| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for giving way on that very important point. Can he assure me that the provisions that he mentioned in the proceeds of crime legislation are exactly the same as the provisions that they are replacing in the emergency provisions legislation? Can he assure me that they are exactly the same, as my cursory reading of the legislation suggests that there are significant differences?
If the provisions were continued in the emergency provisions legislation, we would have the opportunity to debate and amend them in Committee. We will not have that opportunity with regard to the proceeds of crime legislation. The Minister may not be in a position to give me a detailed answer now, but I ask him to examine the matter. If there are differences, will he give us the opportunity to ensure that the proceeds of crime legislation is brought into line with the provisions that existed in the emergency provisions Act?
Sir John Wheeler:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. I can give him the assurance that he seeks: the proceeds of crime legislation, which is currently before the House, will replicate the measures that have hitherto been part of the law. The Government have no intention of diminishing the ability or the role of the authorised investigator. If there should be any doubt about that, the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to pursue the matter with me on a separate occasion, when I shall endeavour to assist him as much as possible.
I shall now try to pick up some of the many important points that were raised during the debate. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who spoke so authoritatively and powerfully early in the debate. He made the cogent point that the threat to civil liberty comes from the terrorists. It does not come from the Bill or from the House of Commons; it comes from those who perpetuate evil in Northern Ireland against the people of Northern Ireland. I think that he made a very persuasive point.
He said that the terrorists keep open the possibility of a return to violence. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening remarks, that, unhappily, remains the case. As long as they persist in retaining the enormous arsenal of weapons and as long as they structure and organise themselves in a state of readiness to return to full-scale violence, the legislation is essential.
My hon. Friend welcomed the review that the right hon. Lord Lloyd is about to undertake, and I am grateful for his support in that regard. He made a good point about the question of internment when he said that a special vote in the House would mean that the birds would fly before we could bring the measure into use. He is quite right. If we needed to use the internment power, it would have to be used with great immediacy; otherwise, there would be no point in using it at all. He also made the
point that audio recording would deter co-operation but that silent recording is acceptable as a safeguard. Others made the same point.
Mr. Canavan:
When I pressed the Secretary of State earlier, he failed to give any justification for the strange decision to reject the recommendation of John Rowe QC that audio taping at holding centres be allowed. The Secretary of State hinted that I would be given a detailed explanation during the wind-up speech. May I have it now, please?
Sir John Wheeler:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. The Government receive advice from a great many quarters--from this honourable House, for instance, from Mr. Rowe, whose services are exemplary, and from others. But my right hon. and learned Friend must also take into account the advice he receives from his principal security adviser, the Chief Constable of the RUC, who has a duty to explain the problems of dealing with terrorist suspects. They are formidable people to deal with, as the House should know.
My right hon. and learned Friend therefore has to weigh the advice from all quarters when coming to a decision on how to implement objective and desirable procedures, in the light of the prevailing security situation. That is how the Government have approached the issue. The hon. Gentleman may not like the decision, but the plain fact is that such decisions have to be made in the round, taking all the circumstances into account--not just some of them which may be partial to one point of view.
Mr. Canavan:
What did the Chief Constable offer by way of justification for the strange decision to allow video but not audio taping?
Sir John Wheeler:
Others today have already made a case for the procedure by explaining the nature and extent of intimidation. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) did so most effectively. Many in the House have endorsed the Government's position by reference to the degree of intimidation and to the need to conduct proper interviews while safeguarding those in the interview room. If it is thought that they have offended others outside the interview room, their very lives, and possibly the lives of their families, are at risk. I therefore suggest that we have a duty to recognise those facts, whether we like them or not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), in a helpful speech, talked about the need to retain the detention power. He said that it might be seen as a measure taken against the nationalist community. Not so--this century, the Republic has seen fit to retain in its Offences Against the State Act 1939 provision for special criminal courts without juries, which are now used for other serious cases as well as for terrorist cases. That Act also contains provision for internment.
I cannot speak for the Government of the Republic, but I can speak for the Government of the United Kingdom, and I can infer that neither Government would wish to use the measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and others have made clear, however, if the House were to remove the provision altogether, it would send a message to the terrorist gangs that would not be helpful, given the current terrorist activity in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend rightly asked why Mr. Adams and those who speak for PIRA-Sinn Fein on the television and the wireless do not condemn those murders and attacks.
One of the most important developments would be to hear Sinn Fein, that claims to be totally committed to the democratic principle, condemn those evil acts and crimes. If that were to happen, there might be progress.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who is both courageous and determined in his support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, gave the House the chilling facts about the huge arsenal that the Provisional IRA, and to a lesser extent the loyalist terror gangs, still possess. If the Provisional IRA believes in peace, why does it need to retain 2.5 tonnes of Semtex? For what purpose does it require that arsenal of attack weapons?
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of the disarmament commission, and asked whether the time of the report could be considered in the light of the need for the commission to take further evidence. The Government fully accept that the deadline set for the commission is very tight. If that body believes that it will need more time to complete its task, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would be happy to consider any request that it may make. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words will carry to the ears of the commission which will have opportunity to review its work and decide whether it wishes to take more time.
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the need to maintain its morale after so many years of loyal service. I appreciated what he said, and I assure him that, in looking at the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary--its size, its function and its organisation--the Government will be guided by the concept of evolution and not by radical and sudden change. We owe it to the men and women of the RUC to ensure that they are kept informed of all proposed changes and that their views are considered and taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman was right to caution the House about the possible dangers of silent recording in police stations. Others have said that we should go further. The hon. Gentleman, however, reminded Members of the disadvantages that might arise from the extension of those procedures.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), who made a helpful contribution to the debate, and to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for the support of his party in the Lobby in a few minutes' time. He was right to endorse the multi-partisan approach to Northern Ireland that has been one of the guiding spirits of the debate tonight. He was also right to point out that Provisional Sinn Fein has not yet renounced violence and to draw attention to the injustice of the PIRA murders and expulsions. The European Court of Human Rights does not apply to people who have to flee their homes. There is no right of appeal for them. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right to bring that point to the notice of the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |