Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1988

HL Deb 02 March 1988 vol 494 cc243-68

7.29 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 16th February be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order presents something of an unusual day so far as Northern Ireland debates are concerned. On a number of occasions in the past, my predecessors and I have come to the House to seek your Lordships' approval of the renewal of the emergency provisions, but always on a six-monthly basis. Following changes brought about by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, this is the first of what will now be annual debates on these matters. This year, for the first time, we also have the report of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, to inform and enlighten our discussions.

In a moment I should like to give a brief summary of the security situation over the past year or so, which will go some way to explain why the Government feel it necessary to recommend that the provisions of the Acts should be continued in force for a further period.

But, first, it might help your Lordships if I were to give a brief reminder as to what the two Acts contain. To begin with, the 1978 Act. This serves three purposes; it provides the security forces with extra powers to deal with the special problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. These include powers to stop and question, arrest, enter, search and seize. It also provides powers to proscribe organisations and creates offences concerning the collection of information which might be of use to terrorists, training people in the manufacture or use of firearms or explosives for improper purposes, and displaying public support for proscribed organisations. It also provides the legal authority for the so-called "Diplock-courts" which under serious terrorist-type offences are tried by a single judge sitting without a jury. The provisions relating to all of these powers will lapse on 21st March this year unless continued in force by the order we are considering today.

I turn now to the 1987 Act. This came into force in June of last year, since your Lordships last debated the emergency provisions. It gave effect to certain recommendations by the late Sir George Baker and made a number of important changes to the earlier Act. I shall take your Lordships through the changes. First, all emergency arrest powers now require "reasonable grounds for suspicion". Secondly, searches of dwellings and searches of persons other than in a public place now require "reasonable grounds for suspicion". Thirdly, the maximum period for which the RUC can hold a suspected terrorist on its own authority is now 48 hours, instead of 72. Next, the onus in hail applications in scheduled cases is now on the prosecution, rather than the defence. Next, the statutory guidance on the admissibility of confession evidence in scheduled cases was rephrased to reflect the courts' view that admissions obtained by the use or threat of violence should not be admissible, and to state the judges' discretion to exclude any admission in the interests of justice or out of fairness to the accused. The most important change is that both Acts will now lapse in 1992. If similar provisions continue to be necessary they will have to be re-enacted by means of a Bill.

In addition, the 1987 Act introduced a new statutory right for persons arrested under the emergency powers to have someone notified of their arrest and whereabouts, and to have access to legal advice. The Act also gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the authority to impose statutory time limits on pre-trial stages of proceedings and introduces a statutory scheme for regulating security guard companies in Northern Ireland. These provisions are also subject to the renewal procedure.

There is one part of the new 1987 Act which I should like to draw specifically to your Lordships' attention. This is the Part III, which sets up a new statutory scheme for regulating security guard companies in Northern Ireland. This part provides that from the 1st January 1988 it is an offence to provide, or to offer to provide, security guard services without a certificate from my department. A certificate can be withheld or withdrawn where a proscribed organisation, or an organisation closely associated with a proscribed organisation, would be likely to benefit from the issue of such a certificate. In other words this arrangement was introduced to choke off money destined for terrorist organisations. This is part of a sustained approach from government to deal with the very serious problem of paramilitary financing. I am glad to say that the scheme appears to be working. As my noble friend Lord Colville commented in his report, a number of companies did not apply for a certificate when they were given an opportunity to do so.

The 1987 Act was therefore a major piece of legislation which was designed essentially to refine the emergency powers in a way which would help to maintain the sensitive balance between protecting the rights of individuals and making sure that the security forces have effective powers to tackle terrorism. Today's debate is the first substantive opportunity that your Lordships have had to consider how the revised 1978 Act has operated, together with the other new arrangements introduced by the 1987 Act.

Those then are the main provisions of the two Acts we are considering today. I should now like briefly to turn to the report by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to which I have already referred. My noble friend was appointed last year to review the operation of the two Acts during the year, and to advise on whether any of the provisions currently in force could be allowed to lapse. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I should like to thank him for the thorough and interesting report that he has produced. I am pleased to see that he is behind me, because I have to tell your Lordships that my sight gets worse and worse. I am able to identify the players in front of me. I am pleased that my noble friend is in range and visible behind me. We are all grateful for the work that he has done, not just on this report but on others which your Lordships know are available in the Printed Paper Office.

I should like to refer your Lordships to the first of my noble friend's main conclusions. This was—I quote from page 7 paragraph 3(i) of his report—that the overwhelming view is an insistence on, or acceptance of, the emergency powers remaining in force".

In other words, my noble friend's clear conclusion was that the time has not yet arrived when any of the provisions should be allowed to lapse. As is clear from the terms of the continuance order before the House, that is also the view of the Government. This would seem to be an appropraite moment for me to emphasise that both I, and the rest of the Government, regret that in 1988 it is still necessary to have special measures to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, agrees with that, because we all know that this epidemic of terrorism has continued for close on 20 years. All of us in your Lordships' House, and, I believe, throughout these islands and throughout the world, will be pleased when the day arrives that the powers contained in the Act and described in the order are no longer necessary. However, we are convinced, given the continuing high level of terrorist violence in the Province, that there is no alternative at present but to keep the current powers in force. I hope that whatever the view of your Lordships on these powers all noble Lords will take heart from some of the comments made by my noble friend in his report. On page 3, in paragraph 1.5 he started by saying that he, gained the impression that the Act is being used with due reflection, moderation and commonsense; that refinements of earlier activities have reduced the reaction, at least, to what are seen as oppressive powers; and that the courts are strict in their interpretation of police and military activities both in criminal and civil suits".

He went on to say in section 5 of the report: The Northern Ireland courts arc astute to interpret the Emergency Provisions Acts most strictly in favour of the liberty of the subject".

I hope that everybody in your Lordships' House and everybody who takes an interest in the debates both here and in another place will draw reassurance from these remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.

Although my noble friend did not suggest that any of the provisions should now lapse, he made a number of other suggestions and recommendations which he believed would lead to improvements. Of course, they are not directly relevant to the main question before us this evening. I should like to comment briefly on one or two of them. My noble friend suggested that our statistical information on the operation of the two Acts could be improved. That is something we shall certainly consider and I hope we shall be able to assist my noble friend further in the future.

Another of his main recommendations was that robbery and aggravated burglary should be removed from the list of scheduled offences. As a general principle, we are very anxious that as many cases as possible should be heard by jury trial. This is something which we shall therefore consider very carefully. At the same time we shall consider his recommendation that urgent steps be taken to remedy a technical deficiency in Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act regarding the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983.

In section 7 of his report, my noble friend also made a number of suggestions as to the contents of the proposed code of practice relating to the exercise of emergency powers. I should like to take the opportunity this evening to reassure him, and indeed your Lordships about one important point which my noble friend made in this connection. He was concerned that the code would not cover the exercise of the power of arrest contained in Section 12 of the 1984 Prevention of Terrorism Act. This is the main power of arrest used in Northern Ireland in connection with terrorism and I can assure the House that it will indeed be covered by the code. I hope that that will be of some reassurance to my noble friend. I am sure that he and all of us will have more to say about it in the future.

I have been taking your Lordships through the mysteries and wonders of the main provisions of the two Acts we are considering this evening, together with some of my noble friends' comments upon them. Perhaps I may take your Lordships briefly through the backdrop which reflects our examination of these provisions. That, of course, is the security situation in Northern Ireland. As noble Lords will know and everybody will be aware, terrorism still haunts the life of Northern Ireland. Shootings and bombings continue at a high level and increased in 1987 to the levels of the early 1980s. Since January last year, 105 people have lost their lives as a result of the emergency. This figure includes eight IRA gunmen who died at Loughgall, six terrorists who blew themselves up with their own bombs and seven members of the Irish Nationalist Liberation Army who were murdered during a bitter internal feud of their own.

But the figure of 105 also includes 11 members of the armed forces and 16 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, together with—let us not forget—the 11 innocent civilians who died at the war memorial in Enniskillen in one of the more callous and appalling attacks of the whole of the terrorist campaign. Never let us forget that the figure of 105 includes two more deaths—those of Lord Justice Gibson and his wife who were callously murdered by a horrendous explosion as they returned from holiday last April. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in expressing our condemnation and revulsion at this appalling, tragic and wasteful loss of life.

At the same time I want to reflect a brighter note by expressing the gratitude of the Government for the amazing and continuous courage and determination of the security forces, the police and the army, for their efforts to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Past events have brought the police in particular much into the limelight of late but I have no hesitation in saying that the community as a whole owes them a great debt for their tremendous, herculean efforts over the years.

I have pointed out that terrorist violence continued at a high level in 1987; there were one or two new developments in this scenario. Of course 1987 saw the introduction of what we now call the "drogue-bomb", a device made of high explosive which is used by the Provisional IRA to try to penetrate armoured vehicles. This device—some 50 have been used since the summer of last year—claimed the life of a police officer on 25th January this year. The discovery of a massive arms shipment on the "Eksund" was a major bonus for the forces of law and order but has led to greater worries that similar shipments may already have got through.

Despite the high level of terrorist activity, there have been a number of major successes on the part of the security forces. They have continued to bring prosecutions before the courts. In recent years, an average of some 600 people a year have been convicted for terrorist-type offences. The security forces have also seized some 13,000 pounds of explosives since the beginning of last year. I am given to understand that that is in the region of 6 tonnes of explosives, something like the area of two rows of Benches in your Lordships' House. That is the amount of explosive that has been seized since the beginning of last year. And that is only the explosives. Over 80,000 rounds of sundry ammunition have also been seized. In the last five months alone, there have been 13 major arms finds, including four in the Republic. All of these have led to the recovery of large quantities of explosives and ammunition as well as other bomb-making equipment, rifles, pistols, hand grenades, mortars and RPG 7 rocket-launchers. Not all were destined for the Republican paramilitaries.

The security forces north of the border have also continued to enjoy close co-operation from their counterparts in the south. We in the Government want to acknowledge and express our gratitude to the Irish authorities for their efforts to deal with the terrorism and for the support we have received from them. Despite the setbacks of recent weeks, they have continued to give full co-operation at working level. They have shown themselves determined to take firm action against terrorism. To take one example, your Lordships will be aware that they mounted what has been described as the biggest single security operation ever in the south following the discovery of the "Eksund" arms shipment to search for arms and ammunition that may have been hidden in the Republic.

That operation, which involved some 7,000 Irish security personnel, lasted for two weeks and concentrated on the border area. It was backed up by a security force operation in the north designed to prevent the movement of arms to evade the search in the south. An arrangement is also in place between the two Governments which allows bomb disposal officers from one jurisdiction to cross into the other at the invitation of the relevant local police commander to deal with explosive devices placed on or near the border. These are two tangible demonstrations of the real progress that we believe has been made in developing cross-border cooperation on security issues and we look to the possibility of developing co-operation still further.

This, then, is the situation we face in Northern Ireland today. I have to tell your Lordships that there is no sign of the terrorist threat diminishing. On the contrary, the number of shootings and bombings has increased in the last 12 months. As the House may have seen recently, the Chief Constable of the RUC has warned that the terrorists have substantial amounts of weaponry. Almost daily there are serious attacks, particularly on members of the security forces. It is against that background that I have no hesitation in recommending to your Lordships that the temporary provisions of the Emergency Provisions Acts should be kept in force for a further 12 months. That view, I am happy to say, is shared by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. With his recommendation and indeed all the remarks that I have made so far, I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved. [17th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Lyell.)

7.50 p.m.

Lord Pays-Davies

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for taking us through the main provisions of the two Acts, for describing the grim background to the emergency legislation and for advancing the Government's case for renewal of the legislation for a further period of 12 months.

On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I join with the Minister in expressing a tribute to the courage of the men and women of Northern Ireland and to the members of the security forces, including the police. However, we have no love for the provisions contained in the legislation which the House is being asked to renew for a period of 12 months. We obviously regret that the Government have to seek its renewal.

I very much regret to say that while this legislation is of immense importance to the people of Northern Ireland, I have a feeling that it is of little concern to the overwhelming majority of people on the mainland. So its renewal in 1988 just comes and goes in an endless chain of renewals. Somehow it does not make an impression on the mainland.

I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is in the Chamber. I join with the Minister in thanking him for his thorough report on the operation of the emergency legislation in Northern Ireland last year. Given the extremely tight timetable against which the noble Viscount was working, it is perhaps not surprising that there was only a meagre response to his invitation to the general public to submit written evidence. However, I earnestly hope that the tight timetable explains that poor response and that the apparent inadequate response is not evidence that the sensitivity of the citizens of Northern Ireland has become blunted by years of familiarity with emergency legislation.

We have also noted with satisfaction that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was able to give us the reassuring conclusions to which the Minister has referred. While the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, does not recommend that any of the provisions of the emergency legislation should be allowed to lapse, nevertheless it seems to me that he has placed on record a number of issues which are a cause of concern to those organisations which are involved with civil and human rights and which wish to see the law in Northern Ireland—to use the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—edging back towards normality. I have a feeling that the words of the noble Viscount and his observations and comments will be an important starting point and material for future debates on the Act and the need to provide safeguards against its abuse.

I am also mindful that the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights considers that the present legislative situation remains unsatisfactory and has drawn the attention of the Secretary of State to about five main areas which are of concern to it. Those, again, are important areas to which we shall have to return in future debates.

As we are tonight discussing an order which cannot be amended and as the new Act has been in force for a matter of only about nine months, I propose to speak briefly on the background to the renewal of the emergency legislation and to press for political initiatives by the Government. I think that that is the best way I can assist in this debate.

Clearly the background is less encouraging, less persuasive, and less helpful than it was 12 months ago when it was possible to ease just a little some aspects of the provisions of the earlier legislation. Indeed, right up to about two months ago there appears to have been slow but steady and genuine progress in the direction of reconciliation. However, by today the Catholic and Nationalist community in Northern Ireland may be forgiven for believing that very little has changed in the 20 years to which the Minister has referred. Those are the 20 years since the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recommended that the RUC should be transformed from the paramilitary force it had become to a normal police force.

It seems that old allegations, old beliefs and old suspicions have been revived over the past two or three months. We now know that as late as 1982 a special unit of the RUC was operating without proper control; and yet that was information which Stalker and Sampson had to drag out of the system after a lapse of about five and a half years.

We also know that some members of the police force are beyond the reach of the law. So this new evidence which has been about since the month of January reinforces ancient Catholic and Nationalist suspicion and hostility. That is the measure of the loss and the damage inflicted in the past few months.

The main damage was inflicted by the dramatic, unexpected and grave Statement of the Attorney-General on 25th January. It is the judgment of men of unquestioned integrity in Northern Ireland with whom I have contact that that Statement did more than any other single event to undermine the slowly growing confidence in the rule of law in Northern Ireland and to undermine confidence in the slowly growing respect for the professionalism which the RUC has recently been demonstrating. It also undermined confidence in the potential promise contained in the seeds of the Anglo-lrish Agreement—and they were no more than seeds.

The Statement of 25th January has caused deep and lasting damage. But need it be permanent damage? It is almost inconceivable that the Government or the learned Attorney-General failed to foresee or to predict the damaging consequences which would flow from the Statement. That the consequences were predictable and were foreseeable also leads to the worrying presumption that someone in authority intended those very consequences. That is an old presumption, but is the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, able to rebut it? Or will the Minister leave us to infer as has been suggested by Dr. FitzGerald, that Ministers stumbled or muddled into a huge error of judgment?

Much damage has been inflicted on Northern Ireland since the beginning of the year. Obstacles have been thrown across the path of reconciliation. According to the Government of the Republic, cooperation between the Garda and the RUC "has been seriously damaged". For obvious reasons and given the sinister build-up of very dangerous weapons in the island of Ireland (of which we have heard a great deal in recent weeks) this is a consequence of the gravest concern to the people of the Province. I note that the Minister spoke in more reassuring terms about co-operation between the Garda and the RUC, but I would remind him of those words of the Irish Government.

It may be that we simply have to live with the events of last January. However, looking to the future, from these Benches we should like to get the message across to the Government that they should immediately be taking positive steps with the main aim of creating a climate of trust and confidence in Northern Ireland and between London and Dublin. We think that that is what is needed and should be the immediate prime concern. Positive action to that end can of course take several forms.

Thus, even at this late stage and notwithstanding a previous decision to the contrary, we think it would be helpful if the Government were to submit the Stalker-Sampson Reports (or an abridged version which does not damage the truth) to the Irish Government through the machinery of the Anglo-Irish Conference and particularly by virtue of Article 8. Such a decision could now be defended on the grounds that since the Attorney-General's statement was made a great deal of evidence contained in the report has become publicly available in Mr. Stalker's book and the RUC cannot be further damaged. Is that something that can be reconsidered?

Again, it would be helpful if Mr. Kelly and the police authority could be persuaded to complete their preliminary investigation quickly and not simply in the maturity of time. They should publicly propose a quick timetable of progress towards the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings which are considered to be necessary. Moreover, it should be apparent to all the citizens of the Province that investigation of the conduct of the very senior police officers is being entrusted to a person of the highest standing who will have the authority to question even the highest police officer in Northern Ireland if that should be necessary in order to get to the truth.

We again ask the Government to reconsider the very wise words of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones when he cautiously suggested from this Bench that the safest way of proceeding in these exceptionally complex and difficult circumstances would be by means of a judicial review into the whole matter.

We believe that such measures would go a long way towards achieving the trust which must be the cornerstone of good Anglo-Irish relations. But if these measures are not acceptable to the Government we must press the Minister to tell the House what steps the Government propose to take in order to repair the damage and to rebuild confidence and trust.

Later this year the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be reviewed. At a time when eminent military figures with wide experience of operations in Northern Ireland are saying openly that the Provisional IRA cannot be defeated militarily, it is not too soon to hope that the Government will seek to build further on the basis of the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it bears within it the seeds of growth. We feel that the time must be ripe for a radical growth in decentralised power given to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland within a framework which recognises the historic identity of the island of which it forms a part.

8.5 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, before considering the details of the order before the House tonight in the light of two Acts and about four reports, I should like to mention some general points. I do so with some trepidation in the presence of one, and sometimes two, former Secretaries of State. The whole House and both Parliaments will wish to congratulate the security services of our two countries on the massive amounts of arms and explosives discovered in both the north and south of Ireland in recent weeks.

It is a truism that democratic government anywhere rests on a mixture of consent and coercion—more one hopes of the former but with always a degree of the latter. Conciliation and clemency seek to produce consent, coercion seeks to produce compliance. Conciliation and coercion are the two policies that have been pursued over several centuries in Ireland, both north and south. They are not mutually exclusive and it is possible to use both at the same time. Nevertheless, I suggest that it is crucial that any government should be clear in their mind as to what they are trying to do and that they should spell out very clearly their aims and objectives and their methods. I trust that by their deeds Her Majesty's Government will make plain their intent to conciliate the law abiding.

The goodwill and active co-operation of the Irish Republic are necessary for success in containing and eliminating terrorism in Northern Ireland which also threatens law and order in the Republic and imposes a greater per capita burden on the citizens of Ireland.

Secondly, a large measure of consent is necessary from both sections of Northern Ireland society in which two major traditions are worthy of respect so long as they keep within the law. It is therefore a mistake to see the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 solely as a matter of security co-operation, important as that may be, or simply as dealing with the administration of justice. The text of the agreement shows beyond any doubt that it is concerned with political matters including inter-parliamentary relations and with the economic, social and cultural relations of two interdependent countries. It is therefore urgent that the Government should spell out their intention to conciliate as well as to coerce and also to improve east-west relations within these islands as well as the north-south and inter-Ulster situations.

On the question of clemency, your Lordships may have noticed that the Belfast Telegraph (a reputable and moderate newspaper) in its editorial of 26th February quoted suggestions that the compassion extended to Private Thain should also be shown to the young offenders imprisoned at the present time at the discretion of the Secretary of State, some of whom have served a term of 12 or 13 years of imprisonment. This suggestion was picked up in an unusual consensus in yesterday's debate in another place by at least three honourable gentlemen, including Messrs. Mallon, Paisley and Alton. To their requests for clemency I should like to add mine for those life prisoners who have shown by their own actions that they have broken all links with terrorism—and I do know one or two such people.

We are having a far better debate tonight because of three reports that are available to us from the pen of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I should like to call him my noble friend since we studied at the same university, whatever might now be our political views. He has done us a service by reviewing and reporting on this Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He even succeeds in making these dreary and complex matters readable and for that we are most grateful. I agree with him that tonight's order—alas!—is still necessary and I regret that the Opposition divided against it in another place.

I am sorry that my noble friend had difficulties with his working timetable as he explains on pages 2 and 3 of his report. I ask the Government to try to overcome those difficulties before the next review because they reduced the comments from affected individuals and organisations, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.

There are many good things in my noble friend's report. On pages 29 and 30 he comes down in favour of manslaughter verdicts as a possible middle term between, on the one hand, a verdict of murder and, on the other hand, an acquittal, following the Australian precedent. This is a point that was previously raised in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and myself. I think it may help to resolve some difficult issues on the use of excessive force. Will the Government legislate on that point as it seems that the judges will not develop the common law to do it?

As regards hail, it is satisfactory that Table 2 of the report shows that the percentage of scheduled cases granted hail has been rising steadily. It rose from 39 per cent. in 1978 to nearly 70 per cent. in the first half of 1987. Similarly there has been a rising trend in applications for certifying out for trial by jury and a healthy number of certificates has been granted. I am glad that my noble friend notes on page 11 that certifying in—which is the opposite procedure—to the Diplock court, as distinct from the present procedure of certifying out, could have value as a statement of priorities. I am pleased that he recommends that many cases of robbery and aggravated burglary should go for trial by jury.

As regards certifying in, I question whether that procedure would inevitably be prejudical to the defence. The public interest in conviction for ordinary serious crimes must surely be just as great as that for serious scheduled crimes. Will the Government please take further legal advice on that point?

I turn now to the Notes to Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act. These already allow the Attorney-General to deschedule charges of murder and manslaughter, which are the most serious offences. Why therefore should we not allow the Attorney-General to deschedule any offence if he thinks fit and let it go to jury? Why do we fetter his discretion in the way that applies at present?

Then there is the question of who does the certifying. The Note to Table 3 of the report states: The Attorney-General personally considers each instance which is capable of being certified out". Applications for certificates have varied between 352 and 877 in recent years. One therefore questions how much personal consideration the Attorney-General can give to each case. Since he is normally located in London, I think that he must rely heavily on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police in Northern Ireland. I urge that in future the consideration should be carried out in Northern Ireland by an independent law officer of the Crown who does not have the same interest in securing convictions as does the Director of Public Prosecutions.

One sees from the report that pre-trial delays have decreased since the ending of the so-called super-grass cases, but I note that Table 6 of the report only gives figures for the first half of 1987. Perhaps therefore I may put two questions to the Government. First, when will the Secretary of State use the powers mentioned by the Minister, which he already has under Section 3 of the 1987 Act, to set time limits? To do so would put Northern Ireland on the same footing as Scotland and England in respect of its scheduled offences. Secondly, can your Lordships, the Government or anyone else persuade the members of the Northern Ireland Bar not to take the whole of July, August and September as holiday, and thus increase the time available for trial?

I come now to the important question of powers to reintroduce detention under Section 12 of the Act, mentioned in pages 20 and 21 of the report. Will the Government legislate to repeal that power? If not, please will they tell us why not, in view of the Government's cancellation of all derogations to the European Convention on Human Rights and also because I understand that an Order in Council will be needed in any case before detention can be reactivated?

More serious than any of the technical points that I have just mentioned is the matter of ill treatment of persons in custody. In spite of the Bennett Report (Cmnd. 7497) of 1979 and the report of Sir George Baker, complaints still flow in from persons arrested under both the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Act that we are discussing tonight.

In Table 11 of his report on the operation in 1987 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, my noble friend Lord Colville gives details of complaints dealt with during that year by the police complaints hoard. Out of the 364 allegations 287 were serious because they involved assault in police stations or following arrest. Threats totalled 28 allegations and there were 17 allegations of falsified statements or threats to falsify, and seven allegations about access to doctors and solicitors. Out of all these allegations, 66 were held to be unsubstantiated, 36 were withdrawn and 182 were incapable of being completed; yet only one charge has been brought against a police officer by the Director of Public Prosecutions and one case recommended for disciplinary action.

The Gillen case, which came before the High Court of Northern Ireland in January, illustrates the situation. It involved serious injuries to a man in a police interrogation centre—injuries which a police surgeon accepted. I have written to the Secretary of State about this matter and await his reply.

Turning to possible remedies and improvements, will the Government make sure that video recording and taping of police interviews takes place? I ask that because it seems that closed circuit television monitoring recommended by Bennett and introduced since does not appear to have done the job. I say that with great regret.

As regards the application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as legislation applying in Northern Ireland, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, mentioned this matter on page 15 with regard to Section 78, and on pages 34 to 36 regarding the impact of this legislation on the two counterterrorism Acts that we are considering tonight. This legislation has in England, and I think probably in Scotland, brought with it codes of practice which will be of great importance. They concern, first, the power to stop, search and arrest; and, secondly, treatment in custody. We need two codes and they must lock together and cover all situations including the first 48 hours in custody from which period the bulk of complaints seems to arise and to which at present the fewest safeguards apply.

A code of conduct has already been issued to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which should be made public. I happen to have a copy; and so does the Committee on Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland although it did not give me mine. It is an admirable 12-point document and deserves to be widely known and studied. I have written to the chief constable about this matter and I trust that the Government will succeed in persuading him to publish that code of conduct. This is another recommendation of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in its 13th annual report.

On police complaints, I welcome the new commission whose full membership was recently announced. However, I hope that the Government will take the earliest possible opportunity to improve even the new procedures in the light of Chapter 9 of the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which I have just mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in his introductory speech, held out a little hope that quite soon there might be consolidation of the two varieties of the emergency provisions Act with which we are now coping. I understand that the noble Viscount was given a consolidated text. Apparently therefore it is already in existence. I should like a little more consolidation even than that. I should like to see the emergency provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act consolidated as they affect Northern Ireland. This is clearly in the mind of the noble Viscount at page 38 of this report, and in the mind of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, at pages 67 and 68. Cannot this be achieved by means of the order procedure without the necessity of an immensely long piece of brand new legislation?

On judicial supervision of police detention, as part of the pre-trial process, I trust that the Government will study and implement the recommendations of the standing advisory commission for dealing with the period following the first 36 hours in custody. I follow a number of Members of your Lordships' House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, together with the whole range of Northern Ireland political parties, in once again urging the Government to take steps to write the European Convention on Human Rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom; or, if they cannot do so in the United Kingdom, at least into the domestic law of Northern Ireland, including Protocols 1, 4 and 7.

Perhaps I may also ask the Government whether, and when, they will ratify the European convention on the prevention of torture, which goes wider than just police custody matters to include prison boards of visitors and mental health hospitals. Here again I rely on Chapter 5 of the report of the standing advisory commission.

Lastly, perhaps I may commend to Her Majesty's Government, to your Lordships, and to any interested readers, the recent report, Human Rights and Responsibilities in Britain and Ireland, which came from a unique inter-Church working party drawn from both countries, north and south Ireland and including both unionist and nationalist politicians. It is edited by my friend Sydney Bailey, and was published by Macmillan in January. Two very brief quotes from it will show its quality. It states: There is not a vestige of a basis for the use of violence for political ends in Northern Ireland". On the other hand, a little further on it states: The security forces must use the minimum necessary force and use it discriminatingly". To conclude, I should like to touch very briefly on three institutional improvements. I have mentioned this in your Lordships' House before. Cannot there be a standing commission of Privy Counsellors to consider grievances, issues touching upon security and the administration of justice, and improvements in those areas? This suggestion is not new; it has arisen before. Can there also be a permanent north/south Ireland security committee? Finally—and this has been around since 1981 and is mentioned in the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Article 12—is it not time that we had a parliamentary tier to our working arrangements to bring together this Parliament and the Parliament in Dublin?

8.26 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts that we are discussing are perhaps two of the most important and serious pieces of legislation concerning any single part of the United Kingdom. As I am the new boy here perhaps it is a little out of place for me to say that it is surprising that this legislation which is definitely the most important legislation concerning Northern Ireland has to be dealt with at this time of night. In casual conversations many noble Lords have said how much more they would like to know about Northern Ireland. When the business is carried out at this time of night it is not surprising that after a busy Tuesday, and a busier Thursday to come, people are not able to stay and listen.

It must be remembered that everyone in Northern Ireland is affected to some extent by these measures in their everyday life. In particular the security situation in the Province hinges on the correct and reasonable implementation of these Acts. I should like to pick up a couple of points that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, raised. When discussing security forces, and terrorists, I was a little disappointed to hear him refer to the innocent victims of Enniskillen. Of course they were innocent but by implication—and he does not mean this, I know—it seems, and would seem to people in Northern Ireland, and the security forces, that civilians are innocent, and terrorists are not. But because he has not mentioned them, what about the security forces? Our security forces are innocent and it is the terrorists who are guilty and that must be made clear. I know that the news media often make that mistake as well. Our security forces—the regular British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the police—are innocent. It is the terrorists who are guilty.

Another point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also referred, is the level of cross-border security. We may have an Anglo-Irish Agreement at present but no other civilised countries in Europe need any agreement to have cross-border security. It is ridiculous that cross-border security is not of the highest level at all times. There may be hiccups but it should still continue and it should be top class. We have been at this for a long time.

Perhaps I may take up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned. To a certain extent in some speeches made here it comes up more often. It seems as though the complaint is that we have not found a way to convict our policemen of torture, bad handling of prisoners, and various other matters. Such complaints are made by terrorists in their thousands. If we believe that one complaint taken up by the DPP out of the many hundreds mentioned by the noble Lord is a bad statistic, they will lodge even more complaints. If that is the view, the situation will become worse because the vast proportion of complaints are totally unjustified. They are brought forward to waste the time of the security forces and to cost money in legal effort. It is a compliment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to the prison service that only one complaint was justified, and I am glad to see that.

Without this legislation our security forces would be powerless in their task of protecting life and property from terrorist action. I am not qualified to go into the complications involved in the wording and legal implications of these Acts. However, I should like to explain from a practical point of view the importance of the continuation of this legislation. I am from a generation which was young enough to have been at school during the first civil rights marches of 1968–69. We have lived through 19 years of tragic violence. There can be few members of that generation who have not had a close friend or relation ruthlessly murdered or severely injured by terrorists from one faction or another.

I could list the names of over 30 people whom I have known well and with whom I have worked. They include shopkeepers from Enniskillen and even the sexton of our parish church, who was brutally murdered in Enniskillen about 13 months ago while serving the public on duty as a part-time policeman. Some receive more publicity than others, such as those murdered or injured in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday. It is important that they received the publicity, but most of the other murders become statistics in no time.

There is a tendency for people on this side of the Irish Sea to use the phrase, "an acceptable level of violence". I believe that that phrase will be brought into more use as a result of certain comments made over the past few days, especially on television, about the fact that we shall not defeat the IRA militarily. For the law-abiding citizens on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland—if noble Lords do not believe that there are law-abiding citizens on both sides they should come and see—there is no such thing as an acceptable level of terrorist violence.

One of the most important functions of this legislation is to provide the support and powers for our security forces to carry out their increasingly difficult duties. One cannot deny that the recent problems relating to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the army have been well-publicised. However, these incidents should be put into perspective and I believe that the news media especially should have a responsibility in publicising the facts. They should publish the good as well as the had side of life so that things that go wrong can be seen against the vast amount of dangerous duties which achieve positive results.

I do not wish to bore the House with easily forgotten statistics but your Lordships may find the following to be of interest. Out of every 400,000 cars stopped by the security forces in general there is only one substantiated complaint. As regards the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is maligned from many sides, including cross-border, in all duties there is only one substantiated complaint resulting in a charge by the DPP per 6 million man hours of duty. The Ulster Defence Regiment is predominantly a part-time force which annually carries out 12 million man hours of duty to fight terrorism. I do not have the figures for the RUC, but over the past eight years it has been attacked by bombs or bullets 7,500 times.

Those figures show that our security forces have standards of conduct second to none in the world-wide fight against terrorism. It is for that reason that I find it hard to accept and to listen to so many speeches condemning our forces and not the terrorists. We expect and receive the highest levels of professionalism and dedication and we should be immensely proud of these courageous men and women. It is sad to see the amount of unwarranted criticism directed at our security forces from so many different sides. We owe it to them to give support.

I should like to refer specifically to one section of the Acts. I draw attention to the report of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. At page 28, section 6.2, he discusses the minimum use of force by the army and the police. He writes about the use of a charge of murder for a soldier or policeman who kills a member of the public during an incident and it is subsequently discovered that the soldier or policeman made a mistake in assessing the situation and over-reacted. My noble friend suggests that in such cases it could be made possible for a charge of manslaughter to be used but that a change in legislation would be required in order to do so.

However, to devise a law for use against members of the security forces alone would be discriminatory against them and would undoubtedly inhibit them in their task of defeating terrorism. It might be seen as an effort to find a charge on which to convict members of our security forces unjustifiably. I cannot support such a move. Let us remember that, but for the terrorists, we should not be asking our policemen and soldiers to make split-second life or death decisions.

Some noble Lords may wonder about the kinds of situations to which I am referring. I should like to give two short examples of what may occur. When at or near a border checkpoint local people are normally aware that they should not move in a suspicious manner. However, let us suppose that a farmer goes to see a sick cow in a field beside the base but that he has forgotten to telephone in advance to say what he is doing. He walks around the hedge carrying equipment to treat the cow. A soldier or a policeman on duty watches him for a second wondering whether he might be a danger to them and be carrying a gun. By chance a car below the sanger backfires a couple of times. The farmer jumps into a hedge fearing a gun battle, or runs away, and the soldier shoots him believing that the farmer has fired shots at the checkpoint.

I emphasise that the change in legislation deals with that kind of incident and not an incident when a weapon is fired accidentally: it is when the intention exists to shoot the person, albeit that it is subsequently discovered that it was for the wrong reason. There are no totally safe rules, and snap decisions must be made with life or death consequences. A sentence I read in last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph sums it up. It reads: Every officer knows that, if he errs on one side, some of his men may he murdered, while if he errs on the other side, they might be facing a murder charge". I have mentioned soldiers who are on duty, but it is much more difficult for soldiers of the Ulster Defence Regiment and policemen while they are off duty. As regards the Ulster Defence Regiment, the statistics show that of 172 soldiers murdered only 32 were on duty. In addition, 45 ex-soldiers were murdered in the same kind of situation, off duty. That shows that 90 per cent. have been killed off duty. As regards the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the figures show that 181 policemen were murdered on duty and 71 were murdered off duty. I do not have the figures as regards ex-members, but there are a substantial number. Those statistics show that well over 50 per cent. of those killed in the security forces resident in Northern Ireland were killed while off duty.

It is interesting to note that the security forces actually are safer while on duty. These people can never afford to relax for a minute. Each one has to be aware that lie might be attacked at any time. For instance, late at night travelling home, he may wonder whether a car travelling in the same direction as himself contains terrorists. He knows that his family could be held hostage by terrorists waiting to shoot him on his return to the house. If a shadow moves in his backyard he cannot afford to dismiss it as a cat or something being blown by the wind, as others might. He must consider that it could be a terrorist.

The problem here is that these brave people have often been killed while alone. We cannot know what prior warning of impending disaster they may have had. We do not know that many of them may have seen their attackers prior to the incident. It is not inconceivable that their suspicions were aroused but, due to their subconscious minds warning them to be over-cautious about opening fire for fear of incurring a murder charge, they did not react quickly enough—and as a result they died.

In these examples your Lordships will see that decisions are difficult enough without introducing discriminatory legislation such as that suggested in the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I hope that what I said makes sense and that, should the occasion arise, these thoughts will be given due consideration. I support the continuance of this legislation.

8.41 p.m.

Lord Moran

My Lords, I have listened with great interest and attention to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who comes to us from Fermanagh and introduces into our debates a valuable sense of reality. I think the facts and figures that he has given us are very useful indeed.

The Minister made a strong case for the continuance of the present order, and I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said in his report that the Act was being used with due reflection, moderation and commonsense. Like my noble friend Lord Hylton, I too was surprised that in another place the Labour Party opposed the order.

I should like to say first a brief word about security policy. I have argued before in this House that the security forces ought not to adopt a role that is too purely defensive, allowing the IRA to choose at leisure the time and place of the next attack, but that they should take the initiative in trying to get on top of terrorism. I have said, too, that if this involves some modification of the legal framework, I hope that will be looked at. I believe a change of this sort may in due course be necessary and indeed urgent, in view of the new and sophisticated arms the IRA have acquired. The Minister told us about the impact grenades which have been used already by the IRA. There are also many suggestions that the IRA may possess missiles that can be used against helicopters. If so, clearly that will involve a modification of security policy.

Secondly, I should like to ask about the objectives of the British Army in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said in another place on the 6th May last (at col. 737 of Commons Hansard) when security was being debated: I make it absolutely clear that our determination is to pursue our efforts until such time as terrorism is destroyed". Later, after the appalling outrage at Enniskillen, he said that he wanted to: make it clear to the men of violence that no threat or outrage destroys our resolve, but makes us all the more determined to rid the Province of the evil of terrorism". That was said in the other place on the 9th November 1987 at col. 20 of Hansard. He ended one intervention in the same debate by saying at col. 22: We need the fullest support of every Democrat in the country and of every Democrat in Northern Ireland, to defeat the terrorist". My Lords, I emphasise the word "defeat".

The other night there was a programme on television, which I did not see. However, I read the report of it in the Independent on 1st March. The report quoted General Glover (who was I believe a former commander of Land Forces in Northern Ireland) as saying: In no way can or will the Provisional IRA ever be defeated militarily. The Army's role has been now for some time … to help create the conditions whereby a full democractic, peaceful, political solution can be achieved. He went on, according to this report, to say that, the IRA's 'long war' would last as long as the Provisionals had the stamina and the political motivation, and 'so long as there is a divided island of Ireland'. It seemed to me a little strange that General Glover should describe the Army's role in that way and that after the Secretary of State had talked about the need to defeat terrorism the General should say that to defeat terrorism was impossible. I know the Secretary of State gave a radio interview today in which, I gather, he said that some people sounded surprised when generals made comments of that kind, but he said it had always been recognised that, on its own, there is no military solution and that we were going to defeat terrorism but it was not going to be done by military means alone but also by strong support from the security forces and the defeat of men of violence as well.

I fully understand the need to make political progress, which is obviously of the first importance. However, I should like to ask the Minister, in the light of these statements, what exactly is the role of the British Army in Northern Ireland, in the Government's view.

Thirdly, I should like to say a word about cross-border security and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. On this occasion I do not propose to repeat my objections to the agreement although they have not, I fear, diminished with time: too many of my earlier fears have been borne out by events. But surely the agreement ought, above all, to be promoting co-operation between the two governments in combating terrorism, which is the common enemy of both our countries.

During recent weeks, far from speaking out against the continuing terrorist threat and the hard and dangerous work done by the security forces on both sides of the border, there has been from Dublin a torrent of denigration and abuse of the security forces. Every opportunity has been taken to attack them, not to mention matters involving the Court of Appeal and the Attorney General. From someone like Cardinal O'Fiaich, I fear one must expect this; but it seems to me very unfortunate that we should get these attacks from a head of government such as Mr. Haughey. I have seen from him no public recognition of the extraordinary restraint and discipline exercised by the security forces in Northern Ireland, operating in very dangerous circumstances, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has reminded us just now, and under conditions of great strain. We have only to look at the contrast of what is going on in Israel to see how extraordinarily professional and disciplined our security forces are.

I was struck by the statistics that the noble Viscount gave to us. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed a letter published in yesterday's Independent from Senator Mary Robinson in Dublin. The letter struck me as being thoughtful and interesting. She discussed these matters and concluded by saying that: a review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Conference is mandatory before the end of 1988. She went on to say: there is a critical need to take stock of the agreement itself and of the perceptions of both governments as to its central objective. If there cannot be agreement on that, the question must be raised as to whether the Anglo-Irish Conference should continue on its present form. It might be better to suspend its operation in order to encourage the tentative talks about talks between leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland, which offer a better prospect of filling the political vacuum there. That is an interesting view to come from Dublin, and one worth considering.

Finally. I wish to say a brief word about extradition. I mentioned this when the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked a Starred Question about relations with the Republic of Ireland on 19th February and asked for sonic figures about extradition. The Minister and I had some discussion about archangelic matters, but I do not think that on that occasion he gave me the figures for which I asked. I should like to ask him now, therefore, how many persons have been extradited to this country from the Republic of Ireland since the Anglo-Irish agreement came into force and how many requests for extradition which have been made to the authorities in the Republic of Ireland remain outstanding.

8.48 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we have had a forthright and detailed debate on the order that I have presented to the House. First, I wish to thank noble Lords who have taken part. I think that the House will forgive me if I say how much we appreciated the speech of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough since it was probably the most frightening speech that he will make in the House. It was his second speech. He has had the liberty of being listened to this time. I am sure he will accept that on another occasion noble Lords may wish to interrupt or question him and will wish to treat him as a fully fledged Member of the House. I congratulate him on his remarks, some of which I hope I shall be able to answer. Once again, I pay tribute to the voice of Fermanagh, that most lovely county in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, against the background of the security situation, the order that I have presented and the two Acts, explained the need for reconciliation. I wish to stress two points to the noble Lord. The Royal Ulster Constabulary—each man and woman—is a professional force meeting a situation that I have described. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, went on to amplify it, and it was further amplified by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would accept that. I pay my tribute to each and every one of them.

I hope that the noble Lord and your Lordships will accept from me that no one is beyond the reach of the law. Nothing that was said by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in the Statement on 25th January and by myself in the Statement that I repeated on 17th February could be construed as saying that anybody is beyond the reach of the law.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, if the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions decide for reasons of security that proceedings will not be taken, is not that officer above the reach of the law?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, that may be the interpretation of the noble Lord. I am not crossing the boundary of what was said by my noble and learned friend or of the Statement in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, which was repeated here word for word. He spelt it out. I am not crossing one millimetre beyond what was repeated by my noble and learned friend and said by my right honourable and learned friend. If the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, wishes to put that interpretation on it, that is his interpretation. I do not accept that.

The noble Lord asked about the McLachlan report and particularly about the Stalker report. As far as the Stalker-Sampson investigation is concerned, there can be no doubt that many hard lessons have been learnt since the events that took place in November and December 1982. They also gave rise to the Stalker-Sampson inquiry.

I stressed in my response on 17th Febraury, and perhaps I should stress again, that arising from the investigations by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson a special inspection of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was carried out by Mr. McLachlan, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. His report concentrated on two problems: first, how the Special Branch could be maintained as an integral branch of the overall force; and, secondly, what procedures should be followed to ensure that full and accurate information is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions, notwithstanding security and other considerations. All the recommendations made by Mr. McLachlan have been accepted in principle by the Chief Constable of the RUC. Discussions are under way between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Constable to examine the safeguards for full disclosure of information to the DPP.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, went on to ask about cross-border security. I can only reiterate the statement by the Taoiseach in the debate in the Irish Parliament on 17th February this year. He said that in the security area his Government has two priority objectives, firstly, the protection of the security of this state; and secondly, the protection to the utmost of our ability of the interests and the security of all the people of Northern Ireland. He continued: It is those objectives that dictate cross-border co-operation. It is obviously in the interests of both countries that this co-operation should be as effective as possible, and only the men of violence stand to gain from anything less". Those were fairly strong—and, I believe, in the context of Irish politics—forthright comments by the Taoiseach.

As to the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on Mr. Stalker's book or report, I would not attempt to put any interpretation upon the book written by Mr. Stalker or any of the things that he may have said in the press. I would have nothing to say tonight about the investigation being carried out by Mr. Kelly, the Chief Constable of Staffordshire. I am sure that he will be aware of everything that is being said here this evening. He will carry out the investigation. He knows that he must carry out the investigation as quickly as possible; but he must do the job that he believes needs to be done. I hope that that covers the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a number of points. I am grateful that, as is his wont, he gave me some indication of the points he intended to raise, a good few of which I hope to answer. He had a query about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I stress that my right honourable friend has agreed to the preparation of a Northern Ireland order, which would introduce legislation similar to that contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which applies in this country. We intend that the order will, first, strengthen police powers; secondly, that it will regulate the rights and privileges of persons in custody; thirdly, that it will reform the law relating to evidence; and, fourthly, among other things provide for police and public consultation. I should add that the Government intend to publish their proposals for the legislation later this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to cross-border security. I believe I have covered that in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.

As regards extradition, I will attempt to give the figures to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, later as I do not have them to hand at the moment. We welcome the decision of the Irish Government to allow their extradition Act to come into force on 1st December as planned. This will enable them to ratify the European Convention on Terrorism. The Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act, which was passed before Christmas 1987, made sundry provisions. It unilaterally amended the extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. We expressed our concern about the passage of the legislation at that time as we felt it might present difficulties.

We had hoped that a note from our own Attorney-General confirming that the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities had considered the evidence, as they are required to do, and had decided that it was sufficient to justify a prosecution would enable warrants to be backed. That apparently is not the case. However, the two Attorney-Generals—our own Attorney-General and that of the Republic—are considering what is needed to enable extradition to proceed effectively. I think that will be what all of us wish.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about delays before trials and the time limits for bail. Both these points come under the 1987 Act. I believe that Table VI in my noble friend's report is also of some relevance to this query. As regards delays, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the courts and the police continue to cope well with processing the large number of cases that involve serious offences. I believe that the majority of cases go through quickly. The position is monitored on a regular basis by all the agencies involved. The Government are concerned to eliminate avoidable delays, and measures taken to this end in recent years include, among other things, the review of the organisation and staffing levels in the RUC and the DPP's office.

Secondly, there is the establishment of what we call a fast stream to identify and take forward cases which could be brought to trial relatively quickly. Thirdly, a presiding judge has been appointed to Belfast Crown Court to oversee the listing of cases. Further, we have appointed two additional High Court judges and an additional county court judge. Twelve additional Queen's Counsel have been appointed by my noble friend who normally sits on the Woolsack, significantly increasing the number of senior counsel available for criminal cases. As a result, for those in custody at the time of their trial who are charged with scheduled offences the average period from remand to committal fell from 36 weeks in 1985—and let us not forget that that is eight and a half months—to 31 weeks in 1987; that is, just over seven months. The time from committal to trial fell from 21 weeks to 18 weeks.

As regards time limits, I am afraid we have not been able to take any decision on whether these should be introduced for bringing cases to trial. We would first want to assess the experience in England and Wales and to collect more data about the performance of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about what we call Secretary of State "pleasure" cases—those detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure— and young life-sentence prisoners. I should like to make three points in this respect. All life-sentence and pleasure prisoners are regularly reviewed by the review board under the chairmanship of the permanent under-secretary of the department in order to determine when a recommendation should be made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for a release on licence. I want to stress that my colleagues and I are particularly concerned about prisoners serving these pleasure sentences who were caught up in violence at an early age. In all cases the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland are taken fully into account and the prisoner's age at the date of the crime is an important factor. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that that is one of the factors given full weight.

I should like to add that all those who are serving detention during the Secretary of State's pleasure have been convicted of murder. Before releasing a prisoner on licence the Secretary of State must be satisfied that not only has a period been served which marks the seriousness of the offence but that the public will not be put at risk by the release of such a prisoner hack into the community.

Since the beginning of 1984, 82 prisoners, of whom 46 were life prisoners and 36 prisoners detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure, have been given dates for release on licence. Of that total figure, 54 have been released. A further nine of the prisoners serving life sentence are at present at the advanced stage of ministerial and judicial consultation.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to our response to the report of my noble friend. As regards timing, the debate had to be held before 21st March this year when the main provision of the Act will elapse. This meant that much of the work on these annual interviews, as my noble friend pointed out, had to be conducted in the busy Christmas-New Year period. Perhaps I should not describe how they may be busy, but certainly my noble friend was busy. However, I am sure your Lordships will recall that this date was chosen for the renewal of the temporary provisions and the emergency provisions in order to coincide with the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984. We thought at the time that it would help your Lordships' House and another place if the debates on the renewals took place at more or less the same time.

I accept that the time of year at which these debates take place creates difficulties for my noble friend. However, I hope that as people become more accustomed to the annual review, they will be able to prepare themselves a little more thoroughly than was my noble friend. To those who may wish to give evidence to my noble friend, I say that we shall ensure that earlier notice is given in future of the particular reviews.

There was another query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the statistics relating to certifying out. That appears in the 1987 Act. We are in the process of establishing whether the information can be made available. I shall let my noble friend and indeed your Lordships know that these involve the examination of each particular case file which requires a considerable amount of effort. I believe that will be accepted by noble friends and any of your Lordships who are involved in a close study of jurisprudence and the law. As regards certifying in and not out—namely, that cases should be scheduled—I believe that the case can be spelt out and seen in paragraph 4(2)(4) of my noble friend's report. Perhaps I may briefly draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General makes substantial use of his authority to send terrorist-type offences to jury trial. I should like to refer your Lordships to the figures shown in Table 3 of my noble friend's report. Those show that in 1986 my right honourable and learned friend received 495 applications, and in 304 instances the cases went to jury trial.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the question of the admissibility of statements and referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I believe I have covered that point earlier and I offer my apologies. As regards detention, we see that in Schedule 4 to the 1978 Act. I believe that we shall not be able to take the opportunity tonight to repeal Section 12 of Schedule 1 of the 1978 Act. This contains power to detain without trial. In paragraph 5 of the report my noble friend observed that would not be possible in the context of the debate today because it would require primary legislation. We believe it is important to retain the provisions on the statute book in case there is a sudden or dramatic deterioration in the security situation.

There were two further queries by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the code of practice and also about the consolidation of emergency legislation. Perhaps I may clear up one query which has come to my mind, and I believe also crossed the minds of your Lordships. That refers to the review presented by my noble friend, Lord Colville. I believe he suggested that the code might not cover Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This is the main arrest power in the Province as regards terrorism. I wish to stress that, notwithstanding the thoughts of my noble friend, it is our intention that that power under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be dealt with in the code.

So far as concerns consolidation, in the light of the decision which was made to make the provisions in the forthcoming prevention of Terrorism Bill permanent, and the fact that that legislation applies throughout the United Kingdom, it would not be feasible to consolidate all the emergency legislation applying to Northern Ireland in one particular Act.

I believe I have covered most of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised one or two queries. The first was about the timing of the debates this evening. I have to say to him with all good wishes "Join the club", since every speaker on the other Benches, makes complaints—and rightly so—to my noble friend the Chief Whip. I hope my friend will add his weight to the complaints.

My noble friend expressed disappointment about one or two of the terms I used in my opening comments. I hope that I did not give offence to him or to anybody else in Northern Ireland when I referred to the innocent victims of the atrocity at Enniskillen. I referred to the amazing and continuous courage and determination of the security forces. We can sit here in your Lordships' House; I might go to my home in Scotland; or we might go around what we call in Northern Ireland "GB". But to us it is amazing that men and women serve in the security forces at permanent risk to their lives. They have done this for 20 years, and they continue to do it. Their courage and determination should be noticed and applauded. I want to do that personally and I believe that your Lordships too will wish to do so.

My noble friend also referred to the thoughts and expressions of General Glover on the BBC television programme "Panorama" earlier this week. The best thing I can do is to refer my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to the remarks made in another place last night by my right honourable friend the Minister of State. At col. 912 of the Official Report my right honourable friend referred to the "Panorama" programme. The gist of what General Glover said was that there was no military solution to the problems that all of us face in the Province. My right honourable friend stressed that this Government and preceding governments have repeated that many times. It has been reflected in the policies followed by successive governments to try to do what they can to improve the political climate in the Province. It is equally wrong to say that the problems of the Province can be resolved purely and solely by military solutions. I shall not weary your Lordships with further comments, and I do not want to go further than that. However, I want to assure my noble friend that I take his thoughts very seriously.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about extradition. I covered the points about extradition in my earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. As regards what the Taoiseach said in the Irish Parliament, certainly I cannot speak for him and I am sure that he would not wish me to speak for him. Nobody would expect me to do that from this position this evening. As regards the role of the army, I do not think that I can give a suitable and succinct reply tonight. Perhaps I may gather my thoughts and write to the noble Lord as briefly as possible, giving my thoughts on the role of the army. I again refer the noble Lord to what was said by my right honourable friend in another place last night.

I am afraid that I still do not have the figures for extradition asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I guarantee that I shall write to him with those figures. The noble Lord referred to the supplementary questions that were asked by the noble Lord in reply to the Question put by the noble Baroness. Lady Ewart-Biggs. The noble Lord will be fair and admit that he asked at least four supplementary questions. I took the easiest one about the Archangel Gabriel. I shall not go into celestial or spiritual affairs tonight. If I missed the query about extradition and the numbers I shall certainly write to him as soon as is possible.

I hope that I have answered all the questions. If there are any points that I should have made, I shall write to the noble Lord who asked the question. The Motion before us this evening asks that the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 should remain in force for a further 12 months. I have said all that I want to say tonight about the security forces and the security position. I call upon all the people of Northern Ireland to help the police by co-operating with them by giving them the support and information that they need to bring to justice those responsible for the continuing violence. The gunmen and the bombers will be defeated if ordinary men and women—I stress this point—have the courage to come forward and assist the police. Anybody who lives in Northern Ireland will know that it can be difficult to give information and often requires a very courageous decision—a decision which anywhere else in the United Kingdom we would regard as quite normal. It requires courage, and we admire ordinary men and women who come forward to help the police. I commend the order to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.