HL Deb 06 December 1973 vol 347 cc854-60

8.12 p.m.

LORD BELSTEAD

My Lords, I beg to move the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Order which we are asked to consider to-day is the first such Order to be made under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. The Order adds two organisations to the list of proscribed organisations set out in Schedule 2 to that Act. Many of your Lordships will remember the consideration in Committee of Schedule 2 on July 19 last, and the detailed discussion which took place in this House that evening on the subject matter of Schedule 2. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stressed that any addition of names to the list of proscribed organisations set out in Schedule 2 must accord with the criteria set out in Section 19(4) of the Emergency Provisions Act. As noble Lords will be aware, Section 19(4) provides that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may add to Schedule 2 any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism—that is the first criteria; or in promoting or in encouraging—that is the composite second criteria. These, then, are the criteria which must be satisfied; namely, that an organisation, as distinct from a number of individuals using a name, exists, and that the organisation in question appears to the Secretary of State to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it.

During the course of that debate in July last some speakers urged the addition of the Ulster Freedom Fighters to the list of organisations set out in Schedule 2, but at that time my noble and learned friend pointed out that it was not clear whether the Ulster Freedom Fighters was an organisation or was simply a number of individuals using that name. It has now appeared to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the Ulster Freedom Fighters is an organisation and one which as such is concerned in terrorism. Accordingly, being of that opinion he has added it to the list of proscribed organisations.

The other organisation which my right honourable friend has seen fit to proscribe is the Red Hand Commando. This is believed to be an organisation with its own command structure and which, whilst an independent body, acts in direct alignment with the policies and principles of the U.V.F. My Lords, as has already been shown in all our debates on Northern Ireland, it is the sincere desire of all Members of this House that every effort be made to restore peace and order to Northern Ireland; and I commend this Order as a step towards that goal. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act Proscribed Organisations (Amendment) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 13, be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)

8.15 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, this is the third Order which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has explained to us with his usual considerable courtesy and care, and I have the feeling that whenever he rises we are very well served indeed and could not wish for a better spokesman so long as this House has to be concerned with these matters. He has obviously gotten to grips with the job, and I think he knows that at all times he carries our good wishes with him. We are glad when he has the opportunity to come back and be with us, even if it requires Orders of this nature to bring him. The Emergency Provisions Act became law on July 25 this year, and the noble Lord made reference to Schedule 2. Only six organisations have been proscribed in that Schedule to date. The effect of this Order is to bring the number up to eight by adding, as he said, the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commandos. We do not oppose this Order.

There are a few questions I should like to put to the Minister, but before doing so may I restate what has been said so many times by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Shackleton. We on this side, with others, condemn violence in Northern Ireland, regardless of whose brains or hands are employed in the evil work. We welcome the cease-fire of the U.V.F., and hopefully express the wish that others may follow suit and maintain it indefinitely.

The noble Lord has told us something about the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commandos. I do not know whether he can tell us more than he has done about their aims, their activities and what is known of their membership. When were they formed, and what is the real reason for proscribing them now? Can the Minister tell us how many alleged members of the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commandos have been detained by Security Forces since the proscription of these two organisations nearly four weeks ago? Further, how many are to be prosecuted in a normal court of law; and thirdly, how many have been released? I ask these questions because the answers may provide some indication of the value of proscribing these organisations, or indeed any other. What is accomplished that cannot be accomplished otherwise? —for there are normal procedures of the law and power to deal with suspected terrorists. It may be said, I suppose, that by proscribing these organisations, membership, where it can be established, provides good reason for detention and examination. I suppose a number of other things can be said as well. But I am asking that question specifically because it is important that we should know how many have been detained and what has happened by way of holding them, about the intention to prosecute, and how many have been released. It can also be said that proscription will effectively curb propaganda activities. It will certainly drive it underground, and I should have thought that there was a greater possibility of membership becoming a very secret affair.

On the face of it, the Order gives an impression of activity and possibly may be regarded as a useful public relations exercise, but one doubts that proscription in itself achieves very much. On the other hand there is a danger that by proscribing some organisations it will be thought that others which are not proscribed are approved and that their actions are regarded as being legal. In fact we know of the excesses which have resulted in detention and some convictions for crimes as serious as murder committed by members of other organisations, and I think the Ulster Defence Association is a case in point. The lesson is surely that the law should be directed at individuals, and on that basis the policy of proscription does not appear to be very worth while. It may well be that the noble Lord can satisfy us that it is very important and that it produces outstandingly good results. We shall be interested to hear what he has to say, and, as I have indicated, we shall not oppose the Order.

8.20 p.m.

LORD BELSTEAD

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for the kind remarks he made about myself when speaking on this Order. May I just say that I remember very well when, on the Bill introducing the emergency provisions a long debate was taking place on an Amendment on proscription, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, gave it as his opinion that the whole business of proscription was something which he looked at suspiciously and did not like at all. It gives no pleasure to anyone from this side of the House to be moving this Order this evening and adding two further organisations to Schedule 2 of that Act.

I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's direct questions on detention and release for U.F.F. and the Red Hand Commando because we do not in fact gather our statistics in this way. We do so in a different manner, as I think probably the noble Lord will be aware from his scrutiny of Parliamentary Questions in another place, and indeed in your Lordships' House. However, I assure the noble Lord that if I had the informa- tion I should give it to him. What I can tell him is that he is certainly on to a point in that there has been no straight prosecution of anyone known or believed to be in the U.F.F. or the Red Hand Commandos since proscription was announced by my right honourable friend, I think on November 12.

Having said that, before I conclude may I remind the House that there are certain reasons for proscription, although I think the record shows that my right honourable friend, although strongly urged by many Members of your Lordships' House to consider proscription of the U.F.F. in July, in fact did not make any such proscription until November of this year. None the less there are reasons for proscription, and without keeping your Lordships unduly may I simply enumerate them in capsule form. There are certain legal implications which, in the occasionally tragic situation of Northern Ireland, make it more possible to bring an offence home along the lines recommended by the Diplock Committee than would otherwise be the case. Offences to do with proscribed organisations are of course scheduled offences and are subject to trial by a single judge, and under the Emergency Provisions Bill documents in the possession of a person relating to proscribed organisations can be used, not as proof but in evidence. These are valuable legal implications from which I think both sides of your Lordships' House would, in normal circumstances, shrink, but implications which are very necessary in the situation in Northern Ireland, so that those who are involved in violence are not able to bring violence home.

Finally, there is behind that reasoning the general point that although, as I have said to the noble Lord, no straight prosecutions of the membership of these two organisations have been made since proscription was made, and it may therefore be said that the number of cases in which people are convicted of the sole charge of belonging to a proscribed organisation is small, none the less in general terms proscription does one thing: it serves notice on anyone who may he so misguided as to belong to a proscribed organisation that if he or she is really innocent and should not he in that organisation, now is the time to get out. That is one of the basic reasons why my right honourable friend keeps a system which, as I said at the beginning, neither side of either House is attracted to but which in the present circumstances in Northern Ireland is considered to be necessary.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord has put forward the best case that he possibly can, but if I understood him aright these statistics do not break down and list the organisations to which detainees belong. I am surprised about this and I think it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I hope the noble Lord will take back to his right honourable friend the very firm suggestion that this, being not good enough, ought to be dealt with. It cannot be a difficult matter, and if we are going to judge—and we have a duty to scrutinise these matters—whether the Government are justified in maintaining organisations on the list or adding organisations to it, we ought to be able to obtain some information whereby we can assess the justification for doing so. I appreciate that the Government have a very difficult task on their hands, but we have a duty to perform and I think it is reasonable for us to have the information. I appreciate the position in which the noble Lord is placed but I press this matter because it seems to me to be quite significant.

LORD BELSTEAD

My Lords, the noble Lord has every right to press this and indeed, if he wishes to do so, and if his colleagues on the Front Bench wish it, of course they will do so in the usual way. But let us not forget that my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State, have a policy to operate towards taking the best possible steps to move away from detention. This was one of the reasons for the Diplock Bill which, despite the controversies in it, attempted to set up a system by which we moved away from detention and towards trial—I admit by a single judge. This has now gone one stage further, and in a recent Statement by my right honourable friend and made by myself to your Lordships about a fortnight ago, we gave concrete examples of the way in which we now hope to move further away from detention.

I must just add that there is a difficult practicality in what the noble Lord is asking for. I realise that Parliament has every right to ask for and to expect, if possible, to get information, but I would assure the noble Lord that one of the difficulties in Northern Ireland of keeping people in detention, or indeed in prison is the practical matter of accommodation and of staffing, and if one were to follow the collection of statistics broken down into different organisations by constantly keeping those who are detained in different areas, the situation in detention centres and also in prisons in Northern Ireland really would become impossible.

I will not take the matter any further, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would agree in that respect. May I put on record, first, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to detention and, secondly, indicate that there is a practical difficulty behind what the noble Lord is asking.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, we will not press it further, but if the noble Lord will take the matter back, some purpose may be served. I should be surprised if it is not pressed in another place as well.

On Question, Motion agreed to.