HL Deb 13 December 1983 vol 446 cc188-98

9.10 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved. I invite the House to renew for a further period of six months all the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act currently in force. I do so at a time when terrorism in the Province is never far from the headlines, and I am sure your Lordships would want me to say something shortly about the current security situation.

Your Lordships will be all too conscious of the recent atrocities, including the murder of three church elders at Darkley in November and of Mr. Edgar Graham, a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, only last week. There have, of course, been other brutal murders in the last few days. These killings, inflicted on both sides of the community, have inevitably increased tension in the Province. But I think I should say two things: first, we must not play into the terrorists' hands by taking action or making statements which will escalate the tension and encourage sectarianism: and we must look to the security forces, backed by Government, to deter violence and to bring to justice those who perpetrate it. The Government's security policy is quite clear: we will do everything possible within the law to help bring about the defeat of terrorist violence. Neither the Government nor the security forces can achieve this on their own—it requires the support of the whole community. That is the end to which we are dedicated.

It is, of course, the security forces who are charged with implementing this security policy. They take the action, at an operational level, to meet the threat. And as that threat changes, so does the deployment of the security forces change. The chief constable and the general officer commanding continually review and reassess their deployment and tactics to ensure that they are giving the best possible service to the long-suffering people of the Province. In response to the most recent attacks in the border areas, for example, senior commanders have taken charge of operations in key areas of the border, and the number of men deployed and the number of operations carried out have all been stepped up.

Despite recent tragic events, there have been many successes—attacks have been frustrated, arrests have been made and a large number of convictions obtained. The downward trend of violence continues, and I am sure your Lordships would wish to join me in praising the courage and dedication of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

Although Her Majesty's Government are conscious of the undesirability of retaining extraordinary powers to enable the security forces and the courts to counter the terrorist threat, it is regrettable that we have not yet reached a stage where these powers can be abandoned. The powers and procedures in the Emergency Provisions Act, which the draft order before us tonight would continue in force, are in regular use. That is not to say that there is no room for modification to the Act, and your Lordships will be aware that Sir George Baker is currently reviewing the legislation to ensure that the provisions are appropriate and that they strike the right balance between powers which are essential to counter terrorism, on the one hand, and for the maintenance of civil liberties, on the other. A deadline cannot be imposed on such important work, but I believe that Sir George Baker may be in a position to report in two to three months' time. The Government will, of course, consider Sir George's recommendations extremely carefully and I hope there will be time for a full debate on the report in this House.

Against that background, my Lords, I do not wish to propose that there should be any change in the provisions which this draft order will continue in force for a further six months. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th November be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, for brevity, but not because I do not realise the seriousness of the order we are considering, I can say that I agree with practically everything which the noble Earl said about the seriousness of the position. Apart from the stress and the emotion for all the people in Northern Ireland, the actual figures of the dead and injured, and the suffering since 1969, are horrific.

I refer to only one of the official statistics. I understand that in the past 13 years nearly £8 million has been stolen during armed robberies and that in 1982 this involved the largest amount during that period—no less than £1.4 million. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us if there is any evidence to show how much of this stealing is carried out by the persons who perpetrate the terrorism and whether the security forces have any hope of combating the situation. I know that robberies are of secondary importance when compared with the injuries and the deaths, but, if my surmise is right, the robberies may be a means of encouraging further injuries and deaths in the future.

I agree completely with the noble Earl on the review being conducted by Sir George Baker and that subsequent legislation should keep a balance between what is required for security and what is required for civil liberties. There is always a great danger that we forget the struggles that everyone went through to get our democratic rights and popular representation. These can easily be pushed aside in the interests of security. I know that it is easy for someone living on the mainland to say these things, but it is for that reason that ever since 1981 we have urged that there should be a review of the emergency provisions Act. That is why we have urged, as the noble Earl the Minister said, that there should be no tit-for-tat reprisals and also why on this side of the House—and I am certain everyone will agree—we regret that recent events have caused the withdrawal of some organisations from the Assembly.

While we have certain concerns on some of the provisions in the present Act, because of Sir George Baker's review there is no point in going through those now. We shall await Sir George's review with interest and I am delighted to hear from the noble Earl that it is hoped there will be a full debate on the report before the Government consider the introduction of legislation. That is an important point.

I have only two other matters to raise. There have been reports of excellent co-operation between the police forces of the Republic and Northern Ireland, but the recent reports of disagreement between the Chief Commissioner for the Republic and the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland are obviously disturbing. This must not be allowed to interfere with co-operation between the two forces. Perhaps the Minister is in a position to say what steps are being taken to avoid any such possible development.

Finally, a report appeared in the Belfast press on 1st November of a serious allegation by a member of the Assembly that some employers—it was suggested that it was a substantial number—had sacked persons suffering injury or disablement as victims of the terrorists. These actions by employers have been described by the Secretary of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as callous, cruel and downright immoral. The Minister may have information on this. If so, will he say what steps will be taken to avoid this situation, which will obviously add to the miseries in Northern Ireland?

With those brief words, we obviously approve the order but hope it will not have to be repeated when we have Sir George Baker's review and further legislation.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, each time this order comes up for renewal I say "Yes" without the slightest hesitation. With things as they are today, nobody in his right mind would hesitate to agree to the order. I make only one comment. It has always seemed to me quite wrong that people who openly advocate terrorism should be allowed to elect their colleagues to Parliament or to the Assembly. I was very pleased to read in the newspapers that the Secretary of State was considering how long this privilege should be allowed to Sinn Fein. I have made my views clear several times. I think that its members should not be allowed to take part in democratic assemblies as long as they openly support violence. The IRA was made illegal for that reason. One of the Protestant terror gangs, the UVF, was also made illegal. Both those moves were right, and I do not think that either of them did any harm. It would be a good thing if the same were done with this organisation. Meanwhile, I am happy to approve the order.

9.21 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, as always, when this legislation comes up for renewal I have a crisis of conscience. I was born and reared in Northern Ireland. Throughout my life I have lived under emergency legislation. The special powers legislation of 1922 was on the statute book for 50 years until it was abolished by a Conservative Government. It was replaced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. On top of that, we have the overlay of the prevention of terrorism legislation.

Being born and reared in Northern Ireland, I know the effects of the special powers legislation. The Act was used exclusively against the minority Catholic population throughout its 50 years of existence. I can recall how the Act was used and abused in the interests of the one-party state of Unionism, as it was then. Consequently, I have an inherent dislike and distaste for emergency legislation. The special powers legislation lasted for 50 years. How long will the emergency provisions and the prevention of terrorism legislation last?

The fact that they have lasted so long shows that all is not right with the state of Northern Ireland. If we have to have such draconian legislation, it indicates that something is wrong with the very basis on which the state was createdand now exists. Everyone recognises that the existence of this legislation will not lead to victory over the terrorists. There will not be a military solution. Some Unionist representatives in another place, and indeed throughout Northern Ireland, believe that we can restore Northern Ireland to what it was prior to 1972 by the use of this legislation. Looking at the situation, most people would realise that that is not a possibility.

When I voice my opposition to this legislation I have this crisis of conscience. Will I be saying something that will give succour, solace or support to the murderous organisations that exist in Northern Ireland, and particularly to the IRA? In expressing my opposition to the existence of this type of legislation, am I doing something that will help the case of the IRA? That is an awful crisis of conscience.

Last week and the week before I heard of the atrocious Darkley murders and of the murder of young Edgar Graham, whom I had met recently at a British-Irish Association conference in Oxford. That was the last time that I spoke to him. When I heard of those murders I said to myself that I should not object to the emergency provisions; I might go into the Lobby to vote for them. The days that have since elapsed have allowed me to reconsider and once again to say that I am not happy, and shall never be happy, while such legislation remains on the statute book. That is not asking for the repeal of the legislation. One would be a fool even to suggest or to contemplate that, bearing in mind what is happening in Northern Ireland.

But there are certain aspects of the legislation that I believe are wrong and are self-defeating and counter-productive. I have in mind, for instance, the number of arrests that have taken place. Over 17,000 arrests have taken place since the introduction of the legislation. A thousand people have been convicted under it. Sixteen thousand people have been arrested and interrogated. They have been held for short or long periods, and taken to interrogation centres. Those people are bound to feel bitterly resentful, because they have not been guilty of any crime, no crime has been proven against them. It is this counter-productive effect of the legislation to which I am opposed.

I remember that as a Member of another place I was on the committee upstairs when this legislation was going through the Committee stage. With the support of, I think, the honourable Member for Antrim, North, I then suggested that there should not he only a single judge in the Diplock courts. I think that there should be two or three judges, even if it means creating more posts for the legal profession; and I am not particularly enamoured of that profession, because many of them have made themselves millionaires out of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

Alternatively, if there are not to be two or three judges, there should be one judge with two or three assessors. I believe that in Northern Ireland some people are now coming to the conclusion that if there is only one judge hearing a case under the Diplock courts' regulations, there is inclined to be criticism and suspicion. I am casting no reflection at all on the judges who sit in the Diplock courts. Many of them have devoted their lives to being involved with this type of legislation.

I certainly have no intention of detaining the House, but I want to put forward a suggestion to the Minister. I am not opposed to the "supergrass" system in Northern Ireland. I think that the supergrass system has taken some very dangerous men out of circulation in Northern Ireland, men from both the Loyalist community and the Republican community. There can be absolutely no doubt that many very dangerous men have been taken out of circulation because of information given by supergrasses. Young Edgar Graham said exactly the same thing, and some people believe that that was the reason why he was murdered.

All the paramilitary organisations are very worried about the supergrass system, because it leads to awful suspicion within those bodies. They are not sure whether someone who is their colleague one day will not be a supergrass the next day. So the paramilitary organisations and those who support them will do anything that they can to discredit the supergrass system.

The supergrass system should not be abolished, and the Government should do everything that they possibly can to ensure that it is not discredited. I should like to suggest that where people are arrested on the evidence of a supergrass, there should be absolutely no delay in bringing them before the courts. If people who are arrested on the evidence of a supergrass are not brought before the courts but are incarcerated on remand for 12 months, it is very unfair if, when they go before the courts, the supergrass withdraws his evidence. Those people have spent a year, or possibly longer, in prison.

It would safeguard the supergrass system, if the only evidence used against a person is coming from a supergrass, to brook absolutely no delay and to prepare the case as quickly as possible so that any person who is innocent will have spent the minimum time in gaol. Where a person has been incarcerated in prison on the evidence of a supergrass and that supergrass retracts his evidence, there should be compensation paid to the person who has been so incarcerated on evidence that no longer holds when the case comes to court.

Only recently, I was shown something that I believe would be of inestimable value in relation to supergrass evidence. I have been shown—I am not sure whether the Minister has seen it—a tamper-proof tape, a machine that will record and that cannot be tampered with. If it is tampered with under any circumstances, that will show up on it. A firm in Britain is making these tapes. I believe that such a tape, used when the supergrass is giving evidence, would mean that a supergrass would know that his voice, the manner in which he was speaking, the evidence that he gave to the police, the answers, and the words of the police, were there. This would safeguard the police and it would be made far more difficult for the supergrass subsequently to withdraw his evidence. Everything hinges upon the fact that this is a tamper-proof tape. No one can change the tape, edit it or cut bits out of it. It would help in the security battle in Northern Ireland if such a tape were used.

It is most important that there should be absolutely no delay when persons are brought before the courts. This is the one area where there is an awful lot of public feeling at the moment. Even though I am no longer a constituency representative, I have received scores of letters from people in both the Loyalist and the Republican communities telling me that they know of someone or have a relative—I have passed some of these cases to the Minister concerned—who is at present in prison on remand on the evidence of a supergrass. They feel confident that when the case comes before the court those detained will be found not guility.

I do not believe everything that I hear or read in Northern Ireland. But, reading those letters, I am convinced that some of those people who are at present in prison will eventually be found not guilty. That is why I say that I am not objecting to the supergrass system. I believe that it has taken dangerous men out of circulation. I should, however, like the Minister to look at this tamper-proof tape because I believe that it would safeguard the police and the supergrass system.

The present representative for West Belfast is openly, and has openly, associated with the paramilitary organisation, the IRA. My noble friend, Lord Donaldson has already referred to this matter. I think that the Secretary of State is perhaps in the process of changing his mind. I should like to put my thinking on record. I do not believe that, when Provisional Sinn Fein is openly associated with the Provisional IRA, it has any right at all to make representations under any circumstances to any Government Minister. I believe that the Secretary of State should take the decision as quickly as he can to reject any representations coming from such a source. I put on record my opposition to this legislation. I understand that there cannot he a vote—

A noble Lord

Yes, there can, my Lords.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, possibly there might be a vote, but I wish to say that I have an inherent distaste for the legislation, and the sooner it is taken off the statute book the better for everyone concerned.

9.34 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Fitt. I agree with every word he has said. We should all appreciate how fortunate we are to have among us someone with such a long personal and intimate knowledge of affairs in Northern Ireland. We last debated the continuance of this Act on the very last day of the last Parliament, when it was more or less smuggled through your Lordships' House on the grounds that it was an inappropriate time to discuss it in any detail. Now, together with the last order. it has been relegated to the dinner hour, and that, together with the extremely sparse attendance, although it is now rising slightly—

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

They have had their dinner, which is more than we have!

Lord Kilbracken

They have had their dinner, my Lords, exactly. I think it shows how little importance the Government attach to Northern Ireland affairs in the arranging of business and the lack of interest shown by Members of your Lordships' House.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will not draw that conclusion because we have taken this very important business at this time. I made it clear to your Lordships at the beginning that, although we normally contain the adjournment business in an hour, we were not expecting to do so in this case—and, indeed, had I been expected to do so, I would have been slightly disappointed. The noble Lord must not suggest to the House (he may suggest, but I hope the House will not take it as such) that the Government do not believe this business to be of extreme importance.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, the business taken during the adjournment is usually that which is of no interest to practically anybody except the mover of the Bill and, perhaps, one or two other noble Lords. This has proved to be the case on this occasion, when for the greater part of the very important order that we took before this there were fewer than nine or ten Members in your Lordships' House. There were no Conservative Back-Benchers, no Members of the Liberal Party and no Bishops. Indeed, there were only half a dozen of us. I am not saying this in criticism of the Government, but I am saying that it shows how very little interest there is in Northern Ireland affairs—and it cannot be denied—among Members of your Lordships' House.

On the last occasion that the subject was debated, my noble friend Lord Underhill expressed the hope that that might be the last occasion on which we would have to vote for the continuance of this order because he hoped that by now Sir George Baker's review would have been released and, as I understood him, new legislation would have been introduced. We have heard from the noble Earl the Minister that Sir George hopes to complete his review within the next two or three months and there will then be a debate on the subject. I wonder whether he can anticipate this and tell us when he comes to reply whether it is then intended to introduce the new legislation which is so badly needed in the light of the review.

My noble friend Lord Fitt spoke of one of the subjects which has greatly concerned me, and that is the number of persons in Northern Ireland who are arrested under this Act compared with the number who face criminal charges. He mentioned a figure of 17,000. A much higher figure than that was given by my honourable friend Mr. Hume in another place. In any event, it seems certain that, of all those arrested since this Act became law, only some 12 per cent. came to trial, and of those, some 30 per cent. were acquitted. This proves that only eight out of every 100 people arrested under the terms of the Act were found guilty of any offence. As far as I am concerned, the inescapable conclusion is that the Act is not being used to counter terrorism but is being used for the gathering of information and for the harassment of innocent people.

I want to refer only to one other matter and that is the part played in the prevention of terrorism by the security forces in the Irish Republic. I think that I am now the only Member of your Lordships' House who lives in the Irish Republic, some10 miles south of the border. I very greatly resent the allegations that are still being made about the Republic being a safe haven for terrorists. The right honourable gentleman, the Member for Down South, to whom my noble friend referred, made it sound as though virtually all the terrorism in Northern Ireland sprang from the Republic and that the security forces were not doing a proper job.

I cross the border frequently on trips to Belfast, to the airport or to Enniskillen to do some shopping. I can assure your Lordships that very much more often I am stopped and questioned by members of the Garda Siochana and the Irish Army before reaching the border than I am when I have crossed it. Again and again I have driven to Belfast Airport and have seen no sign of any representative of the security forces once I have crossed the border. I have said it before in this House and I say it again, if the south is supposed to be such a base for terrorism, why is it that the border is still absolutely wide open so far as the northern security forces are concerned? Why is not any real effort made to check cross-border traffic, even on authorised routes, by members of the security forces?

In conclusion, in my opinion, far from being slandered by the right honourable gentleman in another place, the security forces in the Republic should be congratulated on doing what they have done, and are doing, to assist their opposite numbers on the other side of the border.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I must thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I shall reply briefly. The first matter which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised concerned robberies and the acquisition of funds by paramilitary organisations. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has a special squad to deal with this matter. I am afraid that it is not known how much money from robberies finds its way into the coffers of terrorists, but I would imagine, and I do not think that I would be contradicted if I said to the noble Lord, that it must be considerable. Of course, the answer is to stop the robberies, but I am afraid it is part of the very unsatisfactory situation which obtains in the Province at the moment.

Then, the noble Lord asked about the co-operation between the RUC and the Garda. From time to time there are bound to be misunderstandings in the course of dealing with a very sensitive matter such as the co-operation between the police forces of two independent Community partners. Any episode which reduces the level of co-operation, or which produces friction, is much to be regretted. Everything that is done is done to try to ensure that there is no misapprehension on either side, and that nothing is done which would affect joint security co-operation between the RUC and the Garda. That, in what is a delicate situation, is as far as I should go.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other noble Lords took up the matter of what I might call "dealings with Sinn Fein". My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in the other place on 8th December that he would be examining the Government's stance towards Sinn Fein. That review is under way, and all I can say at this stage is that I do not believe for myself that the proscription of Sinn Fein would be the panacea that some might think.

There is a strong possibility that party members would continue very much the same activities under a different flag, and many nationalists and supporters of nationalism would incline to the view that the Government were banning a legitimate political party because its views did not find favour with the Government. Therefore, the best course so far as the criminal law is concerned might be for the security forces to continue to keep a close eye on Sinn Fein members' activities with a view to prosecution where there are breaches of the existing criminal law. An example which comes to mind might be incitement to hatred.

Then I come to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. He expressed his distaste for the whole arrangements both under the Act and, I think, in relation to what has been described as supergrasses. Anybody who has regard for the due process of law, and for the rights of individuals under the law, would find a lot which fills them with some anxiety about this legislation. But so far as the mechanics are concerned the arrest powers are being examined by Sir George Baker, and I do not think that I can go any further than to say that we must await Sir George's findings. Equally so far as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is concerned I cannot anticipate those findings until Sir George announces them. Until the Government evaluate them no decision can be made as to what, if anything, should happen.

So far as supergrass trials are concerned, we have to remember the background to this form of legal process. Because of the intimidation of witnesses and potential witnesses there is a severe difficulty about obtaining evidence which can be put before courts in Northern Ireland. So that if a former terrorist offers to give evidence against his former accomplices the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and indeed the Director of Public Prosecutions, would be failing in their duty if they did not at least consider placing such evidence before the courts. But, of course, it is for the courts to say what weight, if any, should be given to that evidence.

There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, delays. These are due to a number of factors, but very often they are occasioned by the preparation of the defence case. I shall consider the points he made both on compensation and evidence obtained by tape recorder. The noble Lord may, or may not, know that there has been considerable experimentation done in Scotland over the last three or four years and certain results will come to hand.

Of course, it is regrettable, if I may finish on this note so far as these trials are concerned, that there are no juries, but that is the result of intimidation and the risk of perverse decisions. I believe that the judiciary in Northern Ireland have maintained very high standards, and the evidence which they hear in open court must convince them beyond all reasonable doubt that the case has been proven, and that is the standard of proof which they apply. There are many cases where judges have acquitted defendants where converted terrorist evidence had not satisfied them as to the guilt of the defendant.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, produced one point which I did not understand about being stopped on his way to Belfast Airport. I travel that way many times in every week and I should have thought that the level of stopping and searching is among the most sophisticated in the world both before one comes to the airport and on two occasions when one gets inside it. I refute any contention that one can travel about the Province if one is up to no good without risk being discovered fairly quickly. I commend this order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.