HL Deb 27 July 1989 vol 510 cc1609-22

2.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th June be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order reforms the law in Northern Ireland relating to the investigation and detection of crime, and revises the law on evidence. It is substantially in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which, as the House will recall, was based on recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, and in the Criminal Law Revision Committee's eleventh report. Those recommendations are also valid for Northern Ireland, where the general criminal law has much in common with England and Wales. The Government therefore consider it appropriate to introduce measures similar to those already adopted under what has come to be called the PACE legislation. Because of these similarities, I shall only highlight the main provisions of the order.

Part II gives the police powers to stop and search persons and vehicles, on reasonable suspicion, for stolen goods, prohibited articles or offensive weapons. But these powers are subject to a number of safeguards which will ensure that they are only used where and to the extent necessary.

Part III deals with police powers to enter and search premises, and seize and retain property. Under Article 10, the police may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to search for material which is relevant evidence of an offence. But if they require access to certain categories of material held in confidence, they must apply instead to a county court judge in accordance with Article 11 and Schedule 1. However, for Northern Ireland there is an additional ground in Schedule 1 on which the police may base an application for a search warrant other than for a production order. Protecting sources of sensitive information, for example, in cases involving complex and serious fraud is clearly important. The provision will give the police a further opportunity to satisfy the court that a warrant is necessary in order to avoid prejudicing that investigation or others.

It does not give the police an unfettered power to obtain a search warrant; nor does it guarantee that they will always get one. It does, however, give them the opportunity to extend their inquiries into related cases. It is important to recognise that the process will still be subject to judicial control and that the decision to grant a warrant will rest with a county court judge.

Part IV of the order restructures and clarifies the law on arrest. As with England and Wales, the more serious common law offences will become arrestable offences; and the police will have a new general power of arrest for use in circumstances where any one of five specified arrest conditions is satisfied. These provisions will put the law on arrest on to a more rational basis.

I shall now describe two of the most important features of the new arrangements covering the detention of suspects in custody. First, a suspect who is likely to be detained for longer than six hours must be taken to a designated police station, where he will come under the protection of a custody officer independent of the investigation who will be responsible for the suspect's welfare and for protecting his rights.

Secondly, the need for a suspect's detention will be subject to a series of progressively more demanding reviews initially involving police officers also independent of the investigation and, at a later stage, the courts. This review system will ensure that no one is detained for longer than necessary.

To complement these arrangements, Article 57 gives a suspect the right to have someone informed of his arrest; and Article 59 gives him the right to consult a solicitor privately at any time. The custody officer must ensure that the suspect is aware of these rights and how they may be exercised. However, the rights may be delayed for up to 36 hours if they are likely to prejudice police investigations; but any delay must be authorised by a senior police officer and only in respect of a serious arrestable offence.

Article 60 provides for the tape-recording of interviews with suspects; and pilot schemes will shortly be in place to test the necessary arrangements. My right honourabe friend the Secretary of State has already explained in another place that there would be very real difficulties in interrogation and intelligence if the arrangements applied to interviews with suspected terrorists.

Because of the serious risks involved and in line with the practice already adopted in England and Wales, the tape-recording of interviews will not extend to terrorist cases.

Articles 62 and 63 of the order incorporate the existing law under which the police in Northern Ireland can take body samples. Your Lordships will recall that for Northern Ireland, a swab taken from a suspect's mouth has been defined as a non-intimate sample and may therefore be taken without the suspect's consent.

In this context, there are four important matters to which I should like to direct your Lordship's attention. First, the integrity of the mouth-swab test has already been established by the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory.

Secondly, a senior police officer may authorise the taking of a sample only where he believes it will confirm or disprove the suspect's involvement; so in the absence of any material at the scene of a crime which may be analysed for DNA, there would be no lawful basis for the authorisation because there would be nothing with which to match a sample from the suspect.

Thirdly, there are detailed arrangements already in place which provide for the destruction of data associated with DNA testing. Finally, these powers have aleady been approved by Parliament, and the Government consider that their retention is both necessary and justified.

Part VII of the order deals with the codes of practice, which will provide detailed rules and guidance to the police on the exercise of their powers. This order deals with the powers of the police under the general criminal law and its codes of practice have similar application. However, the Government have recently announced their intention to issue guidance on the exercise of all emergency powers in Northern Ireland, including those available to both the police and the army. This guidance will supplement the statutory rights which are already in place for persons arrested or detained under the emergency law.

We now come to Parts VIII and IX of the order which deal with evidence. In such a technical area of the criminal law I do not intend to describe each article in detail. In general terms our purpose is to clarify and broaden the nature of what may be admitted as evidence in court while continuing to ensure the fairness of criminal proceedings.

Article 81, which makes provision in Northern Ireland for live television link evidence, has generated the most interest. Widespread support has been given to the application of these facilities to child witnesses in Northern Ireland. Criticism has however been levied against the inclusion of witnesses who will not give evidence otherwise through fear and to a lesser extent against the enabling powers to extend the provisions to apply to witnesses giving evidence from outside the Province.

The application to witnesses in fear in Northern Ireland is specifically intended to encourage more witnesses to give direct oral evidence through the prospect of avoidance of the possibility of in-court intimidation or trauma. It is the clear intention that the live television link equipment which will be open to use by both defence and prosecution witnesses will replicate as far as possible normal courtroom conditions and will permit the demeanour of witnesses to be observed by the court. Within Northern Ireland, where intimidation of witnesses is a prevalent phenomenon especially with its relatively small community, any measure which, subject to the discretion of the courts, increases the chances that justice will be done can only be welcomed. As the general laws governing the admissibility of oral evidence and perjury will apply to evidence given through live television links the rights of defendants will continue to be safeguarded.

We intend to monitor and assess the operation of the use of the facilities by witnesses within Northern Ireland before giving consideration to the extension of the general application of the article to witnesses giving evidence outside the Province. The extension to apply the use of live TV facilities in Northern Ireland to all witnesses outside the United Kingdom, which in common with Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 follows the recommendation of the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, was already sanctioned by Parliament through the provisions of Section 168 of the 1988 Act. Article 81(4)(a)(ii) simply makes provision in a slightly different form and my honourable friend the Secretary of State will exercise these powers only whenever it becomes practical and feasible to do so.

Finally, I should like to mention Article 82, which places a responsibility on the police authorities in consultation with the chief constable to make appropriate arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing. That is particularly important in Northern Ireland where it is vital to promote a wider understanding between the police and the public. The police authority and the chief constable have already taken steps to develop new consultative arrangements and I would encourage all responsible public representatives in Northern Ireland to come forward with their support.

This order represents a considerable step forward and I commend it to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th June be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches and in particular on behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and my noble friend Lord Underhill, who was the principal spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs until a few years ago, I should like to express our appreciation for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at the Northern Ireland Office. He was a man generous of spirit and he was genuinely interested in the well-being of the people of Ulster. Throughout the five years he was at the Northern Ireland Office he spared no effort to ensure that the concerns of these Benches were always fully accommodated. I should like to place our appreciation on record. Of course we wish the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, well in his new role and we know from our experience of him that he will bring a sense of fairness and conscientiousness to his office.

I thank the noble Lord for summarising the order. He explained that it is substantially in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which operates in England and Wales. The Minister then went on to claim that the criminal law in Northern Ireland has much in common with the criminal law in England and Wales. Of course that is right but, nevertheless, we do well to remember that there are important distinguishing features of the criminal law in Northern Ireland.

There are at least three such differences and I think they should be mentioned. First, the suspect's right of silence has been substantially abolished in Northern Ireland by the criminal evidence order which was introduced last October. Another important difference is that Northern Ireland has its own emergency provisions Act to deal with suspected terrorists. The third important difference is that, apart from the scheduled offences, crime is seen to be on a much smaller scale in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. I am not aware that the police in Northern Ireland have requested this legislation.

When one reads the speeches of Ministers, one feels that inadequate attention may have been paid to those distinguishing features. The order extends the powers of the police—and I think we must be clear about that. When a government introduce legislation which extends the powers of the police, it is the duty of the opposition to consider whether the legislation achieves a sensible and overall balance between crime control and the protection of the rights of the citizen—innocent suspect or accused.

Therefore, I want briefly to concentrate on four areas. First, I come to Articles 57 and 59. We welcome the thrust of those two articles. Article 57 gives an arrested person the right to have someone informed that he has been arrested. Article 59 gives an arrested person the right to consult a solicitor; but both rights are qualified. They are to be exercised as soon as practicable except to the extent that delay is permitted in the circumstances which are spelt out in the articles. Those circumstances are identical in both articles. We say that those circumstances leave enormous discretion to the police. That is what we find a little worrying.

I referred earlier to the criminal evidence order introduced last October. Given that a suspect's silence can be used by the prosecution in Northern Ireland as corroborating evidence, it is important that the arrested person should have access to a solicitor's advice with the minimum of delay. I have read the terms of the fairly lengthy caution which is now being administered by the police in Northern Ireland. I doubt very much whether its full significance will be grasped by the suspect when it is administered. Can the Minister tell the House whether the department is satisfied, in the absence of a duty solicitor scheme such as we have in England and Wales, that a solicitor will be promptly available to give advice at the police station when it is requested? That surely must be an important requirement.

Of course we are anxious that Articles 57 and 59 work fairly and effectively, but again I should be grateful if the Minister in his reply can tell the House whether the department intends to monitor the working of those two articles and in fact Articles 36 and 37. We see a positive advantage in monitoring. I understand from the Minister that the department will be monitoring the operation of some articles in this order. If there is to be monitoring of Articles 57 and 59, who is to do that? Who is to monitor Articles 36 and 37? Will it be left to the police to monitor the police, or will there be an independent element in the monitoring procedure?

My second area of interest is the provision for evidence to be given through television links. As the Minister explained, this is provided for in Article 81. The scope of this article is wider than the relevant section in the 1984 Act. It is wider because it provides for such evidence to be given by a witness in Northern Ireland who claims that he will not give evidence through fear. I appreciate that the leave of the court will have to be obtained before video linked evidence can be used, but can the Minister tell the House what criteria will have to be satisfied before the court will grant such leave? We trust that the criteria will not be so wide that in practice it will be given on request. On the same point, when the prosecution applies for leave of the court to take evidence through television links, will the defendant have an opportunity to oppose the application?

The third area of interest is the tape-recording of interviews with suspects held at the police station which is provided for in Article 60. We welcome this article. I shall be grateful if the Minister can give an indication when the department anticipates that it will be in force throughout Northern Ireland. There is one slight concern which arises out of the fact that the article applies to interviews conducted at the police station.

I refer again to the 1988 order. What will happen to the questions and answers that take place before the interview at the police station commences? I assume that for the time being at least the questions and answers exchanged when a suspect is stopped on the road or when he is on the way to the police station will still be admissible. I noticed that yesterday the Guardian advocated that, As these pre-taped questions undermine the tapes, they should be stopped". I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to comment on that wise observation. Before I leave the subject of the tape-recording of interviews I should be grateful if the Minister could explain more fully to the House why an interview with a person suspected of an act of terrorism is not to be tape-recorded? The Minister referred the House to the Statement made in the Commons by his right honourable friend either yesterday or the day before. As I recall it, he did not advance reasons for not tape-recording the interviews with a person suspected of an act of terrorism. I understand and accept the assertion, but I do not understand the reasons on which the assertion is based.

I do not propose to raise any questions on Article 62 which deals with intimate samples. I wish to have an opportunity of reading further the Minister's explanation for that article before I aim any questions about it. We welcome Article 82 which provides for arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing. The Minister touched on this. We believe this to be an extremely important article because it is a means of achieving better policing. The article itself contains fine words. Can the Minister tell us how the police intend to conduct this dialogue with the community and to be appraised of community feeling?

Does the department intend that it should undertake research in order to understand how people perceive the role of the police in their community? If the department intends to undertake research who will fund it? Will it be funded by the police or by the department? It will be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, can take this matter a little futher today. We welcome the order. It will certainly help the police. If the safeguards which are in the order are working effectively and fairly we believe that it will also help the citizen and the community.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to his new responsibilities. Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, when the Minister for Northern Ireland, went to immense trouble to be of as much help to the House as possible. We wish him well for the future.

As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, indicated when he moved the order, basically it replicates a number of provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That Act was based on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. In those far-off days it was thought to be a good idea to have a Royal Commission or a committee of inquiry before introducing substantive legislation. However, partly because the matter was so carefully considered by an eminent Royal Commission I think that the Act has gone through rather well.

At the time it was introduced, and indeed after its enactment, it was said by some that it was a monstrous engine of repression and represented a fundamental attack on civil liberties. There were demands that it should be repealed. Yet now, some years later, I think it is recognised that by and large it was a sensible amendment of the law which in many respects substantially strengthens the rights of criminal defendants. That is why I did not find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he drew attention to the undoubted fact that crime in Northern Ireland, other than terrorist crime, has not followed the pattern of England and Wales. That is a fortunate development, but it does not seem to me to be right to say that simply because non-terrorist crime in Northern Ireland has not risen as it has in England and Wales therefore an order of this sort is not necessarily desirable. I think it is. For instance, there is now a regime in police stations in England and Wales which both protects the interest of the criminal defendant and ensures that there is a wholly professional approach by the police. In those circumstances I think it is desirable that these provisions should be extended to Northern Ireland.

However, there are a few matters which I should like to raise which cause me some considerable concern. First, this is a massive order. It contains 90 articles and seven schedules, and not all of them relate directly to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It provides for major changes in the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. In the Commons they devoted precisely one and a half hours to discussing this huge piece of legislation, and the debate began at about one o'clock in the morning. This House is similarly fairly thinly attended. I wonder what would be the approach if it were suggested that we adopted similar procedures in discussing legislation for England and Wales or for Scotland. That would be regarded as a wholly outrageous suggestion. It seems most unsatisfactory that we are continuing to adopt this approach as regards Northern Ireland.

I believe that we are getting perilously close to legislation by decree. As I have indicated, I think Parliament is failing to discharge its responsibility for looking at Northern Ireland not only in relation to criminal justice matters but others as well.

Perhaps I may now turn to an associated question and a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised; that is, the 1988 Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order relating to the right of silence. My noble friends are undoubtedly firmly opposed to maintaining the present rights of criminal defendants in such matters. I have heretical views on it because when I was at the Home Office I indicated that it was worth looking at the matter again. That remains my position. Therefore, I do not approach the matter as being wholly opposed in principle to what the Government have done, but on that occasion I objected, as I still do, to the manner in which the question had been approached. I do not believe that adequate consideration has been given to such a major change in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Again, it is inconceivable that we would have agreed to a similar approach for England and Wales and for Scotland. There should have been a proper inquiry into these matters.

The Home Secretary, having spoken in the Police Foundation lecture about the need to look again at this question in England and Wales, established a Home Office working party, as one should have been established in Northern Ireland before this proposal was brought forward. The report of the working party was published only a few days ago. It referred to the Northern Ireland position and made a number of recommendations for England and Wales. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the report. The working party was chaired by Mr. Bohan, an exceptionally able Home Office official, who has just retired.

I shall summarise the position in Northern Ireland. A court is enabled to draw whatever inferences appeared proper from the accused's silence in four sets of circumstances: first, if he fails to mention during questioning or on charge any fact on which he later relies in his defence; secondly, if he refuses to be sworn or to answer any questions at his trial; thirdly, if he fails to explain to the police any objects, substances or marks upon him or his clothing or in his possession at the time of his arrest; and, fourthly, if he fails to account for his presence at a particular place when he is arrested. That is the position for Northern Ireland.

I now turn to what the working party recommended for England and Wales. It deals with what it describes as the "ambush defence". We all know what is meant by that. Paragraph 126(ii) says: In the Crown court, the prosecution, defence and the trial judge should be able to comment on the defendant's failure to mention a fact on which he subsequently relies in his defence, and the prosecution to cross-examine him about that failure". That is a summary of the recommendation. It is dealt with more fully in the substance of the report. The Home Secretary is to consider his working party's report. Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also be associated with a review, or a re-review, of this matter? This is the only group of officials to be asked to look into the detail of changing the law on this question.

Given the fact that there was no such review for Northern Ireland before this order was introduced, the least we can ask of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is that the Northern Ireland Secretary will have joint discussions with the Home Office on this important question. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that we should have wholly different systems of criminal procedure on the two sides of the Irish Sea. If anyone needs to be convinced of the need for a common approach he has only to look at the prevention of terrorism legislation. It was pointed out over a number of years that it was necessary to have one law applying both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. That is self-evidently desirable. We should like some indication from the Minister that there will be discussions between the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office on this question which will undoubtedly be able to take into account what has happened in Northern Ireland since the 1988 order was approved.

Finally, I turn to the question of resources. I think that all of us who know the situation in Northern Ieland, who go there from time and who are involved in any part of the criminal justice system would agree that it is right on such an occasion to pay tribute once again to the magnificent work done by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, where men's lives and the lives of their families are constantly at risk.

However, having said that, one must accept that this force is under heavier pressure than any other police force in the United Kingdom. Moreover, that was especially true last year as regards terrorist operations. The then Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir John Hermon, indicated that he was having to make substantial reductions in his traffic divisions because of the pressures on the rest of the force. He was doing so in an area of the United Kingdom which has the highest number of road deaths and road injuries. That fact gives some indication of the problems facing the RUC in carrying out its normal police duties.

If we turn now to look at the order to which the noble Lord has asked the House to agree, it will be seen that there is a similar approach—and I have indicated that I have no objection to that—to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in terms of what I would describe as what goes on in the police station; in other words, Parts V and VI of the order which regulate the detention of suspects and safeguard their rights.

In a substantial number of police stations, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, indicated in his speech, custody officers will have to be appointed and they must be of the rank of sergeant. Perhaps I may give noble Lords some illustration of what is involved in this respect. I was discussing this matter with a chief constable only this week. When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed through Parliament, the effect of that legislation was that he had to appoint 22 new sergeants to those posts in order to carry out the responsibilities as custody officers. However, his force is less than a quarter of the size of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the level of crime in that part of England and Wales is miniscule compared with what is happening in Northern Ireland.

In such a situation, what extra resources will be provided for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? I very much hope—and I am sure that the noble Lord will understand this point—that he will not simply tell me what the increase in numbers in the RUC has been over the past few years. We know that there has been a significant increase in that respect, and quite rightly so. But this is a new responsibility; we are talking about experienced officers who must be appointed to carry out new responsibilities. I should like the Minister to give me some clear indication of precisely how many officers will be provided for the Chief Constable. Moreover, what overall variation will there be in the establishment of the RUC.

There is another reason why I think it is appropriate to mention this matter. When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed by both Houses of Parliament, this same responsibility was passed on to police forces in England and Wales. There was a gross underestimate of the resource implications. It seems to me that in the light of that that it is even more necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to reassure us that we shall not have a similar experience in Northern Ireland. In my view, that would be wholly unacceptable, given the character of the problems faced by the RUC.

As I indicated, we on these Benches regard this order as desirable and we think that it should be carried through. But, as I have also indicated, we are increasingly concerned about the way in which Northern Ireland legislation is being, considered by both Houses of Parliament. I think that the matter should be discussed through the usual channels at the earliest possible date.

3 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I should like to join both noble Lords in expressing the appreciation we all felt for the great consideration and courtesy which was always shown to us by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I should also like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to what may be described as a hot seat.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the times of day at which Northern Ireland matters are usually debated. They come in the small hours of the morning, in the dinner hour or at a time like this, on the last day of term. It is scandalous that that should be the case when matters of such great importance are being raised.

However, I am afraid that it is not because of the usual channels arranging these debates at such times but due to the unhappy fact that people in Britain, whether inside or outside the Palace of Westminster, are simply not interested in Northern Ireland. They will not come to the debates. Any of these debates could be held at 3 o'clock on a Tuesday afternoon after Question Time and the House would empty within five minutes. There would be no bigger attendance than at this moment; in fact it is rather good now for a Northern Ireland debate.

One point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on which I seek further information. It is the taking of samples of saliva from a suspect. As he mentioned, that is considered a non-intimate procedure and it can thus be done with a considerable degree of informality. The noble Lord indicated that these saliva samples are of no use for DNA analysis because there would be no other sample with which to compare them. That was what I understood him to say.

My first point is that, if that is the case, what is the point of taking the samples? We do not want the sample of saliva just to put into our art collection. We want it in order to be able to identify a person. Surely it is the case that there are or may be other samples for use in DNA analysis. If at some future date samples of blood or semen are found near the scene of a crime, they can be subjected to DNA analysis, and by comparison with the array of samples of saliva that have already been analysed, this informal, non-intimate search could result in the possibility of identifying someone from samples of other substances found on the scene of the crime.

I raise this point partly because I did not understand what the noble Lord said and also to show that even a non-intimate search of this kind can have very serious repercussions for the suspect—perhaps innocent—whose sample is taken.

3.9 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am most grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken on this very important order. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to its thickness and contents and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will excuse me for having summarised only what I regarded as the main points. Not surprisingly, I have been asked several questions.

It is important to realise that, although I welcome the comments of all noble Lords, the debate is about this particular order, not about the working group on the right of silence or the Criminal Evidence Order 1988. However, I have noted and will undertake that my right honourable and honourable friends will note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, I can tell the noble Lord as regards the report of the working group on the right to silence that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has yet to consider this. There is of course constant interaction between departments on this side of the water and departments in the Province. The Home Secretary will take account of experience in Northern Ireland.

I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, early in his speech. The right to silence has emphatically not been abolished. If someone wishes to remain silent, he can continue to do so. However, if he does, the court may draw such inferences from the silence as it believes proper. Putting an interpretation on silence is entirely a matter for the courts.

As regards the delay of access to legal advice, the same situation pertains as in Great Britain. The delay would only be authorised by senior police in cases of serious arrestable offences, as I said earlier. The courts in England, in stated cases, have confirmed the strict limitation on police discretion to delay. Only on very rare occasions will a delay be lawful. It is for the courts to say whether a delay is lawful. So there is quite a safeguard in that.

The noble Lord is also interested in the subject of tape-recording. That will be introduced as soon as the pilot schemes, which I mentioned earlier, have been evaluated and facilities are in place. Tape-recording of interviews outside police stations would be impractical. Exactly the same arrangements will apply as in England and Wales.

As I said earlier, interviews with suspected terrorists will not be tape-recorded. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the reference to a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was not to the speech that he made two days ago, but to the speech made on 8th November 1988. My right honourable friend did not feel that it was appropriate to repeat himself the other day. As the noble Lord will know, it is already the practice in England and Wales that interviews with suspected terrorists are not tape-recorded. We see no reason to adopt a different position in Northern Ireland with the real risk that intelligence would not be forthcoming and that suspects may not wish to have anything that is said put on tape because of the danger of their co-operation being recognised by fellow terrorists.

However, there is an even more important reason for this which I trust I have got right; that is, that the prevention of terrorism legislation is a reserve power, whereas the police and criminal evidence legislation is not. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to amend the prevention of terrorism legislation through an order such as this.

We certainly intend that the court rules made under Article 81 will require advance notice to the other party in a case who may as a consequence make representations to the court on the use of live television link facilities. Article 81 is, I believe, sufficiently widely drawn to include not only those witnesses who may be subject to intimidation from the defendant or his associates but also a range of circumstances in both terrorist and non-terrorist cases. The provision may, for example, be used in certain trials involving charges of rape or assault on the elderly where the victim will not otherwise give evidence through fear of doing so in the presence of the defendant.

At one point the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, sailed close to talking about duty solicitors. I anticipate that that is what he meant. At present there is no statutory duty solicitor scheme in operation. However, the Law Society of Northern Ireland provides a voluntary duty solicitor service at both Belfast and Craigavon Magistrates' Courts. Efforts by the Law Society to set up similar schemes elsewhere in Nothern Ireland have not met with success. Although initially both the Belfast and Craigavon schemes provides in-court and 24-hour on-call cover, the in-court system at Craigavon has ceased because of a lack of demand. The answer to the noble Lord is that the will is there but the service is not always there in practice.

Both noble Lords recognised that it is vital to ensure effective arrangements for consultation between the police and public and to secure public co-operation in preventing crime. Article 82, to which they referred, provides a statutory framework for that, and the Government will do all they can to help achieve that laudable aim. Who will do the monitoring? The answer is the police authority for Northern Ireland in the first instance, but I take note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.

I note too the very strong representations put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about legislative procedures. I have already questioned some of those for myself. I for one appreciate the difficulties posed by unamendable Orders in Council. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly offered to talk about those issues with all interested parties and to consider constructive suggestions, which would have to be weighed against the vast volume of legislation on this side of the water which your Lordships regularly complain about. Did the noble Lord wish to interrupt me?

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I wished to say that some of us might be perfectly prepared to accept less legislation on this side of the Irish channel in return for sensible and proper discussion of legislation for Northern Ireland.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, that is fair comment but it could be that the proof of the pudding may at some stage be in the eating.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked about DNA tests. I too was very confused before I investigated this matter yesterday. Saliva does not produce a DNA test. An oral sample is taken from the lining of the gums. In any event, as I said earlier, it will be illegal to take such tests if there is no body fluid or other sample at the scene of the crime with which to compare it. We are not trying to compare one mouth swab with another mouth swab, but to use such samples as evidence either to prove a connection with a crime or to disprove a connection with a crime. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

I believe that I have mentioned most of the points that noble Lords wanted me to answer, except for the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about resources, which I also regard as very important. The resources for PACE are already taken into account in settling the finances for the current financial year for the inestimable work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—and I agree with the noble Lord on that point—which is conducted in extremely difficult circumstances. It might help him to know that there is a total grant of approximately £450 million for the police authority. Specific PACE-related figures are not yet available, but, when they become available, I shall of course inform the House.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I do not wish to take advantage of the noble Lord because I realise that he has only just moved into the Northern Ireland Office, but I should be grateful if he would write to me on this question. The issue with which I am particularly concerned is the precise number of sergeants who will be added to the establishment of the RUC. I should be glad if he would deal with that matter in correspondence.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I was listening to the noble Lord when he spoke and took the point that it was men probably rather more than cash in which he was interested. I shall certainly follow up that point.

I am extremely grateful to all three noble Lords who mentioned the valuable work that my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Lyell, put into his job with the local people in Northern Ireland, especially on the agricultural front where he was a very popular Minister and was able to put across in his own inimitable way points that others found rather more difficulty in circulating around the Province. I shall certainly point out to him the comments of the three noble Lords on his work which, I believe, was valued not only in this House but also in the Province. My one regret in accepting this appointment is that I had to follow my noble friend who is also a personal friend.

The order represents a balanced package of measures which not only equips the police with modern and effective powers to deal with crime, but also safeguards and protects the rights of individuals and, in particular, of suspects in custody. It will therefore provide for more effective enforcement of the law and in a way which can command the confidence of the public. That will enhance the relationship between the police and the community which is so crucial to effective policing in Northern Ireland and to the development and maintenance of a peaceful and settled society there.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may take the question of the saliva test a little further, as it is not unimportant. If I am wrong in thinking that saliva could be used for the purposes of DNA analysis, perhaps I may ask for what purposes the saliva samples will be used. Surely they could be compared only with other samples of saliva. Surely it must seldom happen that someone leaves a sample of saliva at the scene of a crime which would then have to be taken and compared with the saliva taken in the course of a test. The noble Lord said that he had looked up the question of DNA analysis yesterday, but, if he does not have the answer and there is not sufficient time to obtain it, I hope that he will write to me because I am rather mystified as to what the samples will be used for.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may just say that I thought that I had answered the noble Lord's point i n my response to noble Lords' questions on the order. I reiterate that it is not a saliva sample; it is a gum lining sample which provides the DNA. That must be compared with another sample taken from the scene of the crime to either prove or disprove the connection. That is the whole objective. I hope that I have now been able to convince and answer the noble Lord.

On Question, Motion agreed to.