| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ingram: Yes. Clearly, the systems must be put in place. Also, silent video recording--a proposition that we inherited--is still not in place. The mechanism had to be assessed and we had to study ways in which it could be implemented.
I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of the proposal. The independent commissioner for the holding centres, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and his deputy Dr. Bill Norris, have for many years argued the case for such recording. We are grateful to Sir Louis and Dr. Norris for their continuing work and for their thorough reports into that matter and to other aspects of the holding centres. I am pleased to be acting to put in place measures that they and others have long advocated.
The introduction of audio recording will provide additional protection for both interviewees and police interviewing officers against claims of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment. It will also assist the judicial process by providing the best possible record of interviews conducted, in the event that a criminal case ensues.
Those are the three main areas of amendment to the legislation. The Bill also makes a minor amendment to the existing provision on silent video recording, which will run separately and alongside the audio recording system because of the inherently separate purpose for which it is intended. The amendment addresses an omission in the current Act.
Occasionally, the police require to interview at a holding centre a person who is in custody in the care of the prison authorities. Also occasionally, a magistrate may
order a person to be produced at a holding centre for questioning. The amendment will give authority for such interviews to be recorded on silent video in the same way as other interviews conducted in the holding centres.
I call on the House to support the Government in their move to renew the existing Act for a further two years and to support the changes that I have described. That will ensure that the criminal justice system and the security forces in Northern Ireland continue to be equipped to deal with the level of terrorist threat applying.
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell):
I am grateful to the Minister of State for setting out the main provisions of the Bill and the principle changes that the Government propose to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
I must say at the outset that, as a responsible and constructive Opposition, we have no hesitation in supporting this vital legislation. Unlike the Labour party when it was in opposition, we shall not shirk from our fundamental responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. We have never had any doubt about the importance or the necessity of the emergency provisions. They are vital for the protection of the public and a crucial weapon in the fight against terrorism.
For 18 years, successive Conservative Secretaries of State came to the House to renew the powers contained in the emergency legislation. Year on year after 1981, Labour Members trooped into the Lobby to oppose us. More recently, they had a sudden change of heart and summoned up the courage to abstain. Many colleagues will recall their more lurid descriptions of the evils of that legislation as "draconian" and "repressive". Lame and pathetic excuses were ritually trotted out by Labour Front-Bench Members to excuse their behaviour and to appease the hard left on their Back Benches, even during the darkest days of the troubles internment. Finally, they came up with the issue of internment. For the sole reason that the power remained on the statute book, albeit in a lapsed form, they refused to support us.
I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me. I cast no aspersions on his abhorrence and that of his ministerial colleagues of terrorism, or on their commitment to defeat it, but the defeat of terrorism requires more than condemnation. As we have always recognised, it requires a willingness and a commitment to act. So it is not without a certain irony that we now see a Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box introducing another emergency provisions Bill.
Perhaps the most important area of bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland is the fight against terrorism. It demonstrates the total determination of both major parties in the House that terrorism will never succeed and that parliamentary government throughout the whole of the United Kingdom will be vigorously defended. Make no mistake, we do not like emergency provisions--no party does. They contain powers that, in normal circumstances,
any democracy should abhor. We would prefer that they were no longer required, but they are required in Northern Ireland today, so I can assure the Government that, as long as they continue to sustain effective anti-terrorist legislation, even though we might differ on certain details, they shall have our full support.
Mr. McNamara:
Where in his range of importance does the hon. Gentleman put the peace process?
Mr. MacKay:
High, but the first and most fundamental duty of the House is to protect the people of Northern Ireland from terrorism and to ensure that we have a democracy there. That is the most fundamental part of the bipartisan policy, and I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman--as he well knows--that we fully support the political talks that are being engaged in. If he is talking about priorities, the first priority must be the fight against terrorism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his considerable experience of those matters, will concur.
Mr. McNamara:
The peace process is the most important thing, because that is what will lead to an end to terrorism.
Mr. MacKay:
That is as may be, and that is very trite. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is to be peace at any price, he is very much mistaken, as his Front-Bench team will agree. The first duty of the House is to protect the people of this country from terrorist attack and to ensure that we have democratic institutions in all parts of the United Kingdom. I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and I would have hoped and expected him to agree.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
It is a small point, perhaps, but surely it is important that, while the terrorism legislation that we are discussing is tactical--trying to prevent things from happening--the settlement talks are the strategic element and so come higher in the list of priorities.
Mr. MacKay:
With the greatest respect, as I told the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my highest priority and, I should have thought, that of every hon. Member, is to defend the whole of the United Kingdom against terrorist attack. On reflection, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) might like to agree, as his predecessors on the Liberal Democrat Benches have done.
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush):
The hon. Gentleman is shifting his ground. He is talking about the defence of democracy as well, and he said so in the first and second responses, but not in the third. The defence of democracy requires a respect for the rule of law. The Labour party challenged the temporary provisions Act precisely because locking up people without a trial is opposed to the rule of law and democracy and did us enormous damage, as well as undermining the fight against terrorism. Will he commit himself, in the fight for the rule of law and democracy, to getting rid of internment provisions?
Mr. MacKay:
There is a role for internment and, if the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a minute, he will hear me develop a clear case for that.
I shall come to the details of the Bill shortly, but first let me say that today's debate provides the House with an opportunity to consider the wider security and political context in which the Government are required to introduce the legislation. As the Minister pointed out, the most significant development has been the restoration of the IRA ceasefire on 20 July this year. We also note that the loyalist ceasefire has been maintained since October 1994. The Opposition welcome the IRA ceasefire and the fact that it has since been maintained; we also welcome the fact that Sinn Fein has now signed up to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and has, on that basis, been admitted to the Stormont talks.
We hope--as must the whole House--that that represents a genuine commitment, for we must all stand firm on the principle that there can never be any justification for the use or the threat of violence. Violence for political ends in a democracy can never be allowed to succeed. The IRA will never bomb Britain out of Northern Ireland, nor will it ever bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That message should continue to ring out from this House, loud and clear. Sinn Fein should take this opportunity to turn its back on violence for good and it must stick rigidly in the talks to the Mitchell principles--there can be no fudging on that issue.
In their response to the Ulster Unionist party's submission on Sinn Fein's continued participation in the talks, the Government said that both the British and the Irish Governments would
The Opposition wish the Minister and his colleagues well in the political talks. We share his objectives of a comprehensive political settlement and a lasting peace. The people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing less. However, stability will be established and new political arrangements will last only if they are built on the right foundations. The most important of those are the principle of consent and the triple lock of parties, people and Parliament. We look to the Government for a reassurance that the principle of the consent will remain paramount and that there is no question of breaking the triple lock. In particular, I ask the Minister to state categorically that, in the absence of agreement next May, the Government will not try to appeal over the heads of the parties and that consent, as it applies to the second element of the triple lock, means the people of Northern Ireland alone.
In addition, we believe that there will be serious engagement in, and a successful conclusion to, the talks only with confidence-building measures on both sides of the community. That includes the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives, without which the shadow of the gunmen will be cast permanently over the political process in Northern Ireland. So far, there have been no assurances from Sinn Fein that the IRA will contemplate decommissioning in parallel with the party talks--far from it. We therefore look to the Government to ensure that no party is allowed to stall on that central issue and that early progress is made in the decommissioning sub-committee and the independent decommissioning body.
Despite the welcome progress that has been made, it is vital that we do not lower our guard--after all, we have been here before. The Conservative Government took a number of justifiable risks and showed real political flexibility. For the period of the ceasefires, there was hope that the nightmare of violence had ended for good; but that hope was blown apart in the murder and rubble of Canary wharf and Manchester. The return to violence had no justification and demonstrated the enduring contempt for democracy that characterises the IRA. The Government should therefore not be deluded about the potential difficulties that might lie ahead in the political negotiations at Stormont.
The Government should recognise the misgivings of many people in Northern Ireland about whether their elected representatives are participating in the same process as Sinn Fein. There can be few more difficult acts for a politician in a democracy than to sit across the table from people who have so recently acted as apologists for terrorism. In the Government's own words, Sinn Fein and the IRA remain "inextricably linked". In that context, I pay special tribute to the way in which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has led the Ulster Unionist party through such a difficult few months.
During those months, and since the announcement of the ceasefire, there have been several developments that give cause for continued concern, some of which the Minister mentioned. So-called punishment beatings have continued--the latest count attributes about 30 to the loyalists and 21 to republican groups. We condemn unreservedly those vile and vicious acts, from whichever side of the community they come. They are clearly incompatible with a commitment to democracy and should cease immediately. I trust that the Minister will remind those parties in the talks that claim to have an influence with the paramilitaries on both sides, of their responsibilities in that respect.
We have also seen in the past few days reports of serious resignations from Sinn Fein and the IRA--including a purported member of the IRA Army Council and an entire battalion in south Armagh--opening up the prospect of more serious fissures in the republican movement in future. The Continuity Army Council and Republican Sinn Fein--itself the product of previous splits--remain implacably opposed to the ceasefire and have demonstrated their ability to threaten life and property. Only by good fortune has that threat been averted.
Meanwhile, representatives of the IRA told a republican newspaper that they would have problems with the Mitchell principles, so the Government must remain vigilant. They should not relax any security measures that cannot swiftly be reversed, nor should they be tempted to take decisions for political reasons. We want no more fiascos like the one over the proposed transfer of Jason Campbell. I want the Minister to reassure the House on that point and to reiterate that any measures to ease security on the ground should be taken only following the closest consultation with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable.
In that context, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay a special tribute to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces. It is they who have stood on the front line against terrorism for 27 years, carrying out their duties with the greatest skill, dedication and professionalism. We have always expected, rightly,
the highest standards of them, and in all their activities they have been subject to the discipline of the rule of law. That is how it should be in a democracy. All of us owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. In turn, they deserve the support of all the people of Northern Ireland and all parties in the House.
We currently have peace in Northern Ireland, but, as the Minister will acknowledge, it remains a fragile and imperfect peace. That is the justification for our support for the Bill, to which I shall now turn my attention. In doing so, I express our gratitude for the work of Lord Lloyd in reviewing all the anti-terrorist legislation. As the Minister explained, the Bill extends the 1996 Act for two more years. It retains most of the powers contained in the Act passed by the last Conservative Government; but the Government also seek to make three key amendments.
The first amendment is made by clause 2, which amends schedule 1 of the 1996 Act, which deals with scheduled offences, so as to increase the number of such offences that can be certified out, at the Attorney-General's discretion, to be tried by a jury.
Secondly, as the Secretary of State foreshadowed at a Labour party conference fringe meeting, clause 3 repeals section 36 and schedule 3 of the 1996 Act, which provide for executive detention, or internment, of terrorist suspects. Clause 5 provides for the audio recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects, following the previous Government's introduction of silent video recording.
I shall deal with the second and most controversial of those points in some detail later. On audio recording, our approach in government was always largely guided by the advice of the Chief Constable. We recognise that the present Chief Constable has now concluded that he sees no obstacle to its introduction, and we accept his and the Government's position.
On certifying out, the Bill lists a raft of serious offences that will henceforth be eligible for trial by jury rather than through the Diplock procedure. I listened carefully to the Minister's justification for extending certifying out and to his exchanges with Labour Members, and I acknowledge what he said about such cases being a matter for the discretion of the Attorney-General, but I have several questions. Why do the Government consider it necessary to amend the 1996 Act in such a way now, especially in the light of the Home Secretary's welcome announcement of a review of all anti-terrorist legislation? How many charges have been brought under any of those offences in recent years other than those specifically related to terrorism?
It is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the Government are making unnecessary concessions to those who have always opposed the Diplock system, no matter how necessary it is and despite the fact that it discharges the highest standard of justice. We believe that the Government are being precipitate and engaging in the politics of tokenism--a very dangerous approach to Northern Ireland affairs.
The same is true of clause 3, which will finally remove the power of executive detention or internment without trial from the statute book. Let me make our position clear. No party can approach this subject lightly. Throughout our period of office, we were urged, not least
in the aftermath of terrible atrocities, to consider introducing internment. We were also advised by several sources, regularly including the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), to repeal those powers.
At all times, our approach was consistent. Governments should consider invoking the power only if there were a serious deterioration in the security situation. It would be self-defeating to spell out the precise circumstances in which that would happen, but the facts that the power has not been used since 1975 and that it has technically lapsed, are not compelling reasons to warrant its removal altogether from the statute book.
It is worth pointing out that the equivalent power in the Republic of Ireland has not been used, to my knowledge, since the 1950s, but the power contained in the Offences Against the State Acts of 1939 and 1940 remains in force. It ill behoves this House to remove internment from the statute book when our friends south of the border are not planning to do the same.
At present, the Secretary of State can sign the order for internment, which then has to be approved by resolutions of both Houses of this Parliament within 40 days. Clause 3 will make such action impossible without the introduction of primary legislation, robbing the Government of the key element of surprise.
"react firmly to any infringements of the Mitchell principles".
I look forward to the Minister reiterating that commitment when he makes his winding-up speech. There can be no equivocation on the part of Sinn Fein in its attitude towards IRA violence. The commitment to democratic and peaceful methods, as set out in paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration, means precisely that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |