HL Deb 06 July 1978 vol 394 cc1268-84

8.10 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 provides the legal basis for direct rule, and these temporary arrangements have to be renewed annually. It would be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss the renewal, for six months, of the emergency provisions which cover security in Northern Ireland.

This Government have no wish to prolong direct rule for one moment more than necessary. We want to return as much responsibility as we can to locally elected representatives of the Northern Ireland community, as soon as that can be achieved on a basis that would be acceptable to a majority of both parts of the community. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State suggested in his five-point plan presented to the Northern Ireland Parties at the end of last year, some principles on which we think that an acceptable interim system of government might be based. But, as he emphasised when speaking in the renewal debate in another place at the end of last week, that plan is not a detailed blueprint. It is a basis for discussion. Indeed, if the major political Parties in Northern Ireland wish to discuss proposals significantly different from the Secretary of State's illustrative five-point plan, then he is ready to join in such discussions, provided only that there seems a reasonable chance that those proposals will be capable of securing a wide degree of acceptance in both parts of the community.

Until power can be devolved to some form of local administration on such a basis, the Government will continue to accept their full range of responsibilities in Northern Ireland. We realise that direct rule is not a perfect form of government, but as long as it lasts we will do all we can to provide an Administration which is thorough, impartial, energetic but also sensitive and responsive to the needs and wishes of local people.

Noble Lords with personal experience in Northern Ireland will know of the severity of the many social and economic problems which it faces. There is no quick or easy way of dealing with them. Many are of very long-standing. But they are being tackled vigorously. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is at an appallingly high level. We are involved in an intensive drive to attract new industrial investment to Northern Ireland from overseas—particularly from the USA. Last August a new range of incentives, designed specially for Northern Ireland, was announced. Dupont, Goodyear and General Motors are among the American-owned companies which have decided on major investments at Londonderry, Craigavon and Belfast respectively. Where they have led, we hope others will follow. And the Government themselves are directly committed to the fight against unemployment through the industrial training, job creation and youth opportunities programmes.

Urban decay is another massive problem with social and economic repercussions. It affects many of our larger cities, and Belfast is no exception. The Government have made extra resources available, including, £130 million over the next five years, for the provision and improvement of housing in Belfast. I chair a planning team that is co-ordinating the drive on urban renewal, developing employment opportunities, the health and social services and educational and recreational facilities in the areas of greatest need in Belfast. I believe that significant progress is being made in tackling social and economic problems. But I would be the first to agree that much more needs to be done, and I can assure noble Lords that we are determined to continue our efforts.

As we have said before in debates in your Lordships' House, the various aspects of Northern Ireland's problems are interdependent, and what is achieved in one area of policy often has important implications in other areas. This is especially true of the level of violence—progress in this area is a vital part of our efforts to improve the quality of life for everyone in Northern Ireland. I believe that steady progress is being made—steady and unspectacular, but nevertheless progress. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to join me in paying tribute to all those concerned: the RUC, the Army, the UDR, and the people of Northern Ireland themselves.

I believe that the best assurance the Government can give the people of Northern Ireland is that their own determination is as great as theirs. However, despite the steady progress to which I have referred, the Government are satisfied that they cannot yet dispense with the emergency legislation, and I hope the House will, therefore, approve the first two orders before us tonight.

Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd May, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, the interim extension order, to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred, continues the direct administration of Northern Ireland, and at the same time, in a sense, that order is a reminder that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. As your Lordships will know, guarantees have been given by successive British Governments that this will continue unless the people of Northern Ireland wish otherwise. But as part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has the right to look forward to having once again a measure of devolved government. It makes administrative sense, and without making any comment now on the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales which have been passing through your Lordships' House, clearly Northern Ireland has similar claims.

I know that the Secretary of State put forward the five-point plan to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred in his speech for devolved powers last November. I am aware of the difficulties in the way of further progress but if, as the days go by, the objective of a constitutional settlement is not going to continue ever more to recede over the horizon, surely the Government really ought to take a fresh look now at the powers and functions of local government in Northern Ireland, and to consider establishing some form of regional council which could lead on to the setting up of an Assembly with devolved powers.

In saying that, I intend no reflection whatsoever upon the work of Ministers in Northern Ireland. New industry—and the noble Lord has referred to several firms which have been attracted to the Province—is proof of the energy of the Northern Ireland Office, together with the attraction of Northern Ireland as being a place where there are good industrial relations and a good productivity record. But there really seems to be no progress whatsoever towards any sort of constitutional settlement; and I would ask the noble Lord this evening, if he would, to explain to us why a solution along the lines suggested by the Conservative Party for many months now, and which I repeated very briefly this evening, cannot at least be tried.

Despite that point which I am putting to the Government, of course I support both orders. The emergency powers continue to be necessary. But let there be no misunderstanding: Parliament renews the emergency powers with regret. By renewing every six months, we retain in Parliament the machinery for having constant reviews. Similarly, in a free country, we have machinery for anyone to bring their legitimate grievances to an independent inquiry. Therefore I find it very difficult to understand why the allegations which were made in the report by Amnesty International from anonymous people could not have been made personally by those people, either direct or thorough Amnesty International, to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

If I may say so, it would appear that the Government have taken the only reasonable course that was open to them by setting up an independent inquiry. May I express the hope, on the occasion of the passing of this order, that His Honour Judge Bennett and his colleagues will be able to bring that part of their inquiry dealing with interrogation procedures by the police to as swift a conclusion as possible. It is surely of the utmost importance that the charge of mistreatment should be answered, and answered very soon.

The noble Lord referred to the steady progress being made to reduce the level of violence, and we all owe a debt to the Army and the RUC for the successes which they have been achieving against terrorism. I should particularly like to welcome the further increase, which I know has been achieved, in the permanent element of the UDR—a move which, from this side of the House, my noble friends and I have been recommending and supporting for some time. But I have one question to put to the noble Lord. I understand that the backlog in terrorist cases awaiting trial has become considerable. I have been told of one estimate that some 80 murder cases and approximately 300 cases relating to scheduled offences are awaiting trial. Is this the case? If it is not the case, then I shall be the first to welcome the fact that it is not so. But if it is, is any action being taken to rectify the position?

I have paid tribute to the work of the security forces, but they need to know that terrorists are not going to find a safe haven outside Northern Ireland. It was to bring terrorists to justice on both sides of the Border that the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, and the corresponding legislation which was passed in the Republic, were enacted some two and a half years ago. May I ask how many cases have been brought before the courts in Northern Ireland and in the Republic as a result of these two pieces of legislation, and how many convictions have been secured? I believe that this form of co-operation is absolutely essential if the scourge of terrorism, which, after all, causes the orders which are being presented to the House today, is to be ended as soon as possible.

8.22 p.m.

Lord HAMPTON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for repeating the reasons behind these two orders. We support the Government when they say that emergency legislation cannot yet be dispensed with. We at Westminster must do all we can to help the people in the Province to help themselves, when the broad consent of both communities is at last obtainable, and we hope that that will be before long. I should like briefly to make two points. The first, following the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, concerns the accusation that torture has been practised in the interrogation of believed terrorists. Unfortunately, there is no doubt, on the other hand, that such agonisingly evil practices as knee-capping are carried out by the IRA. Torture is, in one respect, like bad driving—very few people will admit to it. Amnesty International has made what has proved to be a controversial accusation against the security forces. Nothing can justify the use of torture and the end must not be allowed to justify the means. We are glad that the Government have agreed to set up an inquiry, but we believe, with regret, that the very possible danger of reprisals may necessitate that its hearings should be in private.

The second point that I wish to make concerns the representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster. As was accepted by the Government in a Statement on 19th April, the Province, on a numerical basis, is entitled to at least four additional Members of Parliament. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when, since we spend many hours on Scotland and Wales—and I do not dispute the necessity—something will be done for Northern Ireland. I would remind the noble Lord that my Party suggested last year a temporary solution that could satisfactorily remedy a considerable injustice, long before the Commission will have had time to sort out the complications of redrawing boundaries. I should like to join other Members of your Lordships' House in paying tribute to the security forces, to whom we all owe a great deal. My Party accept the logic of these two orders. But if the Minister could comment on my last point about representation, I should be grateful.

8.25 p.m.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

My Lords, I should like, in the first instance to welcome both orders. What all noble Lords have been saying, including the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the future Government of Northern Ireland is very clearly underlined by the fact that tonight we have five orders concerning the Government of Northern Ireland which will all be dealt with in a matter of hours. There are many matters which I should certainly have liked to raise, but this House has been dealing in great detail with the Scotland and Wales Bills and I fully realise that I should lose the sympathy of the House if I raised more than a very few points tonight. Certainly noble Lord opposite will agree with me on that.

I should like to confine myself tonight almost totally to the question of the emergency provisions, except that I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State and his Ministers on their successes in attracting new industry. It has been a tremendous success, and I only hope that it is the beginning of a snowball which will take us back to the position we were in in 1968. I should like to pursue this matter on an appropriation order on 20th July, because, although the Minister has said how much the Government are doing—and I think they are very imaginative in a lot of the measures they are taking to combat unemployment—the prospects for unemployment in the year 1982 and onwards are truly horrific. I believe that we should he right to raise this matter on the appropriation order, and try to encourage the Government into more energetic and original methods of dealing with this most difficult problem, which can only aggravate the question of violence.

I should like to assure the Minister that I agree that things are better—and he knows that we all agree, because we can see it in Northern Ireland—and for that the Secretary of State and his right honourable friend Don Concannon deserve congratulations. Their robust stand in the defence and support of the Armed Forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been a tonic to Northern Ireland. Having congratulated them, I must, of course, say that it could not have been done without tremendous effort by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment, as well as the support of the people of Northern Ireland.

I welcome very much the announcement on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. This is something which may appear to be unimportant, but the people of Northern Ireland require constant reassurance on the unity of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords have referred to the question of the Amnesty report and I should like to deal with that in a few minutes. The emergency provisions measure, which is before the House, rests on one principle which cannot be stated too often; that is, that when a free democratic society is faced with a terrorist threat, it is legitimate for its democratic Parliament to set aside some of the liberalities which affect personal liberty in order to suppress and wipe out the threat of terrorism.

While nobody would deny that proposition, I often think that we as a nation have not really accepted the implications that are carried with it. It is quite obvious—and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed this out—that we do not like continually giving these emergency powers. It is therefore an obligation on those who have these emergency powers to make sure that they are used humanely and prudently. It is also very necessary to make sure that we take only those powers which are strictly necessary for the job in hand. I believe that, judged by those standards, it is necessary that the Emergency Provisions Act should be supported tonight, and I also believe that the case for, and the handling of, that Act have been amply justified in the past.

So many confusing apparent facts come out of Northern Ireland, but one thing which sticks out a mile to me is that, in the conditions of brutal intimidation that exist in Northern Ireland, it will be impossible to find sufficient witnesses who will brave the intimidation and come forward and bear testimony to make sure that bombers and assassins can be convicted. If we in this country are not to succumb to bombers and assassins then we must either use the weapon of internment, a weapon which Parliament has decided we cannot use, or else, rightly or wrongly, we must depend heavily on the skilled interrogation of suspects in order to elicit from them confessions which the courts will accept as evidence to find them guilty. The very provision of powers for prolonged investigation puts us, a democratic society, at a disadvantage in the propaganda war. Every time in the past an efficient weapon against terrorism has been devised the propaganda machine, in the hands of those who support the IRA, has orchestrated a campaign against internment and they are making a further attempt today against police interrogation.

In this propaganda campaign nothing has aided the campaign of systematic defamation better than the recent Amnesty report on alleged police brutalities in Ulster. This is not the place to go into details and to make a critical analysis of that report. Indeed from reading the Hansard of another place we find that much has been said about it that was sensible and strong, especially by the Secretary of State and his colleague, and I shall confine myself to one or two observations. The first thing which must be clearly stated is that I cannot see how anyone can accept the assumption that a report from Amnesty can be regarded as a judicial pronouncement coming from a skilled and impartial body, and how that can be considered to be a prima facie case of brutality. Indeed, the American review Commentary stated that Amnesty was in many respects a propaganda body.

We in Northern Ireland are quite used to certain prelates, certain churchmen, such as Father Fall, who have continually done their very best to discredit the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but we are very sad to see the speed and alacrity with which certain other church leaders of note, and notably the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, seem to have accepted this document as offering at least a prima facie case of brutality. In my view that is indefensible and what makes it the more indefensible is that those same prelates were absolutely silent when there appeared a much more damaging report, also from Amnesty, on the behaviour of the police in Southern Ireland. I cannot understand why we have two standards of judgment.

The Amnesty report must be judged on its merits and I do not believe many people realise that there were three men involved most of the time, and one man who had to be relieved because he was sick. They were there for eight days and people who live in Northern Ireland or Ministers who have had something to do with Northern Ireland will know that eight days is not long enough to absorb the atmosphere, to establish the credentials and appreciate the general problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The team made further mistakes. They examined not a random sample, a random selection of cases, but a pre-selected sample of 78, selected not by Amnesty, but by those people in Northern Ireland practised in discrediting the Royal Ulster Constabulary over the last 10 years. The complainants were subject to no kind of detailed cross-examination and their credentials could not conceivably have been investigated in depth. One has only to look at the time factor: eight days and 78 cases investigated. It is quite impossible that any detailed or satisfactory situation could have been arrived at to establish the true cause.

I will give your Lordships the facts. In only 13 of the 78 cases that were examined the investigators interviewed both complainant and saw a doctor's report. Of those who complained 39 offered no medical evidence of any kind, 26 were examined only by reference to medical reports unaccompanied by interviews. My Lords, how can that possibly be considered to be a detailed, fair, proper investigation into police brutality?

I do not feel that I am here to judge the motives of Amnesty. This is the only Amnesty report that I have ever read regarding conditions which I could look at in detail to judge its quality, and I am indeed very disappointed if this is typical. But, are they naive or are they totally full of malice? What matters to me is that this report is not worth the paper it is written on and it makes me wonder about the other reports which I have taken to be matters of great authority. Where does it leave one? What that report shows is one thing and one thing clearly, something that we already knew very well in Northern Ireland, which is that there are people in Ulster who have an interest in blackening the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has mentioned what I believe is the initial success of the Amnesty report; namely, to have an inquiry. This is another inquiry. We have had so many inquiries into the Royal Ulster Constabulary that, had it not been for very robust support by the Secretary of State, untold damage would have been done to the morale of a police force which is now recovering from some of the damage done to it by other reports.

Many people outside seem to forget that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has a very elaborate complaints procedure. Already remedies are open to complainants in the civil courts, and any case which the Director of Public Prosecutions judges to be a prima facie case of brutality can be brought through criminal procedure. But if, as a result of this inquiry, new safeguards can be devised for suspects which do not impair—and this is the important thing—the efficiency of police interrogation, nobody, least of all the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will object. What I am afraid of is that the Commission may feel obliged to make a recommendation. You cannot really appoint a Committee without having a recommendation of some sort. When the recommendations do come there are two very simple principles which we should observe. The first of them is that the real threat to human rights—and, after all, Amnesty International poses as the great guardian of civil rights—in Northern Ireland comes not from the State but from the terrorists. It is they who have created the state of affairs in which immaculate regard for civil rights is no longer possible. A balance must be struck, and has been struck, between the rights of innocent men and women and the rights of the terrorist suspects, most of whom, as their antecedents have shown, can no longer be regarded as innocent victims of fate.

The second principle is this. Interrogation, whether it he the interrogation of a terrorist suspect or indeed of a schoolboy suspected of theft, is a painful and unpleasant process. The notion that psychological pressure can be eliminated is quite unreasonable and hypocritical. It is also unreasonable and hypocritical to expect the police, when faced by physical assault from those whom they are interrogating—and that happens too often—to turn the other cheek. The real point which we in society have not met is about the nature of interrogation and the rules which should govern it; and it is time that they were honestly and realistically debated in public. What we have said to the police is, "This you cannot do". What we have never said is, "This you can do". What is absolutely certain in Northern Ireland is that, without the use of these emergency powers which we have before us tonight, the war—and it is a war—could not be won. The Secretary of State and his team have done a fine job in defence of what I believe to he the finest police force in the United Kingdom and I therefore support these measures.

8.40 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, much of what has been said by the three noble Lords who have spoken in the debate I would of course entirely agree with and endorse, and I should like to confine myself mainly to answering the particular questions which were raised. First, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me about the backlog of scheduled cases and the length of time which people were having to wait in custody before coming to trial. I can assure the noble Lord that this is a matter which I, as the Minister responsible for the court service in Northern Ireland, and my colleagues, are extremely concerned about and it is something which concerns all those who are involved in this—the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police, the Judiciary and the Lord Chief Justice in particular. We are taking a great deal of trouble to monitor the length of time that people spend in custody. The noble Lord asked me for some figures. In May 1977 the average time spent in custody by those persons going forward to trial for scheduled offences was just over 40 weeks; the figure for May of this year was much the same, but there is certainly some evidence of a growing backlog and therefore I would accept, as the noble Lord said, that there are grounds for concern.

More recently the other thing that we have been monitoring carefully is those who have had to wait for an unacceptably long period (as I would see it) before coming to trial—waiting for over a year. Out of a total of 1,340 people coming to trial in 1977, 72 had been in custody for more than 12 months and the corresponding figures for 1978 proportionately are much the same. This has not been growing as yet, but I am concerned that there are signs of a growing problem in the future. The reason for this delay is the considerable increase in the number of criminal cases coming before the courts in Northern Ireland in recent years, which has been greatly accentuated by the success the police have had in detecting and apprehending terrorist offenders, particularly for some offences going back a number of years.

I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that we are taking a number of steps not only to monitor this but to improve the position, and in particular to meet the problems which I see coming in the next few months. I can tell the noble Lord that the Lord Chief Justice is arranging for judges to be available to enable a sixth Diplock court to be held continuously from the beginning of the next legal term if sufficient work for such a court can be brought forward. This depends very much on things like the availability of defence lawyers. The Lord Chief Justice has already made provision for extra Supreme Court judges with a view to expediting the hearing of murder cases, and a number of other steps are being taken in the monitoring process which are engaged with every step in the process of bringing cases to court. So I can assure the noble Lord that this question is being very carefully watched.

All noble Lords who spoke said something about the Amnesty International report. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his welcome for the inquiry and to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his recognition that this was the only response that the Government could have made. I certainly entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that we need to see the results of this as soon as possible. Of course the Government must take seriously, as does the Chief Constable, any allegations of maltreatment which are made against the RUC. I would say simply to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that it was the Chief Constable himself who suggested to the Government that an inquiry should be held. I hope that will give to the noble Viscount some indication of the likely effect on the morale of the RUC. It was clearly the Chief Constable's view that an inquiry should be held, and it was certainly accepted and endorsed by the Government. I hope that when the report of that inquiry is available we shall he able to have a discussion on what it shows, alongside the report of Amnesty International.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

My Lords, I should like to make it clear that I was not questioning the Government's decision at that point. I merely meant that it became necessary.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having made that clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked me about the timetable for providing the extra seats in another place for Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord will remember, I repeated in this House a Statement about this which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in another place when the Government accepted the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference to increase the number of seats. My right honourable friend said then that the Government would introduce the legislation during this Session if there was time for it. That remains the position, although it is clearly not very likely that the legislation will be brought in this Session.

I should like to reassure the noble Lord that this is very unlikely to delay the work of the Boundary Commission which has a considerable job to do before the extra seats can be allocated. The Boundary Commission is free to start work and I think it is likely that it will already have started work on the job of drawing up the new boundaries. Whenever the next General Election comes, whether it is before or after Christmas, the Boundary Commission could not possibly complete its work in time for that. I have no doubt that at the end of another five years of Labour Government they will have completed their work and we shall see the extra seats which all are agreed are needed in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me about the upper tier of local government and the proposals which his colleagues in another place and he himself in this House have been making about this. It has certainly been suggested by a number of people that the way forward is to create an upper tier of local government. I think it is sometimes said in a way that suggests that this will be a simple matter and that the Government are merely holding back from an easy and uncontroversial reform which they could make if they had the will to, but I do not think that that is a valid analysis of the problem at all. The fact is that any new structure for the exercise of power in Northern Ireland, whether it is a new upper tier of local government, a regional council or councils—and I think the noble Lord will accept that that is the official statement of Conservative Party policy at the moment; council or councils, in the plural—any of these structures, interim devolution or full legislative devolution, must be capable of passing the test of acceptability which is one of the key points in the proposals of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State which were put forward last year. That means that any new arrangements must be acceptable to a majority in both parts of the community. I do not believe that it is sensible simply to compare local government arrangements in England and Wales with those in Northern Ireland, or indeed to make a direct comparison with what the Government propose for Scotland and Wales.

We certainly recognise that the absence of locally elected representatives with responsibility for major local government services is highly undesirable. On that I am entirely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. That is why the Secretary of State has put forward his five-point proposals for a new authority which is designed for the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and which would bridge the gap between the existing district councils and Westminster. The responsibilities which the Secretary of State has in mind for this authority would not be restricted to those of a mainland local authority, but would follow the traditional lines of devolved governments in Northern Ireland. It would incorporate built-in safeguards for both the majority and minority communities and there would be opportunities for elected representatives of the minority community to be involved in decision taking.

As I said when introducing this order, that is not a hard and fast blueprint; it is simply put forward for the purposes of discussion. This is what we have always understood to be common ground between the major Parties at Westminster, and it is something which the Secretary of State remains willing to explore with the political Parties in Northern Ireland. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, the reason why there has not been progress on the political front while there has been, I think, a reasonable amount of progress on many other fronts—social, economic and security—is that we all agree that on the political front it is the political Parties in Northern Ireland which have to make the first move. It is not something which it is simply within the Government's power to make progress on.

Perhaps I could very briefly quickly answer a point which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked about criminal jurisdiction Acts. The bringing of prosecutions under these Acts is a matter for the authorities in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. Three men have been charged extra-territorially in Northern Ireland with an offence committed in the Republic, but no case has so far arisen in which the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland have had sufficient evidence to pass to the authorities in the Republic to enable a trial to be mounted there. Thus, so far, no cases have been heard under the provisions of the Act in the Republic; but that is because we have not had sufficient evidence in any case.

Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH

My Lords, would it not be fair to say that the reason that happens is because these suspected criminals are living on the other side of the border, and our police cannot interview them to get the prima facie information in order to give it to the prosecuting authorities in the South? This is a chicken and egg situation.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is quite right; that is part of the difficulty in some cases. But I was going on to say that another point which is worth bearing in mind is that the legislation came into force on 1st June 1976. It does not apply to offences committed before that date. In our view, it is likely to become increasingly effective as time goes by, and more cases are investigated and people are able to be charged with offences committed after the Act came into force. The Government are certainly satisfied that the RUC and the Garda will co-operate, and are co-operating, closely to make full use of the legislation. There is no question of anybody being reluctant to make use of it if and when there are suitable cases.

I am very grateful for the support which all three noble Lords have given to these two orders. I will certainly pass on the kind words said about my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. I hope very much that it will not be necessary to continue to bring forward these orders to your Lordships' House; but it is a regrettable necessity.

On Question, Motion agreed to.