§ 4.13 p.m.
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, with the leave of the House and in the absence of my noble friend Lord Melchett, I will now repeat a 1134 Statement being made in another place on the strike in Northern Ireland.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in his Statement on Monday, undertook to keep the House informed about events in Northern Ireland. He has thought it right to stay there for the time being and has asked me to give this report on his behalf.
"We are now half way through the third day since the stoppage announced by the United Unionist Action Council was due to come into effect. The first day was a day of uncertainty. A number of people did not turn up for work: these were mainly in the engineering sector of industry. The police reported numerous complaints of intimidation but most of these were telephone threats which the police were unable to check. On the second day, the turnout was better, but some of the intimidation became more blatant.
"Today the indications are that the turnout for work has been the highest yet, with most firms reporting a very good attendance. Traffic is flowing freely, although the police have had to clear some road blocks (usually of telegraph poles or trees) and there have been some suspect or hoax car bombs. Although the harbour at Larne has been closed, most public services have continued to operate in a near normal fashion. Bread and milk were being delivered normally this morning.
"The story of the last two and a half days is of the people of Northern Ireland behaving with courage and determination, often in the face of threats or intimidation, by firmly demonstrating their desire to work normally. In this resolve, they have been encouraged and supported by the good sense and moderation of responsible leaders of opinion in Northern Ireland, including those in this House, to whom I am pleased to pay tribute. Trade union leaders, shop stewards and other workers' representatives have also given courageous leadership to their fellow workers. It is these workers who are showing the bravery to protect their jobs and thereby to protect the whole future of the Northern Ireland economy. I would like also to pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who have given further demonstration—if that 1135 were needed—of their ability to act as an impartial and effective force. The Chief Constable has assured my right honourable friend that his force, supported as necessary by the army, will continue to do their utmost to ensure that all those who wish to do so can continue to go to work.
"Finally to those who are understandably concerned about the continuing terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, I would repeat the message given by my right honourable friend on Monday. We are not complacent about the present security situation. We appreciate the feelings of frustration in Northern Ireland from a community that has had to suffer so much for so long. But we are convinced that the method chosen by the UUAC and its supporters is not the way to improve matters. It distracts the security forces from their efforts against the Provisional IRA and a continuation of present tactics by the supporters of the strike will only help the terrorists."
§ My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for repeating the Statement made in another place. Some of the things he has said have been a consolation to those of us who feel so extremely anxious about the critical position in the Province. I should personally like to express my sympathy with the Members of the Government, including the young noble Lord from this House, the civil administrators, the police and the troops for the very heavy responsibility they have in keeping order. I should like to put one question to the noble Lord. As this is not an industrial strike, are those who are threatening and using intimidating procedures not very near a breach of the law?
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, before the noble Lord answers the noble Baroness, I should like to put a point or two to him. I am grateful to him for repeating the Statement made in another place. I hope he realises that we on this side of the House fully endorse the action of our colleagues in another place in supporting the Government in opposing this damaging, foolish 1136 and, I may add, disloyal strike. But may also reinforce what my noble friend behind me has put to the Government. How is it that no one has ventured to contradict what one of the leaders of the strike said in my hearing on the television? I mention him not by name, because he is a Member of another place, and only for that reason. How is it that he has not been contradicted when he said that this illegal strike is within the law? Is it not the case that it is wholly outside the law?
The House will remember the controversial speech of the late Lord Simon at the time of the events of 1926. That was criticised, because at that time there was an industrial dispute in being between the miners and their then private employers, and the case which was put on the other side was that the action of the TUC was sympathetic to the miners' dispute. But this, is it not, is a case where there is not even a pretence of any industrial dispute. It is a naked political strike and nothing else. Were we not assured at the time of the passage of the controversial legislation by the present Government that political strikes as such were, and remained illegal? Is it not the case, therefore, that this strike, quite apart from the question of intimidation, is wholly outside the law?
There is one other question on the legal side that I should like to put to the Government. We all saw in the papers today photographs of a man in a mask in a public place. Is it not time that both in this country and in Northern Ireland—and it may be the case in Northern Ireland —the wearing of a mask in a public place, or any form of facial concealment, ought itself to be treated as a criminal offence of the most serious kind, indictable, triable by the Crown Court and punishable with heavy sentences of imprisonment? Can there be any possible excuse for people to walk about in public places with their faces concealed, either by hoods or masks or anything else, except perhaps for the purpose of a fancy dress ball, which I do not think this is. Will the Government seriously consider making the wearing of masks illegal, or, if it is already illegal, stepping up the penalties and making quite sure that persons who wear masks are tried on indictment for the offence and treated with the utmost severity if convicted?
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, I should like to express on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches our entire approval of the action that Her Majesty's Government are now taking in Northern Ireland. I would make only one observation. The penultimate sentence of the Statement seems to me to be an almost unparalleled example of meiosis. It says:
… we are convinced that the method chosen by the UUAC and its supporters is not the way to improve matters".I should have thought that on the face of it the only reasonable explanation of the action of the UUAC is that it wants to provoke a civil war.
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, with a great deal of what has been said I am in a good deal of sympathy. First, I should like to answer the noble Baroness. Of course intimidation is illegal if accompanied by threats, whether or not the stoppage is industrial. There is no question about that, and a number of people have been arrested for it. Secondly, without taking legal advice, I should have thought the noble and learned Lord was perfectly right; I should have thought this strike was wholly illegal, but I do not know that it helps us very much to say that. The situation is there and has to be dealt with.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, these people call themselves Loyalists.
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, I do not know that the sub voce comment that the noble and learned Lord has just made would really be helpful and I shall not repeat it. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke of meiosis. There has been a great deal of very insulting talk in Northern Ireland, and generally speaking my right honourable friend tries to play the hand rather differently. There is no doubt that there is some patriotism, of a kind that I find difficult to detect, on the part of the people who are running this strike. I do not think it is true to say that they are trying to start a civil war; I think they have other motives which are not quite the same.
With regard to the question of masks, once again, of course, it is part of the intimidation and should be and is illegal, but the trouble in Northern Ireland, 1138 particularly at the moment, is that things that are illegal cannot immediately be prosecuted. The RUC are doing well in what they are picking up. At the moment, there is a crowd of people outside the court where yesterday's people were being tried, and there are problems of this kind that everybody has to look after. I will pass on the noble and learned Lord's comments to my right honourable friend. I think that is far as I can go.
Lord HUNTMy Lords, is the Minister in a position to tell the House anything about the Ulster Defence Regiment in the current crisis? He has paid what I am sure is a well-merited tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He did not mention the UDR. I had read, or it was reported over the weekend, that there was some shortfall in the response of the Ulster Defence Regiment to the full-time call out of the 8,000-strong force. Is that a significant shortfall, and is it not a fact that the Ulster Defence Regiment is conducting itself with the distinction for which it has earned a very fine reputation?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGEMy Lords, I have no advice on this particular point, but I have absolute confidence that the Ulster Defence Regiment is conducting itself in the way it should. I will write an answer to the noble Lord in due course.
§ Lord DUNCAN-SANDYSMy Lords, I had been intending to raise the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham on the question of masks. I hope that the Government will be a little more robust than was indicated by the Minister's answer on this point. I warmly welcome the very firm and encouraging Statement made a few days ago by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:
Nobody has the right to intimidate or physically prevent those who wish to work from doing so".With regard to the question of masks, if someone is engaged in unpeaceful picketing and is wearing a mask—I am not a lawyer, though I am still a student at the Inner Temple—surely it is self-evident that they are obstructing the police in the exercise of their duty, part of which is to identify offenders and arrest them.
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGEMy Lords, I have already entirely agreed with this. I do not think there is any doubt about it at all. This is a part of the intimidation and should be treated as such.
§ Lord DUNCAN-SANDYSMy Lords, should not something be done about it? It is not enough to say it is illegal. Here are these people doing something which is quite clearly illegal—wearing masks in order to evade responsibility. Surely some effort should be made to arrest such persons.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, can I not appeal to the noble Lord to be a little more robust about this? What I was suggesting was that the wearing of masks per se in times of stress ought to be made a crime punishable on indictment. The police ought to have the right of arrest without warrant, and when arrested they should be kept in prison without bail. Will the noble Lord not be a little more robust?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, I will not be more or less robust. I will pass on the very robust remarks of the noble and learned Lord to my right honourable friend who has to deal with this very difficult situation, and who, in my opinion, is not dealing with it by burking the issue.
The Earl of SELKIRKMy Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that threats issued by telephone are just as much a crime as any other threats? Has he any idea how many threats have been made?—"If you open today you will be dead". Can he give any advice to people to whom such threats are issued from time to time, or any idea of the number which have been made in the last three days?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGENo, my Lords. I know a great many have been made; the police are endeavouring to trace them, and it is very difficult to do this. I do not think I can give any advice. If you receive a threat, you have to carry on as best you can.