| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I welcomed the arrival of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, and I strongly supported it during its passage through the House, as I supported previous emergency provisions Acts. In my judgment, the powers and provisions of the successive Acts have been and remain essential, and the Secretary of State's action today confirms that. More to the point, the people who make use of those powers and provisions have consistently reported that they are helpful and necessary. The time certainly is not right to abandon them, as the Secretary of State's tabling of this amendment order and the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland confirm.
The amendment order is brief and modest, but, notwithstanding its brevity and modesty, I welcome and support it. The proscribing of organisations may not be the ultimate weapon in the fight against terrorists, but it is a useful adjunct. In some circumstances, it can be a means of securing convictions, although not as frequently as many of us would like. It certainly sends out the right
message that there is no lawful place in a free, democratic society for organisations that believe that violence is a legitimate means of pursuing political objectives.
I have no doubt that the two named organisations deservedly qualify for proscription. Their reported actions show that, and I dare say that intelligence sources also provide further good reasons for their proscription. I applaud the Secretary of State's prompt and decisive action.
When the present Secretary of State was shadow Secretary of State, she sometimes described her position on policy issues as "constructive criticism." I often felt that "constructive criticism" was a euphemism for "opposing politely". Nevertheless, I believe that the Government of the day appreciated her approach, and I shall try to follow her example.
Obviously, this is not the occasion for a wide debate on emergency provisions Acts or on the Government's overall intentions with regard to anti-terrorist legislation. However, it is worth putting down in utmost brevity some markers to which, no doubt, we shall return on future occasions.
The first marker that I want to put down is a bit complicated. It relates to the EPA and the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. I may be mistaken, but in the final days of the previous Parliament, I formed the impression that Labour Members might be thinking in terms of moving beyond the Lloyd review. I based that understanding on the speech of the present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) when we last debated EPA matters on 19 March. He said then:
When Lord Lloyd referred to separate Acts, did he not have in mind the EPA and PTA, not the EPA and the 1988 order, as the present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seemed to think was the case? In either event, Lord Lloyd warned against streamlining or amalgamating legislation unless there was lasting peace, and I believe that it would be unwise to overlook that.
My second marker relates to the Diplock courts. Here again, I hope that the Government will not act too hastily. I do not think that the essential issue is whether to contract in or out of a Diplock court system; I cannot see that that really matters. Nor should it be argued--as it sometimes is--that the Diplock court system is a form of inferior justice. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) made that point persuasively in the Second Reading debate on 19 February last year.
Surely the essential issue is whether Diplock courts are still needed--and they are: we cannot yet dispense with them. Deeply though we may regret it, the threat
of intimidation, or worse, for jurors or witnesses, is as great as ever. To provide protection would be extremely difficult in practical terms and would almost certainly be cost-prohibitive, in view of the number of people who would need to be protected and the length of time for which they would have to be protected. I hope that the Government will not rush in and precipitately curtail the Diplock system.
For the sake of brevity, I shall refer to the third marker only in passing. It relates to the silent video recording of questioning in the holding centres. The arguments about whether the right balance has been maintained, and about whether we are going too far or not far enough, are well rehearsed, but I feel that silent video recording should be given a reasonable trial. That has not yet happened, and it should before any change is seriously considered.
My fourth marker relates to detention orders. Hon. Members have made their hostility to such orders very clear and the arithmetic of the House is such that, if they so decide, they can proceed. I shall say only that if they seek to remove that lapsed power from our anti-terrorist legislation, I do not think that I will be alone on the Opposition Benches in arguing as persuasively as possible that it would be a dreadful mistake. Tragically, the security position in Northern Ireland demands and justifies emergency provisions and the PTA. That is the reality, which the tabling of the order confirms.
I hope that the Secretary of State has fully grasped one dimension of the security situation in the Province, on which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) commented. A security crisis looms in Northern Ireland today and there is a real danger that it could assume horrific proportions.
Demonstrably, since 1992--and probably some time before that--a key objective in the Provisionals' overall strategy has been the orchestration of confrontation between Unionists and the British state. The Orange Order marches provide the primary vehicle for achieving that, and all the signs suggest that they are succeeding. The crisis will be compounded if the Government unwittingly play into the hands of the Provisionals. With the height of the marching season approaching and tension in the Province rising, the RUC has a pivotal role to play, and the morale of the RUC is a vital consideration.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should the hon. Member not confine his remarks to the order that we are discussing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
The terms of the order are fairly narrow, concerning two specific organisations. Perhaps the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will confine his remarks to that order.
Mr. Hunter:
In recent weeks, the two organisations that have been proscribed today have been instrumental in creating disorder in Northern Ireland. My point is that it is through the marching season, and the marches in particular, that those who seek to disrupt order in Northern Ireland are working. That is my argument in support of proscription. I hope that the Secretary of State fully appreciates how dangerous the position is, and that he will find means to restore morale within the RUC.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram):
We have had a brief but constructive debate. I think it appropriate to acknowledge what all right hon. and hon. Members have said in condemnation of paramilitary violence and sectarianism, from whatever quarter it comes. It is clear that the House is unanimous in that condemnation.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked why we had not proscribed the organisations before. The decisions that we are making tonight must be based on reliable evidence relating to the organisations as a whole, rather than assertions, suspicions or even the conviction of individual members for criminal offences. The evidence available at any particular time has been kept under review, but it is now such that we believe that the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Continuity Army Council are organisations which deserve proscription.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made many telling points about other groups that have already been proscribed. He said that proscription of itself would not achieve the removal of those groups from the face of Northern Ireland society, and the evidence tells us just that. Clearly, the best and most effective proscription will occur when those groups listen to what all decent, right-thinking people want for Northern Ireland--when they respond to what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want for their society.
"Lord Lloyd . . . said that many of the procedural provisions in the Emergency Provisions Acts might have taken a different form given the existence of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. He also said that once lasting peace had been established in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom there would be no need for separate Acts: one would suffice."--[Official Report, 19 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 1016.]
I hope that, in their deliberations, the Government will not lose sight of Lord Lloyd's all-important qualification. In his judgment, the need for separate Acts remains unless there is lasting peace. That, in itself, demands a considerable passage of time after a ceasefire, or we will not know that that ceasefire is lasting.
6.36 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |