HL Deb 08 July 1982 vol 432 cc955-65

7.20 p.m.

The Earl of Gowrie rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already said this afternoon that progress on the political front is vital, in our judgment, to securing the conditions for a peaceful and stable society in Northern Ireland. But no less important—and I am glad to have the opportunity to reiterate this—is the ability of the security forces to maintain their relentless drive against violence. The climate of opinion in which reconciliation and political progress becomes possible is inextricably linked with our unremitting efforts to remove the shadow of violence and intimidation. We must eradicate the criminal activities of the men of violence in the Province, whatever their claimed political motivation, for no political motives can excuse violent crimes.

To enable the security forces to achieve this objective, I ask the House to renew for a further six months all the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which are currently in force. In doing so, I pay tribute to the courage and tenacity of all members of the security forces who have continued to render unstinting service to the community in Northern Ireland. I ought especially to place on record the debt of gratitude owed to those members of the security forces who have been maimed or even lost their lives since your Lordship last renewed these powers and, on behalf of the House, to extend our sincerest sympathy to the relatives.

The Government's security policies continue to be based above all else on an unswerving commitment to maintain the rule of law in Northern Ireland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to sustaining a society where members are able to go about their daily life without risk of violent attack and in which legitimate political beliefs and aims can be expressed freely and without fear. We will not allow political beliefs to be pursued, or to be opposed, by violence or the threat of it. All too easily fundamental freedoms can be taken for granted in our democracy. These freedoms are threatened in Northern Ireland and it remains the aim of the Government, as I am sure it is of this House, to maintain them. The order at present before the House provides our security forces and our courts in Northern Ireland with the powers and means to do so

The prevention of crime and the maintenance of an orderly society depend as much in Northern Ireland as elsewhere on the community having confidence in the ability of the police and the courts to act impartially, enforce the law and administer justice fairly. The security forces, for their part, work towards a sustained improvement in relations with the community as a whole, and no-one recognises more clearly than the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding that they must not only enforce the law but be seen to uphold it. The police and the army in Northern Ireland are frequently asked to make agonising decisions—sometimes life or death decisions—in difficult and dangerous situations. They do so in the knowledge that they are answerable to the law for those decisions, and that an error of judgment or a rash decision on their part may only serve to exacerbate community tensions and generate support for those who advocate extremism and violence.

I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the steady increase in community support for the police, and the progress which is being made in extending their role in the community, bears witness to their skill and determination in carrying out their duties, often at considerable personal risk. The army, while acting more and more in a supporting role to the police—this point was brought out in the previous debate by my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn—nevertheless continue to have many exacting and dangerous duties to perform in the Province. We have all had in mind recently the courage and skill of our armed forces and the sacrifices they have made in the Falkland Islands. But it has to be said that those virtues have been consistently displayed in Northern Ireland. Special resolution and courage is required from those who defend us against cowardly attacks by terrorists and, above all, a special quality of discipline and self-control is needed.

The powers conferred on our security forces to enable them to carry out their duties have been a matter for careful, balanced and continued examination both by Parliament and specially constituted committees of inquiry. It is right that this should be so. A fundamental element of our policy has been that while we owe it to our security forces to ensure that they have the necessary power to act against criminal violence, it is equally important that this House should be satisfied that each of the Act's provisions is necessary to meet the situation.

The availability of these powers has enabled the security forces to keep up the pressure on terrorist offenders. During 1981, 557 people were convicted of scheduled offences on indictment and 90 of them received sentences of 10 years' imprisonment or more. Up to the end of June this year, charges had been laid in respect of 395 serious terrorist offences, of which 32 were for murder and 55 for attempted murder. That record had been matched by a slight abatement in the level of violence, I am glad to say, and fits a long-term trend that, with due caution, I can welcome as being broadly positive. But I must remind your Lordships that the hunger strike by prisoners in the Maze last year aroused deep emotions and the frequent and violent street disturbances with which your Lordships will be familiar considerably and inevitably heightened tension in the Province. Notwithstanding this, both sides of the community overwhelmingly demonstrated their rejection of violence, and I am grateful to the leaders of both communities for the part they have played in that rejection. We owe it to them not to become complacent because of a record of relative success; we have a very long way to go to eliminate violence entirely. Against this background and the particular repugnance of recent attacks in Londonderry and elsewhere in the Province on members of the security forces, now is surely not the time to divest ourselves of general powers and the means to continue this further progress.

But given the extraordinary nature of the powers in the Emergency Provisions Act, it is recognised that the House should satisfy itself that these are necessary to meet the situation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the title of the legislation itself underscores the intention that the powers should be no more than temporary and should last no longer than absolutely necessary. The provisions themselves have been in force for many years now and were last reviewed seven years ago by the committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. The Government therefore believe that the time has now arrived when, to enable the House to take a balanced judgment on whether each provision of the Act is strictly necessary or whether any provisions need amendment, a further independent review should be conducted of the operation of the legislation.

The purpose of the review will be to check that the additional powers given to the security forces in Northern Ireland are still serving their purpose effectively, but with the minimum impact on the ordinary civil liberties of the subject. Your Lordships will be aware from recent statements in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the precise terms of reference of the review and its composition have not yet been decided. But, given the nature of the subject, it is intended that a senior legal figure should take the leading part in it. As to the timing of the review, it would be unrealistic to review the Emergency Provisions Act without taking account of the conclusions of Lord Jellicoe's present inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, so far as they affect Northern Ireland. A practical and operational link exists between the Acts, and the timing of the review will therefore need to reflect this, but I assure the House that there will be no unnecessary delay in the conduct of either review.

The Government recognise that there are reasonable anxieties about the year on year renewal of the emergency legislation. We feel it right to try to meet those views by establishing the proposed inquiry. However, at the moment there is no clear evidence that any particular current provisions of the legislation are no longer necessary or are no longer used to significant effect in dealing with, or in deterring, violent activity in the Province. For the present, then, and since such activity continues in Northern Ireland, the order before your Lordships tonight proposes that we retain for a further six months all the measures contained in the Emergency Provisions Act which are currently in force. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)

7.30 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl for just missing his two opening sentences; the previous order went through rather more quickly than I expected. I think that all of us who fairly regularly attend these twice-yearly debates are extremely grateful—I am sure that I speak for many—that there will be independent reviews of both the Emergency Provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In addition, it is good to know that the Emergency Provisions Act review will be as wide-ranging as that carried out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in 1975. In the meantime, I should like to urge the Government to keep going with minor improvements to the system while the reviews take place. I say that because it is well known that the whole process of administration of justice in Northern Ireland, beginning with the investigation of a given crime, right through to the release of a convicted prisoner, has an immediate impact on community relations and on political confidence. Nowhere is this more true than in the so-called hard-line areas.

In speaking of minor improvements I am in particular referring to those which can be controlled administratively. I have in mind such matters as the time of day of arrests and the use of normal, rather than emergency, powers of arrest. I have in mind also even such matters as informing families rather quickly when a young person has been arrested, as well as the length of time that suspects are held, and indeed the question of bail.

In addition, I should like to refer to the possibility of descheduling some minor terrorist offences, and in particular the discretion that I understand lies with the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to a Question of mine for Written Answer on 24th June, and the Minister in another place referred to this particular point on 30th June, at col. 995 of Hansard. I should like to see not only all normal civilian crimes going for trial before a judge and jury, but also, as an experiment, some of the minor terrorist ones as well. I have in mind, for example, the possession of a weapon without making any use of it. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this tiny step towards normality, despite the obvious possible difficulties.

It is I think well known that there is widespread concern in both Britain and Northern Ireland over the need to continue the two Acts. The concern has been expressed by members of the Law Faculty of Queen's University in Belfast, by the Conference on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland, and by other peace groups there. I share the concern, and in particular I am worried about the long interval that sometimes occurs between an unexplained death and the holding of a coroner's inquest. I am sure that all possible steps will be taken to minimise the delays. That would help to decrease the sense of injustice sometimes felt by families who have had the misfortune to lose one of their members.

To underline these concerns I should like to quote from a press release, dated 21st June of this year, from the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. This is a body appointed by the Government to protect both civil and human rights. The commission rightly pointed out the difficulty of dealing with this legislation under the order procedure, where, as we all know, there is no possibility of amendment. The commission went on to state: It may be seen that Parliament underestimated the resistance to changes of any sort, which was built in to the renewal procedure". It continued: The fear has been expressed that the legislation is becoming entrenched and permanent Later the commission declared: It cannot be claimed that this legislation is perfect or could not be improved". In this connection, I should like to put two questions to the noble Earl the Minister, and they arise from that statement by the Government's own watchdog commission. Will the Government place in the Library of the House the full text of the commission's submission to the Secretary of State made this year and in previous years? Secondly, will the Government make a Statement to Parliament on their response to the commission? I ask the Government in particular to reply to the points made in paragraphs 5 to 22 of the commission's press release.

My final point concerns exclusion orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It might not be generally known just how severe can be the impact of one of the orders on an individual or his family. The effect of the order is to subdivide the United Kingdom and to restrict movement and residence within it. It is thought by some that the orders might be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. At any rate, an order might result in a person losing both his job and his home. As a result, families might become homeless, or be forced to live in a community which is either hostile or unsympathetic. The innocent spouses and children may thus have to suffer for what might be only a suspicion on the part of the authorities. It seems that exclusion orders offend against nearly all the norms of natural justice.

I am extremely grateful for a written reply which made clear that during the last three years there have been only 18 exclusion orders, and I believe that one of them might have been revoked by now. However, I am quite sure that the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will give these and related points the very serious consideration which they deserve.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a minute. First, I should like to join with my noble friend in agreeing that it is necessary to have the order. Secondly, while I support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his raising of problems about delays and such matters, I feel that it should not be forgotten that the suspension of certain civil rights is necessary to give the public confidence that the forces of law and order can operate. It would be quite wrong to concentrate on the injustices which are occurring to people who are the subjects of exclusion orders without at the same time saying that in Northern Ireland there are 60 crimes of murder which have not yet been solved.

Without the powers which my noble friend is asking, there would be no possibility of those crimes being solved. One of the most significant factors of the last 12 months has been the ability of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to bring before the courts people who have committed crimes many years previously. In my view, for us not to support the Government at this point would destroy the confidence of the area that I know so well in the ability of the police to bring men to justice for very foul crimes.

7.38 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for presenting the order, and also to take the opportunity to express our great admiration for the way in which the security forces carry out their duties, in situations which are almost impossible. Furthermore, one should always take the opportunity to say how much one respects the efforts of the huge majority of people in Northern Ireland who, despite all the problems in their lives, carry on very constructive lives and contribute so much to the work of reconciliation and community relations which is vital to Northern Ireland's future. I, too, agree that in the interests of those people the continuation of the emergency provisions is necessary, for who, alas! can doubt that, without the powers, fewer terrorists would be convicted and the safety of innocent people would consequently be endangered. I feel very strongly that, when discussing this issue, we who enjoy the security of living in this island should never underestimate the horrific effect that terrorism has on the community in which it operates.

Thus the continued presence of violence in Northern Ireland demands the extension of the emergency powers. But there is no doubt that the existence and implementation of extraordinary powers require justification, and it is for that reason that we all welcome the announcement of an official review of the emergency legislation affecting both the mainland and Northern Ireland. The Minister must indeed be aware of the great relief felt by those of us on these Benches who have been consistently asking for such a review. We feared that through the review being so long overdue the emergency legislation might no longer relate to the changing circumstances in Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, it is essential to remember the other danger that such powers represent—the danger which is inherent in democracy itself. For it is evident that the terrorist can win his objective in two ways. One is by destroying his enemies, and the second is by destroying the very structure of law which democracy exists to defend. So it must be right in a parliamentary democracy to keep any legislation which is in essence hostile and alien to that democracy vigilantly under review. If this is not done, we shall allow the terrorist to win by the back door what he has not gained by the front door.

So far as the mechanics of the review itself are concerned, may I make the following two brief points. First, I hope that this review will be conducted in as open a way as is compatible with the overriding requirements of security in the Province. I hope also that it will be possible for private individuals to submit their views to it. For there could be no better opportunity than this to try to justify and, indeed, clarify Britain's position vis-à-vis Northern Ireland to those in North America and in Western Europe who are so critical of our policies there—some of whom, indeed, go much further than criticism and give active support to the paramilitary groups.

Secondly, I hope that their view can do something towards restoring confidence in the Diplock courts. I know that one cannot regard polls drawn up by newspapers as being the absolute gospel truth, but, nevertheless, it is unusual for them to reflect the exact reverse of what is in fact the position. Thus, I do not think we can disregard the revelation by the Irish Timesthat only 6 per cent, of the people who were polled in the Roman Catholic district of Derry and Belfast and only 23 per cent. of Protestants in equivalent areas in Belfast believed that it was possible to get a fair trial under the Diplock courts. I fully accept the obstacles to bringing back jury courts, but I hope that through this review some way of restoring confidence in the system will be found.

I should like to make one more general point about this review, and that is regarding the importance of using such an opportunity to examine all the ingredients of our law-keeping apparatus, including current police methods. It is for this reason that I should like to bring up the subject of a Question I put to the Minister some months ago regarding the methods used by the security forces in riot control. The Minister then told the House that alternative methods to those at present used were under continuous review, and that if research revealed that the modern water cannon or, indeed, the return of the rubber bullet could effectively replace the use of the baton round, then this would be done.

Would the Minister not now agree that, in view of the welcome fact that the necessity for the use of the plastic baton round has shown a very sharp downward trend in recent months, it would be entirely appropriate for the review of the Emergency Provisions Act to go as wide as to include the practices of the security forces, whether it is the Army, the RUC or the UDR? Nobody could be more sympathetic to the Government's security problems in Northern Ireland than I, but in view of the community alienation provoked by the use of the plastic bullet, together with the build-up of international opinion against our use of it, to my mind this has now become a matter of serious concern.

Finally, I think it would be wrong to discuss these emergency provisions without mentioning very briefly two other frameworks, based on completely different international levels, in which the security of Northern Ireland and the safety of its people could, we hope, one day be safeguarded. These particular structures can clearly not be immediately achieved, but we should keep them in sight. First, following the advances recently made in policing and judicial co-operation between the North and the South, let us hope that one day an all-Ireland terrorist movement could be faced with an all-Ireland judicial or policing system.

As to the other framework in which to fight terrorism, I feel we must remember that it is not only in Northern Ireland that the awful dilemma of terrorism has to be faced. There must be many of us genuinely concerned by the alarming rise in internationally-linked terrorist incidents in Western Europe, and the growing threat this will brine; to their democracies. Thus, the use of the European framework to devise ways of making all member states hostile areas for terrorists has become vital, for it is undoubted that the very nature of modern international terrorism demands an effective international response.

In my view there would be very much more hope of reaching agreement on extradition—a subject of European disagreement which assists the terrorist most —within the European Convention against Terrorism than bilaterally between, let us say, Britain and the Republic of Ireland. This, of course, is a vast subject, but I would merely say that if only Western European countries could confront the terrorist with a solid wall of opposition, rather than the present piecemeal one, then his task would be made infinitely more difficult and devices such as the Emergency Provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act might one day become redundant.

So, I say thank you very much in welcoming the Government's commitment to a review of both these powers—reviews which I know will serve to demonstrate to the Northern Ireland people that the Government wish to maintain this forward look in their policies. There can be little doubt that the greater the effort to achieve a viable political framework, as we discussed in the previous debate, the more desperate will become the efforts of the men of violence to wreck the chances of stability and peace. Consequently, the need for the active support of the general public in Northern Ireland will become a vital necessity in confronting them. This support, I think, might well be more forthcoming with the creation of a system of justice and policing in which the whole community can have a respect.

7.47 p.m.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, may I, too, thank the noble Earl for his introduction of this order, and acknowledge the particularly sincere concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness who has just spoken. In speaking just briefly, may I start by welcoming the review of the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has been put in hand under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. My party is doing all it can already to co-operate in its proceedings and investigations.

I spoke before he left to my noble friend on the SDP Benches, Lord Donaldson, and we are in agreement that pending the report from that inquiry this order for the continuance of the Emergency Provisions Act 1978 must certainly be passed. The provisions would certainly be undesirable in happier circumstances, and any abuse should be exposed; but for the present we do not see how, for instance, intimidation of witnesses could be prevented and terrorists brought to justice without the continuation of the Diplock courts—and I note here what the noble Baroness has just said. We pay sincere tribute, as always, to the security forces, who often risk their life and limb in the course of duty, and we support the Continuance Order at this time.

7.48 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I wish to join with others in your Lordships' House in the tribute paid by the noble Earl to the security forces. Of course, we from these Benches fully acknowledge from time to time the tremendous work they do in Northern Ireland; and we know from those we have spoken to that the English, Scottish and Welsh boys would like as much as anyone to get home and to leave Northern Ireland as a place of peace. They are not there in any way to take control of the place; they are there in a peacekeeping role—and a very difficult role it is, vastly different from what it was in the Falkland Islands. I join, of course, in the other tributes which were paid from this side of the House in that respect.

We welcome the Government's decision to set up the two independent reviews into the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the one that we are considering this evening; that is, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. It has already been mentioned that there have been many approaches made to the Government, and advice, recommendations and proposals tendered in connection with the review of the operation of these terrorist prevention Acts, particularly from the official Opposition and from the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. We would wish to give support to the undertakings of both these review bodies.

We would hope that the review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act will be undertaken with the thoroughness, commitment and skill with which, I understand, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is tackling the review on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I would also hope that all organisations and individuals who have expressed interest and views on both these emergency measures will submit their views and evidence to both these independent bodies. I am assured that every facility will be given to them to do so. We are concerned, naturally, in connection with the Emergency Provisions Act, that accessibility in Northern Ireland is made easy for those wishing to give evidence. I am sure the noble Earl will understand that I make that point of view in the sensitivity of that area and of the arrangements necessary for such access.

The noble Earl will know that many are concerned about the legislation as well as the operation of the provisions. May I ask the Minister whether it is intended that the review report be published (particularly on the Emergency Provisions Act) and whether there will be the opportunity to debate the findings in both Houses of Parliament? With these remarks, I support the approval of this order.

7.52 p.m.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the order has been received and I will try to answer some of the specific points put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made representations about descheduling some of the minor terrorist offences—possession of firearms et cetera. Under the present law, this is a matter for the Attorney-General, and therefore I must say to him that I would see some difficulty for the Attorney-General in picking and choosing between different cases in which he has to decide not only whether there is para-military involvement as at present, but whether there is a risk of intimidation. It would be difficult for him to decide what factors to take into account. Would it be the notoriety of the defendant or his previous record? I think the subjective criteria involved could threaten justice in a way that perhaps the present procedures do not. I doubt the feasibility of such an experiment but I will see that it is reviewed and bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.

On the point of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, I should like to use this opportunity to express the Government's gratitude to the coin-mission for their constructive report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. It will go forward to be studied in the review of the EPA which has now been announced. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was anxious over what he felt might have been an inconsistency between my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Patten's comments in Hansard on 30th June and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's answer about descheduling on 24th June.

I can assure the noble Lord that there is no inconsistency. My right honourable friend the Attorney-General has to decide whether, in a particular case, to exercise his power to deschedule and thus to bring about a trial by jury instead of under the Diplock procedure. He does so where he is satisfied that there is no terrorists involvement and where the particular risks of intimidation of jurors or witnesses by terrorist organisations do not exist. That was the practice described by my honourable friend in the debate in the other place.

My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his answer on 24th June referred to particular instances of mixed indictments of scheduled and unscheduled offences. By Section 7(3) of the EPA these are tried as if all the offences were scheduled offences unless the Attorney-General exercises his power to deschedule. The reason for that is obvious. If there is terrorist involvement in one of the offences on the indictment the risks of intimidation would extend to the other offences alleged against the defendant. In the cases referred to in the answer of 24th June, the Attorney-General evidently was not satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice to allow the trial of the offences to proceed with a jury.

On descheduling offences generally, scheduled offences are those most commonly associated with acts of terrorism and therefore more appropriate to be tried by the non-jury courts. For many of these, the Attorney-General may be satisfied in any case that it is not to be treated as a scheduled offence. An example of this might be that of an offence of assualt occasioning actual bodily harm arising out of an altercation. All cases such as this which might be eligible are already referred for consideration to the Attorney-General's office. He uses his discretion to certify out cases where appropriate. Those offences which cannot be certified out in this way are those which have inevitable terrorist connections, for example, offences against the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which in Northern Ireland are unlikely to be committed other than in the course of terrorism.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked me that the review should be as open as possible. We would also wish that to be the case. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Blease that the report will be published but obviously not all the evidence leading to some of its conclusions. I regret with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that in Northern Ireland as in the Republic of Ireland the problem of jury intimidation is a backwash of terrorist activity. The sooner we get that activity driven from the land, the sooner we will be back to (and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will welcome this also) normal jury trial. But I think that the Diplock courts, which are entirely open and public occasions and where the same rules of evidence apply, are widely trusted in the community. I do not agree that they have received no assent.

On the issue of baton rounds, this is a big, painful and unpleasant topic. I have gone on public record in the Province, as the Minister directly responsible for the police and for security matters there, that I hate baton rounds and deplore the need for their use in any circumstances. The fact is that the forces have, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, to protect themselves; and small, mobile crowds can be used as shields by para-military people launching attacks on the security forces or preventing the security forces from defusing a bomb or carrying out their tasks. In those circumstances, at the end of the day the security forces must have weapons with which to defend themselves. If you circumscribe their ability to defend themselves, in the long run, they are armed men and we will find them using regular weapons, in pursuit of the normal procedure for the use of arms.

I made some news in the Province by saying that in the long run baton rounds were better than lead rounds and there has been some acceptance of that argument. But I will assure the noble Baroness that we will look at whatever the boffins can come up with. We look constantly at better methods of crowd control. It is not difficult to use other weapons to control large crowds but the small, highly-mobile crowds are another matter. It is the most unpleasant and distasteful part of my duties and it is something that I lose sleep over. I am constantly looking into this with the security forces, and will continue to do so while I am in that office.

On Question, Motion agreed to.