| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Mayhew indicated dissent.
Mr. Worthington: The Secretary of State is shaking his head, so I fear the worst.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is making a substantial meal of the matter. I am glad to deal with the question of what I said on 12 June. I said, as he rightly reported, that we would propose to introduce a measure of electronic recording. I did not specify what form that electronic recording would take. It was uncertain at that stage what would be practicable and what the advice
would be. Had it been in the form of audio recording, it would have been necessary to have statutory safeguards. That was why there would have had to be provision in the Bill.
For the reasons that I have given, the advice to me is consistent only with it being prudent to introduce a measure of electronic recording in the form of silent video recording. There is no need for statutory safeguard in respect of that, for reasons that will be apparent. That is why there is no reference to it in the Bill, and there will be no application made and no amendment moved in Committee.
Mr. Worthington:
The words before me are clear. The Secretary of State said that the introduction of an electronic recording scheme would require statutory alterations. We will have to take consultation on that. It is interesting that the promise made by the Secretary of State in June of an electronic recording scheme was his second position. He said that that would require an alteration to the Act, yet that is now not going to occur. Silent video recording will be introduced without guidelines or alterations to the Act. Or am I wrong?
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
There will be a code of practice.
Mr. Worthington:
I hear what the Secretary of State says from a sedentary position.
In his winding-up speech, will the Minister of State further confirm that it is his firm intention one day to get rid of Diplock courts and to bring back trials by jury in similar circumstances to those existing in Great Britain? Parts of the Act, such as the provision to hold Diplock courts in other parts of Northern Ireland than in Belfast, could be interpreted as a form of entrenchment of Diplock courts in the judicial system. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the clearest of commitments on that policy because I hear talk in some parts of the House of how well the Diplock courts have functioned, which implies--perhaps--some weakening of that firm intention.
Lady Olga Maitland:
On that point.
Mr. Worthington:
I am now running out of time--
[Interruption.]
Lady Olga Maitland:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, since the point about the ending of Diplock courts is important. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if trials by jury were brought in before the whole peace process was totally satisfactorily resolved, there would be a danger that juries would not dare to convict for fear of intimidation? Surely the hon. Gentleman is putting the cart before the horse?
Mr. Worthington:
I welcome the hon. Lady to the debate somewhat late in the day. She has now spoken for longer than some hon. Members who have been present for the whole debate. We have said repeatedly that there is no way in which the Diplock courts can be abandoned overnight. They have to be phased out. We have suggested that they should be phased out in such a way that they should disappear last in those areas where threats of intimidation or risks to justice are most severe. That is clear.
Why have the Government kept internment in the Bill? It has not been used since 1975. It is the principal source of irritation between the United Kingdom and the international community. The Government's reviewers comprehensively have come out against it. It was rejected by Lord Gardiner in 1975. It was rejected by Sir George Baker in 1984. It was rejected by Lord Colville in 1990, who said:
Internment is a difficult issue. It is a confession of failure by a democratic state dedicated to the rule of law. It is a statement that the rule of law does not work. We have had internment on our statutes for 25 years. We cannot keep it there just in case the situation worsens. We do not understand why the Government cannot see how important it is to occupy the high ground by being associated only with laws that follow the soundest principles of international law and the protection of human rights.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler):
The House has considered the Government's Bill at length and in detail since early afternoon. It is right that the House should have had that amount of time to consider such an important measure in detail. I am grateful to the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in the debate. I am especially grateful to those who intend to support the Government in the Division Lobby later tonight.
I also listened with great care to those who have a contrary view. In matters of this kind, it behoves any Government to listen with great care to points of concern about the issues that we have considered today, especially as they relate to the criminal justice system and the concept of liberty. I shall respond to as many points as possible in the time available. First, I shall take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). [Interruption.] I am obliged to the Scottish representatives for their correction of my pronunciation of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I suspect that I shall have the pleasure of referring to the hon. Gentleman and his constituency quite frequently during the Standing Committee which we shall commence shortly.
The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by criticising the Government for publishing the Bill on the last day before the Christmas recess. I regret any inconvenience that that caused the hon. Gentleman and Opposition spokesmen, and it was not the Government's intention to embarrass him or his colleagues or to cause them inconvenience. But the fact is that the process of preparing this Bill was lengthy, and there were many detailed issues which had to be considered right up to the last moment. As a matter of fact, the day concerned was a sitting day of this House, and it was perfectly proper to employ that day for the business of Her Majesty's Government. Having said that, I regret the inconvenience that was caused to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman made the serious point that so-called punishment attacks stopped in Northern Ireland when the President of the United States paid his visit. That was a cynical piece of behaviour on the part of Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein. The fact is that Mr. Adams and the leadership of that structure are able to stop the violence when it suits their purpose, and the hon. Gentleman was right to make that point as strongly as he did.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that emergency legislation of one kind or another will have been on the statute book for some 25 years by the time the review is over. Who in this House would not regret that? But the problem is that it is not this House that is the cause of that emergency legislation, but those who seek to kill, to intimidate, to maim and to attack others in pursuit of their criminal endeavours. Those people are the reason why this House has to consider exceptional measures to deal with exceptional circumstances.
Lady Olga Maitland:
Has my right hon. Friend taken evidence or had an opportunity to meet Families Against Intimidation and Terror, an organisation of which I have the honour to be one of the patrons? If he had done so, he would have heard first-hand accounts of the brutality and intimidation carried out--often against young teenagers--by Sinn Fein-IRA. Young people are having their legs smashed up, and they are taken to the Royal Victoria hospital. Surgeons have told me that it is only by the grace of God that somebody has not yet died as a result of these punishment beatings. It is absolutely essential that we are well aware of the seriousness of what is going on. We cannot take the matter for granted or be complacent.
Sir John Wheeler:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My only regret is that her attendance in Committee prevented her from being in the House this afternoon to make the kind of contribution that she has just made. She is absolutely right to refer--as others have done during the debate--to the work of FAIT and others who support those who have been intimidated and exiled from Northern Ireland as a part of the terrorist campaign against those of whom the terrorists disapprove. My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that, and that is why we are obliged to consider the Bill today.
I shall continue my comments on comments of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. The House will have been somewhat puzzled by his approach. He says that he does not believe that the Bill is in the right form. The Bill is in the form that it is to deal with the circumstances that have prevailed for the past quarter of a century.
The hon. Gentleman says that he recognises the need for special legislation--although not, apparently, the Bill. However, if he was considering afresh, with a blank sheet of paper, what he would want to have to deal with the situation, he would do as the Government have done during the past few decades. He would consult the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and many others in the judiciary and elsewhere. He would inquire about what the provisions should be to meet the character of the threat that the people of Northern Ireland have faced so bravely and courageously for so many years. He would be driven to the conclusion that the measures that the House is being invited to support tonight are the measures that he would be obliged to set down in a legislative framework.
I am therefore puzzled that the hon. Gentleman should come to the view that he should urge on his hon. Friends the need to vote against the Government's proposals this evening. I regret that, but I accept that he is as firm in his opposition to terrorism as any other hon. Member. I am especially grateful to him for the clarity of his statement in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman said that we would not leave the people of Northern Ireland without the protection of the right kind of legislation. Why, then, does he intend to vote against the Bill tonight? If his view prevailed, the people of Northern Ireland would indeed be left without the appropriate protection.
The hon. Gentleman posed a number of questions, and I shall seek to deal with them before I turn to other points raised in the debate. He asked about the date for the completion of the independent review. We very much hope that Lord Lloyd and his judicial assistant from Northern Ireland will be able to report as soon as possible. I emphasise the words "as soon as possible", but given the nature of the review and the fact that it will cover the concerns of not only Northern Ireland but Great Britain, it will take time.
What is important is that the reviewer should be able to present for proper scrutiny to the House and to the wider public a considered and full document which covers all the issues. He should not feel that he is under any time pressure to deliver a report, but rather that he can be thorough in his consideration of it. It may well be that, if Lord Lloyd requires the time, it will not be until the autumn of this year that he can produce his report for the House's examination.
The hon. Gentleman asked which provisions could be lapsed and when. It is difficult for the Government to speculate about which provisions may be candidates for early lapsing. Those decisions must, of necessity, be taken on the advice that the Government receive from the Chief Constable, who is the principal security adviser to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. If one has such a person in office, it behoves one to listen to the advice given. The Government will depend on that advice and on the analysis that the Chief Constable is able to give on the improvement in the security situation. I cannot, therefore, second-guess what that advice will be and I cannot say which provisions in the Act will be able to be lapsed. I am sure that the House will understand the reason for that.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and others asked why we could not return to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provisions. I, for one, would like
to do that, and I am sure that the House would like to, but one of the features of the debate this afternoon has been the reminder to the House of the state of the security situation in Northern Ireland. It must be obvious, therefore, that, until the security situation substantially improves, it will not be possible to employ the PACE procedures in the police offices of Northern Ireland. I very much hope that the day will come when that will be possible.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie also referred to the Diplock courts. They have, rightly, been praised for the quality of justice from the judiciary of Northern Ireland and the impression that the hon. Gentleman may have formed that those courts would therefore be a permanent feature are, I am glad to assure him, mistaken. I would welcome the ending of the Diplock court procedure, and one day it will go. It will go when people are able to be members of a jury or witnesses without fear or intimidation. Unhappily, that day has not yet arrived in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to other contributions to the debate. I would like to start with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I particularly thank them for their contributions, especially in regard to the services of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, which without doubt has given remarkable service during the past 25 years. It has never been intimidated and has always done its duty to the criminal justice system fairly and objectively. Its judgments have stood the test of vigorous examination in many places, which is a great tribute to it.
I am particularly glad that the hon. Lady and the hon. and learned Gentleman should single it out for especial praise for its work. I would add that the services of the resident magistrates have been equally commendable and they, too, deserve the thanks of the House for their work towards the upholding of an effective criminal justice system.
The hon. Member for Redcar was right to make her commitment to the rule of law. The House is united in the principle of the rule of law. That has been a theme of many hon. Members in the debate tonight. The hon. Lady also gave much credit to the Royal Ulster Constabulary for its achievements. During the past 25 years, 300 members of the RUC have been killed and more than 7,000 injured in the course of their duties. The RUC, too, is a major contributor to what is called the peace process. Its steadfastness down through the years has contributed to the process that we are engaged upon, and I am particularly glad to accept the hon. Lady's tribute to them and her comments.
I am responsible for drugs policy in Northern Ireland, and I also welcome her remarks about that. The RUC has strengthened its unit, and the Government in Northern Ireland have brought together all the departments in Northern Ireland, including education, to mount a co-ordinated campaign using the criminal justice system, information and the school room in every way to try to reduce the incidence of drug abuse in Northern Ireland.
"As things stand now,"--
this was at a much more grave time in Northern Ireland--
"I can only endorse with vigour Sir George Baker's recommendation: no detention."
It was rejected by John Rowe in 1995. It was rejected by the Government's advisory body on human rights. The view of John Rowe in 1994 in the fundamental review was that internment should not be re-enacted in any new EPA. One has to remember that he wrote that in a pre-ceasefire context. Still the Government keep internment in the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |