HL Deb 21 December 1976 vol 378 cc1254-62

6.4 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No.2) Order 1976, laid before the House on 18th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explained in another place on Friday the Government's view that our security policy in Northern Ireland is proceeding on the right lines, and he explained in some detail the particular measures that we are taking.

I do not think your Lordships' House will expect me to describe in detail the various provisions contained in this order, which your Lordships' House has debated on a number of occasions in the past. In July, on the last occasion when a continuance of emergency provisions was sought, my noble friend Lord Donaldson set out the policy that has been decided on as a result of the deliberations of the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order. The essence of this policy was to increase the strength and effectiveness of the RUC and its Reserve, to maintain the Armed Services in support of the police in what-ever strength the security situation demands, to make a modest increase in the full-time element of the UDR, and to make such changes in the law as appear necessary to secure the conviction of terrorists in the courts. The overall theme running through this policy is the maintenance of the rule of law and the securing of convictions in the courts of all those who break the law.

There have been significant developments in Northern Ireland since July. The Peace Movement has clearly demonstrated the deeply felt longing by the community for an end to violence. Significantly, the peace rallies have been the only mass demonstrations in Northern Ireland in recent months. There have been other significant developments this year. During 1976 the RUC have attracted some 600 recruits, to give them a current strength of 5,268. The chief constable has introduced three regional crime squads, and since 1st June, 1976 their operations have resulted in 30 persons being charged with murder. The headquarters crime department has been completely reorganised and the operations department restructured. Emphasis is being placed on the collection and collation of intelligence on the more important criminals. As a result, there have been not only a great many significant arrests but a number of red-handed arrests.

The Government have carefully studied the law to see whether new offences or powers or changes in court procedure are necessary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner have given advice to successive Governments, and with very few exceptions their advice has been incorporated into the emergency provisions that we are debating this evening. It is perhaps not surprising that after two such reviews the Government have decided that it is unnecessary to create more offences or confer more powers, and that it would be wrong to attempt to modify court procedure further. Inevitably minor changes in the law or in procedure become necessary as circumstances change or as the need becomes apparent, and the Government will not hesitate to act in such circumstances.

Since the last Continuance Order your Lordships' House has approved an order to double the maximum penalty on indictment for firearms possession offences and the Lord Chief Justice has agreed to the introduction of revised Judges' Rules. A proposal for a draft order to apply the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 to Northern Ireland has also been published. My right honourable friend has also agreed to increase the penalties for membership of a proscribed organisation when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

My Lords, I should like to say a word about the Armed Services. There will inevitably be changes in force levels and in the disposition of his forces by the GOC. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has explained, the GOC is now to slim his forces from 14,500 to 14,000. This cannot possibly be described as any sort of withdrawal. It is a consequence of progress made between the GOC and the chief constable in working out better operational deployments, and it takes into account the increase in the full-time element of the UDR, initially by a further 200, and a decision to deploy the SAS wherever their experience and special skills can be best used in Northern Ireland. There is no change in Government policy. The Armed Services will continue to support the RUC for so long as is necessary. Moreover, as a demonstration of this a unit additional to the spearhead battalion will be on standby for deployment to Northern Ireland.

The security picture would not be complete without mention of the actions of the Irish Republic which have an important influence on the security situation in the North. The Government are much encouraged by the positive action they have taken in introducing new legal measures to combat terrorism, and we look forward to yet closer co-operation between our respective security forces. In the course of this brief review of the current position in Northern Ireland I have referred to the successes of the security forces and to the Government's conclusion that significant changes in the law are not required. In saying this I am not for one moment underestimating the appalling nature of the violence in Northern Ireland. There is still a long uphill struggle ahead of us and the Government firmly believe that we need to continue in force the various emergency provisions covered by this order.

Finally, may I pay as sincere a tribute as I can to all those people who every day have to face the difficulties and stresses and dangers of life in Northern Ireland, and in particular of course those people in the Armed Services and the police, and I include in that the RUC reserve and the UDR, who show such courage, dedication, and determination in upholding the law. Then to return to something I said when we discussed the Supplementary Benefit Order recently, there are also the many public servants and voluntary workers who are living and working and providing vital public services in the areas that people in Great Britain see almost nightly on their TV screens in quite different circumstances.

To try to counter what seems to me to be the greatest misconception held by people in this country about Northern Ireland, I should like to pay a tribute to all the kind, generous, good-humoured and intelligent people of Northern Ireland who have lived through an appalling seven years with incredible courage and with a determination to ensure that a life as normal as possible continues there. The future of Northern Ireland lies in their hands. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No.2) Order 1976, laid before the House on 18th November, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)

6.13 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, from these Benches I should like first of all to express support for the general line of policy of the Government in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is quite right in saying that this order was debated in another place on Friday, and for that reason I will follow his example by speaking briefly on it. We may have a debate on Northern Ireland when the House returns in January, but I think on this occasion it would be the wish of your Lordships that the debate on this order should be kept reasonably short.

The Friday debate in another place was, I believe, the first occasion for a speech on policy by the new Secretary of State, Mr. Mason. His determination, which has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in this House today, to see that what is a part of the United Kingdom is rid of the appalling violence and disruption which has overwhelmed Northern Ireland in these last years was supported by the Opposition last Friday in another place, and that support I repeat in this House today.

There are some questions which I should like to put to the noble Lord about this order of which I have not been able to give notice. If the noble Lord would prefer to write to me on some of them, it would be perfectly acceptable to me. First, may I ask a question which is familiar to those of us who have taken part in these debates but which I have not put before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. May I ask him about the policy of the Government towards those who organise terrorism in the Province; those who are, I think, so rightly called the godfathers of violence in Northern Ireland.

A year ago, and again six months ago, when this order was being debated, I admit that I raised this problem—and, of course, it is easier to talk about than it is to cure. But the fact remains that violence in its different forms continues to prevail in Northern Ireland, and it is organised by those who so often avoid justice, despite the encouraging news which the noble Lord gave in his speech about the increase in those who have been apprehended for the crime of violence. This may well be, as I understood the noble Lord's speech, as a result of the formation of the regional crime squads.

On this side of the House we have previously pressed for the introduction of a general offence of terrorism to be instituted. This is not an idea which comes from this side of the House. This, after all, was a recommendation which came from the report of the Commission under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I really feel that 1 ought to put this question again: Arc the Government still of the opinion that an offence of this sort would not effectively spread the net rather wider, and help to bring to justice those who, for instance, incite or are generally known to be involved in terrorism even though possibly a particular terrorist act has not been committed?

Another question I should like to ask is about the protection of witnesses. Some months ago my noble friend Lord Brookeborough introduced his Protection of Witnesses Bill. On that occasion I accepted that, as drafted, my noble friend's Bill was not practicable unless we were prepared to resort to practices which really would lead us back to the procedures of detention. But I would be interested to know, if the noble Lord feels he can do so on this occasion, what the Government's view is about the size of this problem today.

On the 6th July, when this order was previously being debated, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said at column 1172 of the Official Report: "Intimidation is half the main problem". Are there no practicable steps which can be taken to see that evidence can be given, in order to bring the leaders of terrorism to justice, by witnesses who at the time so often go in fear of their lives? Thirdly, may I ask about the success rate under the penalties for belonging to a proscribed organisation. The noble Lord quite rightly reminded us that it is the Government's intention to increase the penalties for this offence, and I, for one, will await, I hope, an early introduction of an order or a part of legislation to this effect. I should like to ask whether key men are in fact being apprehended under this provision. There is no criticism of the Government if the answer is, No, but it would be interesting to know the answer to that question.

May I welcome the noble Lord's statements with regard to the RUC, the UDR, and the SAS. That this has been the most successful year for recruiting for the RUC must surely be an encouragement for the future. The police in Northern Ireland have suffered many personal tragedies during this year, and this support for the work which they do, and on which the future of law and order in Northern Ireland is going to depend, must surely be a real sign of confidence and hope among an ever-widening circle of people in the Province. It is the same for the UDR. I welcome very much the move which, on this side of the House, I cannot forbear to say we have called for previously, for an increase in the full-time personnel of the UDR.

With regard to the SAS, clearly the Government cannot reveal the numbers of the SAS operating in Northern Ireland, but I welcome the news that there is going to be a spreading in the area of operations of these Army personnel. But I wonder whether the fact that the SAS are going to operate now outside South Armagh does not lead to the conclusion that special training in antiterrorism for more Army personnel should not be seriously considered. I am not in any way calling for extended tours for battal-ions in Northern Ireland. I am aware that the Army believe that the four-month period for a tour is about right, but I wonder whether the formation of combined anti-terrorist units, which has certainly been put to the Secretary of State by my honourable friend Mr. Airey Neave, ought to be considered at this stage of the war against terrorism.

At this time of the year I think all of us think of those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett: the Security Forces; those who are involved in such things as the fire and ambulance service; those who are involved in voluntary work, and also Ministers. I wish them all the very best, and I believe that the continuation of this order is most necessary.

6.20 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I wish first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, very much for his support for the order, and indeed for his support for the general line of policy that the Government are pursuing. It would be difficult to underestimate the importance which the Government attach to carrying noble Lords opposite and their colleagues with us in the general approach we are taking to affairs in Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that if we are to see the people of Northern Ireland coming together to find a political solution which will be acceptable to the mass of people in Northern Ireland, the continuance of support which the noble Lord has given tonight and which his colleagues in another place gave to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last week for the current Government policy, is extremely important.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his suggestion that I might write to him on some of the points he raised. Particularly on the questions of the current problems, if any, with the intimidation of witnesses and the number of people who are being arrested and charged as being members of proscribed organisations, I should like to take advice to make sure I have my facts right, and then I will write to him about them.

There are, however, two points to which I should like to reply now. First, the noble Lord raised again the question, suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, of having an offence of terrorism. As the noble Lord knows, this has been very carefully considered, and indeed there have been extensive discussions with many interested parties. The difficulty, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, is that if one created an offence of that sort, the police would not only be in the position of having to prove that a person had actually committed a criminal offence—of carrying a gun, or an offence involving some form of violence or some other scheduled offence—but would also have to prove some form of political intent. So one would be adding to the burden of proof on the police and the prosecution in the case when, considering the penalties that are available for scheduled offences, the serious criminal offences in Northern Ireland at the moment, very little, if any, foreseeable benefit would result in terms of more serious penalties or longer sentences being received by those convicted of the offence of terrorism. I think we should have to think very carefully before adding to the burdens of the police and the prosecution, given the enormous job they are having to undertake as a result of the very successful prosecution by the Security Forces and the police of serious criminals in Northern Ireland at the present time.

Secondly, the noble Lord raised the question of what are being called the godfathers of violence in Northern Ireland. Personally, I detest the term "godfather"; it gives a spurious respectability and importance to the sort of people we are talking about, and in my view is quite unwarranted. It also gives a spurious glamour associated in the public mind with Marlon Brando and the well-known film, which I think is also unfortunate and quite unwarranted. I hope, now that the noble Lord has raised the point, we can refrain from using the term, even if he wishes to refer to those people who call themselves the leaders of proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland. The fact of the matter is that the people we are talking about are not particularly important. Nor are they particularly exciting or glamorous figures. They are, on the whole, criminals engaged in violent and extremely unpleasant criminal activities; and the police are being very successful in apprehending and prosecuting them, and obtaining convictions against them. That is the important thing.

The noble Lord picked up a point I made in my speech about the RUC's regional crime squads and the extent of their success against the sort of persons we are talking about. To build up a file on a terrorist of this sort may take some time, but the fruits of the RUC's efforts in this direction are now being seen, and the number of very serious offences with which people are charged, and have been charged in the last year, in Northern Ireland bears witness to the RUC's efforts. Finally, I again thank the noble Lord for his support and indeed for his good wishes to those of us who will be in Northern Ireland over Christmas.

On Question, Motion agreed to.