Standing Committee A
Tuesday 25 November 1997
[Part I]
[Mrs. Ann Winterton in the Chair]
4.30 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with this Bill, and copies are available in the Room. It might help new Members if I also remind the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to call amendments, including any starred amendments, which may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): On a point of order, Mrs. Winterton. I understood from discussions that there might be a sittings motion at the beginning of the proceedings, which is fairly normal, but it seems that the Government want to rush the Bill through by sitting late tonight, if necessary. That is unacceptable, given the importance of the Bill. It extends most of the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which is a large piece of legislation. There must have been some 15 or 16 Committee sittings on that Bill, but the Government are proposing, through the normal channels, to whip the Bill through in an unseemly way by sitting late tonight. I ask for your ruling, Mrs. Winterton, on whether it would be appropriate to have a sittings motion for such an important Bill.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Further to that point of order, Mrs. Winterton. I welcome you to the Chair. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) suggested that we are rushing the Bill through and being peremptory, but that is not in our minds. It is our intention to get on with scrutinising the detail of the Bill, which is much smaller than the 1996 Act; it makes three basic amendments to that Act. I do not want it to be thought that we are trying to rush the Bill through--we are prepared to devote to it as much time as is appropriate.
The Chairman: As Chairman, I can only comment that a sittings motion has not been tabled, although that dose not, of course, rule out the possibility of one being tabled later in the proceedings.
Clause 1
Duration of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Moss: May I now welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Winterton? I should have done so earlier, but I was so keen to make my point of order that I forgot. It is a dear pleasure to serve under your tutelage and I look forward to perhaps more than one sitting, although it seems that we will have only one.
I said in my earlier remarks that the Government seem keen to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. On Second Reading, in relation to clause 1, I asked why the Government found it necessary to introduce at this juncture the amendments to the 1996 Act. Clause 1 amends section 62(10), which deals with the expiry of the Act, to extend it from 24 August 1998 to 24 August 2000. In other words, the 1996 Act has slightly less than 12 months to run without us needing to consider amendments to it. With regard to the time scale and the timetable, we must therefore ask why the Bill has been introduced now. No doubt the Minister will tell us why the Government saw fit to introduce the Bill earlier than necessary. I wonder whether they aim to rush the Bill through Committee this evening to make room for some of the proposed legislation that is already stacking up because of their incompetence in introducing legislation more quickly. We have just had the longest summer recess in living memory, so it is not the Opposition's fault that the legislative programme is falling behind. We must however ask why the Bill is going through the Committee so quickly.
I said earlier that the 1996 Act was very well scrutinised in Committee--there were 15 or 16 sittings. Although the 1991 legislation went through some major changes, we are being asked to extend the termination date of the 1996 Act from 1998 to 2000 and to make other changes. Let us, however, remind ourselves of all the other provisions in the Bill that we shall have no time to discuss and which we shall have to nod through for implementation under the new time scale, if that is what the Government want. Let us remind ourselves also of the scope of the Bill: it provides the police with powers to stop, arrest, search, enter and seize that go beyond those in ordinary criminal law; it gives the Government powers to close roads; it provides, in clause 2, for the Diplock system of trial without jury; it provides for the classification of certain offences as terrorist offences unless certified otherwise by the Attorney-General; it provides for offences against public security and public order and for the detention of terrorist suspects without trial, which of course relates to section 36 and schedule 3 of the 1996 Act; it provides for the special interrogatory regime at the police holding centres; and it provides for the independent scrutiny of military complaints procedures and for the regulation of the provision of private security forces.
I raise those points to demonstrate the scale and range of the Bill, which, as clause 1 provides will be extended to 2000. Failing to give the Bill proper and adequate time and scrutiny will be seen as a slap in the face for the people of Northern Ireland. In some quarters, it might even be deemed to be an abdication of the Government's duty to protect and be seen to protect their citizens and to give full and valid reasons for changes in legislation.
It has been suggested to me that the Bill is not only part of the negotiation process, but a sign that the Government have been lulled into a false sense of security by the ceasefire. Why have concessions apparently been made in the Bill? Why should we trust Sinn Fein-IRA this time round after what happened during the previous ceasefire, particularly towards its end, and what has happened since it ended?
I am also concerned that on Second Reading the Minister did not give the House of Commons a thorough briefing on the current security situation. He said--I paraphrase--that he would not go into the details, as though they were well known to all and sundry. I have to tell him that they are not well known. I do not expect him to go into matters that otherwise would not be in the public domain, but plenty of incidents are in the public domain. On Second Reading it is approriate for a Minister taking through such an important Bill to point up to the House the number of incidents occurring at present.
We know that there is a ceasefire, but those of us who served in Northern Ireland during the previous ceasefire are under no illusions that an IRA ceasefire means what most of us interpret it to mean. We need information. I hope that the Minister will take an early opportunity to spell out what is happening on the ground in Northern Ireland.
The Minister has commented on the ceasefire, as has the chief constable, who is supposed to have said fairly recently that the IRA ceasefire remains remarkably stable. He went on to say that that had resulted in a significantly reduced level of terrorist activity. He did not say that it had stopped terrorist activity. I should like to know, as would other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, in what terrorist activity the Provisional IRA is still indulging.
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman says that the chief constable supposedly said that the ceasefire has remained remarkably stable. That is not the way in which the matter was presented by the chief constable. I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with the detailed statement and the date on which it was made-- 4 November--to disabuse him of the idea that the statement was some fiction that had been got up by Ministers on the back of a ``supposed'' statement by the chief constable. The opposite is the case.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful for that clarification. I was not putting into the Minister's mouth words that the chief constable was supposed to have said. If I conveyed that to him, I apologise, because that was not the intention. I said that the chief constable was supposed to have made that statement, but all I have to rely on is a newspaper quotation. With all due respect to the press, one cannot always rely on the accuracy of such statements. The Committee will be delighted that the Minister will give the time and date of that comment.
To return to the security situation, the Minister admitted on Second Reading that ``some'' terrorist groups remain active, but he did not say which nor what activity there was on the ground. He mentioned two incidents--almost, I have to say, en passant. He spoke about the holdall bomb at Londonderry and devices at Markethill. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised an important question on Second Reading with regard to the Londonderry bomb incident when he pointed out that Semtex had been used in the bomb--it was planted just outside the Department of the Environment offices--and that no other group of terrorists in Northern Ireland apart from the IRA has access to Semtex.
4.45 pm
Apparently the Continuity Army Council laid claim to that incident, but if it is in possession of Semtex, that suggests some close connections with the IRA and, by extension, with Sinn Fein. Given that situation, I would have expected the Minister to tell the House on Second Reading--no doubt he will take the opportunity this evening--to go into that issue in some detail. We are asked to believe that there is a genuine ceasefire which is holding and intact, and yet what appears on the surface to be a breakaway group from the IRA is breaking that ceasefire by planting bombs and has access to the one ingredient that only the IRA as a terrorist organisation has in its possession.
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): Does the hon. Gentleman know whether, during the six-week sanitisation period that Sinn Fein had to undergo before being admitted to the talks, there were breaches of any kind, either by it or any other group? If there were not, does not that indicate the degree of association and control by Sinn Fein-IRA?
| 
