HC Deb 18 January 1971 vol 809 cc680-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

I am grateful that I have at last the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment this subject of the events in Belfast during the weekend 3rd to 5th July, 1970. Hon. Members may ask, why am I raising events of July, 1970, in January, 1971? The answer is that I have been trying to do so ever since October, and I have only just succeeded in the ballot. Indeed, until I succeeded, I began to think that the ballot for the Adjournment took place rather on the lines of the allocation of prizes under Premium Bonds.

Secondly, hon. Members may ask why this subject has been raised by me, a Member for an English constituency, when the events occurred in Northern Ireland in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who, I understand, will be trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The answer is that my interest in this subject began originally when a constituent of mine whose sister lives in the area affected wrote and asked me to take up the matter of his sister being prevented during the period under discussion from visiting her niece in hospital. That is why I have taken an interest, and my interest has grown the more I have learned about this matter.

This episode occurred in Northern Ireland and, like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have strong feelings about events in Northern Ireland. I have, for example, strong feelings about the imprisonment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) who, I know, wished to be here to listen to this debate. I am raising this matter tonight not because it relates specifically to Northern Ireland but because it is central to the rule of law and the freedom of the individual anywhere in the United Kingdom. What took place in the Lower Falls of Belfast in July, 1970, could take place in Longsight, Manchester, or in any other part of this country under the same legal rules at any time now or in the future, and I believe it was wrong.

There are differing versions of what took place in the Lower Falls area on 3rd July leading to the restrictions of movement. It is known that there was a search for arms, and this was followed by what the noble Lord the Minister of State described on 6th July in this House as a "street battle". For the sake of argument, let us accept that his description of what took place is accurate. But then what followed? General Freeland issued a press release, which is extremely important. It began: The Director of Operations, Lt.-General Sir Ian Freeland, has declared that there is to be an immediate curfew until further notice in the area of the Lower Falls. It ended: All civilians in the locality are to get into their houses… —delightful language— … immediately and to stay there. After military occupation anyone found on the street will be arrested. The key words are, "an immediate curfew" and "will be arrested".

After the issue of that Press release a helicopter flew over the area from which the following words were called out: This area is now under curfew. You are to go to your homes and remain there. Anyone found on the streets will be arrested. That restriction on movement started from 10 o'clock on the Friday night and lasted until the Sunday morning. During that time thousands of people, perhaps as many as 10,000, were placed under what amounted to house arrest. Hundreds of men were prevented from going to work at a time when they particularly needed the overtime and were eligible for it. It is estimated that they were deprived of £3,500 in income. Many people were deprived of food for many hours. Houses were ransacked. People were stopped from going to mass and confession. Sick children were prevented from going to hospital. A wedding was prevented from taking place. A man was fatally shot.

Patrick Elliman, an asthmatic aged 62, was going out for a breath of air. He went to the end of the street, he was shot and never regained consciousness. He was shot, although the Press release said that the penalty for violating the curfew was arrest. Yet this man going for a breath of air was shot dead without a challenge. To make matters worse, after he was taken to hospital and after his sister who lived with him went to another house, troops dossed down in that man's house for the night.

The matter was raised in the House on 6th July, 1970, by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, and the noble Lord the Minister of State said, first, that no formal curfew was imposed, and second, that the restrictions upon movement were an operational measure. The noble Lord gave no other explanation regarding the legality of this operation and at no stage during the prolonged exchanges which took place did he mention the phrase "the common law". The noble Lord said that there was no curfew, and of course he was right. There could not have been a curfew because a curfew could have been imposed only in two circumstances: either if a state of emergency had been declared—and none had—or if the Riot Act had been read by a magistrate, and nobody says the Riot Act had been read.

General Freeland said there was a curfew. What is more, not only did he say it and his agents go about saying it, but it was written down. I have a copy, and I sent a copy to the Secretary of State for Defence. The Minister who is to reply to the debate told me in a letter in November that the term "curfew" was used by the Army authorities to describe the restrictions, because it is one which is widely understood. But it was far from being widely understood. Patrick Elliman, who was shot dead when he went for his breath of air, certainly did not understand it. In any case, a word of such gravity should not be used loosely. Precision is most necessary when the liberty of the subject is affected.

If this was not a curfew, what was the legal authority for the restriction of movement of these thousands of people and for the other actions taken against them? The justification we have had is not the justification which the Minister of State gave on 6th July, 1970. It is a retrospective justification, the justification of the common law.

In my correspondence with the Ministry, which has lasted several months, I have had two versions of the reasons for the invocation of the common law. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton), told me that in the circumstances then existing the Army was carrying out a duty based upon its common law obligations to preserve the peace and to protect life and property. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), said that the restrictions were imposed by the General Officer Commanding in accordance with his common law duty to maintain public order on the occasion of rioting. Those are two differing versions.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke about preserving the peace and protecting life and property. If the troops were seeking to protect life and property, not only did they signally fail but it was they themselves who violated life and property. The only lives taken that night were the four lives taken by troops. There was one life taken in the curfew area, that of Patrick Elliman. They were the only lives taken during the curfew period.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Kaufman

The Minister must not shake his head like that. If he can tell us of any other lives taken in the curfew area by other than the troops, we shall listen with care when he speaks.

My purpose is not to say anything against the troops. They were English and Scottish troops—not Irish troops—sent to clear up the mess caused by the Northern Ireland Tories—[An HON. MEMBER: "The mess you made."] I am doing my best to keep to the question of the rule of law. I have photographs I will show to hon. Members in any part of the House of the damage to property caused by troops who, according to the Minister, were using the common law to protect property.

Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)

Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that it is important for the rule of law that the unlawful use and possession of arms ought to be brought to an end?

Mr. Kaufman

That is not a matter that is under discussion. I have not questioned the right of the troops to go in and search for arms, though they gathered remarkably few considering that they had nearly three days in which to gather them.

If one comes to the question of the invocation of the rule of law, I have been able to find no authority for the interpretation of common law in the way either the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed submitted or that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate has submitted. Maitland in his "Constitutional History of England" says that the common law obliges the citizen to aid in suppression of unlawful force. This may just cover the situation but does not cover the action taken, namely, what amounted to a curfew. Wade and Phillips in their "Constitutional Law" say: In time of invasion or insurrection on a wide scale … the military … are then entitled to give directions to and impose restrictions upon civilians in order to fulfil their duty to repel invaders or suppress rebels. This covers the action taken, but does not cover the situation that obtained. There was certainly no invasion from anywhere. There was no insurrection on a wide scale. The Minister in his letter does no more than to say that it was a situation of riot.

When in Opposition the Conservative Party accused the Labour Party of never being willing to admit a mistake. Why should not the Under Secretary of State, who is known, perhaps almost uniquely on his side, for a civilised approach to matters, come to the House and put matters right by admitting that a mistake was made? Why cannot he come here tonight and admit that General Freeland lost his head on that day? There is much evidence, including his disgraceful telephone conversation with the Administrator of St. Peter's Parish, Father Murphy, with whom he opened a telephone conversation with the words "Father Murphy, you are now under my orders". Why cannot the Minister admit that General Freeland took action he had no right to take.

This will not bring Patrick Elliman back to life, but it will show that the rule of law still has meaning and that the Government will never allow such a violation of the rule of law to happen again.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

In the very tense situation which now exists in Northern Ireland, I trust I will say nothing to exacerbate the position.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Perhaps Mr. Deputy Speaker did not notice, but I would point out that there was someone from this side of the House who wanted to take part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

The Chair has called the hon. Member who caught her eye. Mr. Fitt.

Mr. Fitt

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for using your discretion in my favour on this occasion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, these events happened in my constituency. After such a lapse of time, one would hope that feeling in that area would have settled down to such an extent that there would be no recurrence of violence.

The specific question I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate is to ask him to explain to the House the exact legality of the curfew which then took place. I remember the occasion very well. I arrived home in Belfast from this House on that Friday evening. I immediately heard that there had been trouble and that curfew had been imposed. I got in touch with the Ministery of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, with the Prime Minister's office and with the office of the United Kingdom representative. I appealed to him that I, as the Westminster representative of that constituency, should be allowed into that constituency to see what was happening. I was told in no uncertain terms that I would not be permitted to enter that area.

I regard this as an infringement of my rights as the representative of that area, because subsequently many allegations were made against the activities of the British troops during that three-day curfew and I should have thought that the House would have agreed that the representative of that area should have been allowed into that constituency to see what was happening during the period of curfew. The House cannot object if allegations were made against British troops if the elected representative of the area concerned was not allowed to go in to see what was happening.

It is well known in Northern Ireland—and I am sure that it will be accepted by both sides of the House—that when this curfew was announced it was recognised by shouting from a helicopter and by notice given by General Freeland. Those with arms in the area took all the steps open to them to rid themselves of those arms. I do not condone the holding of arms by any civilians. People got rid of their arms by throwing them over yard walls and planting them on innocent people. At the moment a young mother of three children—Mrs. Margaret Fennell—is in Armagh Prison. She had nothing to do with the holding of arms or with any subversive organisation, but once the curfew was announced two or three people threw their arms into the kitchen of her small back-to-back house, and the troops subsequently raided the house. The young mother is now serving two years' imprisonment. Many similar incidents occurred.

I would have believed that, in the interests of the name of the British troops and of democracy as we know it, all facilities should have been given for the elected representative of the area, and also members of the Press, to see what was then happening in the area.

I want to hear the Minister's reply. I hope that such an occasion will never arise again in Northern Ireland. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of my constituents do not want such an occasion to arise again. I merely ask the Minister how much was Paid in compensation by the military authorities to people living in the area because of what happened during the curfew period.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Raton Pounder (Belfast, South)

I had not intended to intervene in the debate, and I do so now very briefly. I have some anxiety about the desirability of raking over events that took place six months ago—certainly of raking them over as the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has done, in an intensely political way. I can only say that I utterly deplore it.

I happened to be in the constituency of West Belfast shortly after the incident took place. Against the background of that time it is fair to recognise the tense situation that existed in parts of Belfast. I have no hesitation in commending to the House the conduct of the General Officer Commanding—General Freeland—at that time.

12.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour)

The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) explained why he was only now bringing up this matter. We understand the reason for the delay. Nevertheless, most hon. Members will agree that this is a very unfortunate moment for the matter to be raised.

The hon. Member explained that the constituency concerned was not his but that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). We explained that he had become interested in this event because of what he had been told by a constituent who was the brother of a lady whom he alleged was prevented from going across the curfew line to visit her ward in hospital. This illustrates the disadvantage of bringing up a case which does not refer to one's own constituency. If the hon. Member had been concerned with his own constituency he would probably have discovered that the lady concerned was allowed across the lines and did go to visit her ward in hospital.

Mr. Kaufman

rose—

Mr. Gilmour

I have gone into this—

Mr. Kaufman

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gilmour

No. The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Kaufman

On a point of order. Over a period of four months, the hon. Gentleman refused totally to investigate this incident and said that there was no reason to investigate it. Now, the Minister suddenly springs this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Gilmour

The hon. Gentleman is merely wasting time by raising these bogus points of order. I thought that he would be interested to know that what led him to concern himself in this way was a non-event. It never took place.

Mr. Kaufman

Why was not I told that in July?

Mr. Gilmour

Because I did not know. Perhaps unwisely I took the hon. Gentleman's word for what happened.

The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the death of Mr. Patrick Elliman, and quite rightly, because it is very sad. However, the post mortem showed that Mr. Elliman was not killed by an Army bullet. For the hon. Gentleman to say that the only deaths at that time were caused by the Army is flatly untrue. It is very sad that Mr. Elliman was shot, but he was not shot by the Army. Again, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be glad to have the true facts brought to his attention.

The hon. Gentleman said that he was solely concerned with the point of law, and thought that what had happened in Falls Road might happen in Manchester. If there was a very serious riot in Manchester and if the same situation that pertained in Belfast occurred in Manchester, that might be so. But perhaps I might remind him of what that situation was, because I do not think that anyone listening to him tonight would get a very clear impression of the situation with which the Army was called upon to deal.

This is a summary of the situation on 3rd July. Late on the afternoon of Friday, 3rd July, information was received of an arms cache in a specified house in Balkan Street. A small joint force of the Army and the R.U.C. carried out a successful search of this house. At 5.30 p.m., it withdrew with the arms which had been seized. Immediately afterwards, detachments which had been covering the force came under attack from hostile crowds. Barricades started going up in the main roads bordering the Lower Falls area and round its perimeter with the clear intention of converting the area into a fortress. At about 7 p.m., grenades were thrown causing the first five of 17 military casualties occurring during that night. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman regrets the military casualties just as much as he regrets the other casualties.

Up to this stage, the security forces had been using CS and batons to control the rioting, but from then on they encountered sustained firing from rifles and automatic weapons in addition to having thrown at them grenades, petrol bombs and stones. In their own defence, the troops were forced to use firearms, and it was necessary to bring considerable reinforcements into the area. It was decided only then—I emphasise that this was not pre-planned—that the situation justified a cordon and search operation of the area. At 10 o'clock that evening, therefore, restrictions on movement were announced so as to clear the streets in order to enable the security forces to deal more effectively with the gunmen and the grenade and petrol bomb throwers and in order that the further search operations could more successfully be carried out. If the restrictions that the hon. Gentleman objects to had not been imposed, there would have been severe civilian casualties, and I can hardly imagine that he would have wanted that to happen.

The hon. Gentleman may object to the language of General Freeland's proclamation. However, I suggest that the battle situation that the Army then faced was not an occasion when people worried too much about the finer points of English and polite literacy. An announcement was made that civilians were to stay at home, and these restrictions remained in force until the Sunday morning.

The hon. Gentleman said that very few firearms were found. The first search of the house in Balkan Street produced 14 firearms, including a submachine gun, and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. The subsequent searches carried out during the period of the restrictions produced 93 firearms, including five sub-machine guns, and 24,000 rounds of ammunition. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, really considers that is a very small haul.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the suffering caused to innocent parties in the Falls Road area. I entirely share his regret that this took place. No doubt there were many entirely innocent people who were gravely inconvenienced, and I am sorry about it. But, in view of the situation with which the Army was faced, I think that the House will agree that the measures which were imposed were absolutely necessary and that no alternative was open to General Freeland.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman made no allegations against the Army in this matter. I think that he will agree that probably no other Army in the world would have carried out an operation like this with such considerable restraint. I am glad that we are agreed on that.

The hon. Gentleman made a great deal about the legality of curfew. He has corresponded with me about that subject. However, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman remains determinedly unconvinced about what I said. It is true that the restrictions were described by General Freeland as a curfew, for the simple and understandable reason that "curfew" is a word which everybody understands. In a battle situation—[Interruption.]—it is a word which would be used in any circumstances. It is important, in a situation such as I have outlined, that everybody should know straight away what they are meant to do; in other words, to get indoors. Therefore, "curfew" was an entirely sensible word to use.

The fact that the restrictions were imposed under the common law, not under the Emergency Regulations, seems a very minor point, with respect to the legal learning of the hon. Gentleman. But the fact that they were imposed under the common law does not make them any less legal. The hon. Gentleman quoted Maitland on Insurrection; but the duties laid down under the common law are every bit as clear. They apply, incidentally, to ordinary private individuals just as much as to the Army. The Director of Operations, General Freeland, had a very clear duty imposed upon him. It is his duty, as it is the duty of all private citizens, to assist the civil authorities generally in the maintenance of peace and in the prevention of crime and, in particular, in the suppression of a riot or unlawful assembly.

In view of the facts which I have given to the House, the hon. Gentleman cannot maintain that there was not a riot situation that night. I agree that there were a lot of people in that area not rioting; perfectly innocent people who were just as anxious for peace in Northern Ireland as, I am sure, practically the entire inhabitants of, and certainly every soldier in, Northern Ireland are anxious for the imposition of peace. But men who are determined to use force and violence for their own ends have to be met by certain measures which will inevitably inconvenience some of the innocent as well as the guilty. We do everything in our power—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.