Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill

HL Deb 13 March 1989 vol 505 cc12-31

3.12 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 6 [Breach of terms of declaration]:

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.

Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 13, leave out ("(that is to say, violence for political ends)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. In moving the amendment we on these Benches do not seek any narrow political advantage. Your Lordships will see that the amendment has cross-party support. In particular, it is supported by two Members of your Lordships'House who live in Northern Ireland. It seeks to delete the definition of "terrorism" which is contained in the Bill. The House will know that the word "terrorism" is defined in the Bill as meaning the use of "violence for political ends".

All noble Lords who spoke in the Second Reading debate were critical of the definition. It has been argued that it is too restrictive and also that it is too wide. It has equally been argued that it is too rigid. The amendment was discussed at the Report stage but the matter was not pressed to a Division.

Considerable anxieties about the definition remain. I do not live in Northern Ireland, but I understand that the anxiety exists in the minds of those who do. No doubt we shall hear about that from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and my noble friends, Lord Blease and Lord Fitt. There is considerable anxiety about the definition. The amendment is supported by noble Lords who live in Northern Ireland and have extensive experience of politics in that country. The object of the amendment is to ask your Lordships to remove the definition from Clause 6 and Schedule 2.

As a result of the difficulties with the definition there exists a strong conviction that the concept of terrorism by itself is superior to the definition contained in the Bill. Given the religious and possibly racial considerations, as well as political considerations which prevail in Northern Ireland, it is not clear why only violence in support of political ends is deemed to amount to terrorism for the purpose of the Bill. Why should the expression of support for violence for religious or racial ends not fall foul of the Bill

Even if one accepts that the Government are right in confining the meaning of the term to "violence for political ends", the meaning of "political ends" in the context of the Bill is by no means clear. We anticipate that councillors and lawyers will argue over what is meant by the term "political ends". Therefore, there exists a fertile ground for disagreement and dispute.

The object of the amendment is to leave out the definition. If your Lordships were to support the amendment, the practical effect would be to leave it to the court to decide, according to the evidence and the circumstances, whether an expression in support of violence shouldbe deemed to be support for terrorism. Instead of the Bill containing the definition which will be troublesome and will lead to argument and dispute, the amendment will leave it to the court to decide what is terrorism. We have a convinction that the judges of the High Court will recognise support for terrorism whenever it appears before them. I beg to move.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, the amendment is also tabled in my name and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his remarks about the deletion of the phrase "violence for political ends".

It is quite clear to everyone in Northern Ireland what is terrorism. We need no qualification of it, and I am quite sure that neither do the courts. The moment we introduce some form of qualifying statement we shall leave room for argument. There must be no argument and no way out for those who support terrorism. They must have no way of saying that what they did was not for political ends and, therefore, was not terrorism. Terrorism is quite clear to us in Northern Ireland and I am quite sure that it is clear to everyone in your Lordships' House. Therefore I support this amendment.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, as the noble Viscount has just said, anyone who has lived in Northern Ireland, particularly in the past 20 years, can be in no doubt as to what is an act of terrorism.

Let us go through them as we have read about them over the past 20 years in the press, and particularly in the Northern Irish press, because many acts of terrorism are committed in Northern Ireland which do not appear in the media or the press in England, Scotland or Wales. Acts of terrorism include murder, intimidation, the wrecking of homes, knee-capping-taking a person in a back alley in Northern Ireland and shooting at his knees or arms—and intimidation of witnesses who may otherwise be forced to give evidence in court. Those acts of terrorism immediately spring to mind. Other acts of terrorism take place which could be very hard to prove. Let us take an example of an injured person, victim of a knee-capping, who is found in a back alleyway with the blood coming from the recently inflicted wounds. Is that an act of terrorism? I believe that it is, without any qualification. In my estimation and to my knowledge, the perpetrators or that crime will be members of one or other of the paramilitary groups, particularly the IRA or some of the Loyalist organisations. I and everybody else in Northern Ireland would define that as an act of terrorism.

If a petrol bomb is thrown into the sitting-room or front room of a little house in the ghettos in Northern Ireland, that could easily be recognised as an act of terrorism without the qualifying words "for political ends". When someone is arrested running away from the scene, having set a house on fire with a petrol bomb, do you say to him, "Were you doing that for political ends? "Whether or not he admits that he was doing it for political ends, he has created terror in that home and possibly has committed an act of terror which has led to a loss of life. Therefore, there is no need for those qualifying words. The police, the army and ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland—anyone involved in the security situation as it has existed in Northern Ireland for the past 20 years—are all too well aware of what is an act of terrorism.

Perhaps I may take the subject of intimidation. If a note is put through a person's door, an envelope is sent with a bullet in it or a telephone call is made to an individual warning him that if he does not do such and such he will either be killed or maimed, the organisation does not have to be specified in the letter or telephone call. However, those are easily recognised as acts of terrorism. Is the person at the other end of the telephone supposed to say "Are you doing this for political ends?" or "Are you threatening me when you are putting this letter through my letter box for political ends?" There is no confusion whatever in the minds of the people in Northern Ireland.

I often wonder who the draftsmen are when they draft a Bill such as this. Have they any experience of Northern Ireland? I find it hard to believe any civil servant or draftsman from Northern Ireland would put his reputation on the line in demanding the inclusion of those words. Any civil servant or anyone else with a Northern Ireland background would know that the words are totally unnecessary.

In the legislation which has passed through the House in the past few weeks—and there will be more today and in the following days—the Government have refused to include words and we on this side of the House have had to object; for example, the non-inclusion of the Attorney-General in another Bill. They have refused to add those words. In this Bill they have added quite unnecessary words. I hope that the Government will see the logic of those who have tabled this amendment. We do not believe that the words are necessary. We believe that terrorism is readily and easily identifiable—all too easily identifiable by those who live in Northern Ireland and have had to live with it for so long.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment. I find it difficult to see on what basis they can resist it. If we look at Clause 5 we see that there is a new statutory obligation imposed on candidates for a district council or for the Assembly to make a statutory declaration. Clause 6, the clause we are now debating, deals with what happens if there is a breach by any district councillor or member of the Assembly in the terms of that declaration.

As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, what on earth is the point in adding the words: that is to say, violence for political ends"? We are constantly told by Ministers when we deal with other Bills, sometimes justifiably, that matters should be left to the courts. Why are we not prepared to leave this matter to the courts? I do not believe that there will be any difficulty for a court to determine what is an act of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. I believe that by adding the words which appear in the Bill at present the Government have, for some reason that I do not understand, decided to limit the application of this clause in a way which I believe is inconsistent with their approach to the rest of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be able to tell us that, having heard what has been said in this debate and on previous occasions, the Government are prepared to accept this amendment.

Lord Monson

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies indicated, many of us of all political parties and none—because this is not a party political matter—still feel it essential to rectify the wholly unsatisfactory definition of terrorism currently in this Bill.

As has been said at earlier stages, for the Government to insert into a statute the superfluous definition of a word which needs no definition risks including matters which should be excluded and excluding matters which should be included. Indeed,it appears that the Government have now come round to this view because no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, stated on Report: All of us know perfectly well what terrorism is. We think that there is a case for leaving the word undefined.—[Official Report, 6/3/89; col. 1347.] There it is in black and white. Only the technical defect of not having extended the deletion logically to Clause 6 drew the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Therefore, one infers that had we done that, he would have had no objection to that series of amendments.

However, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly on Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 6 in my name and in that of other noble Lords which are alternatives to this one. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, gave a guarantee, or to be precise a near guarantee, that in practice the courts would be extremely unlikely to treat approbation of a trivial or minor act of violence as constituting support for terrorism. I believe that with some reluctance and reservations, we can accept this. However, this still leaves us with the exclusion of something which it is absolutely vital should be included; namely, intimidation, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough,have pointed out.

Every noble Lord who lives in Northern Ireland and who therefore can be presumed to know the situation as it exists on the ground (in particular the noble Lord, Lord Fitt) has pointed out that intimidation—that is, the threat of violence—is just as great a threat taken in its totality, as is actual violence. I would guess that for every 1,000 people murdered by the IRA there are perhaps 100,000 people who are intimidated to keep them quiet or to persuade them to turn their heads away. If one extended that to the United Kingdom as a whole I would guess that as many as 1 million people might be intimidated for every 1,000 murdered.

Therefore, it is essential that if there is to be a definition it will be useless unless intimidation—in other words, the threat of violence, whether physical violence to the person or to property—is included in the definition.

I am certain that the best course would be to leave out any definition, as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and others because any definition chosen is likely to be over-precise. I repeat that, in effect, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, himself acknowledged that on Report. If, for any reason the Government and the House are unable to support Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 5 and a second best amendment has to be carried, I very much hope that Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 6 can be considered.

3.30 p.m.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for opening the debate on this subject. Was I right in thinking that the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendment No. 5? He mentioned Amendments Nos. 1 and 3.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I was.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, speaking to Amendment No. 5 as well will be convenient to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke to Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 6.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, again mentioned that he saw three difficulties in the Bill He said that difficulties had arisen, first, because the definition in Clause 6 is too wide; secondly, that it might be too narrow; and, thirdly, that it is inflexible and too rigid. As has been pointed out, the odd numbered amendments—that is, Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 5—delete the definition as it stands in Clause 6 and the accompanying schedule.

In view of all that has been said at Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report, perhaps I may risk repeating what has been said because we have been over this ground fairly thoroughly. Your Lordships have expressed views on what the Bill is about and what it is doing but we have included the definition in the Bill because it seemed to us, after nearly four years of consultation, that to do so would be of assistance both to the courts and to the candidates. These minor difficulties have been expressed in the House today, specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.

We believe that the courts might have been surprised to find that the word had not been defined in the Bill, given that we have already discussed and found definitions included in both the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. We are firmly of the view that if no definition is provided the candidates would be left without any idea as to what does and does not constitute a breach of the declaration set out in Clause 6.

The fundamental objection to Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 5, which remove the definition entirely, is that they do not address the first two concerns which the noble Lord has already expressed as being common ground; first, that the definition is too wide and, secondly, that it might be a little narrow.

The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Harris, expressed the hope that if the word "terrorism" is left undefined in the Bill the courts will find a definition which would meet the objectives. Our view is that that would not be the outcome. If the word "terrorism" is left undefined the courts might well, in deciding the meaning in regard to this measure, have regard to dictionaries, let alone definitions in other legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act, although the courts may well be wary of importing definitions from one statute to another. That is one of the reasons why we have defined the word "terrorism" in this Bill.

I take three examples of definitions given in dictionaries. Collins defines "terrorism" as: the systematic use of violence and intimidation". The Shorter Oxford Dictionary states: The practice of using terror-inspiring methods of securing political ends". In the valuable dictionary of Longman's the definition is: the use of violence to obtain political demands". All those definitions differ slightly from the definition in the Bill but none is far away from the definitions that are set out in the Bill. It seems to us that leaving the courts to construct a definition of "terrorism" as it affects a breach of the declaration of councillors and their conduct as councillors is by no means guaranteed to produce the effect which all those who have spoken in support of the amendment particularly want. We believe that left to themselves the courts would produce a definition which is hardly different from the definition in the Bill.

Of course, there will be marginal cases, no matter how "terrorism" is defined. The scope of definition is limited by the use of the word "violence". The Concise Oxford Dictionary, yet a fourth useful source, defines "violence" as: the quality of being violent", and the adjective "violent" as, marked by great physical force". I emphasise in that last definition the word "great" because violence is, by definition, extreme.

We expect that the courts will take that fully into account in deciding what constitutes terrorism. We are not, as stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and others, speaking about minor or technical assault but about the threat and the use of substantial amounts of physical force.

I have to say that I cannot agree that the definition should be deleted from the Bill, as suggested by Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 5, because we believe that to do so would certainly not serve the purpose that the noble Lord and others are seeking, let alone the purpose of the Bill.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. I express disappointment, but no surprise, that the Minister has been unable to meet the concerns which have been voiced. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for reminding your Lordships of the Minister's statement at the Report stage when he said: All of us know perfectly well what terrorism is. We think that there is a case for leaving the word undefined"—[Official Report, 6/3/89; col. 1347.] So there was common ground between ourselves and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at the Report stage. If the words that he then expressed reflected considered thought, we anticipated that possibly the Government might see their way clear to accept this amendment.

The Minister referred to three definitions of the term "terrorism" in three different dictionaries. The first definition was "the systematic use of violence". That is not far removed from our definition. At least there is no reference in that definition to "terrorism for political ends" or "terrorism to meet political demands". Here is ground for dispute and argument. We believe that the Minister was right when he told the House at the Report stage that all of us know perfectly well what terrorism is; we believe that the courts know perfectly well what terrorism is.

The Minister sought to defend the definition claiming that it has worked well in the context of the 1984 and 1978 legislation. In our view there is no direct relationship between this Bill, which deals with an aspect of electoral law, and the earlier legislation. Moreover, I am not aware that the definition in the earlier legislation has been tested. We believe that in the context of this Bill it may well be tested. There will be argument about whether or not this statement is in support of political ends. It will be argued that it was in support of political demands. That ties in with a number of points powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.

By insisting that the term "terrorism" be defined as "support for political ends", the Government are inviting argument and dispute about what is and what is not a political end. As I said earlier, we on these Benches are not seeking any narrow political advantage. As far as I know, this particular amendment was not moved in another place. This amendment has cross-Party support and the support of Peers who live in Northern Ireland and know something about the Province. In fact they know a great deal about it. I invite your Lordships to delete the definition from this Bill.

3.43 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Amherst, E.	Leatherland, L.
Attlee, E.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Auckland, L.
Birk, B.	Lockwood, B.
Blease, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	McNair, L.
Bottomley, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Mishcon, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Molloy, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Monson, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mulley, L.
	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Nicol, B.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Peston, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dunleath, L.	Porritt, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Rochester, L.
Ennals, L.	Romney, E.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Sainsbury, L.
Falkland, V. [Teller.]	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Fitt, L.	Seear, B.
Gallacher, L.	Seebohm, L.
Galpern, L.	Serota, B.
Gladwyn, L.	Shackleton, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Shannon, E.
Grey, E.	Stallard, L.
Halsbury, E.	Stedman, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hayter, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hill-Norton, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hirshfield, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Todd, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Tordoff, L.
Ilchester, E.	Turner of Camden, B.
Jay, L.	Underhill, L.
Jeger, B.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
John-Mackie, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Allerton, L.
Aldington, L.	Ampthill, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Arran, E.
Alexander of Weedon, L.	Barber, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Lyell, L.
Beloff, L.	McAlpine of Moffat, L.
Belstead, L.	McFadzean, L.
Bessborough, E.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Birdwood, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Borthwick, L.	Mancroft, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Manton, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Marley, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Merrivale, L.
Butterworth, L.	Morris, L.
Caccia, L.	Mostyn, L.
Caithness, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Munster, E.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Nelson, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Newall, L.
Carnock, L.	Norfolk, D.
Cockfield, L.	Norrie, L.
Coleraine, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Colnbrook, L.	Onslow, E.
Colwyn, L.	Orkney, E.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Cross, V.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Portland, D.
De Freyne, L.	Quinton, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Rankeillour, L.
Derwent, L.	Reay, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Redesdale, L.
Dudley, B.	Rodney, L.
Dundee, E.	St. Davids, V.
Effingham, E.	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Elibank, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Ely, M.	Selkirk, E.
Ferrers, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Slim, V.
Gibson-Watt, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Grimthorpe, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Strathspey, L.
Hemphill, L.	Swansea, L.
Henley, L.	Swinton. E.
Hesketh, L.	Terrington, L.
Hives, L.	Teviot, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Hooper, B.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Jessel, L.	Thorneycroft, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Thurlow, L.
Kaberry of Adel, L.	Trafford, L.
Kimball, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Kinnaird, L.	Trumpington, B.
Lauderdale, E.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Long, V.	Wolfson, L.
Lovat, L.	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.52 p.m.

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 13, after ("violence") insert ("or threats of violence").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I made the case for this amendment as a second best alternative to Amendment No. 1 when speaking to Amendment No. 1, so I shall not go through the arguments again. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that he evidently agrees with me, whether he realises it or not. When replying to Amendment No. 1 he said—and I am certain that I copied down his words correctly—that we are talking about the threat or use of physical force.

That is excellent. That is what those of us who support Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 6 are talking about too.

But unless the word "threat" is included in the definition, the Government's most commendable objectives will not be achieved. Whichever dictionary one chooses—the noble Lord quoted from a number of them—none is so foolish as to equate actual violence with the threat of violence. The case for these amendments as a second best alternative to the odd-numbered amendments is incontrovertible. I beg to move.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I hope that the Minister and other noble Lords will accept the fact that these amendments are not being moved in a frivolous manner. Terrorism in Northern Ireland is a deadly serious matter. I have associated myself with the amendments with the intention of improving the legislation and of making life more difficult for terrorists. During the passage of the Bill through another place the impression seemed to be given that it was aimed deliberately at Sinn Fein to the total exclusion of other paramilitary organisations. Unfortunately, there are several paramilitary organisations, and they are all engaged in the same practices, of murder, maiming, threatening and intimidation.

I see the Bill as a way of lessening the influence of people who are either actively engaged in or actively support terrorist organisations. The amendments were tabled last week with the intention of adding the words, or threats of violence". When I associated myself with the amendments last Thursday or Friday I had no idea that I would receive a certain telephone call today. At 2.25 this afternoon I had a telephone call in the House from a person in Belfast. He is a Londoner married to a Belfast girl and they live in East Belfast. Last week people wearing masks came to his house and threatened that if he did not leave Northern Ireland his life would be at stake. That is a threat of violence. That threat of violence could be ignored by the person to whom it was directed only at his own peril. That is the reality. It is not necessary to conduct an academic search through a dictionary to find out what is meant by a threat of violence.

We in Northern Ireland know only too well what it means. As the telephone call was at 2.25 I did not have much time to speak with the person. I told him to write down the details of his case. He said that he had complained to the police and that they would be able to confirm what he was telling me. I told him to write out the details for me and that I would see what I could do. He is now in London and is trying to find housing having been intimidated out of Belfast. To prove my bona fidesin this matter, as soon as I receive that letter I shall take a copy of it and send it to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate. That is where my bona fides stand in the case.

The threat of violence can be one of the more important aspects of violence in Northern Ireland. The person who phoned me came from the Loyalist section of the community. Violence and threats of violence can be directed against people in that community as well. We have been told throughout the proceedings on the Bill that this is not a criminal matter. That is why we have refused to implicate the Attorney-General. We have been told that all the aspects of the Bill will be taken within a civil context. One has only to think of libel actions. It is far more difficult to prove matters in a civil action than in a criminal case. That is why the inclusion of the words, or threats of violence would immeasurably strengthen the Bill. My intention in supporting the amendment today is to make life more difficult for the terrorists who have caused so much tragedy in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Given the Government's response to earlier amendments moved at Report Stage, we fear that, notwithstanding the powerful pleas of the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, they are underestimating the risk and danger of intimidation in Northern Ireland. This amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would extend the definitionof terrorism so as to include not merely violence for political ends but the threat of violence for political ends. It is often said that mental cruelty is as wounding as physical cruelty. It is the evidence of the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that threats of violence can be as intimidating as violence itself.

When discussing the previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, did not deal with the case advanced by my noble friend Lord Fitt, that the definition should include, or threats of violence". I very much hope that he will see his way clear to accepting this sensible and reasonable amendment. We believe that it would strengthen the Bill considerably.

4 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I think it is the wish of the House that we should deal with the three even-numbered amendments. Perhaps I may spell out what the Bill aims to tackle because some of the discussion on the two amendments with which we have been dealing this afternoon has ranged fairly wide, as did discussion on amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. We should remind ourselves that even at this stage the Bill aims to tackle the problems of expressions of support—no more, no less—by councillors for proscribed organisations and terrorism. All of that is a problem. However, I do not see that there is any evidence that there is a problem in Northern Ireland with councillors. They are not the people to whom we should be addressing our thoughts and our remarks; we should be addressing them solely to councillors who express support for intimidation generally.

I can certainly think of many cases where councillors have been reported as expressing support for a proscribed organisation or approval for a particular act or acts of terrorism. Quite apart from the fact that all such comments are utterly deplorable, they can themselves be intimidatory; they can be of that nature. However, I have never seen any expression of support for, or approval of, intimidation in general —and that was the main thrust of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Indeed, he mentioned that he had received a telephone call only today in this connection. I shall be interested to hear further about that; doubtless he will be in touch with me on the matter.

However, I should like to raise one particular issue with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We are discussing this afternoon the behaviour of councillors, and if the person who telephoned the noble Lord was a councillor, then we shall certainly take that fact on board. The behaviour of councillors is our main concern this afternoon, as indeed it was during the earlier stages of the proceedings on the Bill.

If there were to be such a thing as an expression of support for intimidation, then we are firmly of the belief that that would be caught by the provisions of the Bill. Most forms of intimidation for "political ends" rest on the threat of actual violence, just as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, spelt out. Indeed, intimidation depends on violence; but intimidation works only if the threat is credible.

Do noble Lords really think, especially those who have experience of local government of the council chamber, let alone councillors in Northern Ireland—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will be able to give us his thoughts on the matter and will consider it further in any event—that any councillor would say, "I believe that intimidating people is a good thing, but of course I would not approve of using violence to back up that intimidatory threat."? We think that that situation is highly unlikely.

If a councillor were to make such a remark no one would believe him, because any person who advocates the use of force in any way for "political ends" breaches his declaration. That is what we are discussing by means of this amendment; that is what we are dealing with in this particular clause. For those two strong reasons I remain to be satisfied with the arguments and the points put forward by noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. Indeed, I am not convinced that they are sufficient to justify the inclusion of those words in the Bill.

It certainly is not clear to us that the amendments to omit the definition would achieve what the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Monson, Lord Blease and Lord Fitt desire. We think that Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 6—the even amendments, if I may so call them—which seek to modify the declaration are unnecessary. We believe that they will cause more difficulty in what is a fairly simple arena; namely, the behaviour of councillors. We must concentrate our thoughts on that aspect all the time. It is for those three reasons that I am afraid I cannot commend Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 6 to your Lordships.

Lord Monson

My Lords, in supporting this amendment so powerfully the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed out that none of the all-party amendments are in the slightest degree frivolous; indeed, they are not. A great many generally constructive non-party amendments have been moved during the various stages of the proceedings on the Bill and every one of them has been rejected by the Government. In consequence, I am afraid that many people who know Northern Ireland far better than I are convinced that the Bill is no more than public relations window dressing. If that is the case, then a great many people in both Houses have been wasting their time. Moreover, any frivolity there may be will not be a characteristic of the supporters of this and the other amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said that he has never come across support for intimidation as such; yet other noble Lords who live in Northern Ireland have. Amendments such as those which I propose by way of Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 6 can do no possible harm; indeed, they can only strengthen the Bill. I see no reason at all for their rejection. I am afraid to say that the Minister is hair splitting and I must, therefore, insist upon the amendment.

4.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	John-Mackie, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Leatherland, L.
Amherst, E.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Attlee, E.	Lockwood, B.
Birk, B.	Longford, E.
Blease, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	McNair, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Mishcon, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Molloy, L.
Buckmaster, V.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mulley, L.
	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Nicol, B.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Peston, L.
De Freyne, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Porritt, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Dunleath, L.	Rochester, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Romney, E.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Ennals, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Seear, B.
Falkender, B.	Seebohm, L.
Falkland, V.	Serota, B.
Fitt, L.	Shackleton, L.
Gallacher, L.	Stallard, L.
Galpern, L.	Stedman, B.
Gladwyn, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
	Strabolgi, L.
Grey, E.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Halsbury, E.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hanworth, V.	Todd, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hirsfield, L.	Underhill, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Ilchester, E.	White, B.
Jay, L.	Wigoder, L.
Jeger, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L

NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Weedon, L.	Lyell, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	McAlpine of Moffat, L.
Allerton, L.	McAlpine of West Green, L.
Annan, L.	McFadzean, L.
Arran, E.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Barber, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Mancroft, L.
Beloff, L.	Manton, L.
Belstead, L.	Marley, L.
Bessborough, E.	Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Birdwood, L.
Borthwick, L.	Merrivale, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Morris, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mostyn, L.
Butterworth, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Caccia, L.	Munster, E.
Caithness, E.	Nelson, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Newall, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Norfolk, D.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Norrie, L.
Carnock, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Onslow, E.
Chelwood, L.	Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Cockfield, L.	Orkney, E.
Colnbrook, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Colwyn, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Croft, L.	Portland, D.
Cross, V.	Quinton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Redesdale, L.
Denham, L.	Rodney, L.
Derwent, L.	St. Davids, V.
Dilhorne, V.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Dundee, E.	Selkirk, E.
Eden of Winton, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Effingham, E.	Shannon, E.
Elibank, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Ferrers, E.	Slim, V.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Gibson-Watt, L.	Strathspey, L.
Gridley, L.	Swansea, L.
Hemphill, L.	Swinton, E.
Henley, L.	Teviot, L.
Hesketh, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Hives, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Hooper, B.	Thorneycroft, L.
Jessel, L.	Trafford, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Kaberry of Adel, L.	Trumpington, B.
Kimball, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Kinnaird, L.	Wolfson, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Wynford, L.
Long, V. [Teller.]	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 not moved.]

4.14 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

I pay tribute to those of your Lordships who have attended throughout the afternoons and some long evenings during the earlier stages of the Bill and this afternoon. We have had a series of excellent debates and a number of points have been made. While it has not always been possible for the Government to reach agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Harris of Greenwich, Lord Fitt, Lord Blease and Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, the Bill has been given full and careful consideration by your Lordships.

The people of Northern Ireland, above all those who by various means follow the deliberations in your Lordships' House, will be grateful for the full and careful consideration that the Bill has received in principle and in detail. First, I am grateful for your Lordships' endorsement of the provisions in the Bill which amend the district council franchise. That is provided for in Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedule 1. Those changes have often been eclipsed by the more controversial declaration against terrorism. They are of vital importance to the people who will be enfranchised at the district council elections on 17th May this year.

The electoral register, which was published on 15th February this year, reveals that 11,000 such persons are enfranchised. That is an increase of about 500 over the number to which I referred on Second Reading.

Secondly, I am pleased to record your Lordships' endorsement of the law on disqualification following a criminal conviction, as provided in Clause 9. Both those changes will make the law much more equitable as between those sentenced to long and short prison terms.

The heart of the Bill, and the focus of our debates throughout all stages of the Bill, has been the declaration against terrorism. The Government's decision to propose that declaration was not taken lightly or frivolously. It followed long and careful consideration with all who are closely involved with local government in Northern Ireland. That consultation began in the autumn of 1985. Four options came to light following a series of discussions. We set them out in a consultation paper which we published in October 1987.

One option was to proscribe Sinn Fein and other similar organisations. That option remains under review. A second option was to require an oath of allegiance; and that we rejected. The two other options—the declaration and the changes to the law on council disqualification—have been incorporated into the Bill.

In the light of the consultation we came to the conclusion that the law should require a declaration against terrorism from candidates for council or Assembly office. The principal underlying the declaration has rightly met with your Lordships' unanimous approval. There is no doubt that open support for acts of terrorism or organisations concerned in promoting terrorism is incompatible with participation in the democratic process, councils and the Assembly. The declaration has the general support of your Lordships' House. Thanks to the lengthy consultation that we held throughout the Province with those most closely concerned with local councils in Northern Ireland, the proposals have their approval. Enforcement can never be completely free from difficulty. As has been said, the issue is not an easy one; but we believe that the Bill gets matters right.

Finally, I wish to remind your Lordships of the objectives of the declaration. They are not to prevent anyone from standing for election, nor are they to prevent all expressions of support for or approval of terrorism in all circumstances by all persons. No. The Bill and the declaration which we have been discussing at length aim to provide responsible councillors and electors with recourse against expressions by elected councillors which will cause offence and disrupt local government.

The Bill is drawn up to achieve that objective and no other. It is the theme that has been woven into all my remarks throughout the passage of the Bill, from 9th February until today. If the declaration and what we believe are the powerful measures in the Bill serve to make councillors moderate the language which they use, then we believe that it will have achieved something to further the cause of peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

We feel that the declaration against terrorism will be important for the future stability of the district councils. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to approve the Bill that we have gone through with such difficulty, in the expectation that whatever the reservations which exist in the House, it will make a constructive contribution to political life in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lyell.)

4.21 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has given, we on these Benches gladly support the central objective of the Bill. Councillors who intentionally or wilfully express their support for terrorism should be stripped of elected office. We fully support that principle.

However, as those noble Lords who were present in the House during the Report stage and are here today will know, a number of aspects of the Bill are worrying. We fear that there are substantial flaws in it and that in the end it may not work as well as is hoped for by the Government. We fear that the declaration against terrorism which has been built into a central position in the Bill may yet turn out to be empty rhetoric. Therefore we very much regret that we have been unable to improve it during its passage through your Lordships' House.

How successful the Bill will be remains to be seen. If time shows that it is workable, we on these Benches will gladly and readily acknowledge that we were mistaken in our judgment. Meanwhile, notwithstanding our reservations, we hope that the Bill will make a contribution to the wellbeing of the Province.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, in any interventions that I have made in relation to the Bill it has been my intention to strengthen its provisions. However, it is with a good deal of regret that I say that the Bill is leaving the House grievously flawed because of Clause 7. Your Lordships will recall that during the debate on that clause, Members on this side of the House and indeed some noble Lords from the Cross-Benches and on the Government side attempted to include the name of the Attorney-General as one of those persons who could initiate proceedings against anyone who had breached the declaration. The Government fiercely resisted the inclusion of the Attorney-General's name, both in this House and in another place. When the vote in this house eventually came, we were only beaten by 15 votes. I think that was a very sad vote for the people who wish to see the Bill made effective in Northern Ireland.

I have listened to the Minister over the past few days and have thought about what he said. He suggested in the House today that the Bill was originally thought of in the autumn of 1985. That was a crucial year and a crucial part of the year. It was in the autumn of 1985 that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was promulgated. On reading the debates that took place in both Houses, it became clear to me that at least one of the political parties in Northern Ireland—and it was not the Unionist Party, it was the SDLP—was making strenuous objections to the inclusion of the Attorney-General. If it was making those objections, it must have had the support of the Irish Government because by that time and since then we have had discussions between two Governments. Being Irish and knowing the sentiments that prevail in Ireland, I for one have absolutely no doubt in my mind that representations were made by both the SDLP and the Irish Government objecting to the inclusion of the Attorney-General's name in Clause 7.

If that is true—and I honestly believe that it is—it will do great harm to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Unionist community in Northern Ireland and the people who want to see effective steps being taken against terrorism. I only wish that we had had an extra 15 people in your Lordship's House when the vote was taken on Clause 7 because it was quite obvious that support was not restricted to one political party. The Cross-Benches and Conservative supporters on the other side of the House, particularly those from Northern Ireland who live with the consequences of terrorism, believed that it was necessary to include the name of the Attorney-General. If, as I suspect, it was taken out at the behest of one political party in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, during the discussions at Maryfield, through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat, I believe that will be injurious to the whole process of bringing an effective end to terrorism in Northern Ireland

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, we have had a useful experience in regard to this series of debates. For the first time for a very long period indeed we have had the opportunity of discussing in detail a Northern Ireland Bill rather than just a succession of orders. I very much regret that in that situation the Government were as determined as they were to ensure that not a sigle amendment was accepted, despite the strong all-party support for a series of proposals which would, in our judgment, have made this a more effective piece of legislation.

Certainly the Bill has a sensible objective: to deter elected members of district councils or the Assembly from making statements in support either of terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism. That is supported by all men of reason and good will, wherever they may sit. The central question is: will the Bill ever work? I am bound to say that rather like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who spoke a few moments ago, I am sceptical as to whether it will work. On one occasion we had the opportunity to make it more likely that the Bill would work. That was when an amendment was proposed to add the Attorney-General to the list of people who could make an application to the courts. This was supported by all the Northern Ireland Peers in the House.

On the first occasion during the debate in Committee, there was very strong support for the proposal. Following the debate, we had a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and his colleague, Mr. Needham. I was hopeful at the end of that meeting that we might be able to agree to some form of compromise, but for various reasons that proved impossible. Despite that, I very much hope that this Bill will prove to be as successful as the Government think it will be. However, I regret the Government's persistent refusal to accept the views of Peers from Northern Ireland who have spoken from all parts of the House, on a matter of this kind. Their knowledge and experience is, with respect, greater than that of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that the Bill will work. It will be a very damaging business indeed if it proves to be ineffectual; that would be a major victory for the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland.

4.31 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I hope that it is not presumptuous of me to rise, as a citizen of Northern Ireland, to thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who have taken an active interest in this Bill. Together with other noble Lords, I have tried to amend and approve the proposed measures, with a view to making the legislation practical and realistic in order to achieve the political objectives that the Government proclaim that the Bill is intended to have.

As other noble Lords have said, we are utterly disappointed. We have been anxious to ensure that this Bill does not leave Northern Ireland local government and the community in Northern Ireland in a worse situation than at present.

We have reached the final parliamentary stages of this Bill. The reasoned arguments of noble Lords from all sides of the House have failed to shift the Government from what is considered to be seriously flawed legislation, not only by Members of this House but by Members in another place and by many in Northern Ireland, despite the consultations that the Minister has spoken about. People may have been using doublespeak and saying one thing to the Government, while the Government have been trying to lead them along a slippery path. Members who reside in Northern Ireland have been getting different reactions; otherwise we should not be operating as we have been here today.

It is inevitable that the intractable nature of Northern Ireland issues does not make for easy or academic parliamentary debate. There is little or no political kudos to be obtained from directly challenging the real political issues and the evils of terrorism in either part of the Westminster Parliament. However, I am pleased to say that the Northern Ireland problems have been debated in this House without any attempt to score party political or personal debating points.

In parliamentary constitutional terms, and in terms of unnecessary human suffering, we cannot ignore the fact that any efforts to resolve the Northern Ireland political issues are manifestly complex and dangerous. Irrespective of whatever measures are put forward from time to time, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that we are treading very dangerous ground. I am concerned that we have been treading very dangerous ground in this local government election Bill.

However, I and, I am sure, other noble Lords wish the Government well in the implementation of the intentions of this Bill. We will do all that we can to make the measures succeed in the interests of local government democracy and the wellbeing of the community in Northern Ireland. I should be pleased if I could come back in 12 months' time and acknowledge that I was wrong and that the Government were right with regard to this Bill.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I should like to say that I support the intentions of this Bill, as I am sure does everyone in your Lordships' House. However, should this Bill fail, I hope that the next time when a measure such as this is raised, a little more consideration can be given to the views of those of us who live in Northern Ireland. Clearly, the Government, will find it fairly easy to defeat amendments on a Division, by virtue of the party system and the numbers going through the Division lobbies. However, many noble Lords who go through the Division lobbies do not fully understand what happens in Northern Ireland. Sadly, the situation is not as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. When the Northern Ireland Peers are unanimous in not trying to defeat the Government but in trying to improve legislation to help the fight against terrorism, I think that the Government should sit down and consider their views at some length.

Finally, I should like to say that I support the Bill and sincerely hope that it does the job which it is intended that it should do.

4.36 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter for their good wishes and support for the intentions of this Bill and for the close attention that they have given to the Bill.

I should like to return to one or two theme subjects that have been with us since Second Reading, continuing until this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, quite rightly pointed out that we were not able to agree on every point. The noble Lord has used his Celtic tongue throughout the passage of this Bill, as on every occasion when we discuss Northern Ireland affairs. We are particularly grateful for the lucidity with which he has produced his views and for his hope that the Bill will achieve its intentions.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned the autumn of 1985. That was the season when the Government started taking consultations on the behaviour of councillors and the declaration in the Bill. I believe that for all of your Lordships who lived in Northern Ireland, the autumn of 1985 was famous for one other reason. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, nods, but it is not necessarily what he was thinking of. It was quite the worst weather in the 20th century and, as the Minister responsible for agriculture, I spent most of my time looking at flattened crops and flooded potato farms and the like. Therefore I, too, can remember the autumn of 1985, for all sorts of reasons.

However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is giving us the benefit of his considerable imagination if he believes that this Bill has anything to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was signed in November 1985. We believe that this Bill and the measures that we are attempting to achieve stand firmly on their own merits. We take considerable pride in the depth of consultation that has taken place continually over three and a half years. We have brought out our consultation paper. We believe that that consultation paper has provided a firm basis for the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for the way in which he spoke and presented his amendments and for his good wishes for the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, pointed out quite rightly that we are treading on dangerous ground. I am sure that the noble Lord and other Members of your Lordships' House who have read the Official Report of the Assembly and are aware of what used to go on there will know that that too could often be dangerous ground. Much of what was said there makes your Lordships' House appear comparatively mild.

I was glad that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough supported the intention behind the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will accept that the intention, as I have stressed, is to ensure that there is a declaration to be signed by those who wish to stand for office in either the Assembly or a local council. When they stand for office or are elected they will know that they have signed a declaration and that if they breach that declaration they will be removed from the council or the Assembly. That is what is behind the declaration that we have discussed.

I hope that my noble friend and everyone in Northern Ireland will accept that that is the main objective of this Bill. I ask my noble friend to accept that we have consulted widely—even in County Fermanagh. We have taken views and advice from all round Northern Ireland.

I should like to thank everyone who has spoken throughout the stages of the Bill for their good wishes for the measure, which we believe will go no small way to ensuring that one or two major blots on democracy in Northern Ireland will be removed. For example, we believe that the declaration is very important. We have enfranchised over 11,000 people who would otherwise not be eligible to vote and who, as a result of the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon, will be able to vote in the local elections on 17th May. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill passed.