HL Deb 02 April 1998 vol 588 cc384-9

3.31 p.m.

Read a third time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)

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

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

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the House has already discussed the specific clauses of this Bill. I shall not go into the specific details of the Bill. However, before this House passes the Bill, I believe that it is important to set out again why it is necessary. This is an emergency Bill. The powers contained in it have proved to be long lived in a succession of measures but they have never been, and should not be, accepted as a permanent part of our arrangements—hence the need for regular renewal of the powers as provided for in the Bill.

It is to be hoped that the talks process will produce an agreement that takes a big step in resolving the conflict. The news overnight from the talks appears to be discouraging but is not necessarily disheartening. We realised that the crunch points would be left to last and that cross-border bodies and their precise definition, together with the offensive and illegal claims to sovereignty in the constitution of the Irish Republic, were the crunch points. We shall see whether the process of the end-game, which we appear to be approaching—brink management in the face of an artificial deadline—produces a result. This process has been refined in recent years in the European Union and is much beloved there. Sometimes it produces a result.

Whatever the results of the talks, it is certain that some terrorists of both extremes will continue their deadly operations. I have long thought, and said when I was a Minister in the Province some years ago, that the momentum behind the terrorism is both political and financial. The financial rackets, based essentially on the ability to place people in genuine fear for their lives, provide some of the momentum for terrorism these days. That part of the momentum will survive any political settlement. But political agreement between the two governments and the various parties will not entirely remove the political momentum behind terrorism; it will only weaken it. That will be particularly so if the results of the agreement build in uncertainty. I refer to the plan for regular future referendums which was suggested a few days ago.

A lasting agreement, if it can be obtained, endorsed by the people will help immensely in the fight against terrorism but it will not switch it off like a tap. I believe that incidents that have occurred in the past few days underline that point. The cold-blooded murder of a retired policeman reminds us once again of the exceptional service and daily bravery of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of all the security forces. The interception of a big car bomb at Dún Laoghaire emphasises the very good work that has been carried out by the Garda in this respect as well as the dangers to Great Britain and the Province. These outrages, taking place as they do during an official ceasefire, are an attempt to throw the talks into difficulty. They also cast a shadow forward.

The powers in this Bill will, I believe, remain necessary in order to defend democracy. It is important to be clear about this, particularly as it appears that some people even within the United Nations do not really accept this. These powers are not anti-democratic; on the contrary, they are essential for the defence of democracy. The purpose of terrorism is to distort democracy by terrorising people. This Bill is not against the rule of law but is to protect the rule of law. The Diplock courts exist because of the terrorisation of juries and witnesses. Mr. Cumaraswamy of the United Nations needs to understand this, if newspaper reports of his recent comments are correct. He is reported to have recommended the reinstatement of jury trials in the Province. That is not realistic at present and that is likely to remain the position for the immediate future.

The future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the decision of the people of Northern Ireland. They should be allowed to make a free decision. This Bill is part of the background which entitles people to make a free decision. To permit this, all who support democracy should support the fight against terrorism of which this Bill is an important part. I support the Bill.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, the House has rehearsed the arguments about these provisions at earlier stages of the Bill. I content myself by saying that in general we on these Benches accept the sad fact that legislation of this kind is still necessary in Northern Ireland. Given the determination of some malevolent minorities to try to undermine civilised life, let alone the peace process, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that this Bill should pass.

One event very germane to emergency provisions has occurred since we last discussed this measure. I refer to the publication by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, the independent commissioner for the holding centres, of his annual report submitted to the Secretary of State on 23rd March. As this is very relevant to emergency provisions, I take this opportunity to put two questions to the Minister. In light of the criticisms of the United Nations to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has referred, it is good to read the conclusion of Sir Louis that there is still not the slightest cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in police custody by uniformed officers at the holding centres. Given the authorship of that report, I believe that we can all have confidence in that conclusion.

At the same time, Sir Louis poses two fundamental questions. As I do not know when noble Lords will have a chance to raise them with the Minister, perhaps I may deal with them now. First, Sir Louis asks whether, with the advent of recording of interviews with suspects and the end of unsupervised questioning by detectives, there is any longer a sound basis for distinguishing between the regimes for terrorist suspects on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. He asks, rightly in my view, whether arrests under Section 14 of the PTA, wherever they occur, should be PACE-regulated; in other words, whether they should be treated as they are on the mainland and whether the holding centres should again become police stations. That is his first question. We should take it seriously.

The second is one of which those noble Lords who live in Northern Ireland will be well aware. It is a longstanding question. Why has the Castlereagh holding centre not been replaced? That is a matter to which the previous Northern Ireland Secretary, whom I am delighted to see in his place, referred. He hoped that it would be replaced, but it is not even a priority in the current RUC building programme. Much of the international criticism of our human rights regime in Northern Ireland—much of it misplaced—is based on the much, and rightly, criticised Castlereagh holding centre. The chief constable wants it closed. Everyone wants it closed. What are the Government going to do about it?

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, at an earlier stage I did not question the Government's judgment that there will, unfortunately, be a continuing need for emergency legislation. I support the two noble Lords who have spoken and the continuance of the present legislation until the Home Secretary produces more comprehensive permanent legislation to cover all forms of terrorism, national and international.

The benefit of that would be that it would prevent individual government departments from attempting to placate terrorists to an extent which sometimes brings the entire Government into disrepute. I shall not dwell again on the unwise concessions contained in the Bill—concessions which come at a most critical time in the so-called peace process—but in recent months I have cautioned against that stock phrase which is designed to apply pressure to politicians. It runs, "Please get around the table to find a solution to end the violence". "Please get around the table to end the violence", is misleading because the last four words, "to end the violence", constitute a form of subtle blackmail and are downright misleading.

Whatever hope there may be of finding a solution or an agreement, that can have no effect whatsoever on eradicating terrorism—the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, made that point adequately—because no political arrangement can possibly deliver what the terrorists demand unless—I underline "unless"—Her Majesty's Government are prepared to ignore the ballot box and the principle of consent of the greater number of people of Northern Ireland—Protestant, Catholic, other faiths, no faiths at all—who just want to co-operate and live in peace with one another, and, broadly speaking, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, live within the UK, the larger unit.

In that context, I caution Her Majesty's Government against a repetition of the 1973 Sunningdale conference where the Northern Ireland delegates to that conference were starved of food and sleep until they cracked under pressure and accepted completely unreal propositions which, in the cold light of day, they could not sell to their supporters and could not deliver. At the very first test of electoral opinion—namely, the general election of February 1974—they, those Ministers, those delegates and the policies that they mistakenly approved were all swept away.

The Irish Government would appear today to be in full retreat from what was thought to be their position on certain crucial issues. It must be understood that whereas Her Majesty's present government are electorally secure for the next four years, Irish governments are always at the mercy of proportional representation elections, and, even when they are in coalition, they rest on a precarious single figure majority. I believe that the present government have no majority at all.

That being the position, they would not dare to offend even a small segment of their own supporters. So governance by what I would call the revolving door involves a perpetual risk to any North/South ministerial body with executive powers in which the policies and greed between North and South, if they were to happen, would be perpetually at risk of a general election in the Irish Republic, which seems to happen on an almost annual basis.

Regrettably, the Northern Ireland talks are falling apart because of the very same flaws that risked the Middle East process—namely, the equivalent of that international circus which we saw with the two leaders of the Middle Eastern nations shaking hands on the White House lawn with the President benevolently almost conducting a marriage ceremony. The effect which that television picture had on the supporters of both of those leaders was bound to lead to deterioration and consequent failure, as has been judged by the American Secretary of State.

The relevance of this emergency legislation is that what I call the high-wire-act process in Northern Ireland has been going on for the past two years. It is only now that they seem to have stopped dancing around one another and debating high-minded political philosophy that they have got down in the final fortnight to talking about the real issues. But of course the weekly increase in terrorism over recent weeks—the car bomb on its way to London is the latest—is caused by the uncertainty, all the hype and all the tension which exists, because it is quite untrue that such terrorism is the work of groups trying to destroy what is called the peace process.

I trust that such false propaganda will now cease because the real motive is to stake out claims to territory and influence. That truth has to be faced, and courage and resolution will be required by all of us—not least all of us elected or appointed to the Parliament of the UK. No credibility must be attached to the allegation that the collapse of the present circus will create a vacuum. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware—I hope that the message will be conveyed to him that there is widespread support for his current policies of extending the reality of decentralising from Whitehall and making more efficient the governance of the various parts of the UK-that he will have that support in streamlining the governance of all parts of the kingdom.

The Prime Minister has provided, after all, what many of us in Northern Ireland and many present who held positions of responsibility in Northern Ireland regard as a working model for that which would work in Northern Ireland , because applied to Northern Ireland that would enable all the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to co-operate in providing a real service to those who elect them. That is the most reassuring message that any elected representatives can transmit to the people who elect them.

However, it will do much more than that—this is the vital matter which I am sure the Prime Minister and his Government have in mind—it would build mutual trust between those elected to an extent which would pave the way for real, solid progress towards a future where violence would be deprived of its life support.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

My Lords, this is not the time to repeat the reasons why many of us cannot accept the retention of Clause 3, which relates to the removal of internment. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, commented on the notion that people getting together around a table and agreeing at talks would lead to peace. That has been put about for years as being the end to all our problems. It has been said that all we have to do is reach agreement and then we shall have peace. The noble Lord said what all of us who have been born and brought up in Northern Ireland know—that that certainly will not be the case. There are too many different factions of people who for one reason or another are interested in destabilising the community. That will continue, as is obvious from the events of recent weeks. The Government have lost what could be a powerful weapon in certain circumstances. I only hope that the Minister, who has valiantly argued for the retention of Clause 3 and has listened to us for some time, has been persuaded that Clause 3 can be removed.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates at various stages of the Bill. I thank in particular those who have supported the Government on crucial issues. I do not wish to speak at length, but I say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that the talks are not falling apart. We always expected that there would be difficulties in the final stages, but we do not believe that the talks are falling apart. I do not share the noble Lord's pessimism about the outcome and I appreciate his comments in support of certain of the Prime Minister's endeavours.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked me a number of questions about the report by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper published last Friday on the holding centres. It is not normal for the Government to respond quickly. We regard such reports as important and wish to consider them. We would wish to discuss some of the proposals with the RUC and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the points that he raised.

On Question, Bill passed.