| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): Will the Secretary of State confirm that that was also Lord Colville's advice?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes, that is true.
Part V deals with regulation of the provision of private security services. It continues to regulate all private security firms in Northern Ireland offering security guard services.
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie):
The Secretary of State is being unfair to Mr. Rowe. In his report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, Mr. Rowe made it absolutely clear that he did not want to do anything whatever to get into the political arena, and some of us would have been critical of him because he did not take into account in any way the fact that there had been ceasefires and that his review occurred during a much greater period of the troubles than we experience at present. Will the Secretary of State reconsider his statement that Mr. Rowe was acting on political grounds, rather than judging the matter as a lawyer?
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
That is not a statement that I have made. I have said that, in this regard, Mr. Rowe's recommendation is political in character and represents a political judgment that we do not share. It will be
It is perfectly possible for everyone, including Mr. Rowe, to hold that view. It is for me and, ultimately, for the House to decide whether the detention provision should continue and whether it is a backward or forward step. As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I hold responsibility for all these matters, and I must make the political judgment as well as the judgment on security grounds that is necessitated in this instance.
Part VI deals with people in custody under terrorism provisions. It sets out the statutory right of persons in police custody under the terrorism provisions--section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It deals with the right of a suspect to have a friend or relative informed of his detention and with the right of access to legal advice.
Part VII and schedule 4 deal with miscellaneous matters. Some changes are proposed to part VII. The discretionary power to make codes of practice in relation to the police and armed forces' powers of arrest, search and seizure has been removed. Such codes have not been issued during the lifetime of the current Act; the powers are being used less frequently, particularly the powers of stop, search and seizure, and we have no plans currently to implement those provisions. I propose instead to remit consideration of the subject of statutory codes of practice to the independent review of counter-terrorist legislation.
The basis of the appointment of the independent assessor of military complaints is changed from mandatory to discretionary. That will allow flexibility over the continuance of the post, which I instituted, in circumstances where military support to the RUC is greatly reduced or eliminated.
Part VIII and schedules 5 and 6 are supplementary. Part VIII contains the supplementary provisions, which include the change in the lifespan of the Bill to two years only. As with the current Act, on enactment the legislation must be renewed annually by both Houses of Parliament to remain in force.
Part VIII also looks forward to the time when the armed forces are no longer needed to act in support of the police. It provides for the separation of the powers of arrest, search and seizure for the police and Army, to allow the Army powers to be more easily suspended if, during the lifetime of the Act, that becomes a realistic prospect.
There are sensible and objective grounds for being very hopeful for the future of Northern Ireland and its people. I am determined that violence and the threat of violence shall not deflect us from our aims. I am equally determined that such anti-terrorism legislation as we adopt for the maintenance of order and of the rule of law shall be no more than is proportionate to the threat.
That is why I ask the House to renew the existing emergency powers, for a maximum of two years and with the appropriate amendments that I have mentioned. I greatly regret, therefore, that the Opposition are not prepared to agree to the Bill receiving a Second Reading for the wholly inadequate reasons set out in their amendment, with which I have dealt and which I ask the House to reject. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
4.36 pm
Ms Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar):
I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
I apologise to the House for an error in our reasoned amendment. We had little time to prepare it, as the Bill was introduced the day before the Christmas recess. Near the end, it states that the Bill
It is obvious when one studies the Bill in detail--I did not previously have time to do so--that it, does contain such a provision.
When the Minister winds up the debate, will he clarify the Secretary of State's answer to the question the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked about the fraud and racketeering provisions in the Bill? The subject is important; they are among the measures in the emergency provisions Act that the Opposition have always supported.
We have studied the Northern Ireland proceeds of crime legislation, which was introduced in the House in December. It would be useful to have it on record whether that legislation provides the same powers as are in the emergency provisions Act so that we can be clear that the fraud and anti-racketeering measures in the Bill are still in statute and apply to Northern Ireland.
The emergency provisions Act was first introduced in 1973. When introducing it, the then Secretary of State said:
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary have had an opportunity in the past eight months to develop coherent anti-terrorist legislation that could be UK-wide and respond to the changing nature of terrorism, both within the UK and around the world.
In May, we offered to work with the Government to make common purpose to produce effective counter-terrorist legislation. We met Ministers in early June to discuss how we could merge the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act and how European provisions would fit and be considered.
Our meeting was positive and was reinforced publicly in June by the Secretary of State--as he made clear today--when he announced that he would set up an authoritative and independent review of the EPA and the PTA. It was pending--the review was going to happen.
It seemed as if, in a constructive and bipartisan manner, the recommendation of J. J. Rowe's report would be implemented and that there would be a full and independent review of all existing anti-terrorist legislation so that a new Bill could be presented to the House. It should have meant that today, on the first sitting day in 1996, we would discuss counter-terrorist measures that would be most effective in response to the changing situation in Northern Ireland and the changing nature of terrorism worldwide.
Instead, we are faced with a short-term Bill that covers two years and, later this year, we shall be faced with the renewal of the emergency provisions Act for just two months. Without that renewal, the Government's mishandling would have resulted in our being left for part of the year with no anti-terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland and the potentially ludicrous situation of certain organisations being proscribed in Britain but not in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen):
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the sorry state of affairs that she has described. Does she think that what has occurred will in any way jeopardise the bipartisan approach towards Northern Ireland by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which of course we all cherish and support?
Ms Mowlam:
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for his intervention. I am--he is right--being critical of the Government in terms of the past eight months and I do so with a certain sadness. I have tried to find other instances of seven to eight months elapsing between a review being announced and the chairman of the review committee--we wish Mr. Justice Kerr well--being appointed. I came up with one similar instance, but it does not help the Government. A review of professions supplementary to medicine was announced in February and did not start until June, but the reason for the delay was a requirement for competitive tender.
"this House, whilst asserting the need to maintain confidence in the rule of law and in the administration of justice as the fundamental basis for achieving a just and stable society in Northern Ireland, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to implement the main recommendations of Mr. John Rowe's review of the current legislation by refusing to remove internment without trial from the statute book and by failing to introduce tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects, which fails to give this House the power to amend the statute when subject to annual renewal, which fails to make the statute subject to annual review, which fails to introduce 'certifying in' of scheduled offences, and which fails to establish a full time legal advice unit at holding centres."
"fails to make the statute subject to annual review".
"It is the Government's intention that none of the provisions of the Bill, if it is passed, should continue in force a moment longer than it is needed."--[Official Report, 17 April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 278.]
The Opposition have long argued for vigilance to ensure that temporary legislation, designed to deal with a specific emergency, does not become part of permanent law.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |