Previous Section Home Page

Column 156

begun to reach their first deadline. A more satisfactory assessment will be possible in the light of a full year's operation of the scheme. Then we shall be able to address Lord Colville's proposal for a new scheme of time limits, statutory or otherwise, to cover all those on remand in custody for indictable offences. That is an important factor.

That, we think will be the time to decide whether the existing section 8, which many would see as too constricting, should be allowed to lapse. We are in the meantime prolonging the existing scheme. Lord Colville recommended that the scheme be extended to cover soldiers or policemen released into military or police custody on bail under section 3(6) of the Act. I can now announce to the House that the scheme has already been so extended.

Lord Colville also brings out the serious delays that may occur after arraignment. The Lord Chancellor has been very conscious of this problem, and his recent appointment of a further High Court judge reflects this concern.

The powers of arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act have continued to play a vital part in bringing dangerous criminals to justice. They have also been the focus of criticism. Some of it has been entirely disinterested, but some less so, perhaps because of the holding centres' vital role.

The Government have, however, paid careful attention to all the criticism. Accordingly, since the last debate I have appointed Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC as independent commissioner to monitor conditions and procedures in the holding centres. He is fulfilling this function with a will and is completely independent. He has been making unannounced visits, and he is likely to publish his first annual report in December. I suggest we wait to see what it contains.

Additionally, I am about to lay draft codes to cover the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the PTA. These will be based closely on the existing codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I hope to see them in operation during the autumn.

These two initiatives should go a long way towards reassuring people about the operation of the holding centres.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : The Secretary of State has referred many times to the report of Lord Colville. On holding centres, has the right hon. Gentleman any comments to make on Lord Colville's comments about complaints made by people who are arrested under the EPA and the PTA and held in such centres ? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should refer the House to the figures collected by Lord Colville, because they are extremely interesting and speak for themselves.

In 1992, not a single one out of 395 official complaints made by people held under emergency legislation was sustained. Are the police in the north of Ireland, or anywhere else on this earth, as lily-white and squeaky-clean as that? The Secretary of State should bear that in mind and possibly do us the courtesy of reading out what Lord Colville said about a police complaints commission that is not working properly.


Column 157

Sir Patrick Mayhew : The hon. Gentleman invites me to do the House the courtesy of reading out a report which should, of course, be required reading for anyone taking part in the debate. I do not doubt that it has been well studied. I shall, of course, deal in a moment with what Lord Colville said about the police complaints commission and the way in which complaints are dealt with.

I should like, first, to talk about video recording, a matter of considerable importance, interest and controversy. Lord Colville suggests that we reconsider the possibility of the video recording of interviews to supplement the existing arrangements involving the use of closed circuit television.

I have often discussed this with the Chief Constable in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, where terrorists, as the whole House probably recognises, are under strict instructions from their organisations not to co-operate with the authorities in any way at all. It is the Chief Constable's firm view that such a move to video recording would inhibit still further the chances of lawfully getting information to secure convictions and protect life. The keeping of a permanent record of interviews, with the fears of disclosure that it would engender in the minds of those interviewed, is seen by the Chief Constable as likely to tilt the balance too far in favour of the terrorist organisation. It would, he believes, put at risk those who might otherwise have felt willing to co- operate with police investigations.

All the same, in the light of the strength with which Lord Colville expresses his recommendation for a reconsideration of this issue, I have invited Sir Hugh Annesley to set out for my benefit his considered assessment of its merit. For my part, it is fair to say that I am not currently persuaded that the introduction of video recording would be in the overall interests of justice.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : Does the Secretary of State agree that the major inhibiting factor is the question in the mind of an accused person that he has no control over the possible publication, at some future date, of the evidence which he has given?

Sir Patrick Mayhew : That is the single most important point on that side of the argument. There is a fear that procedures of disclosure or discovery in other criminal or civil proceedings, which may have been brought into existence for that very purpose, may lead to the tape being reported. That is in people's minds.

I shall not leave the subject of the holding centres without mentioning Lord Colville's comments on alleged intimidation of defence lawyers. I warmly endorse his conclusions. If such intimidation takes place--and without particulars I cannot know whether a single case is proved--it must cease immediately. Those who claim to have evidence should, as Lord Colville says, put it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a form capable of investigation. If they feel unable to do that, I believe that they should desist from allegations that they are not prepared to substantiate, but which have the effect of undermining confidence in a vital part of the criminal justice system.

The RUC, supported by the Army, is there to serve the entire community. It is right, therefore, that there should be avenues of complaint open to those who feel that they have been badly treated by any member of the security forces.


Column 158

The Independent Commission for Police Complaints has been established to oversee complaints against the police. Since our previous debate, I have appointed Mr. David Hewitt as the independent assessor under section 60 of the Act to keep under review the operation of the Army complaints procedures. He, like Sir Louis Blom- Cooper, is entirely independent of Government and is required to publish an annual report which will be laid before the House. His first report is expected around the end of this year.

No complaints resolution system can ever be perfect in the sense of getting to the truth in every case. We shall continue to look at ways of improving the systems in use in Northern Ireland, but I believe that our systems are as accessible and thorough as any in the world. Only a small group of progressive nations at present provide for civilian oversight of police investigation into complaints. The work of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints is

internationally recognised as providing independence without compromising the effectiveness of investigations, and I am grateful to it.

Lord Colville alludes to the Home Secretary's proposals for reform of police disciplinary systems. I shall shortly be asking for comments on whether those proposals would be appropriate for applications in Northern Ireland. That is relevant to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Mr. John Hume (Foyle) : We are discussing confidence in the security forces and the Government. The Secretary of State is no doubt aware of the Nelson case. Mr. Nelson was a member of the intelligence services of the Government, he joined a paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland, was found guilty of murder and was, at the time, involved in the importation of arms from South Africa with which people are currently being killed, including some of the cases listed today--that is all public knowledge. Does not the Secretary of State think that, in the interests of the confidence of the community, there is a grave need for an independent public inquiry into what has become known as the Nelson affair?

Sir Patrick Mayhew : The same issue was raised when we had a debate last year on 10 June. Mr. Nelson pleaded guilty to--I think--five counts of conspiracy to murder, not to murder. After criminal proceedings, he was sentenced to many sentences of 10 years imprisonment, which he is now serving. I believe that that has sufficiently disposed of the matter according to the processes of law.

I am grateful to Lord Colville for the attention that he has given in his report to the Government's innovative response to the challenge represented by terrorist fund raising. We agree with him that that is a most important aspect of the Government's programme for the defeat of terrorism, and one which affords significant opportunities. Terrorist racketeering has become a dangerously entrenched evil, and we are determined to overcome it.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : Has the Secretary of State been able to make any progress in the vital sphere of cutting the funding--the lifeline on which terrorist organisations rely to carry on with their activities? Have there been any successful prosecutions of any of the groups involved? Have any of the assets of those involved been confiscated?


Column 159

Sir Patrick Mayhew : I am just about to come to that subject. I do not prosecute those people : they are prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, who is completely independent. But I am about to mention the terrorist finance unit that we have put in place, and the legislation that we have introduced.

The provisions in both the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Provisions Act are being further enhanced by the Criminal Justice Bill, now in Committee. In particular, the Bill will make it harder for terrorists to launder and manipulate the funds that they need to carry out their acts of violence, and the proceeds of the crimes they use to raise those funds.

I can understand why Lord Colville proposes consolidating the body of anti- racketeering legislation into a single Act, which is something I shall be considering further. I also share the implicit impatience of Lord Colville and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for those provisions to be seen to bear fruit in criminal proceedings. I do know, however, of the meticulous care that is needed in the preparation of such cases.

Meanwhile, the initiatives are beginning to pay dividends, although it is widely recognised that racketeering is such a deep-rooted and endemic problem that it cannot be solved quickly. We recognise the significant opportunities that exist for further action in that sphere. We agree with Lord Colville that the focused effort by the RUC and others to curtail all forms of terrorist fund raising should continue to enjoy a high priority in the allocation of resources. In order to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary, we have set in place a special terrorist finance unit, and there is a special division within the RUC--C1(3)--consisting of people with specialist knowledge and experience whose work is dedicated to uncovering and stopping that source of funds for the terrorist organisations.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : I apologise for stressing the point, but does not the fact that no convictions with regard to the confiscation of terrorist funds have occurred in two years suggest that the measures are insufficient? That seems to show that much more must be done in this vital area.

Sir Patrick Mayhew : As I have told my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, we keep the issue under review, and we believe that there are ways in which the law can perhaps further be improved. But people are versatile in their critical faculties. If one takes a case before it is fully investigated--as my hon. Friend knows, these are complex and difficult cases--and it fails through insufficient investigation, one gets stick for that. If, on the other hand, one takes a considerable time to make use of new legislation before starting proceedings--and there can be no convictions before proceedings are started --there is natural impatience. That must be borne philosophically by those who carry responsibility for such issues.

It is an essential part of the Emergency Provisions Act that, wherever practicable and fair, compensation should be paid to individuals who have suffered loss or damage to, or interference with, their private rights of property as a result of the security forces carrying out their duties under the Act. Large sums of money are paid out in that way, and all those concerned are eligible, even those who may


Column 160

have connections with proscribed organisations. I want to see whether that aspect of public expenditure would benefit from closer auditing.

Lord Colville makes some further recommendations in that area--notably, that there should be a means of compensation for those whose businesses are affected by the security forces, for example, having to close off a road on a sensitive interface or to give better protection for a vulnerable facility. I sympathise with those who are affected. I shall see whether it is possible to devise and implement a fair and practicable scheme which would help them, but that cannot be done quickly.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : I wish to link the two matters about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken--those of racketeering and compensation. I have written several times to the Minister responsible for security in Northern Ireland about the fact that many people have been prepared to give evidence to the security forces and to stand by that evidence in the courts to show that extortion has taken place.

But those people immediately come under threat from terrorist organisations, as a result of which they have to close down their businesses, move home and often leave the Province altogether. They lose substantially in financial terms, but under existing legislation they cannot be compensated. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is consolidating legislation in relation to racketeering and extortion, will he include a provision that permits compensation in those cases?

Sir Patrick Mayhew : I have strong sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is a painful and important dilemma. I have taken note of his remarks and will bear them in mind.

I have nearly concluded my speech. I apologise for having taken so long, but I have given way quite a lot. Our approach to Lord Colville's recommendations illustrates our intention, and that of the RUC and the Army, that the powers contained in the Act shall be operated firmly but with the maximum sensitivity. In the process of eliminating terrorism, many difficult decisions must be taken, and an accurate analysis must be made in each case.

Where security measures react against the amenities and convenience of the public--as they often do--the circumstances always have one thing in common. They are the result of activities waged by small and unrepresentative minorities of the people of Northern Ireland, and they reflect our desire to see this pestilence got rid of once and for all.

It is our primary aim to secure the elimination of terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland need to have confidence not only in the fairness, impartiality and sensitivity of our security policy and of the actions of the security forces--all those things are important--but in their effectiveness for dealing with the men of violence. There will be no yielding to the terrorists. All the options open to a civilised state need to be available for use against them. They are available, and we intend them to continue to be available. Resolution and judgment must go hand in hand as the task of eliminating terrorism is carried forward, until the powers contained in the Act will no longer be needed. Meanwhile, and in the hope that this year the Labour party will do its duty, I commend the order warmly to the House.


Column 161

4.24 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) : I require no lessons in my duty from the Secretary of State, who refused to prosecute policemen accused of perverting the course of justice. I join him, however, in passing on our goodwill and appreciation to Lord Colville for the work that he has done over the years to examine the operation of both these Acts. He has shown great diligence, and he has always respected the confidence of people from many different walks of life who have told him of their experience of and attitudes towards the Acts. He has meticulously approached the detail rather than the generality of statements made about the legislation. We applaud what he has done and regret that he feels it necessary to go on to fresh pastures.

It is unfortunate that so many of the important recommendations that Lord Colville made to improve the legislation have not been accepted by the Government.

The Opposition strongly support all that the Government have done in the area of terrorist financing. However, we believe with Lord Colville--we welcome what the Secretary of State said about this--that all this legislation should be consolidated. The laundering of terrorist money or of Mafia money or of other criminally gained money should come under the general criminal law of the land in a Criminal Justice Act, and should be subject to permanent legislation, not to emergency powers Acts or prevention of terrorism Acts. The principles and issues at stake are much the same, no matter who commits the crimes or attempts to launder the money.

I share the keeness expressed by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that the legislation should have early results in the courts. I also appreciate the Secretary of State's point about the difficulties of ensuring that cases are cast iron before they are brought before the judges. A number of City fraud cases have fallen because of a failure to provide the court with precise and direct evidence in a manner that will convince a judge that the case should go to a jury, or in a manner to enable a jury to reach a proper conclusion.

Turning to more contentious matters, I must point out that these annual renewal orders have unfortunately become a tradition in the House. Emergency powers originally granted as temporary measures have now existed for more than 20 years. This year, there have already been depressingly high levels of injuries, deaths and destruction in Northern Ireland--the Secretary of State read out a sad and moving catalogue. All communities have been affected by the activities of paramilitaries--loyalist and republican. We must all emphasise that there would be no justification for any emergency legislation were these groups to renounce violence and stop the killing.

This debate is an important opportunity to consider the security system in Northern Ireland. We have heard what the Secretary of State regards as new initiatives, some of which we regard as rather tame. Like the Secretary of State, I wish to take this opportunity to extend the Opposition's support and to commend the work of the security forces, the prison service and the judiciary in seeking to uphold impartially the rule of law, often in demanding and dangerous circumstances. We also welcome--as did the Secretary of State--the continued high level of co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary,


Column 162

and the Republic's decision to close loopholes in the extradition law, although we believe that both Governments are still making insufficient use of their respective criminal law jurisdiction Acts. Those Acts are the last remnant of the Sunningdale agreements that we have.

Although Labour recognises that there may well be a need for emergency powers to deal with the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, we nevertheless cannot support the order while the power of internment remains on the statute book and while the Government still refuse to accept so many of Lord Colville's recommendations. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 has granted the security forces considerable latitude ; it has stretched the boundaries of the law almost beyond the limits of what should be acceptable in a democracy. The power of internment represents an infringement of such basic civil rights that its retention on the statute book is utterly unacceptable to the Labour party. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that he would to come before Parliament to reintroduce the power ; it is true that he would have to lay an order before the House, but the internment would already have taken place. Otherwise, what would be the point of giving notice of it to the people ? The Secretary of State knows that his argument is specious.

The power of the executive to imprison without charge--let alone trial-- undermines the very basis of any free society, and thus can serve only to strengthen the paramilitaries. Such a power should have no place in a democratic society : it represents a defeat for the principle of the rule of law, and therefore a victory for the terrorists. Sir George Baker, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Government's own adviser, Lord Colville, have all called for an end to this power. We call on the Government again to heed the advice that those people considered it their duty to provide, and to put an end to the constant speculation that occurs after each terrible terrorist outrage over whether the Government should reintroduce internment. Such speculation simply plays into the hands of the paramilitaries ; it increases apprehension in the community, and raises the levels of violence and alienation. The impartial enforcement of the rule of law is particularly vital in Northern Ireland. Lack of confidence in the security forces and the justice system has only added to the sense of alienation that is felt by many in the region. Although the majority of members of the security forces maintain extremely high standards, there are still persistent reports that some are abusing their authority. That small minority is damaging both the reputation of the security forces in the communities that they police, and Britain's reputation abroad--as, sadly, I observed last week.

The Labour party is particularly concerned about allegations that suspects continue to face intimidation and harassment at holding centres. We recognise that the Government have attempted to address the problem with an independent commissioner for holding centres, but the appointment of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper to that post does not end the need for a lay visitors scheme, as recommended by the independent police authority. We hope that Sir Louis will consider an extension of the scheme.

The appointment does not go nearly far enough to allay fears of possible abuses at holding centres. The allegations that have been made only add to people's disillusionment


Column 163

with Britain's justice system. Proper safeguards need to be introduced so that confidence in the security forces can be restored, and police officers can be properly protected against false accusations.

We have long believed that a major safeguard would be the introduction of video taping of interrogations. In his report, Lord Colville again called for the introduction of video taping in interrogation centres, stating :

"Recording of the CCTV signal would do much to save precious manpower time, public money, the reputation of the RUC and, internationally of the UK. I urge the Government to re-examine the case for video-recording."

The Secretary of State's reply to that recommendation was rather strange. He cited the reasons given by the Chief Constable why we should not have TV recording. He said that he was not convinced that we should have television recording, but he is now asking for a report from the man who says that we should not have television recording so that he can judge the merits of the argument again. That makes no sense and is typical of why there is such despair in many quarters about the Government's attitude to some of these problems.

Mr. Maginnis : Does the hon. Gentleman understand my frustration, as someone who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, as I listen to him articulate the case for the protection of the suspect to the exclusion of the interests of the innocent people in Northern Ireland? If he is against such measures as internment and wants video taping, he is entitled to put the arguments, but is it not ridiculous that at present the suspect has total freedom not to co-operate? If a suspect is thought to be drunk in charge, guilty of tax fraud or if he is a bankrupt, he has to co-operate. If he is caught with a rifle and a mask in a car, he does not have to co- operate and, moreover, the police have to prove that he has that material with intent to commit a terrorist crime. Where is the justice for the law- abiding community and the security service?

Mr. McNamara : The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee with me when we considered the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. He will know that one clause deals with the issue of going ready to commit a terrorist act. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point about carrying a rifle and balaclava would not apply. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is a duty to protect the reputation of the RUC throughout this country and the world.

Mr. Maginnis : The hon. Gentleman has never done that.

Mr. McNamara : That sort of comment, which the hon. Gentleman has made about many people on different occasions, is not worthy of him. Like every hon. Member, of whatever party and political persuasion, I support the security forces of this country in Northern Ireland in the impartial upholding of the rule of law. I do so absolutely and without qualification. However, I do not support them in partially upholding the rule of law.

Mr. Mallon : On the issue of going equipped to commit a crime, the key point is that the intention to commit a terrorist crime does not have to be proven. The issue is simply being caught with such materials, whatever they may be, away from one's ab9 T


Column 164

Namara : My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) puts the point more succinctly than I did.

Rather than merely asking for another report from the Chief Constable, the Government should at least introduce video taping for a trial period within Northern Ireland. We also believe that the Government should go further and introduce audio taping of interrogations. If there were any possibility in those circumstances of sensitive intelligence material being released, an application could be made to a judge in chambers for sensitive material not to be produced for the defence. Equally, such material could not be used in prosecuting that case. Therefore, it would be possible to introduce proper protection of video and audio recording in Northern Ireland. Both those reforms would strengthen the position of the security forces and weaken the terrorist's ability to challenge the validity of confession evidence.

The Secretary of State mentioned access to legal representation as a fundamental safeguard in any system of justice and spoke about the role of lawyers. I should like to examine briefly some of those points.

A fundamental safeguard to any system of justice is access to legal representation. This has been confirmed by United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers, yet the Government are still allowing that basic right to be curtailed. We welcome Lord Colville's report that the length of delays in allowing access to solicitors are decreasing, but the 28 per cent. deferral rate in the first nine months of 1992 is still too high and brings into question the role of justice in our society.

I hope that the Minister of State will assure the House that the deferral rate will be reduced still further, and that in future he will adhere to Lord Colville's recommendations that the restriction of access to a solicitor after the initial 48 hours be monitored closely, as in theory at present it is possible for the authorities to allow a suspect access to a solicitor only three times during a seven-day detention.

Justifications for delay, however, also include allusions to the fact that solicitors cannot be trusted not to pass on information which they receive from their client. That lack of trust is not only insulting to the legal profession, but dangerous, as it implies that the solicitor is somehow connected to the same cause or organisation as his or her client.

Such a smear--guilt by association--may well bring the authorities into conflict with the United Nations basic principle on the role of lawyers which states :

"lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions." That insinuation appears to fit into the emerging pattern of alleged intimidation by the police of solicitors representing suspects charged with terrorist offences.

A number of such allegations are outlined in detail by the New York Lawyers Committee in its report, "Legal Defence in Northern Ireland". Those allegations, if substantiated, are extremely serious, as they go to the heart of our justice system which demands that every individual has a right to a proper defence. We agree with Lord Colville's findings that they represent

"a very grave and serious set of allegations that warrants a full and thorough investigation".

The Secretary of State should set up an independent investigation and not just leave it to the RUC against whom the accusations are being made.


Column 165

In any society safeguards are needed to prevent the abuse of power. However, even with safeguards, it is still necessary to have effective mechanisms through which complaints can be made if an incident occurs. The police complaints system is patently failing to provide proper redress for genuine grievances. Of the 395 cases of complaint completed in 1992, in only one case the police complaints commission recommended that charges be preferred against two officers who were subsequently found not guilty.

It is hard to conceive of any organisation with absolutely no abuses of authority and in which absolutely everybody is beyond reproach. I of course exclude the present Government from that comment.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara : I shall continue just a little further if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. We have a lot to cover and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to intervene later.

Rev. Martin Smyth : It is on that point.

Mr. McNamara : This will be the last time so that we can make progress.

Rev. Martin Smyth : I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. Is there something wrong with my hearing or with the logic of the argument that is being deployed? The police would be amazed if they were all innocent, but is there no possibility of any lawyer being tainted?

Mr. McNamara : I am not suggesting for a moment that anybody who is involved in any situation is incapable of being tainted. But one cannot start with the basic presumption that people will be tainted and, when allegedly interviewing a witness, one cannot accuse the witness's solicitors of being tainted and suggest to witnesses that their solicitors are of no value because they are tainted. That is the nature of the allegations and that is why they must be examined independently.

We were talking about what Lord Colville says about the complaints procedure against the police. He said :

"The profession or discipline loses more efficiency and usefulness than its individual members gain by perceived, or real, immunity." That apparent immunity from the law affects confidence in the United Kingdom's justice system, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the world. That is why we support Lord Colville's call for a review of police disciplinary procedures in Northern Ireland and welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said that he would be taking soundings on the matter.

We welcome the Government's appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures, but again it is to examine only the procedures for non-criminal complaints and not substantive complaints.

Recent High Court decisions have served to highlight the need for greater discipline in the armed forces serving in support of the RUC in Northern Ireland. While we recognise the strains of a tour of duty in the region, there can be no excuse for the many reports of harassment inflicted on members of the community by the security forces. The Army must be called to account for the 51


Column 166

persons arrested by the Army under section 18 of the Act in 1992, none of whom were subsequently charged with terrorist-related offences.

The recent decision by a magistrate to bind over five of the paratroopers charged with assault and disorderly behaviour in Coalisland because they were "not entirely innocent" is a severe blow to the credibility of the regiment as a force of law and order. It was made worse by the decision by the regiment to take no further action against the men. The fact that no negative inference appears to have been taken from their silence calls into question their equality before the law.

Questions still need to be answered about who ordered the town to be sealed off immediately prior to the disturbance. I mention that because many commentators have agreed that the actions of the paratroopers had a direct impact in the May local Government elections in Dungannon. This is a classic demonstration of how security policy cannot be isolated from the political situation in Northern Ireland.

The recent conviction of a paratrooper for the murder of a teenage girl who was in a car driven by a joy rider again serves to confirm fears about the whole culture of the regiment, particularly if, as was reported in The Independent, after the incident the paratroopers built a large model of the car and a bloodstained head with a notice reading

"Vauxhall Astra. Built by robots. Driven by joy riders. Stopped by A' company."

The wall pictures flashed around on television screens of Europe, as I witnessed myself last week, did that regiment and this country no service.

While the introduction of the Army's early warning system and the new patrol identification cards are to be commended, they do not begin to tackle the underlying problem. Indeed, it is hard to envisage that a member of the public, having been harassed and intimidated by a member of the armed forces, would demand to see the soldier's patrol identification card. While these measures may have some deterrent effect, more needs to be done to stop the rising number of criminal complaints being lodged against the armed forces. The actions leading to such complaints serve only to undermine the rule of law. For that reason the Labour party strongly endorses Lord Colville's recommendations that the Government introduce a code of practice on stop and search under the Emergency Provisions Act. Lord Colville has again highlighted the inordinately long delays for prisoners awaiting trial. The Secretary of State has spoken about that and we support what he is trying to do, but we do not believe that dropping the legislative provision is necessarily the best solution.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara : Very well. I am missing out pages of my speech to let other hon. Members in, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wants me to.

Mr. Porter : In his allegations or suggestions about the conduct of the army and this particular regiment, the hon. Gentleman might care to remind the House how many soldiers whether of the Ulster Defence Regiment or of the mainland regiments, have been killed since 1969.

Mr. McNamara : Yes I am aware of that, and we know it from the figures that the Secretary of State has already


Column 167

given. But there is one difference. I judge members of Her Majesty's forces or of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not by the standards of terrorists but by the standards that we expect from those who operate in the name of a civilised and just society. The Chief Constable asked for additional powers. I can understand his wanting them. He faces difficult tasks. But the fact that he asks for them shows the danger of separating security policy from political reality and treating the problem primarily as one of policing, a containment exercise, as if putting people behind bars means that the problem will go away. It is not that. We still need to ask if we can continue to maintain the same policing methods in an increasingly divided society when they have blatantly failed to win the support of the whole community.

Why, in a divided society where the population is split approximately 57 per cent. loyalist and 43 per cent. nationalist, are 92 per cent. of the regular constabulary and 94 per cent. of the full-time reserve drawn from one section of the community while those recruited for local service in the Royal Irish Regiment are nearly 100 per cent. from the unionist community? It creates problems in securing acceptance throughout the community of the role of the security forces and only heightens the perception that the security forces are failing to uphold impartially the rule of law. The police cannot deliver summonses in certain parts of Northern Ireland unless accompanied by heavy military patrols. There are large swathes of the countryside, particularly near the border, where there is no effective policing at all as we understand it on this island. That is not to cast any aspersions on the integrity of any individual member of the security forces --it is a question of fact and a matter that must be tackled--yet there is no evidence of fresh thinking by Government on this matter. Discussions on confidence-building measures at the Anglo-Irish Conference are given the briefest of mentions, and no details go to those very people whose confidence needs to be won and increased.


Next Section

  Home Page