• Home /
• Statewatch Database /
• Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill (3)

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill (3)

01 January 1991

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
artdoc June=1991

Critics of the Bill have secured some amendments. Powers to seize
documents, discs etc. to find out if they are `of use to terrorists' will
exclude documents where there is `reasonable cause to believe' that they
are subject to legal privilege. Secondly, when documents are removed, they
will be returned within 48 hours, a period which may be extended to 96
hours on the authority of a senior RUC officer. Documents can be retained
if seized for evidential purposes. Thirdly, a written receipt will be
provided (as proposed by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights)
which records time of seizure and RUC or British Army member responsible.
Fourthly, there is an amendment which prohibits the copying of any seized
material - `that should provide valuable reassurance that the
confidentiality of documents will be respected' claimed Dr Brian Mawhinney,
Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office. The Minister seems to
have forgotten that the RUC's reputation for confidentiality is not high
following the series of leaks of police files to loyalists which led to the
Stevens Inquiry. The Opposition attempt to amend the Bill to tighten up the
definition of "directing terrorism at any level" and to reduce the maximum
life sentence for this offence, failed.
A new clause in the Bill introduces the post of Army Ombudsman. This is
the British government's response to widespread complaints over the years
about the behaviour of the British Army, in particular the Ulster Defence
Regiment which many people argue should be disbanded altogether. As of 1
January 1991, the regiment had 3,088 part-time and 2,955 full-time members
(Hansard, 19.2.91, col 137) Four of the regiment's members are currently
protesting their innocence following conviction for the murder of Adrian
Carroll in Armagh. The two main points at issue are the authenticity of
the confessions and the reliability of eye witness evidence. (Details of
the case are discussed in Hansard 6 March, cols 342-360).

Statewatch no 2, May/June 1991