NORTHERN IRELAND (VARIOUS EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1974 (Hansard, 10 December 1974)

§ Lord BELSTEAD
My Lords, I am not quite sure why we are taking these items out of order.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, I have been taking the Draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974. I am sorry. I have taken the financial Order first. Is it the wish of the House that I should continue in this way and take the financial Order before the others? I am informed from the Table that I am not allowed to do this. I must therefore apologise and withdraw what I have said on that Order.
My Lords, I now move that the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before the House on 28th November, be approved. This is a continuation of the Order which has been in operation since last year. It is hardly necessary to remind your Lordships that in 1973 it was enacted to deal with the emergency situation, and the second Act—the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974—which is affected by this Order was brought in about three or four months ago in view of the same emergency.
The intention has always been that these provisions should be temporary and should lapse after a limited time, unless specifically renewed with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. In July in this House I moved the renewal of the 1973 Act for a further six months, and I stressed at that time that an emergency situation still existed and that extraordinary legislation was needed to deal with it. I mentioned that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, had been appointed chairman of a committee to consider the powers and provisions which would be needed to deal with terrorism and subversion, while maintaining civil 586 liberties and human rights to the maximum extent. I said then that pending the Committee's report it was considered essential that the powers of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act be renewed. The noble and learned Lord will, I believe, be presenting his report to my right honourable friend very shortly—certainly before Christmas and perhaps sooner.
Your Lordships may wonder, if this is coming so soon, why the provisions of these Acts should be renewed for a further six months. The answer is that otherwise we would not have the time to go into this very important report in the kind of detail it requires, before the existing provisions lapsed on 24th January of the coming year. In seeking approval for the renewal of the provisions for a further six months, we are not precluding the introduction of new legislation within that time. However, to ask for a shorter period would not be prudent in view of the very complex issues at stake.
I should like briefly to remind your Lordships of some of the more important provisions which these Acts contain and of what are their effects. First, there are court procedures and rules of evidence. So far this year, 1,305 people have been charged with scheduled offences, which entails their appearance before non-jury courts with modified rules of procedure. It would appear—and I have received no evidence to the contrary—that these courts are working well and that justice is being seen to be done. But intimidation continues, so there would appear to be no good reason to allow these provisions to lapse before hearing what my noble and learned friend has to recommend in his report on these matters.
There has been an improvement in the overall level of violence, as I told the House the last time we debated this subject, but in the past three and a half months, 41 people have been murdered, sometimes in front of their own children, for apparently no better reason than they happen to live in a certain area or hold certain religious beliefs. Moreover, 25 people have been "knee-capped" during the same period. This makes the grand score of this particularly atrocious and cruel punishment 129 in the current year. Since the middle of September, 47 gunmen have been arrested at road blocks 587 and in random search operations, 12 people have been charged with murder and 24 with attempted murder.
Much of this would have been impossible without the present powers under which the Security Forces are operating. However, not all of these sectarian murderers have been arrested and charged. There has been evidence in some cases which has been sufficient to convince the Secretary of State that arrested men have been deeply implicated in murder and violence, and yet, as the organisers and members of assassination squads, no one has been prepared to give evidence in open court against them. It is difficult to blame people who hesitate to do this; it means risking their own lives and those of their families. But it is simply not acceptable that terrorists should be permitted to stay at large because their methods of intimidation are so successful. In fact, in the last 14 days the Secretary of State has signed 31 interim custody orders. This shows the pressure which the Security Forces have been putting on the terrorists, and it also shows the difficulty of getting convictions in ordinary courts—for whenever this is possible it is invariably done.
It is for these reasons that I ask for approval of the renewal of the powers of detention contained in the 1973 Act. This would allow the Government time to consider the recommendations of the Gardiner Committee, and to prepare any new legislation considered appropriate. If there were any question of violence ceasing or even easing in a major way, immediate steps could be, and would be, taken towards the ending of detention. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has promised this again and again, but this is not the current position.
My right honourable friend has been carrying out a release programme of detainees since 9th July, showing his intention to bring detention to an end at the earliest possible opportunity, and since then he has personally released 71 detainees and the Commissioners have released a further 99. Regrettably, this earnest of intention has not met with any reciprocal action on the part of the terrorists. Murders are continuing and the campaign of violence has been spread to Britain. Therefore, during the same period he has had to make a further 96 588 interim custody orders. This figure includes the 31 to which I have just referred.
The draft Order before the House extends the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 for a further period of six months. Courts in Northern Ireland may remand a young person to prison only if they are convinced he is unruly or depraved. Accordingly, most young people were being held in remand homes pending trial. These homes are not secure establishments, and some of the young persons charged with serious offences used to abscond and immediately became involved again in terrorism. They regarded themselves as heroes on the run and their whole future was very much at risk.
This Act gives the Secretary of State power to direct that a young person charged with a scheduled offence who has been remanded or committed for trial may be held in a prison or other secure place. As well as preventing him from absconding, this works to ensure his own safety and that of those who look after him. We do not like the idea of sending young persons to prison, although it is done to some extent in this country. But in this particular case only eight young persons have been held in prison pending trial under a direction given by the Secretary of State. There are other young people there who have been sent by the courts under the "unruly" provision. They have all gone to Belfast Prison where a special unit of accommodation has been set aside for their use.
There have been no escapes. I have visited the young persons' accommodation more than once and it is entirely distinct from the prison itself in that the young persons do not actually see the prisoners moving to and fro. They have good educational facilities; there is a very wide spread of education. But quite a lot is being done there and they have very good recreational facilities. The authorities are very pleased with the centre and are quite reluctant to fake boys away and send them off to further treatment. I think, therefore, that we may say that it is working extremely well. Without these powers, there is no doubt that we should be back to the old system under which we sent dangerous young boys to a place like St. Patrick's Remand Home, which was quite incapable 589 of containing them and from which they used to abscond and go on the run, very much to the distress of the school authorities.
My Lords, the provisions in both these Acts are considered essential by the Secretary of State and they must not, in our opinion, be modified except in the light of the Gardiner report. We shall have the opportunity to discuss at length and over a period what sort of modifications will be appropriate when we receive that report. Till then, my Lords, I beg to move.

§ Lord BELSTEAD
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has reminded us that only in July the Emergency Provisions Act was extended for a period of six months but, as the noble Lord has explained, the continued necessity for this Order remains evident from the news which comes out of Northern Ireland. It is true, I understand, that the general level of violence has decreased, and this is of course a tribute to the unceasing work of the Security Forces; but, from what the noble Lord has just said, it is also clear that assassinations and intimidation are all too prevalent and it would be intolerable to cease detaining terrorists at such a moment, particularly when the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been passed only a fortnight ago. Having said that, may I say that we share the Government's hope that the forthcoming report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and his Commission will shed fresh light on the intractable problem of detention, and we very much hope that it can be published before Christmas.
My Lords, I have only two questions to ask. It is six weeks ago that, following the rioting in the Maze prison, the Secretary of State, in a Statement on 30th October, announced that he had asked the retiring Chief Inspector of Prisons at the Home Office to prepare a confidential Report. I realise that it is confidential, but I wonder whether there are any aspects of that Report on which 590 the Government feel able to give any information this evening. May I also ask about the up-to-date situation on plans to deal with the pressing need for a new prison in Northern Ireland?
I express my thanks to the noble Lord for giving us a personal view as well as a Government Statement on the continuing working of the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act. On that part of the Order, I am interested and most satisfied to hear what the noble Lord has said, and I have no questions to ask.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE
My Lords, I have seen the Clarke Report and it is extremely thorough and interesting. I do not think that it will be published, but there are three points which I believe are relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was asking. The first is that a very detailed examination of the extent of the damage in the Maze, which is a matter of a good deal of interest, was carried out. As a result of the damage, there is already a Working Group studying how to re-erect the Maze with less risk of damage. This task will be much helped by the comments which appear in the Clarke Report. Secondly, the Report suggests something that the Secretary of State had already decided upon, and his opinion is now confirmed, that it is desirable so far as is possible to segregate the Provisional and Official IRA on the one side from the Loyalists in their various groups on the other side. The plans for the rebuilding of the Maze include plans for doing this, but it will not take effect until the end of the rebuilding because people have to be moved around while different enclosures are being dealt with. But this has been accepted as a useful suggestion.
The third point, which I think is one of some importance, concerns administration: the Maze in its old form was extremely difficult to run and in its new form it may be a little, but not very much, easier. The Report suggests that perhaps more attention should be paid to methods of communication, and we have accepted this as a sensible suggestion. We shall be doing what can be done in conjunction with the governor and staff to make sure this happens.
The noble Lord asked me also about future plans. My right honourable friend 591 announced last week that he had selected as the most suitable site for a permanent new prison an old aerodrome at Maghaberry in County Antrim. It may be necessary to use compulsory purchase, and of course this selection is subject to the decision of a public inquiry which will, I hope, be held by, or shortly after, the end of January. There is a certain amount of worry in the locality. This always occurs, but we are doing our best to defuse it and to make people realise that a modern high security prison, made of brick and two storeys high, with prisoners in fairly small groups, is something very different from the sort of thing everybody in Northern Ireland is frightened of. I hope therefore that we shall be successful in getting this project through. There will be a temporary prison on the same site which will house up to 700 men in concrete cells, as opposed to the Nissen huts in the Magilligan type of prison, but still using the compound system. This will be very much easier to deal with than the compound system because, if one has cells, prisoners can be isolated from the crowd. The lack of cells has been the great difficulty in the compound system. However, it is not intended that the prison should remain in that form indefinitely, and in due course the temporary buildings will be incorporated into the permanent prison. I think that those replies will answer the noble Lord's question.