HC Deb 02 December 1968 vol 774 cc1038-44
Mr. Fitt

On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland and the safety of British subjects in that part of the United Kingdom. Most hon. Members will have read the weekend's Press, in which it is clearly depicted that on Saturday afternoon in Armagh, a city in Northern Ireland, the police forces were unable to cope with a very serious situation. A parade which was organised by the Civil Rights Association——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into details on what he wants to debate if he is granted leave under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Fitt

I believe, Sir, that I have the right to submit why I consider this to be a matter which should be raised in the House.

For a number of weeks now an organisation in Northern Ireland known as the Civil Rights Association had given word to the police authorities in Northern Ireland that it intended to hold a civil rights march in Northern Ireland last Saturday in the City of Armagh. The police had not banned the parade. They had given permission for the parade to take place. They had also given the promise that those taking part in the demonstration would be afforded police protection.

The parade was due to start at half-past two on Saturday afternoon. In the early hours of Saturday morning—at one o'clock or two o'clock—another organisation took over complete control of the city. During the course of the parade which eventually took place in the afternoon, a county inspector of the Royal Ulster Constabulary spoke to the leaders of the Civil Rights Association and told them very plainly—it has been adequately reported in the Press—that he could not afford the civil rights demonstration the protection which had been promised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He told them that 1,000 demonstrators organised by a person known as Mr. Paisley, who were armed to the teeth, would injure and maim those who were taking part in the civil rights procession.

In these circumstances, I believe that it has been adequately proved that the police— —

Sir Knox Cunningham

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be possible for anyone to correct the mis-statements which are being made by the hon. Member?

Several Hon. Members rose— —

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have more than one point of order at a time. If the hon. Member's application under Standing Order 9 were granted, it would be possible for the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) to correct what he claims are mis-statements.

Captain Orr

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you were to grant the application, and a debate under Standing Order No. 9 followed, such a debate would arise on the Adjournment of the House and it would, therefore, not be possible to discuss any matter for which there was not Ministerial responsibility in this House.

Therefore, the matters of which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is giving so tendentious and inflammatory an account would not be debatable in the House, so that what he is seeking to do is a gross abuse of the procedures of the House.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Hon. Members who differ in opinion must rely on Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. Mr. Speaker needs no support in guarding the procedures of the House.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) must put his case in support of his application under Standing Order No. 9 briefly, and must not go into the details of what he seeks to debate.

Mr. Fitt

I thought for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was trying to usurp your function.

I wish briefly to show that a most dangerous situation arose in Armagh on Saturday afternoon and to give the reason for my concern about the safety of British subjects. I shall refer to three members of the British public who are resident in this country. Two of them are employees of the B.B.C. and work in the "Panorama" team. Their names are Mr. John Reynolds, the producer of the "Panorama" programme, and Mr. Richard Kershaw, his associate. These two men were brutally beaten by the police of Northern Ireland and—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resist the temptation to make the speech which he would make if I grant him his application under the Standing Order.

Mr. Fitt

I am doing my best to resist it, Mr. Speaker.

Another member of the British public, Mr. Ken Taylor, of I.T.N., was injured by the police. In these circumstances, I say that there was no protection afforded to British subjects in Northern Ireland on Saturday afternoon. This being made abundantly clear, I believe it to be the responsibility of this House to take action under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, which gives ultimate responsibility to this House over all matters, persons, places and things in Northern Ireland.

I respectfully ask that you grant permission for a debate on the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 so that the whole matter may be gone into.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration. namely, the breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland". As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors therein set out, but to give no reason for his decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Member for Belfast, West has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all recognise that it is not in order, under the Standing Order, for you to give the reasons why you reject an application under Standing Order No. 9. I seek in no way to circumvent that rule, but I ask for your guidance on another aspect of the matter.

There may be many reasons why a matter is excluded from debate under Standing Order No. 9—whether it be specific enough, urgent enough, and so on—but it might be thought by some that in ibis case exclusion came about—this is what would differentiate it from other cases—because of there being no Ministerial responsibility. I raise this point particularly in view of the reference made to it by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) in an earlier intervention.

May we have your assurance, Mr. Speaker, that this matter would not he excluded on that ground, since many of us feel that it is directly a matter for this Parliament to consider? Since the situation of breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland is a continuing one, would it not be open to other Members to raise the question whether citizens can be protected, raising it under Standing Order No. 9 and making their application in a somewhat different form?

In other words, may we have your Ruling in the negative sense, Mr. Speaker, that such an application would not be excluded on the ground that there is no Ministerial responsibility? Many of us insist that the supreme authority in Northern Ireland for the liberties of the people rests with this House just as it does for the protection of citizens in other parts of this country.

Mr. Speaker

I am interested in the point of order which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has put so seriously to me. He will know that the House decided that, when Mr. Speaker determines that an application shall not be accepted under Standing Order No. 9, he is obliged by the House to give no reasons. The House felt that the moment Mr. Speaker began to give reasons he would begin to create the army of precedents which bound the House over and over again in the past.

The answer to the first part of the point of order raised by the hon. Member, therefore, is that Mr. Speaker may not in any sense give reasons why he does not accept a particular application under Standing Order No. 9.

I cannot rule on any hypothetical applications under the Standing Order which may be made in the future.

Mr. Maudling

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on an important point which appears to arise. In submitting his application under the Standing Order, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made some extremely serious allegations. Had the matter been debated, there would have been a chance to rebut his accusations. As it is not now to be debated, it seems that those accusations will remain unchallenged on the record of the House. Is that right? What can we do about it, Sir?

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a difficulty which arises whenever any hon. Member makes an application under Standing Order No. 9 in respect of a matter which he regards as urgent, specific and demanding immediate attention, but on grounds which some other Member or Members do not share. There is nothing the Chair can do about it.

Mr. Orme

Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), Mr. Speaker. I believe that all of us on this side would welcome a debate on this important issue. If it is not within your discretion to give time, Mr. Speaker, might not the right hon. Gentleman and his party provide facilities?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is a matter which might be raised on the business question. What we cannot do now is debate on an application under Standing Order No. 9 which I have not granted that which we should debate if I had granted it. I hope that we may now move on.

Dame Irene Ward

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have yourself said that this difficulty does arise, and it may well arise in the future. In the circumstances, would it be possible for the matter to be referred to the Procedure Committee with a view to finding a way to deal with a question of this kind? It is of the utmost importance that statements should not be made which cannot be challenged.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that the Procedure Committee has enough to do at the moment. I hope that we may move on. Usually, when an application is made under Standing Order No. 9 for leave to move the Adjournment, we do not have a long series of points of order afterwards if it is refused. We have the business of the House ahead of us.

Mr. Richard

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—which I trust is a genuine point of order. I listened to your Ruling in response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and I understand that under the Standing Order you are directed not to give reasons for your refusal of an application. However, as I see it, there is no reason why you could not say whether you have or have not jurisdiction to entertain an application.

With respect, what I think my hon. Friend was asking was whether, if there were no Ministerial responsibility, there would by definition be no jurisdiction in your hands to consider an application. Would you make clear to the House, Sir, that in the opinion of the Chair there is jurisdiction to entertain an application in respect of a matter of this kind?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt Mr. Speaker into doing what the House, after many years, now prevents him from doing.

Mr. English

On a point of order. While many hon. Members wish to debate the issue, we accept the principle of your not giving reasons, Mr. Speaker, but is it not also almost as tendentious for the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was raising something that could not be replied to, when it had already been raised throughout the Press of the United Kingdom over the entire weekend?

Mr. Speaker

It is not for Mr. Speaker to comment on the different opinions on two sides of the House, on this or any other question. Such differences are not an unusual feature of the House of Commons.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), would it be in order to accept a Motion to strike out the untrue statements which have been made in the application of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), if there is no other means of debating them?

Mr. Speaker

It is a most ingenious suggestion. It has happened in history once or twice. It took 30 years to get Wilkes's expulsion removed from the record. I am not prepared to accept a Motion to alter the OFFICIAL REPORT.