HL Deb 24 February 1975 vol 357 cc552-73

3.9 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Amendment of Explosive Substances Act 1883]:

Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 5, line 25, at end insert— (2) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order, made by statutory instrument, appoint.

The noble Lord said: There must be every hope that the system of extraterritorial jurisdiction which will be put into effect by both this Bill and the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill, which is now before the Dail in Dublin, will mark a real step towards peace in Ireland. The range of terrorist offences to be found in Schedule 1 and in Clauses 2, 3 and 6 will render a fugitive offender from the South liable to prosecution in Northern Ireland, and the Republic's Bill will similarly bring to trial terrorists from Northern Ireland who seek refuge over the border. So it was that after the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had kindly explained the Bill on Second Reading, we sought from these Benches to offer our support for the intention of this Bill. I should also like at this stage to say that we very much recognise the determination of the Government of the Republic to see that fugitive offenders who are terrorists are brought to justice within the whole of Ireland.

Schedule 1 includes two types of terrorist offence which have all too frequently dealt death and destruction to both life and property. One is the offence of causing an explosion under Section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, and the other is, in broad terms, the offence of conspiring to cause an explosion, which is found under Section 3 of the same Act. Each of these sections is included in Schedule 1 to this Bill, and in the Irish Bill, so that to cause or conspire to cause an explosion will make a terrorist liable to be tried on whichever side of the border in Ireland he may be apprehended.

The terms of reference for the Law Enforcement Commission on which this reciprocal legislation was based were to recommend the most effective means of dealing with the problem of fugitive offenders, but only in Ireland. As the noble and learned Lord explained on Second Reading, both Bills go beyond the scope of the Commission's terms of reference by including the whole of the United Kingdom with reference to explosive substances. Thus it is that Clause 7 of this Bill amends Section 2 of the 1883 Act by making it possible for someone who actually causes an explosion in the Republic to be tried here in the United Kingdom, and Section 3 of that Act is also rewritten under Clause 7 to deal similarly with anyone who has conspired to cause an explosion and is found in Great Britain. The unsatisfactory aspect of this clause is that whereas the Irish Bill for its part also extends Section 3 of the 1883 Act to Great Britain, no mention is made of Section 2. I must say that I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord on Second Reading for making it clear that the effect of this omission is that a bomber in Great Britain who perhaps escapes to the Republic could be tried for conspiring, but could not be tried for the explosion itself.

This Bill and the Bill before the Dail have a united objective, to bring peace to Northern Ireland and the Republic, but; after the Law Enforcement Commission's Report last May it became clear that Great Britain was also to be a target for terrorist bombing offences. There is then a question which this Government and the Government of the Republic must subsequently have considered. Would the Government accept that if both Bills were to be passed unamended and a terrorist explosion were then to occur soon afterwards in Great Britain, and if the fugitives were apprehended in the Republic of Ireland but could not be proceeded against for causing the outrage, the sense of public outrage in this country would be very great indeed, and would be increased by the knowledge that if the explosion had occurred within Ireland the offender could have been brought to trial by means of this extraterritorial jurisdiction? It is to try to prevent such a situation that this Amendment is tabled. Its effect would be to allow a period of delay while reconsideration was given to this point. I am certain the Ministers in Dublin will appreciate the damage which this omission from the Irish Bill could do to this legislation, which, after all, they have done so much to help to bring forward. I beg to move.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)

I think it would be helpful if I answered the noble Lord straight away before other noble Lords intervene. I think I can meet him doubly. First, I can assure him that we have now heard from the Government of the Republic of Ireland that they will introduce into their Bill in the Dail a reciprocal provision to Section 2 of the 1883 Act, to which the noble Lord referred. Secondly, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak not only to the noble Lord's Amendment but also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which involve doing what the noble Lord is asking us to do but in a slightly more flexible way.

The intention of the Amendment is to enable Clause 7 to be brought into operation without bringing in the entire Bill. The Secretary of State would then be able to postpone bringing in the provisions covering the substantive offence of causing an explosion in the Republic under Section 2, to which I have just referred, until the Republic have amended their Bill as they now tell us they will do. I think the force of this perfectly reasonable request from the noble Lord is removed, and if noble Lords will allow me to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 we can meet him even further. Amendment No. 2, which is to Clause 12, is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 14, which is Amendment No. 3, and they must be looked at together. They will have the effect that Clause 12 and the related provisions will come into force on the passing of the Bill, and the remainder of the Bill will come into force on an appointed day, either all at once or piecemeal as required.

The main purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the trial of fugitives who are alleged to have committed terrorist offences in any part of Ireland, irrespective of the part in which they are found. Subsection (2) of Clause 14 provides that the Bill shall come into force as a whole on such date as the Secretary of Stale may by order appoint. This provision is no longer appropriate, because the Bill now goes beyond its original single purpose in two respects, in Clause 7 and in Clause 12, and flexibility is required in bringing these independent parts of it into force. Clause 12 and the related provisions in Schedule 5 and Parts I and II of Schedule 6 must come into operation together with Clause 13, which contains the interpretation provisions, as soon as possible and the Amendment provides for this on Royal Assent. The Amendment also enables the remainder of the Act to be brought into force either on one date or, for different provisions on different dates. This would enable, for example, Clause 7, which is independent of the remainder of the Bill, to be brought into force separately. If the Committee will support me in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord that it will not be necessary to press Amendment No.1.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Belstead and the Government. I thought this was a very grievous omission, and I was surprised that the Government in Dublin had not told us when we came to Second Reading that they would correct it. I therefore welcome the change very much indeed.

Lord BELSTEAD

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the reply he has given, and also to the Government of the Republic for stating their intention. I believe I am right in thinking that the insertion of Section 3 of the 1883 Act, which, of course, has already been put into the Republic's Bill, extended their law; whereas we have only rewritten our law, if I followed the noble and learned Lord correctly on Second Reading. I had not in any way doubted the intentions of the Government of the Republic, and I am delighted that they have now made their definite intentions clear as regards Section 2. It does not surprise me that the Government's drafting is superior to mine. I will accept the Government's Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 when they are formally moved. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord BELSTEAD

I wonder whether I might ask a question on Clause 7 before it passes. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was replying at the end of the Second Reading debate to the hypothetical question of what might happen to someone who had committed a bombing outrage in this country and was apprehended in the Republic, the noble and learned Lord said, at column 973: If the bombers were not Irish citizens, they could be tried only in the Republic for such an offence if it could be shown that the preparatory act, the conspiracy or the planning, took place in the Republic. I want to ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is possible for him to give me an answer, in layman's language, on a question of fact. I should like to know what is the situation if a terrorist explosion is caused in Dublin by someone who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that person is then apprehended in the United Kingdom; and conversely what happens if someone who is not a citizen of the Republic—and this is the point to which the noble and learned Lord was referring—causes an explosion in the United Kingdom and is apprehended in the Republic.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

We are dealing with the contingency of a terrorist who causes an explosion in this country and who escapes to the Irish Republic, and vice versa. In the light of the situation that will come into existence after the undertakings given by the Republic are carried out, I think that those offenders will be triable in either country, wherever they are apprehended. I think that is right, but I should like to take notice of the question to ensure that I am absolutely correct in my answer.

Lord BELSTEAD

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I apologise that I did not give longer notice of the question. The question is, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the person causing the explosion is not a citizen of either the United Kingdom or the Republic. Perhaps if the noble and learned Lord would be kind enough to allow me to raise this again on Report it will be possible for him to consider it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful for the noble Lord's forbearance. I am sorry I have not an immediate answer. I should like notice of the question.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

It seems to me that this is touching on a very important matter. If the IRA campaign continues, there is every sign that they will increasingly use people of different nationalities to cause explosions and damage. Therefore, I think that it is something that we should deal with. In dealing with this Bill we should also take more note of the international link-up of international terrorist attacks on our institutions. We must deal with it as though the IRA campaign might continue and use international terrorists to aid them in their foul aims.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

If I may come back to the question, the ordinary extradition procedures would apply in that case. If it was an Arab terrorist that we were talking about, I would expect that we would extradite the terrorist to Ireland and vice versa. That may be the solution. It the absence of any extradition arrangement it would create difficult problems. I hope that extradition would meet the case in that situation, but it is not an easy question.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Prosecution of extra-territorial offences]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1l shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

I should like to ask for clarification on Clause 1.1. I should like to know how the operation will be triggered off. If somebody has caused an explosion or an offence under this Act in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain and has escaped to Dublin, do we assume that the police forces will apply for an extradition order? Having gone through the primary court and having been recommended for extradition, they normally go to the high court where they say that there is a political connection and extradition is refused. To put it the other way round, if they have caused an explosion in Dublin and have come to one of our areas, how is that triggered off, and will extradition be applied straight away? This is crucial to the operation of the Bill and crucial to my next Amendment.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Does the noble Viscount mean extraterritorial as described under this Bill or extradition which is a different matter?

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

It is an extraterritorial offence which has been committed and I want to know how the operation is triggered off; it must start somehow. If the man who caused the offence under this Bill has escaped from the jurisdiction either in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (in fact, any of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom), do the police from either party apply for extradition in order to trigger it off? Vice-versa, if an explosion is caused in Dublin and the fugitive comes to the United Kingdom jurisdiction, is it also triggered off by an application for extradition?

3.27 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think extradition will come into it once this new procedure is in force. This has been created because applications for extradition have proved ineffective for the reasons which I endeavoured to explain on Second Reading, the view being taken in the Republic that the offences are not extraditable because they are connected with politics. It has been ruled there time and again that if a man who is a terrorist appears before a court in the Republic and says, "Yes, but I did it as a member of the IRA", then it is immediately classified as being an offence of a political character and therefore not extraditable. It was by reason of that appalling lacuna in the arrangements that this new Bill comes into force to create extraterritorial jurisdiction in the respective territories of Northern Ireland and the Republic. The position will be that the police in one country will send the evidence that they have collected to the police in the other, and the Attorney General concerned in the respective countries will decide whether or not to prosecute, applying the procedures set out in this Bill. What is absolutely crucial, therefore, in the successful working of this machinery-is full co-operation between the respective forces of Northern Ireland and the Republic—and, indeed, of this country—and we are assured that that will be forthcoming. I must emphasise that this is absolutely fundamental to the success of the scheme.

I have mentioned the difficulties of extradition from the point of view of the Republic. It would be open to the authorities in this country to apply for extradition if we wished to do so, but in cases where extradition, in the light of existing experience, would be unlikely to be granted, it would probably be better to proceed, as I have said, after the exchange of information between the police by asking the Attorney General in the Republic to proceed under the new procedure. I hope that that will work out effectively. We would, of course, give all the information available to the police to the Republic's authorities, in order to obtain a successful conclusion to the proceedings.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

I am sorry to have to go into this further, but it would seem to me that in the United Kingdom jurisdictions, where we have willingly given extradition, that we should pay attention to the Law Commission's Report, which said that the extra-territorial courts were in fact more likely to cause an injustice than extradition, and that we, in our jurisdictions, should extradite wherever possible and not use the procedure under the Criminal Jurisdiction Bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I apprehend that the noble Viscount is speaking of Great Britain as distinct from Northern Ireland. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, in the light of the experience that the courts have had so far, the use of the extradition procedure from the Northern Ireland end would, I fear, be ineffective in most cases. This is why the alternative method of giving extra- territorial jurisdiction has been brought into being. I agree that if extradition on a reciprocal basis could be attained that would be the better solution, but un-fortunately that is not forthcoming.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

No; I am putting it the other way round. Somebody has escaped from the South of Ireland, having committed an offence in the South of Ireland, resides in the North of Ireland and is apprehended in the North. The Law Commission made it clear in their Report that in their view better justice was served by that person being returned to the jurisdiction rather than us being compelled to operate this Criminal Jurisdiction Bill, if it becomes law. If it is better law, then it should in fact be operated.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

This was gone into. As I say, the essence of the arrangement is a reciprocal one. During the discussions with the Enforcement Commission, Lord Justice Scarman and, I think, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, pressed the extradition procedure as the more effective one. Whether we would extradite in a given case would depend, I suppose, in part on what the courts decided either here or in Northern Ireland. If extradition seemed the more effective course we should prefer that method, and indeed we should have wished that the Republic authorities would agree to extradite the terrorists to Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as the case may be.

I shall look further into this point. It is an important one. If I have not accurately expressed the position off the cuff we shall come back to the matter at Report stage. I certainly do not want to mislead the Committee on it.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

I thank the noble and learned Lord. That is very much the reply for which I hoped.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Consents to prosecutions etc.]:

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 2: Page 8, line 25, leave out (" coming into force of this section") and insert (" passing of this Act").

The noble Lord said: As I explained in speaking to Amendment No 1, this Amendment is consequential upon the Committee accepting Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 can only be effective if this alteration is made in Clause 12. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Short title, etc.]:

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 9, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—

("(2) The following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

  1. (a) sections 12 and 13;
  2. (b) this section, except so far as subsection (4) below relates to Parts III and IV of Schedule 6, and
  3. (c) Schedule 5 and Parts I and II of Schedule 6, shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
(2A) Subject to subsection (2) above, this Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different dates may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes.")

The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I referred in discussing Lord Belstead's Amendment, Amendment No. 1, which gives flexibility to the Secretary of State to introduce different parts of this Bill at times of his own convenience. I do not think that it is necessary to say more than that. The exact wording of the Amendment is technical in that it excludes certain sections and includes certain other sections. Sections 12 and 13, and Section 14 except those parts relating to Parts III and IV of Schedule 6 and Schedule 5 and Parts I and II of Schedule 6 shall come into force on the passing of the Act, and after the Act has passed everything else will be brought in at the pleasure and consideration of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.36 p.m.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 4: Page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (5).

The noble Viscount said: I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in my name. The effect of this Amendment is to apply this Bill in toto to the whole of the United Kingdom; that is, Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The IRA attack from which we have been suffering for five years has been dealt with by various methods. We have taken various powers in each part of the United Kingdom, but there are in fact loopholes and it is to deal with one of the major loopholes that this Bill is before us.

In the United Kingdom extradition has been granted both from the Northern Ireland jurisdiction and the Great Britain jurisdiction without any question, and this Bill would not be necessary were it not for the fact that it is not possible to extradite fugitive criminals from the Irish Republic. But does this Bill in fact meet this case? Without my Amendment I do not think that it does. The intention is that a man committing an offence in any part of the British Isles can be brought to justice and can be made to face trial. At the present moment, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, the case is exactly parallel in the North of Ireland and in the South of Ireland; that is, a criminal who commits an offence under this Act and escapes to another jurisdiction can be arraigned in front of a court and tried, and evidence for that case can be taken on commission in the other jurisdiction.

Now that happens in Great Britain? On Second Reading I instanced the case of the Birmingham bombers If this Bill were passed, and, say, the criminals had escaped from our jurisdiction and reached Dublin, they could be apprehended and tried. However, they could not be given a fair trial unless all the witnesses went from this country to Dublin to give evidence in that court. I give two instances. I wonder whether British people, English people, in the circumstances of the violence and death which the IRA have wreaked not only in Northern Ireland but also in Birmingham, would be happy to go from Birmingham to Dublin to bear witness in this case? But more particularly, in the actual case involved, many of the people injured were in fact Irishmen of a certain residence in this country, some of whom have not been here very long. I am convinced that they would not go to Dublin to give evidence in the full glare of publicity that would undoubtedly exist, particularly in the first case brought under the Bill. They would not go there to put in jeopardy any of their relations who may live in lonely and isolated parts of the Irish Republic. Therefore, I feel that it is necessary for us to give the special powers to the Dublin Government—because that is all we are doing—to hear evidence on commission in the rest of the United Kingdom in Great Britain.

The terrorists have two intentions: first, to provoke repression; secondly, to cause a backlash. If they do not get enough repressive legislation, then the Government will be in dereliction of their duty and you will get a backlash. I shudder to think what would have happened if those Birmingham murderers had in fact got back to Dublin. We all saw the enormous upsurge of hate and feeling that occurred against the Irish people who work in Birmingham and Coventry. If they had got to Dublin and could not be tried, and the Irish Government refused to extradite them, I do not believe there would have been an Irishman safe— whether Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Nationalist Republican, or what-have-you —in the Birmingham area. I much respect the people of Birmingham for the calm way in which they reacted, but I think part of the calmness was due to the effective action of the police. Had it not been effective—and it is something that could easily have materialised—I wonder what revenge would have been taken? The Government of the country, warned of it now, in my view would be very slack if they did not take steps to extend the Bill which is before the House at this moment, to the whole of the United Kingdom.

I believe that the citizens of this country require us to put this Bill through now. I am sure that if the Bill had been ready in December no question would have arisen, because there would have been a tremendous demand for it to be passed as applying to the whole of the United Kingdom. On Second Reading I welcomed the Bill, as I welcome every Bill that produces co-operation between the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But it must be a second best to extradition, and I am delighted to hear from the noble and learned Lord that he will look into the question as to whether extradition can in most cases be utilised in regard to British jurisdiction and Northern Irish jurisdiction, because, in my view, greater justice will be done if offenders are tried in the country of the crime. I do not understand why this cannot be done. Mr. Cooney, the Minister of Justice, was reported in The Times of 29th November last as saying: Any initiative on extending the legislation would have to come from the British.

I should like to ask the Government whether this statement is true, and, if so, why that initiative has not come? In my mind I have a suspicion that the Irish Government are content to see Northern Ireland being dealt with slightly differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, because it helps them to continue to say, "We in Northern Ireland are not really part of the United Kingdom ". But we are part of the United Kingdom, and we jolly well intend to stay there! This is one way in which if this Bill were amended we should be able to improve the situation.

The object of this legislation was, first, to do justice; and, secondly (and this is a very important part of international relations), to give confidence to the people of Ulster and of the rest of the United Kingdom that the Irish Government would deal ruthlessly with people who are villainous criminals—and there is no other description for them. At the present moment we are pushing on with this legislation through this House. I do not know the timetable for the Bill in another place, but I understand it is not even on the Parliamentary timetable in Dublin at present. Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who is the Foreign Minister, a week ago today in Belfast said it was no longer such an urgent matter because there is a ceasefire. But those of us who live there, together with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, know just how fragile is that ceasefire; and if it is correct that in England actions are predicted before they happen in Northern Ireland, then we should insist that the Irish Government push on with the legislation.

The Law Commission required that this matter should be examined with extreme urgency. The Law Commission concluded its report about ten months ago. I do not consider the First Reading of a Bill, with no Parliamentary timetable ahead of it, to be a matter of extreme urgency. I am more worried because the Opposition Party have now made it clear that they will fight the Bill line by line, yet all Parties in the South have said that Ireland will never be a haven for criminals. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will invite the Dublin Government to push on and show resolution in this matter, to stop talking and get on with the deeds. Further, I wish the Committee to be clear that what I am saying in no way bears any reflection on the recent actions of the Dublin Government in dealing with the IRA, because they have been first-class and their resolution has appeared to be even greater than ours at times. But they must be invited, first, to push on with this legislation and, secondly, to include the whole of the United Kingdom within the jurisdiction of the Bill.

May I remind your Lordships that one of the reasons why Ulstermen are suspicious of having joint Governmental institutions with the Irish Republic has always been because of their total failure to deal with fugitive criminals. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Viscount has raised a number of pertinent questions. I begin by informing the Committee that we have every reason to hope and believe that the complementary Irish Bill to that which the Committee is now considering will pass through the Dail. Its timetable is, of course, a matter for the Government of the Republic, but in all the discussions we have had I think both Governments have been clear and precise about the need to produce this legislation in parallel. I can say no more than that we have had assurances that that is the present intention, and, accordingly, we hope that that intention will be fulfilled.

The two Bills are essentially and generally reciprocal as between Northern Ireland and the Republic, because they are both designed to deal with the problem of terrorism within Ireland. They flow from the recommendations of the Law Enforcement Commission whose terms of reference were restricted to Ireland itself. The purpose of the Bill that we are considering, and of the Irish Bill, is to give effect to the Law Enforcement Commission's recommendations to Ireland. Indeed the Government of the Republic have made it clear that any question of the general extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction in the Republic to cover a wide range of offences committed in Great Britain itself is a separate matter which would require separate discussions and a fresh Irish Bill.

In any event, it is by no means clear that the application to Great Britain of the proposed all-Ireland system can be justified, certainly at this stage, on its merits. We cannot of course predict the future course of possible terrorism in Britain. But the fact remains that one certainly cannot point to the same level of justification for the exceptional measures, which are provided for in the Bill in this country as in Northern Ireland. The difficulty, of course, of security and of containing violence in Northern Ireland, is that the land border makes the crucial difference between the position in Northern Ireland and our position here. In our case there is not the same facility for a quick escape across the Border. There are controls at the major points of entry and, if I may say so, these controls have been fairly effective through the work of our police in arresting alleged terrorists before they have had an opportunity of making good their escape from this country.

Another difficulty with regard to the proposal of the noble Viscount is this: the scheme that was devised by the Enforcement Commission and which is embodied in the Bill emerged in a situation in Ireland where special procedures already exist for dealing with terrorists. The nature of the terrorism there has made that necessary: it has mercifully not yet been justified here and I pray that it will not be necessary. The outcome of the developments which have taken place and the machinery now proposed which has been created to deal with its continuity is that the law enforcement scheme has features which certainly do not admit of simple extension to embrace Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland. For example, the commission scheme for the taking of evidence and for the obtaining of information is based on trial without a jury. As I have said, the taking of evidence on commission is among the procedures which are provided for in the Bill in the other jurisdiction.

The Government do not consider that the situation has been reached where it would be appropriate to abandon trial by jury in Great Britain in respect of what is, if we look at the schedule of offences in the Bill, a very wide range of serious criminal offences. The complementary proposals for taking evidence on commission would be quite impracticable: it would hardly be feasible to have whole juries going over from this country across the Irish Sea to hear evidence being taken in an Irish court. Yet, one cannot contemplate the abandonment of the jury trial in Britain in respect of these grave offences at this time.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

It was because I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would reply in that way that I made a point of trying to elicit under Clause 11 how the procedure would operate. If a criminal has committed an act in Ireland and has escaped to this country and is therefore to be arraigned before a British court under the Bill, the Irish Government would apply for extradition and that would at once be granted. Therefore, there would be no question of the administrative problems of judge and jury having to be transported to Dublin. We still have extradition—that is the point that I was trying to elicit from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor—so that, if a criminal came to this country from the Irish Republic having committed a crime, we should continue to grant extradition to that country. The only gap in the arrangements is in the case of a person such as a Birmingham bomber who goes to Dublin and for whom no witnesses can be found because they are afraid to go to Dublin to bear witness. The sole purpose of my Amendment, which, I admit, may not meet the case in a tidy way, is to ensure that the Dublin Government have the power to take evidence on commission in this country. The total administrative problem would, therefore, be the bringing of the Irish court, which consists of three judges, to Birmingham to take that evidence.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

In the situation of a terrorist who committed an offence in Ireland coming to this country, I think that the probabilities are that the courts would be willing, if the Eire authorities chose to apply for extradition, to allow the extradition of such a fugitive terrorist from this country back to the Republic. I think that that would be so, but the effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount would be to extend to this country the whole package of arrangements which is provided for in the Bill. Happily, the power of the Irish courts which will be forthcoming if the intention of the Eire Government is carried out by the passing of their Bill will allow them to deal in the Republic with explosions caused by terrorists in this country who have escaped to Ireland. If they are prepared to try those cases in the Republic, we should, of course, send over the information and evidence, and we should hope to send over the live witnesses and any other evidential support which would be needed by the Irish court. We have confidence in the judicial procedures in the Republic. The backing of warrants procedure in relation to ordinary crimes—such as murder, serious frauds and other cases—has been a system that has operated satisfactorily between this country and the Republic. I have no reason to doubt that if, in the future, most serious offences, such as the Birmingham outrage, were committed and the terrorists involved escaped to Ireland, the new machinery in the Bill, if it is fulfilled, would meet most of the main anxieties expressed by the noble Viscount. At least, I hope that it would.

One will have to see how these things operate, but that is the intention. If, as we expect, it will be carried out in good faith by each side, I have every hope that I am right in assuming that all will be well. Before giving way again to the noble Viscount, may I just say this: my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is aware that, if circumstances should deteriorate and change further, action may be necessary to bring to justice terrorists who have committed offences in Great Britain and in the Republic and there would have to be joint consultations with the Republic about that. We do not think that the situation in which further action needs to be contemplated has yet arisen, and we believe that the amendment of the present Bill to apply to Great Britain would be a most complicated and difficult matter and it might greatly hold up the progress of this urgently needed Bill. As I have said, it is something that is outside the remit of the enforcement commission, which was confined to the situation existing in Ireland.

To elaborate the matter further in a situation in which do we not feel it to be strictly necessary would have a harmful effect on bringing this Bill into force. So I hope that the noble Viscount may think that, in the situation in which we are at present—and I hope that we are not taking an over-optimistic view of the position—and given the willingness of the Eire authorities now to deal in Ireland with those who cause explosions and terrorist acts in this country, this is the best arrangement we can reasonably hope to arrive at and it will meet the more desperate needs that could conceivably arise in the continuing future of terrorism.

Lord BELSTEAD

This is my noble friend's Amendment. I am rising only to say that I hope that, after the explanation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, my noble friend may consider withdrawing the Amendment. I do not say this because I think that my noble friend has not hit the nail on the head: in one respect, I think that he has. But finally the noble and learned Lord made an important statement concerning what we had said. Where I suggest my noble friend has hit the nail on the head is when he said that although we have welcomed from this side of the Committee the statement that Clause 7 is to be fully reciprocated in the Republic, there is no doubt that it is difficult to find an answer to what my noble friend said about the movement of witnesses when one is talking about the holding of a trial in the Republic. This is no reflection whatever on the judicial processes in the Republic; it might just be difficult in human terms to get someone to go across in the middle of a very difficult trial.

Speaking from these Benches, I fully appreciate the problem that the noble and learned Lord has put forward. The Government will probably say that what they would like is a full system of extradition. I recognise that there will be a practical difficulty, as the noble and learned Lord explained, in the movement of juries, and that the Government would be loth to introduce Diplock-style courts into this country. I also understand the Government's placing great hope in the Prevention of Terrorism Act to reduce the risk of further bombings and other outrages.

I venture to give this advice to my noble friend: I think the noble and learned Lord is right and that we must surely move step by step. Let us get this Bill in co-operation with the Government of the Republic and then, as the noble and learned Lord said, if, as we hope will not happen, the situation were to deteriorate, the Home Secretary, in consultation with colleagues across the Irish Sea, would have to give further thought to the very serious points which my noble friend made.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful for the sensitive and highly responsible way—not to suggest that the noble Lord was at all irresponsible in his remarks—in which the noble Lord addressed the Committee in regard to this hideously difficult situation. We have advanced a good deal and we must not be too pessimistic. The Eire authorities have come a good deal of the way. although not as far as we should have liked, and there are various other indications of a willingness to help in what is really a threat to our respective societies, in the Republic, in Northern Ireland, and here.

We are faced by a common enemy of ruthless terrorism. There is a mood to tackle it and to work together. I know that nothing that has been said here was intended to cause any offence in Eire, nor I think were the words expressed capable of that construction. However, I suggest that we had better proceed as we have done so far and should, alas, the situation deteriorate, we will have another look to see where we go to try to protect our people, the innocent who suffer in our respective countries, from the continuance of these horrid acts.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

I am grateful both to my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord for their remarks. I do not foresee any problems about this issue of transporting the judge and jury to Dublin because extradition would apply and the man would be tried in the area where he committed the offence. I am not a lawyer but I have always understood that one of the most important duties of a court is to judge the quality of the evidence, and it is in order to enable the Irish judges to decide whether the evidence is of such quality as to convict a person that I want this Bill to be extended in a way that will enable the three judges to come to Birmingham, or wherever the crime has been committed, and hear the evidence in person.

I do not believe it is justice, or at any rate fair justice, to accept evidence without those who are taking part in the judgment in the case being present to hear the evidence. I do not believe it is fair to the accused, unless his counsel and he are there to hear the evidence and the quality of the questioning. Thus, when a man who commits a crime in Birmingham is taken to court in Dublin, if the evidence is not taken on commission in this country by people who will not go to Dublin, I believe that injustice will be done. We should realise that we are in an age of violence and that failure by the Government to act in time will be just as much of an anti-social act as actually doing it. If a crime is committed and the matter escalates we shall have failed to-day to take measures to bring the guilty person to justice; and if backlash occurs, we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves. With those remarks I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Extra-territorial offences]:

4.6 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This is a technical Amendment, and I do not know whether your Lord-ships would like me to give a detailed explanation of it.

Several Noble Lords: No.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I thought that might be the response. I therefore move it formally.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 12, after ("arrest") insert "which was").—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I beg to move Amendment No. 6. The remarks I made about the previous Amendment apply equally to this one, and I can therefore move it formally.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 14, after (" 1965 ") insert ("and which does not specify the extra-territorial offence ").—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Examination of witnesses out of court]:

On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord BELSTEAD

I have only a few points to raise on the Schedule before we dispose of it. This provision deals with the examination of witnesses out of court and this is perhaps the most important part of the extra-territorial procedure. As I understand the Schedule, it is divided into three Parts. Part I deals with the examination in Northern Ireland of witnesses to assist the court which is holding the trial in the Republic, while Part II deals with the examination of witnesses in the Republic to assist the court which is holding the trial in Northern Ireland.

To the layman it would appear, having read those two headings, that the two Parts should be complementary, but they are not. They are drafted differently and, having combed through them, it seems to me that three questions arise. First, in paragraph 5(2) of Part II a duty is laid on the court to comply with an application from the prosecutor or the accused for the issue of a letter of request, but for some reason there is no corresponding duty to be found in Part I. Secondly, in Part I. paragraph 2(3), there are penalties for default in attending court or refusing to take an oath or for contempt, matters which have been very much in the mind of the judiciary in the courts in Northern Ireland in the past; but Part II does not contain a corresponding provision, although I have discovered it in Clause 12 of the Irish Bill. Thirdly, in Part I there is provision that the Commissioner shall sit in private, but Part II is silent on this point as well.

These may seem small and perhaps slightly niggling points, and I appreciate that they could possibly easily be answered by letter. Nevertheless, from a layman's point of view, I should like to know what is the basis for the drafting of these two Parts of this Schedule. Certainly it is difficult to understand why it is that, although the headings clearly deal with the same process in the different jurisdictions, the drafting of the two Parts is in no way similar.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Part I relates to the procedures for examination in Northern Ireland to assist the court in the Republic of Ireland, and Part II concerns examination in the Republic to assist the court in Northern Ireland. I shall try to illustrate the reason for the difference in the two procedures, and for the necessity to provide separately for them. With regard to the imposition of the duty to comply in Part II—and not in Part I—in relation to paragraph 5(2), we cannot in our Bill place a duty on a court in the Republic. Part I concerns taking evidence in Northern Ireland, and we can legislate for that in the Schedule. The Republic's Bill, however, has a provision complementary to that in our Bill.

With regard to the exclusion of contempt of court from Part II but its inclusion in Part I, Part II of Schedule 4 concerns only the issue of a letter of request in Northern Ireland for the purpose of taking evidence in the Republic. Part I is concerned with the examination of witnesses in Northern Ireland and it therefore needs the contempt provision. It is the nature of the respective proceedings in the one country that can be legislated for by Schedule, while in the other country—in the Republic—what is provided for is in a much more limited field. But there are reciprocal provisions, I am informed, in the Republic for similar steps to be taken.

Lord BELSTEAD

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.