§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will establish in Northern Ireland an impartial tribunal to judge cases of alleged participation in banditry as a substitute for the present procedure of internment without trial.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, I cannot usefully add to what I said in the debate in your Lordships' House on September 23.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would remind us of what he said? Meanwhile, may I ask him this further question? Is it not now established that these persons who are arrested, some of them innocent, as subsequent investigations have proved, are held against the wall for four hours—
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I do not think I am out of order—held against the wall for four hours, at intervals of four hours, going on for 19 hours? They are subjected to stunning noise. They are placed on a hunger diet.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is it not the case that this is done before they 892 are found guilty—in fact some of them are found to be innocent; and when are Her Majesty's Government—
§ LORD BROCKWAYI am asking questions.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, the noble Lord is tending to make a speech, and I think that he should bring his supplementary question to a fairly speedy conclusion.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I intend to do so, except for the interruptions from the opposite Benches. I was intending to do so by asking the Minister whether this is not a gross betrayal of human rights which the European Community has endorsed?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, that is not the Question which the noble Lord put down on the Order Paper. All noble Lords will now have had an opportunity of studying the report by Sir Edmund Compton. The difficulty in which we find ourselves, in considering internment procedures, is envisaging a practical alternative between internment, on the one hand, and normal court procedure, on the other, which would overcome the limitations that arise from the intimidation of witnesses.
§ LORD KILBRACKENMy Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the objection to a tribunal such as my noble friend has suggested? If it is fear of the intimidation of witnesses—and I am quite prepared to accept that the Government sincerely believe this—would it not be possible, by the introduction of emergency legislation, to permit such examination to take place in such a way that the identification of witnesses cannot be established by the general public?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it is difficult to envisage that. It is not so much a question of preventing the general public from identifying witnesses as of preventing the I.R.A. and the people who engage in terrorist activities doing so. We have to bear in mind the terrible consequences that have already occurred where law-abiding and decent citizens in Northern Ireland have given information to the security forces.
§ LORD KILBRACKENMy Lords, if these ordinary citizens have been prepared to give such information, presumably to the R.U.C., is there any reason to doubt that they would be equally willing to give it to the judicial members of a tribunal set up to establish the guilt or innocence of each internee? And if this were done, would it not have two important effects? First, would it not mean that every internee would know with what offence he is charged, which he does not at present? And would it not also mean that those who are completely innocent (and as an example of this I quote the case of Mr. Michael Anthony McGirr, 212 Leeson Street, Belfast) can be released?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, there is a procedure for reviewing the cases of those who are interned. His Honour Judge Brown is Chairman of the Advisory Committee which is reviewing the cases of all internees. Up to November 18,124 cases had been reviewed; 12 of those interned were recommended as being safe for release, and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in every case accepted the recommendation.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether an internee is given in writing the reasons for his internment and the possible crimes he may have committed, so that he can prepare his own defence?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, an internee can prepare his own case, or he can have a lawyer to help him in its preparation. The reason for internment will be found in the Special Powers legislation. Regulation 11 of the Special Powers (Northern Ireland) Act 1922 gives to any authorised person power to arrest without warrant persons suspected of acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Is an internee given in writing., specifically and in detail, the reasons for his internment?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I am not in a position to answer that question in detail. But what I can tell the noble Lord is that the grounds for internment are those which I have just stated, and they are known to any internee.
§ BARONESS EMMET OF AMBER LEYMy Lords, is it not a fact that for anybody to give evidence in a court it is necessary to establish name, address and identification; and the problem which arises at the present moment in Ireland is that nobody can face doing that without reprisals?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, in the two-day debate that we had on September 22 and 23 my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack explained at some length why it was that the judicial process cannot be maintained when witnesses with one account of a set of facts are afraid to face persons with another. If witnesses will not come forward, it is impossible to maintain the judicial process. It is for that reason that internment was introduced.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, will my noble friend confirm that during the past week, as a result of Government policy, the number of outrages and murders has decreased? Is not this the end to which we ought to be directing ourselves?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it is to the long-term effects of internment that we must all look, and we must hope for a continuing improvement in the situation.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, while fully accepting that, can the noble Lord explain to the House how it is possible for an internee to prepare his case for the tribunal if he has not been given details of the reasons for his internment?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has really studied the purpose of the Advisory Committee and the Special Powers legislation. What the members of the Advisory Committee have to do is to decide whether or not, in their view, it is safe to release an individual. They invite all internees to appear before them and to discuss the matter with them. Most unfortunately, a fair number of those interned have refused to do so. But that has not stopped the Advisory Committee from reviewing all the cases of people who are interned.
§ LORD BROCKWAYIs it not the case, my Lords, that some of those who have been released subsequently as innocent have been put through this procedure (I 895 quote from the Report of the Compton Committee) of "physical ill-treatment"? Is that not a denial of the kind of liberations and justices for which we stand?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, in an operation of this sort, in the tragic circumstances that apply in Northern Ireland at the moment, it is inevitable that certain persons will be arrested who can safely be released when the authorities have satisfied themselves that they do not constitute a serious and continuing threat to public order and safety. A number have been so released.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, why should they be put through—
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, perhaps I may intervene to say that we shall shortly be debating a Report which was submitted to me by a group of four Members of your Lordships' House, one of whose recommendations is that Front and Back Benchers should put shorter supplementaries. Perhaps noble Lords on all sides of the House will allow us to pass on to the next Question, so that we can within a reasonable period of time proceed to a discussion of that Report.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government to state what obstacle exists in bringing to trial internees arrested in Ulster who in the opinion of the responsible authority have committed an offence.]
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the major obstacle in bringing internees in Northern Ireland to trial is the intimidation of witnesses. As a result, the responsible authorities cannot sustain a prosecution in a court of law for lack of evidence.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is it not true that the detainees in general have been described as "murderers", even by some members of the Government, including some sitting on the Bench opposite? Would the noble Lord not agree with me that the first principle of British justice is that a person is regarded as innocent until he is found guilty? In those circumstances, if we are to uphold that 896 principle of British justice, why describe them as "murderers"? And if they are murderers, why not bring them to trial?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord has himself had some experience of internment, I think, in various situations where it has been necessary in the past. Whenever there is sufficient evidence, the normal processes of law are used. Since August 9 over 300 people have been arrested and charged in the ordinary way with offences arising from civil disturbances.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, will the noble Lord take it from me that I am not objecting to internment in principle? —because I recognise that there are occasions when such a process is desirable. But what I am asking is this. Why should some members of the Government, apart from the Press and members of the public, and, in particular, members of the Government sitting on the Bench opposite—I will not specify names—describe the detainees in general as "murderers"? Why not withdraw the term, or bring these persons to trial and state explicitly what their offence is?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I have explained twice to-day, on the. previous Question and on this one, and my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and I also explained in the earlier debate, why it is not possible to bring all those responsible for the terrorism, for the appalling acts and outrages that have been performed in Northern Ireland, to trial in the courts. I have made that extremely clear.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, if the noble Lord wants to describe the detainees as "villains", "rascals" and "scoundrels" I do not mind a bit. But why regard them specifically as murderers? That indicates a capital offence. Surely the time has arrived when the term should be withdrawn.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, would the noble Lord revise his last answer so as to read, not that "it is not possible to bring all those "I forget his exact words—"responsible for murders", so as to read, "those suspected of being responsible for murders"?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I hope that noble Lords who pause to think 897 about this problem will appreciate that in the application of the internment policy the security forces have an extremely difficult task to perform. They act only where there is reasonable suspicion that those who are detained under the Special Powers legislation (and who are in some cases interned, which requires the personal authority of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland) have been involved in the organisation of terrorist activities.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ARINGERMy Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question. Would he look at his previous answer again and see whether he did not, I am quite sure inadvertently, commit himself to the view that all internees were guilty of serious crimes, and would he insert the words "suspected of"?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that in a discussion such as this across the Floor of the House we have to be very careful in the words we use, because they are studied in Northern Ireland with great interest. But we must also try to appreciate the motives of the security forces and the Government of Northern Ireland and to comprehend why the policy of internment—repugnant as it is in principle—has been introduced. We must understand what the very real difficulties are in the way of returning to a system whereby people who are charged with offences of this sort can be tried in the courts in the normal way. That is what we want to return to; but until that is possible internment seems inevitable.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, after this exchange is over, whether he will again look at the Question and the supplementaries? Is he aware that lie is answering a question other than that which my noble friend Lord Shinwell and the noble Baroness have been asking? Is he aware that we appreciate his difficulties, but will he please bear in mind that there is a real point of substance here?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, of course I will do that. If we all looked at the original Question from time to time whenever there is a lengthy exchange in your Lordships' House I think we might see that we were straying a little wide of it.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, would the noble Lord also indicate to the House what steps the Government intend to take to counter the intimidation of witnesses?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the steps are really for those in the I. R. A. and the Provisionals who are concerned with the terrorist campaign to take. It is difficult for Her Majesty's Government, much as we should like to see an end to intimidation, to counter it whilst the current crisis continues.
§ LORD KILBRACKENMy Lords, could the noble Lord say who are the main usual suppliers of the kind of information which is used? Are they for the most part civilians or arc they members of the R.U.C., and, if civilians, of what political allegiance are they?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I do not think that I am in a position to provide that information without notice; nor probably would I be even with notice.
§ LORD KILBRACKENMy Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, is he aware that several hundred men are being held without trial on the basis of evidence which has been given by these people?