House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Jun 1995

Dr. Hendron: Does the Secretary of State accept that my constituents and perhaps those of Greater Belfast have been deeply offended, but not so much by the campaign to free Lee Clegg? There are, of course, many campaigns to release prisoners. Instead, they have been offended by the nature of the campaign, involving former brigadiers and colonels and senior politicians. At virtually no time have those people considered in detail what happened on the night when Karen Reilly and Martin Peake were killed.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that I recognise that Lee Clegg did not set out to kill someone? But is it not a fact that the Government do not want any other charge save murder--for example, culpable homicide--to be on the statute book in case other soldiers might also find themselves behind bars? I speak as someone who has given a lifetime to opposing paramilitaries on both sides. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the nature of the Clegg campaign is deeply offensive? When he makes his decision, will he assure us that it will not be made on the basis of a campaign that has been joined by people who have never considered the detail of what happened on that fateful night?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently for his constituents. There is nobody better to do that than him. What he has said about the Government's intentions is not consistent with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary having set up an inquiry into the law of murder. I understand that those conducting the inquiry will report within a month or two. I think that I can reject what the hon. Gentleman has said about our intentions. I do not want to say anything more about the circumstances of the Clegg case. It has been litigated in three courts up to the House of Lords and the judgments speak for themselves.

As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in the House that there would have to be

"a wide-ranging look at all the options"--[ Official Report , 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 356.]

for permanent counter-terrorism legislation once a lasting peace is established. I can now confirm that the exercise will include a powerful, authoritative and, most importantly, an independent review of the continuing need for the order and the prevention of terrorism Act.

It is a matter for judgment when the conditions would be right to start such a process. Confidence in a lasting peace has still to be established. It is likely--and I regret this--that such a review could not sensibly be mounted in time for its conclusions to influence the successor Act. If that does prove to be the case, I undertake that next Session's Bill, some of the provisions of which may from

Column 511

the outset be suspended, will be explicitly temporary and will have a shorter maximum lifespan than the five years of the present Act. I profoundly hope that the time will soon come when the emergency legislation will have finally served its purpose, as I anticipated in December 1992, in a speech that I made in Coleraine. I hold to all that I said there, in a speech that was quite widely noticed. Much has been achieved, far more than a year ago seemed attainable so soon. Today, I acknowledge the contributions of all who have brought that about.

The exploratory dialogue that we are conducting with Sinn Fein and the two loyalist parties offers a means of leading to the achievement of much more, but a terrorist threat, regrettably, still remains. The Government are not going to drop their guard prematurely. There is too much at stake for that. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.

4.16 pm

Ms Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar): I begin by saying that the Labour party concurs with a great deal of the analysis of the present situation that the Secretary of State has just presented. Our interpretation and judgment, however, leads us to slightly different conclusions about the future of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1989.

I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State has taken so far in response to the improvements in the security situation in Northern Ireland. In a sense, he underplayed his hand this afternoon in terms of the number of changes that he has felt able to introduce, and the dramatic improvements in security. I shall not bother the House with listing them, but he did himself a disservice by not acknowledging the steps that he has taken.

I also take this opportunity to acknowledge our agreement on the announcement that the Secretary of State made this afternoon about changes in compassionate leave for prisoners, as that is a step that we welcome very much. I was hoping to welcome with great gusto the announcement that there would be electronic recording at the holding centre in Castlereagh. I am disappointed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to say only that that will be put in train in the next Session. He also said that he would be looking at section 69 of the Act, to change certain powers that are already in the EPA. I am sad that electronic recordings will not be in place during the summer, when and if the holding centres are used, because they would make a difference immediately. We would have welcomed a more speedy implementation of the possible use of electronic recordings at the Castlereagh holding centre.

I shall not repeat the history that the Secretary of State went through in terms of the violence and the changes that we have seen from nine months ago, but with respect to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I want to acknowledge--not in a political way--the death of Mr. Frank Kerr, a postal worker in Armagh, because his is the main death since the peace process was introduced. It is incumbent on us to put on record, for his family, our feelings of sorrow, which his family will have felt.

I would like to reinforce the point that was made about the appalling punishment beatings and attacks that have continued. There have been 131 since last September, and, as has been outlined, they are the result of activities by all sets of paramilitaries.

Column 512

It is important that we remember the exact nature of those attacks, because 16-year-old Malakey Clarke cited his punishment beating in his subsequent suicide note. We should not forget Michelle Kinkead, who was driven out of Northern Ireland after her husband was killed.

We must also think of the families who are still waiting to know what happened to the bodies of loved ones who have disappeared over the years. They have not been mentioned so far. Margaret McKiney, whom I saw in Belfast last week, was still waiting for news of her son Brian, who disappeared many years ago at the age of 22. It would give her great peace of mind if she could at least bury him now: that would make a difference to her, and the same applies to many other parents, families and friends whose loved ones are still missing. Let me emphasise that, if advances are to be made, the punishment beatings must stop. There is no justification, in a democratic, civilised society, for taking the law into one's own hands. Sixty people were killed last year, and 84 the year before that; but remarkable progress is now being made. We congratulate members of both Governments and, in particular, the communities in Northern Ireland who have shown such determination and courage in taking the peace process forward.

I also pay tribute to the Army and the police, who are adapting to the new circumstances. It is not always realised that everyone must adapt to change. We should not forget, however, that more than 297 members of the security forces have been killed and 7,000 injured. Is there any way in which the Government can introduce greater flexibility to the system of assessing compensation for members of the security forces who are injured by terrorist violence, especially when off duty? The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised that point in an Adjournment debate last week, and I think that the House would welcome such a change.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North): Is the hon. Lady prepared to include victims of the Chinook disaster in what she has said, given the Government's abominable announcement that some of the widows will not even receive a year and a half's worth of their husbands' pay in compensation?

Ms Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in principle, having read in the newspapers about the levels of compensation that have been offered. I am reticent, not about the principle, but only because I do not always believe everything that I read in the newspapers. As I have not been given a detailed report of exactly what those families are receiving, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a carte blanche guarantee. No one who has read the reports concerning some of the wives of folk who were in the Chinook could help agreeing with him, but we shall wait to hear what the Minister says when he replies to the debate.

Before the announcements of the ceasefires in August and October last year- -there was no doubt of the progress towards a stable peace settlement, and Opposition Members welcomed that--we had always registered our opposition to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 during debates in the House. Over the years, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the unfortunate ritual nature of the renewal debates.

Column 513

Our reasons for opposing the EPA in recent years have been stated clearly and concisely, more often than not by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Along with others, he has argued that section 34--the internment provision--gives the state, or the Executive, an unacceptable power to imprison without either charge or trial, and that the Government have ignored proposals from their own advisers for reforms in regard to such matters as access to legal advice for those in holding centres and the procedure for certifying in rather than out in the case of scheduled offences.

Our opposition has been based on the fact that numerous sections of the Act have upset the delicate balance between fighting terrorism and protecting basic civil rights. We have questioned whether in principle it works and whether the curtailment of civil rights, and the anger and suspicion that it has created for many innocent families, have been outweighed by its success as part of the fight against terrorism.

Not only Opposition Members have asked those questions. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), expressed worry in the debate in 1993, when he pointed out that the objectives of defeating terrorism

"are the same objectives as Governments of all parties have had . . . But the plain fact is that, despite the lengthy passage of time, the objectives have not been achieved; nor is there any sign whatever of their being achieved."--[ Official Report , 8 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 168-69.]

The Secretary of State took note of those arguments and, during the debate in 1994, acknowledged exactly the argument that I am making. He acknowledged the

"need to maintain the essential fairness of the law recognising, among other considerations, that unfair law, perceived to be oppressive, does not gain public acceptance and soon becomes law that works against its purpose."--[ Official Report , 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 263.]

The situation in Northern Ireland has changed and, one hopes, will continue to change. We believe that that necessitates us looking afresh at such legislation as the EPA.

The Secretary of State acknowledged this afternoon that in Coleraine in 1992 he stated:

"In the event of a genuine and established cessation of violence, the whole range of responses that we have had to make to that violence could, and would, inevitably be looked at afresh . . . Similarly, the emergency legislation on which many of these responses are founded would have served its purpose. Normality could return." The Secretary of State quoted to us this afternoon J. J. Rowe, whose independent review of the EPA he quoted to support the position that he has adopted. One must draw attention to the fact that it was published in February 1994, so does not take into account the totality of what we have experienced in the past nine months. J. J. Rowe himself said in his report:

"His recommendations do not, therefore, take full account of the new situation which these events created, nor of the Government's working assumption that the ceasefires are intended to be permanent".

Our opposition to the EPA historically could have been more fully expressed if we had been able to amend the order. It has always been a question of renewal or abandonment; as a result, we have opposed. If we could

Column 514

have a reasoned amendment selected to abandon or suspend parts of the Bill, keep others, strengthen yet others, I believe that we would do so. That option has not been open to us.

For example, colleagues in my position in previous years have said that they wanted to keep parts of the EPA on the statute book, especially those sections, such as section 28 in conjunction with schedule 2, that proscribe certain organisations, and those sections, such as sections 53 and 54 and section 57 and schedule 5, which provide additional powers to combat racketeering and fraud associated with terrorism. We have always argued in favour of those in relation to the EPA, and have been in the difficult and problematic position that we had to accept the whole thing or abandon it.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I am relatively new to the House and I may be naive, but I understood that the reason why the Labour party opposed the EPA was that large numbers of hon. Members on the Benches behind the hon. Lady refused to support the Labour party when it asked them either to abstain or to vote with the Government on the EPA in the early 1980s. Is that not the case?

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Naive.

Ms Mowlam: "Naive," say my colleagues behind me.

Mr. Robathan: Better to be naive than dishonest.

Ms Mowlam: No; I am being very honest with the hon. Gentleman. I am saying directly to him that there has been an argument from the Opposition Benches because we have been confronted with a difficult position. Some Opposition Members are, and have been, opposed in principle because they consider that the EPA is a violation of civil rights, that the balance has been turned over and that innocent families are affected.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms Mowlam: May I just finish? Is that all right?

In that sense, some people have been opposed in principle and others have said, whether about proscription or about fraud and racketeering, that they would like to retain certain provisions in the Bill. Because of the way in which legislation is introduced--every year on the renewal one can either vote for or against--contradictions have been pointed out, not just from the Labour Benches but from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We have discussed the matter in the party, being the democratic party that we are, and on balance have adopted our present position. That is a clear and honest answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Godman: I apologise to my hon. Friend for being over-eager in intervening. Surely the implementation of a measure such as this should not encourage police officers to act in a rough-handed way at our airports when dealing with bona fide travellers from Northern Ireland? Not so very long ago at Glasgow airport, a group of Northern Ireland political party representatives were treated in a grossly discourteous manner when on their way to attend a conference in Glasgow. Among their number were a

Column 515

certain Mr. Ian Paisley junior, Councillor McGimpsey, Brendan Mackie and David Ervine. They were treated in a disgraceful way by police officers at Glasgow airport.

Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a good example of the point that I was trying to make, which was that the difficulty is that families or individuals who have not in any way been directly connected to terrorism have been faced with harassment at ports. It causes a great deal of anger in the Irish community, both in England and across the water, among families who are innocent and whose lives have been affected by the EPA. That is one of the difficult balancing acts that we have always had to take into account.

Having explained in detail to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the position with which we have been faced historically--

Mr. Robathan: That is difficult.

Ms Mowlam: It is not difficult. I can do it with no problems. I appreciate his sympathy but let me reassure him that it is not difficult for me. I should like now, however, clearly to acknowledge that the position has changed in the way that the Secretary of State has analysed. Our judgment on that change, however, is that a response is now possible that is more in tune with the present changing situation in Northern Ireland. Let me just give a couple of examples of how things could be responded to differently. The Secretary of State mentioned using powers under section 69 of the Act to introduce orders to suspend--to put in reserve--different parts of the EPA which are already covered by existing criminal law. In particular, section 17 of the Act, which applies to arrest powers for scheduled offences, could now be put in reserve for the simple reason that, if so needs be, it can be reintroduced, as the Secretary of State announced, over 24 hours. There are powers under existing legislation --the Northern Ireland provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984--to address the powers given in section 17. That would be a positive aspect to returning to normality which would not destabilise the picture that the Secretary of State painted. In other areas where changes cannot be made with immediate effect, we would like changes to be set in progress now. Let me give just one example. The Diplock courts were mentioned earlier. We clearly recognise the difficulties in making the transition to full-jury trials, especially while the intimidation, punishment beatings and attacks continue, but we want the transition from Diplock to a jury system to operate in parallel with effective protection measures for jurors and witnesses. An immediate and important step that would signal a commitment to change would be to move to certifying in rather than certifying out of scheduled offences.

We recognise that the use of holding centres is now limited, but it would be helpful if, as the Secretary of State mentioned, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper were able to go in on particular interviews. The establishment of an independent legal unit at the holding centres would be an important step in ensuring that everything there functioned according to the rule of law.

In his speech, the Secretary of State said that he might in the months ahead operate certain powers and schedules in the Act, such as those that I have mentioned, by using

Column 516

schedule 69. I obviously welcome that, but it is sad that we cannot have such an announcement this afternoon in the House--an open, democratic debating forum--rather than action being taken by the Secretary of State in the months ahead. One or two steps could have been taken that would have made a difference.

Mr. Hunter: I was reflecting on the hon. Lady's statements about the phased reintroduction of jury trials, but is not the reality the on-going intimidation of witnesses? Does she not acknowledge that we are still a long way from being sure that jurors would not also be intimidated?

Ms Mowlam: I accept that intimidation of witnesses and jurors is a problem and that there is some difficulty with cases going through the courts while intimidation beatings and attacks are happening. However, we have to deal with that problem. My suggestion is that, if protection measures for jurors and witnesses are put in place in the months ahead, we could make a start on dismantling the Diplock system and extending jury trials into areas where historically they have not been available.

In the short term, like certifying in and certifying out of scheduled offences, it is a move in the right direction. I am not suggesting a great leap into the unknown, but rather starting a course of action so that in a year's time the House does not say, "Thank goodness there has been a cessation of violence for two years, but we have not put anything in place to reflect that." We want to move things along so that, if and when the cessation of violence has lasted long enough and the punishment beatings have stopped, we can begin to take a more open approach. It is both rational and common sense to begin to put something in place.

I want to set in train a fundamental and independent review of anti- terrorist legislation, responding to the changing nature of terrorism throughout the world. I want it to dovetail with proposals from Europe and the United States so that by 1996, when the EPA falls and the PTA is due to be renewed, a new Bill can be put before the House--one that is not emergency legislation specific to Northern Ireland, but rather a response to the challenge of the changing nature of terrorism.

That is a very different proposal from the one that the Secretary of State announced at the end of his speech, which I understood to be an independent review of the likely position when the EPA and the PTA come to an end. I agree that the review must be carried out in a transitional way, but I cannot understand why it cannot begin now so that in a year's time we do not have to ask, "Should the EPA continue?" It is emergency legislation which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested in his opening remarks, has an adhesive quality. Why do we have to wait another year, not for change in response to what is happening in the real world, but just to start the preparation for the independent review?

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South): I congratulate the hon. Lady on the civilised way in which she is dealing with this matter. She referred to perception. I assume from what she said that the Labour party will again vote against the renewal of the order. Does she feel that in some quarters there is a perception that, in the peace process, Sinn Fein and others are seen to be making the running? Would not a vote against the order tonight be perceived

Column 517

as yet another example of the running being made all on one side? Surely it is a matter of not lowering our guard, but saying, "Not yet, Mr. Adams, not yet."

Ms Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman referred to a civilised response. I have tried to show in my arguments this afternoon that-- [Interruption.] Labour's response is-- [Interruption.] There appears to be a debate between hon. Members, so I might as well not be speaking.

Mr. Porter: I am listening.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): I am listening, too.

Ms Mowlam: This is a matter for civilised response. It is a question of differing judgments between us and the Government on how to respond to the changing nature of terrorism. I believe that we should be doing more now to put the right steps in train and to use normal legislation when we can. We could do that without giving clear signs to one side or the other.

I have outlined why Labour has historically opposed the EPA on principle. Will the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) explain to me how I could now turn round and say, "We voted against emergency legislation when the violence was on the streets, but now that it is not on the streets we are going to change our position"? That would give people not only the wrong sign but a very confusing sign. As I have said, historically, we have opposed the EPA on the grounds of internment and principle, because we are not sure that it has worked, as people have argued. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) pointed out the impact that it has had on families and innocent people. The situation has changed and it is incumbent on us, as it is on others, to respond differently.

I have tried to outline how we would have responded and the changes that we would have introduced if we were in government. We are not in government. I am not able to make the same judgment as the Secretary of State. We shall oppose the motion because disapproving of the order would send out the right signals.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the eyes of Sinn Fein and the IRA, there cannot be any doubt whatever of our consistent opposition--over 25 years and more--to terrorism? We have denounced every crime and atrocity committed by the paramilitaries, whichever side they happen to be on.

Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and fully concur with his point. It is not only true that have we criticised every violent act perpetrated by whatever side, but--this is the final answer to the question of the hon. Member for Wirral, South--we have made an effort since the ceasefire to maintain a bipartisan approach with the Government, which has worked in the interests of the process. I put it on record that we shall continue to make that effort, because we share the Government's determination and commitment to keep the process moving forward.

That we can disagree over the renewal of the provisions does not jeopardise that effort, but shows the way in which discussion, negotiations and opposition can take place in the House of Commons, so that common sense

Column 518

and rational argument may win through. We do not need to up the ante and have a problematic debate that would make things difficult.

Mr. Barry Porter: Okay.

Ms Mowlam: Thank you. We regret that the EPA will pass through the House in its entirety again this evening. We had hoped that the Government would take a more long-term view and announce plans for immediate changes. I hope that in any independent review that takes place--even though it may not be of the exact nature that we require--there is some bipartisan co- operation so that we may achieve a common purpose, produce effective counter-terrorist legislation and so that there is no reason to provoke unnecessary divisions. My principal desire is to ensure that from 1996, it will be possible to think of Northern Ireland without emergency powers--for the first time in 74 years.

4.42 pm

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). Sometimes, over the years, some of my hon. Friends have challenged the commitment of the Labour party to the fight against terrorism. I have never made such an accusation. I have the highest regard for the hon. Lady's integrity in the matter, but I quarrel with her judgment: she has failed to perceive that the greatest threat to civil liberties comes not from measures such as those before us, which a democratic state may voluntarily undertake, but from terrorism itself. My serious argument with her is that over the years--and to this day--she has responded insufficiently to the threat of terrorism.

The first point that struck me from reading Mr. Rowe's report was the on- going reality of the threat of Irish terrorism. It is not over. We cannot yet assign it to history. Mr. Rowe lists some points. On many other occasions my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said more. The structures and organisations of Irish terrorism are intact. The IRA in particular is still recruiting, training, targeting, researching improvised weapons and raising money overseas to maintain its structures. Unless and until a clear sea change has happened and IRA terrorism especially has declined, we cannot move away from the climate which leads Mr. Rowe to say that in his judgment the provisions are needed and should be renewed for a further year.

The first essential point, therefore, is that, because Irish terrorism is an on-going reality, the measures are still needed.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith): The hon. Gentleman should think carefully about the words that he is using. We are not talking about Irish terrorism: we are talking about terrorism--unless he is turning a blind eye to Unionist terrorism or assuming that Unionist terrorism is also Irish terrorism. The Unionists have killed more people in the past two years than the IRA. Prior to 1974, they also killed more people than the IRA. We must be careful to be even-handed: we are talking about terrorism, full stop-- that is what is unacceptable, whether it be Irish or British.

Mr. Hunter: I do not for one moment dispute what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know from previous debates that I share those sentiments. There has never been any

Column 519

justification for violence in Northern Ireland. Whether it has come from the loyalist--so-called--or the republican side, it has been equally reprehensible. The hon. Gentleman and I agree wholly on that.

I want to accelerate and be selective in my speech. I noted with particular interest Mr. Rowe's observations on part I of the emergency provisions, which he regarded as the kernel of the provisions. I note that he advocated that there should be no change to the system of scheduled offences. He rejected the argument of the hon. Member for Redcar that there should be certifying in rather than out. I greatly look forward to the time when we can

turn--metaphorically--to Mr. Rowe and say that such a procedure is no longer necessary, but my reading of the situation is that we are not yet at that stage, although I share the hon. Lady's hope that we soon will be.

I especially welcome the fact that Mr. Rowe advises the House and the Government to keep the provisions under review throughout the year. Times may change, but I do not yet think that we are at the point where we can dilute or modify any aspect of the emergency provisions.

That sentiment also applies to the Diplock courts and the question of intimidation of juries. All the evidence which comes my way is that the intimidation of witnesses is an on-going reality in Northern Ireland. I therefore believe that it would be irresponsible of the House to do anything other than say--sadly--that, due to that on-going threat of intimidation, we have not reached the point at which the Diplock system can be changed.

My final major point relates to prisoners. I welcomed what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say about the relaxing of compassionate leave arrangements, and I understand that that will be widely and warmly welcomed. I also appreciate the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend made in response to my intervention about Private Clegg. In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), I should say that I have to a certain extent played a part in the campaign for the early release of Private Clegg.

However, I wish the hon. Member for Belfast, West to have no illusions: those of us who are campaigning fully understand the tragedy which afflicted the Reilly family; we are in no way diluting or seeking to diminish that, and we understand the heartfelt grief of the family. In sound bites on the media, we answer questions about Private Clegg. I ask the hon. gentleman to accept the reassurance--and if he wishes, to convey it to his constituents--that we understand what a dreadful tragedy happened that night. Nothing that we say about Private Clegg diminishes our heartfelt sympathy for the Reilly family.

The House would be acting irresponsibly if it did not accept that the provisions must remain intact for another year. As Mr. Rowe urged, however, we should keep them under review in the hope that circumstances will soon allow us to relax and move to a more orthodox and normal regime of law and order in Northern Ireland.

4.50 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): I should like briefly to address the question before the House: should we, in the changed circumstances, keep on the statute book by way of renewal an Act which in many respects

Column 520

departs from traditional civil liberties and requires a derogation from the European convention on human rights? In paragraph 30 of his report, Mr. Rowe states:

"The EPA cuts down some civil rights which the ordinary law provides; and I am talking of freedom from questions in the street, of freedom from searches of one's home, or the right to consult a lawyer at a police station, or trial by jury, to give only a few examples."

The answer to the question is that we should do so only for so long as, and to the extent that, the powers contained in the provisions are required by the seriousness of the threat of terrorism to the safety and liberty of the citizens of Northern Ireland.

There are civil liberties issues on both sides of the argument. The test must be whether the provisions are still required for the safety and liberty of the citizens of Northern Ireland. It is not a matter of whether repeal would sweeten the peace process or whether the process of negotiation would be assisted by concessions. The question involves objective judgments about serious threats: how serious are the security threats, and how necessary are the powers to deal with them?

When one seeks to address the questions, it becomes clear that objective security assessment would currently justify some powers, but not others. Internment is clearly recognised as

counter-productive and does not need to remain on the statute book. Mr. Rowe states that it should not be included in the new Act. The value of the power of extended detention is questionable, and clearly a source of great opposition and friction, although the Royal Ulster Constabulary sees it as still necessary. If it is to continue, there should be videotaping of interviews.

The Secretary of State made some welcome comments on that subject when he said that he hoped that the need for the use of powers of detention would quickly decline, but that if it did not, electronic recording should be introduced. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State does not envisage that happening until next year's Act, in whatever form it is introduced. It should be feasible to tape the more limited number of interviews that we expect. I recognise that the security of the tapes is vital, but it must be possible to protect that security. Surely, with co-operation on all sides, and if necessary in a statutory way, we can find a way of dealing with that important issue, which must be resolved.

So long as the intimidation of juries remains such a strong possibility, there remains a need for something along the lines of the Diplock courts. We would prefer three judges rather than one. With the declining number of cases, we believe that that would be feasible--more feasible than it appeared to Mr. Rowe when he made his report.

Some features of the legislation should be a permanent part of normal law. For instance, Northern Ireland is ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom on the licensing of security firms. I hope that the Home Secretary will soon indicate that he is prepared to do something on similar lines for the rest of the United Kingdom, following the report of the Select Committee. Such provisions should be part of normal law. It is arguable that the provisions on funds and money laundering for terrorism should also be part of normal rather than emergency law.

The patchwork pattern suggests the need for an urgent and fundamental review so that preparation can be made for the fact that new legislation is needed in 1996. The Secretary of State has spoken of a review, but indicated

Column 521

that it would not be likely to be feasible in sufficient time to influence the 1996 legislation. I should like the review process to move faster than that.

Whenever it is completed, it can only take account of the security situation as it exists at that time. Change can go no faster than the security situation permits. However, that should not prevent us from taking the opportunity presented by new legislation to have a more fundamental review. The Government need to recognise that the emergency element in any new legislation could be much reduced and perhaps consolidated with a similarly reduced Prevention of Terrorism Act, as some of the provisions will not be needed and can be abandoned, and others can be included in ordinary law.

We have never been happy with the restriction on civil liberty involved in the Act, but we have recognised the overwhelming need for some of the provisions. We have also pointed to ways in which key provisions could remain effective but be subject to more civil liberty constraints. We have suggested time limits for custody on remand, which we still believe are necessary, an independent police complaints procedure, three judges for the Diplock courts and the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law.

We could not accept the idea of defeating the renewal of the provisions today. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) gave an honest account of the Labour party's position, stating it clearly and frankly, but no one would be more embarrassed than the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) if the Opposition Whips succeeded in their intention and managed to defeat the order. To wipe all elements of the legislation off the statute book would not satisfy the test that we have set: that there should be a review based on an objective test of which powers are still overwhelmingly necessary and should be retained, even on a temporary basis, and how and with what safeguards such powers as are allowed to remain should appear in new legislation to operate from next year.

Clearly, our hope is that the security situation will be so much improved that most of the Act will be unnecessary. However, after all that the people of Northern Ireland have been through, the judgment must be based not on hope alone but on careful and rational assessment of the risks.

4.55 pm

Next Section

Home Page