HC Deb 02 December 1971 vol 827 cc621-8
1. Mr. Meacher

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Northern Ireland Government about the implications for security of the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1971; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling)

Security was one of the aspects of which I took account during discussions with the Northern Ireland Government about the Act and its operation.

Mr. Meacher

Nevertheless, since civil disobedience through rent strikes is the only means left, short of violence, for both individuals and communities to protest against long-standing social injustices and discrimination, let alone internment, in Northern Ireland, will the Minister not acknowledge that the repression of this channel through the Payments for Debt Act can only drive people back hopelessly into violence; and will he, on social security grounds, make representations to the Northern Ireland Government for the drastic amendment or curtailment of these provisions?

Mr. Maudling

I cannot accept that. It is not right that people should have the right to live rent and rate free at the expense of other ratepayers.

Mr. Pounder

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, even after the deduction of rental payments from security benefits, a married couple with two children are still nearly £5 a week better off than their counterparts in Southern Ireland?

Mr. Maudling

Social services in Northern Ireland are particular good. But the purpose of this Measure is that people should not benefit at the expense of other ratepayers by not paying rent and rates.

Mr. Callaghan

Is not the objections to this that the provisions are entirely arbitrary? Is the Home Secretary aware that the Act has been described by the Child Poverty Action Group as probably the worst piece of social legislation of the twentieth century? Will he look at it again?

Mr. Maudling

I have seen that description. I disagree with it. The problem could be solved if people paid their rents.

5. Mr. Moyle

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the protection of Royal Ulster Constabulary members and their families from attack, following his meeting with a deputation of Royal Ulster Constabulary members on 9th November, 1971.

Mr. Maudling

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the Questions by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) on 18th November. Certain other points put to me by the deputation are under urgent consideration.—[Vol. 826, c. 191–2.]

Mr. Moyle

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any protection provided for members of the R.U.C. will be on the same scale and on the same conditions as would prevail among police forces on this side of the Irish Channel under similar conditions?

Mr. Maudling

It is difficult to envisage similar conditions on this side of the Channel. The Government attach the highest importance to giving protection to members of the R.U.C., who have been subjected to the most dastardly attacks.

Mr. McMaster

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) is not satisfactory and that at least the same degree of protection should be given to police barracks as is given to Army barracks in Northern Ireland, because these men are in the front line and there have been more attacks on police barracks than on Army barracks during the emergency?

Mr. Maudling

The trouble is that if the Army were to provide a permanent guard on every police station, it would be tying up forces that would be better used in another role. That is why I said in my reply that the Army will be extending its activities, but where that cannot be done, automatic weapons are being provided for the police, together with training.

Mr. Callaghan

Is there any evidence of threats being made against the families of R.U.C. personnel recently, and, if so, has the Home Secretary been able to give them the protection they deserve against these very cowardly attacks when their husbands are carrying out their duty?

Mr. Maudling

We have done everything possible, but I cannot say that we are doing everything we would like to do. These threats to the families are one of the most deplorable features of the whole situation and I know that anything we can do will receive the support of the whole House.

6. Mr. Whitehead

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for further meetings with the Chairmen of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority, relating to coverage by the broadcasting media of events in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maudling

None, at present, Sir.

Mr. Whitehead

Will the Home Secretary accept that when he goes off, if he goes off, trundling again to see the two Directors-General or the Chairmen he should go perhaps as the emissary of the 1922 Committee but not of this House as a whole? Is he aware that there is grave concern in the country at the calls for the B.B.C. and I.T.V. to report things from the point of view only of the Unionists or security forces because while, of course, those points of view must be put fully and fairly, if we are to have a situation in which there is either voluntary censorship, such as the I.T.A. is now practising, or governmental censorship, that would be the best propaganda weapon that could be placed in the hands of the I.R.A.?

Mr. Maudling

There is no question of censorship. But the hon. Member lumped together the Unionists and the security forces, and that is a very dangerous thing to do. The B.B.C. must be impartial between Catholic and Protestant but it cannot be impartial between the murderer and the policeman.

Mr. Redmond

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the opinion on this side of the House is that we do not want censorship; what we want is a fair deal for the Forces, who are not skilled propagandists, as against the I.R.A., which is probably the most skilful propaganda organisation in the world?

Mr. Maudling

I think that I sense the view of the House. The appearances of members of the Forces that I have seen on television have been enormously impressive.

19. Mr. Cronin

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement indicating what progress he is making towards a political settlement, acceptable to the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maudling

I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I said in the debate on 29th November.

Mr. Cronin

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how soon and under what conditions the Government are prepared to enter into party talks to consider the constructive proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Will he also say what is his attitude towards the early transfer of responsibility for security from Stormont to Westminster?

Mr. Maudling

On the first point, the Leader of the Opposition got into touch with my right hon. Friend on his return from the United States. My answer to that is, the sooner the better. I dealt with the second point in the course of the debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland would certainly welcome a political settlement, they would be just as grateful for the defeat of the campaign of violence and intimidation, of which they are the co-victims?

Mr. Maudling

Yes, I entirely agree, and the more often that is said the better.

Mr. Stallard

Does the Home Secretary accept that the two greatest obstacles to a political settlement so far as the minority are concerned are the continuance of the policy of internment and imprisonment without trial and the fact that no action has been taken against licensed guns? Will he institute a review of both those items so as to get political discussions on a real basis?

Mr. Maudling

On the second point, I think the review is in progress. On the first point, internment was discussed thoroughly during our two-day debate, when I gained the impression that our point of view and that of the Opposition Front Bench were not so different.

20. Mr. Peter Archer

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people detained or interned in Northern Ireland under the Special Powers Act have been released in consequence of recommendations by the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Maudling

Twelve internees, I understand.

Mr. Archer

Will the Home Secretary accept that when a Government detain people without trial, for whatever reason, they bear a heavy responsibility for ensuring that they detain the right people? Do not these figures already indicate that the authorities in Northern Ireland fall short of this standard? While I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the difficulty of confronting detainees with accusers, what are the difficulties in the way of legal representation before the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Maudling

On the first point, the Appeal Committee is working as was envisaged, and all its recommendations have been accepted by the Northern Ireland Government. The second point is one of those which I said we would consider.

Mr. Callaghan

As the right hon. Gentleman has called us in aid, may I ask him whether he intends to make a statement on the quite substantial proposals I put forward last Monday in connection with the procedure to be followed in such cases, so that there shall be at least a substantial element of trial, if not a complete trial?

Mr. Maudling

I have said that we are considering and discussing these proposals with the Northern Ireland Government, and if a statement will be useful to the House, I will make one.

Mr. McMaster

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain cases, such as suspicion of handling arms, it may be that only three or four people are aware that the person detained has been handling them, and that to reveal the nature of the charge might give away the informant and endanger his life?

Mr. Maudling

That was the point made more than once in the course of our debate.

Mr. McManus

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Brown Committee is farcical in many aspects, particularly with regard to the oath that internees are asked to take or to sign? For example, a constituent of mine has been recommended to the Minister of Home Affairs for release, but since my constituent has an objection to taking an oath, he cannot be released, though there are many internees still inside, such as teachers, who have already taken oaths because of their professions. We have the farcical situation that a man who will not take the oath will not be let out and men who have taken it are kept in.

Mr. Maudling

This matter was in the terms of reference of the Committee. I do not agree that the Committee is a farce. It is a distinguished body of men going into all the cases very thoroughly. There are precedents for the oath, and I think that I am right in saying—I do not have the exact words before me—that it really amounts to saying that the internees will not break the law in future.

35. Mr. Edelman

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Coventry, North, may expect a reply to his letter of 7th October, in which he requested him to obtain from the Northern Ireland Government and secure the publication of the names of those at present held in custody in Northern Ireland without trial.

Mr. Sharples

I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday.

Mr. Edelman

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was inspired by my Question to answer it in a letter. Does he not agree that this situation is contrary to natural justice, and does it not smack of Star Chamber methods that a man should be taken from the streets or from his home and his whereabouts thereafter not be disclosed? In the light of this situation, will he not remedy the procedure so that those detained in this way may at least be known to have been detained and may have their whereabouts disclosed to their families?

Mr. Sharples

My understanding is that a notification is sent to relatives and that in that way relatives are informed. There is a difference between that and the publication of a list of names, which might not always be in the interest of the person interned.

37. Mr. Meacher

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to the Northern Ireland Government to ensure that the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1971 is carried out without a threat to security.

Mr. Maudling

As I stated in reply to the hon. Member's earlier Question, security was one of the aspects of which I took account during discussions with the Northern Ireland Government about this legislation.

Mr. Meacher

Will the Home Secretary not acknowledge that payment of debt under this Act breaks the Human Rights Convention by being retrospective, by flouting the normal rights of appeal, and by exacting repayment arbitrarily at penal rates, thus causing immense hardship? In view of the security risk in- volved in harsh legislation of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman give a less complacent answer than he gave to my first Question?

Mr. Maudling

I do not accept any of those propositions. If people are not prepared to pay proper rent and rates, it means that other people have to pay them. Other ratepayers should be protected.