| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.35 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): It is some years since I last spoke on behalf of my party in a debate on security in Northern Ireland. I believe that, on the last such occasion, our safety on the mainland--and, indeed, in the House--was being continually threatened: the situation was extremely dangerous. I welcome the progress that has been made recently--the fact that there is peace in Northern Ireland, and the degree of optimism that has been expressed on all sides. The road to a permanent peace is treacherous, however. We see a forest full of trees, rocks and other obstacles, and we would be foolhardy to assume that all the obstacles have been circumvented.
I also welcome the fact that, in the years since I last spoke in a debate such as this, the multi-partisan policy approach has continued. It is multi-partisan not just because of my party but, in particular, because of the multiplicity of Northern Ireland parties that are represented in the House.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) is known--rightly; I emphasise that--both for her skill as a politician and for the cogency of her arguments on almost every occasion. With great respect to the hon. Lady, I must say that this has not been one of those occasions. I urge her to read the report of her speech with care; it was--I say this is a constructive spirit--a bit of a muddle.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) told us in the clearest possible terms what we all knew: that the issue of Northern Ireland might determine the timing of the next general election, because his party's attitude might be crucial. I believe that it may also affect the result of the next election more than some anticipate: Northern Ireland is an important political issue, which affects not only the people of Northern Ireland but the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The policy must be right. I believe that the Labour party policy may be right, or very nearly right, although I do not want to argue about the details of Labour's policy on this occasion. The message must also be right, however. Let me say to the hon. Member for Redcar that I believe that the message from Labour in today's debate seems less multi-partisan than I think she wants it to be. In the interests of producing perhaps the best possible Government for this country, I urge the Labour party to ensure that the message is not muddled by the wish to reach a compromise with the views of those such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Gentleman spoke in the debate and, plainly, his views are not entirely in accord with those of the hon. Member for Redcar.
Mr. Maginnis:
I should like to make it clear that the hon. and learned Member was expressing his own view and not mine when he alluded to me and mentioned the possibility of an election. I hope that he will acknowledge that, throughout the life of this Parliament, the Ulster Unionists have acted in the best interests of the United
Mr. Carlile:
I am happy to say that I make absolutely no suggestion of any underhand dealing by the hon. Gentleman and his party. I said that the hon. Gentleman was quite open in what he said. We can all take it from his speech that the timing of the next general election may be affected by the views of his party. If we were members of his party, we would take precisely that view, and no one can blame the hon. Gentleman for taking it.
Ms Mowlam:
The Opposition's first priority is not the response of any minority Northern Ireland party, in terms of its size in the House. We put the peace process first and foremost. That is why, up to now, we have adopted a bipartisan approach to the framework document. I have not changed our position in a craven response to my hon. Friends, or to other parties, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I read the Bill in the hour that I was given to read it before we broke up for the Christmas recess, and we tabled a reasoned amendment. That was the basis of our response.
Mr. Carlile:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I emphasise that, if one does what many of us do every day, which is to read the important parts of the Order Paper, one sees a reasoned amendment that includes the words
The nub of the issue is whether conditions in Northern Ireland are now such that the legal processes that apply in other parts of the United Kingdom will suffice. If the answer to that question is yes, we do not need the Bill. If the answer is no, we need the Bill or an amended version of it, and we should give it a Second Reading. There are three basic reasons for the answer to that question being no. Therefore, the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
The first reason is the often publicly stated political position of Sinn Fein. I speak simply of Sinn Fein as a political party, and I take it--perhaps foolishly for this purpose--at face value as a political party. It is quite clear that political Sinn Fein does not yet accept the renunciation of violence--nor does it renounce terrorism, which remains part of its political armoury. The second reason was given by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone when he specified a terrifying list of weapons which I shall not repeat. The IRA is holding a terrible stockpile of hugely lethal weapons. Why are they being held by the IRA? That rhetorical question answers itself. The third reason that makes it inevitable that we support the continuation of a
Bill of this broad kind, which is subject to the processes of the House, is the murders in recent weeks, which have been committed under the entirely bogus guise of a campaign against drugs.
Justice is generally depicted holding scales and blindfolded. As recent evidence has shown, the sort of justice that is meted out by the IRA is far from blindfold. It is very carefully targeted, and no justiciable issues are weighed in any scale. It is the sort of justice that equals the worst excesses of the Stalinist approach. That reason is as powerful as either of the other two for rejecting the view that we can do without emergency provisions at this time.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the Government and vote against Labour in the Lobby. However, that is not to say that we totally agree with the Government or with their approach. I share the view that was expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that it is highly regrettable that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which was specifically assured by the Government that it would be consulted about any legislation of this sort, was not consulted. I do not understand why the Government had to present the legislation in such a hurry. Apparently they were in too much of a hurry to fulfil that promise to the commission.
I and my party are concerned, too, that the full-scale policy review that was promised in May 1995 was not brought into being until it was announced by the Secretary of State in the speech that opened this debate. A splendid chairman has been appointed to that body. Lord Lloyd of Berwick has a first-class legal mind and is extremely analytical. I am sure that he will produce an excellent report, but it would have been much better for that report to be available today rather than after Royal Assent to whatever Act emerges has been given.
I am concerned that the Government seem unprepared to amend the operation of the Diplock courts. Although it is some time ago, I took the trouble to go to Northern Ireland to watch the Diplock courts in operation, to sit with the judge and to get the flavour of what happens in those courts. I share the view expressed earlier, that the justice dispensed by those courts with a single judge is second to none. No criticism of the quality of that justice is possible.
As a lawyer, I think that Diplock courts have one great advantage over a jury court, in that, when the judge returns a verdict of guilty, he has to give reasons. It is awfully helpful to find out what those reasons are. That discipline should be applied to magistrates courts in England and Wales, where decisions are often made by judges effectively sitting alone, stipendiary magistrates in particular. Diplock courts have worked well and, above all, justly. I join the hon. Member for Redcar in paying tribute to the judges, who have done a sometimes fearful job in difficult conditions, with great courage and enormous objectivity. They are all too rarely mentioned in the roll of honour of Northern Ireland.
However, the time has not yet come to return to jury trials in all cases--it would not be realistic to do that now. We should not only widen the scope of jury trials, but make a gesture that would include having more than one judge in the Diplock court, to stage the return to normality
and to send out a sign that we are returning to a form of justice that involves the sort of collegiate decision that ultimately occurs in a jury trial. It used to be said that there were not enough judges to do that--the Government have presented that argument--but that is not so now: there are enough judges because there are fewer Diplock trials. It could be achieved.
Similarly, I urge the Government to accept that there should be custody time limits for all persons who face remand for indictable offences. In addition, my party urges that police disciplinary procedures should be brought into line with those in England and Wales.
We welcome the rationale behind the introduction of silent video taping of interviews. That is progress, ostensibly at least, although it has taken a long time to get there: about two years. I share, however, some of the concerns and misgivings of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone as to the way in which that might be abused.
As someone who over many years has practised in the criminal courts, both prosecuting and defending, I believe that the guarantee that one has in a court in England and Wales against tampering or against false accusations in relation to an audio-taped interview is the second soundtrack. I do not see how one can give such a guarantee in relation to a video-taped interview. It will be much easier not only to act as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but for people to play-act and to fake allegations of oral oppression.
I have reservations about the assertion that audio tapes cannot be made secure. Audio taping can be arranged in such a way--this has been shown to be the case by experience in England and Wales--that the interviewee soon acquires confidence in the interviewing procedure and forgets, if the room is suitably constructed, that audio taping is taking place. Nevertheless, I recognise that these are difficult issues and involve questions of judgment.
"declines to give a Second Reading"
to the Bill. That is strange, because Labour's Front-Bench spokesman has told the House, "Well, we do not mind at all giving the Bill a Second Reading and we are relying on our reasoned amendment being defeated so that we can abstain on the substantive vote." The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is the impression that she has given the House. [Interruption.] I am reminded that eventually she said that Labour would vote against Second Reading. The hon. Member for Redcar brought the word "dancing" to the debate. At an early stage, she appeared to be dancing on the head of a pin, but by the end of her speech it looked as if she was sitting on the pin. No doubt she will make her own judgment about Labour's position.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |