HL Deb 06 July 1976 vol 372 cc1165-73

3.56 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1976, laid before the House on 27th May, 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 long-term security policy of the Government for Northern Ireland and the implications in the short and immediate term. During our last debate on security in Northern Ireland, on the Bill proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I said that my right honourable friend would set out the Government's policy on security in the renewal debate. This he has now done and I do not think that noble Lords would wish me to repeat in detail all the points he made.

The Government see the way forward as taking the necessary steps to ensure the rule of law in Northern Ireland. These steps are to increase the strength and effectiveness of the RUC and its Reserve; to make a modest increase in the full-time element of the Ulster Defence Régiment; to make such changes in the law as are necessary to enable the police to deal effectively with terrorists by securing their conviction in the courts; and to maintain the Regular Army in the Province, in whatever strength the security situation requires, as the main security buttress in support of a developing Royal Ulster Constabulary. In particular, the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order, about which noble Lords asked during our last discussion, has concluded that the strength of the RUC and RUC Reserve should be increased; that further specialist investigation teams should be introduced into the RUC; that improved arrangements should be made for the collection and collation of criminal intelligence; that more flexible use should be made of units to concentrate on serious crime and preventive policing, and that these units should be expanded so as to serve in each division while at the same time forming a mobile force for deployment outside their divisions; and that further development of local police centres should be encouraged. The full-time RUC Reserve should be extended to take over in particular the guarding of police stations, as well as protection and escort duties. The increase in the full-time element of the UDR will be absorbed into existing units and these will be able to relieve units of the Regular Army on tasks such as the manning of vehicle check-points. The role of the UDR will not, however, be changed, nor will full-time battalions be set up.

These then are the guidelines for the future. Already, progress is being made. The chief constable is setting up three regional crime squads—units to collate intelligence—and he is extending and strengthening specialist units dealing with forensic and other work. The plan is not, however, a rigid one with a set timetable. As persons are recruited, so new measures can be implemented. The proposals are interrelated and form an integrated whole.

At the same time, we must consider the short and immediate term. The proposals I have outlined do not affect the number of soldiers in the Province which will depend on the security situation. My right honourable friend has emphasised that the Army will stay in Northern Ireland as long as it is required. Violence is currently high: in recent months we have seen an upsurge of attacks on commercial property and of murderous assaults on the Security Forces. The Army is required in strength to support the police and both the Army and the police need emergency powers to enable them to discharge their role effectively. It is for this reason that the Government seek the extension of the Emergency Provisions for a further period of six months.

These provisions are the temporary provisions contained in the Emergency Provisions Act 1973, which provide for scheduled offences, courts without a jury to try such offences, powers of proscription and special powers for the Security Forces: the temporary provisions in the Emergency Provisions (Amendment) Act 1975, which contain the procedure for detention by the Executive as recommended by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, and the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 which enable the Secretary of State to give a direction in respect of a young person remanded or committed for trial in order that he may be kept in a prison or some other specified place in order to prevent his escape or secure his safety. Noble Lords may ask why it is necessary to continue the provisions for detention now that these are no longer being used. My right honourable friend has made it clear that only as a last resort would he once more exercise powers of detention; but that it would be irresponsible of him to remove these powers from the Statute Book: he has made it clear that he would not hesitate to use them if he thought this was necessary.

My Lords, I submit that, in the present circumstances, emergency powers for the Security Forces are clearly essential. The special provisions for hearing trials, recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, are certainly necessary. Detention needs to be kept as a measure in reserve. These provisions have to be approved every six months if they are to remain in force. I do not think your Lordships' House will dissent from the Government's view that for the next six months they are necessary. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1976, laid before the House on 27th May, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)

4.3 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, this order extends for a further six months the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act, which provides the Security Forces with powers to combat terrorism, and which established courts without juries for the trial of scheduled offences. The order covers other proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, explained in the later part of his speech. I support this order, which I believe continues to be necessary in the circumstances of Northern Ireland today.

The noble Lord has repeated in his own words an important statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on Friday, concerning the findings of the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order. The Committee has been sitting recently under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State. I should like to welcome the statement as it referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. May I take this opportunity of wishing the new members of the Northern Ireland Police Authority who have recently been appointed well in the work which they will be doing.

At first sight, I would expect that police work will now have even better prospects of success. The noble Lord mentioned the introduction of three regional crime squads and the use of a mobile force, and he and his right honourable friend referred the other day to the introduction of more specialist police investigation teams to deal with crimes like murder and fraud. I imagine that that idea follows the introduction some months ago of what was called the A Squad but, for the operations of the Security Forces to achieve the ultimate success for which we all hope, intelligence work must be of the highest order. I share the Government's hope that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be able to recuit and train the men and women who are necessary to back up the opera-dons of these specialist investigation teams with the necessary technical and forensic proof to secure convictions in the courts.

I should also like to welcome the statement that the UDR will be relieving Regular Army units of certain duties and that there is to be an increase in the permanent establishment of the UDR. From these Benches, we have for some time been pressing the Government for the establishment of full-time UDR companies, and I am sorry that the Government feel that they cannot accept that proposal. However, we shall await the Government's deliberations on the proposal, which must be a step in the right direction.

After those words of welcome for what the Government are doing in their immensely difficult task, I should like to put two points squarely to the Government. I must say that I could wish that we should no longer hear the Government saying that it is policy to respond to the level of violence—not that those words were used by the noble Lord today, but it is an expression which was used as recently as 14th June in another place by the noble Lord's right honourable friend. I hope that we shall hear the Government announce that discussions with IRA sympathisers have ceased.

Of course I realise that terrorism manifests itself in different ways—Border and urban terrorism, huge explosions and individual assassinations—each one requiring a different response. But a policy which is a policy solely of response surely reveals a defensive frame of mind. I am one who believes that there is no reason for this. Appalling though the loss of lives has been amongst civilians, the Army and, recently and very tragically, the police, I do not believe that the IRA can survive the rate of attrition against them. For that, I pay tribute to the work which has been done by the Government and the Security Forces. But, for this to become clear to the civilian population, which must be weary almost to exhaustion, it is no answer for the Government to say in public that it is policy to have a policy of response and that the Government are conducting long-term discussions with sympathisers of the terrorists who have been taking the lives of so many British soldiers.

May I turn very briefly to the difficult problem of bringing to justice those who organise terrorism in Northern Ireland? When my noble friend Lord Brooke-borough introduced his Northern Ireland (Trial of Terrorists and Witness Protection) Bill in your Lordships' House just over a fortnight ago, I put to the Government the undeniable fact, which I believe is common ground between both sides of the House, that the continued intimidation of witnesses allows those who organise violence—the " Godfathers " of Northern Ireland terrorism—to continue at liberty. I asked that the Government should make a statement on this subject when this order was being presented to Parliament. I should like to thank the Government for arranging that. It may not have been in reply to my request but, none the less, arrangements were made and the right honourable gentleman the Attorney-General made a major speech on this order in another place on Friday.

In his speech, the Attorney-General said that, although the Government have again scrutinised the law to look for any gaps which may be closed, they have come to the conclusion that the real weakness is lack of evidence. I certainly accept that conclusion, but I do not believe that it is a state of affairs that we should accept as though nothing can be done about it. The day after the debate on my noble friend's Bill, the newspapers reported that two Provisional IRA gunmen had shot dead Mr. Sidney McAvoy, the owner of a licensed gun dealer's store in West Belfast, apparently in revenge for evidence which Mr. McAvoy had given in court against IRA terrorists. Lack of evidence is surely the inevitable consequence of the intimidation of witnesses and, seemingly intractable though this problem is, I believe that the time will come when the Government will be forced to look at the problem again. Possibly an opportunity may present itself when the Government introduce a Northern Ireland Bill on the administration of justice which, I understand from the Secretary of State's speech on Friday, is the intention of the Government for the next Session of Parliament.

Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord about the timing of three changes in the law which the Attorney-General announced in another place on Friday. I understood the three changes to be: first, to extend the Criminal Damage Act 1971 to Northern Ireland—which will have the effect or providing a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for a hoax bomber; secondly, to increase from five to ten years the maximum penalty for carrying a firearm in a public place and for possessing ammunition in suspicious circumstances; and, thirdly, to assimilate the Northern Ireland Judges' Rules with those for England and Wales. I understood from the speech of the right honourable gentleman that the first two changes can be effected by Order in Council, and I am wondering how swiftly it may be possible for this to be done. With that final question I support the passing of the order.

4.11 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's reception of my introduction of the order and I wish to join with his good wishes to the new members of the police authority. The main criticism—if that be the right word—that the noble Lord has voiced this afternoon is the suggestion that the Government's policy is solely one of response. I think that this is a misunderstanding of the Government's policy. What the Government have said—and what my right honourable friend said the other day—was that they 'would always respond, and will always respond, to the behaviour of the other side. This is perfectly obvious. If intimidation falls off, as happened at the beginning of the so-called cease-fire, when the PIRA—the Provos—voluntarily stepped down their attacks on the Security Forces and on civilians, then the action which has to be used against more active intervention by the enemy naturally steps down somewhat. This is a response of a perfectly sensible kind, and in fact during the so-called ceasefire period we gained considerable friendship—or restored some of our friendship—with certain areas of the minority population by laying off the searches which, from their point of view, had been extremely punitive and tiresome.

So I think that any Government in a situation of urban guerrilla warfare (which is our situation) must always respond to the situation. But this is quite different from solely responding to the situation, and I should deny hotly that this was the only part of Government policy. Government policy is developing the whole time in different ways. We are trying different things, not in relation to an up or down situation on the other side, but in relation to the facts which the noble Lord has been talking about—the facts of intimidation. The noble Lord asked whether we would look yet again at intimidation. It is not a question of looking yet again at intimidation. Intimidation is half the main problem, which everybody concerned with Northern Ireland is looking at every day.

So I make no promises of a quick solution to this; I do not think there is one. But I think that the reorganisation of the RUC (which my right honourable friend outlined, and to which I referred) and its support by the Army, and its current high level of success not only in arresting hut also in convicting, gives us confidence that a good deal more than nothing is happening here. As to the timing of the changes in the law to which the noble Lord referred, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 can be applied by order, and will be applied as soon as possible. The firearms penalties also can be applied by order, and will be applied as soon as possible; and the other changes may require a Bill.

My Lords, the question of the alleged negotiations and the supposed talks comes up very frequently. I think that I must stick fairly well to what my right honourable friend has said again and again in another place. For example on 18th March this year he said that his officials will talk to any lawful organisation in Northern Ireland when there is a useful purpose to be served. The conversations which have taken place between his officials and the provisional Sinn Fein have been designed to explain the Government's policy, and explanation has been the key to their meetings. No negotiations have taken place or will take place. The Government are not prepared to give details of meetings with individual organisations. The Secretary of State is fully aware of his responsibility to the whole community in Northern Ireland.

I had a note to explain what the Attorney-General had said, but the noble Lord has anticipated me and I do not think I need do more than note his welcome of the three steps to which he has referred and for which I have just given him the timing. If do not think that I want to add anything to this beyond the fact that it must be obvious to everybody in your Lordships' House that these emergency provisions must continue for a further six months.

On Question, Motion agreed to.