§ 3.38 p.m.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ Viscount BROOKEBOROUGHMy Lords, this is the Third Reading of this Bill and I have spoken on it on two previous occasions. I make no apology for speaking on it again, because it is a very important Bill not only for the North of Ireland but for the United Kingdom as well. I do not believe that its implications have been clearly understood by many people in this country. I believe that the Government are in fact failing in their duty towards the citizens of Great Britain, in this country, over this Bill. But I face a dilemma because, like everybody else in your Lordships' House, I welcome any move that exists towards good relations between the Government in Dublin and the Government in this country. I therefore do not want to delay the passage of this Bill. Nevertheless, in my view, and in the view of many friends of mine in another place, this Bill should be changed before it goes to that other place.
What are we being asked to approve of, my Lords? In essence I believe it is this. We are making arrangements to deal with a situation which could exist when a man alleged to have committed an offence in the North of Ireland can be tried by a court in the South of Ireland if he is apprehended in that territory; and vice-versa. In order to make sure that justice is done, we are asked to make arrangements for witnesses to such an offence to be heard on commission in the territory where the offence was committed. Secondly, we have rewritten the Explosives Substances Act, so as to make it an offence anywhere in the British Isles to cause an explosion or to conspire to cause an explosion.
However—and this is the nub of my argument—while a fugitive from Great Britain who is apprehended in Dublin may be tried before a court in the South, we have not made arrangements for that court to hear witnesses on commission in Great Britain, at the scene of the crime. As has been made clear by the noble 1353 and learned Lord on the Woolsack in a letter to me, the problem of a fugitive from the Irish Republic to Great Britain does not arise. The noble and learned Lord said to me on 3rd March, to answer the question which I raised—and I thank him for his letter—that the present extradition arrangements under the Backing of Warrants. Act will exist side by side with this legislation. Therefore, what we are dealing with is the problem of a fugitive from Great Britain—that is, under the jurisdiction of Scotland and England—being a fugitive in the South of Ireland.
This Bill is a treaty Bill, and I fully realise that we cannot legislate for the Irish Republic. But Her Majesty's Government have already negotiated once over a prolonged period of time. Secondly, following the Birmingham disaster, they returned to negotiation and produced Clause 7 which deals with the Explosives Substances Act. I say to the Government: if they went back then, why do they not go back now to deal with this other loophole in this Bill? I believe that that ought to have been done before the Bill came to this House.
This Bill comes about to fulfil the wishes of the Law Enforcement Commission which was set up after Sunningdale. It required urgent action to solve the problems which it examined. The Birmingham bombs mean that we now require urgent action for the new situation which faces us, in order to deal with fugitives from Great Britain. The noble and learned Lord said that we in this country would provide every assistance to the Dublin court. But, my Lords, if witnesses will not travel from this country to Dublin, an injustice will be done, or may be done; first to the criminal, or to the alleged criminal, being tried, but much more certainly to the citizens of this country who will see fugitive criminals who may have committed foul crimes getting away without being tried.
Since Monday week when I spoke here and made my views known another gallant and brave man, Constable Tibble, has been foully murdered. What happens if the murderer escapes to the Irish jurisdiction, because, from everything I have read, I cannot imagine that the British courts will extradite him. I know that it is wrong to anticipate a decision of the 1354 courts in another jurisdiction, but one must look at precedents in one's own personal experience. Probably one of the greatest authorities on that is the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. May I quote him from column 558 of Hansard of 24th February:
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 ".If one is to believe the newspapers, the murderer of Constable Tibble was certainly connected with a house in which there was an IRA bomb factory. From the precedents in the Irish courts, it is to me inconceivable that that plea would not succeed. During the other proceedings on this Bill, I pressed the Government to renegotiate. The reply which I was given at column 568 of: Hansard of the same date was that if circumstances should deteriorate something will be done. With the murder of Constable Tibbie, the time has come to renegotiate and achieve this objective.During the last five years, Government actions with regard to terrorism in the whole United Kingdom have often been too late. Can we not for once, in an Ulster phrase, "Catch ourselves on and get ahead of the game"? One of the aims of terrorists is to convince the citizens of the country in which they are carrying out this war—and, in my view, it is a war—that the Government of the country no longer has the will or the capacity to enforce law and order for their protection. It is a prime civil right that law and order shall be established over the country that is being governed. If the Government fail to do that, backlash will surely ensue.
I do not know how many of your Lordships have ever seen backlash. I have seen it, and I want to tell your Lordships about an experience which I have had, because I believe that if people had seen it their horror would be absolute. Some three years ago I was in a town in Ulster after a particularly horrifying incident. I was told that there was a crowd on the rampage, burning and looting. In fact, basically, that part of the town had been abandoned to them. However, I 1355 managed to make my way to the front of the crowd and I climbed on to a window ledge to try to address them. I shall never forget the view in front of my eyes. Some people were crazed with drink, but by far the majority were crazed with fury and frustration. My Lords, let us make sure that that never occurs here.
Yesterday I was in Coventry, and I spoke to people who had seen the beginnings of backlash after the Birmingham bombings. Their descriptions of it to me led me to believe that I should tell your Lordships today about my own experience in Northern Ireland. Do not let us have backlash here, because, if it got going, anybody with an Irish accent, whether good citizens or bad, would suffer. Then after the bully boys had got in, because it is the bully boys who exploit such situations where there are coloured populations and other minorities, where would it end? I have been told that to include the power which I wish to have included—that is, to hear witnesses in this country on commission —would go beyond the scope of the Report of the Law Enforcement Commission. However, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said at column 555 of Hansard of 24th February, when he referred to Clause 7 of the Explosive Substances Act that this Bill goes beyond its original purpose. If we have gone beyond its original purpose once, because of what happened in Birmingham we should finish the job and go beyond its purpose again now.
May I ask the Government—and I hope that I shall receive a simple and straight reply—whether they have tried to come to an arrangement with the Dublin Government on this subject? On 29th November, Mr. Cooney, the Minister of Justice, said, and I quote from the paper:
If it helps in the fight against terrorism, we will be only too glad to extend the Bill".In this atmosphere and with these remarks, may I request Her Majesty's Government to ask the Irish Government to translate their words into deeds at once and without delay? I do this with sincerity, because I am fighting for the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom far more than I am fighting for the rights of the citizens of Ulster. I believe that the situation with which we are dealing is a legacy from the past, 1356 due to Governments having a guilt complex over injustices, imaginary or real, which have been inflicted on the Irish for centuries. I say to the Government: "Forget the past. Go and negotiate with the Irish Government and achieve justice for the British citizens. The blood of the victims in the last six months requires it."
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, before this Bill passes, may I say a word from this Bench following my noble friend's speech. I should like to make just two brief points. The first is the prime importance of getting this system of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this Bill and in the Bill before the Dail in Dublin into effect. In May it will be exactly a year since the Law Enforcement Commission recorded their belief in the need to move with the utmost speed, and in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that this legislation must be produced in parallel with the Republic, so, subject to scrutiny by another place, I trust that we shall see this agreed system of bringing terrorists to trial brought into effect as soon as possible.
The other problem is the one to which my noble friend has devoted his remarks —the void in the arrangements so far as fugitive offenders moving across the Irish Sea is concerned. For reasons which were given in the debate on my noble friend's Amendment in Committee on this point, I must say that with reluctance I agree that this legislation is not readily applicable for this kind of Amendment. Again with reluctance—and I think the Government take this view with reluctance—I accept the Government's arguments on this point on practical grounds. Having said that, there really is no avoiding the fact that my noble friend has put his finger on a problem which could involve several real potential dangers—outraged public opinion if a fugitive offender canot be dealt with; reluctance of witnesses to attend in explosive cases which will be tried on one side of the Irish Sea for explosions caused on the other; and, perhaps most important of all, the interests of security I should have thought are bound to be hampered if successful escape leads to safety or, at best, to endless delay.
The Government may have noticed that Tuesday's Daily Telegraph reported 1357 the case of one Joseph Gilhooley, wanted by Scotland Yard's Bomb Squad, who has been arrested in the Republic. But on Monday the High Court in Dublin granted a week's temporary injunction against deportation, and Mr. Justice Kenney is reported to have said that an Irish citizen cannot be deported under the Extradition Act. I in no way question that ruling, but it means that a man whom the police want to contact is in fact outside their reach.
My Lords, in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave an assurance that the Home Secretary is aware that if circumstances deteriorate—and my noble friend referred to this—action may be necessary to bring to justice fugitive offenders who have committed offences in Great Britain and in the Republic. Surely this is in the mutual interests of both jurisdictions. May I also urge on the Government the need for contingency planning without delay so that in future neither we nor the Government of the Republic will be caught unprepared.
§ 3.54 p.m.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Erookeborough, should think that in dealing with this difficult situation Her Majesty's Government have been failing in their duty. I hope when he hears what I have to say he will agree that that is a wholly unwarranted observation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having pointed to the practical difficulties in the matter. The Bill itself marks a notable advance in collaboration with the authorities in the Republic and we are anxious that the immediate problems in relation to the situation between Northern Ireland and the Republic should be resolved as soon as possible. But there is no doubt that the matter which has been raised by the noble Viscount is an important and difficult one and I fully understand the thinking and the emotions which have led him to raise the point.
The difficulty is that if persons came to be put on trial in the Republic for explosive offences committed in this country, but witnesses here were unwilling to go to the Republic, proceedings could not effectively be taken and the situation would, of course, be intolerable. The noble Viscount has suggested that it 1358 would be desirable to provide for Irish judges, in accordance with the Northern Ireland arrangements, to come over to Great Britain to hear evidence from such witnesses being taken on commission in this country. Of course, the essence of that arrangement would be its acceptability in the Irish courts. That in turn would require legislation in the Republic to put the machinery into effect. I assure him that these possibilities have been discussed and considered. I quite understand that if a situation were to arise, for instance, of the perpetrators of the Birmingham atrocity escaping to the Republic and it proved impossible to proceed because of lack of evidence created by the reluctance of witnesses to go over there, the backlash (as he has described it) in this country would of course be considerable and very serious. I am afraid that the answer is not a simple one, and, as I have said, the principal problem is that any such arrangement as he has in mind would require legislation in the Republic, and anything we do in this House in this Bill would be ineffective to achieve that purpose.
Before I go into further detail on that may I give this word of reassurance. It is not totally reassuring but will go some way to reassure the House in regard to the situation that has been raised by the noble Viscount; that is, what would happen if a person suspected of shooting Police Constable Tibbie in that dreadful manner escaped to, and was discovered in, the Republic. No doubt a warrant would be sent to the Republic under the backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 with a view to securing the return of the suspect to this country for trial here. I cannot of course say what view the Irish courts might take in that particular case if the political defence were pleaded in extradition proceedings in Ireland. It would depend on the nationality of the suspect and the nature of his plea. But, my Lords, if for any reason he were not surrendered there would be a fallback position if he were an Irish citizen enabling him to be tried in the Republic for the murder committed in London.
Trial in the Republic for the extra-territorial commission of murder or manslaughter by an Irish citizen has been possible since 20th December 1973 when the Irish Government made an order which, in effect, reciprocated United 1359 Kingdom provisions in Section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, under which British subjects accused of murder or manslaughter committed abroad (wherever abroad the crime may be committed) can be tried for the offence in the United Kingdom. So that machinery, if the suspect was an Irishman, would be available in the Republic and I have little doubt that if the situation arose in the event of refusal of extradition, in view of the relationship of co-operation which has been building up between our country and the Republic, I would expect that fallback position to be used in that situation. I hope that will give some comfort to the noble Viscount.
The problem that we would have in negotiation with the Republic is that, although from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government there would be a willingness to extradite to the Republic the offender who came to this country from the Republic, we could not give an absolute guarantee that that would be done, because a decision on extradition is a decision for the courts—not for me or the Home Secretary or anyone else. So we could not give any absolute guarantees of reciprocity in that connection. But, as I have said, the essential difficulty in dealing with this matter in this Bill is the fact that that would be ineffective. It would be necessary for any legislation called for to have a corresponding change in the law in the Republic.
If I may say so, I entirely agree with the observations which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that our immediate objective must be to work together with the Irish Government towards early completion of the passage of the two complementary Bills to give effect as soon as possible to the proposals, which, I think, are of great value in the fight against terrorism.
The Irish authorities have indicated that any extension of the arrangements which arise from the proposals of the Law Commission would be a matter for separate study outside the purpose and the scope of the present complementary Bills. I am not for a moment excluding either the possibility of that or a resumption of a study of it, and I can give the noble Viscount that assurance. But I think there is a danger that, if we now attempt in the progress of this Bill to elaborate 1360 too much on what has already been agreed, the further progress of this urgently needed Bill could be impeded. We want to maintain the impetus of these arrangements as much as we can, but, again, I give the assurance, which I gave in earlier stages of the consideration of this Bill, that the Government will pay close attention to the way in which the new arrangements work in relation not only to Northern Ireland but also to Great Britain itself, and especially to any matters which might call for further joint consultation with the Republic. Clearly, we will not exclude any practical and efficient step that can be taken to protect our citizens, who are as much in peril from terrorism as are the citizens of Northern Ireland and of the Republic itself.
§ Viscount BROOKEBOROUGHMy Lords, by leave of the House, may I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Wool-sack for the courteous way in which he has dealt with me during the entire passage of this Bill.
§ On Question, read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.