| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Trimble: The only person who appears to be looking foolish at the moment is the hon. Gentleman,
because he is taking something completely out of context and putting it in quite a different way. Of course, if the review had been put in place last June, as I urged the Government to do, we would not now have to renew the emergency provisions Act, but we have to renew that Act, and in that context it is absolutely foolish to vote against a measure that is clearly needed.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to make something out of the fact that occasionally on this legislation I have disagreed with the Government, he can go back through earlier debates on the issue and look at Committee reports on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
(Amendment) Act 1991 and subsequent criminal justice Acts. If he does that, he will find many occasions on which I moved amendments to try to persuade the Government to alter the legislation on much more substantial issues than that on which the Opposition are manufacturing a Division tonight.
Mr. Worthington:
In no way will we leave the people of Northern Ireland without anti-terrorist legislation. That was clearly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. We all agree that the danger to peace comes from the terrorists, but we have to do all we can to assist the peace process by showing our willingness to tackle contentious issues such as emergency legislation. We cannot continue with the status quo: we must show that we are fully considering those matters.
We could send constructive messages to the world, to everybody who is watching this process, by dropping the parts of the legislation that we do not wish to use. The Secretary of State made much of his willingness to use the old section 61 to drop or to suspend particular parts of the legislation. We thought, judging by the press release that was issued by the Minister of State on 20 December, that there would be more in the Bill, because the press release states:
It would be interesting if, in his winding-up speech, the Minister of State could help us by outlining marginal areas where it is contemplated that some of the Bill's provisions could be dropped. Are we to go into Committee where there is no attempt at a meeting of minds or to be bipartisan, or are there areas where the Government can be persuaded to make changes?
Mr. Alex Carlile:
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) have told us that a Labour Government would introduce emergency provisions legislation. Will he now send a clear message, to use his phrase, to the House by telling us what would be in that Labour legislation to protect Northern Ireland's people from terrorism? What would be that legislation's positive elements? We have not heard that yet tonight.
Mr. Worthington:
We have backed the Government totally on their intention of having a review that, for the first time, considers the amalgamation of the EPA and the prevention of terrorism Act in a United Kingdom context, as is the intention. What we find difficult to take is why, in a situation as sensitive as this, the Government are dragging their feet on the easy bit of the anti-terrorist procedure--setting up the right machinery.
We are disappointed that the Secretary of State has been unable to be more positive in this legislation. Why could he not come, for instance, with a commitment from
the Chief Constable that, in all possible circumstances, he would use the powers and procedures under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rather than under the emergency powers? I asked for that in June--a simple commitment and statement by the Chief Constable that, where possible, one will use the normal law rather than the emergency powers. Such a simple statement would be easy to give if the intention were there.
The Government stated today that they were now willing to use silent video recordings in holding centres. We had been hoping that both audio and video recordings would be used in such centres. I find it hard to understand the Secretary of State's difficulty on this matter. We know that the Chief Constable has had reservations about it in terms of intimidation of witnesses or of the police if tapes found their way into the wrong hands, but, as the Secretary of State will know, his own commissioner on the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, has found ways of combating that and of safeguarding the tapes-- that is what the procedure would involve. It would be interesting to Labour Members if the Minister of State could say why he has rejected Louis Blom-Cooper's recommendations and has gone for the recommendation of silent video recordings--that sounds strange.
The Rowe report--no one reading Rowe could feel that he was in the presence of a wild radical--said that there should be audio taping of interviews at holding centres, and that it should start as soon as possible. His 1995 report says:
He goes on to say:
It is therefore the judgment not of the Labour party, but of Rowe and of many judges in Northern Ireland, that audio taping would not hinder the process of justice in Northern Ireland. It would facilitate that process. They ask for the facilitating of justice and for audio and video reports. We want to know from the Minister of State why that advice from the judiciary and from Rowe is not being accepted.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam):
Has the hon. Gentleman had any opportunity, as I have, to talk to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who conduct these interviews? If so, police officers will have told him clearly that, if the interviews are recorded in any way, a prisoner is much less likely to tell the police anything at all for fear of blackmail. Is it important to try to impose an English-style system which works fine in England, but which in Northern Ireland--where there is intimidation, blackmail and comeback--would silence the very person from whom the police must obtain information? The hon. Gentleman must accept that there are different circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Worthington:
I must ask the hon. Lady--at the risk of being given another speech--whether she is speaking against the Government's recommendation on video recordings. A look of panic came over the hon. Lady's face when she realised that she was speaking against the Government's recommendation. We are to have a video--according to the hon. Lady that is all right--but the audio recording will not exist.
A serious question was being asked about the police. My impression of what the police are saying--I feel that I have been speaking to the police in Northern Ireland recently more often than the hon. Lady--is that many of them have experienced recording in normal criminal cases, regard it as a tool and aid, and would welcome it being extended to scheduled offences and the holding centres. We know that the Chief Constable is against that, but I do not make the mistake of saying that, because the Chief Constable has said that, all the police say that.
Mr. Maginnis:
The hon. Gentleman must not try to mislead the House by suggesting that there is a clamour among rank and file police to have either video or audio recordings in the holding centres. The police who work there and who strive to gain information that will not just convict the person being questioned but help to undermine the structure of terrorism, are totally dependent on the information that they can receive from those whom they are questioning. Audio and video recordings will impede that work.
Mr. Worthington:
The hon. Gentleman says that I must not pretend that the rank and file police are clamouring for the measure. I did not do that.
In June, the Secretary of State said of holding centres:
I believe that the Secretary of State said that there had continued to be a downward trend.
When I saw the legislation and realised that it contained no reference to holding centres, I wondered whether the Secretary of State would today announce that those centres would disappear and we would turn to the ordinary Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, but he did not. He told us that there would be silent video recordings. The Secretary of State said that, even if he cannot discard the holding centres, the Government will propose introducing an electronic recording scheme. I assume that silent video recording constitutes an electronic recording scheme.
"As soon as the security situation permits the Government intends to ask Parliament to suspend individual provisions in the current Act or to introduce them in a lapsed form on enactment of the Bill."
"I have examined this topic before. I do not rehearse all the points."
"Several judges within the last year in Northern Ireland have mentioned in open Court the advantage of audio taping of interviews, in particular with reference to the time saved in trying cases. Quite apart from the saving of time, the taping of an interview would protect both the suspect and interviewing officer."
"Assuming that the continued absence of violence will allow the downward trend to continue there will, I hope, come a time when the need to use the more rigorous regime afforded by the holding centres will disappear entirely . . . That must be our aim, although we are not there yet."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |