House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Mar 1991

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : I want to preface my remarks by making one or two things very clear. The Secretary of State referred to attacks on people in Britain emanating from one of the proscribed organisations named in the legislation--the Provisional IRA. He rightly referred to the revulsion felt by people in this country at those attacks. However, no people were more revolted by those acts or more angry about them than Irish people living in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland and, above all, in England, Scotland and Wales. Those attacks create great emotion, but we should realise that that kind of perverted, twisted machismo for political reasons is abhorred by the vast majority in Northern Ireland.

I have witnessed not just physical injury, but other forms of injury at railway stations. For example, I have seen thousands of people who cannot get to work or home from work, or who have had to spend three or four hours travelling simply because a warped mind wanted to gain some pseudo- satisfaction from causing a false alert. Those alerts are organised by the Provisional IRA.

Each time IRA members set off a bomb and kill someone or carry out any act of violence, that is a gory--and sometimes very gory--but pathetic statement of their own failure. They are really admitting that the political objectives that they wish to achieve cannot be achieved through politics, rational argument and the power of persuasion. However, that does not help the people who are killed and injured. It does not help the

Column 47

people who are bereaved. However, as legislators we should remember that, whenever an atrocity is committed, those people are admitting that they have failed.

That failure will add up. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about winning the war. However, there are two wars to be won. The first involves the protection of society from terrorism. The other involves protecting the very highest standards of integrity and justice within this country, within Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is worth fighting for.

When the IRA has gone and its failure is copper-fastened and permanent, the integrity of that system will have to be rebuilt. This is not a flaky or weak issue of civil rights, human rights or civil liberties. It involves the protection of something that is essential--the integrity of the process of law and of legislation. When we talk of winning the war, we should remember that more than one thing is at stake. People who are pursuing political objectives through violence are forcing everyone else to derogate from the highest standards. Those people, who may not be members of the IRA --and I am not making that as a point--killed four people in County Tyrone last night. They also killed a UDR soldier in my constituency at the weekend. Those people are negating the essence of what we are doing or trying to do. They are negating the essence of political progress. They demean and debase their objective, an objective which many of us in Ireland hold very dear. We become very angry when the IRA demeans it in the spurious cause that it claims to be pursuing. The IRA has cast a vote of no confidence in itself. IRA members, through their actions, admit that they cannot come to this forum or to any other forum and, through the rationale of their argument, try to persuade others of the validity of their case. At the end of the day, that is what politics are about. They are not about numbers ; they are about the strength of one's argument and the confidence and courage that one has to put that argument if that argument is not very popular.

Dr. Godman : I have been listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman has said about these very grave matters. However, will not the isolation of the terrorists--the Provisional IRA and the extreme loyalists- -be made worse if it is heightened by the decision taken by the leaders of the political parties in the six counties to come to the negotiating table with those others who are so concerned to win this war?

Mr. Mallon : I am not exactly clear about the hon. Gentleman's point. However, if I understand him correctly, I can state that I would talk and negotiate with anyone if I thought that that would save one life. My susceptibilities and sensitivities would have to take a back seat if I could passionately persuade people to end that kind of killing.

The community in which I live and from which I come, the nationalist community in South Armagh, has suffered greatly as a result of the activities of the Provisional IRA. Indeed, no community has suffered more. The people I live among understand the horror of IRA terrorism. We also know the horror of so-called loyalist terrorism, because we saw it in County Tyrone last night. We know the absolute horror of giving up the highest standards of our justice and

Column 48

legal procedures so that those people can run amok. That is the weakness with this provision, because that is exactly what those people want us to do. The more things begin to crumble in terms of law and legislation, the better those people like it, because that is the kind of milieu in which they can succeed.

It is spurious to argue that, if one is opposed to the terms of emergency legislation or are critical of some of the provisions of such legislation, one is soft on terrorism. I can understand why such an argument is advanced in the House, but it has nothing to do with emergency legislation : it has to do with party politics. Frankly, as a member of a party with three representatives in the House, which will never be in government or be the official Opposition, I do not have to indulge in that kind of argument. However, it should be clearly understood that, because one is critical of legislation, that does not mean one is in any way soft on terrorism.

At the weekend I paid at least one visit, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North must do on many occasions, to see the consequences of a terrorist bomb, the loss of life and the damage that that does to the community. Let there be no media over-statement in that regard. We could also do without the kind of self-congratulation that we sometimes hear. I am critical of the legislation, and shall vote against it for the reasons that I have consistently given and will continue to give. That does not mean that I have any sympathy for terrorism or that I am in any way soft on terrorism. I probably have more reasons to be hard on it than most.

Is it possible to fight terrorism without measures such as internal exile, or without having to derogate not once but 38 times from European law--this time, in relation to article 15? Is it possible to fight terrorism without detention as a means of trawling for intelligence? There is a fundamental distinction between trawling for intelligence and arresting someone on suspicion of having committed a crime.

Is it possible to fight terrorism without any derogation from the higher standards of justice that we should all be trying to preserve? Is it possible to fight terrorism without a whole panoply of legislation that resembles a patchwork quilt--from the emergency provisions Acts and the prevention of terrorism Acts to the ad hoc legislation that comes before the House from time to time? That is like taking pieces of putty and sticking them on a crumbling wall, hoping that they will hold together. They will not.

That was the essence of the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He did not question the need to fight terrorism but only the means by which that should be done. He asked whether a better way could be found than derogating from article 15 or trawling for information.

Is there a need for adequate legislation that will go beyond that which currently exists? The answer must be yes, but in this country a patchwork quilt approach is taken which does not achieve what it should and which damages certain principles that we all hold dear. The Republic of Ireland has been forced to face the same problem. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook stressed that we should look carefully at that aspect. At the end of his report, Lord Colville pointed out that terrorism not only exists in Northern Ireland but is straying into England, Scotland and Wales, as well as into the Republic. Acts of terrorism have also occurred in France, Holland and Germany. I am sure that I have omitted other

Column 49

countries. Is there not some merit in the suggestion that we should consider the entire issue, in the way that we do in respect of agriculture, trade, the environment, and many other issues within the European Community? Would not that be better than sticking another piece of putty on the wall when there is an atrocity?

In the world in which we live, if the IRA's violence stops, and if loyalists' violence stops, there will still be sufficient terrorism to merit a concerted and unified approach by all the countries affected by it. I ask the Secretary of State not to dismiss that suggestion simply because it comes from the Opposition or from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.

Lord Colville made it clear in the last sentence of his report that

"nothing except a bold and new initiative seems likely to deflect a continuing divergence of procedures between most of the rest of Europe and ourselves."

Something that had a European basis would be free of the inter-country, inter-communal connotations which such legislation sometimes has--and which the prevention of terrorism Act has in the eyes of many Irish people. It would override and transcend such considerations. It will not be easy to achieve, but it is a challenge which must be faced, sooner or later--in international rather than domestic terms.

I can imagine the reaction that there would be in this country and in the Republic of Ireland, France, and other countries, but the prize is much too big to throw out such a concept without giving it full consideration. There is much to be gained from starting down that road, rather than having an emergency provisions Act for Northern Ireland and a prevention of terrorism Act for England, Scotland and Wales--overlapping, interlinking, and tying in with other legislation where it suits, so that if one wants to examine that legislation one needs to have five or six Acts to hand.

I want to make reference to one or two practical aspects. An interesting study of the tape recording and video recording of police interviews was conducted for the Law Reform Commission of Canada between 1985 and 1987. One paragraph is particularly relevant : "Aside from providing a new tool for the investigative process, the police, Crown counsel and defence lawyers viewed the introduction of this technology as an improvement of the administration of justice. An accurate video tape record of police interviews largely eliminates court room conflicts over what was said and how an accused was treated. The new technology therefore helps police in gathering evidence at the same time as it adds protection to the rights of the accused."

When we go beyond the normal bounds of the law and embark on what is euphemistically called emergency legislation, we must remember to provide matching protection. I know of the practical difficulties, but there is an overriding argument for helping the police and protecting them against unfounded allegations, as well as for adding to the protection given to the accused. I ask the Secretary of State to continue apace with tape recording experiments and to move into video taping also.

I make this final, carping point simply because reference is made to it in Lord Colville's report. He clearly draws a distinction between the effectiveness of the police complaints procedure in England and Wales and that in the north of Ireland. Out of 407 "completed" investigations in 1990, 327 were incapable of being completed, 14 were withdrawn, and 66 were held to be not substantiated. No charges were brought by the Director of

Column 50

Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland against police officers and nor did the complaints commission recommend any disciplinary charges.

I can see why those investigations would have been withdrawn ; I understand why, if the essence of a case was not there, the Director of Public Prosecutions would not bring that case to court. But, given the current position in Northern Ireland, is it imaginable that not a single disciplinary charge should be possible? Does that not raise questions about police complaints procedure, and about the Police Complaints Commission?

I have complained bitterly for a long time about the composition of the commission's board and about its means of operation. Many problems could be avoided if the commission used properly the legislation made available to it by the House three years ago--one of the best and most effective pieces of legislation that we have produced. I hope that the Secretary of State will note the relevant part of Lord Colville's report and will also note the difference in tone and content between Colville's reactions to the two Police Complaints Commissions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get around, at some stage, to asking a very naive question : why do the police in England and Wales seem to be so much worse than those in Northern Ireland? Disciplinary charges are brought in England and Wales, but none are brought in the north of Ireland.

In the past week, I have had to deal with Army authorities informally in relation to complaints that I have made. After a time, I went back ; to their credit, the authorities were able to tell me exactly what they had investigated, what they had found, what action they had taken and how they had dealt with those who had transgressed. I believe that the authorities deal fairly decently with some of the complaints that they receive, but I cannot accept that, in some circumstances, a disciplinary charge will not be brought in regard to police complaints, despite the legislation that is available.

As I have said, I shall vote against the measure. I believe that there are better ways of dealing with the problems and I must, in all honesty, suggest ways in which they could be handled more comprehensively and effectively. The kernel is in that last sentence of Lord Colville's report that I quoted. I believe that there is merit in what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, and I plead with the Government not to reject his proposal simply because it came from the Opposition.

5.42 pm

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : Some of the debate has been taken up in exposing the Labour party's hypocrisy in dealing with the subject of terrorism. I do not think that it is merely a matter of party politics ; it is a very important subject. There ought to be a united, multi-party policy on terrorism. The result of Labour's defection from the true course is that we have a policy in this party, in this Government and in this Parliament of containing terrorism when we ought to have a policy of defeating it. The public insist on the defeat of terrorism. It is not enough to give them ritual denunciations of violence, and ritual avowals of dissociation from those who seek to achieve their political ends by violence. We have heard a great deal of that in this debate, and we have also heard people place considerable emphasis on civil liberties in this country as though they were endangered or threatened.

Column 51

Society needs to be able to defend itself by its own

self-discipline, and must be given adequate weapons to do so. That is not the case yet.

The Labour party stands convicted in that regard. After all, the initial Labour legislation on the subject--which came about simply because of explosions on the mainland--is basically the same as the measures that we are debating today. The principles are the same. There have been minor amendments ; I regard them as minor, because they have not achieved their true purpose. There have been small improvements, but basically the position remains the same. Now that it is in opposition, the Labour party has changed its tune and reverted to the civil liberties argument.

I do not suggest that any Opposition Member lacks patriotism or a desire to get rid of terrorism ; unfortunately, however, that is the impression that is being given to the country at large. The difficulty is that, because of an inhibition or hang-up--largely because of party politics--we have not been able to present a united front to dispose of terrorism as we have--I hope--virtually disposed of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi aggression. There was a united policy on that, the success of which was due partly to all-party support for the Government's policy. Could we not adopt such a policy on terrorism? The Labour party's own principle involved the proscription of terrorist organisations. It has been in the legislation all along, but Labour wants to repeal the relevant provision.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : The hon. Gentleman is making sweeping generalisations about Labour party policy. Does he not know that all Opposition Members want all-party agreement on this matter? Is he not aware that, only last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a speech and wrote to the Home Secretary asking for every proposal to be on the table--for nothing to be ruled out--with the objective of securing such all-party agreement? Could an Opposition be fairer or more open-minded than that?

Mr. Stanbrook : I regard that as worthless. The position has been the same all along. We are talking about Labour legislation--a Labour Act. The Conservative party simply took it over when it came into office, and has renewed it regularly. A Labour spokesman may come along now and say, "Nothing is excluded ; everything is included. We are only too willing to talk." That was not Labour's attitude at the time of the Gulf war.

Mr. Sheerman : I respect many of the views that the hon. Gentleman expresses in the House, but 16 years is a long time in politics. Opposition Members agree with his opening remarks, in which he said--I hope that he remembers this--that our efforts against terrorism were not working ; that terrorism was continuing unabated, and that we needed more effective means of beating it. That is what we are saying, and that is why we want a discussion.

Mr. Stanbrook : If that were the case, the Labour party would not be trying to repeal the Act. Labour Members would be saying, "The Government are absolutely right : this is not good enough. We must add more teeth to the Act. We must get together and agree extra, positive measures." I shall not pursue the point with the hon.

Column 52

Gentleman, because I happen to agree with something else that he said recently, and I propose to be nice and friendly to him later. There is always a chance that the truth will suddenly be clear, and wisdom will dawn. The hon. Gentleman already has an inkling. I can only encourage him to persuade his colleagues that their constant opposition to the legislative means provided by Governments of both parties does Labour no good whatever. It does the public no good either, and it hampers the fight against terrorism. If the Opposition were more intelligent about their programme, they would adopt a policy similar to their policy on the Gulf war, realising that opposing such policies would make them so unpopular in the country that they would be certain to lose the next election. Unfortunately, this legislation is taking the place of the Gulf war. If the Labour party continues to maintain its opposition to the main legislative weapon against terrorism, it will suffer the same reaction from the British electorate. It is not that it is not doing enough, but that it is trying to defeat something that has as respectable an origin as a Labour Home Secretary years ago--certainly 16 years ago. For 16 years the war against terrorism has continued, but it has certainly not been won. We need more efforts and positive measures. It is no use the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) saying that he will vote against the measure because it infringes civil liberties and human rights. We are not talking about that. The only human rights that concern us are those of the victims. Positive measures are required, but we are not getting them.

Mr. Mallon : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stanbrook : I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. In the spirit in which we should approach terrorism, one is bound to accept that there are strong arguments against some of these provisions which perhaps could be considered in amendments and so on. Even Lord Colville gave expression to them. The exclusion principle is one of them. It is abhorrent by Executive order not subject to judicial review to cause a British citizen to stay away from part of the country. It is one of the restrictions on the liberty of the individual which the police and the Government contend is necessary for the defeat of terrorism. It is argued that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has not been effective. Those who claim that do not know because the evidence is obtained through its operation, which is secret and cannot be revealed. Mr. Mallon rose --

Mr. Stanbrook : I see the hon. Gentleman pregnant with desire to intervene, but I do not want to give him an excuse to do so. I accept that it is not nice for a British citizen to be told, "You cannot stay in this part of the country. You must go back home." On Thursday 21 February, Thames Television produced an absurd "This Week" programme. After considering the great costs of providing personal security, the programme identified one particular person who without a doubt had connections with the IRA. He was an Ulster man who had been working in Devon and was required to return to Ulster. That must be an injustice and I suppose that he is now unemployed, as the programme said, whereas previously he had had a job. The police made

Column 53

that decision and an exclusion order was applied. The programme presented the case as though it were a great injustice, compared with all the money that we spend on security against terrorists and concluded that somehow it was not right : it interfered with civil liberties. If the best example of injustice that the programme could produce was one unemployed person from Northern Ireland with relatives in the IRA--which may well have been the reason why such action was taken--who was sent home, one is bound to lose faith in the balance and understanding of those who make such television programmes.

There is a point here. One hopes that such a provision is not necessary, but I am prepared to accept that if the security authorities say that it is and if behind the scenes there is ample intelligence obtained through the operation of the Act--let us not say that, because we do not know what that information is, we should not allow fishing expeditions--there is a basis for examination of these cases. No doubt a great deal of intelligence is obtained that cannot be revealed. The measure must be justified. It stands to reason that it is.

One's great complaint must be that of the general public, especially after the dreadful incidents of wholesale attack on civilians and ordinary people, including my constituents, on the concourse of Victoria station. The general public ask us to fight back against the IRA. So far they have not been satisfied with the Government's response.

I said that I agreed heartily with some recent remarks by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). Surely now is the time for us to adopt the same response to and positive measures against the IRA as the German Government used against the Baader-Meinhof. Germany had a national intelligence-gathering agency, supplied with the best men and technical equipment. It drew on sources from all over Germany and Europe and all the information was fed into a central system. It had mobile and effective teams which acted on the information thus gathered. If that is what the hon. Gentleman was advocating, I certainly agree. I hope that the Government will welcome the initiative with open arms. Of the seven ideas from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that is the only positive one. We need a national agency.

The trouble with all our defences against criminals is that so far we have been hampered by a ramshackle police structure. We have more than 50 separate, operational, autonomous police forces. Some are co-ordinated at some level, but never nationally. Some subjects are co-ordinated, but not overall. In some cases the computer systems are incompatible with those of other forces. The Home Secretary talks about the efforts to fight all violent crime, especially terrorism, but I do not understand how he can be so complacent when our weapons are so inadequate and rooted in a 19th century structure. It is the hesitation to upset chief police officers and others which bedevils us and prevents us from getting the matter under control. We must take criminal investigation, detection and the defeat of terrorism in hand. We must not talk about it in terms of co-ordination, as the Home Secretary did in his opening speech. It is not the co-ordination of intelligence gathering that is needed ; it is the co-ordination of action. That is what was so effective in West Germany and we must learn that lesson.

Column 54

We have been hampered too much because we have paid too little regard to the dangers which terrorism poses for a civilised society. We have paid too little regard to the demands of the public to get to grips with the problem. We have paid too little regard to the niceties of personal and civil liberties. Opposition spokesmen stand back from the problem for party political purposes. Society demands that we get ahead with this. We are not doing enough now.

5.58 pm

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I wish to criticise some points in the legislation, but I shall support it in the Lobby this evening because its principle is more important than its defects. Others have discussed the measure--I will not on this occasion--in the context of whether or not it is effective. The Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen debated that point. On this topic I find table 8 in Lord Colville's report interesting. It sets out the number of occasions when charges, exclusion orders, removal or deportation have occurred as a percentage of the number of detentions under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is remarkable to note the consistency among the various categories : the total of effectiveness for the United Kingdom as judged in this way is about 22 per cent. ; the effectiveness in dealing with international terrorism is 21 per cent. ; and the effectiveness of dealing with republican terrorism is about 22 per cent. That provides a clue to the usefulness of the legislation, and it reinforces the need to retain it.

It cannot be argued that the legislation has been wholly effective. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) pointed out that we still have a serious terrorism problem. It is clear that the Act in itself is not sufficient, and I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that we should look at ways of strengthening it.

The legislation is inextricably linked with the circumstances of its introduction--as a response to the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. I do not wish to refer directly to the cases before the courts, except to make the general point that they and other court proceedings underline the need for coolness in responding to terrorism. Because terrorism is an attack on the entire community, there will be an emotional reaction to it right across the community. That is why we need coolness when dealing with it. I noticed a letter in The Times last Saturday from Sir Frederick Lawton in which he indignantly made the point that the convictions complained about were decisions not of judges but of juries. That underlines the point that I have just made : because of the nature of terrorism and the emotional response to it, the response of the man in the street cannot be trusted.

A good case can be made for replacing juries in terrorist cases by judges. That is not to give the judges a blank cheque. Even they can err. In Northern Ireland we well know a case in which they did err ; the case is currently before the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I hope will give the go-ahead for an early re-trial. Mistakes were made because of political pressure. My comments about a cool response apply as much to politicians as to jurors. I hope that ultimately there will be an inquiry which will reveal that what we believe to be false convictions arose as a result of political interference with the course of justice and with decisions to arrest and detain people.

Column 55

Eventually I hope that there will be a full judicial inquiry, although I am perhaps straying a little beyond the matter in hand. This is a United Kingdom Act, and that is good. Its application throughout the United Kingdom should be followed in other matters. Hon. Members have already mentioned the number of different Acts dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland--the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, to name but two. It is sometimes difficult to know the full extent of the panoply of powers in dealing with terrorism, and that is wrong. It would be far better to bring all anti-terrorism legislation together in one Act, to be applied throughout the United Kingdom.

This Act contains certain provisions which it is hoped will cut off funds for terrorism. That is good, but they have not been effective so far. Some remedies have been proposed, and we shall debate them on Wednesday--but only in a Northern Ireland context. I was appalled to hear the Home Secretary say that the Government intend to experiment in Northern Ireland to see whether the proposals will work before extending them to the rest of the country. That is a silly way to proceed, and it will not work. Everyone knows that the proposals come from the Home Office, not from the Northern Ireland Office, so it is not likely that the Government will commit themselves to providing enough resources to implement the provisions in Northern Ireland. We should proceed on a United Kingdom basis. If the provisions to deal with funds for terrorism need strengthening, they should be strengthened for the whole United Kingdom, not by way of an experiment in Northern Ireland that is likely to produce an uncertain response.

As we have said in other contexts, it is illogical to proscribe some organisations in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain. People travel between the two countries, and organisations that are proscribed should be proscribed throughout the United Kingdom. There is an argument for considering the shortlist in this Act beside the longer list in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, under which eight organisations are proscribed. It goes without saying that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North about Sinn Fein. It makes no sense to proscribe the IRA yet not to proscribe one part of it, which is what Sinn Fein is, as everyone knows. The pretence that there is a difference is made only for political purposes, and that qualifies and casts doubt on the Government's commitment to anti-terrorist measures.

The Home Secretary will know that we are critical of exclusion orders. It is not right that people should be dumped in Northern Ireland. The orders are wrong in principle. What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about them was inaccurate. There is no danger under the legislation of persons born and bred in Birmingham being dumped in Northern Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman casts his eye over section 5(4), he will no doubt be happy to correct his comments.

We should like exclusion orders to go, but only if the frontier is dealt with seriously. Controls should be moved

Column 56

from the Irish sea to the frontier. The hon. Member for Antrim, North identified the idiocy of having an open frontier between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and of trying to control the frontier at another point further down the sea. This is due in part to laziness on the part of the Government and officials. They think it easier to carry out checks at ports and airports than to make the comparatively small effort to treat the frontier seriously. The Government should realise that their laziness sends the wrong message to the terrorists. That message is that the Government do not really think that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and that their commitment to the defeat of terrorism and the maintenance of the Union is contingent and half-hearted. That only encourages terrorism.

The paradox is that the exclusion order procedure only makes matters worse. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present to hear me say that the terminology that he used can only encourage terrorism. I was appalled to hear him say that the law-abiding citizens of this country were appalled by a number of terrorist incidents, all of which had happened in England. It was perfectly clear from the context that in his mind "this country" means England and nothing beyond it. In other parts of his speech he referred to Great Britain and Ireland, to the Irish people, to Ireland north and south. It is clear that in his mind there is a mental blind drawn down the Irish sea. That, too, is an encouragement to terrorism and it sends out a signal to the IRA to continue its offensive because the Home Secretary is not committed to the Union and he will give way to them at some point in the future. That is how his speech will be read.

The Home Secretary should reflect carefully on this matter, but I am not surprised at his attitude when I recall that, with his literary pretensions, he savagely censored "The Boyne Water" in his anthology.

Mr. John Patten : I have not read the literary savagery to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall look at it with some interest later. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary an injustice. I have checked the text and found that one of the first sentences uttered by my right hon. Friend in his speech refers to the appalling incidents that the Province suffered over the weekend. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I know the Province well and I feel strongly that it is wrong for people in the Province not to recognise the major contribution that everyone in the United Kingdom is trying to make to keep the peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Trimble : I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I am sorry to say that they do not meet the point. I acknowledge that in his speech the Home Secretary spoke about terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland. However, in part of his speech he spoke about "this country" in terms which did not include Northern Ireland and he was therefore sending the wrong message. Perhaps the Home Secretary's mistake is unconscious, in which case I hope that he will think about it and correct it and will not again encourage terrorism in that way.

Detention and its extension have given rise to some legal difficulty in terms of the European convention. The ability to extend the period of detention to seven days is important, and that is substantiated on page 3 of Lord Colville's report, which refers to detentions in Northern Ireland. Lord Colville says that 166, or 37 per cent., of

Column 57

those subject to extensions were charged. If one looks elsewhere at the number of people charged out of the total detained, one notes a significant increase--more than double--in the number of charges of persons for whom the period of detention was extended. That statistic alone shows the need to have the ability to extend the period up to seven days.

The problem arises because of the European convention and the way in which it is drafted. It operates on a Europe-wide basis. While there was a significant British input to its drafting, it was largely drafted by and interpreted by civil lawyers rather than common law lawyers. The civil law system is significantly different from the common law system. Some form of judicial involvement in detention and the building of a case against an accused is common in civil law but not in common law. That is our difficulty.

The Home Secretary was right to refer to cases in France where people are effectively detained for much longer than here, but there is no problem there because in France the juge d'instruction is involved in the proceedings. However, he does not play what we would regard as a wholly judicial role, although he is to some extent involved in the interrogation process and in the gathering of evidence. To some extent, he carries out what we--by "we", of course, I mean people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland--would regard as a police function. The position in Scotland is different because the procurator fiscal is based on the concept of civil law and, to a certain extent, he is involved in what might otherwise be regarded as police work.

Dr. Godman : The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the important role of the procurator fiscal, who is in every sense of the word concerned with criminal investigations. That fine experience has been followed in England through recent legislation.

Mr. Trimble : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his elucidation. This is a complex matter and the difficulty is in finding a way to graft on to the common law accusatorial system the inquisitorial procedures of civil law. There is a way out which we have suggested in other circumstances, and it would solve the problem in Northern Ireland. It is that after an appropriate period of two, three or four days, or whatever it might be, an application could be made in chambers to a resident magistrate. Provided the resident magistrate did not treat that as full judicial proceedings and took account of the nature of the information and intelligence available to the investigating authorities, he would provide the necessary "judicial" input to satisfy the European convention.

That solution is not available generally in England and Wales, which retain lay magistrates and, of course, it would be impossible to involve them in such a system. That might be an argument for dispensing with lay magistrates and having what we call resident magistrates, the term for which here is stipendiary magistrates. The Government may want to consider that.

It may be necessary to consider extending the Scottish procurator fiscal system, or something analogous, to the rest of the United Kingdom. That option was examined in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s in the MacDermott report into the prosecution of offenders. I am sorry to say that it was turned down solely on fiscal grounds, when it was said that it would cost too much to introduce

Column 58

examining magistrates. The proposal was supported by a range of people and may be worth looking at again because that could be the way to solve the problem. There is no easy way to solve it, and those who understand the situation in the United Kingdom and in Europe should not be impatient if it takes some time to work out a solution. A certain amount of heat is generated about detention by people who do not fully appreciate the intricacies of the problem.

Reference has been made to the videoing of interviews. We should do what Lord Colville has reported elsewhere and allow experiments to be conducted by the police to see whether it is feasible. Lord Colville's reports on that and on associated legislation are useful. They provide a valuable way to make information available to the public and are clearly a valuable test of the efficacy of the legislation. One has only to look at the way in which hon. Members have appealed to Lord Colville's report and the eagerness with which he has been prayed in aid, sometimes not altogether properly, to show how much the reports are appreciated.

Lord Colville's useful work is a substitute for a proper way of looking at the legislation, which I hope can be done eventually. A debate once a year on the prevention of terrorism Act and an associated debate later this week on the emergency provisions legislation are no substitute for proper parliamentary supervision and control of such exceptional legislation. The powers are properly exceptional. It is right that they should exist, but there should be some effective means of supervision. Because of the nature of the powers, I do not think that we can have effective judicial supervision of them, and an attempt to over-judicialise this procedure is wrong.

We should look at the prospect of having a special procedure, perhaps a Select Committee of Privy Councillors and senior hon. Members charged with carrying out the function carried out by Lord Colville. It would also investigate annually or perhaps more often than that. That might be more useful than the constant pursuit of toughening-up powers for complaints bodies and so on. It would certainly have the advantage of requiring hon. Members seriously to address the detail of the legislation.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) gave an eloquent denunciation of recent terrorist incidents in England and Wales. He said that by their acts those terrorists are saying that their objects cannot be achieved politically. He is quite right. Those objects cannot be achieved by contesting elections and obtaining majorities. However, the terrorists expect to succeed politically, but through the weakness of Governments and particularly of English Ministers. In that respect the Government have repeatedly encouraged terrorism, not just by the casual and careless use of language that I criticised earlier, but in the way in which they have allowed terrorism to set the political agenda. I refer here to certain ill- judged initiatives that have been taken over the years. That is not only my criticism. An editorial in The Times on Saturday week made exactly the same criticism.

The frequency with which the Government have given in to terrorism has in turn created a lack of confidence in some sections of the community in Northern Ireland. That lack of confidence has led some people wrongly to resort to what they call counter terrorism. That, of course, is wrong. The Unionist community has effectively repudiated or rejected such people and such action by joining or

Column 59

supporting the security forces and by providing them with the necessary information. The high success rate of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in dealing with such terrorism--some 90 per cent. plus--is evidence of that. When dealing with Republican terrorism, the success rate is only 13 to 15 per cent. That points to the difference in the political response.

The party of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, the Social Democratic and Labour party, is extremely good at the verbal condemnation of terrorism. Unfortunately, that is not followed through by appropriate action to support and assist the security forces. The role of the hon. Gentleman's party in these matters is often that of a channel by which political concessions extorted by IRA terrorism are made available to Irish nationalism. That role is wrong, as are the actions of Government in making such concessions. None of these matters, however important though they are, will prevent us from supporting the proposed legislation, flawed though it may be, if the House divides this evening.

6.21 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : Members of the public who listen to the debate will do so with complete amazement. They will have heard the Labour party's spokesman in this matter, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), make a speech which I consider almost incredible.

The right hon Gentleman, having said that no sensible person can doubt that the Opposition are against terrorism, then sought to dismantle the legislation that is designed to combat terrorism. It is true that the Opposition speak against terrorism, but speech is not enough. We are dealing with matters where there has to be action-- "By their fruits ye shall know them."

The Opposition want to dismantle the Government's action in protecting the nation from terrorism, and their position is entirely untenable. A Labour Government thought that action was necessary. In 1974, and again in 1976, they brought forward the current legislation, or legislation that was almost identical. They took against the relevant legislation only when they went into opposition and the Conservative Government took over the reins of power and introduced the current legislation. Since then, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has described the legislation to which he was a party in introducing as draconian. That word is intended to diminish the legislation's importance.

Had the position changed--had there been no terrorism since the Labour Government left office--there would be justification for the Opposition's stand. Unfortunately, since 1982 when the Opposition changed their mind, the need for this sort of legislation has grown, not diminished. We have had the Brighton bombing and the murders occasioned there. We have had the avoidance of the summer bombing campaign in British holiday resorts. In the past year we have had the Deal slaughter, the Victoria station bomb, the Downing street bombs, the St. Albans bomb, the killing in West Germany, the bomb in Colchester, the bomb in Kensington, the shooting of Sir Peter Terry, the assassination of Ian Gow, the shooting of the soldier at Lichfield station, the bomb at Derby and the

Column 60

bombs at Leicester and Halifax. In the past year, terrorist activity has killed 80 in the United Kingdom, with a further 1,000 being injured. Most of the deaths and injuries have taken place in Northern Ireland. How can it be said that the time has come to go against what the then Labour Government thought was important in 1974 and 1976? Why action then but no action now?

The speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was pathetic. He struggled to find reasons why the legislation should not be renewed. He was flailing for something on which to cling to avoid the accusation of total absurdity. He claimed that Lord Colville had reservations about the Act, even though Lord Colville had no criticism of extended detention or of exclusion. Lord Colville never once suggested that the legislation should not be renewed. How can it be that an intelligent political party--one of the two great political parties in the land--allows its spokesman on home affairs to say, "My position is justified by Lord Colville", even when Lord Colville does not support him?

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the General Council of the Bar has reservations. That may be so, but the General Council does not say that the powers should not be renewed. How is that a justification for doing what the Labour party is seeking to do tonight, which is to defeat the renewal order?

The only friends whom the Opposition will have in their attempts to stop the renewal of the current legislation are the terrorists and those who say that normal security procedures should exist even if that means more terrorism.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke of the erosion of liberties. What about the erosion of the lives of slaughtered people? What about the people who die because of terrorism? The right hon. Gentleman cited the Brogan case, during which it was said that suspects should be brought more promptly before a judicial authority. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) put his finger on the difference between the judicial authority in European legal systems and our judicial authority. In our process, that authority comes on to the scene much later and yet our system is supposed to be much better than many of the systems that prevail elsewhere in Europe. Apart from that, European judges have not experienced terrorism on the scale that we have in Britain. We resent it when they decide that changes should be made according to their lights when they have not had to experience the misery that we have suffered here, and especially in Northern Ireland.

Why does not the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook choose to rely upon, to be inspired by and to be supported instead by the words of his predecessor, Lord Mason of Barnsley, if he really wants common ground? Lord Mason said :

" some liberty must be sacrificed in the defence of liberty, insiduous though that may be. It is the price that must be paid in defence of our democracy Nothing gives the IRA more joy and some encouragement than to see a divided House, and especially the image created by some within Parliament of seeming to be too protective of the terrorists and their political allies, rather than wishing their destruction."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1989 ; Vol. 504, c. 33-4.]

That is the sort of guidance that Opposition Members should give. If they chose to adopt that approach, we would have common cause. It is clear that if we dismantle our defences against terrorism the chances of catching the Victoria station

Column 61

bombers will be less, so will our chances of catching the Downing street bombers, those who tried to assassinate Sir Peter Terry, those who killed the Lichfield soldier, those who planted bombs in Derby, Leicester and Halifax and those who slaughtered in Deal. That is why those who are watching our proceedings on television or hearing them on the radio will be utterly amazed.

What does the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, say? I expect that his words will be repeated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who will reply from the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition are saying, in effect, "Let us talk. Let us make common ground against terrorism." Yet they have nothing to talk about. They have been saying, "Let us talk" for years. They have been advocating the making of common ground for years. We have been listening for their ideas for alternative action--not alternative words--but what have they brought forward? What practical policies are they putting forward for beating the terrorists?

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave a list and seems to think that that is positive action. He asked us to accept the European Court's view that the judicial process should engage sooner than it does. He asked us to scrap exclusion orders. He suggested a review of the financial provisions and asked us to consider a national agency to deal with terrorism. He suggested that we have tape-recorded interviews and an independent complaints procedure. Those may or may not be very sound and sensible ideas. It may be worth while to introduce such provisions in the future, but they are not reasons for dismantling present legislation. They would water it down, make it easier for the terrorist and not more difficult. That is why the British people will listen to this debate with utter and complete amazement.

There is no alternative to the Act. That is because it has been reasonably effective and why the Opposition cannot suggest an alternative. The Act is the only common cause against terrorism and the Opposition should support it.

After the Carlton club bombing on 26 June last year the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said :

"In a free society it is never possible to provide complete protection against indiscriminate terrorism, but clearly we must do all that we can to reduce the chances of such criminal lunacy killing and maiming innocent men and women."--[ Official Report, 26 June 1990 ; Vol 175, c. 186.]

Is failing to renew this order, as the Opposition will seek to do by voting against it tonight, doing all that they can to defeat terrorism?

Until they support this legislation, the Opposition will have placed themselves in an absurd and impossible position. The country will punish them for it, and rightly so, because it proves that they are totally irresponsible and unready for power.

6.31 pm

Next Section

Home Page