§ Miss Devlin (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will set up an independent public inquiry into the shooting of Seamus Cusack and George Beatty in Derry on 8th July and if he will make a statement.
§ The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel)On the first part of the question, No, Sir. In accordance with the standard practice, the Army has carried out its own investigation into the shooting incidents on 8th July and is satisfied that on both occasions when soldiers opened fire and civilians were hit the civilian concerned was carrying a weapon and there was good reason to suppose that he was about to use it offensively. This investigation does not supersede any proceedings that may be appropriate under the civil law, at which the Army will co-operate in making evidence available.
§ Miss DevlinThe Minister is doubtless aware that the statement issued by the Army that civilians who were shot, as he has said again this afternoon, were at 32 that time armed has been disputed by those people who are prepared to come forward to give evidence and their facts. The existing facts appear to be contrary. On the one hand, the Army says that the people who were shot were threatening the soldiers with firearms at that time, but Mr. John Hume in Derry, the Member of Parliament for that area, says that he has evidence which he is prepared to bring forward to an inquiry to say that that is not true. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the Army will not face a public inquiry and will not face the facts. Therefore, the Minister of Defence stands in this House today as the official liar for the G.O.C. Northern Ireland and about the murder of people in the city of Derry. I hope that a public inquiry will be set up. I hope that the Army will come forward and give evidence and state their facts. If they saw people with guns, what kind of guns did they see? If they saw people threatening with bombs, will they produce facts and stand by them? Or will they accept that the Minister is lying?
§ Lord BalnielIn view of the hon. Lady's remarks, I think the House will be interested to know the facts. During the night of 7th–8th July a detachment of soldiers were deployed following the ambushing of a military Landrover. One of the soldiers saw a civilian carrying a rifle at the ready. He shouted a warning to the man to stand fast. This was ignored. The man then aimed at the troops. The soldier fired one aimed shot and the man fell. On the afternoon of 8th July a patrol in a Landrover was moving towards a crowd of stone throwers on the edge of Bogside. A stolen lorry was driven into the Landrover and nail bombs and stones were thrown at troops dismounting. Two soldiers each fired one shot and killed a man who was throwing a nail bomb at them. I am satisfied from inquiries I have made that there was no misconduct on the part of the troops.
§ Mr. Chichester-ClarkIs it not about time that it was made absolutely clear that those who use nail bombs and carry arms in situations like these are running the risk of being shot? Is my hon. Friend aware that on Friday I received messages all day paying tributes to the courage, the restraint and humanity of the troops involved? From what I can hear, I endorse them too. Why should anyone 33 pay very much attention to the strictures on the British Army of someone who in 1969 openly boasted she had spent part of her time trying to encourage them to desert from the British Army?
§ Lord BalnielI take note of the last point made by my hon. Friend. On the first point, he is absolutely correct that people who take part in riots and carry rifle and nail bombs and petrol bombs are simply asking for trouble. It is only because of the immense care which is taken by the troops to avoid hurting innocent bystanders that more people are not killed in these disgraceful riots.
§ Mr. George ThomsonIs the hon. Gentleman aware that nobody in the House will wish to say anything today of all days which might heighten tension in Northern Ireland? Is he aware, since anger has been expressed by my hon. Friend behind me, that anyone who saw the scenes on television yesterday was bound to feel that the reaction of ordinary British people will be one of intense anger that our soldiers, who are trying to save Northern Ireland from a blood bath, should face the kind of provocative actions which they do face? Is he further aware that it is very necessary in these difficult circumstances that not only should the soldiers use minimum force but that it should be absolutely clear that they have used minimum force? While not wishing to dissent from what was said about the demand for an inquiry, it would be important, in order to give the clearest possible evidence of what has happened and to get that across, that such an inquiry should be a civil inquiry in which one would have the civil authority in Northern Ireland investigating the actions of the British Army. The sort of inquiry suggested by my hon. Friend might cause more complications than help.
§ Lord BalnielI think the right hon. Gentleman has spoken for the broad mass of opinion in this country. I would certainly like to echo the point which he makes. It is the responsibility of the troops who have prevented a slide into further disaster to use minimum force. As I have said, I am satisfied that this was done on this occasion, but it is open to the civil authorities to make their inquiries in preparation for the coroner's inquiry, and the Army authorities will certainly co-operate in that respect.
§ Several Hon. Membersrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that in view of what the Minister has said we should proceed with other business.
§ Later—
§ Mr. HefferOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware of the fact that there is considerable feeling amongst hon. Members on my side of the Chamber that on the issue of Northern Ireland, which we would all, irrespective of one's views, regard as a matter of the gravest importance, not one back bencher was called from among my hon. Friends. I would put it to you that on issues of this kind, which are, as I say, matters of the utmost and gravest importance, there should be a wider selection of hon. Members to ask questions.
§ Mr. OrmeFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make the point that, apart from the point of view of the hon. Member for mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and apart from the points of view from the Front Benches, no other valid points of view were expressed in the House? I have a feeling that some of my hon. Friends were prevented from putting their points of view. Naturally we are extremely distressed about it.
§ Mr. SpeakerAll I can say is that I am sorry that the hon. Member should say that. The Chair is always in a great difficulty in making the decision whether to allow a Private Notice Question or not, and this is particularly so with regard to the events in Northern Ireland. It is a matter which gives me great concern every time there is a fatality in Northern Ireland, whether a Private Notice Question should be allowed, because I am not certain that it is always in the public interest. I also have to decide how many supplementary questions there should be. There were about a dozen Members who rose on the Government side, and originally only one on the Opposition side. The Minister indicated, as I thought, that there would be a further inquiry and investigation into the matter, and I thought that in those circumstances the quicker we moved on to the next business the better. The Chair may easily make a mistake. I do the best I can. If hon. Members are not satisfied they have a remedy open to them. I am very sorry. I did the best I could.