HL Deb 17 February 1988 vol 493 cc667-76

3.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall now repeat a Statement that is being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on matters within my area of responsibility arising from the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson.

"In his Statement to the House of 25th January, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland had concluded that, having considered all the facts and information ascertained and reported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, and having re-examined the original Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation files, the evidence did not warrant any further prosecutions in the two incidents in which charges of murder have already been brought, nor in the third incident at Ballynerry. He did, however, conclude that there was evidence of the commission of offences relating to perverting the course of justice but had further concluded, on grounds of public interest, that it would not be proper to institute any criminal proceedings.

"The question of further action therefore falls to be considered in the context of the question of disciplinary proceedings.

"The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised the Chief Constable of the RUC of those offences in respect of which he concluded there was evidence. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has today announced that he has invited the Chief Constable of Staffordshire, Mr. Charles Kelly, to consider whether disciplinary charges should be brought in the case of RUC officers of chief superintendent rank and below, and if so what charges would be appropriate. Mr. Kelly has appointed one of his assistant chief constables to help him in this task. The work has already started. The Chief Constable of the RUC has told me of his concern that it should be completed without delay in the interests of all concerned. The Chief Constable of the RUC has also confirmed to me that he considers that any charges brought should be heard by a chief constable of another force. I have made clear to the Chief Constable of the RUC my own concern for these disciplinary issues to be resolved as soon as possible.

"Mr. Sampson also made observations on the role played by more senior officers. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland is the discipline authority for those ranks. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Philip Myers, has therefore informed the chairman of the police authority of these observations and is making available relevant material for its attention. I have seen the chairman who has confirmed this position to me and that these matters will now be considered by the authority.

"I shall keep the House informed of further developments on these matters.

"The circumstances surrounding and following the incidents in 1982 gave rise to concern about procedures, responsibilities and control within the RUC. In the light of Mr. Stalker's interim conclusions and of Mr. Sampson's further comments upon them, a special inspection into these matters was carried out by Mr. Charles McLachlan, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, and I received his report on 25th January. I am grateful to him for the most thorough manner in which he carried out his task. I have since discussed his report with the chief constable.

"I am most anxious that there should be a better public understanding of the two major issues involved. The McLachlan report deals with the procedures and practices that have been followed in police work in Northern Ireland arising out of anti-terrorist operations. The report essentially covers two areas: first, how the Special Branch, with its own crucially important and distinctive task, still remains an integral part of the overall force within the disciplines of mainstream policing. The House will be aware of the concerns expressed in 1982 that the Special Branch had become a `force within a force'. The second issue is how to ensure that, nothwithstanding security and other considerations, there is a proper procedure for the investigation of all serious incidents and that full and accurate information is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

"These questions go to the heart of the problems faced by a police force using the normal processes of the law while fighting a vicious and ruthless terrorist enemy. Intelligence is the lifeblood of that fight. Without it the security forces are seriously handicapped. It is vital that it is protected. Moreover, knowledge of the procedures used by Special Branch and other RUC officers will not only make their task still more difficult but will put lives at even greater risk. That is why the security forces are understandably and rightly so committed to protecting intelligence. But the lessons of these incidents show clearly that that desire must not operate outside effective accountability and control.

"On the question of a force within a force, Mr. McLachlan's report makes it clear that while the Stalker-Sampson inquiry rightly focused on the situation in 1982 and immediately thereafter, matters were substantially improved shortly afterwards. In 1983, at the request of the chief constable, a former very senior officer of the security service carried out a special review into certain aspects of Special Branch management and its relationship with the CID. His recommendations were implemented in full. The new rank of senior assistant chief constable was introduced for the RUC in 1984. Since then both the Special Branch and CID have answered to the same senior assistant chief constable, so that their work has been fully co-ordinated.

"Special Branch operations must be conducted in secrecy but they must not be carried out without the knowledge of the RUC senior command. Mr. McLachlan stresses that the regional assistant chief constables are now aware of the operations of Special Branch within their respective areas and re-emphasises the importance of their continuing to monitor these. In addition he makes a number of specific recommendations designed to ensure the highest standard in the selection and training of members of Special Branch, the prevention of overspecialisation, the encouragement of cross-posting both within the RUC and with other police forces and the further integration of the branch with the other parts of the force. In putting forward these recommendations, Mr. McLachlan pays a strong tribute to the present professionalism and standards of members of Special Branch, stressing the vital part they play in combating terrorism.

"I now turn to the second major issue covered by Mr. McLachlan. This concerns the vital need that serious incidents are thoroughly investigated. At the heart of this is the point that the policies and practices of the RUC should in future reflect the paramountcy of the CID investigations, including the need for evidence to be preserved and for no obstacle to be placed in the way of questioning of suspects and witnesses.

"Mr. McLachlan considers that the combined responsibility for both CID and Special Branch makes an important contribution to the proper handling of such inquiries. In addition, he now recommends that in controversial incidents involving RUC officers, the chief constable should consider whether an experienced assistant chief constable from another force should be appointed to lead the investigation and that an experienced senior CID officer should attend any debriefing where firearms have been used by the RUC and people killed or injured. He also recommends improved arrangements at the scene of such incidents so that the forensic, pathology and photographic resources available are used to best effect.

"In addition, however, to the specific recommendations of Mr. McLachlan in this area, as my right honourable and learned friend told the House on 25th January, the Director of Public Prosecutions was intending to discuss with the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information given to the director are in all respects full and accurate, whether or not any security interest is involved. The House will recognise that this is precisely the issue which I identified earlier and which has to be addressed. I can inform the House that a first meeting has already been held and that these discussions are now proceeding.

"The House will note therefore the steps that have been taken and are now in progress to address these difficult issues. The chief constable has implemented in full the recommendations of the special review in 1983; further changes have been made subsequently, including in particular the control of both CID and Special Branch under a single senior officer; and the chief constable is now in discussion with the DPP on the necessary safeguards for full and accurate disclosures to the director. I can also tell the House that the chief constable has confirmed to me that he has accepted in principle all the recommendations of Mr. McLachlan.

"There is one further particular aspect that I should mention. Shortly before one of the incidents in 1982, two RUC officers were given approval to cross the border into the Republic of Ireland. At the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference yesterday, I advised Irish Ministers of the full circumstances of the officers' presence in the Republic. I emphasised that the two officers who made the crossings were in plain clothes, were unarmed and were in an unmarked car without radio. As the chief constable said in the statement which he issued on 7th April 1984, the crossings were made, 'for observation purposes only. There was no preplanned incursion nor is there any deliberate or authorised system of incursion'. Nevertheless, it is fully accepted that it was wrong and regrettable that two RUC officers were permitted to enter the territory of the Republic unannounced as part of an ongoing operation. It is the Government's intention that this should not happen again and the chief constable for his part has undertaken to ensure that it does not; nor has it occurred since.

"These incidents of 1982 and the subsequent events illustrate sharply the acutely difficult problems faced by a parliamentary democracy and the police service in combating the evil of terrorism. These incidents, in which six lives were lost and in which one person was seriously wounded, have already led to four policemen being prosecuted for murder, two more senior officers suspended and the shadow of innuendo cast more widely over the RUC. Undoubtedly serious mistakes were made which have damaged the reputation of the RUC. This is a particular tragedy for a police force of the courage and professionalism of the RUC today, who have given ample recent evidence of their commitment to protecting the whole community from violence from whatever extreme it may come and who fully deserve the tributes that Mr. Stalker, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McLachlan all pay to them. We owe it to them and to the whole community in Northern Ireland to ensure that these matters that I have described to the House are dealt with promptly and correctly, that the wider lessons have been fully learnt and that the necessary changes are effective to ensure that such problems can never happen again."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. It is a sad Statement which we have heard. While, clearly, we welcome the Statement so far as it goes, we fear that it will not make a substantial contribution towards fostering a climate of confidence among the Catholic community in Northern Ireland in the RUC or in the rule of law or in the Anglo-Irish Conference.

It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify, or elaborate on, three or four points in his Statement. First, will he confirm that Mr. Kelly will investigate the conduct of the 11 officers who, in the unqualified opinion of Mr. John Stalker, should have been prosecuted for a variety of serious criminal offences, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? These are set out on page 254 of Mr. Stalker's book.

Will the Minister also confirm that Mr. Kelly will have effective and extensive powers, which were not available to Mr. Stalker, that will enable him to demand whatever evidence he considers to be necessary to get at the truth? We should like his investigation to be thorough. For example, can he demand the production of the MI.5 tape which recorded the events in the hay shed? Can the chief constable, who is still in position, block any demand by the investigating officer for evidence? I should like to press the Minister for a specific "yes" or "no" answer to that question.

Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the police authority for Northern Ireland has agreed that it will investigate the alleged conduct of the senior officers? It is not clear from the Statement whether this is a matter which is still being discussed or whether the police authority has now agreed that it will investigate the conduct of the senior officers with a view to deciding whether or not disciplinary proceedings can be taken against them. The alleged conduct of some very senior officers is referred to on page 257 of Mr. Stalker's book, where they are referred to as, "very senior officers who have certain accusations to answer".

Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that all the recommendations in Mr. McLachlan's report in relation to the Special Branch and the investigation of serious incidents, have been accepted by the RUC? If they have been accepted, when are the new safeguards likely to be in position? Who will monitor that the new procedures are being observed? Is this something that is to be left to the RUC or will the monitoring be by an external body such as the Inspectorate of Constabulary?

We believe that the implementation of Mr. McLachlan's proposals is important. If they are effectively implemented, that should go some way to ensure that the brutal conduct which occurred in Armagh in the winter of 1982 and its consequences will not be repeated.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I should like to follow very much on the lines of the last speaker. First of all, I thank the noble Lord for giving us this long, elaborate and rather difficult Statement, which we have had 10 minutes to a quarter of an hour to consider. It would be very wrong to say too much about it at this stage. It is a most delicate and difficult situation. I shall be extremely careful not to say anything which will make matters worse, which would be extremely easy to do.

However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that the Statement does not take us very much further except to tell us that still more inquiries are being made. The Chief Constable of Staffordshire is heading one inquiry; the Police Authority is considering other facts and Mr. Charles McLachlan has carried out another inquiry, which we have not seen.

What we should like to know is this. Firstly, who was responsible for taking Mr. Stalker off his inquiry and why? No satisfactory answer to the whole of this complicated question can be made until we know that. Secondly, the report says that there have been worries that the Special Branch is becoming a force within a force. Are we to understand that the offences relating to perverting the course of justice were committed by the Special Branch officers? I suppose that we must assume that, but we have never been told so. I am unable to understand how there can be any hesitation or delay in punishing such offences even if it is done in secrecy, when at least we can be told that punishment has taken place. I can quite see that there may be security reasons for not mentioning names. However, it is a long time ago since this deliberate and admitted perversion of the course of justice occurred, and there has been nothing more than a lot of talk.

We respect the difficulties of the RUC in this and we do not want to hinder their fight. Every officer in the RUC or in the Special Branch, which works with them and is really a part of them, is expecting to be shot at and is perfectly prepared to be killed. A very large number of them have been killed. In circumstances of this kind, mistakes will be made. I should be very keen to reduce any crime of murder to the lowest number of cases I possibly could, knowing the provocation that these men are under and the difficulty of dealing in emergency with people who are trying to shoot you. But, surely, when there is an admitted offence of perversion of the course of justice, it should not take six years to tell us that this has been dealt with. I feel that until that is done, we shall not be very satisfied.

We are told in the Statement—and I believe it with satisfaction—that since 1982 alterations and improvements with regard to co-ordination and secrecy of information have taken place within the RUC. I am delighted to hear that. I think it is very important that it should be done, and if this sad series of events produces nothing else, it will produce that. I hope also that the most important thing of all for the RUC—the recruitment of individuals from the minority—can be resumed. I should like to know whether there is any sign of improvement there. I am afraid the position is probably very bad.

Having said that, I think we all need time to reflect on the Statement and to hear what the noble Lord will tell us before we come to any conclusion except that we are not satisfied yet.

Lord Lyell

Perhaps I may briefly reply to those of your Lordships who have spoken. I am very grateful for the welcome given to the length of the Statement. I make no apology for that, since your Lordships agree that this is a particularly tricky and difficult matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, directed the main thrust of his questions to the appointment of Mr. Kelly. I am sure that the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will agree that I cannot today elaborate at all on what will be the parameters of Mr. Kelly's inquiry. That will be entirely a matter for Mr. Kelly and for the chief constable. The Government are quite satisfied that Mr. Kelly will have all the powers available to him to carry out such investigations as he wishes to make. The chief constable will be able to furnish Mr. Kelly with all the powers that Mr. Kelly may require in the course of his investigations, as I understand it.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about the police authority for Northern Ireland receiving information. I reiterate the point made in the Statement that Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Philip Myers had informed the chairman of the police authority of his observations and was making available relevant material for their attention. I am quite sure the noble Lord will agree that certainly it is not any part of my brief this afternoon to speculate on what action the police authority would want to take. They will make up their own mind. However, I do confirm that observations and information have been sent to the police authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about Mr. McLachlan's report. I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his brief communication but I should like to stress that the Chief Constable of the RUC has confirmed to my right honourable friend that he has accepted in principle all the recommendations made by Mr. McLachlan. I hope that that sets the noble Lord's mind at rest.

I should like to turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. Mr. Stalker's departure from the inquiry is a matter for the Greater Manchester Police Authority. It is no part of the duties of my right honourable friend, nor is it his responsibility, because the noble Lord will know that the inquiry carried out by Mr. Stalker was set up by the Greater Manchester Police Authority, which appointed him.

The noble Lord referred to a force within a force. Any offences carried out by members of the RUC in the course of the three events in 1982 were covered more than adequately by my right honourable and learned friend in another place and in the Statement which was repeated in this House by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will find that Statement in the Official Report of your Lordships' House. I stated: In consequence of this on 11th April 1984 the director"— the Director of Public Prosecutions— formally exercised his statutory power to request the chief constable to ascertain and furnish to him full information with regard to the circumstances in which false or misleading evidence was provided by any member or members of the RUC.".—[Official Report, 25/1/88, col. 424.] That is as much of the Statement as I wish to quote this afternoon, but I believe that it will answer the questions raised by the noble Lord. I am sure that Mr. Kelly will make all the inquiries that he considers necessary to carry out his duties.

As regards the noble Lord's question about mistakes, I point out that in the concluding paragraph of the Statement it is admitted that mistakes have been made. We recognise that and think that we are well on the way to curing many of the mistakes. We have given an undertaking that as far as humanly possible such mistakes will not be made again. As regards perversion of the course of justice, I believe that the passage that I have just quoted covers that matter.

We are all grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I do not have the information about recruitment this afternoon but I shall write to him on that subject.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, as one who has been involved in writing a report about the police forces in Northern Ireland, I ask the noble Lord to assure the House that the implications of the Statement, which are clearly confined within narrow parameters, will not be allowed to reflect adversely on the high reputation of the RUC as a whole.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I am quite sure that the reputation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which I stressed in my opening remarks, was praised by Mr. Stalker, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McLachlan. All those officers praised the professionalism, integrity, commitment and above all courage of each and every present and past member of the RUC. The noble Lord's words will be gratefully received by all members of the constabulary in Northern Ireland.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I have not had the benefit of seeing the written Statement and it will take some time to study all the details. I realise that it is meant to be ameliorative; to pour oil on troubled waters in Ireland. I do not think that it will have that effect because nationalist Ireland, north and south of the border, will be satisfied only if 11 RUC men are brought before the court, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. In Ireland it is as black and white as that.

I realise and accept that unfortunately Mr. Stalker was badly treated by certain sections of those in authority. However, in carrying out his investigations he seemed to rely upon opinions that were hostile to the RUC from the outset. On pages 45 to 50 of his book he states that he felt it important to talk to those communities who were hostile to the RUC. I should have thought that he would have considered it equally important to talk to some members of the community who were in support of the RUC.

On page 46 of his book he mentions that he was shown around Armagh and around certain homes under the supervision of a neutral Irish priest, Father Raymond Murray. I am quite certain that Father Murray would let it be known that he has never been neutral in the conflicts in Northern Ireland. He is one of the most pro-Republican, anti-British priests that ever donned a clerical uniform in Ireland. He has attended the funerals of many IRA men and yet he is taken by Mr. Stalker to be neutral. If Father Murray is neutral, I fail to understand what one would recognise to be a bigot in both a political and nationalistic sense.

The Stalker affair has undoubtedly caused great differences of opinion in Ireland. I listened to the answers given this afternoon. I believe that it should be stated once and for all who was responsible for dismissing Mr. Stalker from the inquiry that he was holding into the RUC. Let us not forget in all the furore that exists throughout Ireland that the clear perception now is that Mr. Stalker was on the nationalist side and Mr. Stalker was on the Republican side. There are sides in Ireland and one is on either one or the other. Why was it that Mr. Stalker received an absolute folk hero's welcome on the streets of Dublin last weekend? It was because he was perceived to be on their side and against the other side. That is not the best position for anyone who is carrying out an impartial assessment of the role and activities of the RUC.

Throughout his book Mr. Stalker constantly refers to a certain attitude and demeanour of RUC officers which he failed to detect (or would not understand) or which would not be tolerated in any other police force in the United Kingdom. He is quite right in making that assessment but the other police forces in the United Kingdom have not suffered the murder of 250 of their men by terrorists in Northern Ireland and the injury of hundreds if not thousands more. Northern Ireland is not an impartial place. In Northern Ireland there are two tribal communities and I believe that it behoves everyone looking into the political, religious and community tensions which exist at least to show impartiality.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the noble Lord, whose courage we all admire, has made his usual forthright comments this afternoon. I shall not comment upon the information contained in Mr. Stalker's book but I can confirm to him that Mr. Kelly will carry out his inquiry as he sees fit. Any questions of discipline or any problems found by Mr. Kelly will be resolved by him in his own time under the terms of his report and no doubt in discussions with the Chief Constable of the RUC.

The noble Lord mentioned a number of senior officers. Many figures have been bandied around, but I think that he will agree that it is not too helpful to mention figures with the classification of senior officers. Many people in Northern Ireland, not all of whom have the well-being of members of the RUC at heart, will be able to make certain deductions. That is why your Lordships will agree that Mr. Kelly should carry out his investigation into any matters that are still carried over from the events of 1982.

I stress again that the disciplinary proceedings which affected Mr. Stalker are nothing to do with the Statement that I made this afternoon. I stress to the noble Lord that Mr. Sampson arrived to lead the inquiry in place of Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson completed his inquiry with the same team as Mr. Stalker. I believe that that may put some of the problems in the mind of the noble Lord at rest.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, in view of what the the noble Lord has just said, if it is decided by the police complaints authority that it will investigate the conduct of very senior officers, will Mr. Kelly have the authority to investigate their conduct? Does he have the status to investigate their conduct or should that be entrusted to a judicial figure of the highest standing and authority?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, as I understand it, Mr. Kelly will investigate the conduct of any officers of chief superintendent rank and below. By statute any officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary senior to that rank has his conduct investigated by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. However, I stress in my opening Statement that Mr. Kelly will be investigating certain matters but he is entitled to investigate the conduct of officers of chief superintendent rank and below. Above that rank the officer's conduct is examined by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, do I understand the Minister to say that Mr. Stalker was withdrawn from the inquiry solely at the request of the Manchester Police Authority?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, that is as I understand the matter but Mr. Stalker's departure from the inquiry is not part of my Statement this afternoon.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, if it becomes necessary, who will conduct the inquiry on behalf of the police authority? Will it be somebody in the police authority or will it have power to call in some high judicial figure to assist in this desperately unhappy matter?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I understand that the police authority has its own methods of carrying out its inquiries and investigations. Whether it is able to co-opt such a figure as envisaged by the noble and learned Lord I am not able to answer this afternoon. However, I understand that the police authority has its own machinery for conducting its inquiries and for laying out its recommendations as to any disciplinary proceedings which might result from its inquiries.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, perhaps further consideration could be given to that very matter.

Lord Lyell

Surely, my Lords.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I should like very briefly to follow a suggestion indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. A number of police officers both in Britain and Northern Ireland have been prosecuted either for murder or for manslaughter and have nearly all been acquitted. Will the Government consider creating a lesser charge which could be available; for example, using excessive or inappropriate force in a given circumstance? I understand that there is a precedent in Australian law. I do not expect a full reply now but if the Government could consider that matter it would be very helpful.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I shall certainly take note of the point raised by the noble Lord. Indeed, he will not be surprised that it was mentioned to me earlier by one of my noble friends who had been interested in such matters. However, I undertake to see whether there is an answer and perhaps I may write briefly to the noble Lord.