Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1992

HL Deb 15 June 1992 vol 538 cc44-71

5.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should explain at the outset a matter which may have puzzled your Lordships. There has been laid before your Lordships' House today a further order; the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (Continuance) Order 1992. I should like to explain the reason for that. If your Lordships were to look at Article 3 of the order which we are debating you would see that Section 34 and Schedule 3, which provide for executive detention, are excluded from its application. This was because the opinion was taken that these provisions did not need to be continued in force, like the other provisions with which we are concerned, because they have been suspended by provision of the Act. Indeed, they have never been active since 1980, although they can be revived by order at any time if the need arises.

Owing to the way in which Section 69 of the Act has been drafted it is now clear that that opinion was wrong. Any provision of the Act which while on the statute book is nevertheless not actually in force at midnight tonight (15th June), would in fact expire completely by operation of the Act and be no longer available to the Government. In order to avoid automatic expiry, the provisions on detention must be brought into force by order. Accordingly, the second order is being laid before Parliament to bring the provisions into force just before midnight tonight. After midnight they will at once be taken out of force and revert to their suspended status.

I apologise for the necessity for this ungainly procedure, which your Lordships will perceive corrects a technical mistake which should not have been made.

I return now to the order before your Lordships today. It will renew the emergency powers and provisions operating in Northern Ireland which otherwise would lapse at midnight. I, like many of your Lordships, very much regret the continued requirement for these powers. I shall come to the necessity for them in a moment. But this debate also gives us the opportunity to review the first 10 months of operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, which both Houses considered with great care last year and which contains a number of new measures whose benefits are already being felt.

We are again fortunate to have the report of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to assist us in our deliberations. As always, he has produced a penetrating and thought-provoking review of the scope of the emergency powers and their implementation. The Government will be giving due consideration to all the points that he makes. But we very much welcome my noble friend's central conclusion that: The new Act, and new arrangements in it, seem to have been introduced and have since been operated without any appreciable adverse reaction. I do not recommend the suspension of any of its provisions". Before looking more closely at the detail of the Act, I should first remind your Lordships of the background against which renewal of these emergency powers is sought. The vicious campaign of violence by terrorists on both sides of the community continues. Nearly 3,000 men, women and children have died violently since the troubles broke in 1969. Since July last year 101 people have died and many more have been injured; lives brutally ended or ruined; homes and businesses destroyed; people in many places living in fear of their lives. A handful of examples from the past six months serves to illustrate the nature of the terrorist campaign: a young mother gunned down in a chemist's; a student murdered while protecting his father; a policewomen killed and a colleague severely injured by a horizontal mortar; two people playing snooker shot at random; eight workmen blown up by a mine; five customers in a betting shop machine-gunned. The terrorists like to present themselves as soldiers fighting for a cause: some soldiers; some cause, if it can be advanced by atrocities such as these. Those who perpetrate the crimes have no mandate for what they do, no justification and ultimately no hope of success because neither the Government nor the law-abiding majority of Northern Ireland's citizens will allow them to win.

But the toll would be far worse were it not for the tireless efforts of the security forces who, through patience, skill and dedication to duty, have continued to make inroads into the terrorist organisations through arrests and arms finds and have forced the terrorists to abort a high proportion of their operations. In 1991 391 people were charged with terrorist-type offences, including 120 with murder or attempted murder. The figures for the first four months of this year were 140 and 44 respectively. Also last year 214 weapons, 18,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 4,000 kilograms of explosives were recovered. It is thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Armed Forces—and the determined and professional leadership under which they operate—that the vast majority of people in the Province conduct their daily lives in safety and normality. Measures to improve still further the effectiveness of security force operations continue to be taken. Your Lordships will be aware of the recent appointment by the police authority of a second Deputy Chief Constable following a review of the RUC senior command structure. The new Deputy Chief Constable will be responsible for all operational policing. This will give greater co-operation and direction to the counter-terrorist campaign and will also further enhance RUC/Army liaison.

The emergency powers contained in the EPA and PTA provide the essential framework within which the security forces are pursuing their efforts to defeat the terrorists. In addition to strengthening the law in a number of respects, the 1991 Act also introduced new safeguards in the exercise of the emergency powers. I shall be reporting progress on some of these measures in a moment.

I turn now to the main findings of the review of my noble friend Lord Colville. I have already referred to his acceptance of the need for the powers in the Act; that is a view we endorse. He goes on to note that among the most significant of the new provisions in the Act are those relating to terrorist finances. The Government continue to attach great importance to action to disrupt the flow of funds to terrorists and terrorist organisations. In recent years more than 300 people have been convicted of involvement in illegal funding operations worth probably in the order of £45 million. It was to enhance our ability to do this that the special powers of investigation, now set out in Section 57 and Schedule 5 of the Act, were enacted. All those provisions are now in force and the indications are that they will prove to be a useful weapon in our armoury. The code of practice covering the conduct of investigations into terrorist finances is now in an advanced state of preparation: before being laid before Parliament it will be circulated for comment to interested parties, such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.

The review also discusses in some detail the circumstances in which allegations of ill-treatment of persons in police custody arise. Let me once again make absolutely clear the position of the Government and of the police. Abuse of persons in custody is forbidden. Physical assault is a criminal offence. Whenever complaints are made against the police, these are thoroughly investigated. The evidence is sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who decides in accordance with his normal criteria whether any prosecution should be instigated.

A wide range of additional statutory and administrative safeguards for those in custody already exist. Those include ministerial authorisation of extensions of detention; the suspect's right to have a member of their family or a friend informed of their arrest and whereabouts, and to consult a solicitor privately; the right to regular medical examinations; the continuous monitoring of all interviews by closed-circuit TV and the maintenance of detailed custody records; and a continuous period of at least eight hours' rest (in any period of 24 hours) free from questioning, travel or any interruption.

Those are stringent safeguards. A further reinforcement of those safeguards will be provided by the statutory code of practice governing the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the PTA. A draft of the code has been prepared following discussion with a number of interested bodies, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. A number of detailed points still need to be finalised with the police, but I hope that the draft code will be issued for public consultation within the next few weeks.

In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced in another place his decision in principle that an independent commissioner for the holding centres should be appointed. His role will be to visit the centres on a random basis to give Ministers and the general public assurance that the safeguards and procedures to protect the interests of persons detained are being fully adhered to. The lay visiting scheme introduced by the police authority has undoubtedly been a success and the commissioner scheme will draw on that experience. Details of the terms of reference of the commissioner have yet to be worked out, and my right honourable friend is considering possible candidates for the post. A further announcement will be made shortly.

My noble friend Lord Colville has, however, highlighted the way in which allegations of ill-treatment, whether proved or not, can be used to undermine confidence in the police. He also shows how statistics relating to the very measures introduced to protect the rights of those in custody, and to provide compensation if those rights are breached, can, unless used with care, give a totally false and misleading picture of the effectiveness of those safeguards. Your Lordships may be interested to know in this regard that the police authority for Northern Ireland is currently undertaking an exercise, covering the three-year period April 1989 to March 1992, to compile more precise statistics on the proportion of compensation payments arising from detentions in holding centres. The findings will be made public.

We will be looking closely at the suggestions the review contains as to ways in which records and procedures might be improved to enhance the existing safeguards still further, though I should add that this is a continuous process, and that the police have already taken a number of important steps in this regard in recent years. The importance of comprehensive and accurate records, not just in increasing public confidence that the police are behaving properly, but also in reducing the number of unfounded and malicious claims made against the police, whether as complaints or in the form of civil actions, is something that we recognise very clearly.

But we must not lose sight of another important point to which my noble friend draws our attention. Terrorists are becoming more adept at resisting interrogation: and one of the features of a proper criminal justice system is its ability to bring to justice the guilty as well as protect the innocent. As the chief constable has said, the terrorist organisations and their propagandists know how important the holding centres, particularly Castlereagh, are in undermining their criminality. This needs to be borne in mind when allegations of ill-treatment are made. Saying that implies no complacency: far from it. We seek to find a balance between protecting the rights of the individual and giving the police and the courts the powers they need to bring criminals to justice.

The review also refers to the handling of complaints arising from contact between the security forces, particularly the Army, and the civilian population. The conduct of individual policemen and soldiers is central to the creation and maintenance of community confidence in their integrity and professionalism, as well as their effectiveness operationally. Any security force actions or activities which break the law or otherwise fall short of the professional standards required will not be tolerated. We should, nevertheless, always be mindful of the often extremely difficult circumstances in which the police and Army have to work. Often they face hostility and intense provocation, and frequently are in danger of death or serious injury. In such circumstances, the highest standards of restraint and professionalism are required, and in the vast majority of cases they are maintained. We should not forget that there is constant interaction between the security forces and the community, the vast majority of it friendly. Even in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances, members of the security forces and the public achieve reasonable relationships. There has been much comment resulting about certain events in Coalisland and elsewhere. Those events are now being investigated by the police and I cannot comment further on them here (other than to say that proper action will be taken on the basis of the findings and the investigations).

We regard the timely processing of complaints as an important part of the maintenance of good relations with the community. My noble friend refers to the fact that the Army are now setting themselves targets for the speedy resolution of formal complaints, which is part of this process. In addition, we hope shortly to be able to announce the appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures.

My noble friend also refers to the recommendation, in his report on Belfast Prison, about the need to reduce the time prisoners spend on remand in custody in Northern Ireland. The Government accept that the case for cutting such remand times is unanswerable. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State therefore announced in another place last week that a special scheme will be introduced in Northern Ireland aimed at reducing and monitoring the time defendants spend in custody before they are tried on indictment for scheduled offences. The scheme will start in two weeks' time, on 1st July. It will impose administrative targets for these scheduled custody cases.

They are the ones which present the most serious delays. The targets will be to take such cases from first remand to committal stage in 38 weeks; and from committal to arraignment (when the defendant enters his or her plea) in 14 weeks—a period of 12 months overall from first remand to arraignment.

These targets are challenging. They will require a significant improvement in the processing of these cases in Northern Ireland. They can only be achieved because the agencies concerned have agreed to introduce new arrangements to monitor closely the progress of the cases involved, and to introduce new reporting arrangements for cases which are in danger of overrunning.

We considered carefully whether even tighter time limits could be introduced straight away, but had to conclude that that is not a realistic expectation for the time being. But we wish to see still further reductions in remand periods over and above those which are being introduced in the next few weeks. Consideration has been given to introducing a statutory scheme at this stage. We had to reject that option because we could not at present be satisfied that it could operate without a real risk of dangerous people being released.

We believe that these measures will lead to a significant and welcome improvement in the time scheduled remand prisoners spend in custody. They will lay also the necessary foundations for sustained and continued improvements for the future. They are designed to ensure that the wish of my noble friend Lord Colville to reduce remand times are given substance and start to be realised.

Given the subject matter of today's debate, it is inevitable that our focus should be narrowly on security-related issues. But that is only one element of our policy towards Northern Ireland; social and economic programmes, and the pursuit of political progress, are fundamental to our search for a happier and more peaceful future for the people of Northern Ireland. These are policies which affect directly far more people than those who ever encounter the emergency legislation we are discussing today. I am sure the entire House will join me in paying warm and whole-hearted tribute to the security forces, and also to the judiciary and the prison service, in their ceaseless struggle to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. The Government fully support them in their efforts and are determined that the necessary resources, in terms both of manpower and equipment and an appropriate legislative framework, are in place to enable them to carry out their duties successfully.

We must pay tribute also to the efforts of the Garda and the Irish Army in the fight against terrorism. Their diligence and professionalism have led to a series of major arms finds and arrests already this year in Donegal and Cork. Those come on top of the recovery last year of 159 weapons, over 20,000 rounds of ammunition and over 1,600 kilograms of explosive. The Irish Government share our determination that terrorism will not prevail: and we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that co-operation on the ground is as close as we can make it.

Most important of all I pay particular tribute to the endurance and courage of the people of Northern Ireland, whose determination to get on with their lives in spite of the terrorists is a source of encouragement to all of us who deal with Northern Ireland's affairs, and contrasts so starkly with the sheer wickedness of the paramilitaries. They deserve to be relieved of the scourge of terrorism and we are determined that that should be so. Central to the Government's security policy is a determination that terrorism and terrorists should be dealt with within the law. The law that applies for this purpose is the ordinary, substantive criminal law, which has been temporarily supplemented by a number of additional provisions, largely those contained within the EPA, the purpose of which is the better protection of the lives and liberties of those under threat from terrorism. I therefore commend this continuance order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)

5.32 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the second order before I address the first. I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation of the need for the second order and am grateful to the Secretary of State for sending us a letter explaining the background and flaw contained in the present legislation. However, a copy of the second order was not in the Printed Paper Office 25 minutes ago.

I believe that I understand the nature of the technical error. It was a huge error. A clause in the 1991 Act, to which the department always attached the highest importance, was excluded. That is the clause which authorises the Secretary of State to detain citizens without trial. As I say, I believe that I understand the error but I shall be interested to know at what level within the department the error occurred. At what level was the law misinterpreted?

The Secretary of State called in aid the urgency procedure to make laws for Northern Ireland. According to page 554 of Erskine May, In cases of urgency, an alternative procedure is laid down by which an Order in Council may be made and come into force, though its continuing validity will depend on the agreement of both Houses given within forty days of the date of the making of the Order in Council". I believe that the Order in Council was signed today. Therefore can the Minister say whether he is asking the House this afternoon for its agreement to the order or whether he intends to come back to the House at a later stage to seek its consent.

I move to the first order. The House is indebted to the Minister for explaining the background to the order, which is of major importance. Again it is an order which cannot be amended. The Opposition are in agreement with the Government's determination to wage the most effective campaign possible against the men of Ireland—my Lords, I meant to say the men of violence in Northern Ireland. There is unity in the House that the terrorists from both sides of the community must be prevented from continuing their ruthless campaign of violence, murder and intimidation. Terrorism must not succeed.

The Minister reminded your Lordships of the background in Northern Ireland, of the scale of the violence and of the suffering. The violence has been waged now for 23 years. He referred also to successes by the security forces whose members have an immensely difficult and dangerous task to discharge against a ruthless enemy. Like the Minister, I should like to express the Opposition's respect for the way in which those tasks, almost without exception, have been undertaken year after year in and around the Province. We join with the Minister in expressing our admiration for the stamina, courage and good sense of the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered so much over the past 23 years.

It is the duty of any worthwhile Opposition, in relation to this order, to voice in your Lordships' House points of difference which arise out of our concern for the liberty of the citizen; for human rights in Northern Ireland and the effectiveness of the Government's legislation. On the occasion when the 1991 Act was being debated in your Lordships' House a year ago we emphasised that the exceptional powers it contained should always be balanced with the necessary safeguards to minimise the possibility of abuse of the powers and to protect the liberties of innocent citizens who live their daily lives in Northern Ireland. That remains an important and integral part of our task today.

Once again we are greatly assisted by the annual report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on the operation of the Act during 1991. Inevitably there is less contained in the report this year than in earlier reports. We are indebted to the noble Viscount for the excellent reports he has produced over the years. While it would be premature at this stage to form a reliable assessment of the operation of the new provisions of the Act, the report tends to be reassuring on a number of matters. It is early days in the operation of the new provisions but it appears that the new power to examine documents to be found in Section 22, and the new offence of possessing items intended for terrorist purposes to be found in Section 30 (which were the subject of a great deal of anxiety and discussion in Committee) to date have not generated adverse criticism. As the Minister pointed out, it is satisfying also that the most complex new provisions aimed at preventing the flow of funds to terrorist organisations may be biting. However, the Government should bear in mind that the conclusion in paragraph 2.1.5 of the report was challenged by a Member in another place who happens to be a jurist.

In the light of that challenge, can we be assured that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Inland Revenue in Northern Ireland are not pursuing conflicting ends? Can we also be assured that the Government are addressing the need to ensure, so far as possible, uniformity of legislation within the different jurisdictions of the British Isles relating to the disclosure of information about terrorist funds, which is the important matter raised in paragraph 2.1.6 of the report?

I found paragraph 4 of the report and its many sub-paragraphs to be worrying. In these subparagraphs the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, draws attention once again to the allegations of harsh ill treatment at the three holding centres. He sets out the "damning perception"—those are his words—which has built up of the typical course of events at these centres which is both damaging to the confidence and good name of the police in Northern Ireland and to the reputation of the United Kingdom Government within the international community.

In paragraph 4.3.2 the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, tells us: I would suggest that something needs urgently to be done about allegations of ill-treatment, at Castlereagh and generally in police custody". At this stage I should say that we are also greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has consistently reminded your Lordships over the past few years of the urgent need to improve the procedures for interviewing and interrogating arrested suspects at the holding centres.

The Secretary of State repeated last week in another place that an independent commissioner for the holding centres is to be appointed. This House was given that information by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, as long ago as 12th March last (Official Report, cols. 1435–6). On that occasion, he went on to say that the appointment would be made "as soon as possible".

Harsh criticism has been levelled at the holding centres, and there have been disturbingly large numbers of actions in tort, such as an action for compensation for assault and for false imprisonment, brought against the chief constable arising out of conduct at the holding centres. Those were settled out of court and suggest a linkage with complaints. Is the delay which has already occurred in announcing the appointment of the independent commissioner justifiable upon any grounds? Perhaps the Minister can help us on that.

In any event can the Minister tell the House when this important appointment will be made? The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, mentions in his report that he had seen a draft of the job specification. Can the Minister confirm that the commissioner will be able at all times to observe the interview and interrogation through the observation window in the cell door? Will that be possible? Will he have a right of access to the doctor at the centre and to the medical evidence? If he is dissatisfied with what he observes, can he immediately intervene and take remedial or corrective action? If not, to whom and when will he be reporting on the incident which has caused him anxiety? That is not clear to me.

At any stage will the commissioner have a right of access to the Secretary of State? What will be the relationship between the commissioner and the commission for police complaints in Northern Ireland? Those are some of the questions which need to be answered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, will confirm that the opposition parties have always maintained that the best safeguard against the ill-treatment of suspects, or against false accusations of ill-treatment made against the police, would be a video recording of the interview. If I have any criticism of the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, it is that I regret that his support for video recording appears to be a little less firm than it used to be in the past.

Before I leave the question of terrorist suspects in custody, I want to confirm our full support for the Government's recently announced decision to aim at reducing to 12 months the defendant's time spent in custody from the original remand to the date of trial. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, and as the Minister also said this afternoon, there was an unanswerable case for cutting down that period. I hope that the department will give a very high priority to reaching that target as rapidly as possible. Once it has been reached, we believe that it should then become a permanent and statutory obligation, as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.

In his 1990 review, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, confirmed that stories abound of clumsy or rude behaviour by both military and police personnel. This humiliating experience for those at the receiving end had given rise to considerable worry which had also been strongly voiced by the Primate of all-Ireland, Dr. Daly. The Government then responded by promising to set up a new post of an independent assessor of military complaints to review the working of the procedures for the investigation of complaints against the Army. That is provided for in Section 60 of last year's Act.

Although it was and continues to be our view that Section 60 falls substantially short of what was required to meet the criticism—because it failed to provide for an independent element within the complaints procedure—nevertheless we deeply regret that this post has yet to be filled. We appreciate that the Army itself has set up a central complaints office at headquarters. That is not a substitute for the independent assessor of military complaints. That post has yet to be filled. Therefore, this is another appointment which, after 12 months of labour, should now be accelerated.

That leads me to ask a question about the central principle of police primacy in Northern Ireland. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is in his place. It is a question which has been asked by him on a number of occasions. I am delighted that he is to speak in this debate and no doubt will come back to this question. The principle of police primacy, as I understand it, requires the Armed Forces to operate only in support of the police save in the most exceptional circumstances.

Our anxiety today arises particularly, but not solely, out of the case of Mr. Brian Nelson and his activities in Northern Ireland. Mr. Nelson is now serving a 10 years sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to murder. Without accepting all his evidence as gospel, the "Panorama" programme shown a week ago tonight on the Nelson affair raised many worrying issues including especially that of the relationship between the Army and the RUC. One is left wondering whether the Army is waging one fight against terrorism and the RUC another. One is left wondering whether the Army in Northern Ireland and the RUC are two autonomous departments. Does the one department know what the other is doing? Does one arm know what the other is doing?

Of course, we welcome the appointment last week of a second deputy chief constable, but that appointment by itself does not necessarily address the anxieties. It does not necessarily resolve the difficulties. Can the Minister help the House by assuring us that if the Army is to be permitted to continue to operate an intelligence service in Northern Ireland, the RUC will be in overall command and that the information that is obtained and gathered by the Army will be passed forthwith to the RUC in a useful form so that the fight against terrorism will be a single, co-ordinated and unified fight?

I believe that the failure to co-ordinate the activities of the relevant departments is reflected in paragraph 1.4 of the report by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which states: It is regrettable that there are this year no statistics for the impact of the EPA more recent than up to July 1991. These are of little use for the review, especially as they predate the coming into force of the new Act. Although the police have supplied statistics of their own, it is probably better not to publish these, as the comparison with NIO figures for earlier years may not be entirely on all fours. In general there are current difficulties about statistics, including arguments over definitions. This appears to be the reason for the unsatisfactory situation whereby the statistics for the work of the Diplock courts can be markedly different according to whether the source is the Court Service of the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Northern Ireland Office. I would suggest that there would be much utility in a resolution of all this. The last sentence of that paragraph is kindly phrased, but I believe that its meaning is not obscured. How can the relative neglect of statistics possibly be explained? Why, year after year, have we been led to believe that we are receiving a quality of data which we are not?

Clearly, improvements are urgently needed if there is to be a flow of up-to-date and reliable information—whether it emanates from the RUC, the Army, the Northern Ireland Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department. That is a simple improvement which could be made with the aid of modern technology and statistical skills if the need is really appreciated and understood—hence one of my last questions to the Minister. Can this improvement be built into the system before the end of this year?

I now come to my final question. Is there a need for this emergency legislation and its quite exceptional provisions to continue in force? It is obvious for all to see that these are still very difficult times for the people of Northern Ireland. Daily, or almost daily, fresh acts of terrorism scar the face of Ulster. Regrettably, we conclude that there is a continuing need for emergency legislation authorising as it does many departures from the rule of law subject, however, to the proper safeguards which are built into the Act and which are to be used to fight the evil of terrorism—and only for such purposes.

5.55 p.m.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the clarity of his introduction. I should also like to thank him and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for their courtesy in letting us know—albeit only a very short time before the debate— that we should be discussing two continuance orders rather than one. This is one of those occasions when the Government's competence has been outshone by their courtesy.

As to the substance of the renewal, it will be a happy day for Parliament and for the people of Northern Ireland when the Province no longer has to be governed by emergency laws which, let us make no mistake about it, infringe basic human rights and civil liberties. Unhappily, that day has not yet arrived.

However, there are signs of progress and I, for one, from these Benches wish to congratulate Sir Patrick Mayhew and his predecessor on at last having got on to the bridge between strands 1 and 2 of the all-party talks. Even if strand 1 is still far from secure behind them, at least the Secretary of State and the party leaders have reached a point that it would have been difficult to believe possible a week or two ago when it looked as if the talks had broken down. They now seem to be moving forward again. However, against those signs of political progress, the security situation has visibly deteriorated over the past 12 months. The deadly impertinence of the terrorists seems to swell day by day.

Therefore, let us make no mistake: there is an emergency, as so many innocent victims on both sides of the water can testify. In my view, that is why Parliament must support the order. I do not think that it is helpful to haver and to hesitate in an emergency. It is not fair to the RUC and to the armed forces who risk so much to keep people safe. And it is not fair to the people themselves who deserve the best protection of their life and liberty that can be afforded.

At the same time the Government must be sparing and restrained in the use of the extraordinary powers that they ask us to approve. They must be ever vigilant against the abuse of power. I welcome the promise of the publication of a code and the promised appointment of a commissioner to monitor procedures at holding centres such as Castlereagh where there have been so many reports—most recently that by Amnesty International—of the ill-treatment of detainees. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, by now we should have the code and the commissioner. Can the noble Earl reassure us that disagreements about the merits of the proposal of a commissioner versus an extension of the existing lay visitor scheme, as reported on pages 38 and 39 of the excellent report by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, are not holding up the appointment of a commissioner? Furthermore, will there be a deputy commissioner—a possibility mentioned by the noble Viscount—to ensure that the proper coverage of all three holding centres can take place?

In our equivalent debate last year I was very pleased to support the innovations dealing with terrorist finance. Therefore, on a close reading of page 4 of the report, I was slightly disappointed that there has been what the noble Viscount refers to as "only a modest amount" of progress on that score. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that any commercial firm which has been intimidated into making protection payments—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to this—and which subsequently co-operates with the authorities will not then find itself the object of unwelcome attention from the Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue? That would defeat the whole object of the exercise of getting the business community and everyone in Northern Ireland working together to cut off finance from the terrorists.

Perhaps I may raise one or two other areas of concern. It is extremely welcome that the time spent in custody on remand is to be reduced. But can we be assured that the hardest cases—by that I mean some of those who, incredibly, have already been waiting two years or more—will be dealt with first? The conditions in many of the gaols in Northern Ireland where people are held are not good. The conditions in Crumlin Road are so bad that first come first served seems only just in terms of getting out to trial those who have been held for so long.

Then there is the question of the video taping of the interviews of terrorist suspects so that a permanent record is kept. Surely this would reduce the number of false accusations, to which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred in his introduction, and increase confidence in the administration of justice. In a debate in another place several Conservative voices were raised in favour of that proposal. I know that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has been consistent in putting forward this proposal and of course it was the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who made the proposal to us two years ago. It is difficult to understand why the Government are quite so obdurate in the matter of the video taping of interviews. Cannot they at least initiate a controlled experiment to see whether it reduces the number of false accusations made and increases confidence in what happens at interrogations?

I move now to the question of intelligence gathering. Can the Minister assure us of the absolute primacy of the police in intelligence matters. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, took this for granted. Perhaps he was right to do so. The case of Brian Nelson paints an unhappy picture of sharp elbows between the elements of what should be an integrated security and intelligence operation. Can the Minister confirm whether his right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Tom King, did indeed write to the Director of Public Prosecutions on behalf of Mr. Nelson as an army agent as "Panorama" reported? The Government did not feel able to answer the question in another place, but since a week has now elapsed perhaps we can hear something from the Minister.

If MI5 is in charge of anti-terrorist intelligence on the mainland, as we have been told recently, with the police working to it, but the reverse is the case in Northern Ireland, with MI5 and the army working to the police, is the Minister satisfied that there will not be confusion and competition of the kind that seems to have caused some difficulty over the past year or so in Northern Ireland?

Finally, I wish to voice serious misgivings that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should have been used in the case of the Channel Four "Dispatches" programme. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the case, surely it would have been better if paragraph 9 of Schedule I to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act had been used. Does the Minister not agree that draconian law such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be used only if absolutely necessary and that it should not be devalued in this way? We have now had two cases—ABC and Lockerbie in March and now Channel Four in April—and it begins to look as though Acts which require less and less proof for prosecution are to be used more frequently. Perhaps I may say in conclusion—this is the principle which I hope the Government will feel able to observe—that the special powers which we are discussing today should be used with great care and great caution. It is on that basis alone that the Government will continue to find general support for their renewal.

6.4 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Arran for presenting the order, and I welcome him to his new post in Northern Ireland. Secondly, I thank my noble friend Lord Colville for an excellent report which gets to the bottom of many of the problems. However, the report is on the legal side and we have just heard from two noble Lords the legal opinion of it. I am not so well up in legal affairs. I should like to talk about the operational side and the day-to-day running of what goes on in Northern Ireland.

Paragraph 1.4 of my noble friend's report is totally devoid of any statistics meaningful to the past year. The chief constable's report, which is often out before this debate is held, is not anywhere to be seen. What business enterprise would possibly formulate policy on statistics from a previous year? What business enterprise does not keep statistics running throughout the year? It seems incredible that we do not have statistics for what has gone on during the past year.

I am delighted to see from the report that the new provisions which were brought in last year are largely working well, and that there have not been so many complaints about them. That shows that the work that was done here and in another place was definitely worthwhile.

I should like to refer for a moment to the relationship of the RUC and the Army. This involves police primacy. I should like to mention three occurrences which have been highlighted lately. The first is the Nelson affair. This showed that operations, which are always said to be based on intelligence information or requirements, are not being fully co-ordinated throughout the security forces. We are told that steps will be taken to rectify this, a matter to which I shall return in a moment.

The second is Coalisland. A spearhead battalion of the parachute regiment which was training in conventional warfare was sent to Northern Ireland at four days' notice with training only for that period. Things went badly wrong. I shall not go into the details. This showed that Options for Change is governing force levels in Northern Ireland instead of the situation which is occurring there at the moment. Yet this is the only operational theatre and is the Army's second heaviest commitment in the world. It was a sad occasion and a young officer was suspended. The paras have not exactly done a lot for their name. A brigadier was sacked at around this time, although the sacking was totally unconnected to the incident I have just mentioned. He had been in the job for about five months. He did not measure up to it and he was sent home. The reason for mentioning these incidents, which are all bad and detrimental to the British forces in Northern Ireland, is to show that the GOC and Headquarters Northern Ireland took executive action to correct them. They should be commended for doing so immediately, for getting to the bottom of the incidents and for authorising a police inquiry. In Coalisland, in a follow-up exercise, a second machine gun was found in addition to the one that was previously lost.

I also pay credit to the security forces because many successful operations have been carried out by the RUC and the Army in the past year. They are up against a sophisticated form of terrorism and terrorist plans are thwarted daily by the professionalism of the RUC and the Army. We do not hear about what goes on but there are many such examples. Down on the border, the Army has recently spent £40 million on improving the checkpoints. I spent a couple of hours at one two weeks ago. It is extremely good. It is user-friendly; it does not hold up traffic; and there is two-way free flowing traffic. The response from the public has been very good.

The security forces are not as one somehow, or so it seems. MI5, the RUC and the Army are all individual. The Nelson case has shown it. It is naïve to think that it is a completely isolated case. A new deputy chief constable for operations has been appointed and the RUC can now see all Army files. MI5 discusses things more widely with everyone else. I welcome these new measures and the new post for the deputy chief constable. But in addition to counter terrorism, his post covers traffic, criminal investigations and uniformed policing. Counter-terrorism needs a branch of its own with its own boss and staff. It is difficult to know how someone who has all operational concerns under his office can possibly get to grips with counter-terrorism. They are good measures; but are they not just papering over the cracks? Should we not go back to the centre of the fight against terrorism in the Province?

There is police primacy, and so there should always be. There can be nothing else in the case of countering terrorism within a civilian community. The police answer to the law, one could say the DPP. The Army is in support and therefore comes operationally under that umbrella. Its chain of command from the GOC upwards to the MoD is only administrative. In normal circumstances—for example, in the Gulf or in the Falkland Islands—the Army is responsible, through the General Staff to the democratically elected government and Parliament which can direct what it should do. In Northern Ireland that is not so. The police force leads. I feel that, although things in Northern Ireland are going well, they could go a great deal better if the Government found an improved system for directing, monitoring and reporting on the fight against terrorism.

Police primacy there must be—and it must continue. In such a vast field as counter-terrorism, the people of this country must know, and be confident, that the right direction is being given and the right control is being exerted by the democratically elected Parliament. People are not at present happy with what they have been seeing and hearing lately.

Why did the Chief Constable and GOC go public last year in asking for more troops? Presumably they must have been refused when they asked quietly for the increase. The two professional heads of the fight against terrorism were turned down by MoD and politicians who do not hold the responsibility for the escalation in violence which followed as a result. It may have been because of Options for Change or for some other reason. But, whatever it was based on, it was not as a result of a widely-read report on the operations of the security forces in Northern Ireland. There is no report. The Chief Constable's report has not yet been printed. Moreover, when it is, only a small proportion of it relates to counter-terrorism, and by now it is a year out of date. When the troops were sent—too late and at short notice—what happened? Coalisland.

There is a new word in the field of security operations in Northern Ireland. It is "jointery". I am not quite sure who thought of it. It is meant to mean the police and military doing everything together. I often see constables with patrols when I am stopped at checkpoints—never, I should say, at border checkpoints—and, therefore, to some extent it is happening. But I believe that, in many instances, only lip service is being paid to it.

As a member of the general public, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get the same answer to a question from the RUC and the Army. There is often a lack of collective responsibility, even though they are working to the same end. It is commonly known in our area that the Army does not like border checkpoints —or that is what people have come to think. The RUC made the Army keep them. Could they not have come out of whatever meeting it was and said, "We have jointly decided that we should have them and we are all for it"—instead of being split?

As regards access to files, if the intelligence services—namely, MI5, the RUC and the Army—are not co-located, what hope have they got of collectively knowing everything that they are doing? They must work together and not merely "audit" each other's files once a year or when there is an emergency. That is wholly inadequate. Any multinational business with those symptoms in its world would immediately instigate a thorough review with a report to the head office. In the Northern Ireland security force case, I am not sure where the head office is. The RUC information officer said that the Chief Constable is only answerable to the law.

I believe that Her Majesty's Government should get a grip of the situation, review it and report on possible ways of improving co-ordination. Perhaps a group of Privy Counsellors should be formed. They could hold secrets and could be told them. Such a group could be set up to monitor constantly what is going on. It could then report back to a Parliament which must ultimately be responsible for the fight against terrorism.

I ask my noble friend to convey those anxieties and suggestions to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I should also be grateful for an answer in that respect. Having said that, of course, I support the continuance of the order.

6.14 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, this afternoon we are being asked to accede to a departure from the normal rules of law that apply in this country. Unless I misunderstood what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, we are also, apparently, being asked to accede to a departure from the normal rules of government and parliamentary practice regarding affirmation of the orders themselves. I could become very angry in that respect, but I do not think that it is worth it. I hope that the Government will respond to the questions that have been raised by both noble Lords on the Front Benches and tell us that, yes, there is a second order which will be debated at some time in the future within the next 40 days and that notice will be given to Members of the House when it will be debated so that the due process of parliamentary procedures may be gone through. I hope that that will be the Government's response. However, if it is not, and if the Government hope effectively to get the approval of the House to both orders under discussion this afternoon, then I shall be very angry. I hope that other noble Lords also will be angry about it. It is not really the way that we should proceed.

Perhaps I may turn now to the main substance of the debate; namely, the continuation of the emergency and the prevention of terrorism provisions. In his opening remarks, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, explained that terrorism is continuing. We have had terrorism on the scale that we all now understand, effectively for the past 20 years or so. We have also had the basic provisions of the Acts. Here I particularly call attention to the powers of arrest without charge; the powers of detention without charge or trial; and the powers to deport without trial. Those draconian powers are a major departure from our normal rules of law. We have had such powers for 18 years, since 1974, but still terrorism continues.

One of the reasons for my speaking in the debate today is to highlight the opportunity that I think has been missed. We have just had a general election by which the Conservatives were returned to office. We were advised that John Major was his own man, that he would do his own thing and that there would be changes and departures from previous government practice. It seems to me that here was an opportunity to actually look at the situation in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, in the rest of the United Kingdom—and take a different direction. From discussions between the various parties, and between the British and Irish Governments, there are signs that there are some changes that could be made. That was an opportunity whereby the way that we deal with what is called "terrorism" could be changed. Unfortunately, that opportunity appears not to have been taken.

We were all struck by the reference made by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies to the Government's campaign against the "men of Ireland". I stress those words for the Hansard reporters. In fact, what he meant to say was the Government's campaign against the "men of violence". I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I am most grateful. However, I should point out to my noble friend that I believe I corrected myself.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I accept my noble friend's point. He did correct himself.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the people of Ireland do not actually see the situation like that; given the emergency powers that exist—and, quite honestly, the way that they are used—the whole mechanism and apparatus involved, and the way that we talk about the difficulties in Northern Ireland. For example, after the ending of the Cold War, when the whole raison d'être of a large chunk of MI5 disappeared, one would think that a large number of people should have been made redundant because their jobs were no longer there. But instead of saving taxpayers' money and making those people redundant, those resources have been transferred into the so-called fight against terrorism.

One of the aspects that concerns me is the way that we look at the whole problem and effectively give it a political connotation. I feel that we should think in terms of what are described as terrorist acts as criminal acts. When someone is murdered, a bomb goes off, a fire is started, or people are subjected to threats of violence against themselves, their property or their family, those are all criminal acts. We should shout at every opportunity that these are criminal acts. We have laws on our statute books—the normal laws of the United Kingdom—which should be applied to people who perpetrate these criminal acts. But we do not actually do that.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that we have no statistics for the latest year of the operation of the Act. That is a rather sad reflection on the Government's bureaucracy and their organisation. I take exception to what the noble Viscount said when he called for the police to have a special operational division to deal with counter-terrorism. Again, the reason for my objection—

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I did not ask for a special operational division. I merely asked for a special operational office.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I stand corrected. But my fear is that a special operational office would effectively segregate police work to deal with counter-terrorism from the other normal day-to-day policing. As I stressed earlier, it is very important that we do not give people who are engaging in some criminal acts in Northern Ireland the opportunity to think that they are carrying out anything other than criminal acts which are against the normal behaviour of people living in civilised society.

In previous years—in fact, since I entered this House in 1985—I stood alone in opposing and seeking to divide the House on these orders. Some years ago, after continuing that policy for a number of years, I discontinued it. It was obvious that there were no other Members of your Lordships' House who wished to even second me in those endeavours. But as I said, we did have the opportunity for a change in direction, one that I hoped would have made positive progress in dealing with the violence and the lawlessness that exists. Therefore, I offer this last remark to Members of your Lordships' House. If any noble Lord will join me in dividing the House, I will stand by his side.

6.24 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, all my life I have lived under emergency legislation. I was born in 1926 and in 1922 the Northern Ireland Government brought to the statute book one of the most notorious and draconian Acts of Parliament of a so-called British legislature —the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922. That was an Act which was referred to and complimented by the apartheid leaders in South Africa. One of them, the Minister for Home Affairs, said during the course of a debate that he would give up all the draconian powers that he had in South African legislation for one section of the special powers Act in Northern Ireland.

Throughout my political life my attention has always been drawn to that Act. That Act was on the statute book from 1922. It was allegedly brought in as an emergency measure. It was there until 1972 when Stormont was abolished. That Act was succeeded by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. Although we refer to it as the emergency provisions Act of 1986, 1991 and 1992, in fact it went on to the statute book in 1973. I was a Member in another place when it went through. I remember very well, having the experience of the special powers Act behind me, saying that the new Act was going to be on the statute book for a very long time. When emergency legislation gets onto the statute book nothing is more permanent.

I quite understand the invitation which has been extended by my noble friend to oppose this order. Indeed, throughout my political life in the Commons I went into the "No" Lobby on numerous occasions. Living in Northern Ireland as I did and knowing many people who had been killed by terrorist acts of violence—both by Republican terrorists and Loyalist terrorists—I realised that the ordinary civil law in Northern Ireland was not able to cope with those terrorist outrages. In fact, the ordinary civil law in the Republic of Ireland is unable to cope with terrorism. The Republic of Ireland has an offences against the state Act. They have special courts exactly as we have in Northern Ireland.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If, as he said, the emergency powers have been in existence since 1922, has there been any opportunity for the normal powers relating to criminal acts to be tried?

Lord Fitt

My Lords, there has been no opportunity. However, to try to evolve or to discover an opportunity would be a tremendous leap in the dark. During the course of the debate in another place one of the Members voiced his opposition to the check points on the Border. He said that they did not achieve anything. I do not know whether or not they have achieved anything, but I would be very fearful that if all those checkpoints were taken away the IRA would run hundreds of tonnes of arms from the Republic, which they had obtained from Colonel Gadaffi, into Northern Ireland and create further mayhem. It is a chance that we are asked to take. It is a chance that I would not be prepared to take with the present level of murder and carnage that is taking place in Northern Ireland.

I do not wish to reiterate all the statistics that have been given by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. But even though I no longer live in Northern Ireland I am very much in touch with it. It would be hard for me to divorce myself from everything that has happened throughout all the years of my political representation in Northern Ireland.

I find the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, very disquieting in many ways. In 1979 a series of allegations were made against the interrogation procedures in Castlereagh. It was stated all over Northern Ireland that the police were using very heavy-handed tactics and beating up all kinds of people who went to Castlereagh—and not only IRA or Loyalist terrorists. The then Labour Government appointed a senior High Court judge from Britain called Bennett to inquire into the interrogation procedures used in Northern Ireland. The Bennett Report did not come out openly and say, "We have proved that cruelty has been used and people have been beaten up." The judge gave a list of recommendations in his report. He said that certain procedures should not take place. That was tantamount to saying that they had been taking place. So we all knew that there had been brutality in the holding centres. One of the prison doctors employed by the Northern Ireland Office issued a statement in which he said that he had examined detainees who had been subjected to ill treatment.

On the day that the report was being debated in Parliament, the Daily Telegraph claimed that that doctor was not to be believed, was not reliable and was something of an eccentric. That was a nasty story. It was obviously generated by the Northern Ireland Office in an attempt to discredit the doctor who had examined the detainees and who was prepared to stake his political reputation and say that they had been ill treated.

The then Secretary of State, who is now a Member of your Lordships' House (my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley) took a hard attitude, and said that that had not happened. He did not agree with the claims. He thought they had been grossly exaggerated. The attitude he took on the Floor of the other place led to the defeat of the Labour Government within a few months, because I abstained from that crucial vote and the Government fell.

Are we now in 1992 to have a repeat of that attitude with a claim that all the allegations are untrue and are being manufactured by IRA and Loyalist terrorists? I have no doubt that the IRA and the Loyalists are manufacturing some of the complaints, but not all of them. In page after page of the report the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, expresses his disquiet. On Page 18 he states: It is not difficult for a person some little time after being arrested or detained to bring a civil action in the county or sheriff court claiming damages for assault, false imprisonment or some other tort or delict. For the authorities to defend such an action much expensive preparation has to be carried out, and various busy people diverted from their normal activities. It is so much easier to settle". That is a condemnation of the whole system. He is saying that people are manufacturing spurious claims—I have no doubt that the IRA is manufacturing those claims—but it is the Government's duty to fight and resist them. In paragraph 6.1.7 the noble Viscount states: In the House of Lords Lord Hylton asked whether £134,000 had been paid to settle claims for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment to detainees at Castlereagh, from June 1989 to the date of his Question in December 1991. The Minister replied that the information was not held in this form". The information should be held in that form. When serious allegations are being made against the forces of law and order, especially the RUC, Ministers should have all that information at their fingertips so that they can refute spurious, lying allegations. They say that they do not know: "Perhaps it is right; perhaps it is wrong". The noble Viscount later says the claims amount to £2,000 or £3,000 only. What is more important is that when anyone succeeds in obtaining £2,000 or £3,000 in an out-of-court settlement, that information goes immediately to Noraid in Boston, America, and to all the Irish-American supporters of the IRA. It is in the Government's interests to fight those claims.

The report states that the Government settle out of court. When people settle out of court, that is an indication that they do not want to go to court. It is an indication that they think they may lose. Are the Government afraid of losing when they settle those fictitious claims out of court? I ask the Minister the question asked by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, although I do not expect an answer this evening: has £134,000 been paid to people who have made claims against the RUC? I hope that that is not right. Claims are being made against the RUC, and the RUC should resist them, whatever that costs, if the allegations are untrue. The RUC is not just paying out money. The settlements are of tremendous propaganda value to the IRA and the Loyalists.

The Minister said that there would be continuous monitoring of the interrogation of terrorist suspects. Again, on page 21 the noble Viscount states: My attention has been drawn to a press report of a trial in late 1990 in which the judge rejected a confession statement by a detainee at Castlereagh and commented, in acquitting the defendant, that he was not sure that the CCTV monitors were continually watched". What is the use of having monitors if they are not watched? The monitors were installed at Castlereagh as a result of the recommendations of the Bennett Report. The Government were well aware of the tremendous propaganda value that they were to the IRA. The position should have been monitored up to the present, because if it is not the whole advantage is left with the men of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I was disquieted by what the noble Viscount said in his report.

I wholeheartedly support what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said about video recording. Video recording of interrogation procedures would take a great deal of the heat out of the allegations being made against the RUC at the moment. I understand the argument against them. The video recordings would exist and, in the future, some smart-Alec lawyer might take a case—we are not short of smart-Alec lawyers in this country—to the European Court to have the video recordings shown. That may be to the disadvantage of someone giving information against the IRA and may lead to that person's death. The Government should study both sides of the argument.

I welcome the appointment of a commissioner, but there should be a deputy commissioner as well. One commissioner would probably find it impossible to pay all the attention necessary to the three holding centres.

No concessions should be made to murderers, whether they call themselves patriotic Republicans or patriotic Loyalists. Throughout the years there have been a number of people, especially on the Protestant side, who have committed the most atrocious murders. They are brought before the courts and sentenced to life imprisonment. Within two or three years they suddenly find God and are converted. They say that the crimes they committed were awful; but that does not bring back the victims. It does not bring back the fathers who have left so many orphaned children. That has happened time and time again. There is one case upon which I am keeping a close eye.

In 1973, one of my closest friends—Senator Patrick Wilson of the Northern Ireland Parliament—left me one afternoon. He was giving a girl a lift home. He was waylaid by a Loyalist mob. Within a few hours, I had to identify his body and that of the girl. They had been brutally stabbed to death in one of the most horrifying murders that ever took place in Northern Ireland. That happened in 1973.

I have always taken the view that one murderer could not have killed the two in those circumstances and that more must have been involved. But the police accepted the name of one man. His name was John White. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and is still in prison. But earlier this year the Government quite rightly wished to close down the old Maze Prison, with the compounds where the IRA and the Loyalists were able to use their paramilitary supremacy. The Government wished to transfer the remaining prisoners to the new prison in Maghaberry. John White, who had brutally murdered Senator Paddy Wilson and the girl to whom he was giving a lift, said, "I'm not going to Maghaberry unless you take some years off my sentence, unless I get a release date". Here was a brutal murderer dictating to the Government in Northern Ireland that he would not go to another prison unless he received concessions on the time he had to serve. From what I have heard, in an attempt to make certain that there was no great disruption in the transfer of the prisoner, the Government may have made some concessions.

People in Northern Ireland are watching what will happen in this case. I repeat that I do not believe that any concessions should be made to murderers, be they Republican or Loyalist. I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Monkswell that, given the present state of Northern Ireland and the brutality taking place on our streets, I believe that this legislation is necessary and I do not oppose it.

6.41 p.m.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, tonight's debate has provided an opportunity to examine once again the requirement for, and the scope of, the emergency powers now in effect in Northern Ireland. This is as it should be. In a parliamentary democracy there must be full and open debate on the need for exceptional powers of any kind.

The Government's aim is a full return to normality and the eradication of terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is our first priority. Terrorist organisations are criminal conspiracies representing perhaps the most dangerous threat to the fabric of any democratic society. We are determined that they will not prevail. Violence in pursuit of political ends is neither acceptable nor inevitable. So long as it continues, terrorism will be met with a firm, resolute and pro-active response.

That response is based firmly, as it must he, on the unequivocal acceptance of the rule of law. That is the only acceptable route for a democracy if it is not to descend to the levels of the terrorists themselves. It involves the even-handed and determined enforcement of the criminal law. If individuals are suspected of involvement in terrorist activity, then evidence is produced against them and tested in open court, and they are given fair treatment before the law.

However, within that basic approach it is open to the Government—indeed it is incumbent upon them—to introduce specific measures and powers, where the ordinary law is insufficient, to enable the police and Army to deal with the difficulties they encounter in protecting society from terrorism and apprehending the perpetrators of it. The EPA, and the relevant sections of the PTA also being renewed by this order, do precisely that.

I believe that we have had an interesting debate and I shall deal with some of the points raised. Before doing so, however, it may be worth illustrating the practical application of EPA measures by looking at one particular case: the refurbishment of a number of permanent vehicle checkpoints—PVCPs—in border areas. These were referred to by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.

Checkpoints provide protection for communities particularly vulnerable to terrorist attack, deter terrorists by controlling cross-border traffic, block key escape routes used by terrorists and provide bases for security force patrols working in dangerous areas. Following a thorough review, 10 PVCPs in Fermanagh and Londonderry are being refurbished and improved. The upgrading programme, which began in South-East Fermanagh, is designed to reduce inconvenience to local communities by improving traffic-handling arrangements as well as providing better protection and improved accommodation for security force personnel at the bases. The entire exercise provides an example of how powers provided for in one part of the Act can be used to ameliorate the impact of the operation of others of its powers. We recognise the disruption caused to local people by the necessary use at these checkpoints of the powers to stop and question people for so long as is necessary to ascertain their identities, movements and any knowledge they may have of recent terrorist incidents, and to search vehicles under Sections 23 and 26 of the Act.

Part of the refurbishment programme is intended to remove or reduce the lengthy traffic queues which can build up by re-designing or re-siting the PVCPs and providing space for lay-bys where inquiries and searches can, when necessary, be conducted without delaying other traffic. The necessary land is, in a number of cases, being acquired using powers contained in Section 24 of the Act and compensation is being paid under Section 63. Work is still in progress, but I understand that the new arrangements at the five finished checkpoints have proved very acceptable to local communities. The Irish security forces have been providing security for the operation on their side of the border, and their assistance has been greatly appreciated.

I now turn to some of the matters that have been raised in the debate. First, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I apologise if he was unable to find a copy of the order in the Printed Paper Office. My understanding is that copies were there at some point but perhaps they ran out. If so, I apologise.

As regards the late order which several noble Lords raised, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I should say something about the procedure under which the late order is being made—the urgency procedure, as it is sometimes called. Under that procedure, the order is made without any prior affirmative resolution in Parliament, but it will cease to have effect unless approved within 40 days in each House of Parliament. The present order, however, will have served its purpose immediately after the first moments of 16th June. It brings the detention provisions momentarily into force just before midnight, carries them across into 16th June and immediately suspends their effect. Its work is then done; it is spent. No further parliamentary approval is therefore required. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked at what level the law was misinterpreted or the error made. I have to say that the order was dealt with at a senior level.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about protection payments. I can say that investigations have revealed no evidence to support the allegation that firms admitting making protection payments are immediately investigated by the Inland Revenue. Your Lordships will note my noble friend's further comment that it is not hard to see who might benefit from the propagation of the rule.

Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned an important point on police primacy. I think your Lordships will fully understand that the Government remain wholly committed to the principle of police primacy in Northern Ireland. That applies in the collection of information as well as elsewhere. The Army operates in support of the RUC in Northern Ireland and soldiers, like police officers, are subject to the rule of law.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned ill-treatment at Castlereagh, as did the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The decision in principle to appoint an independent commissioner has been made after necessarily wide consultation. This process of consultation continues. My right honourable friend hopes to make an early appointment and to report to the House, if possible, before the Recess. Details of the terms of reference for the commissioner and the precise operation of the scheme are still being finalised. He would, however, be expected to have access to prisoners and be able to interview them about their treatment. The commissioner will be appointed by, and report directly to, the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the subject of video tape recordings of interviews with terrorist suspects. We acknowledge that genuine concern exists about interview procedures but share the police view that suspects will be less willing to offer vital information which may save lives by preventing acts of terrorism if they know that a permanent, albeit silent, recording is being made of their co-operation with the police. I have already set out the extensive safeguards which are already in force at the holding centres. As I outlined, in addition there will be the appointment of the independent commissioner and the new codes of practice.

As regards the provision of statistics, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, we regret that the publication of statistics on the operation of the EPA seems to take a long time. Officials are currently liaising with the police and the Army on the development of a new system to provide reliable, consistent and comprehensive statistics on a wide range of security-related issues. However, that system is unlikely to be available by the end of the year. As regards the question raised by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, we note the concern of my noble friend Lord Colville in connection with the difficulties surrounding the availability of statistics. However, I am pleased to report that statistics relating to the emergency provisions Act for the whole of 1991 have now been published.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, raised the Nelson case. Prosecution decisions are a matter for the prosecuting authorities, not for Northern Ireland or Ministry of Defence Ministers. In relation to remands, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked whether the cases which had been delayed longest would be dealt with first. The delays to which the noble Lord referred are a matter of grave concern to the Government and other agencies involved in the prosecution process. A variety of different reasons may underlie delays in individual cases and that may affect the order in which they are dealt with. Sometimes delay may be caused because a defendant is waiting for the counsel of his choice. We are determined to reduce all causes of delay.

As my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who has great expertise in force levels in Northern Ireland, will know, Options for Change is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As my noble friend also knows, considerable resources are already given to the security forces. However, additional resources are made available when that is judged to be an appropriate and effective response. Co-operation between the police and the Army is extremely close and procedures are kept under continual review.

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, questioned the need for emergency powers. The Government are concerned that, regrettable though it is, the emergency powers remain a fundamental part of our efforts to defeat terrorism. As I said, the operation of those powers is intended to defend the lives and liberties of those at risk from terrorism. What right is more fundamental than the right to life?

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the question of safeguards. I have outlined the extensive safeguards which already exist in the terrorist holding centres. The noble Lord referred to the report of the committee chaired by Judge Bennett. All procedures now fully comply with the recommendations of that report. Indeed, it was the Bennett Committee which originally recommended that closed-circuit television be installed in holding centres under the supervision of a uniformed inspector or chief inspector but that video recording should not be introduced.

The report of my noble friend Lord Colville highlighted the successful implementation of several of the new powers introduced in the 1991 Act. Those aimed at terrorist finances have already been mentioned: others include those relating to the examination of documents and the possession of items intended for terrorist purposes. Even where convictions have not yet been forthcoming, we believe, as does my noble friend Lord Colville, that such measures have an important deterrent effect.

However, legislation, no matter how well-focused and appropriate, is effective only when properly enforced. I am pleased to report to your Lordships that the vigorous and impartial actions of the police and Army are bringing real results. The level of security force activity is very high. In addition to the numerous patrols mounted by the RUC, the Army currently undertakes 250 to 300 patrols every day in the Province. As we have heard, suspected terrorists are being arrested and brought before the courts. Last year, more than twice as many people were charged with murder as in 1990. Adjustments to force structures and deployments to meet the evolving threat continue to be made where appropriate. For example, recruitment of the additional 441 police officers announced last November continues. An additional 104 regular officers and 40 reservists were recruited during the month of May.

The commitment of both the Government and the security forces to the defeat of terrorism is undiminished. We hope that that message is getting through to the terrorist godfathers on both sides: whether it is or not, the security forces must and will continue their relentless pursuit of the criminals. The emergency powers continued by the order are vital to enabling them to carry out that task, and I therefore commend the order to your Lordships' House.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, before the noble Earl resumes his seat, will he clarify the application of the urgency procedure? It is not a procedure which is often used. According to my hasty researches it has been used only once in the last half dozen years or so. Therefore, we are not familiar with the procedure. However, I have consulted the greatest authority, Erskine May. Erskine May is clear in saying that the continuing validity of the order which has been signed today by the Secretary of State will depend upon the agreement of both Houses, given within 40 days of the date of the making of the Order in Council.

Did I understand the Minister to say that he does not propose to come back to the House for its consent to the making of the second order? Or did I understand him to say that the articles in the 1991 Act continuance order need to be revived for only 24 hours and that at the expiration of the 24-hour period we do not have to rely on the urgency procedure?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the position. Broadly speaking, all the provisions of the 1991 Act are in force except the detention provisions. The Government's intention is that the detention provisions should remain on the statute book but not be in force. Because of the way in which the 1991 Act is drafted the only way of keeping the detention provisions on the statute book is to bring them into force momentarily at midnight. Otherwise they would expire—in other words, they would no longer be on the statute book. If that were to happen the Government would have lost their power to re-introduce the detention provisions by order.

The effect of the order that is being laid before Parliament today is simply to preserve the current position, namely, that the detention provisions have not been repealed, remain on the statute book and can be brought into force in the future by order.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, it is still not clear what the Government intend to do over the next few weeks. I thank the noble Earl for his clarification but it seems to me that the emergency order has to be affirmed by both Houses of Parliament and if it is not affirmed by both Houses of Parliament effectively it is null and void and it is as if it had not been made. In that case the provisions that the Government wish to have available will not carry on being available to them. I hope that the Government can clarify whether they are planning within the next 40 days to bring this order before both Houses of Parliament so that we can make our affirmation or not as the case may be.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I have sat through the whole of this debate. Perhaps I may help to throw a little light on the issue. As I understand it there are two orders before your Lordships at the moment. The first one is perfectly normal. It excludes the operation of the detention procedures because it was thought not necessary to include them and that they would continue under normal circumstances. That is what we all thought. The emergency confirms that we were all wrong. They do not. Therefore the Secretary of State has invoked Section 67(3) which is the emergency process to which my noble friend referred. That permits the laying of an order on the day it is debated. That is what we have done.

Nobody in this debate has suggested that the detention provisions should be swept aside on this occasion. Those most qualified to pronounce on the issue have most strongly resisted that suggestion. The emergency consists in the management of affairs by those who understand or do not understand matters in officialdom and not in any development in the Northern Ireland Office, in Northern Ireland or in a change of government policy. I hope your Lordships will be friendly to my noble friend, allow him to put both these orders to your Lordships and agree to them.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the points he made. I can inform your Lordships that there is no need to do anything over the next few weeks. The order will have done its job. The order could be debated but for the reason given it is felt that it would be pointless.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification. The order needs to be affirmed if it is to continue in force after 40 days. Is that the position? If it is not to be in force after 40 days, then the order need not be affirmed.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, perhaps I may explain again. The point is that the second order makes no difference whatever to what it was intended and assumed would be the status of the detention provisions. The order will not be void if not approved. It will simply cease to have effect after 40 days. There will be no need for the order after it has done its job.

On Question, Motion agreed to.