Clause 3 (Hansard, 16 April 1973)

§ Mr. McNamara
I beg to move Amendment No. 24 in page 3, line 24, at end insert: (3) A person shall not be disqualified from being a member of the Assembly by reason only that he is a member or is alleged to be a member of any organisation proscribed by Regulation 24A under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 and seeks to describe himself as being a member of such a proscribed organisation upon the ballot paper. We have already had some discussion of this issue in the Second Reading debate and in Committee today. Therefore, the speech that I had prepared which would have taken roughly two-and-a-half hours to deliver, if I read it out quickly, I 203 have cast to the winds, but I want to take up some points arising out of the statements made by the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State today.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he felt that the matter of proscribed organisations should be dealt with in the legislation that we are to discuss tomorrow. I take issue with him on that point, bearing in mind what was said by his hon. Friend earlier, namely, that it would be possible for the returning officer to accept nomination papers of a member of a proscribed organisation where the description of his party stated that he was a member of a proscribed organisation. I put it to the hon. Member that that would not be the case, and that the returning officer—who, admittedly, has a discretion in the matter—would not have a discretion to accept positively the nomination of a person who avowedly declared that he was a member of an illegal or proscribed organisation. Within my constituency we had a great deal of argument before the name of the "Get Stuffed" party was allowed to appear on the ballot papers. It was only at the discretion of the returning officer that the name was allowed to appear.
My amendment therefore seeks not to lift the proscription on these organisations but to say that a person's nomination may not be ruled out of order merely by virtue of the fact that he declares that he is a member of an organisation which has been proscribed by virtue of Regulation 24A of the Special Powers Act.
Cameron simply says that this regulation Makes it an offence to become or remain a member of or to do any act calculated to promote the objects of any unlawful association or seditious conspiracy. There is a great deal of difference between a person who, under the name of the Provisional IRA, for example, plants a bomb, kills people, destroys property and fires upon soldiers, and a person who advocates a political programme that is associated with the Provisional IRA, namely, the devolution of government in the island of Ireland to form strong provincial governments with a weaker central Government. The person advocating that as a course of action would be advocating the policies of the Provisional Sinn Fein.
204 Further confusion has been caused by the steps recently taken by the Secretary of State. When I raised the matter in the House on 5th April I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that if he could not get his Diplock legislation through, lifting the ban on Republican clubs, he could do it by revoking the order made under Regulation 24A. The Secretary of State did so, and only last Wednesday or Thursday the ban on Republican clubs was lifted. I suggested to him that if he felt is necessary, because of the situation, to maintain a proscription against a body which was indulging in violence, killing, vicious murders and attacks, it would be proper for him to do so under the Special Powers Act by drawing a distinction between the Provisional IRA and the Provisional Sinn Fein, and lifting the general ban on Sinn Fein, either in the proposed legislation we shall be discussing tomorrow or in the list of proscribed organisations as existing at the moment under Regulation 24A.
It is important, as has been said earlier, not only to extend the parameters sufficiently to enable anybody who has a legitimate point of view to put it across, but also to deprive people who indulge in violence of the excuse that if only they had been given a democratic opportunity they would have forsworn the gun but that they had been pushed into using the gun because the masters of the State had provided insufficient democratic opportunity. We all know that for many people engaged in violence in Northern Ireland that is not a tenable argument, but it is one that they would seek to advance.
It may be, if rumours that are going around the House tonight are correct, that the Provisional IRA is to hold a meeting tomorrow at which it will say that it will not contest the elections anyway. If that is the case, so much for that. It must make its own decision. But we should never be left in the position where it can be said that because of us there were people with legitimate political aims and points of view which they were unable to put forward because they went by a particular name that was not permitted on a ballot paper. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but with political parties a rose must be known as a rose and Sinn Fein must be known as Sinn Fein.
205 Because of the difficulties of the situation the Secretary of State should be stretching his mind about how to cause a division in the opposition and ensure that none of the possible arguments, flimsy though they may be, can be advanced in support of the contention that persons of particular political views were excluded from the election. It is in that spirit that I move the amendment.

§ Mr. Fitt
I wish to support the amendment. No one in the House can speak on the amendment with more authority than myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has asked that any proscription, impediment or obstacle placed in the way of Sinn Fein should be removed to enable the organisation to participate in the elections. In other words, he is seeking a mandate for the campaign which they are conducting.
I hope that people in Britain understand the necessity to allow everyone in Northern Ireland to cast their votes for or against any particular political issue. The Secretary of State, in excusing the vote on the border poll, repeatedly said in this House—and he was supported by many of his hon. Friends—that he wanted to know how the people of Northern Ireland felt about the link with Britain, and about the claim by certain so-called Republicans for a united Ireland to be set up overnight, by this time next week, or by this time next month.
It is evident from the votes cast in the Republic that the people there want the political reunification of the country. They do not want this to be brought about by violence or coercion. They want it to be brought about by consent.
12.45 a.m.
After all the turmoil, tragedy and distress that we have had in Northern Ireland, how much more important it is that the people in Northern Ireland should have the opportunity to express either their support for or their rejection of Republican candidates. I cannot say— I certainly do not have a crystal ball-how much support there would be for Republic candidates, either Provisional or Official, but I do say at least that this is one way in which the Secretary of State would know what the people in Northern Ireland feel.
206 My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has spoken about what must be done after many years—50 years—of Unionist domination of Stormont, and particularly over the past four years, which has brought with it so much tragedy. I can understand that hon. Members on the Government side, and indeed many on my side, do not realise just what this tragedy has meant to Northern Ireland.
I readily accept that the Secretary of State has tried to do all within his power to understand what has happened in Northern Ireland. He more than anyone else on the Government side, other than Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, will recognise that all reasonable people in Northern Ireland are attempting to take the gun out of politics and to give the people who have hitherto been using the gun and violence an opportunity to involve themselves in politics.
My hon. Friend has said that we hear rumours that the ban is to be lifted. We hear that tomorrow the Provision Sinn Fein or some other of the Sinn Fein organisations will issue a statement and say that they do not want to participate in elections. What I say from the Floor of this House of Commons, and I say it without any fear—most people in Northern Ireland live in fear of their lives and the lives of their wives and children, but I have no hesitation in saying it because I have been in this House of Commons and I have lived through this —is that Sinn Fein are looking for an opportunity to say, "We were debarred from engaging in the democratic process. You would not allow us to put our philosophies and our programmes before the electorate. Therefore we had to resort to violence." That is what they will say.
Take that armoury—it is only one string to their bow—away from them and let Sinn Fein fight the elections. I speak as the leader of the SDLP. We are prepared to take them on. We are prepared to accept their challenge, to see what they can put before the electorate in opposition to the policies and programmes which the SDLP has.
I cannot understand why the Conservative Government here are so reluctant to take away this proscription. The 207 Secretary of State must know in his heart that the lifting of the ban on the Sinn Fein would not mean that Sinn Fein would be fighting East Belfast or South Belfast. Perhaps there might be one in North Belfast. Sinn Fein will not fight any areas where there is a Unionist majority. Sinn Fein will fight West Belfast. They will fight any constituency in which an SDLP candidate is standing. It is my colleagues and I who will have to accept and defy the challenge that is thrown up by Sinn Fein. I cannot see why any objection should be raised by any other hon. Member who represents the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland.
I ask the Secretary of State to give to the SDLP—the people who have abhorred violence and consistently fought against it, the people who know the society from which these men have emerged—the opportunity to fight them in the election. We are the people who will fight the men of violence in our constituencies. I cannot guarantee success. If members of the Sinn Fein were no longer proscribed they might win seats. I do not think that many people in Northern Ireland support violence, but if they do we shall know exactly who they are.
The people in Britain—whether they be on the Government or the Labour side of the House—do not understand. Private Curtis, the first British soldier to die in Northern Ireland, was shot dead in front of my home just over two years ago. I saw his blood staining the street. Since then on many occasions I have seen the blood of innocent people, including members of the British Army. No one in this House wishes to see an end to violence in Northern Ireland more than I do.
The Unionist Party has nothing to fear from the lifting of the ban on members of the Sinn Fein, be they Provisional or Official. I do not know whether they will win or lose. As a candidate for the Assembly I might be beaten by a Sinn Fein candidate, but that is the democratic process. I will accept the verdict of the electorate.
I end as I began with the philosophy put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. If restrictions are kept on members of the 208 Sinn Fein they will acquire a persecution complex. They will say, "We have been prevented from seeking votes; therefore we must continue with or resort to violence."
The people who want a Republic come hell or high water should be prepared to put their philosophy before the electorate. I believe that the Secretary of State cannot withstand the requests that have been made by moderate people in Northern Ireland who want to see an end to the violence and the engagement of politicians in the democratic process. That is why I support the amendment.

§ Captain Orr
I cannot understand how the arguments of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) arise on the Bill. The amendment is unnecessary. There is no such disqualification in the Bill. The Bill provides for a free election. It contains no disqualification for anyone who belongs to any organisation, illegal or otherwise. In the light of that, I do not see what we are asked to vote about.

§ Mr. McNamara
The amendment is a technical one. The sidenote to Clause 3 is: Disqualification for membership of Assembly. Subsection (2) provides that a person shall not be disqualified from being a member of the Assembly by reason that he is a peer. I am saying that a person shall not be disqualified by virtue of the provisions of my amendment. I am sure that the Chairmah of Ways and Means would not have allowed the amendment to go forward had it not been in order. The point the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) makes is—why today and not tomorrow? Today we are dealing with the elections and tomorrow we are dealing with the criminal law.

§ Captain Orr
We are dealing with the election and in the Bill there is no disqualification whatever in the case of anyone standing for Sinn Fein. The situation is not comparable with subsection (2).

§ Mr. Fitt
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, the Bill contains no disqualifications. But in the constitution Bill which we are to debate tomorrow 209 there is a list of proscribed organisations, and it includes Sinn Fein. There is no guarantee that the constitutional Bill will pass through all its stages before nomination day on 14th June, so the Special Powers Act will still apply on that day. If a person who says he is a member of Sinn Fein, is completely opposed to violence but believes in the long-term idealistic aim of a united Ireland, puts in nomination papers on 14th June, there is no guarantee that his nomination will be accepted.

§ Captain Orr
That was a long intervention and I completely understood it, but it does not convince me. What the hon. Gentleman said is correct, but that still does not alter the fact that the amendment is unnecessary on this Bill.

§ Mr. Fitt
Nit-picking.

§ Captain Orr
No—it is a statement of the obvious. The Bill does not debar any candidate who belongs to Sinn Fein or the IRA or the Kray Brothers or any other organisation. It does not prevent anyone from standing. That is why the amendment is unnecessary and I cannot understand why we are taking up time with it now.

§ Mr. McManus
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) made a gallant effort to draw a red herring across the thread of the argument but in fact the amendment is very relevant.
I regret some of the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I find it inexpressibly sad that he, as leader of his party, should be applying to the Government for some sort of agency in words such as, "Give us the chance and we will beat Sinn Fein completely."

§ Mr. Fitt
I did not do that.

§ Mr. McManus
My hon. Friend did do it. I was listening. That chicken will come home to roost.
What do the Government want this election to be? Have they a preconceived notion of what they would like to see in the Assembly, or do they want to discover what the electorate think? If they want a contrived result, they will continue with these proscriptions and 210 place impediments in the way of various people by making it impossible for them to be elected. But that will not accurately represent the views of the electorate.
1.0 a.m.
If Her Majesty's Government want to discover what is going on in Northern Ireland and what the people there think, they will have a free election and not one which has any ulterior motive to catch out or lay a trap here or there for anyone. They must say simply, honestly and squarely to the people of Northern Ireland, "There is now an election. Anyone who wishes to put himself forward as a candidate is entitled to do so, and everyone is entitled to vote in the order of his preference." In that way, the Government will discover what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland think. If they go about it in any other way, they will not.
Suppose that the restriction on Sinn Fein remains and that quite a number of people would have voted for Sinn Fein candidates had they stood. What is to happen to their votes? First, they may not bother to vote. Secondly, they may decide that they have to give their vote to someone. They may vote for me if I am standing, which is unlikely. They may vote for my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West. It is inconceivable that they will vote for a Unionist candidate. They will cast their votes somewhere. But the Government will receive inaccurate information and, if they intend to base any further strategy on information gleaned in that way, they will fail because it will be based on false, incomplete and inaccurate information.
If restrictions are to be removed, let it be done in the name of free elections and not for some ignoble or ulterior motive to flush people out into the open. I ask the Minister to take note of that and to give us his opinion. If these restrictions are to remain, will he explain what the Government mean when they say that there will be a free election for the new Assembly on 28th June? What does free election" mean in the definition of the British Government?

§ Mr. McMaster
In so far as it is relevant, I wish to say a word in contradiction of the arguments put forward by 211 Opposition Members. The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) put forward a plausible argument in support of the proposition that a person shall not be disqualified from being a Member of the Assembly by reason of his membership or alleged membership of a proscribed organisation.
I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to think carefully about what he said. He suggested that these people will not be able to stand because they are proscribed and, therefore, disqualified. As a result, he says, they will have a grievance because they will not be able to vent their cause in a legitimate fashion. But there are many ways in which they can stand, without standing as Sinn Fein candidates. They can put forward their cause.
We must remember that Sinn Fein is a body which has always been associated with and which supports the Irish Republican Army. The IRA exists for one reason only and it makes no secret of it. It is subversive and treasonable. It wishes to overthrow the Government of the country by the use of force.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is a lawyer and knows the definition of treason. I ask him to cast his mind back to wartime conditions in this country. Is it sensible or reasonable to allow a person to be a Member of the Assembly who is not just a villain but is guilty of treason and belongs to a body which exists for the purpose of overthrowing the ordinary legitimate organs of government by force—and who has shown it in a tangible fashion in the last three years in Northern Ireland and is still showing it in the streets today? I suggest that to allow such a person to be a Member not only offends against reason, but is an insult to the ordinary public in Northern Ireland who have had to put up with the terrorism described so vividly by the hon. Member for Belfast, West—for example, the shooting of Gunner Curtis. The hon. Gentleman and I have been at the bedside of a young boy who was shot and later died. We do not want to see it happen again.
Unfortunately, since the concessions which were asked for—the disarming of the police and the disbanding of the 212 B-Specials—the terrorism has escalated. It has even escalated in the past year since Stormont was disbanded. Every concession claimed by and granted to the IRA, instead of bringing an end to the violence, seems to be a signal of the Government's weakness and leads to increasing violence. It leads the violent minority to believe that they are winning and that if they give the door a further push they will get their will.

§ Mr. Orme
No.

§ Mr. McMaster
I ask the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to consider the history of the matter.

§ Mr. Orme
I have.

§ Mr. McMaster
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Labour Government set up the Hunt Committee to look into the police. That Committee recommended that the police should be disarmed and that the B-Specials should be disbanded. Why? Because it was supposed to be a partisan force. Instead, the UDR took its place. Why does the membership of the UDR contain only 5 per cent. of the minority—less than the RUC had? Why, when concessions like that are granted, do the minority not come forward and show their good will by joining these bodies? The trouble, as I have said before and repeat, is that there is this militant minority who will not accept any reasonable concession that is made. To give them concessions only prolongs and escalates the violence.

§ Mr. Fitt
The hon. Gentleman has put forward a valid point. The whole implication of his argument is that the Catholics, the minority population, have not joined the UDR. They have not joined the UDR because they have been intimidated. The whole purpose of my argument has been that those whom the hon. Gentleman believes to have been guilty of intimidation should be forced into the political arena to see whether they have the support of the population in Northern Ireland in any given contingency.
A subversive organisation cannot exist without the support of people living in the urban or rural ghettos. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that an urban guerrilla force cannot exist or intimidate unless it has the support of a substantial section of the population in 213 a particular area. That is why I suggest we should see whether these people have that support. If so, we shall know what the circumstances are. However, I confidently believe that they do not have the support of any significant section of the Northern Ireland people.

§ Mr. McMaster
The hon. Gentleman was not following my remarks. It may be that intimidation is one reason why members of the minority, the Republican group, have not joined the UDR, but there is more in it than that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. They have not come forward because the hard core of Republicans have always practised non-co-operation. It is part of their policy. They do not volunteer or put themselves forward for community work, and then they come to the House and complain that they are being discriminated against. It is a cunning policy on their part. I have discovered that in my constituency it is difficult to get volunteers from the Republican minority to play a full part in the life of the community. I suggest that the minority do not wish to play a full part in this new Assembly. This is the root of the trouble in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. McManus
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the minority not coming forward to play its part in the community. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many members of the community have been forced during the last 12 months to leave the constituency which he represents? How many Catholic families have been forced out of East Belfast by members of the UDA who, in many cases, are also members of the UDR?

§ Mr. McMaster
The hon. Gentleman should not speak about East Belfast. He should confine himself to Fermanagh and Tyrone. In my constituency there is hardly a Unionist family left in the Dock area. It has been taken over by the Republicans. The same is true of Hillman Street and Meadow Street. If one goes across the river one finds that in the Victoria area and in Pottinger the minority is taking over more and more houses. So far from being pushed out, the boot is on the other foot. Many Protestant families have been pushed out by the expansion of the Catholic minority.
214 I was diverted from what I wanted to say. I referred to the UDR to establish the point that I am trying to make, which is that further concessions of that kind claimed in the amendment would not improve the situation. It would be an affront to the people of Northern Ireland to accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Orme
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is behaving like an ostrich on this issue. He has almost completely isolated himself on this matter. It is a credit to democracy that we should spend so much time discussing an organisation such as Sinn Fein. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) wants to see the amendment carried. I am not sure whether the members of Sinn Fein want to see it accepted.

§ Mr. McManus
Would you attempt to explain how you draw that conclusion from anything that I have said.

§ The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
I shall not explain anything.

§ Mr. McManus
I beg your pardon, Sir Robert.

§ Mr. Orme
I draw the conclusion from the fact that my hon. Friend has objected to the suggestion that we should flush out the members of Sinn Fein by putting the matter to a democratic test. One cannot believe rumours about Northern Ireland, but if it is true that even before this or any other Bill has gone through Parliament Sinn Fein has decided not to contest the election, it shows that it does not want any basic alterations to the present situation. That ought to prove to the Government that the change for which we are asking is in the interests of democracy.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked about representatives of the IRA. The Republican clubs have an association with a wing of the IRA. I have not heard the hon. Member for Belfast, East object to the fact that they have been removed from proscription and will be able to fight the election as a political party.
1.15 a.m.
We want to see elections where people representing political parties can stand— with or without the question of people 215 being flushed out—and where the electorate can decide whether they support them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, if Sinn Fein stand it will not be in North Antrim or South Down. Sinn Fein will test its strength in the areas of which my hon. Friends have been talking. My hon. Friends will have to fight the political battle against these organisations. My hon. Friends are opposed to violence and opposed politically to Sinn Fein and all that it stands for.
We have advocated this course to the Government so as not to leave an excuse that certain organisations can say that they have been singled out or proscribed in the sense that they cannot operate politically. What has happened in the Republic is an indication that these people ought to be allowed to stand freely, without handicaps, without encumbrance, and as organisations, to test their strength at the ballot box. They may defeat my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West; they may not. If these organisations are defeated at the ballot box, it will be a bigger defeat than they will suffer at the hands of the security forces. It will be a much more telling and lasting defeat.
There is indication that people in Northern Ireland are turning to political action. Among all sections of the community one can sense a feeling that the new Assembly must be given a chance and that elections are imperative and should be held as soon as possible.

§ Mr. McManus
Are the hon. Gentleman and I talking about the same thing? We both say that these restrictions should be removed. I say that they should be removed so that free elections can ensue. This business stands or falls on free elections. The Republican clubs have been removed from the list of prescribed organisations. But since that has happened two of their members have been shot in Armagh. I have it on authority— I know not whether good or bad authority —that they were two prospective local government candidates. The saying is "How many members will be left alive by the time the election comes?"
What organisation can contemplate an election in such an atmosphere? It has 216 been said that there will be an excuse in that there will be a persecution complex. But the facts of the matter speak for themselves. How many members of any other organisation, apart from the two wings of Sinn Fein, are in Long Kesh, or on trial or in gaol? These are the two organisations which have been hit hardest, and constantly hit. It is grotesque to suggest that if the restrictions are not removed there will be an excuse to say, "We have been persecuted." They have been persecuted every day of the week, pros[...]ption or no proscription

§ Mr. Orme
; The hon. Gentleman immediately widens the argument and brings in other aspects which are not germane to this argument. We are saying that the political wings of the organisations should be allowed to fight the election. If people are in violation of the security forces they must take the consequences. Nobody is defending the action of the violators. We are talking about the freedom for people with a political philosophy to stand for election. That is a freedom which they have within the Republic and elsewhere. I do not accept that the other arguments that are being used are germane to the central argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) put forward this point during the debate on the White Paper. It was supported by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and by other hon. Members on the Government benches.
There is involved in this matter an important political and philosophical argument of some magnitude. I and many of my hon. Friends believe that the freedom to stand as a political party will probably do more good politically than much of the security activity that has taken place over recent months. We would say that if members of the UDA want to stand, if there is a political wing of the UDA, they should be allowed to do so.

§ Mr. McNamara
I think that my hon. Friend means the UVF.

§ Mr. Orme
Yes, the UVF. Such people should be allowed to stand not because they are members of an extreme Protestant militant organisation but if they are members of an organisation that has a political wing and a political philosophy.
217 This is an important issue and that is why we have pressed the Government. There is nothing that precludes, as has been pointed out, a candidate standing and putting "Sinn Fein" on the ballot paper. Tomorrow we come to another Bill that proscribes a particular organisation. The amendment talks of a person not being disqualified from being a member of the Assembly, and so on. That is a different matter from allowing a person's name to go on a ballot paper. In other words, it carries the matter logically right through to the Assembly.
That brings in its wake the question whether such a person, if elected to the Assembly, might be an abstentionist and might not attend. We say that that should be tested. I do not accept that the amendment is a threat to the situation in Northern Ireland. It is, in a democratic sense, a show of strength. It shows a readiness to allow all organisations to test their point of view at the ballot box. I have confidence that my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, who abhorrs violence, will succeed, and that in succeeding they will do much more than just winning a victory at the ballot box. Such a victory could be an important psychological factor in Northern Ireland.
It is on that basis that we support the type of proposals contained in the amendment. It is on that basis that we know that the Government have seriously considered the issue and will consider it further when we debate the issue tomorrow. For some of the reasons that I have deployed, this is a matter of some importance.

§ Mr. Fitt
A few moments ago, during the course of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) interjected and said that he had heard of restrictions being placed on the Sinn Fein and that two members of the Sinn Fein movement had been shot and killed by the British Army in Armagh. I am not sure whether that is true. I do not know the men who were shot. I have the greatest sympathy with those who lost their lives. I condemn those who were responsible for their killing if the victims were innocent. However, if the people to whom my hon. 218 Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone refers were engaged in subversive activity, he was not in a position to answer for them.
In Northern Ireland this could be taken completely out of context. It could be taken as saying that those people may have been engaged in some type of subversive activity. I am certain that my hon. Friend did not intend to convey that impression by implication or otherwise. I do not believe that the British Army is going around Northern Ireland shooting down potential Sinn Fein candidates, be they official or provisional. I do not agree with what the British Army has been doing in my constituency in the past 42 or 72 hours—

§ The Chairman
Order. I am a little worried about what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is trying to do. I know that in Committee hon. Members can make as many speeches as they like, but the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make his remarks by way of intervention. I hope that he will observe the rules and make his intervention short and to the point.

§ Mr. Orme
I have taken my hon. Friend's point, and this is a serious issue. I was not seeking to pass judgment on any particular issue in Armagh. I am not conversant with that matter and I do not know the facts. What I was trying to do, as a general principle, was to say that this had nothing to do with the Bill or the principle about which we are talking in terms of allowing political candidates to stand for election.

§ Mr. Peter Mills
We have had an interesting and powerful debate and I understand what hon. Members are getting at. There have been counter-arguments on a variety of subjects. Indeed it might be said, without wishing to be disrespectful to the Chair, that we have diversified slightly, and we have even had mention of ostriches.
To return to the amendment, may I make it clear at the outset that I believe the amendment to be a little misconceived. We want to get it right. There is no question of a member of a proscribed organisation being disqualified by virtue of his being a member. This is the electoral law, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South 219 (Captain Orr) is right. Whether such a person can fight an election as a member of a proscribed organisation and become elected will depend on the attitude of the local authorities who are responsible for prosecutions, but under the electoral law he cannot be disqualified.
The point which I make to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is that electoral law is not the place for this provision. Proscription is a matter for the Bill arising from Diplock, with which we shall be dealing tomorrow. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. McNamara
I should like to make one or two comments on the speeches which have been made on the amendment. I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that what is or is not in order is a matter for the Chair and not for him. It does not behove the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say what is in order in terms of any amendment that is tabled.

§ Mr. McNamara
I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South will resume his seat because we have only a short time. I want to get on. I hope that I shall be allowed to make my remarks in my own way.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has the sympathy of all hon. Members when he talks of the destruction and distress in his constituency or elsewhere in Northern Ireland as a result of the present difficulties. But he does not advance his case by drawing sweeping conclusions about the causes of the present unrest and distress.
We are seeking to show the Minister the strength of feeling about our case. I do not think that the amendment is misconceived, because it deals with membership of the Assembly and matters that may or may not disqualify a person. The Bill deals with just that point.
Whatever happens, it is important that no chance is given at any time to any group of people to make the excuse that they were prevented from voicing their opinions. It is because we think that 220 the psychological victory should be in the polls, to whomsoever it is. that the matter is important.
But in view of what the Minister said and what the Secretary of State said earlier this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Orme
I beg to move Amendment No. 25 in page 3, line 30, leave out from 'disregarded' to end of line 32.

§ The Chairman
Hon. Members have said that with this amendment they would not like to include for discussion Amendment No. 26. Therefore with Amendment No. 25 we shall be discussing New Clause 1—"Consequence of Disqualification": 'In the event of a disqualification under section 3(2)(d) the candidate who at the election received the next largest number of votes to that received by the person disqualified shall be declared the member in his place'. We shall also discuss Amendment No. 35, page 3, line 25, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

§ Mr. Orme
The amendment deals with subsection (3), which states: The Secretary of State shall have power by order to make provision— … (c) for conferring jurisdiction to decide whether a disqualification has been imposed by this section. It is a probing amendment. We should like to know exactly what power is involved. How wide is it? Exactly what does it entail?

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
New Clause I deals with disqualification in the event of abstentionism.
In case any hon. Member is surprised because he cannot find a Section 3(2)(d)), I should point out that my new clause is dependent on Amendment No. 23 in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
I referred to the problem of abstentionism, which is an old Irish custom, in the debate on the White Paper, and hon. Members on both sides have referred to it today. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary brushed it aside rather cursorily to attend this House although he has when he said that no one is compelled 221 been elected. Of course, Northern Ireland is not exactly the same as England.
I also referred in my Second Reading speech to what was said by the present Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic in his book "Towards a New Ireland". Many hon. Members will have read that book. In chapter 8 "Towards a New Regime in the North" we find these words: One danger, however, would be that any such scheme of government"— this is the sort of scheme upon which the Government are trying to embark— could be sabotaged by extreme elements refusing to work the system. What would happen, it may well be asked, if Vanguard Supporters and Provisional alike decided, while accepting election to Parliament, to abstain from the assembly? How then could a government be formed on a basis proportionately representative of the parties? Alternatively would there not be a danger that in such a situation even some moderate elements in one community might feel constrained also to abstain from government? This possibility must be faced. But the proportional representation system using the single transferable vote has hidden resources, possibly not suspected by those who have not had experience of its remarkable flexibility. It would be entirely possible to provide that if the members of any group or groups failed to take their place in parliament, or even if they did so but refused to participate in the supreme legislative function of choosing an executive, they would be disqualified, and the count of votes that had elected them would be resumed, eliminating them as if they had failed to secure enough votes for election, and passing their preferences on to the next preferred candidate of each voter."
This is a serious point raised by a distinguished statesman in the South of Ireland. It is with this possibility in mind that I tabled the new clause, and I commend it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. McMaster
May I refer briefly to Amendment No. 35? I am concerned with the wide powers provided in the Bill. I understand the urgency of getting the Bill through the House and I support the idea of holding elections on 28th June. But I wonder whether it is in the best interests of the House and its reputation that we should be considering at this late hour, when we are tired, so many detailed points in a Bill of such a fundamental nature, concerning vital constitutional provisions. Should the Bill be going through all its stages in one day?
222 I am concerned about the provisions of Clause 3(3) and in particular (3)(b). This provides that the Secretary of State shall have power by order to make provision—

(a) for the consequences of a disqualification imposed by this section, and

(b) for the circumstances in which such a dis qualification may be disregarded."

The disqualifications referred to are those laid down in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 and amendments thereto. These are the provisions under which a person may be disqualified from serving in this House. I wonder whether this job of a quasi-judicial nature ought to be left in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the eyes of some Labour Members—who spoke at such length and have now left— the Secretary of State may be an interested party. Is it right that the Secretary of State should have such wide powers? I feel that this clause should be looked at much more carefully and critically.

§ Captain Orr
I might be able to help my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). There are a number of questions arising under this power of the Secretary of State to make provisions about disqualification. Such provisions would be contained in an order. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can give us the same kind of undertaking he gave earlier, namely, that when issues are raised which have been debated here, particularly the fears which my hon. Friend has raised, he will consult us about them?

§ Mr. Whitelaw
The main intention of subsection (3) is to apply, with minimum modification, Sections 6 and 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, which provides that claims regarding disqualification come within the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. We must have some arrangement for deciding the claims judicially.
Turning to the new clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) discussed, we have agreed that this is a Bill to deal with election to the Assembly. We would wish to discuss the matter of filling vacancies when we consider the main constitutional Bill. I take my hon. Friend's point, but that is the right place in which to deal with it.
223 On the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), I accept that these are wide powers, but I have no intention of using them in any other way than the way in which the House of Commons would wish to see them used. The law on disqualification is, as I have discovered, an absolute minefield. It is one of the most difficult and complicated sections of the law.
I readily give the assurance for which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked. We shall be only too ready to discuss the problems of disqualification with hon. Members on both sides. If they have as much difficulty in understanding the provisions as I had, the discussions will be difficult. We want to have the same sort of provisions as we have in present circumstances for the House of Commons and as we had for the Stormont Parliament. That is all we seek to do, and it seems reasonable.

§ Mr. Orme
The right hon. Gentleman earlier referred to the Privy Council. That body has been abolished in Northern Ireland. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman meant the Privy Council in the United Kingdom and that any cases which arose would be referred to that body.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
That is the purpose.
On the basis of my assurances on an extremely complicated part of the law, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment. We shall seek to meet the points which have been raised and will do nothing which would impair what the Committee would wish to see happen.

§ Mr. Orme
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.