| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.24 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): Today we are starting to renew legislation that had its origins in the Special Powers Acts of the former Northern Ireland establishment. The imposition of direct rule has led to the introduction of the legislation that we are considering. The original legislation had won the admiration of the supporters of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
This legislation has taken out many of the reprehensible parts of the Special Powers Acts but, over the past 20 years, it has been widened in its scope and powers, and many of its provisions are as reprehensible as the powers that existed in the Special Powers Acts. Indeed, when we first discussed this legislation in the House, so revolutionary were its provisions and so far-reaching its changes to what was then Great Britain law that the first Standing Committee on the Bill was largely composed of QCs and barristers, past, present and future Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General and at least one future Lord Chancellor. It was a Committee, I am told, that would not have disgraced a Benchers' dining-in night at one of the Inns of Court.
Indeed, the membership of the Committee was so important, distinguished and heavyweight that the learned members insisted--and the Government of the day acquiesced--that we sat only in the late afternoons, so that my learned friends could attend their business and other interests in the mornings and early afternoons. In retrospect, I am not at all certain that the distinguished legal gentry greatly added to the sum of human knowledge.
What was significant about the membership of the Committee was that the House realised then, as I hope it does now, the enormity of its actions in bringing in legislation that would limit important civil liberties: retarding and restraining of the scope of jury trials; bending the rules of evidence; indefinite internment without trial. Those were only a few of the measures that were new to United Kingdom legislation--
Mr. Maginnis:
No, that is not right.
Mr. McNamara:
Those were only a few of the powers that were new to Great Britain legislation, certainly in the sphere with which we were then dealing.
Over the years, the powers have been systematically extended and widened. Even now, after 16 months of a cold peace, at least one fresh offence has been created-- a further extension of powers. Again, the Government have done it in the most cavalier fashion by ignoring their own statutory body, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, all of whose members are appointees of the Secretary of State. Its opinion of what the Government were doing was worth nothing.
It is not the first time that successive Secretaries of State have acted in such a cavalier fashion in respect of SACHR. Indeed, its press notice strongly criticised the Government's failure to consult it in advance of the decision to renew the powers. The commission considered that the failure to consult was
As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) pointed out, I believe that the Government have lost a great opportunity to put before the House fresh legislation to deal with terrorism in the United Kingdom. It is a matter for debate whether there should be specific legislation that applies only to Northern Ireland. The chairman of SACHR, Mr. Michael Lavery, said:
In its report of July 1995, the United Nations Human Rights Committee described the emergency provisions as
"excessive" and called for the dismantling of
Regrettably, the Government have not accepted even the modest proposals in my hon. Friend's amendment. It is important for the Government to show some confidence in the peace process, but I believe that they have failed to do so.
SACHR proposed some interim measures. It said that internment, which has not been used for 20 years, should not be re-enacted; that jury trial should be restored for scheduled offences at the earliest opportunity; that the standard for admissibility of confessions should be raised to that applied to non-terrorist offences; and that the special powers under the EPA to stop, question and search people should be repealed. Instead, those powers have been extended.
It is the continuing presence of the internment power, that should make the House step back from re-enacting the legislation. During the recent troubles, the Provisional IRA had three great recruiting sergeants--internment without trial, Bloody Sunday and the deaths arising from the hunger strikes. We cannot bring the dead back to life, but the Government can, and should, apologise for Bloody Sunday--particularly as we now know, courtesy of the No. 10 minute which is in the Public Record Office, that, following the shootings in Derry, the Prime Minister warned the tribunal chairman, Lord Widgery. The minute states:
The Widgery tribunal was intended to be part of that propaganda war, and it was used as such. The Lord Chief Justice sought to restrict his own terms of reference, which was a most unusual approach. The minute states:
The decision not to examine "motives"--that is, the policy objectives--or those responsible for the policy set an unhappy precedent for all future inquiries, whether Stalker or the inquiry into the Gibraltar killings.
Of the three issues that I have raised, the House can do something about internment. The power has not been used since my right hon. Friends the noble Lord Merlyn-Rees and the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) phased it
out, but it exists on the statute book in the form of clause 36. The explanatory and financial memorandum helpfully points out that, having granted the power, it is immediately suspended. But I suggest to the House that that is a legal fiction; it is a sleight of hand.
Clause 60(3) states:
The Secretary of State may introduce the provision by order. Therefore, people may think that Parliament must approve that decision when it is taken, but that is not the case. Clause 58(2)(b) states:
The Secretary of State can introduce internment simply by signing an order and there is nothing that Parliament can do about it. We may have an opportunity to debate it 40 days later, but the power will be in force. The power of internment is alive and well and on the statute book.
Mr. Trimble:
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to subsection (3) of clause 58, which provides that, in the event of an order being made to reactivate the power in clause 36 at a time of emergency, the opportunity exists for the House to debate the matter. It is not an unusual provision in any way, and it is used in many analogous situations in the House. Therefore, I believe that it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that Parliament has no control over the reactivation of clause 36, as it clearly has that power.
Mr. McNamara:
I am making the point that parliamentary control will come 40 days after people have been interned. It is a load of legal nonsense to suggest that somehow the power has been removed from the statute book by virtue of its being abrogated and assuming that an order has been made. The power is there in all its glory the moment the Secretary of State wants to use it.
We have seen how counter-productive the use of the power of internment has been in the past. It was seen as being aimed entirely at one community. It is still talked about and the events of Bloody Sunday were a protest against the introduction of internment powers.
We should refer also to other issues that are not in the Act. There has been no attempt to grapple with the problem of lethal force in so far as it applies to the security forces. It was very fashionable to talk about the issue at the time of Private Clegg's release, and the Opposition have urged action in the area for some time. When speaking for the Opposition about the matter, my right hon. Friend Lord Archer stressed the need to introduce a penalty between manslaughter and murder for the security forces. The issue was hotly debated when Private Clegg was released, but it has now been forgotten. At the time of the McAnespie killing, it was intended to discuss the issue at the intergovernmental conference. Both Governments promised to do something about it, but little has been done.
As a consequence of Private Clegg's release, I would like to see provision in the Bill for an automatic Parole Board review of all life sentence prisoners after they have served the same time in prison as Private Clegg. I would
also like to see some mention in legislation of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the right to life and the way in which those involved in the Gibraltar killings were treated. That matter is yet to be debated in the House.
We must also know whether there are any other cases or proceedings pending to which the provision may apply and to which the Government may be a party. Those matters are of the utmost importance. There are also matters that come under different legislation but of which the EPA is the linchpin. They include the right of relatives of witnesses in coroners courts to receive witness statements before the inquest starts, and the right to cross-examination of members of the security forces at coroners' courts. All those matters need consideration.
"extremely disturbing as, not only was SACHR established under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 to advise the Secretary of State, but the Commission has, in the recent past, received specific assurances from the Government that it would be consulted on such matters."
SACHR was deeply concerned that the Government apparently intended to renew the emergency provisions legislation, without substantive change, for a further two years. It then made several other complaints.
"With sustained peace for some 16 months now, a significant opportunity exists to enhance the protection of individual human rights and civil liberties".
"the apparatus of laws infringing civil liberties which were designed for periods of emergency."
"It had to be remembered that we were in Northern Ireland fighting not only a military war but a propaganda war".
"The Lord Chief Justice said that he saw the exercise as a fact-finding exercise. The Tribunal would be asked to inquire into what happened, not into motives. It would help if the Inquiry could be restricted to what actually happened in those few minutes when men were shot and killed; this would enable the Tribunal to confine evidence to eye witnesses".
"The Secretary of State may by order provide--
(c) that all or any of those provisions which are not for the time being in force shall come into force again and remain in force for a period not exceeding twelve months from the coming into operation of the order."
"it is declared in the order or regulations that it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency it is necessary to make the order or regulations without a draft having been so approved."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |