HL Deb 21 June 1976 vol 372 cc99-117

6.55 p.m.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Government have stated that their security policy in the present Northern Ireland terrorist situation depends upon their using the present law and the present courts to put out of circulation those criminals who. in previous times, would have been put out of circulation by the use of detention or internment. I should like to say that if the framework of the law were suitable for this, nobody would welcome it more than I.

The necessity for detention was widely recognised by the comments of such eminent men as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in their respective Reports, and if the Government decide to end detention it follows that changes in that framework must be made. The Diplock Report stated, The main obstacle to dealing effectively with terrorist crime is intimidation of witnesses ", and in paragraph 27 of his Report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, stated, We are convinced on the evidence that if jury trial were reintroduced their verdicts would be subject to influences of intimidation ". So that both witnesses and juries were covered by those Reports.

It is to meet one aspect of the deficiencies in the framework that I now propose the Second Reading of this Bill, which is to provide for the protection of witnesses. It is a modest attempt to help, and I should like to make it quite clear that, while I am completely convinced of the necessity for this Bill, I am very much open to suggestions from the experts in this House to change the methods in Committee. In a few weeks' time we shall be dealing with the Act to continue the emergency provisions, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will make it clear in reply that the Government intend to fill this gap and to deal with the existing situation.

It is sometimes worth while to stand back and look at a situation, and see the total strategy which has been developed in the past for dealing with the terrorist situation. In the face of a terrorist onslaught, by far the most important task of a democratic State is clearly to establish its will to win before the people and the world. Absolutely nothing should be allowed to emanate from Government which would in any way undermine that determination, and that public facade, of the will to win, and the whole range of Government action—be it economic policy, a firm and fair security policy and legislative measures—must ensure, and in good time , that everything supports the will to win.

Some people believe that it is always necessary to be rough, tough and violent to establish that. I do not believe that, although it is often necessary to be very tough. What is vital is that Government policy over the years—and we are in a situation which has extended over years and, unfortunately, may extend over more years—should be consistent. Because he is using terror, murder and committing all his foul crimes, the terrorist is, by his very nature, a minority. He uses the bullet instead of the ballot box.

Dr. Clutterbuck, in his book Protest which discussed the question of Northern Ireland, clearly demonstrated that the danger from a Government's failing to act in time, and to act firmly, is far greater than the danger from its over-reacting, because the inevitable result will be backlash. Indeed, I feel very strongly that the measure of all Governments failing to act properly is the level of sectarian violence in Ulster today. The brutal fact is that backlash would not have occurred if the population had believed that the Government had the will to win. It is with great sadness that I say there is not a single section of the population in Ulster who believe that it is the Government's intention to win as opposed to maintaining the status quo. I feel that we must do something to help because in the end it is our soldiers and the people of Ulster who inevitably will suffer and many die.

I stated earlier that consistency was the key to success. If the present Government's policy is to stand a cat's chance in hell of succeeding, then we must do something to re-establish the faith of the people of Northern Ireland in the determination to win. In the past, as seen by us in Northern Ireland, the somersaults of Government policy have been tremendous. It would have been impossible to have been tougher than we were with detention. It would have been impossible not to have been weaker than we were when we abolished the Government in Northern Ireland and gave to the terrorists a status to which they were not entitled. The criminals were made political prisoners. We have continued to somersault right up to the present time.

It appears to me that the policy which has been pursued is that we must never take a tough policy to its logical conclusion in case we actually defeat the IRA. However, today's policy, as it is described, is to use the courts. The great British public believe that this is the right policy because the Government have said again and again that more are being charged and convicted and that more information is coming from the terrorist areas. The facts are that this is simply not true. Fewer people were charged and convicted in 1975 than in 1974. I agree that the number was not significantly fewer but it was fewer. However, the real point is that the figures do not justify saying that there is a changed situation. The figures I am using were issued by the Northern Ireland office, and I should like to know whether the Government can explain why they have maintained again and again that more were being charged and convicted when that does not appear to be true. In fact, I believe that the 1976 figures show a further decline.

It is to try to re-establish some form of confidence in the Government's security policy because of the danger of the extension of backlash that I am moving this Bill. It provides for three problems. First, it broadens the scope of the emergency provisions legislation to allow, subject to appeal, all criminal acts in Northern Ireland, if there is a terrorist element in them, to be tried in front of a non-jury court. Secondly, it provides for the protection of witnesses in cases involving terrorism both by the original Act and by this Bill. Thirdly—this is a smaller but, I believe, a very important element—it provides for the extension of Section 20 of the 1973 Act to protect certain categories of citizens from having information collected about them by men of violence.

If I may deal very shortly here with the third aspect first, the original Act made it a scheduled offence if somebody in suspicious circumstances collected information—telephone numbers, car numbers, places of residence—about certain people like soldiers, members of the RUC and judges. Just lately the IRA have issued a threat, the intention of which is to prevent the Criminal Jurisdiction Act from working correctly. They have threatened anybody who takes part in the operation of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act. I believe it is very important that this extension should be made to protect this class of people; namely, solicitors, counsel and the like.

If I may deal with Clause 1, under the 1973 Act, Parliament conceded that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland justice could not be fairly administered by courts with juries. Therefore, certain offences were scheduled to be tried in front of non-jury courts. The Attorney General then had the right to certify these out so that normally they could be tried in front of jury courts. Clause 1 of my Bill will allow various members of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, provided that they are satisfied that a terrorist element is involved, to schedule these in so that they are tried in front of non-jury courts.

I do not know whether this House realises the extent of the development that has occurred since the two Reports to which I referred before, the Diplock and the Gardiner Reports; but, like the Mafia, the men of violence now run things like massage parlours. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will have seen the advertisements in the newspapers: Meet your friends at the opening of the grand new sauna bath-massage parlour ". That is most encouraging. But there are more sinister aspects than that. They are used for blackmail. In the Andersonstown area, there are only two legitimate grocers shops owned by ordinary people; the rest are owned and controlled by the IRA. Those two grocers shops arc under very considerable pressure, with people watching the customers going in and out. Apparently legitimate businesses are being used to finance the foul work of these criminals.

My honourable friend in another place, Mrs. Knight, has attempted to highlight some of the problems in the building trade where there is a big problem, because shortly the Government will be placing contracts for a huge building contract involving £54 million. I think we shall have a terrible problem if the building firm involved gets the contract. Then Government money will be financing people to commit crimes. I have been informed by somebody, who I believe really knows, that the weekly turnover of IRA businesses in Andersonstown is between £20,000 and £50,000 a week. Recently, a pub called " The Suffolk Arms " was bought for the extraordinarily high sum of £150,000. A brewery in the area now has one fully loaded lorry a week hijacked. This is only one case in which stolen goods could be used to finance violence.

In America, the Mafia were prosecuted by the Administration for income tax offences. Nobody can say that in the circumstances existing in Andersonstown it would be possible to find witnesses who would be prepared to secure conviction in this kind of case. Therefore, the powers-that-be in the administration of justice should have the right to schedule even income tax cases so that non-jury courts could administer justice.

When this change in the law was first made there were great misgivings because the people of this country are very proud of their jury system, and the Bar in Northern Ireland was as upset and worried about it as any other part of the United Kingdom. However, I feel that I speak with certainty when I say that it is generally accepted that the Bar itself is satisfied that the non-jury courts are administering justice well, truly and properly. That illustrates why I say that practically every offence committed in Northern Ireland should he charged in front of a non-jury court if it has any terrorist connotation.

I must now turn to Clause 2 of the Bill, which is the " guts " of the problem of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. It concerns the protection of witnesses in cases covered by both the original Act and this Bill. When the Government abolished detention they were saying that the conditions which the Diplock and Gardiner Reports found no longer existed and that terrorists could now be convicted in front of the courts without the intimidation of witnesses, because it was the intimidation of witnesses which produced the necessity for detention in the first place. Both reports used as their yardsticks of the existence of intimidation the frequency of kneecapping, which they considered to be an indicator. I should have thought that the figures up to date of kneecapping were very unsettling and implied enormous intimidation, because between 1973 and 1974 the number of kneecappings was doubled: in 1975 it went up again by 50 per cent. and so far as I can see the numbers are still rising. it is clear to me that if the Government do not like my Bill they must show that they have an alternative, or else they are saying that they really have nothing to say and whatever witnesses come forward must just take their chance.

I should like to make it quite clear that I do not believe that this Bill will protect all witnesses in all cases, but it goes some way to protect the innocent bystander, and in Northern Ireland it is often the innocent bystander who is the best witness of all. If he had a witness protection order; if, when he was asked to bear witness he had instruction as to how he was going to be protected, I believe we should have witnesses coming, forward much more readily and justice would be done to a greater extent. Lastly, in asking the House to welcome me this Bill and to give it a Second Reading I repeat that I realise it is only a modest Bill to deal with only part of a very serious, broad and difficult problem. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—( Viscount Brookeborough.)

7.12 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, the Bill which my noble friend has introduced this evening attempts to deal among other problems, with the protection of witnesses, but it is the protection of witnesses which is a very long-standing problem in Northern Ireland. In 1972, the Report of the Commission under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, found that intimidation was widespread and his Report warned that it could not be assumed that witnesses would be able to give evidence in court without risk to their lives, their families and their property. The Report concluded that the Government would have to resort to detention with rules of adjudication which were different from the internment procedure and it recommended also the establishment of the " Diplock Courts " as they have been called—the courts without juries—for scheduled offences. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 carried these recommendations into effect.

Then, as my noble friend has reminded us, in 1975 another Commission sat under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and found much the same circumstances as had confronted his noble and learned predecessor. In the same paragraph quoted by my noble friend, paragraph 27, the Gardiner Report recorded 482 known cases of intimidation of witnesses during the 18 months which followed on front the 1st January 1972—and I think it is worth quoting this to show how important it is that my noble friend has brought forward this Bill this evening— in which civilian witnesses to murder and other offences were either too afraid to make any statement at all or, having made a statement implicating an individual, were so afraid that they refused in any circumstances to give evidence in court ". The Gardiner Report added later that the prevalence of murder and kneecapping made this only too easy to understand. Since then, intimidation and violence have not ceased. It is true that for some months last year the nature of the violence changed from large-scale outrages to individual killings. I think that that is precisely the kind of violence which, if anything, creates more fear among members of the general public, and I understand that this year there has been a higher number of killings than in any comparable period since 1973. So the figures which terrorists present in their grim annual balance sheets have not improved and the ability to intimidate has not abated. Yet during last year the Government changed their policy when the Secretary of State released all detainees.

I think it would be fair to claim that the Secretary of State's policy rested upon one main factor; that is, that more information was becoming available which in its turn would lead to more charges being brought and more convictions being secured. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, may be able this evening to give us absolutely up-to-date statistics about what is always called the " success rate "—the number of convictions which are obtained in the courts. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough said that the numbers charged and convicted showed a slight reduction if one compared 1975 with 1974, and although I would welcome it—and I know my noble friend would, if the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, could give us any figures for this year which would show a trend in the other direction from which conclusions could be drawn—my own interpretation of the figures available and of the existing level of violence is that the problems of obtaining convictions through the Northern Ireland courts are not being eased. Therefore it is most important that my noble friend has introduced this Bill today. However much we may detest detention, we are driven to the conclusion that although terrorists are being brought before the courts in large numbers, widespread intimidation of witnesses persists, and this provides those who organise terrorism—the godfathers of Northern Ireland—with a safe refuge from the due processes of the law.

In asserting this I am in no way criticising all that is being achieved by the work of the Security Forces, the work of those who administer the law in Northern Ireland and also the work of the Government there. It is fair to make the point that Ministers have shown their resolution in doing away with the special category status, and it needed quite a bit of resolution to do that. But we really cannot disregard the continuing trail of crime. While the House was in Recess during the week-end of the 5th and 6th June I think I am right in saying that I I people were killed, mainly in Belfast, and many others were injured. Only on this morning's news I heard it being announced that in North Belfast a dozen people have been killed in that area of the city in the last three weeks, three of whom have died during this last week-end. The only conclusion that I find myself able to draw is that there are still men lurking in the shadows in Northern Ireland who intend to keep this murderous pot boiling.

I would go further and come now rather nearer to the terms of the Bill. I believe that the law is not dealing effectively with those who incite others to terrorism. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the proceedings on this point in another place in the Standing Committee on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill last year when the Opposition probed this point, but very briefly, and I am of course familiar with the recommendation of the Gardiner Committee that an initiative might be taken by introducing the new offence of terrorism. Therefore, as a layman I should like to ask the Government a simple question: are there any statistics which show how many people are charged and convicted with complicity in the committing of a scheduled offence without actually having committed those offences? I am hound to put it to the Government that the Opposition believe that the organisers of terrorism in Northern Ireland are simply not being brought before the courts, and, if they are, they are not being convicted. This view has been expressed from the Opposition Front Bench in another place for certainly more than a year.

This Bill therefore shows the dilemma which faces the Government: having dispensed with the detention can an alternative means of convicting terrorist organisers be found within the judicial system ? I concede that this is a desperately difficult problem, but my noble friend, in his speech, used an arresting expression. He referred to " the total strategy " of a Government in looking at a problem like this. I think that the value of this Second Reading debate is that it is requiring the Government to discuss with the House the strategy which they are trying to pursue against this intractable problem.

My Lords, having said that, I have doubts about Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, as to whether they find a solution to the problems which they seek to solve. Clause 1 would enable the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to bring any criminal offence within the jurisdiction of a single-judge court. I think it would be regrettable if this provision were to raise again controversy over the establishment of the Diplock Courts. One of the very welcome aspects of the Gardiner Report was that although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, wished to see trial by jury restored in Northern Ireland as soon as possible, the noble and learned Lord and his Committee recognised the good work of the Diplock Courts and reported that scheduled offences should continue to be tried by those courts for the foreseeable future.

In addition to this, it is worth pointing out to my noble friend that Section 26(3) of the Emergency Provisions Act provides for the Secretary of State, by order, to be able to amend the list of scheduled offences whenever necessary. I must say that this is one of those occasions when, having heard a speech, to some extent I have changed my own mind, so persuasive I thought was the speech of my noble friend about what was going on in Andersonstown at present. Therefore I would add that, although I do not like the wording of Clause 1, I would hope that the Secretary of State would look again at the list of scheduled offences to see whether they could be altered, at least to meet the case which my noble friend has made this evening.

Clause 2, however, providing for the protection of witnesses, raises more fundamental issues. I must say I am concerned that concealment of the identity of a witness from the public or from the accused could give the impression of a move back towards detention when no such move is intended in the Bill. In addition, I would put it to my noble friend that Clause 2 would not produce the practical advantages for which he hopes. For precisely because it is the case that the concealment of identity of a witness only from the general public and from the accused would not inhibit cross-examination by counsel, so under a free process of cross-examination, the identity of the witness would soon inevitably become evident. It is worth hearing in mind that this is not my own view, but that of the Diplock Report. In paragraph 70 of that Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and his colleagues said : We have naturally considered whether any method could be devised whereby the identity of informants could be kept secret while still enabling their evidence to be adduced in a court of law. The human difficulty is that nothing would convince them that there was no risk of their anonymity being betrayed ". So although I support my noble friend in his attempt whereby the godfathers in Northern Ireland may be brought to trial and to conviction when guilty, I would prefer to try to tackle the problem from a different direction, by adopting the recommendation of creating an offence of terrorism contained in the Gardiner Report.

As I understand it, such an offence would include directing, organising, training and recruiting. I trust that it would also include inciting and providing what are known as safe houses. It seems to me that such an offence would simplify the task of indicting, as is, I believe, sometimes necessary, on a number of different counts, which I believe can relate to different Acts of Parliament, and which can have. I believe, the burden of proof shifting from the prosecution occasionally to the accused. It would be possible to introduce this offence for the whole of the United Kingdom, which surely is preferable to legislating for Northern Ireland alone.

My Lords, I would hope that if the offence of terrorism could be introduced, it would be possible to make the punishment fit the crime for this new offence; when it is considered that recruitment to terrorism in Northern Ireland can involve the recruitment of children, then I think there is a strong argument for an increase in the sentence for some of the offences which would fall within this new offence.

I am aware that this solution would not solve the problem of the protection of witnesses which my noble friend's Bill seeks to tackle in Clause 2. Therefore, I ask the Government two things. At the moment, the Secretary of State has sitting a Ministerial committee on law and order. If that committee has not already done so, will the noble Lord undertake that, through that committee, the Government will look urgently at the problem of witness protection ?—for I think my noble friend's case today is a powerful one, and that at the very least that ought to be the reaction of the Government. But at the moment, despite the successes of the Security Forces, it is my belief that the godfathers in Northern Ireland are not being apprehended, and that the Government to some extent are sitting on a knife edge. At any moment, a further upsurge in violence may require the Government to take an initiative as to how to bring to trial violent men whom the Security Forces know perfectly well are involved in terrorism.

My second question, therefore, is this: within the next two or three weeks, as my noble friend said, the Government will be bringing forward the order to renew the Emergency Provisions Act. Would the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. give an undertaking that on that occasion, or, if that is too short a notice, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, the Government will come back to Parliament and make a statement as to how far they have got in perusing and tackling the problem of those who organise terrorism in Northern Ireland? If the Government will undertake to return to this problem and to let Parliament know their thinking on how to bring the organisers of terrorism to trial at least before the Summer Recess, then I hope that my noble friend may consider that the debate we are having on the Second Reading will, in itself, have been well worth while. The problems which the Bill has raised are urgent, and I know that the Government will consider them with the utmost speed.

7.28 p.m.

Lord MONSON

My Lords, I rise briefly to support this Bill, but before doing so I should like to say how sad it is that relatively few noble Lords are present to hear the arguments for and against the constructive measure of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, which seeks to deal with matters of life and death, literally, in a part of the United Kingdom. This is not an isolated aberration, due to the comparative lateness of the hour, but a constant fact of life both in this House and, I am afraid, even more so in another place. I think it is regrettable that so few people seem prepared to take a positive and constructive interest in the fate of our fellow citizens.

It is not as though this Bill, for instance, were a particularly complex, technical or esoteric Bill which necessitated a deep, profound and intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs. Very few people in this country will not have read of the shocking shooting of a bus driver in front of his wife and children just before he was about to go to court to give evidence against a suspected terrorist. It is precisely this sort of atrocity that this Bill, in what I believe is a well thought out way, attempts to try to stop, or at any rate diminish: something that is not only a highly desirable thing in itself but which is likely to lead to more witnesses coming forward, leading to an increase in the detection and conviction rate, and thereby cutting down the incidence of sectarian assassinations such as we have seen in the past few weeks. I hope for that reason alone that the Government will give it their urgent consideration.

7.30 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this very important point, and I do not wish to tangle with him over the facts. The facts are disastrously true: intimidation continues, kneecapping continues, witnesses are prevented from giving evidence, and the terrorism in one way or another has not noticeably abated. We have moments, a month or two, when it is a bit better, and moments, a month or two, when it is a hit worse. So I do not want in any sense to dispute the situation which the noble Viscount is trying to attack here.

I would make one very general remark. He spoke of the Government's inconsistencies. He is asking now in this Bill for a further zig-zag, which I think would be absolutely disastrous at this moment. The position is that the Government, in my opinion correctly, and with great courage, decided to do two things. The Government decided to abolish detention and to abolish special category. These were two steps which were taken in order to restore the rule of law and respect for the rule of law, because the minority community and a very large number of the majority community despised and hated detention and all that went with it. The main thing which went with it was witnesses behind a screen, scrambled voices and all that. This was the thing which, in our opinion, gave offence to the public and made it very difficult for us to get the public to work with us. These bold and dangerous steps were taken by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State.

Once again I am not going to tangle with figures; I am not going to say that it is a perfectly obvious graph getting better in convictions. But our evidence from the RUC and the chief constable is that we are doing well in convicting the more serious criminals; particularly the rate for murder and attempted murder is high, and we are getting better information than we were getting under the old system. This is simply the information on which my right honourable friend is continuing his decision. He takes the view that to move back towards a detention situation would be a zig-zag of a bad kind and of a kind which would begin to undo some of the real benefits we have received from these two major acts of statesmanship, or whatever you like to call them. That is my general comment on the noble Viscount's Bill.

I would say a word or two in greater detail, primarily talking about Clause 2, which is the nub of the Bill. The witness who is most at risk, as the noble Viscount said, is the one who is the neighbour and the eye-witness. What happens if a witness protection order is made in respect of him? First, although no mention is made of his name in court, clearly he would have to be concealed from view. But once he spoke his identity would become apparent to the defendant, as a person's voice is often more identifiable than his appearance, and more difficult to disguise. So some attempt would have to be made to overcome this. Let us suppose, then, that the witness maintains that he had seen his neighbour with a gun or explosives in his back garden. Cross-examination would immediately locate his address. If, however, this would be held to disclose the witness's identity, and hence being contravention of the order, how could defence counsel carry out his cross-examination ? The noble Viscount might argue that, because defence counsel would know the identity of the witness, such cross-examination would be unnecessary. I do not think that defence counsel would agree. They might well wish to examine the feasibility of the witness's seeing something from a certain window at a certain time and wish to establish whether in fact the witness was where he said he was. There is a separate problem, which is that the Bill provides that the identity of every witness shall be revealed to counsel and solicitors involved in the case. I do not wish in any way to suggest anything derogatory about the very high standards of the Bar and the solicitors' profession in Northern Ireland, but it means quite a lot to people and is obviously, from the point of view where lives are at stake, a somewhat dangerous thing. So we do not like that either. I have a long quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and another one from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, but I am going to spare your Lordships those quotations because I think your Lordships know that both these legal luminaries were perfectly clear that it was no good trying to do what this Bill is trying to do. They both said so in so many words. I will read the quotations if the noble Viscount is doubtful, but this is a source of legal information which cannot, I think, be gainsaid.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, what about the offence of terrorism; would the solution to this not be to take the advice in the Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and create an offence of terrorism? This is the answer that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave to Lord Gardiner when he said he was not going to do this, but I give it again because I think it is valid. Terrorism is an act of violence for political ends; that is what the word means. Acts of violence are already offences under existing law. To require evidence of political intent would make the job of the Security Forces almost impossible. In other words, if you could catch a man for terrorism you could catch him for the crime he has committed. So we take the view that this might be a harmless window dressing event but it would really do nothing to support what we are all in favour of doing.

I would revert to the point I raised in opening in a little detail. A person would have to be concealed in court, and indeed the Bill provides for this, and his voice might have to be disguised. The overtones of the detention scheme are all too obvious. If the questioning of a witness were to be so restricted that cross-examination were not possible on vital points without disclosing his identity, we edge yet further towards detention. One of Lord Gardiner's Committee's strongest points was the difficulty of testing the truth by cross-examination. If, as appears from subsection (3) of Clause 2, the trial judge is to be required to undertake such cross-examination, the judicial system is then so altered that the system would inevitably be regarded as the Commissioner's form of detention. The dilemma posed by the Diplock Commission becomes all too apparent.

The Government have discontinued the use of detention procedures. We have been through all this, and I think all parties are glad to be rid of it. It has removed a major stumbling block in respect of co-operation with the minority community, both politically and from the security point of view. The RUC report, as I have already indicated, that their relationship with the minority community is now better than at any time since the introduction of internment in 1971—strong words. Clearly, it is important not to revert back to the problems caused by detention, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has this very much to the front of his mind.

There are certain lesser objections with which I will not bother your Lordships because I think I have made it clear that if the Secretary of State or I, or any of us concerned with this, thought that this Bill would do what the noble Viscount wants it to do, we should welcome it. We do not believe it would, and we believe in the end it would do more harm than good.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me to give an undertaking (a thing I am always rather reluctant to do) that my right honourable friend in another place, or I here, when the Emergency Provisions Act comes up for renewal, would say what we were doing about the organisation of terrorism and what extra steps we were taking to get the men behind the terrorists. This is what I understood the noble Lord to be asking. What I will say by way of an undertaking is that my right honourable friend will give an absolutely full description in discussion, subject to the security restraints, of which there are always a certain number, of what he and the security forces are doing. I cannot say more than that, but that I will say. It would be a normal part of his putting the position before the House, and I do not think that the noble Lord can ask me to do more than that. That I do gladly.

The noble Lord also asked me whether the Ministerial committee, which is sitting and is getting near to reporting, would pay special attention to the question of intimidation of witnesses, which we have been discussing tonight. The answer is that this is central to their whole approach. When the noble Lord asked me that he asked me nothing. It is rather like saying, Is a Ministerial committee sitting?" This is the problem in Northern Ireland, and of course they are considering it, and considering it extremely closely. I am not going to say whether they are coming up with any answers because they have not reported yet. In any case, if they do come up with any answers they may well be answers which, for security reasons, had better not be made public. I can assure the noble Lord that basically the subject of this Bill is at least half the problem of Northern Ireland at the moment, and nobody denies this, and the closest attention is being given to it.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, referred to figures. I am not going to argue figures with him. I will look into them. I think that there has been a small decrease here and there, but the view taken is that the type of crime proceeded against and the men convicted are more serious than the type included in earlier figures. But I should like to write to the noble Viscount on this because over figures it is important that we should be talking the same language.

I would support the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I think that our debate has been useful. Certainly the Ministerial committee will read it, and read it carefully. I think it would he a mistake to take this Bill further at this stage because it is quite clear that, from the Government's point of view, it is not acceptable. Therefore, I think, in a sense, the next stage would he rather wasting the time of the House, but I do not think that the noble Viscount has wasted our time up to this date, and I hope that perhaps he would be persuaded to leave it at that.

7.43 p.m.

Viscount BROOK EBOROUGH

My Lords, may I reply quickly to the debate. First, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead, who always shames me with such a nice turn of speech, and who covers the ground in such an extremely able way. I am always conscious of my inadequacies in dealing in detail with any particular subject. I want to make it clear that if the noble and learned Lords, Lord Gardiner and Lord Diplock, found the problem of protection of witnesses a difficult problem, that difficulty still exists. Equally, if they decided that detention was the only way to overcome the problem and the Government decide not to have detention, then the Government must examine with greater vigour that particular problem.

May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—and I want to thank him very much for his kind reply—that I have never thought that we could protect all witnesses, and the " neighbour " which he talks about is one you cannot protect. I have seen preparations for crime, but I have never seen actual crimes committed in terrorist situations. But on many occasions the most valuable witness is the innocent passer-by. He can be protected by this, and that is worth considering.

I have lived through this terrorist situation for a very long time. Time and time again we have asked for something to be done and we have been told that it is impossible because of security policy and legal matters, but it has been done in the end. I am convinced that, with the development of " legitimate " illegitimate businesses, this problem has to be tackled. If the Government cannot deal with it this way, how are they going to deal with it? Or are they going to let the men of violence dominate vast areas of Belfast with legimately or illegitimately owned businesses? This is the problem, because at the present moment these men cannot be brought to justice.

In conclusion, and in asking leave of the House to withdraw the Bill, may I say that it would be churlish of me not to support my noble friend in his admiration of the courage shown on the abolition of political status, which was a terrible stain on our justice. I think we have been very lucky that that has appeared to go off as well as it has done. I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in saying that the relationship between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and areas which were disaffected is definitely better, and I should not like to take part in anything that would worsen that situation. I do not believe that in these two instances it would have that effect, but that must be a matter of judgment.

May I give the noble Lord fair warning—I hope that he is terrified!—that next Session I hope, with strong support from my noble friends, to introduce a much more comprehensive Bill (maybe learning from what happens between now and the Report of the Committee) to deal with a wider range of problems concerning the security situation in Northern Ireland. I beg leave to withdraw the Bill.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

l, by leave, withdrawn.