House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 May 1990

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : What does Mr. Stevens mean by recommendation 65 :

"Introduce interview of applicants' referees"?

Did no one tell him that that procedure was introduced in 1971? Does the Secretary of State recall my request to him to consider publishing a further paper when the various charges have been processed to give detailed breakdown of the number of people arrested for questioning, the number released after questioning, the number whose cases were put to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the number of cases that were rejected by the DPP?

Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Stevens summary has enlightened us all greatly on the technicalities of computers and photocopiers, it does nothing whatever to clear the reputation of the 28 Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were arrested so dramatically for publicity purposes one Sunday morning, only seven of whom have subsequently been charged, and

Column 1031

convicted of non-terrorist related offences? To put it in plain language, I understand that they were convicted of having a few spare rounds in their possession. What soldier does not commit that offence?

Will an adequate apology by given to those men, considering that many of them had to move house after being treated as if they were terrorists? Will adequate compensation be given to them and will apologies be offered to the regiment to which they belong?

Mr. Brooke : The right hon. Gentleman's first question related to recommendation 65 in Mr. Stevens's summary. No doubt he will forgive me if I say that his question was addressed more to Mr. Stevens than to me, although there will be analysis and a response to that recommendation.

The right hon. Gentleman's second and third questions related primarily to individual members of the UDR who were arrested in the course of the inquiry. I rest on my earlier remarks about the sub judice rule, although I realise that some of the cases have already been handled. The right hon. Gentleman referred to those who have had to move house. There are, of course, full administrative procedures for handling that matter, which is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster) : There are those who will be disappointed by the report and see deficiencies in it because it reveals that the political hype directed against the security forces in Northern Ireland was totally unwarranted. Does the Secretary of State agree that any fair-minded person will welcome the fact that Mr. Stevens has reported that

"the passing of information to paramilitaries by Security Force members has been restricted to a small number of individuals. It is neither widespread nor institutionalised"?

Bearing in mind the fact that there are 28,000 members of the security forces and given that the Stevens report states that such activities are restricted to a small number of individuals,, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for every Member in the House to give his or her wholehearted support to the security forces in their fight against the real enemy of democracy--the terrorist throughout the United Kingdom? This part of the United Kingdom has suffered ghastly incidents in the past few days.

Recommendation 59 suggests :

"Consider location of home address of applicants".

Can the Secretary of State give a clear undertaking that, in judging the calibre of an applicant to the security forces, the guiding principle will be not his address but his person?

Mr. Brooke : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact--as I sought to do in my statement--that Mr. Stevens has drawn attention to only a small number of individuals, and that he does not regard any such activity as general or institutionalised. I am sure that the whole House will join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming that.

I am also delighted to sustain the hon. Gentleman in what he says about the whole House giving support to the security forces in the dangerous and highly responsible tasks that they carry out on behalf of the whole community. I know that he would not wish that support to be blind, that he would wish the rule of law to continue to be upheld and that he will recognise that in inviting Mr. Stevens to conduct that inquiry, the Chief Constable has been loyal to that thesis.

Column 1032

Recommendation 59 is a matter of detail which will be looked at. I shall certainly ensure that the attention of those who will be responding to that recommendation will be drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South) : In asking a question about the UDR, I agree with the Secretary of State that none of us should forget that 220 members of the UDR are dead as a result of their activities. We on this side of the water quite properly get upset when people on this side are killed. Two hundred and twenty is a large number of people to have been killed, and I take that into account when asking this question.

Is not it the case that over the years the UDR has had a high turnover of people? Given the importance of police primacy and what I detect, on a quick reading of the report, to be a mix-up between the roles of the UDR and the RUC, would not it be better to increase the numbers in the RUC and the RUC Reserve and to keep the UDR as a smaller force, with a lower turnover, to do a limited job--an Army job?

Mr. Brooke : I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the numbers. Although I fear that that number now exceeds 220, he is right that it is an appalling number. Although I believe that the turnover is probably lower than the right hon. Gentleman imagines, I acknowledge that some people do not stay all that long with the regiment. However, others have served in the regiment consistently since its formation and I pay tribute to them for their bravery.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the balance of the security forces. The armed forces have had to be increased during the past five years when, as a result of Libyan armaments, there has been a rise in the level of violence, but it is the number of those serving in the regular Army that has been increased, not the number of those in the UDR. However, there has been a shift in the UDR in that period.

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne) : Is it a source of satisfaction to my right hon. Friend that, after the serious allegations that have been made against the Ulster Defence Regiment and his own RUC, the Chief Constable appointed Mr. Stevens to carry out an inquiry ; that that inquiry received the utmost co-operation throughout from the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC ; that that inquiry was one of the most thorough that has ever taken place ; and that the report has been published almost in full and has been the subject of a statement in the House?

Is not it a tribute to the way in which we are trying to cleanse the island of Ireland of terrorism that those procedures have taken place? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm, despite the criticism in the report, his total confidence in both the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Brooke : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone and terms in which his question was framed. The inquiry that Mr. Stevens carried out was the most intensive and extensive inquiry of its kind ever to be undertaken in the United Kingdom. We should all derive satisfaction not only from its thoroughness, but from its findings. I am delighted, as my hon. Friend has so invited me, to express my total confidence in both the RUC and the UDR.

Column 1033

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : The Secretary of State will be aware that the inquiry has been described in some quarters as "political hype". I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the inquiry began as a direct consequence of the murders of my constituents. In July 1989 Loughlin Maginn was murdered and three men were charged with his murder, two of whom unfortunately--I emphasise the word "unfortunately"--were full-time serving members of the Ulster Defence Regiment--

Mr. Molyneaux : From Great Britain.

Mr. McGrady : Well, they may have been from Great Britain, but that is not what I am talking about.

Immediately after that--five days later--the loyalist paramilitaries gave an exhibition of montages of considerable detail to the press. Some months later, loyalist murder gangs were intercepted by the security forces on entering my constituency of South Down, with the specific purpose of murdering constituents of mine who had been named in those leaked documents.

I do not consider this to be a matter of "political hype" or something to be taken lightly. This issue is fundamental to the recognition of and respect for law and order in Northern Ireland in all its contexts. Caesar's wife must be absolutely pure in all circumstances.

I cannot comment in detail on the report, so I simply shall refer to the Secretary of State's statement. I am concerned that some 60 people have been found guilty or will be charged with colluding in the perpetration of a crime. I remind the House that the crime that we are talking about is murder. We are talking about collusion in the murders of innocent people. That is why this matter is so important and why I hope that the Secretary of State will act with the greatest possible urgency in executing the revisions that have been found necessary and exposed in the report.

This is not the first time that various screens and processes have been reorganised. That has happened at least five or six times in the past 20 years. What is going wrong in allowing those evil people to slip through the net-- [Interruption.] Another point that I should like the Secretary of State to address-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he should address questions to the Secretary of State, not comments?

Mr. McGrady : Why has it taken such a long time for adequate controls to be put in place?

Last but not least, the Secretary of State said that the Stevens inquiry referred to Army investigations and RUC investigations. Did the Stevens inquiry investigate the operation of the secret units within Northern Ireland, which are setting paramilitary against paramilitary, and community against community, and working outside the rule of law or the control of the RUC and the British Army?

Mr. Brooke : I join the hon. Gentleman in his observation that the matters that gave rise to the inquiry were not ones to be taken lightly. The Chief Constable responded to a series of events in Northern Ireland by inviting Mr. Stevens to carry out an inquiry that has lasted for a full eight months. I salute the Chief Constable for his original decision and Mr. Stevens for his conduct of that inquiry.

Column 1034

The hon. Gentleman should allow for the fact that there is clear evidence that the action of the paramilitaries in producing the information that gave rise to the inquiry in the first instance was clearly intended to discredit the security forces, which are the paramilitaries' enemies, in so far as they act on behalf of the whole community.

It would be a mistake for us to discuss the 59 charges in detail across the Floor of the House, not only because of the sub judice issue, but because the hon. Gentleman's question slightly generalised the charges.

I give the hon. Gentleman the same pledge about urgency that I gave the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke for the Opposition.

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also asked me about adequate controls. I should say--some of this is apparent in the summary--that long before the Stevens inquiry was set up, the Army and the RUC were already taking measures in that area. Mr. Stevens also refers to the many members of the RUC who were interviewed about that.

The hon. Gentleman's final question takes us into a level of operational detail, which is more a question for Mr. Stevens than for me.

Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down) : At this time I think of my constituents and all the other innocent people throughout the Province who have been slaughtered by the Irish Republican Army. I thank God for the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In my view, the report, which I have hastily read, confirms that a large and expensive sledgehammer has been used to crack a miserable nut. The Secretary of State was right when he said that what generated the inquiry was the paramilitary Ulster Defence Association sending some photographs to the press.

What was the cost of the inquiry, which seemed to turn into a general inquisition and fishing expedition to satisfy republican demands, as part of a campaign to denigrate and undermine the UDR and RUC? Many people in Northern Ireland would agree that if all the effort and money expended on the report and the inquiry had been directed against the IRA, more terrorists would have been apprehended and more innocent lives saved.

I remind the Secretary of State of the protest that I made in the House in October of last year when a young constituent of mine was pulled out of his bed in the early hours of the morning and dragged off to a police station. He was a serving member of the UDR. Everyone in the neighbourhood was aware of his arrest because of the noise from the police vehicles. A few hours later, after hype and publicity in the press, he was released and allowed to rejoin his young wife and child. He was an innocent man. It was a disgraceful way in which to treat him or any other member of the UDR.

Mr. Brooke : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to extend his tribute to the UDR to other parts of the security forces. Mr. Kilfedder indicated assent.

Mr. Brooke : He said that we had taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I state on behalf of the Government that the rule of law is beyond price and confidence that the rule of law is being maintained is a matter of great importance to everyone in the House. I do not have an absolutely

Column 1035

up-to-date figure for the cost of the inquiry, but I understand that up to a recent date it had cost £500,000. Many hon. Members will agree that such expenditure and thoroughness was justified in view of the objective that we sought. Mr. Stevens himself said :

"Written statements have been taken from over 1,900 witnesses and suspects ; 2,000 investigative enquiries undertaken and almost 2,000 man hours expended on interviews with detained persons. Over 2,600 documents of all types, have been recovered"

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, it would not be right for me to comment on an individual case. However, I salute his conscientiousness as a constituency Member of Parliament in bringing it to my attention.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : As the Secretary of State made clear in his statement, the implementation of Mr. Stevens's excellent report will require action by more than one Department and co-operation between Departments. How will he ensure that there is an overall strategy to give us confidence that all the recommendations of the Stevens report will be brought into effect? Will he also take steps to ensure a consistency of standards across the Irish border so that the police in the Republic apply similar standards on the issues described by Mr. Stevens?

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Stevens inquiry was not assisted by the Irish News which made many allegations but refused to back them up by producing evidence?

Mr. Brooke : I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that he requested about action. As I have already said, I cannot prejudge the response to particular recommendations. They are addressed to several different Departments of State, including the Ministry of Defence. The 83 recommendations have been made as a package and we shall seek to concert our general response on an interdepartmental basis.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about cross-border matters. I have a suspicion that the Government of the Republic of Ireland will be interested in discussing the report with me on the next occasion that I meet them. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman said when I do that. He was right about the conclusions of the Stevens inquiry about the inability of the Irish News to sustain the allegations that it initially made.

Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the instances of individual wrongdoing by members of the security forces must be firmly dealt with and that Mr. Stevens is to be congratulated on the way in which he has done it? Is it not astonishing that so few instances have been found, given the strain and stress under which the security forces operate? Does he agree that as long as the security forces have to risk life and limb on the streets of Ulster and in the countryside there, they must have access to photographs of people wanted in connection with offences? Therefore, the simplest way to prevent any further instances will be for the terrorists to lay down their arms, stop killing and maiming innocent men, women and children and seek political solutions to the problems that they seek to solve. Is it not extraordinary that in his criticism of my right hon. Friend's remarks, the Opposition spokesman on Northern

Column 1036

Ireland could not bring himself to say one word in praise of our security forces and their sterling work or one word of condemnation of terrorism?

Mr. Brooke : I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he worded his remarks about the nature of the report and its findings, given his position on the Select Committee for Defence. I have already said that we welcome the fact that only a small number of instances of wrongdoing were highlighted by Mr. Stevens. We are all aware of the stress under which the security forces operate in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend rightly says, they are daily at risk of death at the hands of terrorists. The main lesson of the report was that the Chief Constable was determined to make sure that the rule of law is maintained within the Province.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : In view of the alarmist stories that appeared in the republican press, is not paragraph 41 of the report, which says that the practice was confined to a small number of individuals and was neither widespread nor institutionalised, worthy of the greater possible publicity? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Mr. Charles Haughey, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, receives a copy of the report immediately?

Mr. Brooke : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to paragraph 41, to which other hon. Members also drew attention. I have made it possible to make a copy of the report available to the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath) : Is it not remarkable that so many citizens of Northern Ireland are prepared to serve with the UDR after doing a day's work, bearing in mind the onerous nature of the duties and the high casualty rate? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the matter is improved and thorough vetting of those who join the regiment? Will the Government stick to their guns and make sure that the regiment decides, after taking the best possible advice, who is good enough to serve in it?

Mr. Brooke : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the UDR. It is perhaps worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that last year 11 million man hours were spent out of bed by members of the regiment in defence of the community in Northern Ireland and that 1,000 vehicle checkpoints are mounted every night, with all the danger that that involves for those who mount them. I acknowledge the importance of vetting. I confirm that the Government will stand by their position on the process of recruitment into the regiment. On top of that, emphasis will be placed on training and further professionalisation, which the regiment has constantly in hand.

Mr. McNamara : Is the Secretary of State aware that it was not a member of the Opposition who made a statement in the House which resulted in an alleged terrorist not being extradited from Ireland because it was felt that he would not have a fair trial? Is he further aware that I have been delighted to accept an invitation to join the UDR on training procedures in the north of England next week?

Mr. Brooke : I am not absolutely certain that I recognise the relevance of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's

Column 1037

question to today's statement. I warmly welcome his decision to participate in the training procedures of the UDR. If he could go further and urge more Catholics to join the regiment, he would be doing a considerable service to Northern Ireland.

Whitsun Adjournment Debates

Mr. Speaker : I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 24 May up to 10 Members may raise subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible.

Column 1038

Ravenscraig

5.10 pm

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I call Maria Fyfe first.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be glad of your advice. On Monday the House will debate Ravenscraig. Are we to understand that the Government's policy is as described by the Leader of the House or as described by the Secretary of State for Scotland? How should we expect Tory Members to be whipped and to vote on Monday? Will they tell us that Ravenscraig's future must be determined on commercial criteria or will they be whipped to defend Ravenscraig?

Several Hon. Members : Further to that point of order

Mr. Speaker : Order. I hope that it will not be further to that point of order, because I could not possibly answer such a question, but I will listen.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I failed to catch your eye during Prime Minister's Question Time, or to get a clear answer from the Leader of the House during business questions. Scottish Members have no early opportunity to clarify the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland inside the Government. Today in press briefings No. 10 has made it clear that the Secretary of State is isolated from and disowned by the rest of the Cabinet and that he does not speak for Government policy. At this critical juncture in our history Scotland cannot afford to have its representatives in the Cabinet publicly humiliated in this way. Can you advise me how within the rules of the House we can ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the Dispatch Box before the weekend to answer Scottish Members' questions?

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Let me deal with the matter. Yesterday I granted a private notice question and every hon. Member who was present was called. I cannot say whether the Secretary of State will answer the debate on Monday. The Opposition are using their time for a debate and that is the occasion when hon. Members should put their questions.

Several Hon. Members : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. In that case, they cannot possibly be points of order for me. The opportunity arises on Monday.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) : On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a political crisis in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the representative of the Government in Scotland, has been repudiated by his Cabinet colleagues. I have the press statement that the Secretary of State issued yesterday and the early-day motion signed by the hon. Member for

Column 1039

Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and his five Back-Bench colleagues, which demands that British Steel changes its mind and invests in Ravenscraig.

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you may not have the power to demand that the Secretary of State comes to make a statement about his position, but clearly we cannot allow the crisis to run over the weekend without the Secretary of State making his position clear. Even if you do not have the power to demand that, you have the ability and persuasive powers to phone the Secretary of State when you leave the Chair and ask him to come to the House and clarify his position because it has become wholly untenable.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : I had better take all these points of order together. I call Mrs. Ewing.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your earlier response to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) you referred to yesterday's private notice question and said that hon. Members who stood were called to speak. None of us will deny that. However, what has happened since is of great significance. The Leader of the House and deputy Prime Minister clearly said that the Government would not seek to influence the decision, which is in complete contrast to what the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday. It is absolutely intolerable for Scottish Members to return to their constituencies with two completely different messages from the Government. Surely the Secretary of State must clarify that for us tonight or early tomorrow morning.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will appreciate that this afternoon's events raise serious questions about the identity of the Secretary of State for Scotland. As he has been wholly repudiated by his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, he is not just semi-detached, but completely adrift. Have you received any notification that the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has been replaced by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) as Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Speaker : I cannot answer any of those questions. However, I am pleased to tell Scottish Members that I am looking forward with great pleasure to visiting Scotland this weekend for the general assembly of the Church of

Column 1040

Scotland. I hope that I may have the opportunity to discuss these matters informally with the hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that charges, real or imaginary, have been levelled against me. May I take this opportunity to make it clear that I have no problem in standing behind the Government's decision. None whatever. I stand by my question yesterday and there is nothing contradictory about it.

I support what the Labour Opposition are attempting to do and I see nothing contradictory about that. My question made it clear where I stand on this issue.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. We can leave the matter until Monday. It sounds as though we shall have an interesting debate.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Ordered ,

That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee :--

Class XV, Vote 1, Agricultural Support, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 2, Agricultural Services and Fisheries, Scotland Class XV, Vote 3, Regional and General Industrial Support, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 4, Training Programmes, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 5, Regional Assistance, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 6, Roads, Transport and Environmental Services, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 7, Local Transport, Housing, Water, Sewerage and Environmental Services, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 8, Housing, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 9, New Towns and the Urban Programme, Scotland Class XV, Vote 10, Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 11, Administration of Justice, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 12, Police Grant, Legal Aid, Criminal Injuries Compensation and Welfare Food, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 13, Legal Proceedings, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 14, Law, Order and Miscellaneous Health Services, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 15, Education, Arts, Libraries and Social Work, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 16, Student Awards, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 17, Health, Family Practitioner Services (Part), Scotland

Class XV, Vote 21, Scottish Office Administration

Class XV, Vote 26, Privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group Class XV, Vote 27, Hospitals and Community Health Services, Family Practitioner Services (Part) and Other Health Services, Scotland-- [Mr. Wood.]

Next Section

Home Page