Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

House of Commons, 11 December 1997.

INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am glad that we have an opportunity on Report to consider amending the Bill. It gives us a chance to put before the House several issues that we should have preferred to raise in Committee. Unfortunately, as things turned out, we were deprived of that opportunity. None the less, we now have a chance to do just that. I appreciate that time is getting on and that hon. Members wish to move on to other matters, so I shall not dwell at great length on the points in the amendments. However, new clause 1 raises a very important issue to which we must pay some attention. I proceed in light of the assumption, which is clearly shared by the Government, that there is a continuing need for emergency law in Northern Ireland. That is clearly the case as the Government are extending the life of the legislation and providing for unified emergency legislation embodying both the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the prevention of terrorism Act. I believe that the Government's judgment in that respect is correct and that there is a continuing need for emergency legislation. I believe that that need will become much more apparent in future months because I fear that the present lull in terrorism will not be much prolonged. Unfortunately, come the new year, I fear that we shall be dealing with some familiar problems. One of the great difficulties that we face in combating terrorism is obtaining evidence for convictions. I should have thought that the Government would be extremely anxious to gather evidence for convictions. After all, in the Bill, the Government are removing from the statute book the power of detention or internment—measures to which Governments faced with terrorism have had recourse because of the absence of evidence and the consequent inability to obtain convictions. Therefore, the Government should be keen to gather evidence that supports convictions. There is a source of evidence available that has not been used hitherto: evidence obtained from intercepted telephone communications. That is known in the United States as "wire-tap evidence". Such evidence is not admissible in the United Kingdom. I think that that is a mistake, and the intention of new clause 1 is to make wire-tap evidence admissible in cases that fall within the terms of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Interestingly, this issue—which we have pursued over a number of years in the House—was considered by Lord Lloyd of Berwick in his inquiry into anti-terrorist legislation. In considering the arguments for and against the admissibility of wire-tap evidence, he made several points. I can do no better than to quote from one paragraph of his report. In dealing with the arguments in favour of an amendment of this nature, Lord Lloyd said: `The first and most obvious argument is that evidence of intercepted material is admissible to prove guilt in each of the countries which I have visited, and in every other country of which I have knowledge. The United Kingdom stands alone in excluding such material. Thus in the United States the use of intercept material in evidence is regarded as essential. In many instances, including high-profile cases involving the New York Mafia, convictions otherwise unobtainable have been secured by the use of intercept material. I put to officers of the FBI the suggestion that they were having second thoughts about the use of intercept material. I could find no support for this suggestion. In France I was told that intercept material has proved very valuable in terrorist cases. Thus, some 80 per cent. of the evidence against those suspected of involvement in the 1995 bombings is derived from intercept. Similarly, in Australia interception is regarded as an 'extremely valuable aid to criminal prosecution' …664 prosecutions for offences ranging from murder to serious fraud were based on intercepted material, nearly 500 of those prosecutions being for drug offences. Convictions were obtained in 87 per cent. of the cases. Often, when presented with the evidence of an intercept, the defendant pleads guilty. I highlight the phrase: The United Kingdom stands alone in excluding such material. Why on earth does the United Kingdom impose that unique handicap on itself when dealing with serious crime, including offences of this nature? There is no sense in that whatever. Indeed, not allowing intercepted telephone communications to be admitted in evidence is highly illogical, given that other intercepted conversations are admissible. If a bug is placed inside a house and a conversation is tape recorded or transmitted by some wireless device to somewhere else and recorded there, that intercepted conversation is admissible in evidence. People can be wired up with recording devices attached to their body, and the conversations that they have with other people are admissible. A number of years ago the important offence of directing terrorist organisations was created under the emergency provisions legislation. Only two convictions have been obtained, one of which was as a result of people who were wired up speaking to a suspected leader of a paramilitary organisation, whose admission of involvement was recorded, and that evidence supported a conviction. The argument is clear and, on the strength of it, Lord Lloyd was asked to consider permanent legislation in the event of terrorism in Northern Ireland being over. He recommended that such provisions should be introduced. I have not bothered to check, but I think that the previous Government, when they received Lord Lloyd's report, said that they would implement that provision. The legislation should be amended as I have suggested. The only argument against such a provision of which I am aware is that, if such evidence were admissible, those involved in terrorism and smuggling would know the extent to which communications were intercepted. But people know that already, and in any case they still have to communicate; they cannot conduct their operations without communication. Some people may be concerned about the implications of such a provision, but the new clause would not compel the Government to introduce wire-tap evidence: it would merely give them the power to do so. The intercepts would not have to be disclosed to the defence unless the prosecution thought it desirable to rely on such evidence. To that extent, it would be an enabling provision. It would end a serious anomaly: it is incredible that, alone in the civilised world, the United Kingdom does not make use of wire-tap evidence.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Gentleman has made some valid and strong points, to which I shall respond. However, in his opening remarks he said that we were dealing with amendments now rather than in Committee, and he referred obliquely to the way in which the Committee procedure had been handled. I want to say for the record that no amendments were tabled in Committee. If they had been tabled, we could have dealt with them in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time. I also remind the House that something like 12 hours were dedicated to the Bill in Committee. That is also worth putting on record.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether a Standing Committee on a non-urgent Bill has ever sat on the first day of its proceedings from 4.30 in the afternoon to 5 o'clock the following morning? Is not that an abuse of our procedures, and also why there was not time for amendments to be dealt with later in the Committee stage, as is usual? Is not that the point that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was making, and is not the Minister ashamed of himself? Would he be good enough to apologise to the House?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am not ashamed of myself, and an apology is not necessary. If hon. Members are interested in the history of the Bill, they should add up the amount of time Conservative Members spoke in the debate, and then judge the quality of their contributions against the time taken. If amendments had been tabled, we could have had much more substantial debates. I am not criticising the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but, as he said that we now have an opportunity to deal with amendments, it is important to point out that no amendments were tabled in Committee. The official Opposition did not table any amendments: they have tabled an amendment this evening. I was directing my comments at them, and if anyone should feel ashamed, it is the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who failed to carry out his responsibilities and provide proper and adequate opposition. Perhaps we are now getting that opposition.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I asked the Minister a specific question. Can he recall the first sitting of a Standing Committee not starting until—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. We are discussing a new clause, which is a specific matter, and we should refer to that, not to the length of the Committee or what happened in Committee.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to deal with the helpful comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann. If new clause 1 were enacted, it would allow evidence from intercepted material acquired under an Interception of Communications Act 1985 warrant to be adduced in court if it related to a scheduled offence within the terms of section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised this matter during the debate on counter-terrorism legislation on 30 October. He will recall that the Home Secretary referred to Lord Lloyd's proposals in respect of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. In response to the hon. Gentleman, he said: The hon. Gentleman asked about Lord Lloyd's proposals in respect of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That is a complicated issue. Lord Lloyd sought to distinguish between interception evidence that arose in respect of a national security investigation—which he said should be adducible in evidence—and other interception evidence, from a customs, police or security service intercept, in respect of the investigation of a serious crime, which he said should not be adducible in court. That is one of the most complex of Lord Lloyd's recommendations. Many take the view that it is very difficult to draw the distinction in practice. There is much to be said on both sides of the argument about whether intercept evidence should be adducible in court".—[Official Report, 30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 1032–33.] He went on to explain his proposals for dealing with this matter. The hon. Gentleman gave a neat precis of Lord Lloyd's report. I am sure that he has gone through Lord Lloyd's examination of this matter, and agrees with me that it is extensive and detailed. Lord Lloyd weighed up the issues, and came down on one side. Rather than go through all the arguments, which would detain the House unnecessarily, I recommend that hon. Members read chapter 7 of the report, which will enable them to understand the detail and breadth of the arguments. On 30 October, the Home Secretary said that the Government were considering this matter carefully. We understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue: it is important and must be considered with particular care in the context of Northern Ireland. I repeat that the hon. Member has made a strong case for his point of view.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Such matters must be weighed in the balance, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing. I do not think that housekeeping is the right way in which to deal with such important issues, especially in the context of national security and the relative importance of the crimes whose perpetrators we seek to bring to book. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the matter must be examined comprehensively. He went on to say that it would be premature to proceed as had been proposed in regard to the general issue, and I agree. I think that it would be wrong to introduce a straightforward housekeeping measure, or to act in any other specific way relating to Northern Ireland, given that my right hon. Friend is considering the position in relation to the interception regime as it applies to the United Kingdom as a whole.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the Minister accept that the general view in Northern Ireland is that the measures in the Bill are confidence-building measures aimed at those whose compliance the Government seek, namely the terrorists? Would not the confidence of the ordinary decent citizen be built up if the new clause could serve as another weapon in the armoury of those who are attempting to enforce law and order? Would that not build up the confidence of the vast majority of peaceable citizens in both communities?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I entirely reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening remarks. If we engaged in a discussion about the underlying philosophy and purpose of the Bill, and whether or not it is a confidence-building measure, we would spend considerable time—time that was available to us on Second Reading, which was cut short an hour and a half before it was due to end. I have no intention of going into the details, but I entirely reject the suggestion that the Bill was designed to appease terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that, given the mood in Northern Ireland, the Bill would somehow build up confidence on the other side of the community. As I have tried to explain, we want to get the legislation right. It is complex legislation. It is right for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look at it in the context of the United Kingdom, and for us to ensure that it is robust enough to withstand detailed examination. I ask the hon. Member for Upper Bann, and others who have spoken, to accept my assurances. We are undertaking an active and comprehensive examination. The last Government did not act, although they may have given an indication that they would; I cannot say whether they did, but it should be possible to verify whether they felt that action was necessary. They did not act because' they, too, thought that the proposals should be examined properly. On the basis of my assurances, I ask the hon. Member for Upper Bann to withdraw his new clause. I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will doubtless take full account of them. As he told the hon. Gentleman on 30 October, it is helpful to obtain the comments of those who have experience and knowledge of such matters.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I shall try to be brief. I am afraid that I think the Minister made rather a meal of his response, especially in what he said at the beginning about the Committee. He knows that the Ulster Unionists were going to table amendments, and he knows that, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) clearly stated that he was prolonging the proceedings only to enable amendments to be tabled. Rather than allowing that to happen, the Government unnecessarily prolonged the sitting until everyone was exhausted. That was unfortunate, but we now have an opportunity to consider the substance of these matters, and I think that we should take it. 5.45 pm The Minister said one thing from which I draw sustenance: he advised hon. Members to read the relevant chapter of Lord Lloyd's report. I am confident that, if they do so, they, like me, will be convinced that evidence secured through wire tapping should be made admissible. Lord Lloyd recommended that it should be so only in cases involving national security, and that raises difficulties, to which the Home Secretary referred; but my new clause is much narrower. It deals purely with Northern Ireland terrorism, and does not give rise to the same evidential problems. I echo what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). The Government now have an opportunity to consider the matter seriously, and I ask them to take it. I realise that they have not had long to consider it so far—if it had been raised in Committee, they would have had more time—but they will now be able to consider and consult, because the Bill will go to another place, where amendments can be tabled. The Minister can act in regard to wire-tap evidence relating to terrorist offences connected with Northern Ireland before doing so in regard to offences relating to other parts of the United Kingdom. That would give the security forces in Northern Ireland a valuable additional weapon, as well as sending a signal that the Government will take matters seriously if there is a resumption of violence. It is important for that message to be sent now, because the Government have said nothing so far about what they might do in the likely event of a resumption of violence. The fact that their current approach is all carrot and no stick sends the wrong signals to the community in general, and, indeed, to those who are involved in terrorism. I ask the Minister to reflect on that. I do not intend to force the matter to a Division, because I am not sure that votes are terribly important in the House now, but it was necessary for the issue to be raised, and it is important for the Minister to consider it. I hope that that will happen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

CODES OF PRACTICE: COMMENCEMENT ORDERS

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 5, page 2, line 38, at end insert— (2A) Subject to subsection (2B) a recording or a copy of a recording made under subsection (1)(b) shall not be made available to any person. (2B) A judge conducting the trial of a scheduled offence may require the production to him alone of copies of all or any of the interviews made under this section with the accused in connection with the subject matter of the trial.'. No. 7, in schedule 1, page 4, line 26, leave out & ", 53A" & and insert & "or 53A' ". No. 8, in schedule 2, page 4, line 37, at end insert— 'In section 60(5), "or 54".'.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consequential on new clause 3, but amendment No. 5 deals with a separate issue that is quite important. I must give credit for new clause 3 to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). In Committee the other week, when we were discussing a code of practice under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the hon. Gentleman referred to the provisions in that Act enabling codes of practice to be properly consulted on and debated in the House. The Minister—this Minister—approved of the hon. Gentleman's comments; as a result, they are the joint progenitors of the new clause. As the Minister spoke approvingly of the proposal in Committee, I am sure that he will follow through the logic of that approach now. Amendment No. 5 is a different matter. I will explain the thinking behind it. Clause 5 makes provision for the audio recording of interviews conducted by the police with terrorist suspects. It is a matter about which we have very grave reservations. Indeed, in previous debates we have advised against such audio recording. I know that audio recording is normal practice with regard to other offences. I am also aware that some judges in Northern Ireland have expressed the view that there should be audio recording. From their perspective, such recording diminishes fights when people who have signed statements challenge them on the ground that they were obtained improperly. The trial within a trial on the issue is sometimes difficult for judges to resolve. While audio recordings of interviews might solve that problem, they give rise to other problems and dangers, which in the past have convinced my hon. Friends and me that they should not occur. During interviews with terrorist suspects, much intelligence is gathered by the police. A number of things are said on the basis that they are not recorded in the note of the interview. That is a well-known practice, and it is not necessary for me to cite evidence of it; it is accepted by everyone who is familiar with the system. Many such statements are made, and they would of course be recorded if an audio recording were taken. Such a recording would become available to a wide range of people. I do not need to remind hon. Members that when a terrorist suspect is arrested and questioned, the very first thing that his criminal associates do is try to find out details of what happened and what was said during the interrogation. An audio recording would facilitate that. There is no point in saying that the recording would not become available. If, in the normal course of events, a recording should be disclosed or come up in discovery, it will become available to the terrorists. They will then be able to check what their members or people associated with them have said in interviews. That is a very dangerous step to take and will have a serious effect by limiting the amount of intelligence that becomes available to the security forces. I realise that the Government are determined to proceed with audio recording. Amendment No. 5 therefore tries to limit the damage. It provides that a copy of the recording can be furnished by the police to only one person—the judge conducting the trial—and that it would not be available to anyone else outside the police. That must go into legislation; it cannot be included in a code of practice because codes of practice cannot prevent the recording being discoverable. The amendment would limit the collateral damage which clause 5 will do to the activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

The hon. Gentleman has raised a point which I had not considered. If the amendment is not accepted, the clause could be a gift to terrorists. All hon. Members are very well aware that Sinn Fein and the IRA are very good at manipulating any loophole—however small—in the law. The amendment should be commended by us all.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. His phrase is quite right; the provisions in clause 5 are a gift to terrorists. The amendment would limit the damage. I acknowledge the arguments in favour of audio recording. We felt on balance in previous years, however, that even though there was an advantage to audio recording the disadvantage that I have mentioned outweighed the advantage. The amendment would prevent the disadvantages that would flow from audio recording.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Yes, indeed. Obviously, recordings can also protect the police. What provisions do the Government intend to make with regard to the detailed operation of audio recording? I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Member for Upper Bann made some strong and salient points about the new clause and amendment No. 5. I thank him for paying tribute to those who helped frame new clause 3. Given the debate in Committee, it is important that we get the matter right. The earlier proposal did not quite achieve the objective to which I was prepared to subscribe. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) can speak for himself on new clause 3, but since he has not tabled any other amendment I assume that he supports it. The hon. Member for Upper Bann did not go into much detail, so it is worth setting it out for the record. New clause 3 and the consequential amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would have the effect that any order made by the Secretary of State bringing into operation or amending a code of practice made under the Act would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Currently, an order made bringing into operation or amending a code of practice under the Act is subject to the negative resolution procedure in the same way as orders pertaining to equivalent codes under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Codes of practice are required in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the PTA, and such codes are already in operation. Codes of practice are also required in connection with silent video recording and audio recording and may be made in connection with the powers of part II of the Act. We hope to be in a position to bring the silent video recording code of practice into operation in January 1998. It would be wrong to debate the details of that at this stage. If the new clause gains the support of the House, we shall clearly have an opportunity to discuss in detail the Government's proposals. The audio recording code has yet to be drawn up. Under the provisions of the amendments, its introduction after the Bill receives Royal Assent would be dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure, which would allow debate and consideration. Orders pertaining to the equivalent PACE codes are subject to negative resolution and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act currently mirrors the PACE provisions in this respect. However, codes of practice governing the application of counter-terrorism provisions are by their nature somewhat different. That is why I responded as I did in Committee and why I support new clause 3. Such codes of practice merit special scrutiny. All of us will gain from such an approach. I am happy to accept the proposals of the hon. Member for Upper Bann concerning new clause 3. Amendment No. 5 raises a range of important issues. In effect, the hon. Member is seeking to place a restriction on disclosure of audio tapes. His amendment would have the effect that audio recordings would be made available only to the judge conducting the trial. The Government fully understand the motive behind that. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove any inhibitions that might be placed on the interviewee, and any fears that he may have in the knowledge that audio tapes of his interviews may become public. Before I respond to amendment No. 5 in detail, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann and the House that the audio recording system is being introduced with the full co-operation and support of the Chief Constable of the RUC, who has taken the view that it will not impair the ability of his officers to pursue terrorist crime. The details of the code of practice that will govern the system will be drawn up, in the usual way, in full consultation with the RUC. The general matter of electronic recording in the police holding centres has been a subject of much discussion: it is no secret that the question of disclosure of tapes—whether audio or video—has been a major area of contention. Even those favouring the introduction of electronic recording have given thought to whether it would be possible to devise a scheme that would guard against tapes being disclosed, for precisely the reason the hon. Member has outlined. 6 pm Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres, in his annual report published in 1994, put forward proposals for a scheme involving the Lord Chief Justice to direct a judge, not being the trial judge, to view any tape that a detainee or his legal representative had sought disclosure of during the course of the trial. The Crown would then subsequently be invited to argue against any decision on the part of the judge to allow disclosure and in the end could withdraw its reliance on the disputed evidence. In other words, only if the Crown were still to pursue its prosecution, based wholly or in part on the contested evidence, would disclosure be ordered by the High Court judge. Whatever the viability of the scheme, however, it would still face two major difficulties. The first is that, given that the possibility of disclosure would remain, the inhibitions on the person being interviewed—to the extent that that is still a problem—would also remain. Secondly, and more importantly, such tapes would represent best evidence in any criminal proceedings, and to devise schemes that circumvented the principle of disclosure of best evidence would surely go to the heart of the fairness and adequacy of those proceedings. Similarly, the alternative of confining access to the tapes to the trial judge only was considered carefully in the past. I have looked at the idea again in the light of amendment No. 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I have to say that it would be highly prejudicial to the process of justice if any judge were to hear recordings of interviews that were not in the end made available to the defence—all the more so if the judge noted any impropriety on the part of the police interviewing officers. It would place the judge in an impossible position, because his function is to administer justice in a way that is impartial to both parties in a case. We have an especially good record in Northern Ireland in achieving that objective against a difficult background. The Government have taken the decision to introduce audio recording for several reasons. We believe that it will provide additional protection both for the detainee and for the interviewing officers, it will reduce the scope for the lengthy hearings within trials that have been such a feature of terrorist-related trials in recent years, thus speeding up the process of justice to everyone's benefit, and it will not undermine the ability of the police to investigate serious terrorist crime, which is the Chief Constable's considered view.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Can the Minister explain why the Chief Constable is now said to be in favour of audio recordings being admitted as evidence—and why he has apparently suggested that that will not prejudice the investigations or hamper the collection of evidence—when that did not appear to be the case on previous occasions when the subject was considered? What has brought about that tremendous metamorphosis in police thinking? [Interruption.]

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) says that it was political pressure.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Political direction.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am sorry—I misheard the hon. Gentleman. If the accusation is being made—from a sedentary position or by implied intervention—that political direction has been given to the Chief Constable, I assure the House that that is not the case. If the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) wishes to know why the Chief Constable has changed his mind, the hon. and learned Gentleman should talk to him. That is what the Government have done as we discussed the changes. I am reporting the view of the Chief Constable to the House. I can assess why he changed his mind only on the basis of the discussions that we had with him.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

So he has changed his mind.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is not in dispute. The reasons behind his change of mind are based on the facts and circumstances that he has to take into account, but how the Chief Constable reached his decision is a matter for him. The Government believe that there is merit in proceeding as we intend and the Government have to be held to account for that, not the Chief Constable. I suggest that the hon. and learned Member for North Down and others who are concerned should discuss the matter with the Chief Constable. He is amenable to talking to hon. Members and to giving full consideration to any points of view that they express. Written records of interviews are already kept, and silent video recording will be introduced shortly—as the hon. Member for Upper Bann said. Audio recording is a natural and sensible progression. My genuine belief is that the best way to protect the process of bringing terrorist criminals to justice is to protect the police from unfounded and malicious allegations, and to enable the courts to satisfy themselves conclusively that admissions to police are properly obtained. While I understand the purpose of the hon. Member for Upper Bann in tabling amendment No. 5, I do not believe that a system that sought to prevent audio tapes from being disclosed would be either workable or appropriate. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. We have not rejected it out of hand. Due thought was given to the amendment on the basis of the various examinations of the subject by others. However, on balance, we do not believe that the amendment would advance the cause of natural justice and I ask the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw it.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I wish to make three brief points. The first relates to the codes of practice. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the codes of practice that the Secretary of State is required to produce, however they are decided, will be implemented speedily. Silent video recording has been agreed and adjudicated on, but after some considerable time it has still not been implemented. I heard the Minister's explanation for the delay and in some ways I accept it, but I would be more confident in accepting it if I could do so in conjunction with an assurance that the codes of practice for audio recording will not be delayed. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a target date for the implementation of audio recording, based on the codes of practice. Secondly, I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made tonight, but one point seems to be missing. The person being questioned in police custody is in abnormal circumstances. He has been arrested abnormally under emergency legislation; he is being held abnormally, by people who have the right to refuse him access to a solicitor; he may be held for an abnormal length of time, in contravention of the European convention on human rights; and he is held in abnormal physical conditions, in holding centres that have been condemned as unfit for that use by all who have reported on them to Parliament. Abnormality surrounds the entire process from the time person is arrested until the time the person appears in court. The abnormality continues because there is then no jury. The abnormality stretches right through the entire process. For that reason, we must be ultra-careful.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I agree that there are a number of abnormalities, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most fundamental abnormality is the existence of terrorist organisations that, over a period, have murdered more than 3,000 human beings, destroyed enormous amounts of property and mutilated the persons of literally thousands of people? That is the fundamental assault on society and everything it stands for which has given rise to the abnormalities of which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently speaks.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point, and I do not dispute with him the obscene abnormality of violence and what it has done to everyone living in the north of Ireland. That is incontestable. What is open to question, however, is the capacity of any abnormal system to end that state of affairs. In some ways, the question posed by the hon. and learned Gentleman confirms that. The more abnormal the process of law has become, the more abnormalities are sought. We must think about that even when there is peace—I know that that will crop up later in the debate. Please do not despise that peace. For someone who lives where I live, it is very precious. Do not let a wish list damage the prospect of its continuing. Do not let the need or the desire to predict accurately cloud judgment on the issue. It is within that context, on the three key issues, that I greatly welcome the changes made. However, I have been and am still critical of the fact that at a time when we are, I hope, moving into lasting peace, the legislation is being extended beyond the year 2000. We as a society, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, must never forget the need to protect the rights of individuals. It is true that some of those individuals do not respect other people's rights, but that is no reason why a Government, a Parliament or a system should take up the abnormalities and make a virtue of them. I look forward to hearing the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) argue his case from a legal point of view, but as a layman I simply pose one question about the amendment. Can it be just or equitable that the evidence on tape is not available to everyone involved in the process of a person's trial? Can that be right? Can that be legally acceptable? We should not make the assumption that if the judge sees the evidence he, in his overpowering wisdom, will make the right decision. Surely a lay person who respects the law and wishes to protect it should demand that if there is evidence available, it should be available as of right to everyone. It should not be withheld. Over the years, one of the greatest criticisms of the application of both the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act has been that legislation designed to protect society was used to trawl for evidence. Ministers admitted as much in the House. When the provisions were first introduced, Sir Leon Brittan confirmed on the Floor of the House that one of the purposes was to trawl for information. That fact was also confirmed by a junior Minister in a famous Standing Committee debate. Is there not an element in the debate on the new clause which suggests that what is being protected is not the chance of a valid conviction, or even the right of the individual, but the capacity of those who are doing the questioning to trawl for information rather than pursuing whatever evidence there may be against the person being questioned? That goes to the heart of the problems as many of us in the north of Ireland see them. In response to a comment made earlier, I must say that I believe that there is no general view in the north of Ireland, and that we must accept that fact. However, there is one subject on which there is an absolutely general view—the end to the terrible violence that the hon. and learned Member for North Down talked about. And there is the absolute desire for peace. There is also a strong view that, whatever tactics may be used by the terrorists and the others who have inflicted the obscenity of terrorism on the rest of us for so long, the legal process must retain its integrity and should never even step towards using the same type of tactics as the terrorists. I am afraid that the implication that the provisions allow trawling for information goes down a road that we should not travel. It does not protect what we should protect, and over 25 years it has not achieved the results that some assume.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

In connection with the proposed amendment, may I first point out that although I sought from the Minister some indication of the reasons for the Chief Constable's change of heart about audio evidence, that was not necessarily done for the purpose of supporting the amendment. There are difficulties about the amendment. The most basic, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), is that it is a fundamental principle of our judicial system that evidence that is to be tendered against an accused must be made available to him. If it is made available to the judge alone in certain circumstances, that is a breach of a fundamental principle. The Minister would be correct to have reservations about that, and perhaps it is a good basis for not accepting the amendment. My objections, and the reason for my question to the Minister, involved whether audio evidence should be accepted at all. I did not mean that it should be accepted and an attempt made to tailor it to our present difficulties by overriding what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh rightly pointed out is a fundamental and necessary principle of the administration of justice in the United Kingdom. May I in turn refer to other matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned? I see nothing objectionable if those charged with bringing criminals to justice seek to obtain information in any circumstances, provided that those circumstances are lawful and are not in breach of any of the principles according to which evidence should properly be obtained. There should not be any objection in principle to extraordinary or emergency measures being used to deal with extraordinary and emergency cases. The fundamental question is how far a democracy is entitled to take measures of an emergency nature to protect democracy itself. That is no new principle. When the state itself was threatened, both Abraham Lincoln and F. D. Roosevelt, who in any democratic society would be respected as great servants of democracy, introduced emergency measures to which in normal circumstances they would have objected. During the war between the states, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, opened US mail without authority and interned people without trial. Similarly, we forget that, in more recent times, the US Government interned 100,000 Japanese citizens—the Nissei—in 10 different camps when the United States was threatened by Japan. No one would pretend for a moment that they like these actions or that they should be given any credence—except in particular circumstances where even greater damage would be done to society itself were these emergency measures not in place. During the second world war, people who were thought to be a danger to the security of the state were placed in positions where that danger could be averted. All this may lead the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to suggest that these measures are not necessary, but let us look at what happened today. In 1984, a group attempted to assassinate the entire Cabinet of the United Kingdom. In 1991, the same people attempted to direct rockets to destroy No. 10 Downing street and those within it. In 1997, they are coming through the front door of No. 10 Downing street, without having surrendered a single weapon or handed over a single ounce of Semtex. It is a myth that violence does not work—violence works if Governments do not have a commitment to take the necessary emergency measures to protect the person and property of its citizens.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Can I return the hon. and learned Gentleman to the question of persons being interviewed by police officers? Does he agree that there should be no unseemly delay in the access to legal advice for those persons?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

In principle and in appropriate circumstances, everyone should have the quickest access to legal advice. Again, however, we must balance whether or not prompt and vigorous—although not unlawful or not objectionable—interrogation methods are necessary to obtain information that might prevent horrendous crimes from occurring. What is not generally appreciated—except by those involved—is that, very often, those who are being interrogated in holding centres are already known to have committed the crimes for which they are being interrogated. Very often in Northern Ireland, witnesses come forward and specifically identify people and give the most positive and clear evidence against them. However, they say to the investigating police that because they live in the area and because they, their children or their relatives may be murdered or mutilated, they will not give evidence. However, they will identify people on the confidential phone or in an interview. The people concerned are then picked up and interrogated. Within the necessary strictures that must be placed on the police, that interrogation or trawling for evidence—l it what you will—erfectly justified.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

The hon. and learned Gentleman has long experience of practising in the courts in the north of Ireland. I have long experience of the other side of the coin in relation to this legislation. Is it ever right under law to arrest people under emergency legislation— ally at six o'clock in the morning— e them to a holding centre, question them and keep them there, when those who are arresting and questioning them know that there is no suspicion attached to them? Are not the persons arrested losing their freedom and human rights in the search for information, perhaps about someone who the police know is guilty, or about an incident? The figures for the EPA and the PTA down the years clearly show that that has been the case. Surely that is wrong, and we should not allow it to happen again. The amendment would do just that.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Certainly a strong case can be made that only in exceptional circumstances should persons who are not themselves suspected of committing a crime be arrested and subjected to interrogation for the purpose of implicating others. However, there may be circumstances known to the police—would have to be left to their discretion—re such measures may be justified if they would save lives, prevent a horrendous crime or, in other unspecified ways, protect the community. It is very easy to make specific judgments and to ask for a generalised approval of a principle which, in practice, may cost people their lives and cause massive destruction.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I shall try to respond to the debate briefly. Amendment No. 5 has been touched on, and we can exaggerate the abnormality of the situation with which we are dealing. In tabling the amendment, I recognised, as has the Minister, that we are attempting to balance advantages and disadvantages with regard to a course of action. There are some advantages in the course that the Government are taking, but there are also disadvantages. The amendment tries to steer between them to achieve the best balance. The Minister acknowledged that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has changed his mind on the matter. Until quite recently, it was not just the view of the Chief Constable, but the settled view of the police force that it was inadvisable to have audio tapes of interviews with terrorist suspects. Although the Chief Constable may have changed his mind, I think that I am right in saying that other senior members of the police force prefer his former opinion to his present one. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the European convention on human rights. There would be only a mere technical breach of the convention if the amendment were accepted; a technical breach which could have been solved a long time ago. I am glad to see that the Home Secretary has announced that he is to try to solve that problem, and the solution is fairly obvious. I suggest to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that the situation about which he is concerned will not be aided in any way by the amendment. The amendment is not directed at a person who is brought in for what he called trawling but is not charged with an offence. The amendment would be relevant only to those who are charged with an offence and to the subsequent trial of that offence. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) made the correct point—h which I fully agree—t evidence to be used against someone should be available to them. However, the evidence is the statement that that person has made. The audio recording is relevant to the circumstances in which the statement is made, and may be relevant to the admissibility of the statement. It may not be ideal for the audio tape to be available only to the judge, but this is not unusual. Where material has been withheld under public interest immunity certificates, for example, the judge alone looks at it to see whether the certificate should have the effect of taking the material out or whether it should be available. That can be relevant to criminal cases—example, material that the judge alone considers can be crucial to the outcome of the trial, as in the Matrix Churchill case. 6.30 pm The abnormality of the case can be exaggerated. To return to my first point, it is a balancing exercise and the Government are making a mistake in where they are putting the balance. That mistake will become clear in subsequent days. It is a pity that that is happening and I am sorry that the Government are taking that line. None the less, I do not intend to press amendment No. 5 to a vote and I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw it. I am delighted at the Government's acceptance of the new clause and amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I am glad that they are employing such an open approach to this legislation. In this sort of situation, it helps if the Government are prepared to look seriously at the merits of clauses. As the Minister said, new clause 3 would ensure a debate within Parliament on the codes of practice, so that they are under parliamentary control, or are at least given a degree of parliamentary scrutiny. That is right. The fact that we are dealing with emergency legislation, increases the argument for parliamentary scrutiny. If we are doing something outside of the normal course of events, there is all the more reason for the House, which is authorising the departure from the norm, to examine and scrutinise. Hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches have made that point year in and year out. Parliamentary scrutiny of emergency legislation is inadequate and this is a small step to strengthen it. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has accepted those amendments. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker I beg leave to withdraw amendment No. 5.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. We have not yet got to amendment No. 5. We are only debating it with new clause 3 at this stage, so the hon. Gentleman does not need to withdraw it.

DURATION OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1996

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8. I shall try to be as rapid as possible. I have already pointed out that legislation of this nature ought to have parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 1 would restore the debate that would otherwise have taken place in 1998 on the continuation of the 1996 Act. The Bill will knock out the annual review of the legislation in 1998, which is a mistake. As long as this legislation remains on the statute book, it ought to be debated in the House at least once a year, as has been the practice. As I said, the legislation has not had much by way of parliamentary scrutiny. I am surprised that new Labor—or indeed, old Labor—is attempting to remove the House's annual debate on the emergency provisions. It is surprising that virtually the first thing that the Labour party did on coming to power was to diminish the parliamentary scrutiny of emergency legislation. That is an astonishing move and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Hopefully, we can debate this quickly. As I understand it from listening to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the amendment would ensure that, to remain in force, the temporary provisions of the 1996 Act will be required to be continued by order approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before 15 June next year. I was not clear whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

indicated assent.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The fact that the hon. Gentleman is assenting indicates an understanding of the effect of the amendment. The Government included the subsection that the hon. Gentleman seeks to remove so that if the Bill is enacted before June 1998, we can dispense with the need for the annual renewal debates, so he is right in his assessment of what we are seeking to do. However, renewal debates will take place in 1999 and 2000, if necessary, to continue the temporary provisions in force until their expiry on 24 August 2000. As the hon. Member said, the renewal debates are an important safeguard, but since Parliament will have fully debated all the provisions of the Act during the passage of this Bill, parliamentary time could and should be saved by dispensing with the 1998 annual renewal debates if the Bill is enacted in good time. Because we are debating this Bill within the time scale in which the 1998 provisions would have been debated, there is no need for a subsequent debate. The legislation will also be considered in another place and may be referred back to us. Under those circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment. We have had a full debate—12 hours in Committee and considerable time on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and this evening—and there may be further debate on the matter. Simply going through the whole exercise again would not be the best use of parliamentary time. While the debate is important, we have had that debate during the passage of this Bill, so I cannot accept the amendment.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Having listened to the Minister, my astonishment at the Government's position is, if anything, greater than it was before. This is 1997. After tonight, this House will not debate the issue again until June 1999. We are to be deprived of the debate that would have taken place in June 1998, which is nearly six months away.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The debates do not necessarily take place in June. Usually it is earlier, in May, and they can take place earlier than that. Under the procedures of the House, the provisions have to be renewed by that date. We are giving the issue full consideration. What more would be gained by having another debate in a month or so? Anyway, we do not know when the Bill will be referred back to us from another place.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

That answer is wholly inadequate. The renewal debates take place against the background of a report by someone who looks into the operation of the legislation during the year. During the passage of this Bill, we have not considered the detailed operation of the legislation against the background of such an expert report. It is a different sort of debate. Whether the debate is in May or June does not detract from the fact that the Government are ensuring that there will be no debate in 1998 and that it will be another 18 months before the operation of the legislation is given any parliamentary scrutiny. In these debates on the Bill, hon. Members can by inference make points about the operation of the legislation, but the debates are not focused on its operation as renewal debates are. Even in recent years, parliamentary scrutiny of the emergency legislation has been woefully inadequate. In the next 18 months, it will be non-existent. I am amazed that that is the position that the Labour party has adopted, but it has done so and time is getting on. I have made my point and I will not press it to delay the House unnecessarily. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

SCHEDULED OFFENCES

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, leave out line 3. No. 4, in page 2, leave out line 6.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The amendments concern the certifying out of scheduled offences. The effect of the legislation is to enable certain offences to be certified out. The point of the amendments is to allow us to ask the Minister to give us the detailed reasons why it is now proposed to certify out offences—making or possessing a petrol bomb; throwing or using a petrol bomb; possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life; use or attempted use of firearms; causing explosions—that are clearly terrorist offences. Those offences are not outside the ambit of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give any coherent reason why those terrorist offences should not be handled in the same way as other terrorist cases?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The amendments refer to offences involving intimidation, petrol bombs, firearms and explosives, and the hon. Gentleman objects to such offences being made capable of being certified out of the schedule of terrorist offences. The amendments would not only preserve the status quo in relation to certain offences that the Government seek to make certifiable out, but would remove certifiable-out status from all scheduled offences under the headings of the Protection of the Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The amendments do not make it clear whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention, and he did not give us a full explanation, but that is the thrust of the amendments. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not suggesting that such offences should invariably be treated in the ordinary way. On the contrary, where the Attorney-General judges it appropriate, they will be tried before Diplock courts. Equally, however, the Government are anxious that, in cases where there is no terrorist involvement or connection with the emergency, the flexibility should exist to enable such cases to be certified out.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that there are cases involving explosions and firearms in which there is no terrorist involvement?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I was coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman holds on for a bit, I shall set out my reasoning on the matter. The hon. Gentleman seeks to preserve the present arrangements, whereby certain offences are automatically tried by Diplock courts. Let me illustrate by quoting from the appropriate statutes. Section 2 of the Protection of the Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 says: any person who makes, or has in his possession, any apparatus, instrument, article or thing which (a) contains any inflammable liquid or substance; or (b) is constructed or adapted for use in conjunction with any such liquid or substance so as to cause injury or loss of life to any person or damage to any property; under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession for a lawful object shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession for a lawful object, be guilty of an offence under this section. Let me describe briefly some of the relevant offences under the other headings. Paragraph 17 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 says: a person who has in his possession any firearm or ammunition with intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, shall be guilty of an offence whether any injury to person or property has been caused or not. Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 says: any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be guilty of felony". Those are the three areas that we are examining in relation to the amendments. It is important to put the relevant parts of the legislation on the record. 6.45 pm The hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure that such offences must invariably be tried by Diplock courts, as he calls them terrorist offences. That is not all: he also seeks, for example—I shall not list every offence—to consign automatically to Diplock courts any offence of intimidation and any offence of manufacturing, dealing in, or repairing a firearm or ammunition without being registered. Let us assume that there was an unprovoked attack on a member of the public by criminal elements not connected with terrorism; for example, someone spraying an individual with lighter fuel in order to steal his possessions. That would fall within the ambit of the relevant section. As another example, suppose that there was a domestic crime involving possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life; or suppose that ordinary criminal elements used explosives to gain entry to a safe; or that in a dispute between neighbours one party felt threatened and intimidated into leaving the premises. Those examples would fall within the ambit of the sections that I read out. The hon. Gentleman would classify those acts as terrorist acts, and would deny those who carry them out the right to trial by jury. I hope that he has accepted the thrust of my argument: not every crime that falls within the ambit of those sections could by any classification be determined to be a terrorist act. The hon. Gentleman sought an explanation. On the basis of the explanation that I have given, there is no way in which I could accept the amendment, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

While I can fully appreciate your anxiety to normalise as far as possible the trial of various criminal offences in Northern Ireland, you will be aware that there is at least a feeling among many people in Northern Ireland that the proposals are part of a process of confidence building. Has any research been conducted or statistics produced on the number of occasions when someone who could have been charged as a petrol bomber was in fact engaged in ordinary criminal activity with his butane lighter fuel? Perhaps you could also tell us—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps using the words, "you" and "your". The Chair is not responsible for the matter.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am sorry, I accept that entirely. Some statistics or evidence about the Government's proposals would help. Clearly, the Government believe that some requirement of justice means that such potentially ordinary criminal cases should be dealt with in a non-Diplock way by juries. Has any research been done? Do statistics show that a significant body of cases of the sort that the Minister described is being dealt with under the Diplock process, when under the proposals they would be dealt with by trial by jury? Or are the Government saying in a blanket way that the bare possibility of such crimes being effected means that it is necessary to make new arrangements?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

It is with some trepidation that I speak on the matter. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), and the Minister, but I am still slightly confused. I am not quite sure whether that reflects on the powers of persuasion of those three gentlemen or on my powers of understanding. The hon. and learned Member for North Down asked for statistics. I understand that the vast majority of work in the Attorney-General's office, some 85 per cent., involves certifying out. I commend the Minister for moving gradually towards having all cases dealt with through the normal process of law. I do not think that the proposals go far enough. Other instances could have been included. I do not want to confuse myself or the issue any further by attempting to mention them, but I believe that this is an opportunity for at least some movement. I commend the Minister for having taken it.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

These were probing amendments to try to elicit an explanation. The Minister gave us a theoretical explanation, not a practical one. I endorse the points of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I wanted to know from the Minister whether, in the circumstances in Northern Ireland, there were any instances of such offences that could genuinely be described as non-terrorist. My limited knowledge suggests that all such cases are paramilitary or paramilitary related. That is the practical reality as I understand it in Northern Ireland. Of course, one can construct theoretical situations such as the example that the Minister gave about lighter fuel. I wanted a practical explanation, and I am sorry that I did not get one. This was a probing amendment to find whether there was a coherent reason behind the proposals; it is clear that there is not. None the less, having found that out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

DETENTION ORDERS

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 9 and 10. Those who watch our proceedings from outside will find it bizarre, to say the least, that we are debating rigorous anti-terrorist legislation on the very day that the leaders of Sinn Fein-IRA are invited into 10 Downing street with the Prime Minister. It will be difficult to explain to our constituents why that is happening. The amendment would delete the clauses that refer to internment. We believe that it is right and proper that internment should stay on the statute book. Let me explain precisely why. We are not necessarily in favour of internment. The Government Whip has suggested from a sedentary position that it was not necessarily successful last time. He will be pleased to know that I largely concur.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

To avoid unnecessary debate, does the hon. Gentleman consider that the Government should not talk at all to Sinn Fein? Should anyone talk to Sinn Fein to move the peace process forward?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I suspect that that intervention was not in order, but if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly. I have said on the record on several occasions that I am entirely in favour of the political talks under way at Stormont. It is right and proper that after a ceasefire has been in place for a certain time, Sinn Fein-IRA should be in those talks. We have also said that it is decidedly premature for a British Prime Minister to invite Sinn Fein-IRA leaders to Downing street. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to confirm that yet again. Let me explain why we tabled the amendment. We readily acknowledge that internment does not always work and that it was not successful in the early 1970s. However, it is quite conceivable that if the political talks at Stormont succeed, and we all dearly hope that they do, there will be splinter groups in both communities that do not accept their results and will resort to violence. Anyone with even a passing interest in the history of Northern Ireland and Ireland will recognise that that almost inevitably happens. I suggest that the moment when, just possibly, the Government might need to introduce internment is after a political settlement has been reached and the splinter groups resort to violence. It is decidedly premature to take internment off the statute brook. I wonder why the Minister is bothering to do it in the Bill, not least when the Government of the Republic of Ireland are retaining internment on the statute book in Ireland, for understandable reasons. We urge the Minister to reconsider the decision. We are not asking him to introduce internment at any particular point.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government of the Irish Republic. The other day in the Dail, the Minister for Justice, when questioned by two deputies—I think one was John Gormley—said, as a direct response to this Bill, that his Department would review the Irish legislation on internment.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

The hon. Gentleman sits on the Government Benches, so he is well aware that a review is totally different from action. The Government have initiated 40-odd reviews, but if they are telling me that they will all lead to action, they are very much mistaken.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party in opposition carried out the review, and we are now implementing it in government?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I have never said to the Minister that this matter is one of the numerous examples of the Labour party saying one thing in opposition to the electorate and another thing when it came to power. I willingly accept that the Minister does not have the same problem of misleading the British public as his colleagues in the Department of Social Security had to face in the House last night. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to commend him, which was obviously why he made that intervention, I am happy to commend him on his consistency, even though I gently suggest to him that he is mistaken.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that pragmatism in the approach to the problem is the key? Does he agree that what causes anxiety to Conservative Members is the fact that whereas the Government have embarked on a pragmatic policy, even to the point of being willing to speak to Sinn Fein today—even if we have anxieties about that, we can still respect that decision— they are not adopting a pragmatic policy on internment? They seemed to make up their mind about it some time ago, and are not applying their mind to the current realities in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to keep internment on the statute book as an available reserve power, because that would display the Government's willingness to negotiate and look for a peaceful settlement and, at the same time, their unwillingness to dispose of any part of the armoury that a lawful, democratic Government should have in resisting terrorism?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I concur whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend. We are not asking the Government to introduce internment at any particular time; we are simply saying that we think that it is in their interests to have the flexibility of retaining internment on the statute book in case they need it at some time in the future. We see no possible advantage in taking it off the statute book, nor any need for it, and we are surprised that the Government are doing so. Many will be suspicious of the Government's motives, and we ask them, even at this late stage, to think again.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I should like to restate my position, as I did on Second Reading and in Committee. I believe that the Minister and the Government have made the right decision in terms of the integrity of the law as it applies in the north of Ireland. It is the right decision in terms of the integrity of their own political position and it is the right decision in terms of the immediate future and the future beyond that. We had a brief discussion about the renewal of this legislation and the fact that it may not be debated in 1998. I was torn when I heard that, because my instinct is to take every opportunity to consider the legislation. But one thing I am sure of is that whatever happens in 1999, when we next debate the legislation, things will have got either an awful lot better or terribly worse. That is for sure. There are those who believe that the capacity for things to improve is greater than is sometimes recognised. Reference has been made to a visit to 10 Downing street today, and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) described it as bizarre. Everything to do with what will solve the problem in the north of Ireland will be bizarre. I live a fairly bizarre life, especially for three days of the week in a place called Castle Buildings, with Sinn Fein representatives on one side of me and representatives of the Ulster Democratic party and of the Progressive Unionist party on the other. That is bizarre. It is even more bizarre that that is happening when a man was murdered in Belfast at the weekend, yet not a word, not a question was asked about which organisation might have killed him. No question was raised in the House when the leaders of loyalist paramilitarism did a bizarre thing. Guess what it was? They went to 10 Downing street to meet the Prime Minister. Is it not bizarre that in a fundamental debate as important as this, the most bizarre element of all has not been comprehensively dealt with? I believe, and we have nothing else to hold on to except our belief, that when we come to debate the legislation again, things will have changed radically. A new beauty will have been born, not the terrible beauty of Yeats, but a beauty based on pragmatism, reality and political progress. I cannot ever foresee circumstances on the island of Ireland when internment will be used again. As I have said before, internment has been used in every decade since the 1920s—in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Some of us are a product of those years, and our experiences on the receiving end go back long before the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act. I make the following prediction confidently, to whatever party is in power: never again will internment be used on the island of Ireland. If it were, it would be a fundamental acceptance almost of defeat, not of victory, and an act of ill faith in the capacity of the people on the island of Ireland to move away from violence and create a new future. It would hold to us one of the monuments of emergency legislation which has failed by the admission of every party in the House. The last thing that we want are monuments to failure rather than signposts to the hope and potential of the future. The Government are right for the three reasons that I gave previously. I commend them on their action. I have made my criticisms that they have not gone far enough down that road of faith. I believe, however, that when we debate the legislation again in the House, the evidence will be there that the step that they have taken today is the right one. It is in that sense of faith that I commend the Government for taking a step which is more difficult for a British Government or an Irish Government than probably any other step relating to their own legislation. I want to see the Irish Government respond—I make no distinction between bad pieces of legislation—by removing their power of internment immediately from the statute book. They know my view on that as clearly as I have tried to put it here.

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

I was sorry to see the amendment, which has been signed by the Conservative Front-Bench team on Northern Ireland, because I recognise that it represents a possible dent in the bipartisan approach which is critical to addressing the problems. When I first heard about the possibility that internment might be removed from the statute book—I believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland mentioned it at the Labour party conference, or at a fringe meeting there—I was surprised, because I had not heard about any such proposal. I understood its significance, as would anyone familiar with Northern Ireland. I consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow spokesman for Northern Ireland, on what consultation there had been and what notice he had had that this proposal was to be introduced. I discovered from him that there had been none, and I regretted that because it is obviously desirable, as we go forward with this difficult process, to have the closest consultation between the main parties in this country. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), along with his colleagues, has responsibility for carrying forward a process in which some of us have invested a significant part of our life as we have tried to make it succeed. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) knows, as do one or two other hon. Members, some of the pressures and hostility that I had to endure, from not just the loyalist, but the Unionist community, when I stood firmly in support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I saw the recent speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the British-Irish parliamentary body, in which she described the long process that this has been. She took her starting point as the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was difficult to hold the line at that time; there were enormous pressures. Some will remember the famous speech that the then right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, made and the abuse directed at the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, at the time of the signing of that agreement. I was the personal recipient of some of the more direct views of the people of Northern Ireland on that subject, not least in the city hall in Belfast. I mention that only to show that this long journey towards what I profoundly hope will be peace is a journey in which each of us who picks up the baton on behalf of the Government of this country—to carry it forward in the interests of everyone in these islands—has a heavy responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to take as many people as possible with us. I have concerns about certain things that happen in Northern Ireland. There is a long-standing convention, which I have always tried to respect. Everyone who has taken on the ultimate responsibility in difficult circumstances—we have just passed the 10th anniversary of the Armistice day outrage at Enniskillen, an all-too-vivid memory which I shall take with me throughout my life—recognises the pressures on the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the difficult problems faced by the Minister of State who has responsibility for security in the Province. Therefore, the Opposition do not seek to second guess, carp and criticise unnecessarily; it is easier not to do so if there is consultation between the parties, because comments can be made in private. I am concerned about the spirit of consultation and the bipartisan approach, which has never been more important if the process is to go forward as there are some difficult issues ahead. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has said, it is a time when people will have to take brave decisions. Those decisions will have to be made not just by Governments from behind the security of Downing street and Stormont Castle, but by politicians out in the streets who have much less protection than I and others have enjoyed. They will have to take brave decisions that will undoubtedly upset some people in their community. In recognising the need for those decisions, it will be important that we maintain the closest consultation and carefully consider their impact. I talked about taking risks, and I recognise that a number of steps that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have taken have pushed back the frontiers of what was previously considered acceptable. I do not necessarily agree with all their actions, but a number of them contain the necessary elements to achieve a change of attitude, provided that there can be seen to be a genuine willingness on the part of those to whom the concessions and opportunities are given to respond with a positive attitude. That will be the test and challenge facing the Prime Minister, the Minister of State and their colleagues I have concerns about the Bill. If my right hon. Friends press the amendment to a vote, I will support them. After one or two of the appalling incidents that I faced in Northern Ireland, different options were always considered and someone always asked why I did not reintroduce internment. I rejected that suggestion because—given the background events and the manner in which internment had been introduced on that earlier occasion—I knew that many saw it as the ideal recruiting sergeant for another expansion of the IRA. 7.15 pm I believe that circumstances might be different now and that some of the problems that previously existed have changed. There are arguments suggesting that the abolition of the measure would make more sense, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell suggested, the abolition of the measure may not contribute to the peace process. Eventually, with great courage and in the teeth of every possible problem, we may reach the position where the vast majority of people realise that, in the interests of peace and on behalf of the people, not just in the Province, although they are of overwhelming importance, but of people throughout these islands, we should reach some sort of agreement. However, I find it impossible to believe that we shall achieve a unanimous result and my great worry is that I fear—and the history of the island of Ireland shows—that there will inevitably be a risk of splinter groups and breakaway groups. The final judgment, not just of this Government and this House, but of the Irish Government, the Dail and the overwhelming majority of people throughout the island of Ireland, may be not that internment is a threat to the peace process, but that it is the only way to save it: the only way to sustain the peace that has been so painfully secured may be to have internment. Despite its imperfections and the affront that it is to a normal system of democracy and justice, there may be some people who will not accept any outcome and will be prepared to continue to murder, kill, terrorise and intimidate in all the ways that I know to my cost many people in Northern Ireland have had to suffer. I was concerned about what the Government had proposed. The proposal would not actually change anything, as internment is not active at present; a residual power remains which successive Secretaries of State have, on reflection, decided not to abolish. It has been decided, in the course of a number of courageous steps that have been taken, not just by this Government, to retain that power. I slightly sensed that the Minister of State was trying to suggest that the present Government had invented the peace process; if anyone deserves the greatest credit for our current position it is my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for the way in which he carried forward the process. He did that while keeping the power of internment, recognising that the power might be needed in future. I say this with some sorrow, because I realise that others may seek to exploit my words, but others, including the Minister, may profit from them, because his action may be seen as a more courageous step if I stand up to oppose it; in front of a certain audience, that may help him on his way. He may not understand my point, but, in the world of Northern Ireland, if one person disapproves, another approves. I profoundly hope that reintroducing internment will never be necessary and I would never have done it myself if I could possibly avoid it, but I would not take the power to do so away from a free democratic society and from the people who might ultimately depend on the Government's being prepared to come to their assistance and provide the necessary security. I would not have abolished the existing but latent residual power.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I can understand to some degree the feelings of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about the fact that there was no consultation between the Government and the Opposition on the presentation of the Bill, but surely he, more than anyone else, realises that the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in which he was heavily involved, is the prime example of the way in which people are left feeling aggrieved if they have not been consulted. With the greatest respect, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it does not lie in his mouth to complain about the absence of consultation.

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

In a way, I have made exactly the same point. My criticism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not based on its substance, but on the lack of consultation. There should have been more consultation and it certainly would have been preferable. Holding the views he does, the hon. and learned Gentleman must accept my remarks about the need for consultation in all things.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

That is true, up to a point, but, when the agreement was passed, I vividly recall the right hon. Gentleman telling us in the Northern Ireland assembly that, when we all got to grips with it and understood it—as if we were people of limited intelligence— we would fully appreciate how peace, stability and reconciliation would be the fruits of that great agreement. However, I have read today's edition of TheDaily Telegraph, which carries a year-by-year account of those who have been murdered by Sinn Fein-IRA, and I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the passage of time from 1985 and the roll call of the dead at the hands of Sinn Fein-IRA and the equally despicable terrorists who masquerade as loyalists provides no evidence of the peace, stability and reconciliation that foolish pro-Union people fail to recognise in the interstices of the agreement created for them by others. If my recollection is correct, when that agreement was being put through the House, the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, told the House and the world at large that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was for the purpose of strengthening and securing the Union. Mr. Kinnock, then the Leader of the Opposition, told the House that he welcomed the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it was a step, albeit a small step, towards the fulfilment of the Labour party policy of a united Ireland by consent.

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

The hon. and learned Gentleman might recall that, at the identical moment, Mr. Charles Haughey, who was then either the Taoiseach or the Leader of the Opposition in Ireland, was berating Dr. Garret Fitzgerald for saying that he had copper fastened partition.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I take that point, but I would rather confine our debate to events in this House, because this House, then as now, is the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a position that Mr. Haughey has never at any time occupied, although he had aspirations to do so. We should bear in mind the fact that, from their viewpoint, the pro-Union people in Northern Ireland were receiving conflicting messages from those involved in a bipartisan policy. It has been rightly said that when Government and Opposition are in unctuous and pious agreement about the way forward, one thing is absolutely certain: someone somewhere—in this case, the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland—are being treated very badly. That was certainly the impression in 1985, and it is increasingly what the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland feel today. I am pleased that there is some disagreement today about the bipartisan policy, because it give me some hope that an objective assessment is being made in the House of the relative merits of the measure. I shall speak briefly about internment. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has done some violence to the historical record on internment, because internment has been an enormously effective weapon in maintaining the integrity of, and democracy in, the Republic of Ireland. On each occasion when internment has been utilised in the Republic of Ireland to put down terrorist activities in the form of private armies, it has worked admirably. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I, as a common lawyer who is very conscious of the rights of the individual, have an antipathy to internment. I agree entirely with what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said; internment should be used as the very last option, but there are clearly foreseeable circumstances in which internment may be necessary. It is informative to note that those who have been most closely involved inside the IRA, but who have forsaken it and become its most constructive and successful critics, have all said that their ultimate fear is of internment. No one is suggesting that internment should be put into effect, but, while it is retained on the statute book, it can be introduced in certain circumstances—for example, when it is essential to copper fasten a peace—to ensure that an agreement arrived at among democrats is held firmly in place against attack by small splinter groups. We should remember that in a complex and modern society small splinter groups need only to have the means to shut down 10 or 12 electricity sub-stations in the City of London in order to bring down every computer there. We must not underestimate how effective a small group with modern equipment can be and the threat that it can pose. In those circumstances, it may be necessary to hold the measure in reserve. We should retain the measure, not as a result of any feeling of oppression, but because of the speed with which it may be introduced. If it ceases to be primary legislation, we can reinstate it only over a period, thereby losing the surprise and speed of execution that may be among the most effective attributes of this ultimate safeguard of democracy. We throw away surprise, and the strength of holding it in reserve—and for what purpose? To build the confidence of terrorists. Can there be any other reason for doing so? 7.30 pm It does not serve for the Minister to say, "We said in opposition that we would introduce this measure if we were the Government." That does not make it better. It provides some consistency, but some people have been known to be consistently wrong. It behoves everyone to think very carefully about the ultimate situation that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke of, and to consider whether the peace that everyone hopes for, and which everyone is striving to secure, may ultimately fail because we are incapable of removing from society the small number of people who will never, in any circumstances, come into the democratic fold.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is appropriate to allude briefly to the situation that pertained today, when three unreconstructed terrorists—Adams, McGuinness and Ferris—were invited into the heart of democracy by the leading politician in the United Kingdom, our Prime Minister. Whether we oppose or support the Labour party, he is our Prime Minister, and representatives of our Government are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Today, they invited those people who were specifically named in a recent "Newsnight" programme as active members of the—

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The "Spotlight" programme.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank my hon. Friend. They were named in that documentary, shown on "Newsnight", as leading members of the IRA's Army Council. They were invited into Downing street to placate the threat that they still pose, which is still recognised, from the IRA to society throughout the United Kingdom. That approach has not worked in the past. In the early to mid 1970s, the Government decided that the one way to placate terrorists was to set up incident centres on the streets of our towns, to finance those incident centres and to supply telex machines to people who were not terribly well-organised. Those people were carrying out acts of terrorism, but they were not organised in the sophisticated way that they are today. As an act of good will, the Government of the day taught them how they must become organised, how they must create a communication structure and how, in effect, they must become more efficient at the terrorism that they were carrying out against society. That was done as a reaction to internment, which we all now admit was carried out with a degree of expedition that was unwise because the information was not available. However, the information is available today. We know today who are the godfathers, the people who do not prime or carry or plant a bomb, who do not actually put the gun to the back of the head of community policemen in Lurgan and pull the trigger, but who sanction every wicked act that is carried out in the name of the IRA and in the name of other illegal paramilitary organisations. I do not want to embarrass him, but I have some regard for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I believe that he, like myself and others, sincerely wants peace throughout society in Northern Ireland. I do not doubt him for a moment, but when I heard him today describing things as abnormal and bizarre, I cast my mind back to the time when he engaged in amateur dramatics, and I thought that he had lost none of his talent. He communicated in very acceptable terms something that is fundamentally flawed—something wrong. He suggested that Governments did not have the right to employ emergency measures in an emergency situation. The hon. Member knows better than that. He and other members of the Social Democratic and Labour party sat for more than a year in the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, predominantly a nationalist forum, in which the IRA sat facing every other nationalist party in Ireland. Every other nationalist party in Ireland said to the IRA, "You are wrong to pursue a violent course. You must abandon violence. You must recognise that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is absolutely necessary if we are to have an equitable and peaceful society and if you want to be part of it." At the end of a year, in that cosseted environment, the IRA representatives pointed their fingers back at the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his colleagues and said: "No. Consent is not on our agenda." They were telling us that they still adhered to a strategy of holding an Armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other. They are prepared to put the Armalite behind them and exploit the ballot box, and they will exploit the ballot box for a considerable time, as long as the Government are prepared to set up incident centres and supply them with telex machines, or to give them concession after concession as they are doing now. There has been nothing quite as humiliating, in the entire 27 years of violence, as seeing the three top leaders of the IRA walk through the door of No. 10 Downing street today, entering what, together with this place, represented the heart of democracy. Then they came out and went in for some showboating. There was not a word about the consent of the people being an essential part of democracy; not a word about dismantling the terrorist organisation; not a word about disarmament. There was, however, a suggestion that, if the leader of my party were willing, they would engage in another showboating exercise. God knows how these showboating exercises will end. To please Gerry Adams and his cohorts, perhaps we shall all have to dance the conga along Whitehall—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

My hon. Friend and I are good friends, because I am a Conservative and Unionist, and I support the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend share my view that if Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Ferris do not get their way, they will return to violence? Would he therefore agree that internment should remain part of our primary legislation?

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The hon. Gentleman brings me succinctly back to the point I wanted to make. However we try to placate these people, their appetite is insatiable—nothing short of a united Ireland will placate them. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater said that if there were a settlement there would be splinter groups with which we should have to deal. It is much more serious than that. There is not an ounce of sincerity in Provisional Sinn Fein: the Armalite has not been put away. So when the bribes—the Danegeld—that have to be paid to keep these unreconstructed terrorists at the table of democracy run out, they will resort again immediately to violence. Then we shall have to decide how to deal with the godfathers.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

With reference to the "cosseted" situation in which I and others spent more than a year trying to persuade people that the principle of consent in relation to any change of status for the north of Ireland is the only viable democratic approach, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing very cosseted about doing a week's work here and then heading off to spend another two days trying to convince people of the validity of that argument. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point; I, too, know how the prodigal son's brother felt—the more so given some of these antics—but surely every opportunity should be taken to put this case and to test these people out.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have some sympathy with that, but when do we stop testing? When do we decide that the product is fit for human consumption? Nothing has emanated from IRA-Sinn Fein to suggest that they can be seriously incorporated in the democratic process. Today was a humiliating today for British democracy. Surely people still remember Warrington, Enniskillen and Regent's park—the list is endless. Some people say that Enniskillen was a mistake, and that it was never intended that civilians should be killed. The town is in the heart of my constituency, and I know better. I remind the House that on that same Sunday, about 25 miles from Enniskillen in a place called Tullyhomman, another church parade involving youth organisations and children aged between 16 and 18 was assembling ready to move off. Right in the heart of their assembly area was a huge bomb, every bit as dreadful as the one that exploded in Enniskillen. But it was discovered and subsequently forgotten, because the discovery prevented 30, 40 or 50 deaths. It would have wiped out an entire generation in the locality. That bomb, now forgotten, was approved by the IRA's hierarchy. 7.45 pm The right hon. Member for Bridgwater says that although he approves of internment being on the statute book he never saw any justification for using it. I have seen such justification time and again in the past 27 years. Instead of bolstering Sinn Fein-IRA with incident centres and telex machines, we should have been perfecting the gathering and collating of intelligence. By 1985, when our intelligence was perfect, we should have removed the godfathers by detaining them under the internment powers. Had we done so, I do not doubt that others would have filled their shoes. They would have taken the places of the quartermasters and the brigade commanders, but if one keeps removing the finance officers, production managers and sales managers from a business, that business will soon be brought to its knees. That is not to say that we should intern hundreds of people, but I am afraid that neither the previous Government nor this one have had the courage to face up to what terrorism really means to the people who have to endure it daily. The Government continue to cling to the vain hope that if we give the terrorist what he wants, he will eventually become a democrat. But we democrats who sit in this Chamber do not always get what we want—yet we abide by the collective decisions made here. Certainly, we question those decisions, but we abide by them willingly because we know that that is the best way of maintaining order in society. Adams, McGuinness and Ferris, and people like them, will never acquiesce in that idea. I therefore say that the Government of the time were negligent, in that they failed to use internment when they had the chance to use it at the right time. May I comment on the rumour that the Irish Republic will review its situation with regard to internment? Despite all the clamour that there has been for the past 20 years for this jurisdiction to remove internment, the Irish Republic has never volunteered to initiate that process, because it recognises that internment is a legitimate weapon in the hands of a responsible democratic Government, and that internment on the island of Ireland must be implemented south and north if it is to have maximum effect against the terrorism of the IRA. The case of loyalist terrorism is slightly different; we can probably contain that within our own jurisdiction, by the use of internment there. With respect to IRA terrorism, the Republic recognised that it should keep that facility as long as we had it in our jurisdiction. Unfortunately, there has not been the courage to sustain it here, so the Republic will no doubt be obliged to follow the flawed example proposed by the Government. The word "affront" has been used tonight. The greatest affront that we can give to the electorate throughout the United Kingdom is to bow our knee to those who would use violence in place of the ballot box. Sadly, we are on that slippery slope. On behalf of my party, I support those who have proposed that the power of internment should be retained.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I shall be brief. I want to return to some of the observations made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and a comment made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I took note of what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said when he warned his colleagues about unnecessary criticisms being fired at Ministers when they—Ministers—are making difficult decisions. However, the right hon. Gentleman was utterly wrong to observe that Labour Ministers claim authorship of or responsibility for the peace process. We have always acknowledged the work of the previous Tory Prime Minister in that regard. If the bipartisan approach is breaking down, it is because of the carping criticism being levelled at our Ministers from the Opposition. The Conservatives take badly to being on the Opposition Benches. One of the consequences is that they cannot support a bipartisan approach. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on the need to ban internment from the whole island of Ireland. In response to what the Minister said about reviews, I hope that the Irish Government do not conduct too many reviews. With reference to the rumour concerning the Irish Government's decision to review internment, may I quote from the Official Report for the Dail. Deputy John Gormley, who I think is a member of the Green party, tabled a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, asking the Minister if he will take steps to initiate the repeal of the portions of the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 to 1984, which allow for the introduction of detention without trial in this jurisdiction in view of the intention of the British Government to remove the power to detain persons without trial from the statute book in relation to Northern Ireland. Minister O'Donoghue responded: The Government have already welcomed the intention of the British Government to repeal section 36 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which will remove the provision for detention (internment) in Northern Ireland. The Minister went on to say: The Government are equally committed to keeping legislation covering offences against the State under constant review and to amending it in the light of changing circumstances as necessary. He finished by saying: Accordingly, it is my intention to bring proposals to Government shortly with a view to initiating a wide-ranging review"— I know that the hon. Member for Bracknell has heard that before— of legislation in the areas of offences against the State, including, in particular, the issue of internment. I would say to Minister O'Donoghue, whom I have met, that he needs to do more than review the legislation. He needs to follow the radical lead of this Government. I said that I would be brief. I support the decision of the Prime Minister to meet those people today. Ministers must make unpalatable decisions. They have to take risks. That is what the Prime Minister has done, and he has my support. I detest and abhor the people whose names were put to the House a few minutes ago. They claim to have been associated with an armed struggle against the British Government. That is both obscene and absurd. One cannot conduct a military campaign in a mature parliamentary democracy. Having offered that qualification, I believe that the Prime Minister was right to meet those people at No. 10, Downing street. They will claim that it is almost as historic an occasion as that remarkable day in 1921 when Griffith and Collins went along to No. 10, but it is nothing of the kind. Mr. Adams is a brilliant propagandist and he will make that claim, but he knows that this is part of the peace process. I say to our Prime Minister, "Well done. You had the guts to do it." I support him all the way.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I shall deal with some of the points raised in this very serious and genuine debate. It is worth mentioning that the internment issue was considered at length on Second Reading and that nearly four hours was contributed to it in Committee. Nevertheless, it is an important issue. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—and to some of his speech. He brought a breadth of personal experience, as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to the debate. I did not agree with everything he said, and I regret that he is not in his place to hear me correct his assertion that, somehow or other, the Government are claiming credit for the peace process. That is not the case. We have always taken the view that we are placing bricks on foundations that others have laid. I am reminded of the famous quote by Abba Eban who said that peace is not an event but a process. Many people have taken forward the Northern Ireland peace process. There have been many stumbles along the way and many steps backwards, but I hope that we are now moving towards a long-lasting peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to that process. Clearly, the internment issue provokes very strong views. The reality is that internment involves a decision by Government to deprive individuals of their liberty without trial and without the normal safeguards that the law provides for the protection of the accused. In Committee, these words were spoken: Opposition Members believe that internment is undeniably an infringement of civil liberties. It would be folly to pretend otherwise. It would be equally foolish to deny that when internment was introduced in the 1970s, it was a disaster. It was entirely counterproductive, and it left the IRA stronger. The Committee should not spend much time discussing these issues. It should acknowledge that internment is an infringement of civil liberties and that it failed drastically in the past."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,, 25 November 1997; c. 77.] They were the words of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who unfortunately is no longer in his place—although he was in the Chamber earlier. Those arguments justify everything that the Labour party has said consistently, both in opposition and in government, as to why internment should be removed. Internment does not achieve any of the objectives that some hon. Members have offered as justification for it. It does not bring stability within the communities: historically, it has increased community tension. It causes serious damage to respect for the rule of law, strengthens terrorist organisations, creates political prisoners and, ultimately, prolongs the violence. Every major review and examination of internment has found conclusively that internment has no place in a democratic society. The 1975Gardiner report criticised both the theory and the practice of detention under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. In 1980, the detention provisions were allowed to lapse—although they remained on the statute book—under a Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said that the lapsing of the powers would be an expression of confidence in the minority community's rejection of terrorism. In 1990, Lord Colville reviewed the matter again, and he considered in detail the difficulties associated with the operation of internment and its repercussions for the nationalist community. He said: perhaps the most sinister by-product was the tendency actually to strengthen terrorist networks through increased hostility and criminal skills among those detained. He went on to criticise trenchantly the way in which internment operated. In 1995, the matter was considered again by Mr. John Rowe QC as part of his fundamental review of the EPA. His view was also straightforward: he recommended that the provisions should not be re-enacted. Why are we having this debate tonight? I hope that it does not signal a breakdown in the bipartisan approach. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater made some telling points on that subject. I hope that the House will not divide on the amendment—although I know that the official Opposition have organised themselves on that basis. Such an action could be read as a breakdown in the bipartisan approach. When the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition, he did not take account of the debates in Committee when I set forth justifications for the Government's action. I have touched on those reasons only briefly this evening. The hon. Gentleman did not challenge the arguments of those experts who have conducted thoroughgoing reviews of the internment provision. if he had done that and knocked down those arguments, a Division tonight could be justified. We are moving the process forward slowly.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

rose—

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes tonight and he set out his arguments in detail in Committee. I am trying to explain why we have taken this decision. Not one of the arguments that I advanced in Committee and that were explored on Second Reading has been challenged by the hon. Member for Bracknell. He did not attempt to take on those issues, but he intends to divide the House tonight.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

rose—

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Gentleman is very persistent.

Ken Maginnis (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am grateful to the Minister. I have one question for him. He has been part of the process that has made concession after concession to the IRA in the past weeks, culminating in the abandonment of internment tonight. Will he tell us one advance that has been made in respect of the IRA's abandoning terrorism? If he can give us one example, we shall be impressed.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Both a loyalist ceasefire and a ceasefire on the part of the Provisional IRA are in place. We are moving the process forward. No one believes for one moment that it will be easy. There are many difficulties ahead, but we all have a contribution to make in taking forward the process. Abraham Lincoln was mentioned earlier in the debate. He said, "I may walk slowly, but I never walk back." That is a very apposite quote in the context of Northern Ireland. If we go only forward and not back to the old positions, major progress can be made. I shall conclude, because these points have been made in previous discussions of this aspect of the legislation. I ask the spokesman for the official Opposition to consider his position. There are no cheap political points to be made. I understand the strength of feeling, but I ask him to consider the fact that every time previous Governments tried to achieve peace in Northern Ireland, they had the full co-operation of the Labour Opposition. We are now in government. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to justify his position, but he did not do so in his brief opening comments, so a Division on this issue is wholly inappropriate.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Will the Minister tell us whether he voted for all the emergency provisions Acts that we introduced? The answer is no. The Labour Opposition used to vote against them or abstain. Given that he acknowledges that we feel deeply about this issue, it is unreasonable of him to say that by voting against the Government—which we shall do—we are no longer taking a bipartisan approach. That is unreasonable and unfair, and I hope that he withdraws those remarks.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is helpful, but the right hon. Member for Bridgwater implied that that was a possibility, and I am responding to the points that he made. If it is not a breakdown of the bipartisan approach, that is good. The hon. Gentleman asked me for my past voting record. He should do his own research, because it may surprise him. Labour Members tried to maintain the bipartisan approach. A great debate took place on this issue. The Labour party opposed previous emergency provisions Acts primarily because internment remained on the statute book. We have now introduced this measure, and I ask for the amendment not to be put to a vote, so that we can conclude our consideration of the Bill.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

REPEALS