House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Mar 1990

Column 48

and the adviser said, "That is right--I have no authority to confiscate a book that is bogus." The book was waved before millions of people who watched that programme. We are told that every UDR man has a copy of that list of suspected IRA men and that it is given to other men to kill those suspects. The House must face up to this serious matter.

The Secretary of State knows that I am not one to defend him, but I do not believe that any responsible BBC producer should go to the Secretary of State, take nearly an hour of his time, go to the head of the UDR and take an hour of his time and then go straight to Dublin, play the programme to the foreign secretary of another country and ask him to have the last word on it. That is not fair to this country or to the UDR. The UDR does not deserve such treatment. Until the House faces up to that matter, we shall not come to grips with it. Why does the IRA want to get rid of the UDR? It is because the UDR stands as a bastion against the IRA and all the citizens of Northern Ireland in the areas in which it operates. If members of the UDR did something that they should not have done, they should be dealt with like anyone else, but the whole regiment should not be maligned as it has been. Other matters have been raised which cause concern in the hearts of everyone. All of us want civil and religious liberty. We are all dedicated to that. The two matters that I have raised lie at the foundation of this debate.

5.16 pm

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) : Last year, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) began his speech by saying that we were debating the order in the shadow of the gunman. Sadly, we do so again this year. My party offers its sincere sympathy to the families of all the victims of the past week and year. There is nothing-- whether membership of the UDR, the fact that a person's work takes him into security bases, the chance that causes one person to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or even membership of an illegal organisation--that can justify murder. That, too, is the unequivocal position of the Ulster Unionist party. Hence we as legislators have a responsibility to those in whom we vest authority to protect our community from such terrorism and to ensure that we provide the means by which people can carry out their tasks within the law. That is our first priority. All other considerations must remain secondary.

Lord Colville recognises this and my party supports his recommendation that the emergency provisions powers must remain in place for the immediate future. I continue to be disappointed, not at the official Opposition's desire to see an early return to normality in Northern Ireland, but by the strange thesis that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North continues to promote to the effect that continuance of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 constitutes a suspension of human rights. The hon. Gentleman will surely agree with me that the greatest infringement of human rights is that perpetrated by the paramilitaries when, acting as judge, jury and executioner, they carry out assassinations in the most arbitrary manner. It is in the nature of our

Column 49

society that even the basest of killers is entitled to his rights under the law, but that right must never be enhanced at the expense of the innocent victims or of our security forces.

Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who appears to concentrate almost exclusively on what he regards as the deficiencies of our security forces--deficiencies which I do not experience on the ground-- I intend to deal with the victims of terrorism and with the innocent community trying to get on with their lives in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the television reporter, John Ware, and to the disgraceful one-sided and biased programme that he produced for "Panorama". When John Ware first came to the Province, he came to see me. He stated unequivocally and unashamedly that he was there to follow up the Stevens inquiry and to expose the UDR, in so far as he alleged it was involved in the leaking of information to paramilitary organisations. He had his mind made up. I gave him an hour of my time and he recorded three or four cassettes containing what I had had to tell him about the UDR. As right hon. and hon. Members know, I speak with some personal experience, having served with the regiment for 11 years. After all that, I was horrified by what he said as he turned round to leave my home. I said, "I hope that you will be objective in your treatment of what I have said, although obviously you can't carry all that you have recorded." His reply was, "Well, we'll try--but you're not going to like it." Those were John Ware's exact words and they can scarcely enhance his reputation as an objective journalist. But why should we criticise John Ware when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North concentrated almost entirely on diminishing the security forces? There was no objectivity in what he said and no acknowledgment of the plight of the people whom I represent or of those represented by the Ulster Democratic Unionist party.

I have used the terms "emergency powers" in referring to the order. Like many hon. Members, I suspect, I find it no easy task to differentiate that which falls within the compass of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and that which comes within the scope of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Nor has the Police and Criminal Evidence Order (Northern Ireland) 1988 made it any easier for the layman to identify the relevant legislation. That is why the Ulster Unionists feel that it is time to rationalise the legislation. When Lord Colville brings forward his major report, the emergency provisions Act should be allowed to lapse and a number of its provisions should then be incorporated in the prevention of terrorism Act, which should then cease to be temporary.

In its document "Emergency Laws Now", which has been presented to Lord Colville for consideration, the Ulster Unionist party makes a number of recommendations which are worth mentioning at this stage. Part I of the emergency provisions Act 1978, as amended by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987--the provisions relating to scheduled offences, and the court, the mode of trial and the evidence in scheduled offence cases--should be inserted into the prevention of terrorism Act. The Lord Chancellor could be given a power, by order requiring parliamentary approval, to bring that part of the Act into operation for any defined area for a defined period. In addition, the Lord Chancellor could direct that that part should apply to a particular case. There is little

Column 50

doubt that such a provision would be beneficial in cases such as that of the Birmingham Six because, irrespective of one's overall opinion of the matter, the view is widely held that, in the wake of such an atrocity, there must be less than an even chance of being able to find a completely impartial jury.

Part II of the emergency provisions Act 1978 and part II of the 1987 Act, dealing with arrest, search, detention and the conditions of detention, are largely supplementary to the powers in part III of the prevention of terrorism Act and could easily be integrated in that part.

The provision in part III of the 1978 Act which deals with proscription and public order matters could be consolidated with those in the prevention of terrorism Act. For the first time in years, we could then produce a uniform list of proscribed organisations. The public order provisions would surely be better included in existing public order legislation.

The length of time for which accused persons are held in custody before being brought to trial is often criticised, although it is more likely to arise from the unavailability of a particular defence counsel chosen by the accused than from undue delay in the court's timetable. But the power to make regulations governing the time limits for proceedings in scheduled offence cases should still be retained as a safeguard. The present classification of scheduled offences and their mode of trial--before a single judge--should also be retained. There is no evidence that the Diplock courts, as they are called, have caused problems--the pressure for change has had more to do with political propaganda than with justice. The allegations concerning the Birmingham Six and others bear that out because, as the House will recall, those cases were brought before a jury. Again, it is merely political gesturing to call for three-judge courts, as it has yet to be proved that there is a need based on the furtherance of justice. Cases going to appeal--proportionally, there are few that do--go before three judges. The practical difficulty of providing three-judge courts for all Diplock cases would result in an unacceptable backlog in the court system. Even if it were desirable to increase the number of judges, we should still have to ask whether justice is better served by having our most experienced legal brains on the Bench or below the Bench. I think that there is a happy medium. As judges must be appointed from the ranks of senior counsel, it is perhaps better justice to ensure that the accused has a reasonable choice of good and experienced defence counsel. When we debated the prevention of terrorism Act a few days ago, I was somewhat saddened by the fact that there was so little acknowledgment of the suffering of the community. Too much sympathy was expressed then, as it has been today, for those who perpetrate violence against the community. It is perhaps because the legislation that we are debating is designed to constrain those with evil intent that we tend to forget the victims and consider the legislation purely in terms of how it relates to the evil men in the community. Is there real evidence that the emergency powers legislation is counter-productive, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has alleged, or that it is unnecessary in as much as it fails to accomplish what it sets out to achieve? I believe that without the emergency provisions legislation and the prevention of terrorism legislation we would be tying the hands of our security

Column 51

forces. The legislation does not give and never has given our security forces a free reign, but without it they would not be able to deal with the problems that we face from international and local terrorism.

We constantly hear the number of people detained for questioning being compared with the number of people actually charged with terrorist offences. Indeed, that point was raised by an Opposition Member in the debate on terrorism a few days ago. I, too, am bothered that there is such a differential between the number questioned and the number charged--not because I believe that the wrong people are being detained for questioning, but because too many terrorists are beating the system.

In my constituency at the moment, a well-known terrorist who has been associated with the Provisional IRA for a long time can still organise murder and get away with it. He is known to have arranged the attack which was to have been made against my wife and myself on 11 January this year. Here I acknowledge the bravery and efficiency of the RUC, whose good work on that occasion frustrated the terrorists and probably saved my life and that of my wife. Sadly, a lorry driver--a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)--who was murdered within half a mile of that incident on Thursday last--was not so fortunate. He was murdered at the behest of the same villain. I should be happy to ensure that the Secretary of State knows the name of the person to whom I am referring, but I have no doubt that he already knows the name of that arch- villain and conspirator in the murder of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East.

Mr. Flannery : What the hon. Gentleman has just said must alarm us all deeply. He has said that he knows that that person is guilty. It would seem to be an ordinary thing in these extraordinary circumstances that if one knew that evidence should be put before the proper authorities who would take the proper steps. That surely should be done instead of simply saying that someone is guilty and leaving it at that. Instead of the name being given to the Secretary of State--I do not object to that--it should be given to the proper police authorities.

Mr. Maginnis : I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is so naive as to believe that the police and the community at large do not already know the identity of that person. Unfortunately, the problem over the past 20 years has been that it is not possible to deal with terrorists effectively and completely within the normal civil law. There is a great difficulty because witnesses are intimidated and fear pervades the community, especially the community in which that individual lives. No one is willing to come forward and give evidence because it would make the provider of that evidence the next target. We have faced that problem for so many years and the House has shown itself unable or unwilling to grapple with it.

I wish now to consider Executive detention, or internment as it is known. My party is disturbed that Lord Colville, for whom we have considerable regard, may be considering the ending of that provision. While we acknowledge that no Government have had the courage to implement such a measure, even on the most selective basis, we are convinced that it should remain an option.

Column 52

We are convinced that Governments should continually face this challenge : are they more concerned with the terrorists or with the victims of terrorism? It is morally wrong that a terrorist such as the man to whom I have referred should be able to continue to thumb his nose at the law of the land and to organise--and at times participate in--the continuation of the murders which so diminish our community. The greater good of the community should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Where is the justice in that? The Government have a responsibility to protect the hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community against the few hundred active terrorists from both sides of the community. I make no distinction, nor do I wish to argue the rights or wrongs of any side. However, it is possible to do more to assist the security forces and to help those who, at terrible cost, have stood for so long and so steadfastly as a bastion between us and the terrorists. The introduction of identity cards is one of the simplest ways in which, without having to seek any derogation from a European body, we could make the task of our police a little easier. Earlier, the hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to the Stevens inquiry and to the attack on the UDR. Having served for more than 11 years with that regiment and having commanded men within it, I can state that I never experienced a complaint against any man under my command, let alone a complaint that was upheld. Therefore, the derogatory terms that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North all too often employs were a personal insult to me as well as to the many good and honest men who have served the country well and truly over many years, many of whom--including many of my best friends--have lost their lives serving the community and standing between the terrorists and ordinary people.

We accepted that the Stevens inquiry was necessary, because we were told that that was the case, and we certainly wanted leaks to be cleared up, but we did not expect such dangerous naivety when 28 members of the regiment were swooped on early one Sunday morning and taken in for questioning--and that was after certain sound and sensible voices had persuaded the inquiry that it should not opt for almost 100. That was the original intention. To what extent was Stevens acting on sound information?

Rev. Ian Paisley : Is it not a fact that there have been dreadful repercussions for those men, who had to be released almost immediately because they were completely innocent? They have had to leave their districts and their families. They have been attacked and intimidated. A cloud of darkness, which should not be put upon them, has been put on them by that action.

Mr. Maginnis : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The majority of those men were released almost immediately, after having had their homes surrounded and being taken off like common criminals. There is no excuse for endangering not just those men but their families. Many of them have had to move house. Right hon. and hon. Members know that one cannot do that at a profit. They are young men with families who need every last shilling. They have to move away from family support. If

Column 53

their wives went out to work, the children could stay with aunts, uncles or grandparents, but that family support has been wiped out. Irrespective of how efficient the Stevens inquiry turns out to be, and irrespective of its report, I shall always be left with a bitter taste in my mouth because innocent people have been victimised for the sake of political expediency. Some have been charged with the most ridiculous offences--such as having two extra rounds of ammunition for a personal protection weapon. If somebody came to my home, I could not guarantee that I would not have two extra rounds of ammunition for my personal protection weapon. There is no danger that those extra rounds, any more than the rounds that I legally possess, will fall into the hands of anyone who wishes to commit a crime against any member of the community. It is sad fact that one bungling by the Stevens team has meant that anything good which might emanate from the inquiry will be undermined or overshadowed by the repercussions of what happened on that Sunday morning.

Any legislation is only as good as the means of enforcing it. The continuing high rate of deaths and injuries is unacceptable to many hon. Members, but it is heartbreaking for those who have to endure it daily. Therefore, I urge hon. Members, especially those who wish to vote against the order, to examine their motives and to ask themselves what hope there is for democracy if we do not meet our obligations to the innocent members of the community. Nothing enshrined in the order should give offence to any right-thinking person, either here or on the streets of Northern Ireland. If, for some reason that I fail to understand, some hon. Members at present consider that they cannot vote for the order, I hope that in the interests of those who may still become the victims of terrorism they will not vote against it.

I look forward to the time when we have a single piece of legislation to deal with the problem of terrorism, and I commend such a course to Lord Colville. My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and I hope that all such legislation will soon become unnecessary. In the meantime, my party supports the order.

5.45 pm

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion) : The reasoned argument of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the more vibrant eloquence of his reverend friend the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) deserve a better congregation. So does the subject of the debate. It is a disgrace that our Benches should be so empty as we return to this grim subject.

Of course, I shall support the Government tonight, but it will be with a sense of growing frustration. We have now had to renew the order for nearly 20 years without seeing any daylight at the end of the tunnel. The statistics on death and wounded oscillate from year to year, rather like a malaria fever chart, but there is still no sign of any cure.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid the security forces a well -deserved tribute in which most hon. Members joined wholeheartedly. They have done and are still doing a fantastic job. But it looks as though they will continue to need to do it. My right hon. Friend was right to say that we are against terrorism in any form, either orange or green. It is the duty of hon. Members to uphold the law and it is my right hon. Friend's duty to enforce it. At the same time, given that hon. Members mould

Column 54

opinion, we must make a distinction between different kinds of terrorism. I say that after careful thought. We must remember that the increase in loyalist terrorism is a reflection of the Government's failure to defeat the IRA. We must in our hearts, although not in law, make a distinction between those who fight to overthrow the Queen's Government and those who, though wrongly, take up arms to fight against those who are trying to overthrow that Government. We must have that point in mind when forming opinion, if not in the administration of the law.

The speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) shocked me more than I had expected. It was an attempt to indict the security forces, to drive a wedge between the UDR and the RUC, and to attack the security forces in every possible way. There was no attempt to balance his speech, which is understandable perhaps, bearing in mind present circumstances, by reference to the Libyan connection with the IRA, to mention only one matter. The hon. Gentleman's speech will have given comfort to the IRA and those who sympathise with it. It left me with the feeling that, if public opinion polls are right and there is to be a Labour Government, it will be a very sad day when the hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara : My future position is not in my gift but in that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that one should not be anxious that the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland should be seen to uphold the law impartially on the occasions when members of either community fall from grace? I have already paid tribute to the heroism and gallantry of the armed forces, as the right hon. Gentleman would have heard in my speech. Is he saying that such matters should not be of concern to us all and be examined by the House and the elected representatives of the nation?

Mr. Amery : The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently experienced in politics to know that there are ways of saying things and ways of not saying them. I shall read his words carefully, but it was my impression that his words would bring comfort to the IRA more than they will enable the House to form an objective judgment on the matters that he discussed.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was reported some weeks ago as saying that we could not expect to win the war against the IRA by military means. I thought at the time that those words were not the happiest that he could have used, but I see his argument. Successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have sought political solutions. My God, we have tried hard enough. The dissolution of Stormont was a political step. It did not bring us much good. Sunningdale was a political step. It failed lamentably. The Prior assembly was, as some of us predicted, a complete failure. Now we have the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He ducked somewhat the questions put to him on the Dublin Supreme Court interpretation of the agreement. It leaves me with the feeling that we have bought a dud chip. We need some clarification. I do not see

Column 55

how we can reconcile the judgment of the Supreme Court with the interpretation that we place on article 1 of the Agreement. So far all our political initiatives over a long period have failed. Yet one which has been consistently suggested by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and with some support from the Ulster Unionist party has always been brushed aside. It is the simple expedient that, instead of dealing with Ulster matters by Order in Council--which makes them virtually undiscussable--the House should treat legislation in much the same way as Scottish legislation by some Committees. I would leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister to devise the best way of doing so. Another political initiative would be a return to relatively ordinary local government in the Province. We are told that if that happened there would be discrimination on a great scale. I do not know if it has ever been tried. The Secretary of State would have sufficient powers to suspend a local authority if there were discrimination. Of course, there is no great danger here. Any such move would be seen as abandoning the attempt to return to devolved government. But every attempt to return to devolved government has proved a fiasco. How long can we continue attempting to do something that apparently cannot be done? Would my right hon. Friend be right to attempt it?

It is only if my right hon. Friend adopts the course of a return to ordinary local government that he will give the necessary signal to both communities that there is no question of this Government, or any Government that we would support, moving towards a union of the North and South. We would then say in a clear and categorical way that we stand for the union of the kingdom. That is not yet understood or appreciated. After the judment of the Supreme Court in Dublin, it is hard to believe.

My right hon. Friend is the fourth or fifth Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has opted for an attempt to create devolved government. Let there be a time limit in his mind when this experiment should be abandoned. We really cannot go on like this. 5.54 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : I shall say only a few words about the order because several hon. Members wish to speak, not least Northern Irish Members. It will be a matter of regret to me, if the order is passed, that the principles of our system of justice will not be universal throughout the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding that regret, I shall vote for the order and I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to do likewise. I shall give them that advice and vote in that way because I believe that the circumstances in Northern Ireland justify that course of action. I shall vote for the order with a sense of reservation and regret-- reservation that universality is not possible, and regret that there appears to be no immediate prospect of its coming to pass.

It is right that we should have to renew these provisions every year. Every year it is incumbent on us to ask ourselves whether they are really necessary. When I ask myself that question at this juncture, I have little difficulty in answering in the affirmative. It is clear that normality, as we understand it on the mainland of the United

Column 56

Kingdom, is still absent from Northern Ireland. None of us could have been other than affected by the moving way in which the Northern Ireland Members who have already spoken described their personal experiences and the sense of grief which they, and, of course, the communities that they represent, experience, sometimes almost daily. Perhaps that is what makes these powers, which in other circumstances might seem draconian, justified at this time.

I hope that the House will accept that we should not seek to maintain these powers for a moment longer than they appear to be justified. They represent a serious incursion into the rights that citizens of the United Kingdom should normally expect. We should tolerate them grudgingly. We should never embrace them

enthusiastically. We should work to withdraw them at the earliest date possible. Nor should we assume that the system of justice which the powers embrace cannot be improved or changed.

I suggest to the Secretary of State that the powers that the order confers are at least worthy of reconsideration in four separate aspects. In doing that I am aware that I may be adopting a position which is contradictory to that of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).

For example, internment is a procedure which, although rarely, indeed currently never, used, remains a source of great political inflammation. If we believe that the rule of law is gradually being imposed, albeit in difficult circumstances, to maintain the possibility of internment is to embrace a policy of desperation. Internment can never be a long-term solution. It is only of short-term value. It is our duty carefully to consider whether that procedure will in the long term most speedily bring about a solution to the problems in Northern Ireland, which the vast majority of people in the country, and, indeed, in the House, wish to be brought about.

I come now to what are called the Diplock courts. As one who has practised at the Bar for more than 20 years, I have come to realise that there is no such thing as judicial infallibility. In the Diplock courts, a single judge has to determine not only questions of law but sometimes difficult questions of credibility--who is to be believed and who is not be be believed. In that regard, I cannot but think that a court of three is much more likely to be able to reach an informed judgment than a court of one. I believe that there should now be some acceptance of the view that trial by jury should be the norm and that it should not be taken away unless causes of why that should be so can be shown.

I come to the topic of the periods of remand in custody with the benefit-- if it may be so described--of the Scottish experience. For almost 100 years we have had the 110-day rule, which means that any trial against a person who has been remanded in custody must be commenced within 110 days of the remand. As I have said, that has operated in Scotland for about 100 years-- and with great success. It has provided a protection for the accused, and has been a means of ensuring that prosecution is effected swiftly and efficiently. Although I understand that to suggest that it can be introduced simply by inserting a clause into some legislation would be facile, I urge the Government to give serious consideration to a form of such a rule that would reduce extended periods of remand in custody. I turn finally to the video-taping of interviews. My professional experience, in which I have both prosecuted and defended people charged with serious crimes,

Column 57

although never with crimes of terrorism, leads me to the view that often the only available peg on which a defence can hang something is to challenge the propriety of what took place in a closed room in the presence only of policemen, whose record is in their notebooks, which are frequently made up after the event. I have seen people acquitted who should never have been acquitted simply because the mere fact of a suspicion about the events that took place while they were in the exclusive custody of the police was enough to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Therefore, such a contemporary record is as much for the protection of the police--and for the efficient carrying out of prosecutions--as it is for the protection of the accused person.

Working with the powers that the order contains and confirms, I believe that improvement is still possible. Indeed, it is desirable if confidence in the legal system of Northern Ireland is to be enhanced. Confidence in that system will be the best assistance towards a return to the life of normality which the Province previously enjoyed and which we, in the mainland, take for granted. 6.2 pm

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne) : I welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Every right hon. and hon. Member who sits on this side of the House will vote in favour of the order. Reluctantly, I agree with the conclusion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) about the speech of the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Everybody knows that the hon. Gentleman would wish to give no aid or comfort to those who believe in terror, but I reluctantly share my right hon. Friend's judgment that the hon. Gentleman's speech will give aid and comfort to the IRA. I shall have no hesitation in voting for the order. I turn to an aspect of the debate that was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that the most important single factor in prolonging terrorism in Northern Ireland was uncertainty about Northern Ireland's constitutional future. I believe that to be the case. Everybody knows that the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is that there should be a united island of Ireland--united by consent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State claims to believe in the union, but I want to explain to him why it is perceived in Northern Ireland--and not in Northern Ireland alone--that there is some equivocation about his position and that of Her Majesty's Government.

The judgment in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland last week has done nothing to diminish the doubts that are felt about the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the Union. On 5 November 1985 Her Majesty's Government entered into an agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic. The Irish Republic is the only country that lays claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom. That claim is made in the most solemn form possible--in articles 2 and 3 of the written constitution of the Republic. Thus, by virtue of the agreement of 15 November 1985, Her Majesty's Government conferred a place of special privilege upon the only country with a constitution that lays claim to part of Her Majesty's dominions.

Column 58

May I give an analogy? No analogy is perfect, and I do not claim that this one is. Let us suppose that Germany laid claim to the two French de partements of Alsace and Lorraine. Let us suppose that among the German-speaking people of Alsace and Lorraine were some who wished to be severed from the French republic and joined with Germany. Let us suppose that, over the years, terrorists had come from Germany into Alsace and Lorraine, murdered French people living there, and then returned to Germany. Let us suppose further that the people of Alsace and Lorraine had believed that the German police were not always as enthusiastic as they might be in seeking to apprehend those who had come into France, murdered and returned to Germany. Would it be conceivable that in those circumstances the French Government would confer a place of special privilege upon Germany, giving Germany the right to put forward views and proposals about how those two French de partements were to be governed? Would it not be even more inconceivable that such an arrangement would be made between France and Germany if the German constitution laid claim to two French de partements?

For those who believe in the Union, the idea--and the Government's decision --to make a treaty with the Irish Republic when the Irish Republic was failing to withdraw articles 2 and 3 of its constitution was inconceivable to many Unionists. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows full well what happened. He knows that the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, saw that danger and asked the Irish negotiators, "Would you please remove articles 2 and 3 of your constitution?" My right hon. Friend then said, "If you, the Irish, were to do that, you would make it easier for me to sell this agreement to the Unionists." As my right hon. Friend knows, the Dail cannot alter the constitution ; that can be done only by referendum. The Irish Government said, "We are willing to ask our people, by referendum, to remove articles 2 and 3, but upon one condition--that we should have a Minister resident in Belfast." That was too much, even for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

We are put in this further difficulty by last week's decision of the Supreme Court, but there is a way in which my right hon. Friend can get out of it. Would it be possible for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to be every bit as unequivocal about the Union as Ministers who serve in the Scottish and Welsh Offices who adopt a different tone and language? My right hon. Friend and his predecessors have said again and again from the Treasury Bench and outside this place that Northern Ireland will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until a majority of its people decide otherwise.

That is not the language used by either the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is not what they say. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, shortly to leave the Welsh Office, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland speak at by-elections. Whenever we have a by-election in Wales or Scotland, the most natural thing in the world is for the Secretary of State to speak in support of the Conservative candidate. Mercifully that which we have failed to do in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend and even other Ministers will shortly have to do. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends laugh. Certainly they will.

Rev. Ian Paisley : I have yet to see that.

Column 59

Mr. Gow : Mercifully my right hon. and hon. Friends will be obliged to do that.

Mr. John D. Taylor : I have a simple question : how could a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland campaign for a Conservative candidate in East Belfast when the Conservative association there wants integration and the Secretary of State says that he is against it?

Mr. Gow : The Conservative associations in Northern Ireland are anticipating a forthcoming change in Government policy. [Laughter.] However surprising it may be to the right hon. Gentleman, many of Her Majesty's Ministers have been willing to come to Eastbourne to speak in my support, although I am in respectful disagreement with the present policies being pursued by Northern Ireland Ministers. It is mercifully possible for there to be a Conservative candidate at a by-election who does not agree with official Conservative policy on every matter. If anybody doubts the truth of that, I remind them that my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were Conservative candidates at the general election. I do not wish to be diverted, so I shall return to my main theme.

The present Treasury Bench line is to say that Northern Ireland will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until a majority of its people decide otherwise. I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say, "I believe in the Union. I will do all in my power to maintain and strengthen it. I will continue to argue against all people who wish to diminish or dilute the Union." As a Scotsman speaking about Scotland, even I would say that if at the end of the day the people of Scotland over time and by a large, or even not-so-large, majority wished to sever themselves from this kingdom, the Queen could have no unwilling subjects. I beg my right hon. Friend to think about that aspect of the matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley : Will the hon. Gentleman carry the argument further? The people in Northern Ireland have not been given the right to decide a change in their status. Their status was changed under the Anglo- Irish Agreement, but they were given no opportunity through a referendum to say aye or no to that agreement.

Mr. Gow : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that the status of the people of Northern Ireland was not changed by the agreement of 15 November 1985. I believe that their status was changed. Furthermore, I believe that we cannot govern successfully one part of the kingdom differently from the rest, save with the consent of a majority of the people who are to be governed differently. That consent to be governed differently is unobtainable from the people of Northern Ireland.

We can send a signal to friend and foe alike by following the recommendation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion. It is nearly 11 years since Airey Neave was assassinated. With his death the policy which he had fashioned and to which he had secured the agreement of the shadow Cabinet died also. Airey Neave was shadow Secretary of State from 12 February 1975 to his assassination on 30 March 1979--for more than four years. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will confirm, he worked closely with the right hon. Gentleman. It was with his assent that the words that appeared in the 1979 Conservative manifesto appeared.

Column 60

We have not attempted to govern Northern Ireland as closely as may be to the way in which the rest of the kingdom is governed. The longer we continue to govern it differently, the easier it will be perceived to be to prise Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. There are differences among Unionists about whether we should have a devolved assembly, or what I call administrative devolution, which means conferring modest additional powers on the 26 district councils and establishing some sort of regional or county council. I say that although I have an increasing will to diminish the number of tiers of local government, but I let that pass.

We should follow the policy which Airey Neave fashioned after so much toil and study. We should give a much more ringing commitment to the Union. We most certainly should say to nationalists in Northern Ireland that we respect their position and shall protect it. We shall give them, provided that they are constitutional nationalists, precisely that equality of treatment under the law that we give to nationalists in Wales and Scotland. We shall protect all of their legitimate interests under a just law and do all in our power to eliminate such discrimination as there may be against those who hold nationalist convictions. However, it is deeply divisive to give to the Government of a foreign power, notably the Government of the only foreign power that lays claim to the territory of Northern Ireland, the task of representing nationalists in dealings with Her Majesty's Ministers. Nationalists should be represented by the four nationalist Members who have been elected, three of whom have taken their seats in this House. It is deeply divisive to say that the Irish Republic shall have the task of representing nationalists.

This debate has given the House, although too few hon. Members, an opportunity to look not only at the important issue of the emergency powers but at ways in which through political change and a change of political language we may be able to bring to the Province the peace, stability and reconciliation which all decent men are striving to attain.

6.19 pm

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : As always, I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I suspect, my hon. Friends who sit on the Conservative Benches, I am delighted to be able to express our appreciation of the hon. Gentleman's deep understanding of the problems with which we have to contend. I do not believe that it is disrespectful to add the following comment--would to God many other Members of this honourable House had the same depth of understanding.

In common with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I well remember the determination of the late Airey Neave to introduce to Northern Ireland something which might not have given everyone all that they wanted but which would at least have been a beginning in a practical sense. He was determined to press on with that. I have previously quoted words spoken the day before he was murdered which left me in no doubt as to his determination to carry out what until that time had been the approved policy of the Conservative shadow Cabinet. It is a sad reflection that his successors who took over as the ministerial team in the Northern Ireland Office under the new Government were told bluntly, "Sorry--we cannot do that because of commitments entered into". For a variety of reasons that

Column 61

is a sobering thought. I know that I carry the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) on this because he has seen the seamier side of politics and knows how improper influences can be brought to bear.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne provided us with some encouragement by reminding us that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to put forward proposals from his side of the table at the Anglo-Irish Conference. It is not a common occurrence, but presumably it can be done. The contracting parties, the Secretary of State and his co-chairman, Mr. Collins, are pledged to make determined efforts to reach agreement on any proposal put forward. The Secretary of State should oblige his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, and all of us, by putting forward a reasonable proposal in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, simply suggesting that Dublin Ministers set about removing the offending articles 2 and 3 from their constitution. Having done that, the Secretary of State could sit back and watch as Mr. Collins made determined efforts from his side of the table to reach agreement on that reasonable proposal. I am sure that we would not be disappointed.

Our failure as a nation to eradicate terrorism is due to our unwillingness to recognise terrorism as a long-term challenge. The present Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary, said in March 1989 referring to the IRA :

"They are just professional killers No political solution will cope with that. They just have to be extirpated."

Irish terrorism can claim to be the pioneer of murder for political ends. The present 20-year campaign is rather more sophisticated than its predecessors. I derive no pleasure from repeating the warning that I gave to the House in my maiden speech in 1971, when I explained that Northern Ireland was then seeing the first demonstration of urban guerrilla warfare in western Europe. That demonstration was followed by repeat performances in most western nations but, somehow or other, those nations developed the technique to snuff out their indigenous terror gangs--partly through single -minded determination on the part of the Governments concerned and partly through a courageous refusal to make concessions to the aims of terrorists. Unfortunately, the aims of terrorists are usually shared by others who would not stoop to use terrorism otherwise. United Kingdom Governments have, unfortunately, all too often taken the opposite course. By steadily giving ground to terrorists and their rescue brigades--an important part of the conundrum--they have prolonged the agony and have helped to cause the deaths of no fewer than 2,800 citizens of Northern Ireland and members of the Army serving there. The tragedy is that the Government know the error of their ways because their own Foreign Secretary told them that no political solution could cope, and that the terrorists had to be extirpated. What pressure, what malign influence, holds the Government back from doing what at last one of their number knows to be their duty?

The key to success in the battle against terrorism is the denial of the expectation of victory. Even the most dedicated idealist will be reluctant to sacrifice his life for a lost cause. Republican hopes of success had all but faded by the late 1970s. Some Opposition Members will understand very well what I am talking about--the degree of stability established by the late 1970s. From 1979 and throughout the 1980s, however, a constant stream of flawed initiatives rekindled hopes in the breasts of

Column 62

terrorists, as the right hon. Member for Pavilion reminded us. The fluid situation developed by such pot-stirring experiments encouraged terrorists on both sides to believe that there was something in it for them.

It is true that the IRA condemned the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it did not go far enough--it said that it was only a half-way house. We also said that, only it was the other way round. Though it was a half-way house, it provided a terrific boost to the IRA, particularly in the light of the words of Her Majesty's Government at the signing ceremony at Hillsborough in 1985. Those were terrible words : "We entered into this agreement because we were not prepared to tolerate a situation of continuing violence."

On other occasions I have illustrated how those words were decoded--an Enigma device was not needed--in the brigade headquarters of the IRA. Those words could mean only one thing to the IRA, "Aha--here we have a Government who have reached the end of their tether ; they have said that they are not prepared to tolerate continuing violence, so let us murder another 100 citizens and get it all instead of just a half-way house".

Again, the IRA was quick enough to spot that the Anglo-Irish Agreement side -stepped the de jure position of Northern Ireland. In the aftermath of the signing of the agreement we did our best, as did the hon. Member for Eastbourne, to enlighten fellow right hon. and hon. Members, but on that occasion they were blinded--I give them that excuse, although they have not made it--by glossy labels saying "Peace", "Stability" and "Reconciliation". Who in his right mind would want to vote against that? We knew, of course, that the words were not real.

Today the Secretary of State has said honestly that he is faced with two conflicting de jure claims. The draftsmen of the Anglo-Irish Agreement realised that all too well and cleverly side-stepped the issue. They invented article 1 of the agreement, which is said to respect the rights of the majority, after a fashion. The judgment of the Irish Supreme Court, however, demolished article 1 because it says that a claim to a united island of Ireland is what it calls a "constitutional imperative"--so imperative that every Dublin representative, be he a member of the Government, of the Dail or a member of the Dublin delegation attending the inter-parliamentary body which has just been established, is bound by it to achieve the reintegration of the national territory of the whole island not, this time, qualified by the words

"wish of a majority in Northern Ireland."

It is an overriding demand and requirement, which binds him in honour to achieve that at all costs--regardless, but not necessarily in physical defiance, of the democratically-expressed wishes of the majority of people living in Northern Ireland.

Some 20 years ago, the United Kingdom started to export a type of terrorism to Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and other hon. Members have expressed the hope in the debate that the day will come when the powers that we are considering will no longer be required. To a certain extent, I share that hope, but I fear that international terrorism may continue to exist in one form or another for decades.

We have all watched with a degree of admiration the vast demonstrations in eastern Europe which have brought such dramatic changes and have had some

Column 63

dramatic successes, but we should be fooling ourselves if we thought that it would stop there. Democracy will merely transfer power from one element to another in those eastern European countries. Admittedly, it will transfer power through some form of democratic process, although that might be imperfect to begin with, but in every eastern European country a tiny element of the population--perhaps 4 or 5 per cent.--will flatly refuse to accept the majority democratic rule. They will not have forgotten the lesson of how easy it is to exploit what has become known in eastern Europe as "people power".

The tendency to exploit grievances has been all too apparent in this country, even in the past week. I do not make the mistake, as some people do, of tarring the Labour party with the same brush--they probably regret as much as the rest of us the fact that a ruthless minority, determined to get their own way, to subvert democracy in the House and in this island, are exploiting certain grievances that we need not discuss today. Unfortunately, the House may still need to provide a model of how democracy can be defended in eastern European countries. We shall have to give an example of how a country can be "made safe for democracy." We need a standard, permanent, simple and unified code of security regulations, which I hope would be vetted and scrutinised by a rather better system than our annual debate in the House, as sometimes that annual debate is not particularly helpful.

6.32 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : It is almost 11 years since I was first elected to the House. During that time the nation has had many crises and there have been emergencies of many kinds. I think that other hon. Members who have lived through the experience of those emergencies know that usually there is a sense of urgency among hon. Members throughout the House.

I think that it was the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who came in for the best part of a minute to tell us how few people were in the Chamber and then absented himself for the remainder of the debate. He said that there should be a passion and a feeling of indignation about the emergency that we are dealing with. Having been through the other emergencies, I do not feel the same sense of urgency, passion or indignation in the House today that there has been on other occasions and which there should be on this occasion.

Are the people of the Falklands more important to the House than the people of Northern Ireland? More people have died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism than were killed during the Falklands crisis, and yet the House does not show the same urgency and does not accord to Northern Ireland the importance that it should.

Instead of meeting to consider emergency legislation, we just go through what has become a ritual. I think that this ritual is different in one respect from some of the others over the past 13 years, because of the absence of the late Harold McCusker. He contributed fully and passionately to the debates. As a representative of a border constituency, he knew only too well the destructive power of the Provisonal IRA, and he knew of the need for emergency measures to be taken against it. Knowing the

Column 64

circumstances that surrounded him, he left a message to his constituents to be read to them after his death. I think we should listen to his words in the House and take warning from them : "I shall carry to my grave with ignominy the sense of the injustice that I have done my constituents down the years--when, in their darkest hours, I exhorted them to put their trust in the British House of Commons which one day would honour its fundamental obligations to them to treat them as equal British citizens." Mr. McCusker had been confident, as I was confident during my early years in politics, that our constituents could be content that the watchful eye and the strong arm of Britain would be looking over them. He and I felt secure in the knowledge that they would protect Northern Ireland against injustice and wrong.

In all my years in politics, the sense of impatience that I felt and my confidence that one day the British Government would come to put right all of those wrongs--both in the constitutional relationship and in the security relationship--have given way to a feeling of impotence. I do not see a desire to defeat terrorism in any of the actions of the Government. The emergency provisions legislation simply marks time. It is a reaction to terrorists, not a vigorous pursuit of terrorism.

Almost 3,000 people have been butchered in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism. Those killings have not discriminated against people because of religion, sex, or social strata. Because Northern Ireland is such a small community, everyone has felt the impact. More than 30,000 people have been maimed or mutilated in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism. Billions of pounds have been lost through subversion. However, all the advice we get is to be calm and cool headed--almost compliant--when we deal with these issues. Our security forces are left to operate against a wartime situation under peacetime conditions.

I join hon. Members who have criticised the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for his contribution to the debate. Despite the kind words for the security forces--and there were some--the burden of the speech was critical of the security forces. Would that the hon. Gentleman had spent time criticising the Provisional IRA. Coming from someone with his background, that would have been helpful, and it might have had some influence on people who might support the Provisional IRA. Instead, the weight of his time and effort was spent putting down the security forces.

That does not just happen only here. Hon. Members have referred to the Stevens inquiry. Its whole emphasis has been directed away from its original purpose, which was to look into the divulging of certain information arising from a police station at Dunmurry, towards putting the spotlight on the UDR. That has a political purpose--to undermine the regiment. The "Panorama" programme played its full part ; so, too, did John Ware, whose reputation I give nothing for, having had experience of him in the past. That was exactly the sort of programme that I would expect from that sort of person.

The UDR is in every way in the front line of the battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is the chief target of the IRA, because its members know the terrorists and the terrain in which they operate. The Ulster Defence Regiment is owed a deep debt of gratitude by the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom. Its soldiers have acted with fortitude and courage. More than

Column 65

220 of them--serving soldiers and former members--have been killed as a result of terrorism. Unlike other regiments in the British Army, members of the UDR do not face death only when on patrol or on operations. Because they live in the community they face death coming out of work, or leaving or going to recreational activities--even after they leave the regiment.

I want to issue a word of warning about any future change in this legislation. I know from having spoken to Lord Colville that considerable pressure--from the Labour party and from the SDLP and others in Northern Ireland--has been brought to bear on him to wipe off the statute book the part of the emergency legislation that deals with internment. It can be argued that it has not been used for many years, that this Government lack the political will to use it and that there is no likelihood that it will be used, so it is redundant. I opposed internment when it was introduced, and I have since been justified in my opposition, but I must say that it is a weapon that should be available to Government should they find that nothing else is working in the battle against terrorism. I have heard it argued that if internment became necessary we could legislate for it. That is nonsense : at the first whiff of a rumour that legislation needed to be passed in the House to introduce internment there would be a flight across the border and beyond. As soon as internment is removed from the legislation it will be removed for all time as an effective weapon in the battle against terrorism. On no account should the Government accept any recommendation that this vital element in their hold over the terrorists should be removed from the statute book. The security situation does not affect merely the lives and limbs of those who live in Northern Ireland and of those who come to the Province as part of the security forces. It also affects the value of life there, not only socially and economically, but constitutionally. In my years in politics I have observed how much major decisions are influenced by circumstances rather than principles, especially by security circumstances. Was it not the Prime Minister who said, after signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that she simply could not allow the violence to continue? That was a clear signal that the security circumstances had prompted her political action. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is a product of violence. I ask the Government, when dealing with security and constitutional matters, to do what is right, not what is expedient.

6.45 pm

Next Section

Home Page