HL Deb 17 June 1991 vol 530 cc11-20

3.7 p.m.

The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in discussions on the Bill. We have the advantage in your Lordships' House of having here former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, in his place this afternoon. In addition, I thank noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench who took part in the discussions on the Bill; namely, the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Blease; Lord Holme of Cheltenham from the Liberal Benches, and my noble friends Lord Colnbrook, Lord Renton, Lord Lyell, Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Elton and Lord Brookeborough.

The House—not least through amendments which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has notified that he is unable to be here this afternoon —has made a number of important amendments. As a result, I believe that we have a Bill which is appropriate to the prevailing and serious threat in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Bill strikes a balance in affording the police and the Armed Forces acting in their support the legal means that they must have to protect effectively all members of the community in Northern Ireland. At the same time undoubtedly the Bill has appropriate safeguards for individuals.

I also express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Colville for his thorough and comprehensive report, which has been of enormous value in our discussions on the Bill and in consideration of the form which the legislation should properly take both here and in another place.

We recognise that legislation cannot of itself bring terrorism to an end. The Government will therefore continue in parallel to press on with implementing effective measures in the political, economic and social fields, designed to promote equality of treatment, prosperity and stable democratic institutions. We believe that such measures will help to create a climate in Northern Ireland in which peaceful political development can take place, thereby reinforcing the efforts of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army in freeing the people of Northern Ireland from the scourge of terrorism. Once again I thank noble Lords who took part in the passage of this Bill.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Belstead.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, as the Minister said, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who played a very active part in the proceedings on this Bill, very much regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon. I know he would like me at the outset to thank the Minister for his kind remarks and for the courteous way in which he has handled the business throughout the passage of the Bill, as we always expect him to do.

Your Lordships may be surprised that I am speaking today as I have played no part in the deliberations at any previous stage. However, it may be known to many noble Lords that over a number of years I have had certain responsibilities for matters in Northern Ireland and I therefore welcome the opportunity to set out clearly the views of the Opposition on this important Bill.

We have declared time and again that we totally regret and resent any attempt to promote political objectives by violence or the threat of violence. That is why we readily accept that security forces must have appropriate powers to deal with terrorist crime and the threat of terrorism. However, at the same time we are also fully committed to the improvement of relations between the security forces and the community and to promoting public confidence in the administration of justice. That is why any departure from the rule of law that is considered necessary must be balanced by essential safeguards to protect the rights of innocent suspects. Our approach to the Bill has been guided by the need to achieve those four objectives.

This Bill will be the main legal framework which will govern the operation of the security forces and the police in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland during the next five years. It will be noted that the Bill has grown substantially since it was introduced last November. Moreover, additional regulations may yet be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 58, upon which much time was spent in Committee and on Report. The thrust of the Bill is not only to continue all existing emergency powers but to add to their number; in particular, by creating new powers and new, wide-ranging, offences. In Committee and on Report efforts were made to introduce new safeguards to protect innocent suspects or to restrict the scope of the new powers against abuse or mistake; for example, the power to examine documents found in the course of a search. The risks with some of the new powers are great and may be seen as a recipe for harassment.

Some of our amendments were based on the recommendations of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, or on the advice of the Committee on the Administration of Justice We find it deeply worrying that these efforts in genera were not successful. Indeed, there was very little support from the House for those amendments although they were designed to safeguard human rights. The Government are confident that the new powers will work well and we can only hope that time and experience will demonstrate that the Government's optimism is well-founded.

It is particularly regrettable that the Government could not be persuaded to accept the recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that the power of internment should be dropped. That reform would have signalled that conditions were emerging for Northern Ireland to return to some normality. On the other hand, the Opposition fully support the complex new powers which will be available to disrupt terrorist racketeering. We welcome the setting up of the office of Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures, although we would have strengthened the terms of reference. We also welcome the powers contained in Clauses 61 and 62 to make codes of practice. We would have expanded the use of codes of practice in at least two other spheres. It is accepted that the statutory code of practice is in a colder climate than hitherto. Nevertheless, in the absence of more detailed guidance in the primary legislation, codes of practice are a good second-best.

The leaders of the constitutional parties are today meeting in the first plenary session of stage one of the talks. The whole House will welcome that development. From the Opposition Benches we congratulate the Secretary of State on this considerable achievement. The existence of the Bill is a reminder—if a reminder is required—that there is urgent need to move in Northern Ireland towards a political settlement. Therefore, we earnestly hope that no further obstacles will be put in the way of the talks and that they will continue until eventual settlement is reached.

I repeat the regret of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that he cannot be here. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I have to leave before he replies. I have an important political engagement outside the House.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, from these Benches I offer our warm thanks to the Minister. We thank him not only for his thoroughness and courtesy during the passage of the Bill but also for listening to noble Lords on the Benches opposite and, in one or two regrettably small but nevertheless welcome instances, for taking on board the comments that have been made.

On these Benches we believe that this Bill is a necessity, but a regrettable necessity. Anyone who doubts that it is a necessity should consider the activities of the provisional IRA and its thuggish counterparts on the other side during the period that has led up to the approach of the substantive talks today. There seems to have been every sign of an escalation in the tactics of terror and violence. They must be resisted. This is the best chance for the people of Northern Ireland to speak. Any attempts during that period to put obstacles in the way of a peaceful resolution must be resisted in the way that this Bill makes possible.

That does not mean that we support every part of the Bill in detail, even as amended, although we welcome the steps that have been taken in the right direction. On the positive side, perhaps I may say how much we welcome the Government's attempts to curb racketeering in Northern Ireland. This is potentially of the greatest possible danger to a civilised society. The Government's proposals on resisting the institutionalisation of terrorism in the form of rackets is to be welcomed. On a more critical note, I hope that the Government's proposal to appoint someone to monitor procedures at holding centres for terrorist suspects, and the intention to introduce a code of interrogation, will go beyond what the Minister described at Second Reading as the formative stage.

I also emphasise that the case for video-recording interviews, which was made strongly from these Benches and supported from the Labour Benches, is one that the Government will, in time, have to accept. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in his distinguished report, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and practically everyone else, are on common ground in that respect. It is still a puzzle as to why the Government felt unable to move in that direction. Finally, I express our reservations in regard to Clause 34, which maintains detention without trial and brings into conflict the European Convention on Human Rights.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I take the opportunity to wish the very best for the talks starting today at Stormont and to express the hope that in the long term their success will make such legislation unnecessary. We all owe a great debt to the Secretary of State for his patience in getting the negotiations to this crucial point. However, I should like to emphasise that if we can find a formula whereby the people of Northern Ireland have the opportunity to determine the future of Northern Ireland, and a genuine opportunity for self-government, then we shall have succeeded. I believe it is the force of public opinion both in Northern Ireland and in Britain that has helped to keep the politicians talking. I was particularly encouraged to read a recent opinion poll in the Irish Times which showed that 82 per cent. of people in the Republic of Ireland would be happy to see a delay in the creation of a united Ireland if it gave time for settlement in Northern Ireland. I believe that the election of Mary Robinson as President has made a very great difference to the atmosphere in the Irish Republic.

In the North, too, I believe that public opinion is in favour of progress. I should like to put on record my belief that the people of both North and South will cast a very critical eye on any further attempts at brinkmanship. It is time that these hour by hour histrionics came to an end. Some of the parties to the talks in Northern Ireland have been too slow to detect the change in attitudes which is under way among the public in Northern Ireland. If they fail to adapt to the new mood in public opinion, they will be left behind in the peace process, a sad, anachronistic monument to sectarianism.

We support the Bill as a proper precaution and for establishing a cautious context in which the only progress that matters—not tougher security, but more prosperity, better community relations and a new political settlement—can take place. In the balance that has to be struck—the Bill attempts to strike a balance between liberty and security—I believe that it is time we started to tilt the balance back to liberty and civil rights. It is time we no longer had to apologise and to derogate. I am sure that the Bill will help to contain terrorism militarily and from the security point of view. In the end, however, we can only defeat it politically.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, during the passage of the Bill through the House amendments were put forward from these Benches. Those amendments were designed to inflict the maximum damage on the terrorist and at the same time protect the rights of innocent individuals. A series of amendments related to codes of practice. They required that the Army, the police and the security forces in general, in their dealings with the population in Northern Ireland, should give every consideration to ensuring that the least possible harassment was inflicted on innocent individuals.

The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, and myself said that the Army can be a very blunt instrument. The police, in dealing with the scourge of terrorism, have to appear to the overwhelming majority of the Catholic population, which is a crucial factor in every respect, to be acting in strict conformity with the rule of law. If at any time there appears to be a move away from that by the police or the Army, it will be jumped upon by the IRA and its supporters. We have seen it in all the allegations since 1982 about the shoot to kill policy. An incident took place last week in which three IRA terrorists were killed. Stories are gaining ground in Northern Ireland that once again a shoot to kill policy is being operated and that the security forces want not to arrest the terrorists but to kill them.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has experience of Northern Ireland. He will be aware of how these allegations gain credence over a period of days, weeks and months, and eventually write themselves into the whole mythology and psyche of the Irish nationalist population in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. The police must be seen to be above suspicion in relation to their security duties. That is why, together with other speakers on this side of the House, I supported amendments to ensure that justice would not only be done but would be seen to be done.

Only last week in this country there was a case in which it was alleged that the police had acted wrongly in relation to the Guildford Four. Serious allegations were made. The magistrate said that with the passing of 14 or 15 years it would be impossible for the police to have a fair trial. That was immediately jumped on by the IRA. It then said that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six did not have fair trials and that they had to wait 14 years and 16 years to be vindicated. I do not want to see the police in that position. I do not want to see a magistrate in the position of having to withdraw the facility of a fair trial of the police on the ground that so many years had elapsed that it would be unfair to have a trial.

If the Government had accepted the amendments put forward from this side of the House they would have got around that problem. There would have been a strict code of practice to be followed by the Army and the police in relation to terrorism. We would not have had to wait 14 or 16 years for the vindication of the pleas of innocence of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. We would not have had a magistrate in this country refusing to hear evidence on the ground that 14 years had elapsed and that therefore it was not possible to have a fair trial.

I know that we are at a late stage in the proceedings on the Bill. However, I hope that when we next come to debate this subject, through perhaps the introduction of an order, the Government will bear in mind the valid objections to the Bill and the reasonableness of the amendments that were put forward. The amendments were designed not to help terrorists in Northern Ireland but to make certain that the security forces are above suspicion.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the way he has handled the Bill. As someone who lives in Northern Ireland, I should like to thank those noble Lords who contributed to the proceedings on the Bill but who do not live there. I am sure that the people in Northern Ireland are grateful to them for taking such an interest.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, to the extent that it is most regrettable that a Bill such as this has to be passed. It is, however, necessary. Everyone would like to see the time when such Bills are no longer necessary and there is peace in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that people should think that the talks which may be about to start in Northern Ireland will mean the end of terrorist violence. Unfortunately, nothing like that will appease the terrorists. Although, obviously, we wish the talks the very best of success, we cannot necessarily see an end to terrorism in the near future. While the Government's response to the problems has been the Bill—it is to be hoped that it will be a great help—there are certain worrying aspects of the Government's response to other events.

It has been lately reported that the professional heads of the security forces in Northern Ireland—the Army and the RUC—have requested two extra roulement battalions. That is not a request for more soldiers because of an increase in violence. My noble friend the Minister will probably say that extra troops are there at the moment. It has been reported that the two roulement battalions have been requested. The Government have not publicly denied that. We all hear of people in Northern Ireland, very often from one side of the population, calling for more troops. This is not one of those calls. This is a call from the professional heads who are there to do an extremely difficult job and to judge how they should do it best. It is rather worrying that the Government do not seem to be responding to that request, if indeed it has been made. In Northern Ireland we should like to consider that we have been given the best available heads of the security forces. Therefore we should like to see their request granted. Having said that, I shall just add that I welcome the Bill.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I concur with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Underhill. He has had considerable experience of dealing with Northern Ireland affairs. In making my contribution I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. We are both residents of Northern Ireland and our families live there. I share with him the wish to extend the grateful thanks of the citizens of Northern Ireland to all those who have taken a thoughtful interest in the passage of the Bill, especially through this House.

I join also in the warm appreciation expressed for all noble Lords who have served in Northern Ireland as Ministers from both sides of the House. As has been said, they are deserving of our every support. They sacrifice their home lives, with consequences for their families in this country, in many respects. I believe that their efforts in attempting to bring peace, justice and prosperity to Northern Ireland should be warmly appreciated.

Like many noble Lords, I find that most, if not all, legislative measures directly concerning the Province are fraught with complications as regards comprehension. Their implementation, in terms of parliamentary democracy, can sometimes be bewildering. The culture of parliamentary democracy is somewhat differently applied in Northern Ireland. That is all the more reason for legislation coming before this Parliament in both Houses to be examined with care and sensitivity. The Bill before us is perhaps more difficult and challenging in the sense of obtaining consensus than most Northern Ireland legislative measures. Indeed, it is fraught from the very first paragraph to the end with complications and difficulties of implementation.

I join the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in the remarks he made. I warmly appreciate, like, I am sure, all Members of the House who have given thought and attention to the serious matters which are contained in the Bill and who have participated in the debate, the courteous and thoughtful manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, conducted the Bill's progress through the House and the way in which he dealt with issues which were put forward in amendments.

I endorse the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Underhill about my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who applied himself assiduously to the Bill displaying skill, sensitivity and an understanding which is sometimes not possible when one is not always able to identify oneself with the Northern Ireland situation. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies succeeded in every respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has given much thought to the matter. Anyone who has visited Northern Ireland quickly understands the problems in connection with the containment of terrorism and the need for prosperity in that sad Province. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is deserving of the warmest praise of the House for the manner in which he has carried out his work and for the report which he presented to us. He carried out the task with vigour and with a sense of the necessity to contain terrorism and the means of doing so in the context of Northern Ireland.

I should like to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Underhill, about the work of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Over the weekend I read through a report in Hansard of a debate in 1977 in which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, took part. In reading it again, it seemed to me that the way in which the noble Lord summed up the situation, which still exists today, was prophetic. The Standing Advisory Commission has carried out tremendous work and has helpfully put forward positive and constructive proposals in connection with this piece of necessary legislation.

Sadly, I must say that I am one of many speakers taking part in these Northern Ireland debates who has strongly advocated the need for Bills, which can be fully debated, rather than Orders in Council. This Bill should have been debated more fully. It certainly went through a lengthy process in Committee in another place; but, as regards the amendments which were tabled, I believe that the Bill was not analysed or taken apart as it should have been. The Government would have had an opportunity to reply. I felt that that opportunity was lacking. It does not provide much incentive for people to go through the normal parliamentary processes. I feel that the full democratic process of presenting legislation in Bill form is most desirable. However, in my estimation, what took place in relation to this Bill certainly did not meet the necessary requirements as regards how the Members of both Houses ought to approach the matter. The process was sadly lacking.

I believe that the Minister said on a previous occasion that terrorism will not succeed and that parliamentary democracy will prevail. However, sadly, we have heard today that yet another man was murdered on his way to work in the Province. This Bill may be something with which we do not wish to have to cope in the sense of parliamentary democracy but, in the context of Northern Ireland, there is nothing more necessary than a Bill which provides security for people in work, and for others, in that sad community. Terrorists have murdered people. We see the mounting toll of those who have died. Let us not forget either the thousands of wrecked lives in families in Northern Ireland. And still people suffer.

Mention has been made of the talks which are taking place today. I conclude by again expressing the hope that such talks will be steered clearly towards a consensus that will enable us to put the problems back on to the stage of justice and give everyone a sense of participating in the affairs of that sad Province. I understand that three stages have been decided for the agenda. I believe that a fourth stage which is seldom mentioned—namely, a stage concerning employment, industrial development, the need for co-operation between the North and the South, and the need for education and care—should be put high on the agenda at an early moment. Those are matters for which the people of Northern Ireland are striving. Those are the important matters, not death and destruction which bring nothing but despair to the community. I hope that the talks will lift the community and create a spirit of co-operation and trust one for another.

Finally, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Bill's passage, especially the Minister who has kept us informed throughout all stages with details and notes on clauses. Having said that, I wish the Bill a fair passage.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on Third Reading. I should first tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I most certainly agree with him that the way in which the legislation is implemented is of the utmost importance. Some of the amendments, not least those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, were precisely designed to achieve that effect. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has taken part in the debate this afternoon and I very much welcome his intervention during all stages of the Bill. This afternoon he, together with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, drew attention to areas of the Bill over which we did not agree. I shall not go into them at this stage.

But I wish to mention specifically one point on which we all agreed which was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme; that is, the hope that the talks going on in Northern Ireland will succeed. The last of your Lordships to speak, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, understands a great deal more than most people whom I know about how to try to make progress in Northern Ireland through social, industrial and commercial as well as political ways. I was glad that at the end he referred to this and wished the talks well.

Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who has taken a great deal of trouble to be here at every stage of the Bill and is present this afternoon, that he of all people will understand that, although we keep force levels under review, as he fairly said, reinforcements are often provided in the face of specific need. He would not expect me to reply to the question he asked today. The reason, as he will well understand, is that, if there are changes in force levels at any time, it is best that they come as a surprise for all concerned. That is operationally crucial and sometimes operationally it can be a matter of life and death.

I thank noble Lords again for taking part in the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. I commend it to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read a third time.

Lord Belstead

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

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

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.