---

Mr. Mallon: The Minister has kindly given us the figures relating to compensation. Will he clarify whether the settlements in relation to cases that were found in the European Court of Human Rights and any compensation paid in the case of the UDR Four were included in those figures? Before he finishes, will the Minister tell us how many police officers have been brought to court and found guilty under the procedure of the Police Complaints Commission? The House has the right to that information, because the Minister has made an important point in that regard.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just drawing the attention of the PPS to the Dispatch Box.

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is seeking detailed information. I cannot provide him with that information as I stand at the Dispatch Box. It is not lodged in my mind, but I shall write to him with the information, and, of course, a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library so that Members may have access to it.

The case for the Government's position is a midway point, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down said. It is a balance. It seeks to preserve the rights of an individual being interviewed, but it seeks to balance that with the reality in Northern Ireland as it sadly is today. It seeks to protect the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the hon. Members for North Antrim and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said so cogently. It is a fine line. The Government maintain that, in the present circumstances, the House should be invited to agree with the Government's position.

Mr. Mallon: I again thank the Minister for giving way, and beg the indulgence of the House for pressing the matter, but he raises a crucial point when he says that individuals in interrogation centres can be protected by the police complaints procedure. Will the Minister confirm that, since that legislation was introduced, not one police officer has been brought to court and convicted in terms of what may or may not have happened within the interrogation centres? Will he compare the figures with those for England and Wales, give some reason for that disparity and explain how that protection is operating in the way he says it is?

Sir John Wheeler: It could be said that, if there were no prosecutions of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that is a tribute to them for following the procedures in the holding centres with such integrity and conviction. If I can give the hon. Gentleman any further information on that, I shall do so.

I conclude by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster about the loss of life, the injuries and the outrages that have occurred in London. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will address the House later, but it is right in this early part of the debate to acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, and to tell the House that the

19 Feb 1996 : Column 63

cruelty and outrages that have occurred have nothing to do with democracy, peace or resolving the conflicts of Northern Ireland. I am grateful to him for bringing his observation to the notice of the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for giving way, as I know that he was concluding his speech. A question was raised about to whom the tapes would be available. Will he address that?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he asks to whom the tapes would be available. Herein lies the difficulty that the Government and the Royal Ulster Constabulary may encounter. It is conceivable that the tapes would find their way into the hands of those who would then make a judgment about the life of the person who was being interviewed. I know that some Members share the Government's concern and understand the possible consequences of that.

That is why the Government believe that silent video recording meets the interests of the moment and is as far as we can reasonably and honestly go in all the circumstances; and why, for the moment, we cannot go down the further road, as has been pressed by others, to include audio recording. Those are the reasons why I urge the House to support the Government new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

Codes of practice: supplementary

'.--(1) This section applies to a code of practice under section 52 or (video recording).
(2) When the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice he shall prepare and publish a draft of the code, shall consider any representations made to him about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of any code of practice prepared by him; and when he has laid the draft of the code before both Houses he may by order bring the code into operation.
(4) An order bringing a code of practice into operation may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued by him and issue the code as revised; and subsections (2) to (4) shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised code as they apply to the first issue of a code.
(6) A failure on the part of a police officer to comply with any provision of a code shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.
(7) In all criminal and civil proceedings any code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.
(8) In this section--
"criminal proceedings" includes proceedings in Northern Ireland before a court-martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or a disciplinary court constituted

19 Feb 1996 : Column 64

under section 50 of the 1957 Act and proceedings in Northern Ireland before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court;
"police officer" means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.--[Sir John Wheeler.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

Extension of Act beyond 24th August 1998

' (1) Where, notwithstanding the provisions of section 60(10) of this Act, the Secretary of State is satisfied that in the interests of security in Northern Ireland this Act should continue in force after 24th August 1998, he may make an Order specifying that the Act shall continue in force after that date for a further period of no more than twelve months.
(2) Before exercising his power under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the desirability of making such an Order, having regard to the evidence available to him of the threat to security in the United Kingdom and of the prospects for achieving a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Northern Ireland.'.--[Mr. Wilshire.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 58, page 37, line 30, after '60(3)', insert

'or section (extension of Act beyond 24th August 1998)'.

No. 2, in clause 60, page 39, line 28, at beginning insert

'Subject to subsection (1) of section (extension of Act beyond 24th August 1998),'.

No. 3, in page 39, line 29, leave out '1998' and insert '1999'.

Mr. Wilshire: While speaking to new clause 1, I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which stand in my name. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are consequential to the new clause and amendment No. 3 provides an alternative way of achieving the same as new clause 1.

Perhaps it would make sense to begin by explaining what I am seeking to achieve. I want to find a positive response to a changed security position. I am also seeking to show the world that neither the House nor the British people will ever be bombed into submission. We can achieve that either by giving the Secretary of State powers to extend the duration of the Bill, or by extending it for one year ourselves. The new clause was prompted, it is fair to say, by the outrage at Canary wharf. Since then, there have been two further bombs, rendering the new clause doubly justified. Indeed, were I tabling it today, it would not be as mild as it is.

It is important to understand that the Bill left Committee before the Canary wharf atrocity. The decisions that we took in Committee, and the debates that we held there, followed 17 months of peace. I want to make it crystal clear that it will be no part of my case to suggest that what people said in Committee, or how they voted, had any bearing on my speech tonight. I mean no criticism of anyone; that sort of tactic will play no part in my argument.

19 Feb 1996 : Column 65

In Committee, I said that I viewed the Bill as a holding measure. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, we had been given assurances that it was a holding measure pending the outcome of a comprehensive review, but Canary wharf has turned the Bill from a holding measure into a Bill for real. Since the Bill left Committee, there has been a fundamental change in the security situation in the United Kingdom. It would be irresponsible if the House did not, by means of a new clause such as this, consider what has happened since the Bill left Committee, and respond to the change in circumstances.

First, I believe that we should remind ourselves of how the original Act which the Bill will extend came about. It was a response to a campaign of terror, and in the face of that campaign the House was in no doubt that the original Bill was necessary. Unfortunately, I judge it necessary again today. That, at any rate, is the message sent to us by Sinn Fein-IRA. Over the past day or so, it is they who have said that the ceasefire is over--not I, and not this House. Sinn Fein-IRA have proclaimed that the peace process is dead, and that this Bill is now for real, not just a holding measure.

I contend that the powers are, regrettably, once again needed for as long as those evil men continue to use murder and mayhem in an attempt to destroy the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland, to destroy democracy, and to deny the consent of the people of the Province in determining their future through a democratic process.I know of no one in a free and democratic society who relishes taking powers of this sort, but in the light of the past few days, I believe that a firm response by the House is absolutely necessary. There are people who despise democracy and who would deny others their freedom. In so doing, they forfeit any claim that they might otherwise have to being treated like reasonable human beings. Those people are evil and ruthless, and they have not the slightest intention of working within the rule of law, once they work out the fact that that rule of law will not deliver to them what they believe is right.

Two weeks ago, when 17 of us finished debating the Bill in Committee, the people of Northern Ireland had been enjoying 17 months of a partial ceasefire. We were moving--some would say slowly, others would say at a reasonable pace--towards all-party talks. We were moving towards elections--perhaps even towards a referendum. We were moving very slowly towards decommissioning of some sort. In Committee, we were adding to the long list of changes that have been made to help to restore normality to Northern Ireland. Two weeks later, the ceasefire that we had almost taken for granted in Committee has been consigned to history. We face not just a one-off terrorist incident but a campaign of terror.

---