| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.48 pm
Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South): Some hon. Members have been slightly reserved in expressing their appreciation of the Bill--but I say three cheers, primarily because we can celebrate the end of internment. I understand the reservations that have been expressed by some hon. Members, but, with this Bill, we are rapidly moving in the direction that most hon. Members desire.
The Bill represents the first opportunity that our new Labour Government have had to take the action we have for so long advocated: to remove the worst and most obvious injustices in the emergency provisions. It is a tragedy that the provisions have existed for 20 years. At last, however--at their first opportunity--a Labour Government have removed the aspects of the provisions that most people find so abhorrent, especially internment without trial.
In opposition and now in government, Labour has consistently highlighted the fatal flaws in prevention of terrorism legislation--especially internment without trial, Diplock courts and a lack of safeguards in interrogation. I am pleased to note that the Bill will remedy some of the worst injustices.
The House must realise that the Bill takes only the first steps. Moreover, some Opposition Members may be planning to table amendments to remove the Bill's provision ending internment. I realise that internment is an important issue, but--in the interests of the peace process and of building confidence in the community of all Northern Ireland--it is essential that it is ended.
Not one section but all sections of the community have been affected by internment over the years. Furthermore, often the parts of the community that are least able to speak for themselves have been most affected. The worst aspect of internment is the fact that those who are truly guilty of crimes have been allowed to hide behind perceived human rights injustices. Internment has also earned us the international community's opprobrium, because it has been perceived as contrary to human rights.
I ask Opposition Members to rethink their objections to ending internment, and to think about the confidence that will be needed in the peace talks. We must ensure that we send all participants the message that we are intent on building confidence--not in one part of the community, but across the entire community of Northern Ireland.
It is wrong and unjust to say that the new Labour Government are soft on terrorism. I welcome the Government's announcement that they will introduce
anti-terrorist measures for both Britain and Northern Ireland, and I look forward, in the new year, to seeing that consultation document. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has given assurances that the measures will contain safeguards for the community of Northern Ireland.
We must make progress, and today's announcement that internment will end represents real progress for all of Northern Ireland. Ending internment will do much to restore confidence in legislation that has widely been regarded as unfair. The legislation has exposed Britain and British Governments to allegations of abusing human rights.
The Government have a clear human rights agenda, and I am proud to be a part of a Government who are adopting the European convention on human rights. This Bill accords entirely with our commitment to human rights--not only in our own backyard but around the world.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
Let us remember what this Bill is all about. When I was seven, I lived on the outskirts of Belfast, and did not watch the news much or listen to the proceedings of Parliament. I knew, however, that there was something called the troubles, and that I lived in them. One night, I was woken by my mother, who was hanging blankets across the windows, because there had been a bomb scare. There was a chance that the windows would be blown in, and she did not want glass shards to go through the house. I asked her what she was doing, and she simply said, "This is Northern Ireland." That is what the Bill is about.
The Bill deals with a place where life is not normal--although it is more normal now than it has been for two decades. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland is still not normal. The Liberal Democrats are willing to support the Bill because of the current situation. We are not pleased to be supporting the Bill, however, because to be pleased to support it would be to welcome the reasons for it. Surely no hon. Member believes that it is laudable that such a Bill is required.
The House seems to be united in the belief that we need such legislation. Although the Liberal Democrats think that such measures are a regrettable necessity, they are a necessity. We shall therefore be voting to give the Bill a Second Reading.
As there currently does not seem to be an emergency, are emergency provisions justified? The Lloyd inquiry answered the question well, saying:
As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) eloquently said, we must have faith in the peace process. However, although it might be appropriate in the political context for us to regard both the loyalist and the republican ceasefires as permanent--as desperately as we might want that to be so--it does not follow that they should be regarded as permanent when framing security legislation.
Emergency powers should be kept to a minimum, and we should give the security forces all the powers they need--not all the powers they might need. There must be a balance. We must also remember the effect that some of the powers can have on some people in Northern Ireland. Misuse of brutal powers can create a brutalised society.
We welcome many of the Bill's changes to the emergency powers. More specifically, we certainly welcome the change in clause 2, because of concerns over Diplock courts, which have one judge and no jury. Northern Ireland's judicial system is simply not comparable to that on the mainland. Regardless of whether concerns over Diplock courts are justified, such concerns can undermine the objective of ensuring that justice is seen to be done. Such concerns can damage the outlook of those we must most encourage with confidence-building measures.
Although there are concerns over jury trials, the Bill's amendment of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 will provide welcome flexibility, easing the way towards a more normal judicial process in Northern Ireland.
I was confused about why, earlier in the debate, the question of opting in or out should have become such a big deal. Surely it is a matter of logic and of common sense to establish the most sensible route forward. There may be arguments on both sides, but please let us not pretend that deciding one way or the other is a major political problem. The problem could indeed be a logistical one.
Mr. McNamara:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is most desirable, if we can achieve it, is more trials before a jury?
Mr. Öpik:
I and the Liberal Democrats agree that anything that we can do to create a normalised judicial process in Northern Ireland is to be welcomed--which is why certifying in has such an appeal. It makes the absence of a jury the exception rather than the rule. I welcome his intervention, so that I can emphasise that point.
I shall now turn to the clause that will remove the internment provisions. Those powers were last used in the early 1970s, and were widely regarded as counter-productive. The politics of internment come from the dark ages. In simple terms, internment converted terrorists into martyrs. That is why, as a matter of principle, and as a matter of strategic common sense, it is right to banish it for ever to the history books of Northern Ireland.
Because the powers have not been used for a long time, everyone presumes that they will not be used in the future, but that is not good enough. We have to make a statement, and I do not agree that such a statement is merely tokenistic. It is a profound statement of faith in the fact that Northern Ireland must become a more normal place to live, and that such kangaroo-court behaviour is not acceptable.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the recording, both audio and video of police interviews. It was once the prevalent view that taping of interviews would not be helpful, in part because interviews were a good environment for informers to provide information about terrorist activities. However, if the interviews were recorded, there is no reason to believe that valuable sources of intelligence would dry up.
While that argument was important, we always believed that it was overrated. Informers can inform in many other ways, but taped interviews may have other benefits, such as discouraging rough treatment by the interviewers. They also prevent interviewees from making mischievous claims that they were treated roughly. It works both ways.
The Liberal Democrats were pleased that silent video taping was included in the 1996 Act. However, it is a shame that it has taken so long for it to be introduced. I accept that the process set out in the legislation was lengthy, including the drawing up of a draft code of practice; public consultation; consideration of the replies; a new draft code; and instructions to the individual men and women who have to operate the new procedure.
Where has that process got to? The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made that point eloquently. It would be helpful if we could have a specific commitment on when video taping will be introduced in the Province.
There are some omissions from the Bill, and I shall cite two specific concerns. First, stop-and-search powers were introduced for good reasons. If applied diligently and cautiously, they are an important tool in the fight against terrorism.
The Bill does not include a reduction in the stop- and-search powers of the police and the Army, but there are currently reports of high levels of harassment by both services. That harassment normally takes the form of repeated stopping and questioning under the provisions of the emergency provisions Act. There are also reports of some demeaning stop-and-search incidents.
Although we may question the veracity of some of those reports, it is likely that the claims have an element of truth, and the stop-and-search powers can certainly cause deep resentment. When the Minister winds up, I should be grateful if he could summarise the plans, if any, to review the stop-and-search procedures.
Secondly, under the emergency powers, an interviewee has no right to a solicitor in the first 48 hours of police questioning--once again, for reasons of security. It is feared that the solicitor may warn other suspects. However, since 1991, inferences of guilt can be drawn from an interviewee's silence and having a solicitor present has become much more important. Otherwise, the weak-willed and the impressionable may be pressured into a false confession and the malicious and mischievous may be able to cry foul and pervert the course of justice. Some 19 people were refused immediate access to a solicitor in the first half of 1997 alone.
In a legal case, Murray successfully took the issue to the European Court of Human Rights, but the Government do not appear to have amended the legislation in accordance with its ruling. When the Human Rights Bill comes through the Lords, that problem will become apparent and pressing. Amending the situation will
involve legislative complexities, because the legislation that allows inferences of guilt to be drawn is different from the legislation that restricts the right to a solicitor.
However, I should like to know what plans, if any, the Government have to bring the legislation into line with the Human Rights Bill. I believe that to be a necessity, and time will dictate that it must be addressed. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment in the other place on the previous occasion that the emergency powers were discussed, which would have provided either that interviewees were denied a solicitor or that no inferences of guilt could be drawn from their silence. That issue must be resolved by the House.
The most important element in the question of Northern Ireland is not the Bill, but the need to solve the problems of the area. It is not enough to try to contain it through the emergency provisions.
We have seen some remarkable developments in Northern Irish politics. The settlement talks are a great endeavour, and the difficulties faced and risks taken by both sides cannot be overstated. Both sides have made themselves vulnerable in the search for peace. It takes courage and conviction to be involved in the process, and the participants can feel uncomfortable when justifying it to their supporters. To that extent, I have nothing but praise for the courage of those Ulster politicians who are trying so hard--with a genuine commitment to the settlement talks--to find a solution.
Set against that background, the Bill is a tactical but regrettable requirement It will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland, but it might provide the space for them to be solved. If that happens--I personally am optimistic that we will get a settlement of some sort--we must be optimistic that Northern Ireland will take vital and permanent steps along the road to peace. In that context, there might be a case for the early repeal of many of the provisions, which would be a further confidence-building measure for the people of Northern Ireland.
"Once lasting peace has been established in Northern Ireland there will continue to be a need for permanent counter-terrorist legislation to deal with the threat of international and domestic terrorism."
Lloyd's advice is doubly sound. It is not only the conclusion of an extensive and well-conducted inquiry, but the lasting peace described during its deliberations was abruptly ended by a series of bombs marking the end of that IRA ceasefire.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |