HL Deb 19 March 1990 vol 517 cc77-100

7.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order was laid before your Lordships' House on 26th February. It continues in force for a further 12 months the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987. The provisions provide the police and armed forces with extra powers to stop and question people to ascertain their identity and movements; and to search for, and to seize, weapons, explosives and radio transceivers. They create the category of proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland, and offences associated with terrorist activity. In addition, they provide the legal authority for the so-called Diplock courts and the trial of scheduled offences, and establish a scheme for the regulation of the security guard industry in Northern Ireland.

The Acts also guarantee statutory rights for terrorist suspects to have someone informed of their arrest and whereabouts and to have access to legal advice within 48 hours of their arrest. This year the order also continues in force for a further period certain parts of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 relating to terrorist funding and investigations in Northern Ireland, and also certain exclusively Northern Ireland provisions in the Act. The main body of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was the subject of a separate continuance order which your Lordships debated last week.

I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, for his report on the Acts, which the House may know is the third annual report which he has written on their operation. It is a short report this year because, as my noble friend says in it, he is now engaged in a more substantial review of the legislation to consider what changes should be made to it when the current Acts expire in 1992. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked my noble friend to submit this larger report by Easter. In due course the Government will, thereafter, bring forward proposals.

So far as today's debate is concerned, my noble friend's main recommendation is that all the powers currently in force should be continued for a further 12 months. The Government accept that recommendation and the order before this House will give effect to it. The Government's policy remains that any powers that are no longer strictly justified by the demands of the security situation in Northern Ireland should be allowed to lapse. Your Lordships may recall that last year three minor sections of the Acts were allowed to lapse. These were the sections relating to the police and armed forces' power to call upon assemblies to disperse; to allow the police to impose directions on the conduct of funerals and to allow the Secretary of State to close licensed premises. I am pleased to report to the House that, as my noble friend commented in his report, the loss of these powers has not adversely affected the police or armed forces in Northern Ireland.

Your Lordships will also be aware that it had been the Government's intention, on my noble friend's recommendation, to allow a further section to lapse this year. This was Section 13 of the 1978 Act, which provides a police power of arrest. For the reasons set out in his latest report, however, that provision must clearly be retained for the time being.

The one other matter on which my noble friend comments this year is the possibility of video-recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in the holding centres at Castlereagh, Armagh and Londonderry. The Government have been examining this proposal in consultation with those responsible for overseeing the present system. The Government will consider this proposal carefully and fairly, both in relation to the technical and security aspects of video-recording, once we have received my noble friend's further report at Easter.

I note the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in tape recording, which he expressed last week.

The House will need no reminding that the level of terrorism, both Republican and Loyalist, continues at a very high level in Northern Ireland. In 1989, 62 people lost their lives as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, and around 800 people were injured. Some 11 people have also died this year. In the past two weeks we have seen a number of horrific sectarian murders directed against members of both communities. These killings serve no purpose but to deepen the bitterness and the divisions in Northern Ireland society, and cause grief and suffering to the friends and relatives of those who are killed. Each death reopens old agonies. The terrorists do absolutely nothing to protect either community, quite the reverse. The killings bring out more clearly than anything the awful, futile nature of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland society. As my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State said to me some years ago, the attitude of the terrorists is essentially Marxist; it is to destroy for destruction's sake rather than to build on what others have achieved.

Your Lordships will want to join me in paying an unreserved tribute to the work of the RUC and the army in their commitment to seek out, to deter and to prevent the terrorists from their ruthless attacks. They continue to pay a very considerable price for their commitment and courage. During 1989, nine members of the RUC and 14 members of the armed forces lost their lives as a result of terrorism. Many others were seriously injured. I wish to pay a particular tribute to both full-time and part-time members of the UDR, many of whom live constantly at threat, both on and off duty, in some of the most dangerous parts of Northern Ireland. I also pay tribute to the judiciary and the staff of the prison and court services, who continue to maintain the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland despite the constant pressures which the terrorist organisations bring against them. It is a sad fact that the intimidation of witnesses, the bombing of court houses and attempts against the lives of judges and others remain as great a problem as they were when the Emergency Provisions Act was first enacted in 1973.

The eradication of terrorism, Loyalist or Republican, remains the Government's first priority in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work unreservedly for the defeat of terrorism with all the means at our disposal that are compatible with the letter and spirit of the rule of law. The police and armed forces will continue to receive the full support of Her Majesty's Government in their difficult and dangerous work. They recognise that to be fully effective, they must command support across the community and achieve the highest professional standards in that work. The Government will also continue to work actively for the political, economic and social progress in Northern Ireland that is also necessary if their efforts are fully to succeed, and lasting peace is to be won. For the same reason, we will also continue to maintain and improve security co-operation with the Irish Government under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is the Government's wish to create a society where there exists the fullest opportunity for all the people of Northern Ireland, without coercion and the threat of violence.

It is against this background that the order before us is being considered today. The provisions to which it relates remain, in the Government's view, essential if vigorous action is to be taken to pre-empt and disrupt terrorist activity and to bring to justice those who have committed these serious crimes. Without these powers the levels of violence would undoubtedly have been higher. We all look to the day when the powers will no longer be needed, but regrettably that day is still some way off. I therefore commend the order unreservedly to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee] .— {Lord Skelmersdale.)

7.15 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the manner in which he moved this brief but not unfamiliar order. He rightly refreshed our memories about the range of the emergency and anti-terrorist powers which are to continue in force for yet another year. They are powers of fundamental importance to the freedom of the individual, the privacy of his home and to the rule of law. The need for their renewal after two decades of violence and direct rule must be a source of sadness. Whether it is necessary to renew each and every one of the powers, or to do so without modification or without stronger safeguards, are matters which rightly exercised many of my colleagues in another place.

For my part I should mention for example that I regret that interviews of alleged terrorists by the police are still not being video recorded. In that context, we are reminded in paragraph 5.5 of the short report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that of the 319 complaints that were received by the Northern Ireland independent Police Complaints Commission in 1989, the large majority related to interviews by the police.

I also regret that there is still no sign that the Diplock courts are to be replaced by three-judges courts, until such time as jury trials are available for all criminal offences.

Those are some of the important issues to which we shall possibly have to return when the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, presents his full report. In the meantime we agree that the legislation should be renewed for another 12 months. The Minister took us through the Government's case for renewing the legislation. Violence continues to rise, to fall and to rise again. The House was reminded that about 800 people had been injured and 62 lives had been lost since the legislation was last renewed.

We on these Benches join with the Minister in paying unreserved tribute to those who have borne heavy sacrifices and human costs in the lawful execution of their duties as members of the security forces. We wish to add from these Benches that we also remember with respect the civilians who have beer, killed or injured and also all the families in Northern Ireland or on the mainland who have suffered grievous and lasting losses.

The Minister expressed his appreciation of the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who is in his place. The noble Viscount already has the respect of every Member of this House, and he is obviously earning the respect of both communities in Northern Ireland, for his fairness. We look forward to the enhanced review of the emergency provision Act upon which the noble Viscount is now engaged. That will be a major report. I hope and expect that the Minister can say that when the review is completed, adequate opportunity will be given for full consultations and that the recommendations will receive the fullest consideration by the Government. But in the meantime the powers contained in the emergency provisions Acts and in the prevention of terrorism Act, to the extent that the latter applied in Northern Ireland, which are being renewed by this order, will continue to be exercised day in and day out.

Those who operate these substantial powers are ordinary people, albeit in positions of authority. Because they are ordinary people the powers can sometimes be operated clumsily. There is already plenty of evidence that the powers are unpopular. That is not surprising. There is also evidence that they are bitterly resented in those areas in Northern Irelard with high levels of police and army activity and where there is ingrained hostility to authority. That is the opinion of experienced political observers of the Northern Ireland scene. For those reasons it is desperately important that the powers are exercised in a fair and impartial manner and perceived to be exercised with sensitivity. That is a point which needs to be emphasised again and again on the occasion of the renewal of the emergency powers.

The Secretary of State, in his speech in support of this order the other day, concluded on a slightly more positive note than usual. I noticed that the Minister was silent on that point. Like other Members of your Lordships' House I have been reading the speeches that the Secretary of State has made over the past few months. He has been saying two things, and both are hopeful. First, he has said that there is a climate of political realism in the Province, and, secondly, that there is some common ground between the political parties that would enable them to engage in political dialogue.

Perhaps we may ask: what and where is the tangible evidence? I wonder whether the Minister— who was silent on the point— is in a position to enlighten us when he replies. However, even if he is not in a position to help the House on that particular question, I believe that the mere fact that the Secretary of State, who is after all at the centre of government policy in and for Northern Ireland, announces publicly at home and abroad that after two decades of direct rule and dreadful violence there are now grounds for cautious optimism must be encouraging. The Secretary of State could be wrong. Indeed, he has acknowledged that he could be wrong. Yet I am encouraged that after nine months in office he has not been discouraged. That I believe to be refreshing.

Obviously there are major obstacles. We observe in passing that relevant judgments delivered by the supreme courts in the three jurisdictions— Eire, England and Wales and Northern Ireland— are sometimes difficult to understand. Such judgments are splashed across newspapers and have inescapably an adverse influence on public opinion. Although they add to the short-term difficulties of both governments I accept that that is the price that we properly pay for an independent judiciary.

We are approaching the threshold of a new century. That could help to concentrate minds about the institutions of government which we should now be building in Northern Ireland to meet the requirements of the coming century. We do not want to carry the legacy of direct rule and of violence into the new century. It is therefore our fervent hope that the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland will put aside their age-long differences and distrust and use their considerable skills, energies and influence to design a workable constitutional formula based on devolution which would lead to peace and an improvement in the conditions of living in the Falls, in the Shankhill and throughout the Province.

It is on that note that I want to conclude these few comments. While we approve the continuance of the emergency legislation for another 12 months, there is a pressing need for political progress towards peace. That is the jewel yet to be won.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, first, I should like to mention a matter which is slightly outside the scope of this debate— the outrageous decision on extradition last week in Dublin. Mr. Haughey has said that there will be no safe haven for terrorists. These were not suspects; they were convicted terrorists. I wonder what has happened to this haven now.

I totally support the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order. The reasons for the order have been given: the number of incidents and the problems which continue to arise. In particular I should like to mention just one; namely, the raid by the IRA on the Derryard border checkpoint. I mention it because that was not an ordinary raid by a group of hooligans. Fourteen armed men, from seven feet up in the back of a lorry, which reversed into an enclosure smaller than this Chamber, sprayed the place with bullets. They also used flame-throwers, grenades and rocket launchers. If there is any doubt— I do not believe that there is— as to what the terrorists are, that is an example of their organisation and how they go about things.

Remember also the additional terrorist attacks in Britain and in Europe. Without the prevention of terrorism emergency provisions in Northern Ireland those attacks would undoubtedly become more frequent outside the shores of Ireland.

I welcome the report of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. However, I do not agree with one of his points. In paragraph 2 on page 1 of the report he suggests yet again that a charge of manslaughter may be used rather than one of murder where members of the security forces who may have killed someone are concerned. I spoke about that matter two years ago at some length and I shall not go into it again other than to register the fact that I do not agree with the suggestion.

I believe that it is also my noble friend's intention to take internment out of the statute book. I consider that there are two reasons for keeping it in. The first is that we do not know how terrorism in Northern Ireland will develop. It may conceivably be the case that we shall need it again. If it is taken out, when we need it again it will not be there. The second point is that although there is no intention of using the power now, if it has any deterrent value then every deterrent against terrorism is worth something.

My noble friend's report is short. Perhaps that is because he does not consider that many changes are possible. In his report for last year, however, I picked up one point which I should like to discuss further. He said that the battle for the hearts and minds should be the paramount preoccupation of those who exercise emergency powers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his remarks supporting that comment.

What of that? The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are opposed to terrorism. Why, therefore, do they not fully support the emergency powers? What is it that upsets them about those powers, even though they do not support terrorism? I believe that there are two reasons for that. First, they may misunderstand the emergency powers. Secondly, the use of those powers affects their lives to too great an extent. We should endeavour to lessen those effects.

There are two ways in which people who are not involved in terrorism are influenced. The first is through contact with the security forces, whether it is at a vehicle checkpoint during searches or at other times. The second is by the news media— what is read and what is seen on television. Without those two influences— although it would not be possible to remove them— people in Northern Ireland would not be worried about the powers which apply there.

Then we come to those who administer them— the RUC and Her Majesty's Forces. The public meet members of the RUC on duty. They also meet them off duty to a certain extent because they are a part of the community and they have community and police liaison committees with councils. There is a renewed effort to get those going. As from January this year, there are proposals for committees with the Down District Council, the Ards Borough Council and Craigavon Borough Council. In addition, they have various activities, mainly for the young, including ramble schemes, summer camps, top of the form quizzes, sport and Duke of Edinburgh Award schemes in which they take some part. Those are all good things.

My noble friend Lord Colville believes that hearts and minds are important. So they are, but are the Government giving enough funds and support to that side? I accept that they give support, but could they perhaps give more? In his last report, the Chief Constable said: It is with regret that due to financial considerations I was forced to deploy 20 community relations officers on other duties". I accept that the Government's reply might be that it is up to the chief constable and how he divides his pudding. However, perhaps more should be given to that side when so many people are sure that the hearts and minds issue is important. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the consequences of underfunding that vital role of the RUC.

Her Majesty's Forces are on a different level. The only time that the public meet them is on duty, in uniform and with weapons. There is no chance to discuss security policy in the broadest possible terms. We must remember that the RUC committees deal predominantly with elected bodies and the young. A massive part of the population is neither young nor on elected bodies.

Perhaps I may take an example from Great Britain. With regard to the report on the Brixton disorders in 1981 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, it was pointed out that the establishment of arrangements for obtaining the views of the people in each police area, and for obtaining their co-operation with the police in preventing crime, became a statutory requirement in England and Wales with the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, recommended the involvement of as wide a spectrum of the local community as possible, and the involvement of non-elected representatives in liaison committees in Great Britain has been a considerable success and has led to a healthy exchange of views on policing issues at the local level.

Surely that should apply to some extent to the RUC and the army in Northern Ireland. It would help to avoid some of the bad PR decisions or at least take more local feeling into account. I know Roman Catholics and Protestants who are neither young nor elected who would gladly share their thoughts once a month over a cup of tea in the local army base or police station.

Perhaps I may give an example of what happens when that does not occur. About a year or a year and a half ago, the army went into Brookeborough village, where I live, with cameras and upset everyone by filming. Clearly, the locals thought that they were considered to be terrorists, that their names would be put in a file and, when anything came up, they would be jumped on. There was therefore considerable bad feeling. However, I happen to know, because someone rang me and I inquired about it, that it was done purely for regimental records. If an officer had gone into a shop in Brookeborough and said, "We would like to do this for our records. Would you very much mind if we film in the village? Will you tell everyone that we shall do so in a week's time?", I guarantee that there would not have been a problem, except perhaps in respect of one or two people who might have wanted to cause a problem anyway. Building a military or police obstacle beside a church or school might be a sensitive issue. Perhaps the building could be moved slightly. One feels that local opinion is not sufficiently considered on those occasions. Elected representatives are not always as good at talking to the security forces as they might be.

Border checkpoints are another example. They are vital to security in Northern Ireland. However, they were built 10 years ago and there is now approximately three times the amount of traffic going through them. A firm near me has 42 lorries, most: of which are brand new. It has 42 lorries instead of 36 because every time a lorry goes through the local checkpoint it is stopped for 15 minutes or more. It is not stopped for searching. That is where the problem lies. It is stopped waiting for someone else to be searched. Those lorries are invariably not searched. People are therefore sitting around waiting for 15 minutes. That costs the firm approximately a quar; er of a million pounds a year. People often have to wait an hour and, when they go through, a nice soldier says, "Thank you very much. Please go on". It would not take much money and only a little thought to redesign those checkpoints on busy roads so that there could be free traffic when people are not being checked. The soldiers can only check x number of vehicles in a given time, so one will not improve on the one in 10 or one in 20 vehicles that are checked. That is security as it is at the moment. Even if one lets through the traffic, one will not slow down or speed up the searches.

In addition, many workers in the factory in question must now park their vehicles on the other side cf the border and walk to work in order to arrive on time. The Garda then ring up and ask them to move their vehicles. They therefore have to pile out of their offices and go down and wait for another 15 minutes. A great deal could be done to get the right people on the right side. People who are anti-terrorist would support the emergency provisions if their personal lives would permit it.

As I said, the second area which influences the public perception is that of the media. It is an undisputed fact that society is anti-terrorist. If so, how do people sometimes get the wrong impression from the media? Perhaps I may take the example of the "Panorama" programme on the Ulster Defence Regiment on 19th February this year. The programme was unhelpful, hostile and biased. It attempted to deceive the viewer into believing that the activities of a tiny minority were representatives of the whole regiment. Even if one accepts the worst figures put forward by John Ware and his team that, in the past 20 years, 197 soldiers have been convicted of criminal acts, very few of them related to terrorism. When set against the figures of 6,000 serving soldiers and 35,000 retired soldiers, it represents less than half of 1 per cent.

Another point related to briefing on Loyalist suspects. In Fermanagh, for example, no so-called Loyalist incidents have occurred in the past five years. It is not difficult therefore to find some soldiers who have not been briefed on Loyalist suspects. We must remember that throughout the period of the troubles, 13 times the number of incidents have been caused by the IRA compared with so-called Loyalists. We must also remember the detection rate of so-called Loyalist incidents— 11 people arrested for every 10 crimes. On the Republican side, one person is arrested for every five. Those figures come from the chief constable's report and they are not fudged.

The RUC asks for help from the army, which includes the UDR, when it needs it. In the "Panorama" programme, John Ware suggested that the Stevens report would be devastating for the regiment. He did not use those words, but that is what he suggested. However, the charges resulting from the Stevens inquiry are quite interesting. A total of six persons were charged with possession of ammunition. We should note, first, that the ammunition was in excess of amounts already permitted on their firearms certificates. The magistrate said, when he fined five of them £ 50 each and one of them £ 100, that there was no suggestion that the offences had any relation to terrorist offences.

There was one charge of possession of an illegal firearm. Every one welcomes the apprehension of that man, no one more so than the army and the Ulster Defence Regiment. The main interviewee in the programme was none other than a convicted criminal, presumably with an axe to grind. Even Father Dennis Faul said: I have said it again and again— most UDR men are very decent men— good, law-abiding men who are well disciplined". Father Dennis Faul is not exactly a fan of the security forces.

I shall leave noble Lords to judge for themselves whether the impression given by the programme was justified. That programme is but one example of where the media is at fault. Some members of the media stirred it up over the Gibraltar incident, in which the SAS was involved, so much so that it was suggested that there could never be a fair outcome.

As a last example, let me take the case of the horrific murders of two corporals in Belfast a couple of years ago. A single point comes out of it. Everyone will remember the reluctance with which the televised news media handed over their footage to the authorities and the length of time that they took to do so.

On the back page of today's Telegraph there is an article on Magnum, the famous photograph agency. The last paragraph reads: George Rodger was the first photographer to enter the Belsen concentration camp after its liberation in 1945. The book George Rodger— Magnum Opus, published in 1987 records his reaction: 'I didn't know until then— despite over five years of war— what effect the war had had on me personally, when I discovered that I could look at the horrors of Belsen— the 4,000 dead and starving lying around— and think only of a nice photographic composition, I knew something had happened to me, and it had to stop'". I suggest that the media should take a check and think hard about their role.

Last night on television during a screening of the BAFTA awards, which I understand are the television and film industries' awards, it was said that all that the public expects from programmes such as "Panorama" is that they should be fair, accurate and impartial. Personally, I do not believe that the media are keeping to those criteria. Investigative journalism is one thing; to point out faults so that they can be put right is correct. It cannot be for individuals such as John Ware to voice their private prejudices and mislead society about what is just— the fight against international terrorism.

On 19th February in The Times, John Birt, Deputy Director-General of the BBC, wrote: The BBC aspires keenly to the concept of impartiality in all its programmes". To my way of thinking what he believes is not very well disseminated to his reporters.

Until the public's perception of the emergency provisions improves, we shall have a problem. It is my hope that my noble friend the Minsiter will pass on the right messages about hearts and minds. Let us get for us the people who are basically anti-terrorism. Let us get them behind the emergency provisions. I fully support the continuance order.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Dunleath

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. While agreeing with much of what he said, I should add, "Thank goodness for a free press and for independent broadcasting media". That is one of our strongest guarantees against abuses at all levels. Had there been a free press and independent broadcasting in Eastern Europe, the abuses which survived there for such an astonishing length of time— until late last year— would not have been able to continue. Thank goodness, too, for investigative journalism which is an art in itself but which has to be very carefully handled.

The noble Viscount made reference to the "Panorama" programme. I accept that it is far from easy to make a balanced, investigative documentary programme. For instance, if one were to make a programme about violence and crime in the city of Westminster, one might show the odd shot of tourists taking photographs of Westminster Abbey and Big Ben. There might be the odd shot of the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace and the odd shot of the exotic birds (both feathered and otherwise) in St. James's Park just to give the atmosphere of the place. But one would not devote a great deal of footage to people who had not been mugged, whose house had not been broken into and entered and who had not been subject to violence while walking through one of the parks after dark.

It is not easy to give a complete balance in any one programme. Someone who had never been to London and knew nothing about the place but who had watched such a programme on crime and violence in the city of Westminster might gain the impression that it was not a safe place to walk about in but somewhere in which one was in danger at all times. However, if such a person came to the City of Westminster he would see the tourists, the changing of the guard and the birds in the park and would get a completely different impression.

I may be wrong but I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and I are probably the only two Members of this House who have served in the Ulster Defence Regiment. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, served in the navy with much distinction but I do not think that he was in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Therefore perhaps the noble Viscount and I can give a personal view of the other side of the picture. Rather than believe what is portrayed in a programme such as the "Panorama" documentary to which the noble Viscount referred, and which was screened a month ago, we can say what things are like in fact.

Allegations over collusion with so-called loyalist paramilitaries were a feature of that programme. When I was a platoon commander I went out on patrol at night with my platoon. As is always the case when on duty with people, one gets to know them fairly well. Quite genuinely I do not believe that any one of the men with whom I served would have colluded with paramilitary organisations, would have had a divided loyalty or would have had loyalty to anything other than the regiment. Queen and country.

It would be wrong to prejudge the Stevens inquiry but, as the noble Viscount said, out of 41,000 people who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment or who presently serve in it only a minute number have defaulted in any way. Whatever number it may be— I per cent. and 5 per cent.— it is too many. Equally regrettably a small number of the members of the medical profession have defaulted and have been disciplined for professional misconduct. But that does not mean that we hold the entire medical profession in disrepute or suggest that it ought to be disbanded. Far from it.

Allegations have also been made that at vehicle checkpoints members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been guilty of intimidating or indeed roughing up people whom they have stopped late at night. That was an allegation that I heard when attending the first session of the British-Irish interparliamentary body. I did not like to say too much about it at that time. However, when I was promoted in the Ulster Defence Regiment from a platoon commander to a company operations officer, I made it my business to train the soldiers how to operate a vehicle checkpoint. I remember spending a full weekend putting them through the various hazards with which they might be presented. I would set forth in our old Cortina estate car with a lot of old mackintoshes and different dunchers and hats in the back and drive in disguise through the vehicle checkpoint that I had told the soldiers to set up. On one occasion I would be abrasive and ask them what business they thought they had to stop me when I was travelling in a orderly manner on the Queen's highway.

On another occasion I would be suspicious and evade their questions to see how they would cope with that. On yet another occasion I would try their patience by engaging them in lengthy conversation while the civilian traffic was building up in a queue behind. They said to me afterwards, "We did not know it was you, sir," such was the effectiveness of my disguise and the authenticity of the accents that I assumed on those occasions. However, the men took the point. They always manned a vehicle check point in a sensitive and courteous manner irrespective of the attitude of the vehicle driver whom they were stopping.

In my service in the Ulster Defence Regiment only twice were we faced with a potentially awkward situation. On one occasion we were summoned by the police to a Roman Catholic church in the Holy wood Road, Belfast, because it was under attack by a gang of Protestant youths who were at that time known as the "tartan gangs". We therefore concentrated on that area. We had stones thrown at us, and I had to send one of my soldiers to hospital afterwards because he had a leg injury, but nothing worse than that happened. But the UDR men on that occasion were as resentful of the Protestant youths attacking that Roman Catholic church as they would have been of Roman Catholics attacking a Protestant church.

On the other occasion in Newtownards a publican came out of a public house and shouted, "Why aren't you doing anything about this?" I said, "I have only just arrived. I don't know what is happening." It turned out again that it was a Roman Catholic-owned public house and that it had been under threat from some Protestant louts. We therefore mounted guard and everything was all right. The situation was successfully defused.

The picture is therefore much broader than that presented by the "Panorama" programme to which the noble Viscount referred. If there is a block on that picture it is so small that it is almost indiscernible.

It is regrettable that whereas in 1971 the percentage of Roman Catholics in the Ulster Defence Regiment was 18 per cent. the figure is now only 3 per cent. But great tribute must be paid to the 3 per cent. for their courage because it is not easy being a Roman Catholic and a member of the security forces in certain parts of the country.

Before anyone criticises the Ulster Defence Regiment I respectfully suggest that he bears in mind the stress that is endured by members of that regiment. He should bear in mind the anguish endured by those who have lost husbands, fathers brothers and sons, very often murdered in cold blood. He should also consider the facts before adversely criticising the UDR.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, sitting in your Lordships' House, looking across the Floor at the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, it makes me feel rather ancient because I recall vividly sitting in Stormont in the Northern Ireland Parliament and having the same discussion with his grandfather, the first Viscount Brookeborough.

Lord Dunleath

And my godfather too.

Lord Fitt

I had not realised that. So it would appear that nothing has changed.

Let as consider the Northern Ireland problems and the Irish problem in the context of today. We have been watching this weekend the elections taking place in East Germany. The question was about reunification. I am not very happy with the result but it gives an indication of how people will vote on an emotional plane. They will vote for unity even when it is not attainable. They will vote for a rejection of those who appear to be attaining unity too slowly or not wishing to go ahead apace.

The situation in Ireland today is not unique. If one considers the emergency regulations before us this evening one might think that Ireland is a unique situation. I was born and reared in Northern Ireland. There are other situations throughout the world where two communities are fighting for one portion of land or trying to put forward their claim to one portion of land. In Cyprus one has the Turkish and Greek populations. In Ceylon— now Sri Lanka— one has a terribly serious campaign of murders. We have it in French possessions in the Pacific. Therefore the situation is not unique. What makes Ireland different is that it has existed for three or four centuries. The history of what is happening in Cyprus goes back further, but that is not the case with other claims and territorial ambitions.

We are here tonight debating emergency regulations. Let us first make clear what the regulations involve. There are 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland. There are six counties in the North. The real trouble is that Articles 1 and 2 of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland lay claim to the six counties of Northern Ireland. If one is an Irishman one realises that either the 26 counties or the six counties is a derogatory term. But we are all prisoners of our Irish history and our Irish history is all British history. It has not been solely confined to the island of Ireland. Irish history and British history in the 17th century were one and the same thing.

I have here a history lesson. This year, 1990, is the anniversary of the famous or infamous Battle of the Boyne which decided the monarchy in England and the partition of Ireland 300 years hence. The history lesson is this, and it should be put on record. I have been watching the commemorations of 1688, 1689 and 1690 which have taken place concerning the glorious and bloodless revolution of 1688, King William and so on. So far as concerns Ireland it was not glorious and bloodless. We are living now with the consequences of that glorious and bloodless revolution which led to the emergency provisions measure that we are debating today.

It would be as well to put the history lesson on record. The history lesson says: A Dutchman called Prince William, and an Englishman, King James, fell out and and start feuding, and called each other names, T'was for the throne of England, but for reasons not quite clear, they came across to Ireland, to do their fighting here. They had Sarsfield,they had Schomberg, they had horse and foot and guns, and they landed up at Carrick, with a thousand Lamberg drums … They had lots of Dutch and Frenchmen, and battalions and platoons, of Russians and of Prussians, and Bulgarian dragoons, and they politely asked the Irish if they'd kindly like to join, and the whole affair was settled, at the Battle of the Boyne. Then William went to London, and James went off to France, And the whole Kibosh left Ireland, without a backward glance, and the poor abandoned Irish, said "goodbye" to King and Prince, and went on with the fighting, and we've been at it ever since". That is a true story of what happened in the 17th century; it is the true reason for what we are debating here this evening.

Like all noble Lords, I have been watching television over the past six months. I have seen the taking down of the Berlin Wall; I have heard the clamour for national independence. There have been the results of the voting in East Germany and the calls for independence in the Baltic republics. Once again I am reminded of a famous quotation by none other than Winston Churchill. In 1922, after the war, speaking on the free state Bill in the House of Commons he said: Then the came the Great War … Every institution, almost, in the world was strained. Great Empires have been overthrown. The whole map of Europe has been changed. The position of countries has been violently altered. The mode and thought of men, the whole outlook on affairs, the grouping of parties, all have encountered violent and tremendous changes in the deluge of the world, but as the deluge subsides and the waters fall we see the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again. The integrity of their quarrel is one of the few institutions that have been unaltered in the cataclysm which has swept the world. That says a lot for the persistence with which Irishmen on the one side or the other are able to pursue their controversies. It says a good deal for the power which Ireland has, both Nationalist and Orange, to lay her hands upon the vital strings of British life and politics and to hold, dominate and convulse, year after year, generation after generation, the politics of this powerful country". How true is that today, 70 years later.

There must be a reason why those politics, that atmosphere and that reasoning prevail. However, one views events in Lithuania, East Germany, Latvia and Estonia, the fact remains that we have this problem— and it is a problem— within the British Isles and the United Kingdom.

Ireland is an island which, the Irish nationalists believe, is the one indivisible geographical island which should not be partitioned. That is something with which I may not totally agree but it is certainly something in which the Irish republican and nationalist community in Northern Ireland believe. However, given that we are now living in the 20th century, how can we contain that political entity known as Northern Ireland, opposed as it is by the Irish republican or nationalist community? We must have emergency legislation such as this.

As a democrat, I have always been opposed to emergency legislation. I said that one day last week in this House on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I do not believe, as the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, have said, that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are willing either to support or give support to men of violence to try to change the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. However, I now go further than what I said last week on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. There are far too many covert paramilitary supporters both on the republican and loyalist sides. While not prepared themselves to take action, they are quite prepared to give covert support.

In the Irish Republic over the past two weeks there has been the very injurious decision given by the Irish Supreme Court in relation to Articles 2 and 3 and, within a few days, the totally disastrous decision of the Irish Supreme Court in relation to the release of two convicted criminals in Northern Ireland. We are told, and I understand, that both the Irish Government and the British Government are prepared to play that down and to say that it was not really serious; merely a hiccough; and one of those small things which should not be allowed to interfere with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As a nationalist, a Catholic and one who has opposed the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, his father and his grandfather, again I put on record that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will do absolutely nothing to unite the community in Northern Ireland.

We were told that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would lead to a situation where the Government of the Republic would do whatever they could to apprehend criminals and terrorists. That has not been so. The Irish Government could have done an awful lot more to apprehend terrorists in the Republic of Ireland. Every time that it appears that they are doing less than they should, the people of Northern Ireland— particularly the Unionist population ask, "What was the Anglo-Irish Agreement all about?" If it appears that one side or the other are victors in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, then it will not do what it is supposed to.

I remember very well 15th November 1985 when the Irish Government and the British Government signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I kept two versions of it. The British version said: "This is an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic". That was a statement of fact. The Irish version said: "This is an agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom".

They could not agree on the nomenclature of the agreement. That was an indication of the position. That paved the way for the decisions in the Irish court last week. There is no such thing at the moment as the Government of Ireland. Where the governments of that island are in dispute, IRA men, UVF men or people in other paramilitary organisations will be prepared to push their ideas about the constitution of the country concerned.

We were told that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would do away with megaphone diplomacy. It would mean that where there was disagreement between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom people would not be engaged in shooting at each other across the Irish Sea. That has not happened. Every month when there is a meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental council we see the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic on television telling the world at large what he is going to say to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Then he comes out of the meeting and tells the world at large what he has said to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I do not see that that is any great advance on the position that existed before the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

This debate is all about internal security in Nonhern Ireland and the relationship between Northern Ireland and this country. I do not oppose the order as it stands at the moment because I have seen the problem of terrorism not only in Northern Ireland where I live but in the United Kingdom over a number of years. I advise the Government that whatever arrangements they have agreed with the Irish Government in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement the Irish Government should be made to live up to whatever promises they have made or indications they have given that they will do what they can to prevent any further erosion of the response to terrorism.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he introduced the order. I very much welcome what he said about future video recordings of interviews. It is certainly no frnction of this Parliament, let alone of your Lordsihips' House, to criticise the decisions of the courts of other countries. However, the fact remains, as has been pointed out, that two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Ireland have unfortunately been a major setback to relations between our two countries. This has implications for security in Northern Ireland and for co-operation between the security forces of the North and South of Ireland.

Such co-operation is vital and has, I am glad to say, greatly increased since 1985. The constitutional and legal situation could be clarified and improved by amending the constitution of the Irish Republic, a maf.er to which I have previously referred in the House. I note briefly that the Kilbrandon Commission in 1984, the Northern Consensus Group in Belfast, the New Consensus in Dublin and Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien have all expressed clear views on Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Another and perhaps more fruitful approach would be for both governments to remove the present ambiguities, which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, so rightly pointed out, by using the Helsinki process. The Conference on European Security is, after all, designed to ensure that no member states make territorial claims upon their neighbours. To confirm and underwrite the existing frontier would remove a great deal of quite understandable Unionist fear. It would also help to make elections in Northern Ireland less divisive and more constructive. It would enhance the chances of an internal settlement and improve the outlook for stability and economic investment. One thing is sure: uncertainty is the enemy of progress.

It has become almost a tradition of these debates to express admiration and support for the army, the police and the prison service. I recognise the courage and devotion to duty of the great majority of their members. I support them willingly and most wholeheartedly when they uphold the law, promote peace and seek to disarm terrorism. They thereby protect the lives and interests of law-abiding people throughout the whole community regardless of political or religious traditions. I particularly welcome the efforts of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to recruit more Catholics and thus to balance the composition of the force. The RUC professional code of conduct is an excellent document. I hope that it will be more and more widely understood and implemented.

Now that some sections of the RUC are heavily armed and equipped, there is a strong case for phasing out, over a period of years, the Ulster Defence Regiment. Its full-time and part-time members could be given the option of continuing to serve either in the police or in the regular army. Those who took the army option might be retained as guides and instructors to the rotating units of the army. Their local knowledge could be invaluable. This suggestion is not original. It was first made in 1985 by the report of the commission set up by the Alliance Party of Great Britain and was endorsed this year by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who had some special knowledge of these matters.

I have the greatest sympathy for those members of the security forces who are confronted with difficult decisions about how much force to use and whether or not to open fire. This is particularly the case when law breakers use replica weapons. There are, however, serious grounds for concern about the killings of Messrs. Thompson, Hale and McNeil on the Falls Road on 13th January and about the nearly fatal wounding of Mr. Kearney on 26th February in Lenadoon. The army was responsible for all those shootings.

At least three measures could be taken to improve this difficult situation. The Government could formally adopt the code of conduct for internal conflicts prepared by Dr. Gasser of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the draft model declaration by Professor Meron of New York University. I understand from the Government that most of the points in the IRC documents are covered by existing international conventions which we have ratified. I shall try to obtain a copy of the New York document. The point, however, about formally adopting such documents is that it would make it clear beyond any doubt that not only the police but also the army, its special units and the UDR are committed to the use of minimum appropriate force.

A second approach would be to create a new offence, applicable to the security forces, of using force in a reckless manner. Here I am afraid I have to disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. This, I believe, would help by making it easier for the courts to convict where the mark had been overstepped. Once again, this suggestion goes back to Kilbrandon. It has since been endorsed by various professors of law and by at least one former Minister in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.

A third approach lies in reforming the terms of reference and rules for coroners inquests in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, they are at present all too often meaningless. If they could take place sooner after the event and if they led to remedial action they might begin to be more useful. Probably all three approaches are necessary.

Very serious apprehensions have been aroused about collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries by doubts about adequate vetting of recruits to the Ulster Defence Regiment and by the exploitation of civilian contracts within the Ballykelly base. The Stevens inquiry has been widely welcomed and we must hope that it will have more positive results than the earlier Stalker inquiry. Accountability in all the security services, including the police, is a major worry. The problem of course goes wider than this debate since it concerns the whole of the United Kingdom and probably the Irish Republic as well. The fact that the Home Secretary is a one-man police authority for London and that in 1989 many of the English police forces were investigating each other merely confirms the difficulties.

The pamphlet, Police Accountability in Northern Ireland published in 1988 by the Voluntary Committee on the Administration of Justice is probably one of the best attempts to find a way forward. Pending major reforms in accountability, several useful minor improvements could and should be made in Northern Ireland. Police and the public liaison committees should be more widely used, drawing on the experience of the successful committee in Derry. Here I welcome the proposal from the noble Viscount for three new committees.

The system of duty solicitors available to advise arrested persons should be extended to all police stations where such people are held and questioned. In England, lay visitors to police stations have been a recent success and similar experiments should be tried in Northern Ireland.

We can rejoice that the month of February passed without a single violent death in Northern Ireland. In March, alas, there have been several sectarian killings. Such fluctuations from month to month perhaps underline the importance of restoring normal civilian policing as widely as possible. If traditional methods of dealing with hooliganism, disputes between neighbours, car thefts, and so on, can prevail then the climate in which terrorism flourishes will be greatly reduced.

My final request has already been made several times by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. Will the Government arrange the consolidation of the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act in so far a both affect Northern Ireland? That would be a major step forward for all who are in any way concerned with the operation of this complex but regrettably necessary legislation. I once more underline the cardinal importance of accountability.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. It has been particularly interesting for me as it is the first debate on this subject that I have had the privilege of answering in this House. It ranged over a number of issues of fundamental importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said.

In summing up I remind the House that the Government's first priority remains the defeat of terrorism, from whatever source it comes. Our wish is that all the people of Northern Ireland should once again be able to live peaceful and stable lives and be able to take decisions about the government of their Province, free from the threat of violence and coercion. In this endeavour the police, supported by the armed forces, will continue to enjoy our full support.

It is easy to forget that quite apart from the problems of terrorism the police have to continue with their everyday activities of tackling ordinary crime. That is in itself a daunting enough task at the best of times but in Northern Ireland it is, I am afraid, still overlaid with problems of terrorism. I therefore commend the police and the armed forces for the brave and resolute way in which they tackle their heavy and dangerous responsibilities.

Public confidence in all the forces of law and order is essential. My right honourable friend emphasised this in his recent statement when he said that there is, no place in the security forces of Northern Ireland for those who breach their trust". Action is already being undertaken that should increase public confidence. Allegations of individual wrongdoing are receiving rigorous investigation. That is what the Stevens inquiry, the last such example, is all about.

We are increasing the professionalism and improving the training of the Ulster Defence Regiment, which of course— a point which has not been adverted to this evening— has more full-time permanent cadre members. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who spoke in support of a letter in The Times from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the UDR is largely a Protestant force, not by intention but because of a campaign of intimidation by the IRA. At the start, 18 per cent. were Roman Catholics, but I regret to say that the figure is now only 2.75 per cent. The regiment has shown this year that it can and does act effectively against loyalist paramilitaries by arrests, fines and well-targeted pre-emptive patrolling.

As regards the future, the UDR is a reserve force called out because of the current terrorist violence in support of the police. When such military support is no longer needed, the role of the UDR will inevitably need to be substantially altered. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that that time has arrived.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, with his great experience of the security situation, for putting flesh on the bones of the necessarily curt statistics that I used earlier. He spoke of the need for public relations, especially in regard to the army and the UDR. I most certainly agree with him.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke very realistically, if I may say so, concerning complaints about the police. As he will recall, the Independent Commission for Police Complaints was set up two years ago. Its powers go beyond those of its predecessor and also those of the Police Complaints Authority in Great Britain, reflecting the additional difficulty of policing in Northern Ireland. The commission provides an independent and effective complaints system and has made a significant contribution towards strengthening the relationship between the public and the RUC. I have no doubt that as it further develops its role it will make a material contribution to the confidence of the community in the RUC. The commission's second annual report will shortly be submitted to my right honourable friend, who will lay it before Parliament.

The noble Lord also mentioned the Diplock courts. There is no direct evidence that the present Diplock system has resulted in unsafe convictions. In recent years between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of contested cases have ended in acquittals. This compares favourably with other forms of trial. The noble Lord will recall that, to compensate for the absence of juries, defendants have an automatic right of appeal on any ground against sentence or conviction. The judge must also set out in writing his reasons for convicting a person. This is unique to the United Kingdom judicial system and clearly assists the defence if it wishes to appeal. Appeals are to three judges.

The Government are not presently persuaded that the Bench should be expanded to three judges rather than one in Diplock trials. There would be substantial practical difficulties in such courts.

The noble Lord referred to my noble friend Lord Colville. I should remind the noble Lord that it is not the Government's practice in Northern Ireland to mike changes in legislation, or indeed new legislation, without consultation. Before the new legislation and after my noble friend Lord Colville has reported at Easter, there will be plenty of time for that.

Not surprisingly, the debate has wandered somewhat from the security situation into the realms of political development. The Government believe that there may be scope for political progress to agree a basis on which the parties could talk. My right honourable friend's judgment is that Unionists, SDLP and other parties want to make progress. It is in their interests to seek agreement on how political power and authority can be exercised by locally-elected representatives and how wider relationships are managed.

I say that despite recent happenings on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The noble Lord and the House generally, will agree with me that there are many hurdles still to be overcome in progressing such talks. I agree that that is a condition devoutly to be desired. The House may not be aware of a press communique that was issued following a meeting between my right honourable friend and the Unionist leaders. It says that the two Unionist leaders raised with the Secretary of State the very serious implications, in their view, of two recent judgments of the Irish Supreme Court. They expressed especial concern at the court's decision that the registration of the national territory was a constitutional imperative. I believe that that is an important point in that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be used to serve that purpose.

I share very many of the concerns of those noble Lords who commented on the recent decisions given in the extradition cases of Finucane and Clarke. I was particularly impressed by the feelings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on Thursday last. In part of his speech today he repeated them. Those speeches will be very unpopular in certain sectors of Northern Ireland, but their bravery is something which I am sure noble Lords will remember for a very long time.

Your Lordships will recall that these two judgments were described by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as: grossly offensive and totally unjustified", and by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as "deeply disappointing" and an unacceptable slur on the professionalism of the men and women of the Northern Ireland Prison Service". I do not detract one iota from those views. Indeed having visited a prison in Northern Ireland, I have no hesitation in agreeing with a senior prison officer from Scotland who has visited many prisons both in the United Kingdom and abroad. He said that the prison regime in Northern Ireland is the most relaxed in Europe outside Sweden. That said, the decision was a judicial one and as such must be respected.

It is also worth recording that it was the Irish authorities who originally sought these extraditions on our behalf and who have continued to make strenuous efforts at every level of their judicial system to bring them to a successful conclusion. We regard extradition as a vital component in our arrangements for bringing fugitive offenders to justice. Both Governments remain committed within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to ensuring that extradition arrangements between our two countries are both fair and effective.

The judgments in these cases are long and complex. We are studying them carefully. We are in touch with the Irish Government and will be pursuing with them our concerns at the possible implications of these judgments for future cases through the Inter-Governmental Conference. As far as those conferences are concerned, progress has been made in all areas covered by Article 9 of the Agreement. However, incidents such as Derryard demonstrate that more can and will be done.

Security co-operation was recently discussed at a meeting between my right honourable friend the Minister of State and the Irish Minister of Justice and at the last conference meeting. Significant finds of weapons, ammunition and explosives have been made not only in Northern Ireland but also by the Garda. Up to 27th November 1989, the Garda had recovered 111 weapons, 24,627 rounds of ammunition and 1,825 pounds of explosive which included 58 pounds of Semtex.

As regards the McGimpsey case in which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is particularly interested, I note that the Supreme Court has given its judgment. I confess to a certain amount of pleasure that the constitutionality of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been upheld. The Government will need to give careful consideration to the terms of the judgment before commenting further. I can tell the noble Lord that, irrespective of the Irish constitution, the status of Northern Ireland in international law is quite clear. It is a part of the United Kingdom. It is staying there until the majority of the people in Northern Ireland decide otherwise. How that squares with the Irish constitution is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government.

As to whether the Irish are now refusing to extradite people on the ground that they consider that they have a legal claim to Northern Ireland, I am aware of no evidence of this from the recent judgments. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough went a little further than I have been able to do so far in commenting on police and public liaison committees. I note his constructive remarks on that subject. He will recognise that Article 82 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Order, which came into force on 1st January, provided a new and statutory basis for such bodies. I trust that those new provisions go some way to meet his concern.

I can tell my noble friend that the security forces recognise the importance of maintaining and improving levels of support and confidence throughout the whole community. In a leaflet published by the army in 1985 members of the public are advised to make their complaints to the RUC for it to determine whether a criminal offence has been committed. The public may of course complain direct to the army. As a result, the army attaches great importance to complaints being dealt with properly and quickly. Army units have been reminded of the importance of dealing swiftly with complaints and they have been encouraged to handle them at a local level through direct personal contact with the complainant.

The aim is to reply within three to four weeks or less. The number of justified complaints against the army is very small: there were 26 out of a total of 282 in 1989. I accept the point made by my noble friend that even that number is too many. When he speaks about vehicle checkpoints in the parts of the Province about which he spoke, I remind him that, as he will know only too well, there are genuine problems on narrow country roads. Currently, there is no facility for by-passing or being waved on by the security forces as, for example, happens on occasions at the entrance to Aldergrove Airport.

I know that my right honourable friend the Minister responsible will take his remarks most seriously and that he will be in touch with HQNI for its advice on this undoubted problem. My noble friend, ably abetted, if I may somewhat cheekily say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, made a strong complaint against the BBC for its recent "Panorama" programme on the UDR. I share with them many of their concerns and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that if there is any impropriety in the UDR it should be rooted out root and branch. That is why we have various periodic inquiries, the current one being that of Mr. Stevens.

I believe I have covered the main points that have been spoken to tonight except for one. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made the suggestion that there should be consolidation of the two Acts. The Government entirely understand the desirability of consolidating the emergency legislation for the sake of consistency and clarity. My noble friend Lord Colville is considering the form of any future legislation including the question of whether it will be appropriate to consolidate into it those parts of the prevention of terrorism Act that apply to Northern Ireland.

As has been mentioned, my noble friend is here and he will have listened to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Should he respond in any way the Government will be listening.

The order continues in force the emergency provisions for a further 12 months. That is in line with my noble friend's recommendation. I have no hesitation in saying that the powers continue to be needed. They provide a balanced package which, on the one hand, gives the police, the armed forces and the courts the extra powers that they need to tackle terrorism while, on the other, providing safeguards to protect the individual.

As the House will be aware, my noble friend Lord Colville is conducting a further, more substantial review of the legislation at present and we shall in due course be bringing forward proposals. In the meantime the existing powers remain necessary. I therefore ask unreservedly for approval of the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.