House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jun 1992

Column 394

is going on, but again and again when I ask questions I find that the facts about the situation in Northern Ireland are hidden. Last December, I asked about the award of compensation when terrorists had been shot dead or shot and injured by the security services. I was told :

"The available information is set out in the table below. It should be noted that this information, which is based on the date of settlement and not of the incident concerned, does not differentiate between terrorist' and non-terrorist' incidents".--[ Official Report , 12 December 1991 ; Vol. 200, c. 522 .]

How can the House be kept informed when we do not differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists when it comes to the compensation that is awarded, mostly in out-of-court settlements? If there is one issue on which I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North it is the issue that many of us consider to be the crux of the Northern Ireland security question--but I think that I agree with every hon. Member in the House on that issue. I believe that there must be de facto police primacy in Northern Ireland. It is not enough simply to believe in police primacy ; it must work in practice, and so far it has not done so.

I do not intend to go into the Nelson case, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did, or to rely on newspaper reports or television programmes. I followed the trial of Brian Nelson, however, and elements in it deeply disturbed my colleagues and me. Let me say clearly that, although my party wishes to give the security services wholehearted support, we do not intend to try to justify the unjustifiable. If we do that, we shall deliver the security services in their entirety as hostages to fortune : it would be self-defeating as well as morally wrong.

The police know exactly how far they can go within the law--and God knows, at times decisions are difficult ; mistakes have been made, and will be made again. They know how far they can go, because it is clearly laid down for them. For that reason, I believe that no aspect of security must be hidden from the police. The new deputy chief constable will have operational responsibility for all aspects of policing, and I look forward to seeing him get to grips with all the available intelligence and information, whether it is made available to the Army, MI5 or the police themselves. Someone will be accountable, and in that way we shall deprive the terrorist of one of his greatest weapons : the insinuation that the security services are involved in illegal activities.

A problem arises when Army units are brought into Northern Ireland for three-month roulement tours. I am not happy even with six-month roulement tours, but I know the difficulty of providing the necessary level of military manpower in Northern Ireland. As has already been mentioned tonight, an unfortunate situation recently developed in Coalisland, in my constituency. Soldiers behaved unwisely, but I do not believe that they were to blame : they had been brought in on a three-month roulement tour, without being given the proper training that should be available to everyone who serves in Northern Ireland. It would be wise to ensure that, in future, three-month roulement battalions are held at brigade reserve level and are not put on the streets where, without the proper briefing and knowing that they are in difficult areas, they tend to view the entire community as hostile.

That attitude is reciprocated. There are many decent people in Coalisland, but there is a strong IRA element

Column 395

within the community. We must not give those people the opportunity to exploit our weaknesses. Things have now settled down, and I hope that such an incident will not happen again. My party wholeheartedly supports the security services, but we cannot justify the unjustifiable.

My final point--

Mr. Mallon : Hear, hear.

Mr. Maginnis : Of course, Madam Chairman--

Mr. Mallon : Madam Speaker ; get that right at least.

Mr. Maginnis : Yes, Madam Speaker.

I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be relieved when I stop speaking, but he will have to spend a few minutes trying to avoid the issue of how we effectively deal with terrorism.

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

Mr. Maginnis : You will hear, Madam Speaker--

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

Mr. Maginnis : Given what the hon. Member--

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

Mr. Maginnis : --said from a sedentary position, I think that I am entitled to answer.

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

Mr. Maginnis : No, I will not.

Mr. Mallon : How can the hon. Gentleman accuse me of refusing to comment if he will not give way?

Mr. Maginnis : We shall hear many platitudes from the hon. Gentleman but little that is designed to help the situation in Northern Ireland or to show some understanding of the position in which our security forces find themselves.

I welcome the news that a commissioner will be given access to the holding centres. That will help to protect the police, who have a difficult job in those centres. I hope that the commissioner's brief will be very carefully thought out and explicitly defined. In the past five or six years, great improvements have been made in monitoring holding centres. More attention is now paid to the way in which notes are validated. That is an improvement compared with 10 or 15 years ago. There are now means of visually overseeing what goes on when suspects are being questioned.

Most sensible people will agree entirely with Lord Colville's decision that video-recordings should not be made. Without the present system of questioning, less intelligence would be given to the security services. Much good work is done in holding centres in a way that protects the person being questioned as well as the questioner. It would not matter what method was used to acquire the video recordings or to try to safeguard their use, there would come a time when a solicitor or barrister would be able to convince the court that it was in the interests of justice to see those recordings, and lives would be put in danger.

I hope that, although the commissioner will have the right to visit unannounced at any time, day or night, he will not have direct access to the room in which suspects

Column 396

are being questioned. I believe that he will have the right to watch and listen to what is shown on the video. In that way, he will be much more effective. The police will not know that he is there, so their behaviour will at all times have to be circumspect ; nor, of course, will the suspect know that the commissioner is there, so he will always have difficulty deciding how and when he should allege ill- treatment. Overall, meticulous care in the way in which the police carry out their duties is important--it is also important for their benefit.

The morale of the community depends on the legislation available to deal with terrorism. Many would think that the legislation is inadequate, but if we had the task, I do not think we could do much better. Legislation must be fair and must be accepted by the vast majority of the community if it is to work. I am concerned that the community does not have confidence in the legislation, and it is the direct responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office to reassure the community.

In 1984-85, 43 people died as a result of terrorism. In 1990-91, the last year for which I have figures, 82 people died. That is an increase of 90 per cent. since the period just before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. In 1985, 89 per cent. of murders were carried out by Republican terrorists and 11 per cent. by Loyalist terrorists. In 1990 the figure for Republican groups was 71 per cent. and for Loyalist groups it had risen to 29 per cent. Again, I believe that that was due to the lack of morale in the Loyalist community. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the need to raise the morale of the community through the passing of honest and reliable information to the community and to the House. That is a prerequisite for success against terrorists in the community.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker : Order. I must inform the House that, unless speeches are curtailed on a voluntary basis, I shall not be able to call all hon. Members who wish to speak.

9.54 pm

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : A sense of de ja vu descends over relatively seasoned debaters of this issue, and rehearsed arguments are given a further hearing. My position is unequivocal and unambiguous : I deeply lament and regret the circumstances which have led to the measures but, given those circumstances, I regard the measures as absolutely essential and look forward to their being approved tonight.

I wish to be selective and return the debate to Lord Colville's report. In his opening remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State drew attention to the summary statement on page 2 of Lord Colville's report, which says :

"The new Act, and new arrangements in it, seem to have been introduced and have since been operated without any appreciable adverse reaction. I do not recommend the suspension of any of its provisions."

That makes good reading, but some points are worthy of attention and debate.

I was particularly interested in Lord Colville's comments on one of the new sections in the Act, section 30, and the provisions regarding the possession of items intended for terrorist purposes. The origins of that measure lie in Lord Colville's report of 1990 on the emergency provisions legislation. Lord Colville acknowledges that it is early days yet and says that, so far, there

Column 397

have been no convictions. At the time of his writing, three people were on remand. None the less, he points to that item as being a valuable weapon in the armoury against terrorism and already sees signs of its having a deterrent effect. That is encouraging and we can look forward, next year or whenever we next review the matter, to seeing further evidence of the progress of that part of the measure. The second subject to which I wish to refer is the obtaining of confessions, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred in his opening comments. Lord Colville's 1992 review seems to show that he is happy with what he has found. He concludes on page 10 :

"Certainly nothing has happened to throw doubt on the wisdom of having re- enacted section 11 this time last year".

On page 14, he writes :

"I cannot accordingly recommend that there is any material which should now lead to a relaxation of the section 11 rule. If anything terrorists are becoming more adept at resisting interrogation". Notwithstanding Lord Colville's comments, it is right that we still question why there is a divergence with regard to the admissibility in evidence of statements between EPA and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I have not yet been reassured that sufficient grounds exist for that divergence. I note that Lord Colville's paper refers to hostile assessments of the situation in Northern Ireland in the light of that section.

Another area of concern is complaints about ill treatment at holding centres--pages 24 to 38 in the report. By any criteria of judgment, the catalogue that Lord Colville describes makes uneasy reading. In his report on the prevention of terrorism legislation in March last year, he spoke of his growing concern about complaints of ill treatment at holding centres. Page 25 of the report says : "I suggest that something needs urgently to be done."

His 11-point description of a typical course of events makes profoundly disturbing reading. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, in summing up the debate, note that we want to eliminate the running sore of disquiet on those matters?

Having said that, I warmly welcome the measures and sincerely hope that they will meet with the approval of the House tonight. 9.59 pm

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : This is one of the most depressing debates in the House, for the good reason that there is a certain amount of ritual about it. That ritual repeats itself because the problem and its supposed solution keep being repeated ad infinitum.

If we had the honesty to admit reality, it is that there is no solution to be found through this type of legislation. That is not to say that there is not a need for legislation that copes with terrorists. From listening to tonight's debate, one would almost assume that the order will solve the problems. I regret it, but in two, five, 10 or 20 years' time, exactly the same problems will be faced by those dealing with the legislation and exactly the same points and comments will be made, if we do not have the honesty to question the basis of the legislation--that it provides the power to find a solution. I do not believe that that is possible. To stop this ritualistic dance, I ask of us all not to repeat what we have said ad infinitum. That is what we are doing.

The Government, whatever their structure, will defend the legislation with great self-righteousness. They will

Column 398

score political points over the Opposition. The Opposition, whatever their complexion, will oppose because they are the Opposition. The Northern Ireland Members who are here from all parties will range over various factors, from angel dust, through people getting their big toe broken and a compensation claim, to the human tragedies that face us all. If we do not face up to the facts, that kind of black theatre will continue. Sooner or later, a Member on the Government Benches, whoever the Government are, will have the courage to ask : is this not becoming a ritual, is there not another way, are we not at the end of history and at the beginning of the future, and is there not a way other than continuing as we are doing?

What are we doing? Each time the legislation is debated, the law is diluted further. That is not a political point ; it is a fact. We have more troops to guard those who are building the border checkpoints, about which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke at great length. A British Army brigadier told us publicly that it took one brigade to guard those who were building the look-out post at Annaghmartin. While that was happening, the Irish army was across the border guarding the brigade that was guarding those who were building the checkpoint. I call it black theatre and that example starts to put it into perspective. We now have more technology on the hillsides and look-out posts that see nothing. We have look-out posts that cannot see when terrorists are sitting in front of them making and planting bombs. Those look-out posts are causing anxiety about possible radiation, but the one thing that they cannot do is see. We have more dubious tactics. Could anyone on this side of the Irish sea have watched the "Panorama" programme without feeling slightly ashamed, embarrassed and squeamish about the allegations? I am not in a position to know whether or not they are true, but I do know that the men who made that programme took more than a year to make it, and they were so thorough in their research that I believe that we should at least look at it seriously.

Of course we shall have more checkpoints of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It is thought good to have these great checkpoints--it keeps people happy. If I happened to live in Britain and if my son were one of the young soldiers blown to bits in one of those static checkpoints, there just to reassure people or keep them happy, I should be a very angry man indeed. Two young men have been blown to bits in my constituency, in a checkpoint which I believe serves no security purpose whatever.

Unless we face reality, and unless some of us start having the courage to question things which we have accepted, or which have been accepted, for so long, we shall have more self-perpetuating failure. It could be the beginning of the future if we had a little bit of courage. If not, we shall come back year after year, for however many years it is, and we shall all be saying the same things.

It is interesting reading the reports in Hansard . One could almost have written in advance most of the speeches that have been made tonight--the reference to angel dust being the honourable exception. In reality, there is nothing more for the Minister to say. He cannot take away from the legislation ; he adds a little each time. There is little more that any of us can say. We can only try to ask for a change of thinking on the subject. We must ask ourselves

Column 399

the fundamental question : is the legislation capable of succeeding and of solving the problem? If it is not, the Government should think again.

I take this opportunity--it may cause me problems--to say to the IRA that it cannot win with this campaign of violence. There can be no military victory for the IRA, and I say to it unequivocally, "Stop now, without any discussion, because what you are doing is wrong." I say to the Government that they cannot win either. There can be no military victory for this Government or for any other Government in circumstances such as this. So I say to the Government, too, "Stop. Think. Reassess the situation and see whether you are going down the wrong road". Is there not another way of proceeding, which will not cost the British taxpayer £2.5 billion a year--money which, by and large, goes down the tubes in a wholly unproductive way--and which will not cost lives, scar the countryside with look-out posts, closed border roads, checkpoints in the hills or whatever? They should ask themselves whether there is another approach to the problem. It is time that some of us started to tell the IRA and the others involved in the search for a military solution--and that is the Government- -that our peace, lives and future happen to be more important that their prejudice or principles. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than to be locked into military combat between two sides, neither of which can win. It is time that there was some thinking on that. I know that that view will not be accepted readily--of course it will not--but it is time that someone started asking some questions.

Much has been made of the "Panorama" programme, and I shall not labour the point. I merely ask what sort of system it is which, after 20 years and with all the legislation that is in place, must rely on the dubious tactics whose use was alleged on that programme. In a previous renewal debate, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), said :

"we shall continue to work unreservedly for the defeat of terrorism with all the means at our disposal that are compatible with the letter and spirit of the rule of law." [ Official Report, 12 March 1990, Vol. 169, c. 32.]

Would any objective person watching that "Panorama" programme accept that that was compatible in any way with the spirit and letter of the rule of law? I make no judgment about that programme. However, if a reputable programme with the investigative powers of "Panorama" makes so many allegations, it is not doing that without information or with faulty information.

It is clear from the transcript taken in a court of law that Colonel J was, in his own words, in many ways colluding with murder and ignoring it. If that is the case, we had better sit up and end the self-righteousness that is injected into this kind of debate. We should ask ourselves what kind of society is being left for us in the north of Ireland.

Yes, we have our problems. We have enough of them and we do not need any more. We do not need that can of worms every two, three or five years. That is not compatible with the rule of law.

Perhaps the most serious point is the allegation that Colonel J and FRU knew that arms were to be shipped into the north of Ireland from South Africa, but they did not intercept them. Those arms were used to kill the lady

Column 400

from the chemist's shop, the people in the betting shop on the Ormeau road and God knows how many other people. If that is so--and it must be the Government's responsibility to discover whether it is true--Colonel J should be in the dock to answer for collusion and involvement in murder. As a former Prime Minister once said, "Murder is murder is murder." There cannot be any conditions on it. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will take that on board and ensure that we do not have such a legacy in Northern Ireland.

I want to make a few points about the Colville report. Lord Colville is always complimented when he produces his report. I have tried to understand the mind of Lord Colville in his most recent report. Normally his reports are very objective and impartial. As a lawyer, he has been able to deal with the problems from a distance and to assess them.

About 14 pages of Lord Colville's report rubbish the right of a person to make a claim of ill-treatment while in custody. I am not naive enough to think that people do not make spurious claims. However, I believe that there are enough problems to be dealt with in Northern Ireland and there should not be 14 pages of highly partial and pejorative terms like "dubious purposes." The report states : "even unmeritorious claims can bring acquittal or substantial tax-free cash sums, or both, to those who do not deserve it." That is in regard to court decisions or decisions to settle out of court. Not only does the report pour scorn on those who make claims ; it pours scorn on the legal process itself.

The report also states :

"The system can so seriously be exploited that it serves as an encouragement to false accusations."

Are we saying, or is Lord Colville implying as some previous speakers have implied, that the people of the north of Ireland do not have any integrity whatever? As a person from the north of Ireland, I resent that.

The final insulting paragraph of the report states :

"Considering the allegiance of some of those who exploit the system it is not fanciful to suppose that terrorist organisations take at least part of the damages awarded, so that they are being financed directly at the taxpayers' expense."

The report continues :

"That harsh catalogue deserves intricate analysis of which I will attempt to sketch the outlines."

It does not, with respect. It demands proof that that happens. It demands hard facts in at least one case to back it up. Is it there? Lord Colville is a lawyer, someone who has been preparing his report for a number of years. There is not one scrap of evidence--nothing which is not hypothetical. There is nothing to suggest that the points that he makes in the first 14 pages have any great relevance to the problem. That is most disappointing indeed. That brings his position into question. That section of the report certainly seems to be an apologia for the legislation rather than a critical analysis of it. Surely a person who is engaged to do that task must provide evidence if he draws such fundamental conclusions. He has not done so.

Lord Colville then concludes by making three recommendations which disturb me. The first one is that a log of everything be kept so that

"the slightest incident is noted lest it should turn into a complaint by way of pre-empting any later claim of abuse." That reminds me of a statement by Willie John McBride when he was captain of the British Lions when they went to play New Zealand. His instruction was, "Get

Column 401

your retaliation in first, lads." The report smacks of that, and that cannot be good for the legislation or the consideration of it. If we are to advise people to pre-empt any claims of abuse, what will happen to that log? How would one deal with the incident at Coalisland? Have we a log on that, as Lord Colville tells us? If he is right, it surely is written in the log book of some of those soldiers. Then they will tell us why they acted unwisely, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said, when they went into a bar, shot three people and destroyed the bar. That is a fact. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us about that. There was a photograph of the incident in Derry. Was that in a log? If we are not going to be honest about these matters, we will merely conduct a charade, and that must be challenged.

Some of Lord Colville's other points should also be challenged. They are that a number of claims are spurious because they are not backed up by complaints to the Police Complaints Commission. He is implying that, in effect, the way to deal with that is to ensure that anybody who makes a civil claim for compensation should be required to make a formal complaint so that one version may be compared with the other.

A person in my constituency made a complaint to the Police Complaints Commission. He was subsequently charged with an offence by the RUC. His evidence to the Police Complaints Commission was used against him in court by the police. How did the police get that evidence from the Police Complaints Commission? Is that ethical? Is that professionally correct? People would be very concerned if that approach were taken. I shall give the person's name to the Minister of State so that he can inquire into the matter. I have the name, the time and the place. That is something into which Lord Colville should inquire, but he comes out with recommendations that simply do not measure up.

Much was made about checkpoints. I believe that checkpoints are a death trap for those who have to man them. The Minister and the Secretary of State know my views, so I shall not labour them. But at a time when frontier posts are coming down all over Europe, when Europe is beginning to integrate and when other countries are moving away from the history and the problems, we are building more frontier posts and more edifices on the border. Instead of letting in a breath of fresh air, we are entering the siege mentality that has been shown throughout the debate tonight.

We should examine the ethos of the legislation closely, not least where it refers to terrorist financing. There was a massive operation not so long ago, mainly in my constituency. I am told that it involved 1,000 soldiers and policemen and that it was remarkably successful. I am not sure that any charges have been brought as yet. I do not know whether any charges will be brought. I do not know whether any charges will centre on some people involved in terrorism.

However, ordinary decent people in Newry, south Down and south Armagh were subjected to that operation who have no connection with terrorism. We were worried when it was trumpeted from the Northern Ireland Office in the media that the operation was the final body blow to the IRA in that area. It was not very efficient. I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that the next time it is efficient.

Column 402

One gentleman, whose name I shall give to the Minister, had his house raided. His life insurance policies were taken away. Photocopies of the policies were sent back. That is against the legislation in any case. Photocopied life insurance policies are no use to anyone because they are not accepted. Of course, at the end of the day, it was the wrong man and the wrong house anyhow. But still his life insurance policies have not been returned.

In another case, a highly respected accountant was searched. Even though the warrant identified the files that were to be taken, every other file in not only his house but that of his mother-in-law and his partner was scrutinised. In a third case, a person had his house identified as that belonging to another person of the same name. He was subjected to the same type of approach.

What does that do in a place such as south Armagh? What attitude does it leave among ordinary, decent people? It leaves them with the impression that when it comes to the operation of the legislation, they come a poor third and their position is not given much consideration. I know that the Minister of State thinks that it is funny, but I happen to believe that every individual has a right to respect for his or her position and his or her rights.

If an individual breaks the law, society has the right to subject that person to the rigours of the law through a proper court system. But the longer that legislation such as we are considering tonight remains, the more we postpone the day when we can set about solving the problems and the greater legacy of distrust and lack of confidence in the law the Government will leave in my country. It is time that they started to face up to that.

10.23 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : Madam Speaker, although for reasons that you will readily understand it seems rather a long time ago, I recall that the elegance of the language used by the Secretary of State in introducing the debate did nothing to conceal the horror of the catalogue of death and destruction of which he spoke. Indeed, if anything, the dispassionate account that he gave underlined the unspeakable nature of the behaviour which he described as a justification for the renewal of the order.

I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the appointment of an independent commissioner and an independent assessor. He will understand that we will want to know the terms of the appointments, and the competence that attaches to them. I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about his attempts to reduce the time suspects spend on remand. The whole House welcomes the efforts that he will put into that. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not close his mind entirely to the possibility of a statutory scheme. Already within the United Kingdom there is one jurisdiction in which a statutory scheme operates with great success, although I do not pretend for one moment that a statutory scheme such as that in Scotland could be brought into existence by the mere passage of a piece of legislation.

If there is a Division, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the order. We shall do so not with any great enthusiasm but because we view it as a regrettable necessity. We shall vote for the order with considerable reservations--not least because it is our

Column 403

profound belief that the rights, protections, and civil liberties of all United Kingdom citizens should be the same wherever they live.

Only in the most unusual circumstances can there be any justification for departing from those principles. It is my sad conclusion again this year that such circumstances still obtain in Northern Ireland and justify renewal of the order. That circumstances exist to justify such draconian powers as those that it contains must be a matter of profound regret to us all.

We must not maintain those powers for an instant longer than necessary. We should tolerate them grudgingly, and work to withdraw them at the earliest possible date. Such powers should never be embraced enthusiastically, for they represent a serious incursion into the rights which citizens of the United Kingdom are entitled to expect, and which we look for in all civilised systems of government.

Why do I believe that the powers are justified and that the order should be renewed? It can only be because the cancer of terrorism still stands at the heart of life in Northern Ireland. It can only be because I believe that the powers provide a means of containing that cancer. It is my profound belief that we delude ourselves if we think that more and more stringent powers, or even the more stringent exercise of powers already available, will bring peace and tranquillity to the Province.

So long as the legislation is seen to be strictly necessary, it will be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, but if abuses occur or if the powers are too wide the legislation will become counter-productive and public confidence will be dissipated. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I am sorry that he is not in his place, although he has been present throughout the debate. I hope that I do not do him an injustice, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if there is a Division he and his party will be unable to vote for the continuance of the order--I see that the hon. Gentleman has returned to his place--because of their resistance to the power of internment.

I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to challenge the necessity for the other powers in the order. I share his repugnance for the existence of the power of internment, but not his conclusion. If circumstances justify the existence of the other powers, is it adequate to deny those powers to the security forces because of the existence of a power that is not being exercised? That is a question of judgment, but if the hon. Gentleman does not challenge the need for the order's powers, save for that of internment, surely he ought to consider carefully whether he is not dealing the security forces a hand that they will find extremely difficult to play.

There are some who argue for the use of the internment power--curiously, the debate has been notable for an absence of reference to that--and I do not doubt the sincerity of their belief, but I am equally sincere in my belief that its use would be counter-productive. Its use would result in the alienation of communities and create an atmosphere of desperation. It would be a signal of impotence in the face of terrorism.

When the Diplock courts were established on the recommendation of Lord Diplock, I cannot imagine that

Column 404

they were ever seen as more than a short- term measure. Is it not time to reconsider whether trial by jury should be available in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the kingdom, unless it can be shown that good cause exists for not allowing that right? Should not the onus rest on the prosecution in Northern Ireland to show good cause why a man or woman should not have his or her guilt or innocence determined by a jury?

I understand the security implications of video taping the interviewing of suspects. I am disappointed, however, that the Government do not show a willingness at least to experiment to see if such recordings could not be made without prejudice to the interests of state or security. Surely such recordings would reduce the scope for the denial of confessions subsequently or for unfounded attacks on police methods. Their use might have consequences in terms of combating more easily false claims made against the police. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind on this, because in my judgment the video recording of what transpires between police and suspect would be more likely--it is a question of balance--to serve the interests of justice than the fact that such recording is not available now.

I can say as much from my professional experience as from anything else that it is the nature of the transaction between the suspect and the police which frequently allows someone accused of a crime a peg upon which to hang a defence which would not otherwise be available. I hope that what has been said about the video recording of such interviews will be seriously considered by the Government. One does not use the word conversion easily in respect of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) lest it be thought to imply anything other than the stern Calvinism or Protestantism of which he is a robust proponent. However, his conversion to the idea that the use of such recordings should be considered reflects a great change of opinion on his part. I hope that I do not do the hon. Gentleman an injustice, and I hope that the Government will keep an open mind on the topic.

The order offers no long-term solution. The best hope for that lies in the talks that the Secretary of State has instituted. It is right and proper that they should not form any part of our discussions tonight. I am not party to those talks, but those engaged in them should understand that the people of the United Kingdom earnestly hope for a successful outcome. They are too worldly and too used to violence in Northern Ireland to believe that a solution is likely to be at hand immediately, but those engaged in the talks should calculate how much good will would result from progress in those talks. They should consider the extent to which the sustained progress and political stability created by such a successful outcome might make orders such as the one that we are debating superfluous. It is too much to hope that we are debating such an order for the last time, but is it too much to hope that that day will not for ever be postponed?

10.34 pm

Next Section

Home Page