HL Deb 12 July 1991 vol 530 cc1647-54

2.30 p.m.

Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the new Emergency Provisions Act comes into effect on 27th August. the whole of the 1978 Emergency Provisions Act will be repealed, including the regulations contained in Schedule 3 to that Act. Since these regulations remain essential provisions the Government believe that Parliament needs to ensure their continue survival after the repeal of the 1978 Act. That the purpose of this statutory instrument. It consolidates the existing regulations in Schedule 3 to the Emergency Provisons Act 1978 without amendment. I shall do my best to answer questions about the regulations. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining why it is necessary to bring forward these consolidation regulations. I was mindful that the Emergency Provisions Act 1991 will not come into force until the end of August. The regulations are made by virtue of the regulations contained in Section 27 of the 1978 Act.

Noble Lords will recall that during the passage of the Emergency Provisions Bill through this House earlier this year some of us were concerned about the extent and the scope of the regulation-making power contained in Section 58 of the Bill. On Report I asked whether the power in Section 27 had been used during the preceding 23 years. Apart from those specified in these regulations, have any other regulations been made under Section 27? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question which was asked two months ago.

As today is 12th July it is necessary to express my appreciation of the way in which the RUC has kept its eye on file parades and demonstrations which are such a distinctive aspect of life in Northern Ireland. They could so easily become controversial and explosive. I read in the Chief Constable's report for 1990 that during that year there were 2,713 parades compared with 2,317 in 1989. Furthermore, 2,467 were Loyalist parades while 246 were Republican. No parades were prohibited but 10 were re-routed. There was only one case of disorder associated with a parade compared with five cases in 1989.

That speaks well of the police but as the Chief Constable points out it involves the allocation of resources which could be made available for other police services. Having heard this morning that last night there were disorders in the Province we should acknowledge the difficulties which face the police. We express our thanks and appreciation for the successful way in which they have been able to control the situation. Some of their powers flow from these regulations.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining that the regulations are substantially a consolidation of the 1978 Act. Broadly speaking we on these Benches support them. Furthermore, since the words appear in cold print before us perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 4 of the regulations. Does it not appear to be one of those occasions when, in the effort to block every possible loophole which may cause security problems, the Government have gone rather too far in asking that a funeral may be required to be followed solely in vehicles when it causes a breach of the peace—or there is a perception that it may do so—or when it causes serious public disorder or undue demands to be made of Her Majesty's forces or the police?

We all understand that funerals in every society are at all times occasions of great emotion. Feelings run high. Funerals can be and quite often are used in Northern Ireland for symbolic and political purposes. We all understand that quite well. However, paragraph 4(a) covers the situation where, if there appears to be the possibility of a breach of the peace or public disorder, a senior officer can insist on people travelling in vehicles. In that case, why is it necessary to have paragraph 4(b) too? Is this not an instance of that tilting between liberty and security which goes a little too far? When the Minister replies, perhaps he will reassure us that the RUC and the security forces distinguish between mere inconvenience to themselves —and as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, the security forces are constantly inconvenienced because it is a difficult situation—and serious public disorder or the possibility thereof. If it deals only with occasions when there may be serious public disorder, I am still curious as to why there is a need for paragraph 4(b) as well as paragraph 4(a). With that reservation, we support the order.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that today is 12th July and many demonstrations are taking place throughout Northern Ireland to commemorate one of the events which allegedly happened in the glorious and bloodless revolution of 1688 which culminated in the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.

In Northern Ireland people do not march for the good of their health. Today there is a triumphalist march taking place throughout Northern Ireland which will engage the sympathies of many thousands of people from the majority community who believe that their culture and ethos are under attack from nationalism or Irish republicanism.

I listen to the radio even in this country, which does not report very well on Northern Ireland. Fifty yards from my former home in Northern Ireland there were riots last night and into the early hours of the morning. Policemen had been injured and there were sectarian confrontations on the New Lodge Road, in West Belfast and in Derry. All that is in the wake of the so-called peace talks which came to an end last week.

I believe that the House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who have asked significant questions about the regulations. I do not pretend to be an expert on Northern Ireland affairs although I lived there for many years, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, was correct in drawing attention to paragraph 4. The law must engage the sympathies of many people. However, this law under paragraph 4 will be totally unenforceable. If we agree to this, we shall be agreeing to a law which, when it comes into force or needs to be upheld by the security forces—the RUC and the army—will be totally disregarded.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, has already said that paragraph 4(a) makes provision for a breach of the peace or serious public disorder. Throughout many years of government in Northern Ireland when it was governed or dominated by the Unionists, that decision was taken by the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, who was a member of the Orange Order and of the Unionist Party. Most of the significant people in charge of the RUC were also of the same political persuasion. As such, they met with extreme opposition from members of the minority.

I remember taking part in a demonstration on 5th October 1968. It was a demonstration demanding from people in Britain civil rights and equal citizenship. I remember the alliterations between Belfast and Birmingham. All we were demanding at that time was equal citizenship with other parts of the United Kingdom. But the Minister for Home Affairs, who was a Unionist in a Unionist government, decided otherwise. He decided that in some way or other we were wreckers of the constitution, communists and troublemakers. I make no claim to fame in this regard, but on 5th October I was the first person to be beaten up by the police in Derry for demanding equal citizenship with other parts of the UK.

The Minister for Home Affairs took the decision at that time. Much has happened since then. Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, an RUC inspector will be taking these highly political decisions. He will have to decide whether a march or a demonstration which is going to take place is liable to cause a breach of the peace. I remember when the IRA and their supporters from Noraid, supported by the infamous Mr. Galvin, deliberately organised a parade in West Belfast—my former constituency —designed to provoke and cause a riot, which it did. An IRA supporter by the name of Sean Dounes was killed. We are still living with the consequences of that killing. That decision had to be taken by a senior member of the RUC. From the Catholic, the nationalist and—dare I say it?—the SDLP point of view, it was a wrong decision. As I say, we are still living with the consequences. There were demands for inquiries that will go on ad infinitum.

The second reason for the requirement is that the occasion may, cause undue demands to be made on Her Majesty's forces or the police". That can be interpreted in any way one wishes. If a senior member of the RUC who happened to be Catholic took a decision under those circumstances he would be forever regarded as being a traitor, anti-Irish and pro-British. If he was a Protestant—these things are readily found out in Northern Ireland—he would be regarded as being anti-Catholic, anti-nationalist and a Unionist.

The provision which has no possibility of ever being enforceable is the one which relates to steps being taken at funerals, where the inspector may, where it appears to him to be necessary for the preservation of public order, give directions requiring persons taking part … to travel in vehicles". If ever an order goes through this House which will be totally unenforceable it is this one. We should not pass orders which will be called into disrepute. Everyone must remember the hunger strike funerals in 1981. I have vivid memories of them. They were not specifically designed to cause, but caused a lot of emotion in Northern Ireland. In the circumstances they caused affront to the Protestant and Unionist community in Northern Ireland.

Today in Northern Ireland there are Unionist and Orange parades taking place through Catholic districts which cause great offence to the Catholics living in those areas. As I said at the outset of my remarks, people do not march for the good of their health. Marches in Northern Ireland are designed either to defy a government edict or to prove the superiority of one tribe over another. For example, should an IRA man be killed next week there would be a massive emotional response, as we saw two or three months ago. Thousands of people who are not necessarily IRA supporters will attend that funeral because the IRA man is of their tribe. Those people probably would never sanction bombing or killing. However, when an IRA funeral is taking place of a neighbour, or a neighbour's son, who has been killed, people will attend that funeral. How in the name of God—and I say this quite explicitly—can the RUC tell all those people to go by car? There are not enough cars in Northern Ireland to take them all to funerals. Think of the traffic jam there would be if the RUC were to attempt to force those people to use cars. But they do not have cars and they do not even know people who have cars. Think of all the difficulties that would emerge if the RUC were to issue an order saying, "This is an IRA funeral. On its way to the cemetery it is bound to cause emotion and hostility among the Protestant population. Therefore, we are now directing you to use cars". Do your Lordships know what would happen? It would cause a riot. Policemen and civilians would be killed. Why include such a restriction in an order which we know will be totally unenforceable?

As your Lordships know, I have no sympathy whatever with the IRA. That is why I do not want to give them a plus and put an awful obligation on members of the RUC. Therefore, we should not, without great deliberation and good knowledge of Northern Ireland, approve Article 4(b) forcing people, on the orders of a policeman, to travel by car to funerals. That would be totally unenforceable and it would give the IRA a great plus in its propaganda efforts all over the world.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, before my noble friend answers the very eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the other remarks that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Prys-Davies, perhaps he could enlighten me in one respect. I have virtually the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It seems to me from what is produced in Article 4 of the regulations before us today t hat it would not appear in the order if there was the slightest chance that it was either unnecessary, otiose, or, in the very eloquent words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, unenforceable.

As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, rightly points out, funerals are particularly emotional times. I have had experience of being in the Province during a particularly emotional period after the Gibraltar killings. The funerals resulted in scenes of appalling emotion, which we saw on our television screens, and were followed by tragedy. Can my noble friend enlighten me on whether and how he thinks the police might be able to enforce this measure—if, indeed, they would want to? I see this article as being in the nature of a long-stop provision on which there are very long odds on whether it would ever be used.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, drew attention to the fact that today's date is inscribed in the history of Northern Ireland for one particular section of the community. I note that according to Article 1 the order should come into force on 1st August 1991. If we go back to 1969 that would appear to preclude marches of the other section of the community which I understand normally take place about 15th August. I am sure that the regulations will not arouse passions of partiality on that score.

With regard to Orange parades and parades of that type, perhaps I may refer to the town of Portadown, a Protestant town with a substantial Catholic minority. About four or five years ago there was a serious problem. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will know of it. In an area known as the tunnel, where the street goes under a railway bridge, an area which tends to be inhabited by many Catholics, there had been increasing trouble. I recall that 20, 15 and 10 years ago there was little trouble, but eight, seven, six and five years ago there was increasing trouble because of elements who wished to take part and, above all, to push the limits of triumphalism a little wider. More and more people came. They behaved in a needlessly arrogant and insensitive way. However, the problem was resolved, perhaps with long-stop provisions of the type in Article 4. Indeed, two or three years ago, during my career in the Province, the problem of the march going through a particularly sensitive area had been resolved through discussions and talks between members of the RUC and the minority community. That is not to say that such relations or avenues of communication would work or would be quite as effective in the scenario, envisaged in Article 4, of a funeral which, as the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Fitt, pointed out, tend to rouse the emotions. My own thoughts are that Article 4 is in the nature of a long-stop and that nothing we, let alone I, say today should inhibit the continuing good relations between the RUC and people who might feel high emotion when, for one reason or another, a funeral goes through a mixed area, as was the case in Portadown. If my noble friend can enlighten me, I shall say no more.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening when I have not been present throughout the whole debate. It is not a very good rule, but it is one that I follow repeatedly, that when someone I respect enormously speaks on a subject in which he is deeply versed I am inclined to support him. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on everything. I think he takes too pessimistic a view of the prospects of life in the Irish Republic. Nevertheless, on a matter of this kind, I follow him faithfully. He is a man who has suffered for his convictions and knows what he is talking about in a way that perhaps no one else in this House does.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. On the face of it this is a ridiculous provision. Perhaps the Minister has fair minded arguments of his own but on the face of it the provision is ridiculous. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may say something which I hope is not offensive. He is the oldest Member of the House taking part in the debate. I ask the noble Earl to call on his experience. Does he recall the great funeral in Dublin in 1916 of O'Donovan Rossa? All the great emotional issues throughout Irish involvement with Britain have been occasioned by great funerals. When O'Donovan Rossa was being buried, Patrick Pearse, the co-founder of the Irish Republic, said at his graveside, "They think they have bought one of us and intimidated the other half but while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree will never be at peace." That was the great emotional call to arms where Patrick Pearse said, "The fools, the fools, the fools; they have left us our Fenian dead and whilst Ireland holds these graves, Ireland will never be at peace". My noble friend is old enough to remember. That is why—

The Earl of Longford

I was at my preparatory school at the time!

Lord Fitt

Yes, my Lords; he was 15 years old.

That is why I advise the Government not to include such a provision which would place the responsibility on a member of the security forces—I totally support them in Northern Ireland—to say, "Anyone attending this funeral must travel in a car". It would be impossible to administer and it would give the IRA and its madmen supporters from Noraid in America a great propaganda victory. I do not want to see that happen.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, several noble Lords have taken part in the exchange on this order. I thank them. Perhaps I may first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He asked whether the regulations are the only ones which have been made under Section 27 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The strict answer to that question is, yes. However, this regulation-making power has been included in the emergency legislation for many years. It was included in the first emergency provisions Act in 1973. A set of regulations was made under the power contained in the 1973 Act which is still in effect. I refer to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations of 1975. They make provision to control the parking of cars in order to hinder car bombings and hijackings. The regulations provide that unattended vehicles must be secured and immobilised.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that, in the context of Northern Ireland, this is a sensible, prudent and modest measure. While it does not prevent car bombings and hijackings, it makes them more difficult. Therefore, the measure assists the security forces in a practical way in order to protect people and property in Northern Ireland. It is those very modest and important considerations which I seek to put forward in support of the regulations which I am proposing to consolidate.

The rest of our exchanges have concerned Regulation 4(a) and 4(b). In that context, we must remember, as today is the 12th and as there has been violence overnight in Northern Ireland, that we depend enormously upon the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Its members have very great demands made upon them all the time but especially on this particular day, and, I have no doubt, in the weeks to follow.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked a perfectly reasonable and penetrating question. He asked why it was necessary to have both Regulation 4(a) and 4(b). Essentially, the important word in Regulation 4(b) is "undue". The police have to make a judgment on whether a proposed funeral—some funerals being likely to cause public disorder—will impose an undue demand on the armed forces or on the police. Noble Lords will know that some funerals in Northern Ireland are manipulated by the paramilitaries of both sides for their own purposes. For example, paramilitaries often seek to take a funeral cortege of one of their members through areas where the population is likely to be extremely hostile. Of course, if a sufficient number of police officers or soldiers are available, the funeral cortege can be protected. I believe that it is appropriate to include in the regulations the allowance for the police to make a judgment on whether that will place an undue demand on police resources which, after all, are finite.

The provision has been a part of Northern Ireland law for many years. It has been used with discretion by the security forces, in conjunction with other public order powers, on many occasions. In that context, perhaps I may say a word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Of course, I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for saying that he felt that if the powers in this regulation were of no effect then, presumably, they would not have been included. My noble friend, with his knowledge of Northern Ireland, felt that they existed as a long stop. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, intervened as he did. I respect his enormous experience, but the power contained in Regulation 4 has existed for over 10 years. It has been found to be a useful and necessary provision, as my noble friend Lord Colville concluded in his report.

The provision is enforceable. It is used in conjunction with other police powers to require funeral corteges to follow a specific route and to travel directly to a cemetery. The regulation merely enables the police to require persons taking part in a funeral to travel in vehicles. Here we come to the crux of the matter. I recognise that the power can be used only in certain circumstances. There will be circumstances in which it cannot be used. It will have to be an operational decision for the chief constable and his senior officers. I should not for one moment cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, but the use of that power must be difficult and in some cases could not be used at all. Bearing in mind that there are occasions when it could be used, and that it has been on the statute book, we believed that it was right to continue to include it in the order. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.