Prevention of Terrorism Debate (MR. Speaker's Ruling)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 21 Mawrth 1979.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of Mr Gerry Fitt Mr Gerry Fitt , Belfast West 12:00, 21 Mawrth 1979

The hon. Gentleman, like myself, has probably heard rumours that there will be an election within the next few months. He is perhaps safeguarding himself against the possibility that he will not be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during this debate. The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that there are three judges in the courts of the Republic of Ireland. There is only one judge in the courts of Northern Ireland.

I should like to draw the attention of the House once again to what is stated in the article in The Economist. It said: Three judges should sit instead of one in non-jury courts. Individual judges are bound to become hardened to pleas that the accused's confession was beaten out of him. Three would have to satisfy each other they were not letting a scandal through. That may be possible for a person living in Northern Ireland who has been charged with a terrorist offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The article also suggests: as it is too soon to bring back juries, what about independent assessors to do their job? They might even be imported from England and specially protected during their tour of duty. That is another safeguard for anyone who has been charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The article makes suggestions which I believe should be acceptable to the Minister in asking this House to reinforce his opinion that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be kept on the statute book. The article goes on to say: Rules on the admissibility of confessions should be tightened and the police made responsible for showing they were fairly obtained—easy, if interrogations are to be videotaped. If a reduction in admissible confessions means that more of the guilty men are plainly escaping, then the possibility of presenting evidence without necessarily revealing the identity of witnesses should be investigated. If this Act is to remain on the statute book, clearly defined action can be taken to make it more acceptable. I shall be voting against the continuation of the Act tonight, but some hon. Members may still believe that the Act is necessary. I suggest that before they make up their minds on how to vote they should make the same representations as I am making to the Home Secretary to see whether the Act can be improved.