HL Deb 15 March 1989 vol 505 cc302-22

7.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order and the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

In introducing this order and the regulations I should like to explain briefly what the two Acts contain and say something about the specific proposals which we have brought before the House, taking account of the recommendations in the report of my noble friend Lord Colville. I shall conclude by explaining the security context in which the order and the regulations need to be considered.

Perhaps I may begin with a brief word about the two Acts. I deal first with the 1978 Act. Essentially this performs three functions. It provides the security forces in Northern Ireland with extra powers to deal with the special problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. These include powers to stop arid question, arrest, search and seize. It also provides powers to proscribe organisations and create offences such as training people in the manufacture or use of firearms or explosives, and displaying support for proscribed organisations. Finally, it provides the legal authority for the so-called Diplock Courts under which terrorist-type offences are dealt with by a judge sitting without a jury.

Secondly, the 1987 Act introduced a statutory right for persons arrested under the terrorism provisions to have someone notified of their arrest and whereabouts, and to have access to legal advice. It also gave my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the authority to impose statutory time-limits on pre-trial stages of proceedings and introduced a statutory scheme for regulating the security guard industry in Northern Ireland. The provisions of these two Acts which I have just described are all temporary and will, unless renewed by the order before us today, lapse on 21st March.

I now turn to the basis on which we are proposing that the two Acts should be renewed. As last year, we are indebted to the review carried out by my noble friend Lord Colville. I pay tribute to my noble friend because, as always, his work was stimulating, incisive and very much to the point. Two of the recommendations in his 1988 report are relevant to today's proceedings. Significantly, he pointed to certain powers that can now be allowed to lapse. These all relate to the 1978 Act and comprise of Section 24, which gives the security forces the power to call upon assemblies of three or more people to disperse; paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 which allows the RUC to impose directions on the conduct of funerals; and paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 under which the Secretary of State can, by order, close licensed premises, clubs etc., for public order purposes.

My noble friend Lord Colville indicates that each of these three powers can now be allowed to lapse, apart from one part of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 under which the police can require people taking part in funerals to travel by car. That is a small but important detail. The Government welcome these recommendations and the order and regulations before the House today will give effect to them. I will not rehearse why my noble friend feels that these provisions can now lapse; his arguments are set out in his report. But these are important changes. Though not among the most controversial of the emergency powers, nevertheless any move to reduce the scope of these powers is a step in the right direction. The Government welcome the opportunity to let the powers lapse as an illustration both of our commitment to keep the powers under active review and also to keep them no longer than is strictly necessary.

The other side of the coin is that we would not let the powers lapse if we did not think it safe to do so. We firmly believe that extra powers are necessary to defeat terrorism—I shall come to that in a moment —and we would not remove those powers if it would hinder the fight against terrorism. In this context, I draw attention to my noble friend's recommendation that when the Police and Criminal (Northern Ireland) Order becomes law the RUC's power of arrest under Section 13 of the 1978 Act can lapse. Thereafter, the police would rely upon the powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act or the ordinary criminal law. The Government welcome and accept this recommendation which will be a further welcome reduction in the emergency law.

I turn now to other main findings in my noble friend's report. In paragraph 1.4 he referred to: a reluctant acceptance of the need to continue, in general, the emergency powers". He therefore believed that, in general, the powers continue to be needed—and so do we. But if it is important that the powers should be maintained, it is equally important that they should be used in a fair and impartial manner. The Government and the security forces give this the highest priority. It is axiomatic that all statutory powers should be exercised correctly; but, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, it is doubly important that the emergency powers are used with meticulous care and sensitivity. This is an area to which we pay the closest attention. As my noble friend pointed out in paragraph 1.5, the battle for the hearts and minds of the community should be the paramount preoccupation of those who exercise the emergency powers. He says in his report: It is quite unnecessary to say this to senior ranks in the police or Army headquarters, since they accept it and do their best to implement it". The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was a moment ago vigorously nodding in agreement with my noble friend's remarks. The importance of good relations is emphasised in the training of security forces and in operational briefings at all times. That is emphasised to each and every member of the security forces.

My noble friend Lord Colville also pointed out that one slip can wipe away many months of good work, so constant care and attention is needed. Nor should anyone underestimate the difficulties which the security forces face. They are often called upon to work in hostile or provocative situations where their lives are at grave risk. In such situations it is bound to be difficult for them to remain calm and impartial. However, all noble Lords who have any inkling of what goes on in Northern Ireland will know that they set high standards for themselves and strive ceaselessly to achieve them. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville for the way in which he highlighted this issue in his report. It deserves to be given prominence and certainly we regard it as a priority.

Much has been achieved. The new Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland was set up last year and, as my noble friend mentioned, the Army has issued new instructions to stress the importance of dealing with complaints sensitively and properly. Within the last year my own department, the Northern Ireland Office, has also set up a committee to monitor more closely the nature, extent and handling of complaints by the public about improper, but non-criminal behaviour by members of the security forces. Together, we will continue to look for progress. Last year my noble friend Lord Colville commented in his 1987 report that he gained the impression that the Act was being used with due reflection, moderation and commonsense". That is the target which we and all in Northern Ireland will continue to set ourselves.

Elsewhere in his report for this year my noble friend Lord Colville returns to the question of certifying in. This refers to bail. This is the idea that, instead of defendants being tried before a Diplock Court, unless the Attorney-General decides otherwise, the presumption should be that they will be sent for a jury trial unless the case is certified into a Diplock Court. Since my noble friend's report last year, the balance seems to have shifted more in favour of this idea and, as it would be perceived as a further step towards normality, we are certainly prepared to consider it seriously especially if we find that it is generally welcomed. Likewise, we will examine closely my noble friend's remarks about the video recording of terrorist interviews. There are, as the report indicates, substantial arguments against such a course but we will look at it again. As he did last year, my noble friend also draws attention to the way that the emergency law is split between the two emergency provisions Acts and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. My noble friend urges consolidation. I fear that any major restructuring of the legislation will, as my noble friend indicates, have to wait until approximately 1992 when the emergency provisions Acts will lapse. However, we will certainly examine his suggestion that some sort of simpler consolidation might be possible in the shorter term. Certainly your Lordships will welcome that.

My noble friend Lord Colville also returned to the subject of murder and the possibility of bringing alternative verdicts of manslaughter. He remains concerned that, as the law stands, a person who uses lethal force in circumstances where some force was justified, but lethal force was excessive, can only be convicted of murder or acquitted. My noble friend advocates a change in the law to allow alternative verdicts of manslaughter to be returned. This is a large and important subject and is one which, as my noble friend indicates, has been placed before your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment. We shall want to see what conclusions that committee reaches before making any judgments of our own. These are the main points in the report of my noble friend that I wanted to refer to at this stage. We will be looking closely at all his findings over the coming months.

I promised to outline the reasons for introducing these measures this evening as well as the continuation of the two Acts. I wish to draw attention to security and the context in which we live in Northern Ireland when considering this order and the regulations today and especially why it is necessary to continue these two Acts. As your Lordships will be only too well aware, terrorism continues at a very high level in Northern Ireland. We experienced an up-turn interrorist activity some 18 months to 2 years ago, and that increased level of activity is sadly still with us. We continue to live with the legacy of the major resupply of weapons and explosives that came into Ireland from Libya.

None of us needs to be reminded of the callous and brutal attacks that continue to take place. Last week, the night before these measures were debated in another place, three civilians were gunned down in the village of Coagh, County Tyrone. Hardly had that debate concluded but two soldiers were killed by a landmine near Londonderry, and six others were injured. Last week explosives and weapons were found near Scarborough, quite possibly intended for an attack on Members of the Government. In the past few days a Roman Catholic civilian has also been murdered by loyalist paramilitaries outside a bar in West Belfast. A private in the Ulster Defence Regiment was murdered when going about his job of delivering goods to a factoy in Dungannon. That was just yesterday. These are just some of the most recent manifestations of the evil of terrorism in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. For each and every one of these examples is a personal tragedy to families. Unfortunately, that is all too-evident with terrorism. There has been similar activity in Gibraltar, Holland and Belgium. As I have indicated, it is not only the republican organisations that have been active. Loyalist paramilitaries have significantly increased their activities in recent months and have been responsible for a number of particularly horrific and callous killings.

The Government call once again on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland to reject terrorism as well as asking them to give their unstinted and unremitting support to the security forces. In that respect I wish to pay my tribute and I am sure that of all noble Lords, to the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the RUC Reserve and to every single member of the regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment who together with the judiciary, the courts and prison staff and many others in official and civilian life, have continued to stand firm against terrorism.

There is no doubt that but for the unstinting and courageous efforts of the security forces for over 20 years the problems would have been much greater. Each and every one has worked unremittingly to save life and protect the community and they have done so at considerable personal cost. Of the 113 fatalities in Northern Ireland since the beginning of 1988 and to date, 38 were members of the Army and UDR and seven were members of the RUC and Reserve. We all feel deeply this tragic loss of life. And as I say, had it not been for the dedication of the security forces, the levels of violence would have been far higher. Last year the security forces recovered more ammunition than at any time since 1974. That is a year that will be very familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Over 100,000 rounds and more weapons were recovered than at arty time since 1977. That is over 550 individual weapons of death and destruction.

I have referred to some recent incidents, but a particularly sickening and shameful aspect of the situation over the past 12 months has been the murder of civilians inadvertently caught up in terrorist attacks. Let us not forget the three members of the Hanna family killed returning from holiday, as they crossed the border last July. Gillian Johnston was murdered in Fermanagh, it was said, in mistake for her brother. A grandfather and granddaughter were caught in a blast outside the RUC station at Benburb. Two elderly people who, acting as good neighbours, were killed by a booby-trap bomb in Londonderry. They were going in to check on a flat and as to why its occupant had not been seen. Both of them died by a booby-trap bomb. In the same month two others were killed outside the Falls Road swimming baths by a bomb meant for the security forces. All of these appalling attacks and others of a similar kind add a particular weight to the suffering in Northern Ireland. Only an organisation as cynical about the value of human life and civilisation as the IRA could apologise for these deaths but continue its campaign as before.

These two aspects set out the general security context in which this evening's debate takes place. Terrorism continues both on the republican and loyalist sides of the community in Northern Ireland. With the security forces we meet those problems with determination. The past six months have shown that the Government stand ready to bring forward new measures to tackle terrorism. The security forces will continue to have our full support. This evening, discussing this order, I believe that it is right to pay tribute to the activities of the Garda Siochana and the Irish Army. In 1988 they recovered over 350 firearms, more than 100,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 1,1001bs of explosives, including 6501bs of Semtex, the popular name for the devastating explosive so beloved of terrorists. In 1989 they have made significant finds in the Counties of Offaly, Kilkenny, Monaghan and Donegal.

That shows your Lordships how widespread are the activities of the security forces of the Republic of Ireland. The Republic's security forces have co-operated very closely with our own security forces. None of this would have been possible had the Irish Government not fully shared our aim of wanting to see terrorism defeated, and had they not been prepared to back up that aim with action. We look forward to continuing and ever closer co-operation with them. That is vital if our common enemy, terrorism, is to be overcome. We shall continue to work unremittingly for the normality which so many people want. We look to the day when emergency powers will no longer be needed; but I am afraid that in view of everything that I have spelt out, that day is still some way off.

What none of us can ignore is that terrorism in Northern Ireland is a premeditated criminal conspiracy designed to thwart democracy and to undermine the rule of law by murder and intimidation. It is not a conventional problem that can be dealt with entirely by conventional means, and for the foreseeable future special measures will be needed. Our task this evening is to ensure that the security forces have adequate powers available to them to protect the community but that the rights of individuals are also properly protected. That requires a balance in the law. The order and regulations before us this evening will ensure that the necessary powers are available, but that they are no more than is strictly necessary.

In that spirit and in the spirit of everything that I have presented this evening to your Lordships, I commend them to the House.

Moved, That the draft order and draft regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lyell.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for the care he has taken in moving the orders. He will be aware that in another place my colleagues, who substantially share the noble Lord's analysis of the terrible problems of Northern Ireland, nevertheless came to the conclusion that they would not seek to deal with them in the manner set out in the orders. However, we will not seek to divide the House. The noble Lord knows that there has been, if not a spate of legislation in respect of Northern Ireland, certainly more legislation in the past few weeks and months than during any comparable period that I can recall.

Politicians are always delighted to have the opportunity to discuss matters about which they are deeply concerned, but when we discuss Northern Ireland the news is sombre, the matters with which we deal are terrible and the solutions are not within sight. I do not believe that the Government would be arrogant enough to say that they have the only solution or the best solution. They have responsibility for governing the United Kingdom and in the context of Northern Ireland they have to deal with problems of nightmarish proportions.

I should like to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for a report which was stimulating, incisive and very much to the point. It was a most readable and easy to understand document. I do not have the experience of the problems and background of the Province of the noble Viscount, of the Minister and of the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Fitt. The Minister mentions individuals, places and events, but to people like me that is all they are. However, to the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, those are real places and real people. They know the individuals and their families. They know the schools and the churches.

It is very easy to become emotional about the problems of Northern Ireland. When I was in another place there was a catalogue of atrocities. I would weep sometimes openly and very often silently when I listened to parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the House speaking in anguished terms about the realities of Northern Ireland. What we are discussing tonight is the state of life in Northern Ireland and the ways in which the Minister and his colleagues feel that they can best deal with the problems there.

On Monday of this week I attended an event at Lambeth Palace at which the Princess Royal presented awards on behalf of the Butler Trust. This was set up to commemorate Rab Butler, a highly respected politician and senior Minister. The awards are given to the prison service, to men and women who serve not only the prisons in which they work but the communities in which the prisons are situated. It was with considerable pride that I saw officers from the Maze Prison in Belfast and Magilligan Prison receive those awards. I visited Magilligan two years ago. Those officers were doing a job which if not thankless was constantly being undermined by events over which they had little or no control.

The Minister has considerable control over what happens in Northern Ireland and I shall be pressing him on one or two matters in a moment. The House could take the view that we should be devoting ourselves to some pressing economic matters. We have not been short of those in this House over the past few months. I refer to the positions at Short Brothers, at Harland and Wolff and at Gallachers. This is a suitable opportunity to pay tribute to ordinary men and women and ordinary trade unionists. They are subject to political pressure and intimidation. One or two nights ago the House discussed a Bill relating to councillors in Northern Ireland. I was a councillor in Enfield. I served with pride and had opportunities to broaden my knowledge. I can remember standing on the steps of Derry Town Hall and being told that it was the spot where the Secretary of State was struck down by a serving councillor. It is impossible to envisage such a state of affairs unless one understands the context. In that council chamber now sits a councillor who some years previously was sent to prison for blowing up the town hall. That is the background against which we are considering the order.

When I was in Derry I took the opportunity to visit the Galliagh Consumer Co-operative Society. I saw there the endeavours of ordinary men and women who were aided and assisted by the Co-operative Development Agency, the Co-operative Union and by people who passionately wanted to see established on this large housing estate an enterprise which would grow up from the roots. It was assisted by the Government as such enterprises need to be. I remember the night that McGurk's Bar was blown up.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, it was 3rd December 1971.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, that night has a special place in the folklore of Northern Ireland. I was in another bar and I remember hearing the noise of a bomb. I was dumbfounded and was told by the barman that it was "a big 'un". Fifteen people were blown to smithereens. I also remember that night because I was taken to a co-operative supermarket which had been severely damaged when what one can only describe as bandits held up the store and stole the money from the tills. To someone from the mainland this was unbelievable, but it was part of daily life of the people of Northern Ireland. Whenever we discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland we can always refer to terrible incidents. The debate last week in another place took place after the senseless killings at a garage. Why these things happen one does not know.

Our criticism of the Government—it has to be a criticism—is that despite what the Minister said, which we accept—that is, the need for security and the need for support for security—there appears to be an imbalance between what is necessary for the Government in order to make the Province secure and what they are doing to try to reach a satisfactory political solution. At the end of the day, when one is able to defeat the gunmen on both sides of the religious or tribal divides, one must look forward to solving the matter politically. What we must do is to create an ambience in which there is a will to find a political solution. We make the general criticism that although words are spoken—for example, that the battle for the hearts and minds of the people in Northern Ireland should be a priority—and the Minister tells us that steps are being taken to ensure that the defence and security forces work towards that end, when one begins to look at the evidence contained in the report by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, one sees the difficulties.

Tonight the Minister talked in terms of the tactless and rude comments in the report. Indeed, on page 3 we have two very good illustrations of that. The first one reads: When a woman returns home having collected her children from school to find the security forces searching her home, having forced entry, and asks why they could not wait till her return, it is not good enough for a soldier to say 'It isn't a party: we do not need an invitation' ". Both of those facts could well be true; it is not a party, and we do not need an invitation. However, to say that to a woman in her own home when she comes home to find such a situation is not only tactless in the context of Northern Ireland, but it could also be tragic. I say that because one could very well be turning away a potential ally in the matter. The other illustration reads as follows: In August 1988 one man was stopped and detained for periods between 15 and 45 minutes on 33 occasions, in or near Londonderry; during the month he was thus detained in total for 12 hours 40 minutes. Each time he was just released". Such events are happening this week, they happened last week, and they will happen next week. The Minister must tell us in the knowledge and light of the evidence, which if it is not irrefutable, is most powerful, what extra efforts are being made to deal with the situation. The emergency laws need to be clear, coherent and precise. I do not think that they are. In my view the Minister has made a fair attempt to justify every power which is required to deal with the dreadful problems in Northern Ireland. But when one is going outside the norm, and when one is looking to derogate from the norm, one must have powerful justification therefor.

I wish to place on record a welcome to the new Chief Constable of the Province, Mr. Annesley, who has an enormous responsibility. He will go to the Province with a proven record, but a person who has not actually done the job cannot say, "I know exactly what it is", because Northern Ireland is unique and policing the Province is also unique in that context. I certainly wish him well. Similarly, I also wish Sir John Herman well in his retirement. He obviously had a most difficult period. I make no allusion whatever to the number of incidents in which he figured, and figured most prominently, but a policeman who has the task of undertaking the job of the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland must certainly carry our regard and sympathy in that way. Having concluded his stint in the Province, I certainly hope that he will be able to enjoy a satisfactory retirement.

I conclude by saying that what the Government must give more attention to, besides dealing with security—and that is what the orders are all about—is the fact that the ordinary people of Northern Ireland desperately yearn to do what ordinary people do in Enfield, in Edmonton and in every part of the United Kindom. They would like to be able to look forward to the pospect of a decent job, a decent home, a decent education and a decent opportunity for their children, and their children's children, to grow up in an atmosphere which will enable them to feel not only that they are proud to live where they live, but also that they can enjoy the opportunity of doing so for many years to come.

So far as we are concerned, there appears to be a political lethargy about the way the Government are dealing wih the totality of their responsibilities. Indeed, it is in that context that I have spoken to these orders.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, it is with some melancholy, I suppose, that I join in with this annual ritual, which has been so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and with the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. It is of course a sad event that we should have to have such provisions. But, nonetheless, from these Benches, we feel bound to support their renewal.

Since this time last year when the same ritual was followed, little has happened to provide us with reasons to celebrate and there has been little to encourage us to feel much optimism. Nevertheless I, like both noble Lords who spoke before me, feel that we are extremely fortunate here today to be assisted in our debate by the very able, articulate and constructive report by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. It leads us through the immediate short-term problems which we are actually tackling today, and provides guidance which I find especially valuable.

If there is one recommendation made by the noble Viscount in the report which I find particularly welcome, it is that where he suggests that the provisions of the two Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 should be consolidated. I should greatly welcome that process in order to lead me through the complexities of the legislation. It would help me to find which powers arise from where.

The suggestion of the noble Viscount that those laws should be consolidated strikes a chord in my mind and I am disappointed—although I comprehend the reasons why—that the Secretary of State feels unable to see any close prospect of consolidation. Having said that, it is impossible to disagree with the noble Viscount when he says that the emergency powers are necessary and that the security forces require our support, both in terms of their powers and of the equipment at their disposal. I also think that he is absolutely correct in saying that this annual debate, on what he describes as technical and fragmented pieces of legislation, is not a satisfactory way in which to look at the relations between this country and Northern Ireland. We really should provide ourselves, out of a sense of obligation to our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland, with an occasion upon which we can examine in a more sympathetic and serious way the situation in that unhappy Province. We should examine the policies in this country which we have pursued, and which we will pursue, which are not directly tied to the restrictive emergency legislation which we have been forced to introduce in response to the emergency. The demands of the situation in Northern Ireland, and the relations between this country and that province, demand imagination, thought and consideration. The debate that we are holding late in the evening, with few people present, is patently and clearly inadequate for that purpose. The fact that we are no further forward this year than we were last year or the year before in composing a positive and constructive policy towards that unhappy province indicates that we are not applying ourselves—not so much as a government but as a Chamber—with the seriousness and concentration that the difficulty and intransigence of the problem demand.

If such an occasion is required, which I believe it to be, it cannot be too often repeated. I repeat what both previous speakers have said. Once the powers that we are discussing have been granted to the authorities in Northern Ireland, the way in which they are exercised, and above all the way in which they are perceived to be exercised, is all-important. In the battle for what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, called the minds and the hearts of people, which is the battle that matters, it is their perception of the way in which those powers are exercised which will be crucial. That is, as his report indicates, a matter of discipline, training, tact, openness and flexibility on the part of the police, the armed forces and the authorities generally.

I found it most encouraging to note the high priority that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, gave to those attitudes and modes of behaviour, and the extent to which he was ready to recommend that certain provisions which were mentioned by the Minister in his opening statement should be allowed to lapse. It is right that we should be flexible. In particular, I welcome the proposals in the report such as those which recommend certifying-in as opposed to certifying-out in the case of the Diplock Courts; which recommend the movement towards jury trials; and which recommend that a serious technical examination of the difficulties and the ways and means whereby video tape recordings of interrogations take place should be undertaken.

I genuinely believe that in connection with the perception of the people of Northern Ireland, the way in which interrogations are undertaken is a crucial element. Although there are difficulties, which I recognise, in the video taping of interrogations, nonetheless, if those difficulties could be overcome that would be a step forward in establishing confidence and diminishing the apprehension of those who find themselves in the hands of the authorities.

By the same token, the noble Lord's proposals about the minimum use of force in Northern Ireland, and the possibility of a charge of manslaughter as opposed to murder, should be seriously examined. It is most unsatisfactory that a judge and a jury should have before them a young member of the armed services or the police, who has found himself in an extremely difficult situation, and who has shot a man, and have no alternative other than to convict him of murder or to acquit him. There is no third possibility. The proposals made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, are valuable and constructive and should be looked at carefully.

All the noble Viscount's proposals are helpful. Nonetheless, they are all part and parcel of the measures that we have had to take to keep the lid on the situation which we cannot solve in the immediate future. The only virtue of the provisions that we are extending is that they provide us with an opportunity, and the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, to search for a political way through the dreadful tragedy that we have been witnessing for all those years.

The fact that we have not found a solution does not mean to say that we cannot find one. The fact that we have not found one does not mean that we should not seek to find one. The fact that the Anglo-Irish Agreement exists is something upon which we should build and which we should not abandon. That is the foundation upon which the political solution may be built. The Government deserve congratulations on having made that agreement. We must not abandon our hope and our faith in it. We must use the provisions as an opportunity to discover the ways and means whereby political progress may be made.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, over the many years since the onset of the present troubles, many people in Northern Ireland from both sides of the community have said to me that the English do not understand about them. "The English do not care about us. All these atrocities are taking place in Northern Ireland but the English do not really care." I have tried to tell them that that is not true of all the English, Scottish and Welsh people that I know. Anyone in Northern Ireland reading the report and the remarks that have been made this evening, will be made aware of the genuine concerns and compassion felt by those who have spoken so far in the debate.

I refer especially to what was said by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. He brought vividly to my mind the awful tragedy that took place in McGurk's bar on that evening. He went on to say that the events, places and people concerned are known to me and to my noble friend Lord Blease. We know, and knew, the people who are being killed. I recall that evening on 3rd December 1971. I was doing what a lot of other people in this country do on a Saturday evening. I was sitting checking out the football pools. I lived in the area of McGurk's bar. It was in the Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency of the Docks which I represented for 23 years. I heard the echo of that terrible explosion. I immediately went to McGurk's bar and spent the rest of that long night trying to help the security forces to pull out the bodies with my bare hands. I knew everyone who was killed.

That was not the only occasion with which I was involved. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was right when he said that it takes a person from Northern Ireland to realise the intensity of feeling and emotion generated by those awful tragedies. That does not mean that the people in the United Kingdom are not concerned. The Minister catalogued all the terrible events that have taken place, even those within the past week. I was going to mention them, but it is unnecessary for me to do so now.

We in Northern Ireland feel not only for the Northern Irish people who are being killed; we feel intensely about the young British soldiers and members of the security forces who are killed trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland. When those two young soldiers were so brutally killed outside Derry last week, I had occasion to ring up their parents—one in Bristol and one in Portsmouth—and to tell them that as an Irishman I sympathised with them in their dreadful loss and condemned those who carried out those terrible murders allegedly in the name of Ireland.

The debate is taking place against the dreadful background of a whole catalogue of murders. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has given us the times and dates. Yesterday afternoon here in London I watched the television and all it was concerned about was the Budget debate, both ITV and the BBC. At the very end of the programme the announcer said, "A UDR man has been killed in Northern Ireland". It seemed like a throwaway line as far as the media were concerned, but it was not a throwaway line to the widow and two sons of the UDR man. He was killed because he had been trying to defend Northern Ireland against terrorism.

My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton took part in and I have read and listened to the debates in another place which take place annually on the introduction of this order. I remember that in 1973 when the order first went through the House of Commons I was a member of the committee that dealt with it. The order was brought in to replace the special powers Act which had existed in Northern Ireland since the inception of the state in 1920. When I was taking part in those deliberations I never believed that in 1989, all those years later, it would still be necessary to have this type of legislation to protect life and limb in Northen Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that the Opposition party in the House of Commons opposed this legislation because it did not appear to them that the Government were doing enough to bring about a political consensus in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that I have to disagee with my noble friend, although I do so in a most friendly way. I do not believe that any government since 1979—and not this Conservative Government—can be blamed for not bringing about a political solution to the Northern Ireland problem. Similarly, I do not believe that it was the fault of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 that they were unable to do so. They too tried to bring about a political consensus in Northern Ireland. I believe that the only people who can bring an end to the present impasse are the Northern Ireland politicians themselves.

Here I must speak from experience and a strong feeling that I have. I disagree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I believe that the way in which the Anglo-Irish Agreement was negotiated and came into being, with the total exclusion and non-involvement of the majority community in Northern Ireland, led to the problems. They were not asked for their opinions, their questions were never answered and they were totally excluded from all the deliberations which led to the coming into being of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The minority community through the SDLP—the party which I formerly led—was very much involved. Their people were in almost daily consultation with the then government of the Republic, the Fine Gael Party led by Garrett FitzGerald. They were very much involved, their opinions were asked for and given. So the Protestant majority community felt totally and absolutely isolated. To say the least, that was bad public relations. Someone could have asked for the opinions of some of the Unionist community.

I keep repeating that the Unionist population in Northern Ireland is not represented by Dr. Ian Paisley. There are many thousands of decent, moderate Unionists in Northern Ireland who are not religious bigots. But they want to cling on to their background, to remain British. They reject Paisley acting as their spokesman, but they were not included. That was totally unlike Sunningdale where in 1973 and 1974 I took part in the discussions. A considerable section of the Unionist community was represented there through Brian Faulkner, the former prime minister, who was then to become chief executive in the power-sharing government of 1974. The Unionist population were concerned, but, as we saw, the executive was brought to nothing by the activities of the extremists in the Unionist community. I know that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will never be accepted by the Unionist majority community, even the most moderate people there.

That brings me to the question of what we do about the situation. The Government, particularly under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, cannot afford to be seen to give way to Unionist non-recognition or Unionist objections. The Irish Government feel exactly the same. They will say, "We were involved". The Unionists put it a different way, they say that the Irish Government have got their foot in the door of Northern Ireland and will not take it away again. That is the way they see it.

Here we have the irresistible force and the immovable object. The SLDP in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, with the support of this Government, will in no way renege on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Once that agreement was in existence in its present form, it was a red rag to a bull even to the most moderate of Unionists. So what do we do? We cannot impose political solutions on Northern Ireland. The Conservative Government have tried over the past 10 years, as I know, to bring together the warring political factions. They have been unable to do so.

Normally in these debates after I have spoken I go home in the depths of despair because there is no answer. Tonight I hope to be able to put forward something positive which I believe can break that logjam. At present the Unionist party and the Unionist, Protestant population are absolutely terrified that a very vicious genocidal war is being waged against them. I am not a Unionist, I am a member of the minority population in Northern Ireland. But I understand the awful feeling running right through the Unionist community, particularly in the border areas of Northern Ireland, where the murders are taking place so indiscriminately every day of the week. The Unionist party is frightened. Its members see the IRA as emerging from the Catholic community, that community gives them protection, it succours them in the continuation of the war.

I have said it before in the House of Commons as well as in this Chamber on a number of occasions. The overwhelming majority of the people in the island of Ireland are opposed to the IRA and its campaign of violence. I hope with all the fervour of my being that I am right. I am sure I am right because I believe passionately in the inherent peaceful and compassionate qualities of the Irish race as a whole. I hope that I am right.

However, there must be some way of proving it. The Unionist community in Northern Ireland look at the ballot box. They say, "Over 90,000 people have voted for Sinn Fein candidates and those candidates are Sinn Fein elected representatives, they and their movement are in support of the IRA". The Unionist population say, "There are at least 90,000 people in Northern Ireland who give support to the campaign of violence which is being waged against me and my family". Do those 90,000 people really support the IRA in its murder campaign or do they vote for Sinn Fein for other reasons? Do they vote for them because they are better public representatives? Do they vote for them because they give them better working class representation? Do they vote for them because it is a way of casting a vote in protest? Why should some people vote for Sinn Fein?

Both noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Graham, have spoken about the Act, as has the Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is to be congratulated for the painstaking way in which he looked into the operation of the Act. Paragraph 1.6 of the report of the noble Viscount has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, stated in that paragraph: in August 1988 one man was stopped and detained for periods between 15 and 45 minutes on 33 occasions, in or near Londonderry; during the month he was thus detained in total for 12 hours 40 minutes. Each time he was just released". The noble Viscount further stated: There are many more anecdotes, but I select these as being certainly true". So there is no doubt in the mind of the noble Viscount that that statement was true. If that is true, surely some action could have been taken. The noble Viscount does not say whether the RUC, the UDR or the army was the body which detained the individual. But whoever detained him, that body was certainly flagrantly abusing the whole concept of the emergency powers regulations which are meant to protect people and not to harass them. Could that be another reason why people are voting for Sinn Fein?

What is the answer to this dilemma? Is there a way out of it? At the moment I know that the two communities, through their elected representatives, are going through the motions of wanting to talk, but on their terms only. The minority community states that it will only talk to the Unionist population once it has the Anglo-Irish Agreement to back it up. The Unionist population says that it will only talk to the minority community if the Anglo-Irish Agreement is suspended in some way.

Incidentally, I must say that some journalists in Northern Ireland are not being very helpful in this terribly dangerous situation. I read a report in one of the Irish newspapers just last week by a journalist who said it was strange that the Unionist population who engaged in such a tirade against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in late 1985 and 1986 should now be running around whingeing for a suspension of the agreement. He used the word "whingeing". That is no way to try to bring people into political discussion. It only gets their backs up. That reporter came from Dublin. If he does not know the effect his words had in Northern Ireland, he is not representative of the people I know.

How can we bring the Unionists into political discussions without forcing them to appear to be engaging in abject surrender? I was at Sunningdale. Over a period of 72 hours we painstakingly drew up the Sunningdale Agreement. One part of the agreement said that the parties to the agreement would recognise the state of Northern Ireland. That was part of the agreement. We deliberately negotiated that to give confidence to the Unionist population. But within a few days of that agreement being signed a politician in the Republic of Ireland by the name of Kevin Boland took the Sunningdale Agreement to the High Court in Dublin. He said that we had no authority to recognise the state of Northern Ireland and that such a recognition went against Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution.

The parties to the agreement had to apologise in court. The court then decided that the Irish Government had no right to sign that agreement because it acted against Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Can noble Lords imagine what that did to the Unionist population in Northern Ireland and how betrayed they felt? Noble Lords can appreciate that they would not believe the promises that I was giving them when I told them that the constitution of Northern Ireland was accepted and reinforced at Sunningdale.

That brings me to what I regard as being a hopeful, positive proposal. Article 2 of the Republic's constitution states that the whole island of Ireland is the national territory. Article 3 states that pending the reintegration of the national territory, the Government will govern the 26 counties; in other words, the Republic of Ireland.

Everyone in the Chamber will be aware that all political parties in the island of Ireland, with the exception of Sinn Fein, have condemned violence. All political parties, with the exception of Sinn Fein, have condemned the IRA and other paramilitaries. Only a fortnight ago Mr. Haughey, at his own Ard Fheis, speaking as the present Taoiseach of the Republic, said that recourse to violence to achieve that political objective had no place in the affairs of the family of Western parliamentary democracies. He was referring to the political objective of the reunification of Ireland. All the political parties in the Republic have renounced and denounced violence.

Here is a proposal which I believe should receive the attention of the Irish Government. I was speaking to a friend of mine in the Irish Republic who has nearly 30 years' experience of being an elected member of the Dail in Dublin. My friend's name is Jack McQuillan. He is now physically retired from politics, but he is still involved mentally. He is still concerned with the awful problem which has beset the island of Ireland. When my friend, spoke to me a fortnight ago he asked me whether it would not do a lot for Unionist confidence and for the people who want to know how the Republic feels about the problems in the North if the Irish Government were to agree to hold a referendum on a simple amendment to Article 3 of the constitution of the Republic. He said the amendment need contain only 17 words. He said it would not ask the Irish Government to do away with Article 2 or Article 3. But he said the amendment would include the words, "In the task of achieving the reintegration of the national territory, the use of force is rejected".

Does that not seem very simple and reasonable, when all the political parties in the island of Ireland have denounced violence? What possible objection could there be against the inclusion of those words? There have been referendums in the Republic on divorce and abortion. Those are important subjects in their own right, but what more important subject could there be in the island of Ireland than to inform the IRA that it is not acting with the support of the Irish people? I believe that the inclusion of those words could have a dramatic effect on the whole political future of Northern Ireland.

The Unionists may not grasp that opportunity with open arms. They may not say that it is a wonderful thing, because they would still object to the existence of Articles 2 and 3. But let us think how it would be if the people in the island of Ireland, whom we are told through their political leaders so detest the campaign of violence that is carried on in their name, were given an opportunity to go to the ballot box and to vote for the inclusion of those words. Those words would tell the IRA that it is not speaking for the people of Ireland and that it does not represent the people of Ireland. Where would the IRA go if that referendum were carried by a considerable majority? I believe it would be carried by a considerable majority. Where would the IRA go? What would its claims be? What would Noraid in America—which sends money to the IRA to murder Irish citizens whether Protestant, Catholic or people of no religion—have to say?

If the Irish people had voted and freely expressed the view that they did not want to bring about the unity of Ireland by means of a campaign of violence being waged by the IRA, I believe that that would bring about a dramatic change in the face of politics in these islands. I cannot see anyone objecting to that. What possible reason could they give for objecting? The only people who would object to the inclusion of those words must believe in the continuation of violence. I believe that those people are in a very small minority in the island of Ireland.

I have put forward that proposal tonight. It is not my proposal. It was originally made by Mr. Jack McQuillan who has now retired from politics but is very actively trying to find a formula to end the awful tragedy of Northern Ireland. I believe that that is a positive suggestion. We have the Anglo-Irish secretariat, which meets regularly. I believe that the Government should raise the issue on the next occasion on which they meet the Irish Government representatives.

If it is true that the overwhelming majority of the people in the island of Ireland are opposed to the IRA and its campaign, I want to see that fact translated into ballots. That would mean that the power of the ballot would have been seen to defeat the power of the bullet. We have waited for that for far too long in Northern Ireland. Let us now grasp the opportunity which presents itself.

9 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate on what appeared on the face of it to be an order and regulations which, as your Lordships have said, come up with monotony each year. Each time I have to announce the reasons for introducing the measures. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to whose remarks I shall return in a moment, has raised a most interesting concept. The noble Lord may not be surprised if his remarks go further than merely your Lordships' House.

I am grateful for the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. His noble friends will recall their own actions when they sat on these Benches. Indeed, we were reminded of them by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The views of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on the report of my noble friend Lord Colville are the same as I would wish to express; so I shall not repeat what the noble Lord said. We concur with his views as to the value of my noble friend's report. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to continue to give us his very valuable advice, written in such a clear, lucid and amusing way.

There was one common thread running through the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. While accepting the need for the measures which I have presented, they hoped for political movement and some activity which might bring politics in the Province back to what all of us here, and others elsewhere, regard—perhaps arrogantly—as normal. We are not subject to the pressures and tensions which affect many politicians in Northern Ireland.

No one does more than my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend Dr. Mawhinney to try, by various discreet means which are well-appreciated and understood in Northern Ireland, to find common threads between many disparate ideas, characters and people in Northern Ireland. They are ceaselessly trying day by day, week by week, month by month, to find some common ground by which the political outlook in Northern Ireland can be improved. Their work reminds me of the famed Echternach wine dance that takes place in Luxembourg each year—three paces forward, two back, and the dance takes all day if one is lucky. I had better not mention wine in respect of one of the honourable Members of another place who was so graphically portrayed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I think that he will see the similarity.

We do not abandon our wish to find political common ground. We shall continue to do so and that will be the core of the policy of this Government.

The aim of all of us in your Lordships' House as well as those in Northern Ireland is a full return to normal political life as well as the eradication of terrorism, which has no part in political life or in a democracy. The Government work unremittingly to that end. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the policy of this Government, and of every other government over the past 20 years, has been to tackle the security, political and economic problems together. That may appear impossible, but it does not stop us trying.

Increased economic activity in recent years is characterised by the motto, "Belfast is buzzing". I had the opportunity of advising the House earlier this week of inward investment in the form of two valuable projects which will bring over 1,500 jobs to the Province. That particular aspect accords with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that ordinary people in Northern Ireland yearn for what his erstwhile constituents in Enfield also yearn for. Those thoughts are echoed by everyone in Northern Ireland. For my part, I believe that Belfast does not merely buzz. It is one of the liveliest cities that one could find anywhere on the face of this earth, in the evening and at midday. The shops are alive and commercial life is thriving. We hope it will go from strength to strength. It is a combination of all these aspects that the Government are addressing.

The measures before us this evening require some comment. The Government recognise it is crucial that these powers are applied in a fair and impartial manner. I take on board what the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Graham, have said about the reportedly lamentable public relations between the security forces and one particular gentleman. I am sure that this particular case will be known to the security forces and that lessons will have been learnt on both sides. I venture to hope that this will not recur. I am sure that those points were forcefully brought out by my noble friend Lord Colville in his report.

It is equally important that effective mechanisms should exist for examining cases and complaints such as the ones mentioned by your Lordships. We have put a great deal of effort into this and, as my noble friend Lord Colville also pointed out, a new independent commission for police complaints has been set up in Northern Ireland in the last year. New instructions have been issued to the army to try to remedy at least some of the problems. We are always trying to remedy the situation and make it better.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, expressed the wish of many when he suggested the advantage of consolidating all the Acts and measures I have spoken of. There is a revised copy of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 which incorporates amendments made to it up to the end of 1987. I understand that it is available at Her Majesty's Stationery Office but, according to my inquiries this evening, not yet available in the Printed Paper Office in your Lordships' House. I shall endeavour to see that it is made available as soon as possible. I shall then advise the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, so that he may have a copy. I have shared his bewilderment as I have searched my way from one Act to another.

I am conscious also of the fact that it might be simpler if all the emergency legislation applying to Northern Ireland could be consolidated in one Act. However, this is not absolutely feasible in respect of the prevention of terrorism powers because these apply equally to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, as I said earlier, when the emergency provisions Acts lapse in 1992, consideration will certainly be given to incorporating into the new Act all those prevention of terrorism powers which apply only to Northern Ireland. I am sure that that will find great favour in your Lordships' House.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, raised another aspect mentioned by my noble friend Lord Colville about video recording of interviews, particularly with terrorist suspects. My noble friend recognised that there were a number of serious potential difficulties over this aspect of video recording. He acknowledged that the balance was very difficult to achieve. The Bennet Report, on which the procedures for interviewing by the Royal Ulster Constabulary are based, rejected the idea. However, we shall certainly be examining the whole of this aspect, particularly in view of the very valuable comments made by my noble friend. Although unable to commit the Government to any further activity tonight, we shall certainly look at everything.

As regards the political progress we yearn after, we have tried and continue to try to promote dialogue. However, we are able to achieve little by little changes in the political climate in Northern Ireland. There is now more willingness to consider the ideas of the Government, but, of course, this has to be done discreetly and tactfully in Northern Ireland. There may be some signs of compromise. Certainly, I think there is more hope in regard to that aspect than there was when I last presented similar measures to your Lordships.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, took us on a fascinating tour of Northern Ireland politics. I shall read his remarks with relish. There were many good comments among his remarks. He referred to Sunningdale and the events of 1974 in the same paragraph as he mentioned the events of 1985 and subsequently. However, I take his point. We shall digest what he said. We shall not stop trying to improve the political climate in Northern Ireland.

As for the noble Lord's comments on the Irish constitution, it would be quite wrong of me to comment in any way. I am sure the noble Lord will be able to look after himself when comments come back, as they are almost bound to do. The noble Lord touched a common chord in all of us, and especially those of us who serve in Northern Ireland. He said that each night his thoughts were on the violence, how this was presented in the media and how it reflected upon everyone in Northern Ireland. I often feel exactly the same; so, I believe, do many of us in regard to Northern Ireland. However, there is always a glimmer of optimism. No one in your Lordships' House—and this also applies elsewhere —can let down the people of Northern Ireland in trying to help them find a solution. That is the object of the measures before us. I say on behalf of the Government that we shall not fail in the task. In that spirit I commend the measures to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.