SDLP protest British army arrest and entry powers

13/12/2006 - 16:19:33
Plans to retain search, arrest and entry powers for British troops in the North despite the improved security situation came under fire in the British parliament today.

Northern Secretary Peter Hain said from August next year the military would take on a "fundamentally different" role in the province and routine military support for the police would cease.

But he said soldiers would remain available for "certain specialised tasks" in support of the police, to maintain public order and carry out searches.

Opening second reading of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill, Mr Hain said: "The Bill provides these powers. It creates powers of entry, search, arrest and seizure necessary for the military to carry out their role effectively."

SDLP leader Mark Durkan warned, however, that the measure was "pregnant with implications and potential complications" for the devolution of policing and justice.

"These powers were previously contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. The British government made commitments to repeal those provisions.

"This Bill effectively recycles the very powers the Government had previously committed to repeal," he protested.

Mr Hain said only eight of the 48 provisions in the previous legislation had been put in the Bill and the vast majority had lapsed.

The powers were the "minimum necessary" to manage parades, tackle organised crime and terrorism and other outbreaks of violence.

They would be reviewed each year and repealed when judged to be no longer necessary.

The SDLP's Eddie McGrady said the move potentially created a "hugely difficult political situation" as the actions of the army would not be subject to the same scrutiny as the police.

Mr Hain said the objective was not to have the army involved at all. But where they were, in "isolated" incidents, it would be in support of the police.

The Bill also moves towards a presumption of trial by jury with stronger safeguards for juror anonymity.

Mr Hain said the process towards devolution had been a "long and difficult road" but he was confident the "remaining obstacles" could be negotiated before "journey's end" next March.

"This Bill helps Northern Ireland further along that road to normality. It puts arrangements in place that are designed for the Northern Ireland of the 21st century, not the Northern Ireland of the 1970s."

For many years trial by jury was not possible because the North was in the grip of a "nightmare of paramilitary terror on a massive scale".

The Borth had now "moved forward enough to enable a return to a presumption for jury trial in all cases, even those that would currently be heard before a Diplock court", said Hain.

Mr Hain said that although the paramilitary threat had greatly reduced it had not gone away completely and there was still a risk of "perverse verdicts - either by intimidation or by 'stacking' a jury to influence its decision".

To minimise the risk the jury system would be reformed with restrictions on the disclosure of personal information about jurors, better routine checks to identify disqualified jurors and better use of screening of jurors from the public gallery.

He said there would still be "exceptional cases" where the risk of "paramilitary and community based pressures" meant a case could not be tried before a jury but the approach to these would be radically changed.

"The decision to move to a non-jury trial will be made by the DPP for Northern Ireland in future."

He will be required to apply a defined statutory test. Non-jury trial would only be possible where there was a risk to the administration of justice.

"There has been a downward trend in the number of Diplock trials and we want to get to a point where there are no cases at all that must be heard without a jury. However, it would not be appropriate to remove that option entirely."

Mr Hain said considerable progress had been made in "normalising" security in the North with most routine patrolling by troops now ceased and military bases and installations being closed.

Shadow Northern Secretary David Lidington said he supported the extension of particular powers for the military in the light of the remaining terrorist threat.

He told MPs the most recent summary of the Independent Monitoring Commission said that the IRA was no longer involved in terrorism and it had disbanded some of its structures.

But he warned there were "continuing threats" from other terrorist groups "which, in my view, do justify the retention of certain special powers for the limited circumstances that the Secretary of State has described".

The IMC said the Real IRA remained "active and dangerous" and on the loyalist side the UDA was involved in violence and crime while the UVF was "active, violent and ruthless".

He said: "I think in the context set out by the IMC that the House has to assess the need for changes in the law."

Mr Lidington said he accepted arguments from the Government that there was still "a need for judge only trials to counter the risk of the intimidation and subversion of the jury system".

He added that he was "predisposed" to the view that a single judge should hear cases where juries were not present rather than three.

Labour former Northern Secretary Paul Murphy said the Bill extended the normalisation process and "hit the right note" in ending most Diplock courts.

However, he argued that jury intimidation would necessitate some trials without them.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Lembit Opik said his party agreed with much of the legislation but it could do a lot more to ensure jury trial became the norm in the North rather than the exception.

Another concern was the "vagueness" of the language in relation to the certificates issue.

This put a "considerable onus" on the Director of Public Prosecutions on whether to use a jury.

Mr Opik said Lib Dems would oppose third reading unless ministers dropped the bar on appeals against decisions to hold jury-free trials.

Mr Durkan attacked the Bill for allowing Diplock courts - in which judges sit without a jury - to remain.

"Diplock courts remain unjust and with this legislation Diplock courts will remain," he said.

He warned: "The decision as to whether a trial goes to a Diplock court will be taken by the DPP with absolutely no check or challenge available in a court or by a court."

Mr Durkan said that was a "significant change" from what ministers promised before.

"It is continuity Diplock that is now provided for in this legislation and really what we're having is the abnormal relations are now being normalised."