Margaret Thatcher wanted to retain laws that allowed for terrorists to be detained without trial – despite moves by senior members of her cabinet to allow them to lapse in the midst of the Troubles.
Correspondence from 1980 between British prime minister and two ministers shows the prime minister thought it would be a "sign of weakness" to allow the controversial law to lapse and was wary of the reaction of DUP leader Ian Paisley to the move.
The details of the clash in opinions have emerged as part of the latest release of British cabinet office files by the National Archives in London.
In May 1980, Humphrey Atkins, the then secretary of state for Northern Ireland, wrote to the secretary of state for defence, Francis Pym. Atkins said he had to seek parliamentary approval for the renewal of the powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, but that one part, the power to detain terrorists without trial, should not be renewed.
“The power to detain without trial has not been used since 1975,” he wrote. “Since that time much progress has been made in reducing the level of terrorist activity and returning to normality in Northern Ireland, and it is now hard to envisage circumstances in which there would be a need to have recourse to do it again.
“It is now in my view time to signify our rejection of detention without trial as a power needed in order to control terrorism, and our progress towards a more normal security situation in Northern Ireland, by leaving Section 12 unrenewed but still on the Statute book.”
Leaving the section effectively dormant would be of strong value to the “minority community” – Catholics – “to whom the power of detention has always been a particular irritant” and those interested in human rights, Atkins told Pym. The general officer commanding, the most senior army officer in Northern Ireland at the time, was also in favour of the law lapsing.
However, in handwritten notes on the letter, Thatcher wrote: “It will be seen as a sign of weakness if it lapses now – the NI office will never move to renew it.” Beside one of Atkins’ comments, Thatcher had written “Paisley?”.
No time for lapse
An official response from Sir Michael Alexander, the prime minister’s diplomatic private secretary, said Thatcher did not agree that it was time to allow the lapse. However, Pym, writing to Atkins, said he was willing to accept the view of the head of the armed forces in Northern Ireland.
“When announcing this proposed step towards normality, I believe we should be careful not to ascribe it to any recent charge [sic] in the level of terrorist threat,” Pym wrote. “Whilst there is room for cautious optimism, I think that this decision needs to be presented in terms of human rights and our determination to defeat terrorism ‘within the existing law’.”
Atkins responded to Thatcher by saying the move could be represented positively as a sign of the British government’s success against terrorism in the province.
“It is my firm view that, far from being seen as a sign of weakness, this move can very well be represented as a sign of strength – as in fact it is, for if the security situation were more parlous I would wish to keep the potential weapon of detention more closely to hand,” he wrote.
“In terms of gradual attrition of the terrorists’ capacity, the past year has seen a considerable measure of success (although it would be foolishly provocative to trumpet this unduly); and this, combined with the growing capability of the RUC, has made it possible to plan the reduction in troop levels recently announced.”
Thatcher eventually agreed to the proposal, but guardedly: “Still think it unwise – but S of S [secretary of state] must make his own decision and stand on it.”