| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I put it on record in the House that people on both sides of the divide make complaints against the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I should not like hon. Members to think that only the nationalists and the republicans make complaints against the police--Unionists also make similar complaints.
I hold surgeries throughout the country and I hear many complaints against the RUC. I refer people to the complaints board and I assist them in putting their complaints before it. On many occasions, the police are wrong in their attitudes and in their actions against my constituents who happen to be Unionists--and they are found to be wrong. Let the House not think that all the Unionists are silent and that they are quite happy, because
they are not. Hon. Members should know that people on both sides are not happy about the actions of some police officers.
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East):
Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the cases of great injustice in Northern Ireland--that of the Ulster Defence Regiment Four--has its roots in what occurred at Castlereagh holding centre?
Rev. Ian Paisley:
That is an absolute fact, which cannot be denied. I worry a great deal about the statement made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who said that the police should not be inhibited in performing their duties. Is a police officer inhibited if he knows that his actions in an interview chamber are being recorded by silent video?I do not believe that he is.
I agree fully with the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney): we must strike a balance. I do not support the introduction of audio videos.I understand that all sorts of matters are raised and all sorts of people are named during interviews. It would be unfair to place on record the names of people who were not in the interview chamber and do not have the right of reply. I am totally opposed to that concept.
I know people who have been dragged before the police at Castlereagh and the first question they are asked is,"Do you attend Mr. Paisley's church?" I could detain the House for three or four hours repeating the things that are said in interviews. I have no right of reply to such comments, and it would be totally unfair if those remarks were to go on the record.
It is reasonable to comply with the Government's suggestion today. We are striking a balance and the House should realise that, in so doing, it is not indicting the RUC entirely. I have always defended the RUC as a police force and a police service. I have also defended the Ulster Special Constabulary in this place. My first speech in its defence in the House caused the blood pressure of some hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches to rise.
Individuals must be kept under control and no police officer is entitled to behave in a less than proper manner. That is all that I am saying. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) tried to give me the kiss of death in this debate. As I sit between my two hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I shall survive that and live a little longer.
I believe that the House is striking a balance tonight. In my day, I have picked up many newspapers and read how so and so was abused, kicked and compelled to make a statement while in Castlereagh. People were told that, if they did not make a statement, they would be the worse for it. We must strike a balance and do what is right--which is what we are doing tonight. We have a right to protect police officers and to protect the innocent until proven guilty. In doing that tonight, we are advancing the cause rather than putting it back.
Mr. McNamara:
When we last discussed renewing the legislation, I initiated a debate in this place on the Ulster Defence Regiment Four. We had a very interesting debate on that occasion, but that would not have been necessary if there had been, first, a video recording and, secondly,
It seems to me that hon. Members are making a false distinction between physical violence inflicted upon the person being interrogated and the power of psychological violence and verbal threats. People may be told, "We will give your name to so and so. Your children will not be safe. We know where you work and what you do. We can pass on information about you." As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) remarked, such things are said to people during interrogation--whether they are from the nationalist or the loyalist side; the threats are the same.
By passing new clause 5 today--and I welcome it--we are eliminating only one sort of threat. Over time, we have sought to protect people in interrogation centres bit by bit. Before the Bennett inquiry, people from both communities made accusations about the treatment that they received at Castlereagh and at Gough. It was said that there was not one word of truth in those complaints; they could not possibly be true. However, the Bennett inquiry took place and new protections were suddenly introduced.
Television screens were installed. However, interrogations could not be videotaped because that would cast aspersions on those who were watching the screens. Nothing could occur if someone was watching a video screen--even though that person was not independent. We again heard tales from both communities of coats being hung over cameras in the rooms and allegations about what occurred when supervisors were not watching a particular screen or were concentrating on a different interrogation. As a result, we have advanced to the position of introducing silent videos. I believe that the time will come when the position in Northern Ireland will be the same as in the United Kingdom.
I hope that we capture the people who are responsible for the crimes that have taken place in London recently. If we get them and they are interrogated in the United Kingdom, their every word will be audio recorded. Suddenly, I am asked to believe that there is a world of difference between a terrorist who explodes a bomb in London and a person accused of a similar crime in Ireland. I do not accept that. What a person does is as bad in Ireland as in England, and people should be treated similarly.
Recording protects members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and members of the police forces in this country. One of the easiest defences that a person accused of a terrorist offence has is to say that he was abused and that a confession was produced from him by threats, verbal or otherwise--and he will seek to defend his position before his operational commanders and so on on that basis.
Some people argue, "But we want, not to convict people, but to obtain high-grade intelligence from them." Many people from both communities have been picked up, interrogated and released without charge because the
security forces had been on fishing expeditions. That is a dangerous thing to do because it alienates generations, especially of young men, in both communities, from the concept of supporting the police and the rule of law.
Although I welcome the small, tentative step that has been taken, until we have full audio recording, sadly, the police in Northern Ireland will always be subject to questioning from both communities as to the nature and content of interrogations.
Dr. Joe Hendron (Belfast, West):
I know that the House will accept that holding centres such as Castlereagh or Gough barracks in Armagh would be unnecessary if there were no paramilitary organisations.
I am probably the only Member of the House--with the possible exception of the Secretary of State--who has been in Castlereagh many times over the years, although not recently. Since 1970, I have probably written hundreds of medical reports on people who have been to Castlereagh.
Like all hon. Members, I support all measures taken within reason and within the law to get rid of terrorism, of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitaries.
I accept most of the arguments of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) about protection for individuals, and definitely those about protection for the police.
I shall discuss Castlereagh because it is the main holding centre in the north of Ireland. It is a fact that the vast majority of young people who have been brought there for questioning have not been charged. I do not say that therefore they should not have been brought in. In the early years of holding centres such as Castlereagh, many people received injuries that, to use the words of the Bennett report, were "not self-inflicted".
I recall that report clearly because there had been great frustration for someone such as myself. As a medical practitioner, I went into Castlereagh and was in no doubt that some people had received injuries--people who were guilty of horrific crimes, whom one hoped would be found guilty. I believe that, as some hon. Members have said, many had received injuries, so their confessions or statements did not stand up in a court of law.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |