HL Deb 15 January 1985 vol 458 cc937-58

7.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

I am pleased that this evening's debate on the renewal of the Emergency Provisions Act will, among other things, provide your Lordships with the opportunity to discuss the late Sir George Baker's review of the Act. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will take careful note of the views expressed, for this legislation is of crucial importance to the community in Northern Ireland and we are determined to listen to all shades of opinion to ensure that any changes which we introduce are the right ones for all the people of the Province. It is they whom the emergency provisions are designed to protect with the minimum disturbance of conventional procedures and safeguards.

As your Lordships are no doubt aware, the preparation of the report on the Emergency Provisions Act was Sir George's last public duty and it was one that he undertook with great diligence and an acute appreciation of the problems confronting the Province. It is a hard task to strike the correct balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting life and property in a free society which is plagued by terrorism; but this report clearly identifies those issues which the Government and Parliament must consider when examining the provisions of the Act.

However, before I comment further on Sir George's report, I should like to refer more generally to the Government's role in security matters. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which now requires renewal is the legislative expression of the Government's security policy in Northern Ireland. The Government's aim is the eradication of terrorism and a return to a situation in which the people of Northern Ireland can go about their daily lives free from fear. There are of course relationships between the security problem, the need for political development and the economic situation. Violence brings tragedy to many in the Province; it heightens tension, places a major constraint on political development, and inhibits economic development. In turn the lack of political agreement adds to the instability, and unemployment leads to discontent which terrorists try to exploit. We must make progress on all these fronts but the Government recognise that continued violence represents the most pressing problem.

In such circumstances there is a temptation to look for short cuts to end terrorism; but in a free, open democratic society such as ours terrorism is best countered by the resolute application of the criminal law. We should maintain arrest powers, court procedures and treatment in prison which are as standard as they can practicably be in the face of a terrorist campaign. This means that we should look to the police to charge terrorists and bring them before courts whose independence cannot seriously be questioned, where the rules of evidence apply and where fundamental safeguards for defendants are maintained. To act otherwise would only weaken respect for law and order and help the terrorists to rally support in the Province and elsewhere.

In this context, I should like to make it clear that there can be no question of a policy of summary executions or what is known as "shoot to kill" in Northern Ireland. However, in the violent campaign which faces them the security forces have at times no option but to use force. Faced with terrorists who are likely to be armed, or with dangerous riots, quick decisions have to be taken under intense pressure. But all fatalities are fully investigated and reports go to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions who considers whether the force used was reasonable and whether there are grounds for prosecution. If there is a prosecution, it is right that the same safeguards—in particular the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt—should apply to members of the security forces as they apply to other members of the community.

Responsibility for maintaining public order and enforcing the rule of law in Northern Ireland, within the framework established by the Government and Parliament, lies of course with the RUC, aided where necessary by the Army. The establishment of police primacy is a thoroughly healthy development which the Government mean to maintain.

In order to undertake this task, the RUC has in recent years trebled in size and expanded its capabilities enormously. It is a tribute to the qualities of those in the force that this has been accomplished with the minimum of dislocation. The changes have resulted in the creation of a highly competent, professional and, above all, determined police force. The courage, dedication, and, only too often, sacrifice of the men and women who make up that force and its reserve place us greatly in their debt. That is not to say that all officers have responded in exactly the right way to the many difficult situations that they have faced. Policing a divided community is a highly sensitive task, particularly when the police have at the same time to counter a vicious terrorist campaign supported by a sophisticated and insidious propaganda machine. But the record of the RUC shows that the will is there to enforce the law even-handedly and in the interests of the whole community, and I know that the chief constable and police authority are determined to see that the force maintains the highest standards and that its resources are effectively deployed to protect the community as a whole from terrorist attack and public disorder.

Effective policing depends on the establishment of links between the police and the community and on the creation of a fund of trust and good will. The public's support has to be earned, and it can be a slow process. But this is not a one-sided process. The Government and political leaders on both sides of the community must work to remove the obstacles in the way of full-hearted acceptance throughout the community of the RUC as an impartial professional police force.

As I indicated earlier, behind the police stands the Army, since military support is still required by the RUC in certain areas of the Province and in certain operational situations. I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in paying tribute to the Army commanders and individual soldiers for their hard work and courage over the years. An invaluable contribution has been made by the Ulster Defence Regiment which provides front-line military support to the RUC over much of Northern Ireland. There is little doubt that the Government and the people of Northern Ireland will continue to need their services.

I should also like to add a word about the men and women of the Northern Ireland prison service who have faced, with courage and dedication, large-scale protest action within the prisons and attacks on them outside. Finally, our gratitude is also due to the security forces of the Republic of Ireland, who have themselves lost lives in the fight against the common enemy of terrorism. The co-operation between us is crucial in bringing about the defeat of the men of violence, and we must work to make it stronger.

The efforts of the security forces are continuing to show results: 528 individuals were charged with terrorist-type offences in 1984, including 109 with murder or attempted murder; and 8,535 pounds of explosives, 197 weapons and 27,000 rounds of ammunition were recovered.

There has in fact been a marked improvement in the security situation since the early 1970s, and at present the security statistics show a continuing decline in most categories of violence. This offers hope for the future but should not generate complacency. There were still 64 deaths last year in incidents arising from the security situation, including 36 civilians, both Catholics and Protestants; and a further 353 members of the security forces and 513 civilians were injured. Improving statistics can bring no comfort to the families and friends of those who died or to the injured. In any event, we know that we are faced with ruthless groups of criminals who continue to have access to recruits, to money, to arms and to explosives. This is shown by the fact that there were a total of 230 shooting incidents and 193 explosions, and that 55 explosive devices were neutralised in 1984. I would therefore be misleading your Lordships if I predicted that the present relatively favourable trend will lead to an end to terrorism in the near future.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, the operations of the security forces against terrorists, and the way that the courts deal with cases of a terrorist nature, have been greatly helped by the various emergency measures contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The Act confers special powers of arrest, search and seizure on the police and armed forces. It also provides for trial without jury in certain specified classes of serious criminal offences and imposes stricter than normal bail conditions in such cases. It contains a number of other provisions intended to make it possible to bring terrorists to justice through the courts without unduly affecting their rights. The Act further contains provisions which would permit the detention of suspected terrorists without trial, though this power has not been used since 1975 and has not been in force since 1980. The position of successive parliaments and governments has been that these exceptional powers should be continued in force only for so long as necessary. This approach still obtains. Such powers should be available only to the extent that the circumstances render them strictly necessary.

Having studied the security situation in Northern Ireland very carefully, Sir George Baker concluded that there was a continuing need for emergency powers such as those in this Act. The Government agree with him; so indeed does the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which after long and exhaustive studies of these problems, reached a similar conclusion.

The Government have, however, undertaken a detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Act in the light of Sir George's report, and in broadly agreeing with both the tone of the report and its conclusions believe that there is some scope for making changes; these would reflect developments in the security situation and strike more precisely the right balance between individual liberties and the need to give the security forces and courts adequate powers to deal with terrorism.

Rather than go through Sir George's many recommendations seriatim, I now propose to set out the Government's views in general terms, so as to assist the debate in your Lordship's House on the issues raised by the report. A number of Sir George's recommendations point in the direction of improving the safeguards for persons suspected of terrorist crimes, while maintaining the effective security measures needed to protect the community. In general, we regard these recommendations sympathetically and propose to implement them, except for a few subsidiary recommendations which we believe would cause undue practical difficulties and be of little benefit. Thus, we are inclined in principle to accept Sir George Baker's recommendation of the rationalisation of police arrest powers. The recommendations on the Army arrest powers will, however, need the most careful consideration, taking account of the principles involved and of the practical implications. We are inclined to accept most of Sir George's recommendations for increasing the scope of the Attorney-General's discretion to certify particular offences out of the scheduled, non-jury, mode of trial. The Government do, however, intend to examine more closely the list of offences which Sir George has proposed might be triable by jury in an increased number of cases.

Sir George made a number of other recommendations designed to rationalise the emergency provisions in areas where the practices and operational needs of the security forces and of the courts have moved some way since the Act was last amended. His recommendations on bail and on the admissibility of statements are good examples of this category. In each of these cases, the practice of the courts is somewhat different from that which a superficial reading of Sections 2 and 8 of the Act, respectively, might suggest. Sir George, while endorsing current practice, has made recommendations aimed at bringing the wording of the statute more closely into line with the way in which the intentions of Parliament have been interpreted by the courts. We are not yet wholly satisfied that such cosmetic changes to the law are strictly necessary.

However, one of the most important questions which Sir George raises is whether there is a continuing need for the detention provisions which are still contained, although no longer in force, in the 1978 Act. At present these powers could be brought into effect immediately by order, which would have to be approved within 40 days by resolution of each House. While tempted to repeal, the Government wonder whether it would be prudent to repeal a reserve power, which we certainly hope may never have to be used, but which at least stands on the statute book should there ever be a short-term crisis during a parliamentary recess. A similar power is of course retained in the Republic of Ireland. I should welcome the views of your Lordships on this particular matter.

But if we go further with Sir George's report, we see that a number of his recommendations arise from his concern that delays in the judicial process should be kept to a minimum. The Government share that concern. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is keeping in close touch with the Attorney-General and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on this particular matter, and every possible avenue for reducing waiting times is being explored. There is no doubt that the appointment of 11 new silks and an additional county court judge will assist in this direction. However, we have to say that delays can often occur at the request of the accused, in particular when the services of a particular defence counsel are awaited.

Sir George has dealt at length with the use of accomplice evidence. While supporting the use of such evidence, he suggested that efforts be made to reduce the number of defendants to 20 or fewer in trials involving such evidence. There have been very few cases involving more than 20 defendants and, although the Government will obviously look very closely at this issue, we are not so far convinced that trying a number of defendants simultaneously affects the standard of justice or causes undue delay. Indeed, longer delays for some accused might result if different batches had to be brought to trial separately.

Sir George further went on to deal with the composition of the court before which scheduled offences are tried. Sir George endorses the present use of a single judge to try cases where there is terrorist involvement. Underlying his conclusion are substantial arguments both of principle, in terms of the workability and standard of justice which might be provided by a multiple judge court, and of resources. But if we are to make progress in reducing delays in the judicial system in Northern Ireland. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is crucial to make the very best use of the limited judicial resources available to us.

Sir George's arguments point to a policy of continuing with a single judge court operating without a jury in terrorist cases, but I shall listen with great care to whatever your Lordships may wish to say on this. However, I should point out that we cannot see any way in which we could in present circumstances return to jury trials for the worst offences of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I am sure this approach will cause no surprise to your Lordships. However, it does not in any way proclude the possibility of our taking an increased proportion of trials out of the scheduled non-jury procedure by means of the Attorney-General's certificate, to which I referred a few moments ago.

Finally, Sir George dealt at some length with the police complaints procedure. An effective system for handling complaints against the police quickly and fairly is an important safeguard for the citizen and for the police themselves in a community where complaints are often used for propaganda purposes. The reform of the police complaints procedure in England and Wales, by way of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, provides us with a timely opportunity to consider how best similar changes might be introduced in Northern Ireland, and that we are doing.

The Government look forward to hearing views on all the matters that I have raised this evening in what I hope will be a wide-ranging and comprehensive debate. But the emergency provisions represent important protection against the men of violence who still beset the Province. Of course it is still important that these provisions strike the right balance and that the institutions involved in their application are so designed, administered and staffed that they serve, and, above all, are seen to serve, the genuine interest of all in the Province. I assure your Lordships that we are working to that end. In the meantime, while we decide on the changes to be made to the Emergency Provisions Act it is essential for the people of Northern Ireland that the present powers be renewed. With that in mind I commend this Motion to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell.)

7.53 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the general tone of his introductory speech and also for explaining in some detail some of the Government's thoughts on the Baker Review. Also at the outset I wish to echo what the noble Lord the Minister has said in paying a tribute to all the security forces. I am pleased that he included the prison officers and that he also mentioned the co-operation from the Republic.

Whenever I deal with security matters in Northern Ireland I do so with some sense of humility because I do not live there and therefore do not experience the intense feeling that there must be among both communities. If one needed amplification, it was given in some detail in the New Ireland Forum's report, The Cost of Violence. This report gives details of deaths and injuries in both communities. The amazing fact on the figures here is that the number of deaths in the Catholic community is greater than that in the Protestant community. The report mentions the security costs for both the United Kingdom and the Republic and the costs in economic and social terms.

If I still had any doubts, the depth of feeling and the general problem were made absolutely apparent in the Airlie House conference which I attended last week in the United States, just outside Washington, where all the constitutional parties in Southern and Northern Ireland and in Great Britain were represented. I was pleased that the Northern Ireland Minister, Mr. Christopher Patten, was present throughout and participated in the various discussions.

I stress these points because for the second time the Labour Opposition in the other place voted against the renewal of the emergency provisions. In reply, the Minister in the other place said it was irresponsible to vote against renewal. Why, then, did my friends in the other place oppose, when every constitutional party in the North, in the South, and in Great Britain, (except Sinn Fein) condemn violence to achieve political ends and in general support the need for effective measures of security to control violence? Why, then, oppose?

When, in accordance with the legislation, we have had the opportunity to debate the renewal order every six months it has always provided a chance also to review security operations. Ever since 1979 the Labour Opposition, both in the other place and in this House, have expressed reservations about certain aspects of the emergency provisions, even though we had, until the last occasion, supported the renewal.

In April 1983 the Government announced the appointment of the late Sir George Baker to carry out a review of the provisions. On 13th May that year, 1983, I said I hoped that that would be the last time there would be need to renew the order for the existing emergency provisions and that as a result of the review new legislation would be brought forward.

On the next occasion when we had an order before us, on 13th December 1983, I said that we would await the report of the late Sir George's review with interest. I said: I agree completely with the noble Earl"— That was the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield— 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 out democratic rights and popular representations. These can easily be pushed aside in the interests of security".—[Official Report, 13/12/83; col 189.] Then Sir George's report was published in April 1984. Once again we had the periodic order to renew the provisions before the House on 17th July last year. I repeat what I said then in paying tribute to the late Sir George both for his work on the report and the quality of it, although making clear, as I did then, that we do not necessarily accept all the report's recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said at that time that he hoped that there would be an opportunity to debate Sir George's detailed conclusions. We have not had that opportunity until tonight. And, frankly, this is not the occasion for the sort of detailed debate we should be having. The noble Lord said on 17th July last year, at column 1398, what he said again tonight: I can say that the Government are in broad agreement with both the tone of Sir George's report and most of his conclusions and recommendations". I stated then that I hoped that this would be the last time that we would be asked to renew the order containing the existing provisions.

The other place debated the review for five hours on the day before rising for the Christmas Recess. This preceded its debate to approve the current renewal order. I must refer to the nature of the Opposition amendment because it explains our attitude. The Opposition in the other place proposed an amendment which regretted the Government's delay in responding to the Baker review and which continued: and affirms that law and order are best served by methods of law enforcement which are seen to be fair, compassionate and non-discriminatory". Despite what the noble Lord the Minister says, I do not believe that this is the occasion to go right through the Baker Report and to consider all the recommendations. We would need possibly a five-hour or six-hour debate to do so. But we have been concerned with certain aspects—the alleged abuse of arrest powers, powers of internment and interrogation, trial by Diplock non-jury courts, the use of super-grasses and so on. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, gave the Government's thinking on quite a number of recommendations, some associated with these points. He will, however, recognise that we shall need to read carefully what he has said before commenting on the Government's reactions. One would have needed to know those reactions before embarking on this debate.

I must stress, as others have done, the terms of reference given to Sir George. The terms of reference began by saying: Accepting that temporary emergency powers are necessary to combat sustained terrorist violence …". He had to work on the basis that such emergency powers are necessary. Obviously, his report was directed to that end. In evidence submitted to Sir George, the National Council for Civil Liberties stressed that the premise of the inquiry should have been: "In what ways, if any, is the ordinary criminal law inadequate? The onus is on those who want these extraordinary powers to demonstrate that they are necessary".

One finds in evidence submitted by the Cobden Trust that 60 per cent. of a sample of persons held under the emergency legislation were not questioned about any specific offence at all. The comment is made that it appears that they were detained for information gathering. The trust also said that 90 per cent. of the arrests under the emergency powers did not result in charges. These figures are confirmed in the Baker Report. In paragraph 276 Sir George quotes the figure supplied by the RUC that 76 per cent. of persons arrested are released without charge. Sir George added: But it is hard to believe that the arrests of all the 76 per cent. are justifiable if the intelligence is as good as it is said to be". He went on to say that, although afterwards released, detention for 72 hours rather than for 48 hours becomes a focus of discontent.

The Cobden Trust also alleged that 76 per cent. of those who asked to see a solicitor were refused their request and that, of the remainder, none saw a solicitor within 48 hours. The trust also made comments to Sir George on the Diplock court procedure. Reviewing a sample in 1981, it said that 60 per cent. were remanded for more than nine months before sentence and 10 per cent. were remanded for more than 15 months. The Baker review, at paragraph 176, said that the tendency was for numbers in custody for over 46 weeks to rise sharply in some months of 1983. Sir George added: There is serious concern that unacceptable delays could develop in 1984 affecting all trials". The trust added that 40 per cent. of those tried in Diplock courts had no connection whatever with political violence and that of those charged with robberies 87 per cent. had ordinary criminal motives and were not concerned in terrorism. Yet, as the trust says, they were denied right to trial by jury because the offences are not de-scheduled.

The noble Lord the Minister has referred to bail. It is argued, as I do now, that the granting of bail needs to be reviewed. Again, Sir George's report, at paragraph 76, states that, between 1978 and 1982, of 7,133 applications by adults and 333 by juveniles for bail under the emergency provisions, 42.5 per cent. were granted. Of those, only 55 persons absconded. In fact, the Baker Report in Appendix G(4) quotes even more substantial figures. The appendix gives the figures for the years 1973 to 1983 and shows that of 13,000-odd applications, just under 41 per cent. were granted bail. Much other useful information and figures are given in the appendices but because of the time I shall not deal with them this evening.

The Minister referred to the view of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The noble Lord said that in broad terms it recognised that the people of Northern Ireland still require special protection and that exceptional measures are still needed. As all noble Lords, I think, know, the advisory commission is an institution set up under Section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. It is therefore a bona fide body. Despite its view, the commission has urged acceptance of a number of recommendations arising from the review. I shall refer to some of them.

It says that there should be a reduction in the number of trials by non-jury Diplock courts. It says that a three-judge collegiate court should deal with the remaining scheduled offences; that restrictions on the use of super-grass evidence should be made if three-judge courts are not established; that there must be a review of the use of force by the security forces; that reasonable suspicion should be required for search and arrest powers; that there should be a code of practice stating the rights of suspects in police custody, and that a Bill of Rights should be introduced for the administration of justice. Those points were made by the commission, despite the fact that it recognised and accepted the view of Sir George that there must be emergency provisions.

The Kilbrandon Committee, of which, as I have made clear, I was a member, stated this in chapter 10 of its report on law enforcement: If nationalists are to assist willingly in the task of bringing offenders before the courts, they must respect the courts before which they will appear". Some noble Lords do not like the use of the expression, "alienation of the minority community". Sufficient evidence was given to the Kilbrandon Committee to justify the word "alienation", and sufficient evidence was given to us at the Airlie House conference, to which I have referred earlier, to justify the use of that word. It is vital that the sense of alienation should be removed. Sir George, in his report, recommended that there should be a new Act.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to tell me what "alienation" means in this context?

Lord Underhill

My Lords, my interpretation of "alienation", in the terms given to me, is that a section of the community feel themselves not in tune with the administration of justice, in particular, in the area in which they are living. That is something that must be dispelled.

Sir George Baker recommended that there should be a new Act and that there should be a new title. He made 74 recommendations. That is why I am not dealing with all the 74 recommendations this evening. A number of them were of a negative kind—in other words, he wanted no changes—but he recommended quite a number of positive changes. Of course, we support efforts for law and order and for the suppression of terrorism; but, as the spokesman for the Opposition in the other place said, in a civilised country emergency powers should not outlive the emergency which brought them into being. We do not accept everything that Sir George recommended, but we ask the Government to look at each of the existing emergency provisions. Is the particular provision necessary, over and above normal criminal law? If it is necessary, are there adequate safeguards for civil liberties? We should like to see a new Bill which would enable noble Lords to debate in some detail each proposal of the Government.

There was reference at the end of that speech to comments Members might have on possible joint security action with the Republic. Despite the unfortunate comments after the last summit, I hope there will be discussions. I hope there can be joint security activities. But it will be asking too much to urge that the Republic should join in security discussions while being barred from any discussions on the position of political change in Northern Ireland. The fight against violence, the preservation of civil liberties and the working for constitutional change—I must not use the expression "constitutional change"; rather, I should say, the work towards a political settlement—are things which must all go on together.

8.17 p.m.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this continuation order, and I also join in his tributes to the security forces. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, with great interest but not with entire agreement. Very relevant to our debate, of course, are the recommendations in the report by Sir George Baker, which he completed shortly before he died. I did not know him personally, but a brief correspondence with him left me with great respect for both his intelligence and his integrity.

The amendment moved by Mr. Peter Archer, for the Labour Opposition in the other place, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just referred, easily invites one to support it. It all sounds so very sensible. Who would challenge the assertion that methods of law enforcement should be seen to be fair, compassionate and non-discriminatory? What I find less helpful is the suggestion that the Government have been dilatory in responding to the report of Sir George Baker. It seems to me only reasonable that a new Secretary of State should pause for a moment to consider and also, as he clearly stated, to take note of the views of both Houses of Parliament.

There is no easy answer to questions concerning the enforcement of law and the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland, and a rush into ill-considered action could be dangerously counter-productive. Nevertheless, I hope the Government will take careful note of opinions raised in debates in both Houses and will be able to take some positive action. The noble Lord the Minister referred to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested there might be further debate on the Baker Report. I do not think we can give it proper treatment this evening.

The basic argument for easing the present emergency provisions is that they interfere with personal liberty. I can only repeat my conviction that the extreme of interference comes with loss of life or limb of oneself or of those one knows and loves. Unfortunately, the terrorist threat continues, and we on these Benches have no doubt that this order must once again be passed.

There are, however, a number of questions I should like to put to the Minister. I refer in particular to a number of points raised by the noble Lord and by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place. First—the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned this—reference has been made to the Baker recommendation for the rationalisation of police arrest powers. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give any further details as to how it is suggested that these should be implemented. Secondly—and again the noble Lord referred to this—Sir George recommends increasing the scope of the Attorney-General's discretion to certify particular offences out of the scheduled non-jury mode of trial. Can the Minister give any further details here? There is no doubt in my mind that jury trial at present is often not going to produce true justice, due to the threat from intimidation, but it would be interesting to know more as to what positive steps could be taken in this field.

Thirdly, I want to quote from the Secretary of State's speech on 20th December, as reported at column 580 of Hansard of the other place. He said: Sir George suggests that an amendment to the Act might endorse what is already the well-established practice of the courts, namely, that admissions by accused persons should not be admissible as evidence when there is reason to suppose that they have been extorted by violence or by the threat of violence". This would indeed be a serious situation, and it does not seem to be happening. But what steps will the Government take to see that justice is done without any possible suggestion of violence, and is seen to be done?

My last question is as to what the Government can and will do to see that delays in the judicial process are kept to the minimum. It appears that there has at times been very considerable delay—months, or even years—between remand and trial, which is tantamount to sentence without conviction. I believe, though, that this is certainly not always the fault of the prosecution. What improvements here can the Government foresee? Can the noble Lord go further? He referred to this point, and I wonder whether he can go further in explanation.

I do not myself think that the situation in Northern Ireland is unrelievedly black, or that we should be despondent if progress in security is only slow. Amid the gloom, I believe there are grounds for hope. At the same time, I repeat: we do not question that this renewal order must be passed today.

8.19 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord for his very comprehensive review of the legislation and of Sir George Baker's report. I do not think he would thank me very much if I accepted his challenge to go into the report in detail, because, together with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I think we should be here to the very early hours; and certainly I am not very good at dealing with matters in detail. However, he was very rash when he asked us to do so.

I should like to support his tribute to all the security forces and to the prison service, all of whom do a magnificent job under very great danger. The noble Lord asked about the retention of the power of detention within the Act. I am quite sure that it is right still to retain it, even if we do not use it.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made great play of the percentage of people who are arrested under emergency powers and are then not subsequently charged. I think that he is forgetting the fact that during the emergency the IRA have spent considerable time training their activists to resist giving information under interrogation. The percentage demonstrates their success in that teaching.

The proof of what I am saying is borne out by the fact that many of those who are subsequently found guilty, very often on the evidence of a super-grass, have been found to have been arrested at least once, and some of them many times, before without there being evidence on which they could be convicted.

Every noble Lord except the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said that it is vital to approve this order tonight. Coming from Northern Ireland I should like to say that we in Northern Ireland consider it a vital part of the fight against terrorism. It is extremely sad to have to suspend liberties for which we have fought for very many years. It is extremely sad to believe, as I do, that we shall have to continue to renew this order, or something very similar, for many years to come. However, in saying that, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in the view that all is not dark. There has been an improvement, but I am always very cautious about saying that there has been an improvement. We who live in the area feel and know about the improvement, but we do not like it being shouted from the rooftops. We are aware when things are better.

I should like tonight to record my sadness that a young car thief who drove through a road block, trying to drive over some soldiers, has ended up by being shot dead. That is a tragedy, and it is made more horrific in that the young man was only 17 and has lived nearly all his life—certainly all his conscious life—in times of violence. He has never known peace. That horrific fact should not cloud our judgment on the actions of the soldiers which, on the face of it, were fully justified. Certainly their actions do not justify the most intemperate remarks by the Foreign Minister for the Irish Republic in his condemnation of the UDR. Surely, knowing perfectly well that every action in which somebody is killed is fully inquired into, he should have waited. I hope that the Government will not allow to go unanswered this and other irresponsible and ill-informed verbal bombardments against our institutions in Northern Ireland.

In the past it has seemed to me that the Irish Government have been free to libel our institutions from our courts through to our forces without any public denial and any really straightforward reply. I do not believe that it is right for the Irish Government publicly to attack. If they are members of the Government, they have the diplomatic service through which they may register their protest. I hope that our Government have at least been registering their protest about these intemperate remarks. These attacks really have eroded any goodwill that might have been created in the Unionist population in Ulster by Dr. FitzGerald—and he did create goodwill.

Furthermore—and this is the really critical matter—it is playing right into the hands of the IRA to say that the institutions of the state are not acceptable. How are they not acceptable? The Foreign Minister and other extreme Republican politicians have been talking about the alienation of the nationalist community. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, talked about it. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, spoke so well on that subject. As the noble Lord said, alienation, in the terms in which it has been used, simply does not exist, and I should like to deny any evidence that was given to the Kilbrandon Committee in that respect. I repeat, it does not exist. But to use the term in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, used it, there is alienation which is growing and which should be welcomed and that is the alienation, the isolation in West Belfast in particular, of the men of violence from the ordinary Republican citizen.

The best illustration of that occurred just the other day at the funeral of a top IRA active serviceman or officer called McIlvenny. The House will have seen many times colossal crowds at IRA funerals, following the cortege. The television pictures have done so much to enhance the publicity for the IRA. At this particular funeral there were only a very few hundred followers—that is all they could drum up. They had even to hire taxis to fill up the back of the procession. That is the alienation, and it is increasing. The ordinary population keep saying to the men of violence, "Get off our backs". That is a very encouraging feature, and it should be fostered.

It has been a good year for the Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the UDR. Despite accusations, the attacks and the speeches by the Irish Government and the extreme politicians, the fact of the matter is that in West Belfast there is an increasing number of citizens who accept and welcome the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and nobody who has been there can deny it. Indeed, the noble Lord himself knows that what I am saying is true because he has been all over Northern Ireland, and for that I pay tribute to him.

I should like to turn to a facet of the fight against terrorism which has been sadly neglected. I refer to smuggling, which is the one growth industry in Northern Ireland. In days of yore smuggling used to be a small time industry, with somebody taking a cart of pigs across the Border. That has all changed. It is now a large-scale business, which is wireless controlled and which uses 40-foot containers. This trade which goes across unapproved roads simply cannot exist without the involvement or approval of the IRA. It is called "rent-a-road", and for renting a road a considerable contribution goes into the coffers of the IRA. The Army know all about it. They see the lorries and they stop the lorries, but because it is smuggling they can do nothing but stand and watch. At times convoys of lorries are smuggling electronic goods or whiskey and thereby millions of pounds of VAT and other taxes are lost to the Irish Government—and the Irish Government certainly cannot afford to lose that type of money; they are in a very bad way economically. At other times there is grain coming North, thereby defrauding the EEC.

It must be possible to stop this smuggling. It may be that the Army and the police should be made agents for the Customs authorities, thereby giving them extra power, instead of what the noble Lord was talking about; namely, reducing their powers. It is a major source of funds to the IRA, and it must be stopped. We must leave no avenue unguarded in our fight against terrorism. I welcome this order.

8.28 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, there is a certain degree of predictability about our remarks on these occasions and I should like to apologise in advance if by any chance I sound like a rather old fashioned gramophone record that has got stuck in a groove. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, stressing the seriousness and importance of these occasions. In July I described our debate as a matter of life and death. Today I would just say that emergency law is both a symptom and a cause of many of the troubles and problems of Northern Ireland. It is for those reasons that I protest as strongly as I can against the timing of these debates. Look at the acres of empty Benches. Why do we have to consider these orders at a most unsocial time of day? Why was it that the other place debated Sir George Baker's review on the last sitting day before the Christmas Recess? We deserve answers on these points.

Why is it that we have to take this order after Bills dealing with insolvency and lotteries? Are the Government serious about the whole question? It is now nine months since Sir George Baker reported and his review showed clearly that all was not for the best in the best of all possible worlds. His review proved the existence of many grey areas, and the mere number of his recommendations I believe to be most significant. Can the Government say tonight when we shall be given a chance to have a full debate on this matter? Given that not all of the recommendations of the review require legislation, are the Government determined to make progress? The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, today repeated many of the remarks previously made by the Secretary of State and by his honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Scott on 20th December almost word for word, but can he say tonight when he winds up whether Government thinking has moved forward since December? Have they made some progress in those three weeks? I know there was Christmas in the middle, but we should still like to hear that there has been some progress. We should like to hear when definite proposals are going to be brought forward for those points which require legislation.

I should like to refer to a suggestion which I made in correspondence with Mr. Nicholas Scott in August and September. I suggested that there should be created a permanent review body both for the emergency provisions Act and for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in so far as they concern Northern Ireland. I suggested that this permanent review body might be composed of a small number of privy counsellors, as being almost the only people capable of receiving the sensitive information that is bound to be involved. Such a permanent review body could produce reports and reviews as often as was required and not once in seven years, if we are lucky, as has unfortunately been the situation in the past. Such a body could examine complaints brought by groups rather than by individuals, for whom we already have an Ombudsman and various other procedures. A review body of this kind could look at issues referred to them by the Government. For instance, such difficult questions as have cropped up over time concerning detention, interrogation, the use of plastic bullets, and prisoners' rights. Had there been a body of this kind in existence when these problems surfaced, we might have been spared a great deal of unnecessary trouble and anxiety, and the IRA and other terrorists might have been denied a great deal of propaganda, and some of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, might have been met much sooner and much better.

The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, himself referred in the course of his introductory remarks to the matter of killings by the security forces, which are of course always serious and usually lead to a great deal of concern, and sometimes more than concern. If there were a permanent review body of the kind that I have indicated much of this might have been capable of being defused in advance.

I have mentioned in your Lordships' House before now the matter of coroners' inquests and the serious delays which frequently happen before an inquest can even begin. This matter was brought to public attention more sharply than usual by the resignation of the coroner of Armagh in August of last year. One is bound to wonder whether the findings when the coroner's inquest eventually sits in some of these cases are really worth while in any sense at all. I hope that the Government can announce—if not tonight then soon—that some progress is being made on this aspect of things. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also touched on the question of police complaints. It is good to know that England and Wales will fairly soon be getting an improved procedure. Northern Ireland deserves one just as much, perhaps more.

Mr. Scott wrote to me again in September saying that the Government hoped that there would be a consultation paper published on this matter before the end of last year. So far as I know, it has not yet appeared. Can the noble Lord say when we may hope to see it? Can the noble Lord also indicate what attitude the Government are taking towards proposals made by the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland? They were first made, I understand, in 1974 and have been made at intervals since and were made with rather more force last year.

From police complaints I move to another most important subject which is that of liaison, good understanding, and good co-operation between the police and the general public in Northern Ireland. This again was mentioned by the noble Lord speaking for the Government. Several times before now I have described in your Lordships' House the successful system which has existed since, I think, 1970 in the City of Derry, where there is a model police and public liaison committee. I have asked before now whether this proven method and system cannot be extended to other cities in Northern Ireland and perhaps even to the whole of the six counties. So far I have had had no satisfactory answer whatsoever on this.

Now may I just touch on a highly technical and complex matter, which concerns the derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights that has been in force for quite a long time. In August of last year the Government—seemingly without much prior announcement or discussion of a public kind—informed the Council of Europe that they were withdrawing their derogation. This is puzzling to a good many people. It is certainly puzzling to such bodies as the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. It seems to such people that Section 5 of the European Convention and probably at least four of its subsections are contravened in one way or another by the emergency provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. If the Government can throw any light on this tonight it would be most helpful and I think would remove some of the suspicions.

I should like to conclude by mentioning that for many years now there has been in Northern Ireland a strong desire to see a Bill of Rights enacted. There is some serious thought and study of a voluntary kind being given to this matter at the present time. Any encouragement that the Government can give will of course be most welcome, and it would be of interest to hear their views on this topic and to know to what extent, for instance, they see any possibility of incorporating at least some of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights into the general public law of Northern Ireland and then, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and others have suggested, into the general public law of Great Britain.

8.40 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we are immensely grateful for the amount of attention and detailed study that has been carried out by all your Lordships who have spoken this evening on a subject which, despite the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has aroused great interest from the spokesmen on Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House. Above all, those of your Lordships who have spoken will agree that the report of Sir George Baker on the emergency provisions Act is extremely difficult and very technical. This has been borne out by the quality of the questions which have been put to the Government this evening and the quality of the debate.

I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and all of your Lordships who have spoken. Everyone who has spoken has paid tribute to the security forces, the prison officers, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the regular Army, the RUC and the security forces of the Republic. I am sure these tributes will be noted. We are grateful that your Lordships have paid these special tributes.

I will attempt to answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I noticed that he started by mentioning paragraph 276, paragraph 176, paragraph 76 and I wondered what was coming next in the seriatim descending order. I commend him for his diligence and for his full understanding of the layout of Sir George Baker's report.

The first query that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked was the possible constraint imposed by the terms of reference in Sir George Baker's report. I think your Lordships might agree that, despite his terms of reference, Sir George specifically commented on the need for emergency powers in Northern Ireland. In paragraph 32 of the report he said this: Unfortunately they remain broadly necessary to curb violence and to bring the guilty criminals to justice". I shall not be tempted by your Lordships' cries of, "Go on, go on" which your Lordships might think might disprove my case. We agree with that short quote from paragraph 32.

We took note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and no doubt they, too, will be pleased that the noble Lord has brought them into the debate.

I turn to one of the queries raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I am grateful that he gave me notice so that I had some chance to answer his query this evening. He wished to know what is meant by the rationalisation of police arrest powers and whether this could be further improved. I am sure that he would agree that persons in Northern Ireland who are believed by the police to have been involved in terrorist crimes may be arrested under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, or under Section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, or even Section 13 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. The noble Lord will agree that Sir George considered that this was potentially confusing. Paragraphs 267 and 268 of this report are particularly relevant here. But these recommendations on police arrest powers are intended to eliminate any overlap between the existing powers and thus they would wish to reduce the scope for any confusion. The Government accept this point in principle, though we do not necessarily go along with Sir George with the details in the recommendation on this point.

The noble Lord also raised this fascinating procedure known as certifying out of the schedule. This confused me during my recess reading and required a certain amount of study and elucidation today to have this clarified in my mind. The emergency provisions Act makes provision for certain terrorist-type offences which are listed in Schedule 4 of the Act—hence they are called scheduled offences—to be treated in a particular way. Anyone who is accused of a scheduled offence may be granted bail only by a High Court judge. Such cases would be tried in Diplock courts and so on. But the Act recognises that certain of the offences listed in the schedule may be committed by non-terrorists. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will be pleased about this. It provides that the Attorney-General may issue a certificate in such cases enabling a non-terrorist who has committed certain offences to be tried before a jury in the normal way. Sir George Baker recommended that this discretion should be capable of being exercised in respect of a greater number of offences. The Government believe that there is scope to extend the list of these offences. It is complicated and I hope I have gone some of the way, if not all, to assist the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, while the noble Lord is still on that point can he say when the Government hope to begin this process of de-scheduling?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, if the noble Lord will contain himself I shall come to his remarks. I hope to be able to cover that point and others. I would never forget the noble Lord, and will cover his individual questions in the order in which they arose.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, next asked about the admissibility of statements. Your Lordships will be aware that Sir George Baker endorsed the courts' present interpretion of Section 8 of the emergency provisions Act. It has been demonstrated in one example that the right to disregard any statement will be exercised in the interests of justice. But it is also clear that in practice statements will be disregarded if they are shown to have been obtained by improper pressure, whether or not it came strictly within the terms of Section 8 of the Act. Here the question of admissibility is whether the law should be changed when the courts' interpretation of it is entirely satisfactory. However, I take the noble Lord's point that justice must be seen to be done. I am afraid I am not sure that an amendment to Section 8 of the Act as we have it before us is necessary to achieve that aim. I take note of this matter and will be studying it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also mentioned the problem of delays between arrest and trial. I am sure he would agree that the Director of Public Prosecutions, the courts and the police continue to cope very well with processing the very large number of cases which involve serious offences. The average time between arrest and trial, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, fluctuates with various factors, not least the rate of arrests. In the first six weeks of 1984 the average waiting time from first remand to trial for terrorist-type offences was down to 43 weeks from 46 weeks in 1983. But the Government will continue to monitor this situation and to ensure the fullest cooperation between the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts to make the process as rapid as possible. I referred in my opening remarks to the appointment of an extra county court judge and to help to overcome other problems. The Lord Chief Justice recently appointed 11 extra silks.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, was very kind to pay tribute to me for travelling around Northern Ireland extensively, and I should like to reciprocate those tributes to everybody in this particular area. I should like to thank him for everything he has done to show me what goes on in all parts, and particularly his homeland, of Northern Ireland. I was interested to note his thoughts on alienation, and was also interested to note that he, too, raised the problem of the time between arrest and sentence. He also drew attention to the proportion of those arrested of those released. I also found his comments on smuggling interesting. I listened to them with considerable interest, and will note them.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, had several questions. He asked when there would be a proper debate on Baker. I am sure he will appreciate that this is a matter for your Lordships' House and the usual channels; but nobody could fail to be aware of his desire for what he calls a proper debate. I will pass on his comments to the usual channels. I believe that our discussions this evening has provided an opportunity for a full debate, and the Government will consider very carefully all the points that have been raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked about the implementation of those recommendations not requiring legislation. We are still engaged in consultation on all the recommendations, and this evening is still part of that process. But the great majority of the recommendations, I have to tell the noble Lord, would require legislation. I assure him that the Government will make their conclusions public as soon as we possibly can. The noble Lord also raised the question of the coroners' inquests. I understand that Mr. Curran, who is the Armagh coroner, resigned over apparent inconsistencies in the RUC evidence at the trial of police officers following a fatal shooting incident. These matters are under investigation by a senior officer from a force in England. For that reason, I cannot comment further this evening.

The noble Lord also brought us back as he did in July, to (I think) paragraph 445 of Sir George Baker's report and mentioned the possibility of a permanent review committee which he thought might be composed of Privy Counsellors. I hope I shall be able to vary the menu this evening so that the words are not just the same as last year. I would tell him that the legislation is already subject to review. We have the comprehensive report of Sir George Baker; and Parliament has an opportunity to consider the case for renewing the powers every six months. But other bodies, and in particular the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, undertake studies of the emergency provisions, and they publish their conclusions.

Individual complaints about the misuse of powers are already fully investigated under the police complaints procedure. Where appropriate, reports go to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions. But I would assure the noble Lord that individuals also have recourse to litigation. In these circumstances, I am afraid that I am not convinced that the establishment of a standing review committee would significantly increase the safeguards which are already available. The noble Lord also asked about the Government's response to the Alliance Party's paper on police complaints. The Government are already giving a great deal of thought to the police complaints procedures and the form which this might take. I stress to the noble Lord that we shall shortly be seeking the views of all interested parties on our proposals.

The noble Lord raised the question of the police liaison committees, and drew attention to that which was already in effect in Derry. We are giving serious consideration to the machinery for public consultation in conjunction with the chief constable and the police authority. This is an issue to which the Government attach great importance. The problem with the existing groups is, that there is insufficient minority community participation; and I am sure the noble Lord will take that to heart.

The noble Lord wondered whether we had information on any new systems for investigating any deaths which had been caused by the security forces. I said in my opening remarks, and I stress again, that every single incident involving the possibility of criminal offences by police officers is investigated fully, and a report goes to the completely independent Director of Public Prosecutions, who can direct that further inquiries be conducted. The Government do not believe that a public inquiry would be the way to conduct investigations in these particular cases, which are subject to the same procedures as those involving other members of the community.

The noble Lord asked a rather technical point, I think he would agree, about derogation from the Human Rights Instrument. I think he quoted Articles 5 and 6. He was quite right. It was 22nd August last year when the Government withdrew their notices of derogation from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The decision to withdraw these notices was taken after very careful consideration. We concluded that the emergency powers still necessary to deal with terrorist violence are consistent with both the European Convention and the international covenant. In coming to our decision, we took account of the fact that detention without trial is no longer in force.

The noble Lord also raised the question of a Bill of Rights. Our mind is not closed on this issue, which the noble Lord and your Lordships would accept is very sensitive. But there are important practical, and indeed formidable constitutional, difficulties in introducing a Bill of Rights, whether for Northern Ireland alone or for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am afraid I am yet to be convinced, bearing in mind the extensive safeguards that we have gone through this evening which the report of Sir George Baker spells out to protect human rights in Northern Ireland—and these have been introduced in recent years—that a Bill of Rights really is necessary.

I hope that that covers most if not all of the points that have been raised by your Lordships. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Hampton, who were kind enough to warn me of the points they would raise. We have had a particularly detailed and constructive debate on the nature and scope of emergency legislation in Northern Ireland. What is clear from this debate is that your Lordships accept that there continues to be a need for exceptional legislative provisions in Northern Ireland. The Government accept that there is some scope for amending these provisions, but I stress that there is only limited room for manoeuvre in this particular area. Your Lordships would accept that it is very important that any exceptional legislative measures should be kept under review and that only those departures from normal practice which can be entirely justified should he kept in force.

The review of Sir George Baker's report and the debate which your Lordships have had this evening have been major contributions to the public discussion of these issues. Certainly, for my part, I believe that as a result the Government are much better placed to frame legislative proposals for amending the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Given that, my Lords, I commend the order to the House.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he give some indication as to whether we are going to have either actual legislation or an indication of the actual legislation the Government will propose before we are asked for another renewal of the order? I ask this bearing in mind that when the noble Lord spoke last July he said that the Government were in agreement with most of Sir George's conclusions and recommendations, and they came to that conclusion within three months. He has repeated that again tonight.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I cannot go further. I hope that we are making progress on the exceptional issues, but I cannot go further than that. However, if I have any detailed observations after reading everything that has been said this evening, and if I can help the noble Lord, I shall certainly write to him.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at nine o'clock.