| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 pm
I believe that the police should have that power of arrest, but holding people incommunicado for 48 hours goes against the grain. In the debate, the Minister--it is probably the only issue on which I remonstrated with him in Committee--used current examples to justify Government policy. Surely the reverse of that practice is to say, if we did not have those three incidents we should just do away with the emergency provisions Acts. Of course we should not do that, because we must deal with life as it is.
In the case that he outlined, the Minister implied--he can deny it if I have it wrong--that a solicitor would give information to one party that someone had been apprehended by the police, and thus warn that party. That is the implication of what he said, but I must remind him--I shall not go into too much detail in deference to all the people concerned--that careless accusations against legal professionals in Northern Ireland have already led to tragic and serious consequences. I hope that no accusations of that type will be made tonight.
The Minister is surely aware of the Murray case and must realise that it represents some change. After the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, violent paramilitary suspects in Northern Ireland can now expect greater access to solicitors during interrogation. According to the judgment, the United Kingdom breached paragraph 3C of article 6 because Mr. Murray did not have access to a solicitor. That theme springs up again. One of the themes that I and other members of the Committee pursued was how these laws affect the United Kingdom's image, credibility and reputation for justice abroad. We now have a serious legal ruling that that practice was a breach of the European convention on human rights.
The judgment surely merits a response from the Minister as to how the Government will react to it. It is very hard to believe that the Minister is stonewalling and saying that, despite that ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, there will be no change in the Government's position. In view of the genuine pleas of the public and of all members on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, that the United Kingdom should have a reputation as a place where justice is done and seen to be done and that we should not have lower standards of justice than elsewhere, which would only feed the paranoia of those who try to justify violence, I ask the Minister to respond to the new facts of the Murray case.
Mr. Worthington:
I entered the Chamber to hear the Minister utter the dreaded words, "We reject the amendment." I suggest that he has rejected the amendment as it is written rather than considering its intention.
The amendment relates to the Murray case. The Minister threw us by discussing that case under a part of the Bill to which it is not relevant rather than at this point,
where it is directly relevant. I ask him to address that issue because I was quite encouraged by his words at the beginning of the debate.
I thank the Minister for his letter to me in response to my query about how Her Majesty's Government would respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister is absolutely right to say that the Court's judgment was by no means a blanket condemnation of the British Government's case. By 12 votes to seven, the European Court decided
damaged
That is what causes the Government difficulty.
I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister would agree that it is very important for a country with our position in the world--as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, in particular, and as a backer of international organisations--to be seen to respond to such judgments. Our voice would otherwise be lessened when urging other Governments to behave in a judicially appropriate manner.
I was encouraged by the Minister's earlier response and his letter to me about the Murray judgment, in which he said:
I tentatively suggest that the question is not what measures might be necessary but what measures are necessary--
That is a problem for this, or any, Government, because we want to ensure compatibility between law, practice and the requirements of the convention.
As the Murray judgment was delivered only in the period between the end of the Bill's Committee stage and Report, we shall not be unreasonable and expect the Government fully to declare their position. However, the Bill is primary legislation, into which the Government must inject a change. They will miss an opportunity if, during the Bill's passage--it will now have to be done in the Lords--they do not amend the Bill to bring this country's practice into line with the convention. I hope that the Minister will accept that statement.
Such an amendment would not apply to an enormous number of cases, because one of the encouraging recent developments is that, of 180 requests in relation to scheduled offences between the period October to December 1994, only four suspects were denied immediate access, and I doubt whether any of them was denied access for 48 hours. It is therefore a relatively small problem to solve. One doubts whether law enforcement agencies would be at all inhibited were we to accept the judgment of the European Court. I hope that the Minister can say encouraging words to us about what is to happen to the Murray judgment during the Bill's remaining stages.
Sir John Wheeler:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen(Mr. McAvoy) implied that my earlier remarks may well reflect on the involvement of solicitors in such matters.I can give him the assurance in the House that I never make any such remarks about solicitors. I am surrounded in the House by learned Members, and I know better than to comment on their professional conduct or behaviour. The inference, if any, that could be taken from my illustration, was clear: terrorism is an evil activity. The means by which terrorists obtain information, intimidate, threaten and bully are many and varied. In those very few cases where the power is exercised, it is often exercised because life may be saved. I gave an illustration of that process that was entirely pertinent to the state of peace and tranquillity in London at this very moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
I had earlier referred on the Floor of the House to the Murray case, and I say to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that the only point against the Government in the decision concerned Murray in the sense that the drawing of inferences from the defendant's silence during interview could not be used before the defendant had seen his solicitor. It is a subtle judgment that requires careful analysis, and it raises implications. I have said that the Government intend to take it away and study it, to comply with its obligations and to do what is appropriate and necessary to bring our obligations into line with the judgment. That has always been the Government's position, and we shall do that.
For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Dowd:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Since the Bill received its Second Reading on9 January, the Provisional IRA has announced its despicable decision to end its ceasefire. That decision it and its friends have tried to justify by means of whatone commentator yesterday called an "Olympus of mendacity". In addition, we have experienced here in Great Britain terrorist attacks, achieved or attempted by the IRA, that are disgusting in their immoral character and horrifying in their scale.
The Bill relates to Northern Ireland alone. Its purpose is to make special provision for the maintenance of order and for the rule of law there. But each of the recent events, taken alone, let alone in their totality, surely justifies the contents of the Bill in each and every one of its provisions. They wholly vindicate the Government's decision to introduce the Bill as and when we did.
With the permission of the House, and within the rules of order, I should like to take a little more of its time than is usual in a Third Reading speech. Some things, in particular, I wish to make abundantly clear.
First, the British Government in this democracy will not be shifted from their chosen and democratic course by bombs or by the threat of bombs, or by any variety of violence. We shall ensure that all practical measures within the law are taken to protect life and property from this evil. That means that all practical measures have to be available, which is what the Bill is about.
"To deny access to a lawyer for the first 48 hours of police questioning in a situation where the rights of the defence may well be irretrievably"
"is--whatever the justification for such denial--incompatible with the rights of the accused under article 6."
"We are considering what measures might be necessary"--
"to bring law and practice into line with the requirements of Convention as set out by the Court in this case."
Amendment made: No. 21, in page 34, leave out from beginning of line 19 to end of line 5 on page 35.--[Sir John Wheeler.]
Amendment made: No. 22, in page 38, line 6, leave out 'or 52' and insert
'(Video recording) or (Codes of practice: supplementary)'.--[Sir John Wheeler.]
Amendment made: No. 23, in page 39, line 38, at end insert--
'( ) Where this Act repeals and re-enacts provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the repeal and re-enactment shall not, unless the contrary intention appears, affect the continuity of the law.
( ) Any document made, served or issued after the commencement of this Act which contains a reference to an enactment repealed by this Act shall, so far as the context permits, be construed as referring to or (as the context may require) including a reference to the corresponding provision of this Act.
( ) Any document made, served or issued after the commencement of this Act which contains a reference to a provision of this Act shall, so far as the context permits, be construed as referring to or (as the context may require) including a reference to the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.'.--[Sir John Wheeler.]
Order for Third Reading read.8.14 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |