Bill must be administered very carefully. Serious concerns have been expressed recently about heavy-handed policing in south Armagh and west Belfast, to which I am sure the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will refer if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Bill's proposals must be implemented in a way that does not infringe the human and civil rights of ordinary, decent citizens as they go about their business. We must make Northern Ireland as tolerable a community as possible, and that means that these measures must be implemented carefully.

6.26 pm

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

Like the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am almost tempted to give two and a half cheers for the Bill. I say "tempted", but I shall not succumb to the temptation, for reasons that I hope to be able to clarify.

As one who has been involved in debate about legislation such as this for many years, inside and outside the House—on the Floor of the House, in Committee and elsewhere—I do not want to be churlish. I hold strongly to the view that, once the highest standards of justice are deviated from in a way that makes the process of justice one of trying to solve political problems, the real sufferer will be that process of justice.

Let me emphasise that starting point again. Had I the opportunity—despite the changes that have been made—to vote against the legislation tonight, I would do so: I make no bones about that. I would do so on the ground that, especially now, there is an absolute requirement for us to move in the direction not of restating the need for emergency legislation—not of reinventing a wheel that has not been able to circumvent the problem with which it was designed to deal—but of starting to create, imaginatively and courageously, an arrangement that would be adequate in the context of the new system for which we are aiming.

I note with interest the use of the term "peace process": a term of which I am not terribly fond. We have a thing called "peace", which is a valuable commodity where I come from, and a thing called "the political process", without which peace will be unstable. I make that point as the representative of the constituency of Newry and Armagh.

Peace is valuable: it does not belong to a Government; it does not belong to an Opposition; it does not belong to a political party; and it does not belong to a paramilitary grouping. Peace belongs to people: it is a basic, God-given human right. It is not to be doled out like lollipops by those who believe in violence, and it is not to be used by anybody.

I believe that every person in the north of Ireland must benefit from peace: not just where it is selected that they should, and not just in the places where there have been fewer problems on the ground. The people who should experience peace and should benefit most are those, like me, who live in my constituency and have suffered most from the implementation of emergency legislation that has deviated from the highest standards.

This thing called the peace process will not all of a sudden arrive on everyone's doorstep. It will have to be worked at carefully, for there is something more that the House, the Government and the Opposition parties have agreed. It will have to be validated not by Governments but by people in referendums in the north and the south. The referendum in the north has been agreed. Who will validate the peace? Whose validation is most important? Is it the people who have not been much affected by the problem these past 27 years, or the people who have got it in the neck from paramilitary groupings, from security forces and from emergency legislation? Their validation will, in my opinion, be much more valuable than that of those whom the troubles have not terribly affected. Let us not forget that.

Unless we make changes that are apparent, dangerous situations will develop. It has been proven that legislation such as this does not stop terrorism: not now, not in the past or in the distant past. One of the measures that I welcome immensely is the removal from the statute book of internment without trial. Many of us are products of a society or an environment that has experienced internment. Let us not forget that we had internment in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s: it was not thought up only in the 1970s. Internment failed in each of those decades: it failed to give peace, it failed to solve security problems and above all it failed to have the political effect that it was intended to have.

Mr. Maginnis

Was internment used more viciously and strenuously in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland? Is it not a reality that, when a terrorist organisation goes to war with society, society requires internment to protect itself?

Mr. Mallon

I make no defence of internment in the Republic of Ireland, now or in the past. It did not deal with IRA violence in any of those past decades, because if it had done so, we would not be debating this legislation now.

There is something much more important at stake: the absolute integrity of the process of law and justice. As individuals and as a community, ultimately our only protection is the system of justice under which we live; otherwise, we would be part of a Kafkaesque society. Many people in the north of Ireland know how Kafkaesque it has been.

The Minister said that there was no evidence that Diplock courts had produced perverse judgments or had lowered standards. We should remember that Lord Diplock said that any court that did not comply with the minimum requirements of the European convention on human rights was not worthy of the name of court of law, should not form part of the ordinary criminal justice system, and should not be staffed by ordinary judges who sit in other criminal courts. That is not my view, but the opinion of Lord Justice Diplock, after whom those courts are named.

Have they complied with European standards? There have been derogations, and they must be rectified. It has been rightly said that those courts come under different legislation, but the implementation of the part of the prevention of terrorism Act that deals with arrests applies to and interlocks with the emergency provisions Act.

I welcome the fact that internment has gone. I am quite sure that it will never be used again, because its failure as a method has been proven by successive Governments in this country and in the Republic of Ireland. The jury of public opinion and experience has accepted that verdict.

I welcome the prospect of a review of the panoply of—dare I say it, because I am beginning to wonder what term I should use—legislation that is not normal as it applies here and in the north of Ireland. I welcome the fact that internal exile in the form of exclusion orders has been suspended, and that none is in operation at this moment. I hope that those measures disappear. While that is being done, what people who come from the north and the south of Ireland are required to do at some ports must be examined, because it is not compatible with standards of justice. That is on the record in the House and outside. If we are to deal with this problem, we should consider that aspect. I ask the Minister to ensure that that matter is included in the review.

I very much welcome clause 5, which provides for the audio recording of the interrogation of people detained under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is a measure for which some of us have been pressing for many years. It has been dealt with in Committee and elsewhere in a way that has proved that the argument for it is irrefutable. Of course, there is one difficulty, which is when it will be implemented.

The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 has been in existence for 15 months, but the codes of conduct for video recording, as provided for in that Act, are still not in operation. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) asked the valid question when audio recording would become a reality. Is that the urgency that should underpin emergency legislation? If there is an emergency, there should be urgency, and that urgency should work both ways. I urge the Minister to deal with that matter quickly and explain why the 1996 EPA codes of conduct have not yet been implemented.

I refer in passing to the question of certifying in and certifying out. Like the Minister, I am not a lawyer, so I will not involve myself with the legalities. I think that I have also proved that I am not a mathematician but, in view of the figures that we have, it seems that certifying out is much more cumbersome than certifying in. If we start with that clean slate, it may not have any material effect on the cases that will be certified in as opposed to certified out, but it will be an indication, in the Bill, that there is in effect an intention to move towards jury courts.

The significance of certifying in will be that it is a declaration of intent to move not towards something radical, enormous or new but simply to the principle that people in court will be tried by a jury. Of course, in the context of Northern Ireland, that is new in many ways.

Cases in my constituency have been referred to the Attorney-General's office and to the Lord Chancellor's office. Applications have been made to have cases tried outside of the Newry courthouse, for them to be held elsewhere and a jury from another place to be sworn in to try them. There is the confidence in the court system and the jury nobbling, not by paramilitary groupings but by the legal process itself. It is a matter of record, but when it comes to jury nobbling, there are those in the north of Ireland justice system who can do as well as or better than those one would expect to be involved in jury nobbling. Abnormalities have developed in the operation of an abnormal system, and we have to take account of them.

I must express my disappointment that the question of emergency legislation is not dealt with in the Bill. Perhaps it could not be dealt with, but the signals being sent out at the moment should carry hope that we are moving to something new. I do not believe that there are any circumstances in the modern world in which there will be no legislation to deal with terrorism, be it national, regional or international, but that is a different matter. Here, we have a legal system that is abnormal; we have a system of implementation of that legal system that is wholly abnormal; and we have legislation that is abnormal. In that abnormality, those of us in the political process are charged with creating a normal political situation. That is the crux of the matter—that is the difficulty we face.

I must refer to the situation in west Belfast and south Armagh and the fact that they are saturated with security. This is not Sinn Fein propaganda, although Sinn Fein uses it as such; nor is it a stick with which to beat the legislation—it is simply my experience. I look out of my window when I am having breakfast and I see lookout posts on the hills. They are doing nothing, and never have done anything. They are there for the optics, yet the land was taken from the people. It was not asked for or bought, but taken.

What about the holding centres? I suggest that the Minister considers what was said about them by the independent commissioner for the holding centres, who pointed out that they were not suitable for the holding of people for the length of time possible under emergency legislation. Do those centres have to remain? Does Castlereagh have to remain as a monument to the failure of emergency legislation through the years? Does the Gough barracks have to remain in that shape or form, or is there the courage to take another little step into the future as another declaration of intent to ensure a new beginning in every sense of the word?

The Government should be commended on the changes. In many ways, those changes were courageous. I believe that the Government, coming from where they did in relation to this legislation, have shown courage. I ask them to take their courage in their hands, move a little further to that declaration of intent and give us all a chance to make a new beginning. I know of the difficulties and I know the advice that the Government will receive—I heard some of it tonight. I know the risk involved.

The Minister said that this was a very different ceasefire. He must have intelligence to which I do not have access and assessments that I have not seen. What I know about ceasefires is that they are all acts of faith in the future. They require confidence that simply cannot be quantified in terms of support, but what chance have we if we do not believe that peace can be a reality? What chance have we of solving any problems if we do not have the conviction that peace is something that we all can bring to the place in which we live? If we do not have that, we are simply wallowing in the failures of the past. That is why I regard this type of legislation, with its deficiencies, as an indication that there is a temptation to hold on to the past and not take the quantum leap into the future, a leap that will have to be made by all of us sooner or later.

6.48 pm

Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South)

Some hon. Members have been slightly reserved in expressing their appreciation of the Bill—but I say three cheers, primarily because we can celebrate the end of internment. I understand the reservations that have been expressed by some hon. Members, but, with this Bill, we are rapidly moving in the direction that most hon. Members desire.

The Bill represents the first opportunity that our new Labour Government have had to take the action we have for so long advocated: to remove the worst and most obvious injustices in the emergency provisions. It is a tragedy that the provisions have existed for 20 years. At last, however—at their first opportunity—a Labour Government have removed the aspects of the provisions that most people find so abhorrent, especially internment without trial.

In opposition and now in government, Labour has consistently highlighted the fatal flaws in prevention of terrorism legislation—especially internment without trial, Diplock courts and a lack of safeguards in interrogation. I am pleased to note that the Bill will remedy some of the worst injustices.

The House must realise that the Bill takes only the first steps. Moreover, some Opposition Members may be planning to table amendments to remove the Bill's provision ending internment. I realise that internment is an important issue, but—in the interests of the peace process and of building confidence in the community of all Northern Ireland—it is essential that it is ended.

Not one section but all sections of the community have been affected by internment over the years. Furthermore, often the parts of the community that are least able to speak for themselves have been most affected. The worst aspect of internment is the fact that those who are truly guilty of crimes have been allowed to hide behind perceived human rights injustices. Internment has also earned us the international community's opprobrium, because it has been perceived as contrary to human rights.

I ask Opposition Members to rethink their objections to ending internment, and to think about the confidence that will be needed in the peace talks. We must ensure that we send all participants the message that we are intent on building confidence—not in one part of the community, but across the entire community of Northern Ireland.

It is wrong and unjust to say that the new Labour Government are soft on terrorism. I welcome the Government's announcement that they will introduce anti-terrorist measures for both Britain and Northern Ireland, and I look forward, in the new year, to seeing that consultation document. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has given assurances that the measures will contain safeguards for the community of Northern Ireland.

We must make progress, and today's announcement that internment will end represents real progress for all of Northern Ireland. Ending internment will do much to restore confidence in legislation that has widely been regarded as unfair. The legislation has exposed Britain and British Governments to allegations of abusing human rights.

The Government have a clear human rights agenda, and I am proud to be a part of a Government who are adopting the European convention on human rights. This Bill accords entirely with our commitment to human rights—not only in our own backyard but around the world.

I remind hon. Members who oppose not only the removal of internment but other human rights measures that we are past mediaeval times. Britain must modernise its legislation and constitution, enabling us to be proud of our human rights record. The Bill represents a significant step in that direction.

6.54 pm

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

Let us remember what this Bill is all about. When I was seven, I lived on the outskirts of Belfast, and did not watch the news much or listen to the proceedings of Parliament. I knew, however, that there was something called the troubles, and that I lived in them. One night, I was woken by my mother, who was hanging blankets across the windows, because there had been a bomb scare. There was a chance that the windows would be blown in, and she did not want glass shards to go through the house. I asked her what she was doing, and she simply said, "This is Northern Ireland." That is what the Bill is about.

The Bill deals with a place where life is not normal—although it is more normal now than it has been for two decades. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland is still not normal. The Liberal Democrats are willing to support the Bill because of the current situation. We are not pleased to be supporting the Bill, however, because to be pleased to support it would be to welcome the reasons for it. Surely no hon. Member believes that it is laudable that such a Bill is required.

The House seems to be united in the belief that we need such legislation. Although the Liberal Democrats think that such measures are a regrettable necessity, they are a necessity. We shall therefore be voting to give the Bill a Second Reading.

As there currently does not seem to be an emergency, are emergency provisions justified? The Lloyd inquiry answered the question well, saying: Once lasting peace has been established in Northern Ireland there will continue to be a need for permanent counter-terrorist legislation to deal with the threat of international and domestic terrorism. Lloyd's advice is doubly sound. It is not only the conclusion of an extensive and well-conducted inquiry, but the lasting peace described during its deliberations was abruptly ended by a series of bombs marking the end of that IRA ceasefire.

As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) eloquently said, we must have faith in the peace process. However, although it might be appropriate in the political context for us to regard both the loyalist and the republican ceasefires as permanent—as desperately as we might want that to be so—it does not follow that they should be regarded as permanent when framing security legislation.

Emergency powers should be kept to a minimum, and we should give the security forces all the powers they need—not all the powers they might need. There must be a balance. We must also remember the effect that some of the powers can have on some people in Northern Ireland. Misuse of brutal powers can create a brutalised society.

We welcome many of the Bill's changes to the emergency powers. More specifically, we certainly welcome the change in clause 2, because of concerns over Diplock courts, which have one judge and no jury. Northern Ireland's judicial system is simply not comparable to that on the mainland. Regardless of whether concerns over Diplock courts are justified, such concerns can undermine the objective of ensuring that justice is seen to be done. Such concerns can damage the outlook of those we must most encourage with confidence-building measures.

Although there are concerns over jury trials, the Bill's amendment of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 will provide welcome flexibility, easing the way towards a more normal judicial process in Northern Ireland.

I was confused about why, earlier in the debate, the question of opting in or out should have become such a big deal. Surely it is a matter of logic and of common sense to establish the most sensible route forward. There may be arguments on both sides, but please let us not pretend that deciding one way or the other is a major political problem. The problem could indeed be a logistical one.

Mr. McNamara

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is most desirable, if we can achieve it, is more trials before a jury?

Mr. Öpik

I and the Liberal Democrats agree that anything that we can do to create a normalised judicial process in Northern Ireland is to be welcomed—which is why certifying in has such an appeal. It makes the absence of a jury the exception rather than the rule. I welcome his intervention, so that I can emphasise that point.

I shall now turn to the clause that will remove the internment provisions. Those powers were last used in the early 1970s, and were widely regarded as counter-productive. The politics of internment come from the dark ages. In simple terms, internment converted terrorists into martyrs. That is why, as a matter of principle, and as a matter of strategic common sense, it is right to banish it for ever to the history books of Northern Ireland.

Because the powers have not been used for a long time, everyone presumes that they will not be used in the future, but that is not good enough. We have to make a statement, and I do not agree that such a statement is merely tokenistic. It is a profound statement of faith in the fact that Northern Ireland must become a more normal place to live, and that such kangaroo-court behaviour is not acceptable.

Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the recording, both audio and video of police interviews. It was once the prevalent view that taping of interviews would not be helpful, in part because interviews were a good environment for informers to provide information about terrorist activities. However, if the interviews were recorded, there is no reason to believe that valuable sources of intelligence would dry up.

While that argument was important, we always believed that it was overrated. Informers can inform in many other ways, but taped interviews may have other benefits, such as discouraging rough treatment by the interviewers. They also prevent interviewees from making mischievous claims that they were treated roughly. It works both ways.

The Liberal Democrats were pleased that silent video taping was included in the 1996 Act. However, it is a shame that it has taken so long for it to be introduced. I accept that the process set out in the legislation was lengthy, including the drawing up of a draft code of practice; public consultation; consideration of the replies; a new draft code; and instructions to the individual men and women who have to operate the new procedure.

Where has that process got to? The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made that point eloquently. It would be helpful if we could have a specific commitment on when video taping will be introduced in the Province.

There are some omissions from the Bill, and I shall cite two specific concerns. First, stop-and-search powers were introduced for good reasons. If applied diligently and cautiously, they are an important tool in the fight against terrorism.

The Bill does not include a reduction in the stop-and-search powers of the police and the Army, but there are currently reports of high levels of harassment by both services. That harassment normally takes the form of repeated stopping and questioning under the provisions of the emergency provisions Act. There are also reports of some demeaning stop-and-search incidents.

Although we may question the veracity of some of those reports, it is likely that the claims have an element of truth, and the stop-and-search powers can certainly cause deep resentment. When the Minister winds up, I should be grateful if he could summarise the plans, if any, to review the stop-and-search procedures.

Secondly, under the emergency powers, an interviewee has no right to a solicitor in the first 48 hours of police questioning—once again, for reasons of security. It is feared that the solicitor may warn other suspects. However, since 1991, inferences of guilt can be drawn from an interviewee's silence and having a solicitor present has become much more important. Otherwise, the weak-willed and the impressionable may be pressured into a false confession and the malicious and mischievous may be able to cry foul and pervert the course of justice. Some 19 people were refused immediate access to a solicitor in the first half of 1997 alone.

In a legal case, Murray successfully took the issue to the European Court of Human Rights, but the Government do not appear to have amended the legislation in accordance with its ruling. When the Human Rights Bill comes through the Lords, that problem will become apparent and pressing. Amending the situation will involve legislative complexities, because the legislation that allows inferences of guilt to be drawn is different from the legislation that restricts the right to a solicitor.

However, I should like to know what plans, if any, the Government have to bring the legislation into line with the Human Rights Bill. I believe that to be a necessity, and time will dictate that it must be addressed. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment in the other place on the previous occasion that the emergency powers were discussed, which would have provided either that interviewees were denied a solicitor or that no inferences of guilt could be drawn from their silence. That issue must be resolved by the House.

The most important element in the question of Northern Ireland is not the Bill, but the need to solve the problems of the area. It is not enough to try to contain it through the emergency provisions.

We have seen some remarkable developments in Northern Irish politics. The settlement talks are a great endeavour, and the difficulties faced and risks taken by both sides cannot be overstated. Both sides have made themselves vulnerable in the search for peace. It takes courage and conviction to be involved in the process, and the participants can feel uncomfortable when justifying it to their supporters. To that extent, I have nothing but praise for the courage of those Ulster politicians who are trying so hard—with a genuine commitment to the settlement talks—to find a solution.

Set against that background, the Bill is a tactical but regrettable requirement It will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland, but it might provide the space for them to be solved. If that happens—I personally am optimistic that we will get a settlement of some sort—we must be optimistic that Northern Ireland will take vital and permanent steps along the road to peace. In that context, there might be a case for the early repeal of many of the provisions, which would be a further confidence-building measure for the people of Northern Ireland.

If everything goes to plan, I hope that we will find ourselves on the brink of a lasting settlement, in which tensions are recognised, acknowledged and accepted, differences are respected and valued, and communities are allowed to be sympathetic to each other without fear of retribution or being undermined by their own side. I know that that is how the residents of Northern Ireland feel. They love their country and are deeply committed to it.

It is our responsibility in Westminster and in Dublin to conspire to overcome the barriers, many of prejudice, that remain, in order to render the Bill obsolete. That challenge transcends party politics and if ever there is a subject about which we must be mature, it is this. I hope that the Bill will do its job, but more than anything I hope that the settlement talks will give us an opportunity to create an environment in the Province in which no child in future will be woken by his mother hanging blankets across the windows of his bedroom in case the bomb scare is not a hoax.

7.7 pm

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

I commend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on his consideration of the issue. He has a background in the matter, and I largely concur with his analysis.

I am a reasonable man, and I thought that the majority of the speech by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was measured, reasonable and appropriate for someone speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Regrettably, his opening remarks were typical of those made by members of the previous Government about the Labour party being soft on terrorism.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I stood where he stands for five years, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). There was no ceasefire then, and I had to look under my car every day of the week when I took my children to school. I went to Crossmaglen, the Bogside, the Creggan and Turf Lodge, and I went to all the places from which terrorism emanated. I condemned them out of hand, no matter where I was. I stood four square at the Dispatch Box and condemned every terrorist atrocity. I was not soft on terrorism, and nor were my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North or my party. I take offence at Conservatives accusing us of being soft on terrorism. We objected to certain provisions in the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act that were corrosive of human rights.

I went to a dangerous place on the border with my old friend, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for whom I have a great deal of respect. The hon. Gentleman has been astonishingly courageous throughout his career in his fight against terrorism and in the way in which he has spoken against it. I like to think that I have too, together with other hon. Friends.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North—who is now back in his place—and I are the only two here this evening, I think, who were in the House 25 years ago to vote for the prevention of terrorism Act. We continued to vote for it as a temporary measure, until we discovered that some elements of it were unacceptable for reasons of human rights. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has mentioned exclusion orders—internal exile. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed that they shall no longer exist.

A young boy from Derry called John Matthews was brought before a magistrate, charged with terrorist offences. He was sent to a high-security prison for three months and then released and brought back to the same magistrate who had sent him down three months before. The prosecution withdrew all charges against John Matthews. I was in the court at the time.

The stipendiary magistrate said, "Well, you guys were before me three months ago saying this guy was a terrorist." They said, "Your worship, we withdraw all charges." In my presence, the magistrate said, "Young man, you can leave my court without a stain on your character." Five minutes later, he was rearrested, the previous Home Secretary signed an exclusion order on him, and he was sent back to Northern Ireland.

That is how the provisions have been used. I did not vote for the prevention of terrorism Act last time it was brought before the House, because it included provision for exclusion orders.

I agree with the Minister that it is essential that anti-terrorist legislation should be available to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced the Government's intention to present new proposals to replace the EPA and the PTA with permanent, UK-wide counter-terrorism legislation, to be published in a joint Home Office and Northern Ireland Office consultation paper early in the new year. In the interim, before any fundamental reform of counter-terrorism legislation, a renewed and amended EPA will continue to provide the people of Northern Ireland with vital protection against the terrorist threat.

Having been involved with Northern Ireland matters for so long, I know that we have made substantial progress. My old friend the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is not content, but I think that most of the corrosive effects of the original EPA are being removed. I hope that we can get rid of the Act and introduce a comprehensive, UK-wide anti-terrorism Bill to deal with the problem.

I sincerely hope that we shall never again hear the allegation from the Conservatives that we are soft on terrorism, or that we have ever been. I find those remarks personally offensive.

7.14 pm

Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea)

In coping with terrorism, the House has two principal, but distinct, obligations. Resistance to crude violence, or the threat of violence, must be maintained at all times, but no opportunity should be neglected to utilise and enhance the democratic process to abate that violence. The paradox of the Government's present position is that, by discarding one of their principal deterrent weapons—internment—they are indulging in unilateral disarmament before they have received any concessions.

I accept the sincerity of the view of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who spoke movingly on the subject, but I take a more practical attitude. We should never discard any mechanism or disarm in any way until we know what concession we will receive in return—and, hopefully, already have it in the bank.

I should like to add a short personal comment. Almost all of us have suffered the experience of being deliberately—and with relish—misrepresented in the press. As we all know, there is no point in denying anything, embellishing comments or attempting to put them in context. The media do not want enlightenment; they want controversy. It is safer by far to stay within Jowett's precept—"never explain; never apologise" —with the exception of remarks made in the House, where one can engage in debate with hon. Members of all parties and have one's words accurately recorded by the Official Report.

I therefore hope to put in context some remarks that were attributed to me at the Conservative conference in Blackpool last month, and to make some further reflective comment on the situation in Northern Ireland. At that time, I drew attention to something that I had written 12 years earlier: that one—one—approach to the problem of terrorism was the instant execution of a large number of known activists. Even then, I warned—this was not reported-that that would buy no more than 20 years.

Also unreported was my recent assessment that defence planners, faced with chronic infantry overstretch, should consider with as much detachment as they are allowed the fact that, in one small part of the United Kingdom, it is necessary to station 14 battalions of infantry with fully armed weapons and body armour. The policy conclusions that should be drawn from that are uncomfortable, but not necessarily invalid for that reason.

In neither instance was I recommending a particular course of action. I was simply making observations, as an historian and military analyst.

Of course, there is not the slightest value in my asserting that. As we all know, it is not actual but perceived truth that counts. Indeed, my own party's press office lost no time in briefing journalists to the effect that I was a dinosaur. That was perfectly all right by me, because the dinosaur has a thick skin, and has been around for 3 million years.

However, there are certain facts from which there is no escape. The IRA is the most resilient and formidable of all resistance movements in the west. More than 70 years ago, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was shot dead at his front door in Eaton square. Less than 20 years ago, one of our own number was murdered on the exit ramp from the House of Commons car park itself. In addition to those individual acts of assassination, the IRA has taken the lives of hundreds of innocent people, and caused immense misery and suffering.

It may be that participation in the political process—true and genuine participation—can come only after the combatants have fought themselves to a standstill. We have seen that in European civil wars—in Spain in the 1930s, in Lebanon in the 1970s and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Ho wever, one hopes that things need not endure that long, and that the outcome will not be so wasteful and tragic.

In the meantime, there remains one curious omission in our line of approach. It is a political omission. Those representing and elected by the people—I designedly employ a term that will be familiar to Labour Members, because they have all been instructed by the Prime Minister to use it as often as possible—in Mid-Ulster and in Belfast, West are prevented from taking their seats, and even from entering this building.

I have always argued that we in this place have no authority to exclude anyone if he or she has been returned to sit here as a result of due electoral process. I shall remind the House of what I said on 22 June 1981 during proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill, which related to the attempt, contrived as I believed it to be, by the House of Commons to prevent Bobby Sands from taking his seat, although he had been elected for the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

I said: There are many measures relating to the preservation of the rule of law in Northern Ireland that I would support. Some Opposition Members" — the roles of the parties at that time were the reverse of what they are now— might disagree with some of those, but effectively to disenfranchise a part of the Province is not one of them …There is an unhappy mixture between political and constitutional considerations and the House should be extremely wary when a constitutional measure is put before it that has overtly political motivation … Every hon. Member owes his position to the corporate wisdom—variegated and diffuse though it may be—of a variety of those entities, with their different characteristics, allegiances and viewpoints, that are scattered throughout the United Kingdom. It is wholly improper and an abuse of our position to isolate one of those units and tell it who it may or may not send to this place." —[Official Report, 22 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 67.] I readily understand that there should be concern in some, indeed in many, quarters about the oath of allegiance to the Crown and the high importance attached to it. However, I remind the House that when the returning officer reads out the results of an election, he gives the total number of votes cast for each candidate, and then says, "I declare that the undermentioned" —whoever that may be—"shall be returned as the Member of Parliament for the constituency of" —wherever it may be.

Is it really in the forefront of the minds of all those who return an hon. Member to this place—any hon. Member, let alone the Members who are entitled to sit here and represent the constituencies of Mid-Ulster and Belfast, West—that the person that they have returned will and must take the oath of allegiance? I rather doubt it.

How many hon. Members in this place were so concerned before they rode away from here in 1642 to do battle with the King's army at Edgehill, Marston Moor and Naseby, that they carried in the forefront of their minds the oath that they had taken to the Crown?

Many years ago your own predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was put under arrest because he was defending the rights of Members of this place to stand apart and to be distant from the Crown—or the Executive, as it may presently be termed—and to provide a balance.

Our proper role in this place is to balance the Executive, not to swear allegiance to it. The House of Commons has always balanced to some degree or another the weight and power of the Executive. It has been in existence for more than 350 years in that role. We have in our time had to swear an oath of loyalty in one form or another to the house of Stuart, to the house of Orange, to the house of Hanover, to the house of Battenberg and to the house of Windsor. And for all that time—

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Clark

In the fulness of time, if my right hon. Friend will allow me to finish my sentence.

And for all that time, the Catholics in Ireland have suffered, or believed themselves to have suffered, repression.

Mr. Hogg

I do not necessarily disagree with my right hon. Friend's conclusions, but he has made one mistake in his argument, which he may like to clarify. He is talking about swearing allegiance to the Executive—that is the word that he uses. He seems to be confounding the Executive with the Crown for those purposes, and I do not think that he means to do that. His conclusions may be right; none the less I think that he would like to make a distinction between the Crown and the Executive.

Mr. Clark

rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, may I remind him that he is going rather far from the subject of tonight's debate, which is the Second Reading of a Bill? I would be grateful if he got back on track fairly quickly.

Mr. Clark

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of course I bow to your ruling. This is a Second Reading, on which some latitude is often permitted. I do not feel that I am straying any further than the hon. Gentlemen who spent many minutes of the time of the House discussing the future and validity of higher education in Belfast.

Whether or not you want me to deal with my right hon. Friend's intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I believe it is relevant to the introduction of the political process into the attempt to find a settlement in Northern Ireland? After all, the Act that we are discussing is closely related to that, and to regulating, restricting and confining within legal limits illegal activity in Northern Ireland. It is my contention that it should also be supplemented by political measures.

I take no sides in the controversy. Often there are impossible choices to be faced in a true democracy—choices that were exemplified by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said about internment and by what Liberal Members have said. However, always overriding must be one imperative—that there should never be seen to be surrender, or apparent surrender, to naked violence.

Moreover, where the democratic process has been followed and the ballot box has returned its verdict, we should not be able to interfere. If we deny that right—effectively removing a constituency from the United Kingdom—we are encouraging all those who argue the case that it should no longer be a part of the United Kingdom. That is the essential distinction which we must master.

As for the oath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which would you or the House regard as more honourable—to refuse to take the oath on the grounds of conscience or commitment, or to take it, as did the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), while smirking at the television cameras with his fingers crossed?

7.29 pm

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)

As the 1996 emergency provisions Act expires in August next year, I support the Government's decision to place in this year's programme a measure to fill the vacuum that would otherwise exist. I therefore do not quarrel with the bald fact that the Government propose to extend by two years the life of the 1996 Act, making it effective to 2000.

Continuing in the spirit of co-operation, good will and charity towards the Government, I suppose it could be said that it is a matter of considerable relief that the Bill leaves untouched most of the provisions of the 1996 Act. Their collective value has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, and most are needed and used now—notwithstanding the so-called "ceasefires", which are in any event only tactical. The powers can be used most extensively in the event of a resumption of widespread violence. I note with interest that the Government have not pursued, for the time being, the theme of certifying in rather than certifying out, and I am glad that the powers to stop and search remain.

I shall be ultra-selective in my remarks on the Bill. I wish to ask some questions on a part of clauses 4 and 5 that I do not understand. The 1996 Act, as the Minister reminded us, provided for silent video recordings of police interviews with persons detained under the 1989 PTA. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill extend the practice in two ways, and I do not quarrel with that. First, they provide for video and audio recording and, secondly, they widen their use to interviews held by police officers in such other circumstances as may be specified in an order". My question is this—what precisely are we to understand from the words "in such other circumstances"? Do they mean under the provisions of legislation other than the PTA? If not, what do they mean? If they mean other legislation, can the Government be more specific? Will they indicate which provisions of which legislation they have in mind? What criteria will the Secretary of State use to determine what should or should not be included in an order? For instance, would the criteria extend to the criminal record, if any, of the person being questioned, or to his known support of paramilitary organisations? It is not unreasonable to query why such a little-defined executive authority should be given to the Secretary of State.

As I see it, the key issue of the Bill is internment, and I do not apologise for returning to the subject. The arguments are well rehearsed and there is no need to recite them in detail. It is a fact of life that, although it has remained on the statute book, the power to detain without trial has lapsed technically in the legislative context and practically in the context of its usage.

For my part, I accept that internment is an infringement of civil liberties, and it is folly to deny that. I agree that internment in the 1970s was counterproductive and the overall effect was to strengthen, rather than weaken, the IRA. However, I reject the proposition that we should therefore now abandon the power to intern. I fear that, in seeking to do that, the Government are making a serious mistake. The fact that internment failed in the 1970s certainly does not mean that it is bound to fail in the future—far from it.

In the 1970s, we suffered from woefully inadequate and inaccurate intelligence and, to put it mildly, the mood of the time was far from supportive. Internment was not applied even-handedly. In such circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that it backfired. However, times change; such circumstances do not and will not always prevail.

The principled objection to internment—the civil liberties argument—has strength, but I do not believe that it carries the day. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay); although the power has not been used for 20 years and has lapsed in the technical sense—and although we may dislike it because it infringes civil liberties—it should nevertheless be retained because we cannot foresee the future. We simply do not know what may happen when, and what the turn of events may be.

We cannot and should not completely discount the possibility—however remote it may sometimes seem—that, at some time in the future, circumstances may arise in which the introduction of internment could be justified as the lesser of two evils because it could save lives—perhaps the lives of innocent bystanders. For that reason alone, I would argue that it is folly to abandon the power now.

Clause 3 should not and cannot be seen in isolation, and it is an illustration of the Government's underlying approach to Northern Ireland. I do not doubt for one moment that that approach is well intentioned, but I believe it to be fundamentally flawed. The Provisionals have not earned their place at the negotiating table. They are not unequivocally and exclusively committed to non-violence and democracy, nor have they any intention of decommissioning unless the talks deliver what they want.

As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has said, the Provisionals are exploiting the process for all they can, and they are doing so successfully. They won concessions by delaying the first ceasefire, and gained further concessions during that ceasefire. Even more concessions were gained as the price of the second ceasefire, and one can legitimately ask the Government if there is a limit to the price that they will pay to maintain that second ceasefire. That is the wider context in which clause 3 and the ending of the power of internment must be placed—the context of what is in effect, although not intention, a policy of appeasement.

7.38 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

I do not believe that any Member of Parliament could approve emergency legislation with any relish; by its very nature, it shows that an abnormal situation obtains in the section of the community to which it applies. It also requires that the local community be denied rights enjoyed by other parts of the United Kingdom.

I approach this debate, and the issue of internment in particular, as one of those who opposed the use of internment in the 1970s. I did not oppose then, nor do I now, the provision that permits the use of internment, but I did not believe that the circumstances were right for using it in the 1970s, and I think that subsequent events have shown that to be a fair judgment.

The circumstances were not right for two reasons: the first was that all other means of dealing with the problem had not been exhausted, and the law was still capable of dealing with the situation; the second, and most obvious, was that the intelligence was not available to get the right people. When 80-year-olds who had been involved in the campaign of the 1920s started being picked up for internment, it suggested that perhaps the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not have available to it the most up-to-date records on the basis of which to take decisions and advise the Prime Minister.

I opposed the use of internment then, and I do not believe that circumstances are such that it is likely to be used now, but, to answer the earlier question posed by a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I can indeed conceive of circumstances in which it could perhaps be necessary, even though we all hope that it will not be. While that possibility remains, the power should be retained on the statute book.

People argue—I find it hard to accept—that I should not be pressing for decommissioning and that we should allow the weapons to rust; does that not suggest that the best way in which to deal with internment is to let it wither on the vine? If internment is not needed, it will not annoy anyone, because the power will simply not be exercised.

It is clear why the Government are introducing the measure. They are removing internment for a political reason, as a sop to the IRA. They have said that specifically: the Minister, who is raising his eyebrows, said that we had to move the process forward. What on earth did he mean by that? The hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) explained clearly that it had to be done to win the confidence of the nationalist community.

I sometimes wonder whether anyone is concerned about winning the confidence of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, the people who have suffered most as a result of the violence. I do not believe that internment should be removed from the statute book, but I am not arguing that the circumstances exist in which it is likely to be used.

I do not have as much difficulty with silent video recordings as I do with audio recordings. Given the reason for introducing recordings, silent video recordings would in many ways have been better. It was argued that excessive force was being used and that people were encouraged by physical or other abuse to make statements that they would not otherwise have made. That could well have been overcome by silent video recordings.

The measure does not concern me so much that I would be greatly opposed to its introduction, but I hope that it, and the way in which it is introduced in Northern Ireland, will do nothing to make more difficult the Royal Ulster Constabulary's task of getting the information and intelligence that save lives in Northern Ireland.

In 1994, Members of Parliament had to make a judgment, as those outside will have done, about whether they considered the Provisional IRA's announcement at the end of August to amount to a cessation of violence. There are clear criteria that could have been used to make that judgment. For instance, was there any repentance on the part of the Provisional IRA for the terrorist activity in which it had been involved? Was there any sign of remorse or expression of regret? Far from it: it congratulated its so-called volunteers on the murder campaign in which they had been involved.

Did the statement contain a commitment to cease violence permanently? Of course not: it was clear that the IRA intended to use the cessation of violence simply as a means to extract concessions from the then Government, and to resume violence when the tactic was no longer of value.

There were no apologies in the statement for the victims of IRA terrorism, and it was clear from the wording that there was nothing there to convince anyone that the ceasefire was genuine and would last. I made that judgment at that stage, and the IRA's deeds thereafter could have helped anyone to make a judgment: the Provisionals continued to develop new weapons, target individuals, raise funds and recruit—all activities suggesting that they intended to restart their campaign.

The IRA once again decided to use tactically, to gain concessions, what it describes as its armed struggle. It switches it off, then on again. When it switched it off on the most recent occasion, the Secretary of State, not having learnt from the 17 months of the IRA's previous tactical cessation of violence, determined that she was much wiser than anyone else and would be able to assess within five weeks the genuineness and permanence of the ceasefire.

With a five-week timetable, it was not hard for the IRA to send its so-called volunteers on a five-week holiday; but, as sure as night follows day, the Provisional IRA campaign has started to wind up now that that time has elapsed. The Minister is deluding himself, or attempting to delude us, by suggesting that the ceasefire is holding; it is fraying all round the edges, and obvious terrorist acts are taking place.

The Minister is closing his eyes to terrorism. Does he consider what is described as a punishment beating to be a terrorist act? If a gun were put at the back of his knee and his kneecap was blown off, he might consider it a breach of the ceasefire. That would, I suspect, have been the view of Tone Donnelly, a 21-year old from west Belfast, whose kneecap was blown out last night by the IRA's so-called punishment squad. We suspect that he will be permanently crippled.

That was only one of a number of beatings carried out by the provisional IRA and other paramilitary organisations. It seems that, if they do not claim responsibility, no blame is attached to them. It is not only a matter of paramilitary beatings: a man was killed in Bangor, and the security forces know that a loyalist paramilitary organisation was responsible; a man was killed only last week in Belfast, and the security forces know that the loyalist organisation responsible is associated with people who are sitting at the talks table.

How on earth can the Minister say, as he did in his opening speech, that the loyalist and IRA ceasefires are holding? They are doing nothing of the sort. The Minister is closing his eyes to obvious facts. Many of us wonder what paramilitary organisations have to do before being considered to have breached the ceasefire and the Mitchell principles. They would have to go a long way before this Government were prepared to face that reality.

The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) gave some details of a speech made by a leading member of Sinn Fein-IRA at the weekend. When Councillor Francie Molloy spoke in a pub in Cullyhanna, he thought that he was speaking to 150 of his Provo friends. What he did not know was that two journalists were in the crowd, taking a full note of what he had to say. The Minister invites us to find a transcript. I have a transcript of what Molloy said at Cullyhanna, which was taken from one of those journalists, and I will give the Minister the benefit of a few sentences from it.

Mr. Molloy said: Unity is our strength. We see the obstacles and try to counteract them. If we put up one finger it is a very weak and delicate piece of our bodies. But with our clinched fist it is very strong, hard to break open. And we will be strong when we are together, united in one fist facing the British government whether it be Oglaigh na hEireann" — my pronunciation is probably wrong, but the interpretation is "Provisional IRA", for those who are not acquainted with the Gaelic language— Sinn Fein, the prisoners, all of the different aspects of the struggle all contained in the one body facing the Brits and taking them on". What does it mean if the IRA is taking on the Brits? Is that consistent with the Mitchell principles and with that party's participation in the talks process?

Mr. Molloy continues: This phase of negotiations may fall apart …And whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best. But we don't go back to the same tactics we used maybe 20 years ago. We go back with new tactics, we devise new methods, new strategies and we go back again to face the Brits again in negotiations. The phrasing is clear—if the negotiations do not work, go back to violence, soften everyone up a bit more and then go back to the negotiations. He continued: There's no one asking everyone to take on the role of the volunteer. Those who want, still there's certainly a role for them to play as a volunteer of the IRA. Clearly, he was drumming up support for the Provisional IRA, identifying himself with it and calling on it to take on the Brits, among whom I class myself.

Those actions are in contradiction of the Mitchell principles. Lest the Minister is not aware of them, principle 1 is a commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues". Another is a commitment to renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force" — and so forth. Clearly, Mr. Molloy's remarks were in contravention of those principles.

What does the IRA have to do, and what do Sinn Fein spokesmen have to say, for this Government to determine that they are acting contrary to the Mitchell principles? Not only are Francie Molloy's statements contrary to those, but they fall within the incitement to hatred legislation. If a Unionist had made those comments in support of a loyalist paramilitary organisation, he or she would have had a visit from the Royal Ulster Constabulary by now.

Furthermore, the comments were a breach of the local government code that Mr. Molloy was required to sign to stand for election. He is not allowed to support or approve of any terrorist organisation. His speech, from which I quoted only a few sentences, is full of approval for the Provisional IRA. It simply is not good enough for the Minister to close his eyes and pretend that all these events occurring around him have no impact on the ceasefire and the IRA's position.

I am sure that the Minister has seen in The Irish Times a column written by Jim Cusack, a security correspondent known to have lines into the Provisional IRA, who in the past has been able to break stories as to the IRA's thinking. This week he again indicates that IRA units in the north have been told by their leadership that the ceasefire is temporary. The Secretary of State made her decision because she was satisfied that the IRA-Sinn Fein organisation was exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. Have the Government any cause to doubt whether it is still of the same mind?

Finally, like many other people in Northern Ireland, I become more and more frustrated with a Government who have eyes but see not, and who have ears but hear not, things that affect so intimately the security of this nation. We wonder when they will put it to the Provisional IRA movement that it will go out of the talks process if it does not abide by the rules. I do not accept that it ever did; it was the Government who accepted it.

The criteria were set down by two Prime Ministers. They said that anyone participating in constitutional negotiations had to be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. Are the Government telling us that they have a different yardstick against which they will judge the participation of Sinn Fein-IRA? For, if the same judgment is to be made, I await the Government's response on the issues that I have raised tonight, and on other issues of which they are well aware, involving the IRA's participation in acts of violence at present in Northern Ireland.

7.55 pm

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire)

We have had a typically robust and wide debate, ranging from the potential university campus in west Belfast to fringe meetings at Conservative party conferences, with due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark).

A number of important questions have been put to the Minister, covering all aspects of security policy and dealing with the peace process. I am sure that the Minister who is to reply will be delighted that he has two hours in which to do full justice to all those pertinent questions. I shall deal with some of the points made, but in a moment.

This has also been an extremely timely debate, because, if the reports are to be believed, the process could be entering a crucial phase. Of course, I am referring to the widespread newspaper reports of splits within the republican movement—Sinn Fein and the IRA—over future strategy. Sinn Fein now seems to be playing down what appears to be a number of high-level resignations from its organisation in recent days.

If the reports are true, they are disturbing, to say the least, as indeed are the remarks made at the weekend by the leading Sinn Fein councillor and reputed moderate party strategist, Francie Molloy. The hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made that point. Molloy's comments, which were no doubt intended to reassure republican activists, were full of bellicose and ritualistic anti-British venom. They certainly sit oddly by the side of his party's professed commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence—another point made clearly and eloquently by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

Let us remind ourselves of what Mr. Molloy said, which was printed in The Daily Telegraph on Monday 17 November. He stated: This phase of negotiations may fall apart, it may not succeed. And whenever that does happen then we simply go back to what we know best. Most hon. Members present will have their own ideas as to what precisely Sinn Fein-IRA does best.

Like the Government, we hope that Sinn Fein's commitment to the democratic process is not in doubt; but such comments hardly inspire the sort of confidence—not least among the other parties participating in the talks process—that will be necessary if those talks are to be successful. Sinn Fein-IRA needs to be clear about one thing: a commitment to democracy and non-violence is not a flexible principle, to be adopted one day and discarded the next when things are not going the way they want. If we are to take Sinn Fein at its word when it professes its democratic credentials, the sort of language used at the weekend has no place and we should have no more of such ambivalence. I trust that the Government will continue to monitor closely such statements.

The comments serve as a welcome reminder to the House of the necessity of renewing the emergency provisions for a further two years, and they totally vindicate the Opposition's approach to the Government's proposed changes, especially the dropping of the power of internment. That approach is based on a hard-headed assessment of the realities of the current situation in Northern Ireland, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, we have been here before, only to see the hopes for a lasting peace cruelly dashed. Like all hon. Members, we hope that Sinn Fein has ceased to be an apologist for violence, but we require a good deal more evidence of its democratic intentions and credentials before we can support a weakening of the powers contained in the legislation.

Nothing more graphically illustrates the capacity of Sinn Fein-IRA to split than the events of recent days. It is an enduring feature of violent Irish republicanism—indeed, of paramilitary groups from across the community. By seeking to discard the power of internment today, the Government are being over-hasty and potentially reckless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) ably pointed out. For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that the Government do not come to regret their action.

Our other concern is the significant increase in the number of scheduled offences that will become eligible for certifying out, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. I know that the Minister of State is on slightly uncomfortable territory here, as it was only in March this year, during the renewal debate on the 1996 Act, that he argued for the system to be changed to one of certifying in. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) embarrassed Ministers by pointing out that that was Labour party policy when in opposition, and he made a strong case for the change to certifying in.

Judging from the Hansard in front of me, the Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, also made an eloquent case for that policy. When he winds up, I hope that he will explain the change to the House in a way that we can understand, because the Minister of State did not convince me, or the hon. Member for Hull, North, that the reasons for the policy change were valid. We look forward to a full explanation why, within the space of some six or seven months, Labour party policy on certifying out or certifying in has effectively done a U-turn. We welcome that change of heart and hope that Ministers will continue to support the policy as and when the review of the prevention of terrorism Act and associated legislation takes place, some time next year.

I shall now pick up on some of the contributions with which I concur and I hope the Minister will give full answers to hon. Members in his winding-up speech. Several hon. Members sought an assurance that the Government will not seek to appeal over the heads of the political parties for a solution in Northern Ireland; and that consent, as it applies to the second element of the triple lock, means the people of Northern Ireland alone. We also seek an assurance that any measures to ease security on the ground should be taken only following the closest consultation with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable.

Why do the Government consider it necessary to amend the Act in such a way now, especially in the light of the Home Secretary's announcement of the review of all the anti-terrorist legislation in the new year? It is only six or seven months since the previous Government brought this legislation to the House, so we are interested in learning why the current Government have seen fit to introduce changes at this early date—bearing in mind that there is a full review in process and some of the matters being debated could have waited until the new year. Finally, on the question of scheduled offences through the Diplock procedure, can the Minister tell us how many charges have been brought under any of those offences in recent years, other than those that are specifically terrorist-related?

Northern Ireland does not yet enjoy a permanent and lasting peace. We wish the Government well in their efforts, through the talks process, to secure those objectives. As long as they respect the fundamental principles for a settlement that have been negotiated over several years between successive British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties, they will enjoy our support. The most fundamental of those principles is consent: nothing must be implemented that contravenes that principle—of that, there can be no room for doubt.

In the event of a settlement and a lasting peace, it might be that the emergency provisions could be relaxed, although we believe that there would still be a strong case for permanent anti-terrorist legislation to remain on the statute book. We are, regrettably, far from that point today, for all the reasons stated by my hon. Friends and me. Despite our grave doubts about the Government's wisdom in removing the power of internment, we shall not—unlike the Labour party in opposition—use that as an excuse to play party politics. The issues at stake and the legislation itself are too important for that, so we have no hesitation in supporting the Government tonight.

8.6 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington)

I listened with great interest to the debate, as I have retained a special interest in the emergency legislation. I regret that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is not in the Chamber—he has put in his apology for being absent due to other engagements. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I hope that this is the last time the House will be involved in a Second Reading of an emergency provisions Act.

The debate has been long and, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) described it, robust, which is consistent with past experience of these matters. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken, expressed their view and contributed to the debate. I shall respond to as many points as possible, but I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me for replying only to the matters that are relevant to the Bill and thus imposing a discipline on myself that not all hon. Members applied.

Many hon. Members correctly identified the key matter as the removal of internment from British legislation. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) referred to that as merely token politics. That legislation that is deeply disturbing to everyone with any concern about human rights should be regarded as token politics is worrying. Internment is a matter of considerable importance.

Let me remind hon. Members what internment means: it involves a decision by the Government to deprive individuals of their liberty, without trial and without the normal safeguards which the law provides for the protection of the accused. Hon. Members frequently said that we must not surrender to violence, but it is possible to interpret internment as a surrender to violence, because it involves using the methods of violence to deprive people of their liberty without the safeguards of courts of law. That is why it is so offensive. It has never been a means of achieving stability in the community. If we were to use it, the effect would be quite the reverse.

I was again disturbed by the hon. Member for Bracknell asking why we are removing internment now and his suggestion that, if minority groups became involved in violence after a settlement, it would be time to apply internment. That seemed to be the implication of his remarks. I cannot think of a means by which violence would more surely return than the introduction of internment in those circumstances.

It is worth remembering Lord Colville' s review of the Act in 1990. He identified and discussed in some detail the difficulties associated with the operation of internment and its repercussions on the nationalist community. He noted that perhaps the most sinister by-product was the tendency to strengthen terrorist networks and to increase hostility and criminal skills among those detained, and that it served significantly to undermine respect for the law and the judicial process.

We must take seriously the international community's perception of internment. It is important to establish our democratic and law-abiding credentials in this firm way. I was pleased by the praise of Labour Members for our having taken the first possible opportunity to honour our commitment in opposition to remove internment from the Act. That is an important statement of political principle that does honour to this Government and to this country.

Several hon. Members mentioned audio and video recording. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) asked about the delay in introducing silent video recording. I am pleased to say that it is now being done at Castlereagh. I cannot answer for the delay that occurred before 1 May, but one reason for the delay since is that we knew that we were going to introduce audio recording as well. It was important to ensure that the systems that we introduced would be compatible. It is more complicated than it sounds, because there has to be a code of practice and staff must be trained. We stated in opposition that we would bring in audio recording, which introduces a new element into procedures.

Mr. Godman

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response to my intervention. My point is that the audio recording system should be introduced long before 2000, although I admit that the introduction of such technology is complicated, as we know from our Scottish experience.

Mr. Worthington

We are moving ahead on this. Audio recording will also be an important step forward for the forces of security and justice. One of the most compelling arguments was made by Mr. Justice Kerr in the case of the Ballymurphy Seven when he said: it is my confident opinion that had audio recording been available, this trial could have been completed comfortably within a few weeks instead of the 16 months that it occupied. That would not only have saved money but dealt with any specious arguments used against the security forces. It is a safeguard for both sides, and I was surprised that the previous Government did not take that step.

Let me move on to the tangled subject of scheduling, certifying in and certifying out, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has taken his PhD. All Labour Members agree that it would be most desirable to get away from the Diplock system. We would like to introduce normal law in normal circumstances, and that includes trial by jury. The Government should be given credit for adding to the number of offences that the Attorney-General may certify out at his discretion. That represents a significant move towards reducing the number of potential cases to be tried before Diplock courts.

As I know from when I led for the Opposition in Committee, we have always argued that it is not feasible to move with a big bang from a Diplock system to a non-Diplock system. We are moving gradually. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will at any time be able by making an order to take a collection of offences out of the Diplock procedure.

Mr. McNamara

My hon. Friend said that this change would be "significant". My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), in a reply that I received today, said: It is not possible to predict the number of cases which will be heard before a jury as a result of the proposed changes. It will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to determine, on the merits of each individual case before him, whether or not to certify it out. We do not know whether this is a significant or insignificant step. It would be significant if we went to certifying in.

Mr. Worthington

If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, he asked me to do the impossible: to predict the number of cases that will be affected. I cannot do that, because I do not know what offences will be committed. I give credit to the previous Government—this was raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—for having achieved some progress towards normalisation: 85 per cent. of the cases that would qualify for scheduling are now taken under normal court procedure.

Hon. Members are correct to say that, in opposition, we said that we wanted to certify in rather than certify out. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is very alert and can read Hansard. He knows that I made that statement in opposition. Since then, we have consulted on the matter and the Attorney-General has pointed out that it might be regarded as invidious if he had to certify in. As the prosecuting authority, he would be in the position of denying particular defendants trial by jury.

Mr. McNamara

We have that already.

Mr. Worthington

With respect, it is not the same. If we pass the Bill, the decision about normality—we all regret this law in a way—would be that of the House, not the prosecuting authority. The Attorney-General has reasonably said that it would look invidious if the decision to deny someone a trial by jury was explicitly his, as the prosecuting authority.

Mr. McNamara

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it is a specific responsibility of the Attorney-General to give a person a trial by jury under the exceptions that he is laying down, so the position has not changed at all.

Mr. Worthington

I have explained the point, and I believe that I have made it clear. It is a question of balance, and I believe that my hon. Friend and I would agree that the key is that, by whatever method, we are moving towards normality, and each year a smaller proportion of cases is held under Diplock procedure. That is the key factor, which we should receive credit for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde raised the issue of legal advice. He said that, as one of the "normal suspects", he had been approached by the Committee for the Administration of Justice on that matter. I have ceased to be one of the "normal suspects" so I have not received the correspondence from the Committee for the Administration of Justice that he has received.

I cannot give a full answer to his point now. If the number of cases in which legal advice has been deferred has increased, the increase may or may not be significant. The number of such cases is now very small and information on the nature of each case will help us to understand whether the change is significant. As those figures were not drawn to my attention, I cannot give a full answer at present, but I undertake that a letter will be sent to my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) asked about clause 4, in which there was a point that he could not understand. It is simply an amendment of an oversight in the current Act, regarding silent video recordings of police interviews at holding centres. Occasionally, the police require to interview at a holding centre a person who is in custody in the care of the prison authorities, and also occasionally a magistrate may order a person to be produced to a holding centre for questioning. In such cases, arrest and detention will not have been under the PTA. The clause will ensure that such interviews are recorded on silent video in the same way as other interviews conducted in the holding centres. I hope that that is clear to the hon. Member for Basingstoke, if to no one else.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned the John Murray case. There has been a long period of consideration because it is an extremely complicated case, raising issues regarding the treatment of suspects under emergency and criminal law. The European Commission of Human Rights judgment has required very wide consultation within Government, but I can give the undertaking that the Home Secretary has written to colleagues and responses are being gathered on this matter at present.

In closing tonight's debate, I ask hon. Members to view the Bill, not in isolation, but in its wider context. The Bill aims to provide a proportionate response to the terrorist threat, so it must be reviewed against the background of the prevailing security and political scene. There has been much discussion of that tonight and I do not intend to rehearse that, but I say by way of summary that, although we are encouraged by the progress that has been made in the talks, and although terrorist groups maintain their ceasefires, we are profoundly conscious of the fact that other such groups, such as the Continuity Army Council, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Loyalist Volunteer Force, have not called ceasefires.

That means that the people of Northern Ireland, the Government and the security forces who protect us all cannot drop their guard. Only a few weeks ago, on 16 September, a 400 lb bomb exploded in Markethill in the vicinity of a primary school, a police station and a cattle market, causing serious damage. My hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke of the great damage that might have occurred in the motor tax office in Derry.

Postal bombs have been sent to several Unionist Members, civil servants in the Anglo-Irish Secretariat have been told to resign or become legitimate targets, and last week a device capable of exploding was sent to the Conservative party offices in Bangor, County Down. All that is evidence, which we do not ignore, of the aim and ability of some groups to continue to cause disruption and destruction. We are determined that those who are engaged in such vile activities shall be pursued under law, and the renewal for a further two years of the main provisions of the EPA will allow that to happen.

That brings me to the Government's longer-term plans and the wider context in which the Bill must be viewed. It is an interim measure, pending the introduction of permanent legislation for which I believe that the Government should get credit, because what we promised we will deliver. The permanent legislation will be sufficiently flexible to take account of any continuing threat from terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland and to take account of the current and future threat from international terrorist groups.

Mr. Maginnis

rose—

Mr. Worthington

In bringing the Bill before the House, the Government are acting to ensure that the security forces and the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland can continue after August 1998 to deal effectively with terrorism and we are acting to correct inherent flaws in the existing provisions. I believe that we all gain from correcting those flaws. In terms of the ability to counter terrorism, nothing is lost and much is gained as a result of the Bill, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Maginnis

rose—

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to the Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).