HC Deb 05 December 1974 vol 882 cc2071-103

10.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

I beg to move, That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 was enacted in order to deal with an emergency situation, as was the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974. The intention was that these provisions should be temporary and should lapse after a limited time. If the Government wished to renew them they would have to obtain the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and I ask for that approval in this House tonight.

The House will recall that on 9th July I asked for approval to renew the provisions of the emergency provisions Act for six months only. The time had previously been 12 months. At the time I said I hoped that we should be able to present new legislation based on the report of Lord Gardiner's Committee. The committee had been asked to make recommendations on powers to deal with terrorism and subversion, while maintaining the civil liberties and human rights of the people of Northern Ireland to the maximum practicable extent. I have not yet received the report of the committee, but I understand that it is in the final stages of drafting and I expect to receive it in the near future.

I am asking for a renewal of the provisions in these Acts for a further six months because even if the report came out tomorrow we should not have sufficient time to consider and debate its proposals as thoroughly as they deserve before these Acts fall due for renewal on 24th January 1975. Moreover, legislation will have to be drafted, and debated fully. I ask for approval for a further period of six months, and I shall do everything possible to introduce new legislation within that time.

My power to seek the renewal of the Act by order, subject to the approval of Parliament, applies to the complete provisions. I cannot alter the sense of any sections of these Acts, which have been debated and approved by Parliament, by allowing subsections of the provisions to lapse. The only alternatives open to me are to allow the whole section to lapse, to renew the section in toto, or to amend the section by a Bill.

There are good reasons for having the power of proscription in Northern Ireland —the same reasons as led my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to take powers for the rest of the United Kingdom. The whole Act will be reviewed in the light of the Gardiner Report, and it would be inappropriate to introduce amending legislation now.

I do not propose to take the House through the provisions of the Act, but I should like to take this opportunity to clear any confusion which might occur between the powers of a constable to detain an arrested person for 72 hours under Section 10 of the 1973 Act in Northern Ireland and the power to arrest and detain for up to seven days, on the authority of the Secretary of State, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. The latter, which also applies in Northern Ireland, is a separate additional power to the provisions under the 1973 Act and it in no way affects them.

Perhaps the House would find it convenient for me to refer to some of the consequential orders that come under the legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The House will know that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act which was passed a week ago extends fully to Northern Ireland. The power to make exclusion orders can be exercised by me in Northern Ireland, and the power to set up entry and departure controls exists in Northern Ireland in the same way as in Great Britain.

The House may wish to know, therefore, that I have today made two orders. I informed the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in the earlier debate that I was doing this. The orders will, between them, have the effect of completing the scheme of the Act.

The first order is the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (Adaptation) Order which, as its title implies, makes several small changes in the text of the Act to make clear exactly how some of the provisions in the Act will apply to Northern Ireland. The second order is the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order, which is essentially the counterpart of the Supplemental Temporary Provisions Order which the Home Secretary made a week ago——

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, and I am not seeking to be glib or discourteous to him, but he is spending a great deal of time discussing two orders which are not at present before the House and which have been laid only today. According to the Order Paper, we are discussing the order that is now before us. I would regard it as most inconvenient to the House if what my right hon. Friend is now saying were to mean that, because of the nature of this type of order, the Government would have an excuse for saying that we could not debate the other orders properly later.

Mr. Rees

I am not using this as an excuse for anything. They are orders under the negative procedure, as I understand it, and I thought that it would be helpful and advantageous to the House if I were to refer to the two orders. I assure my hon. Friend that if I wanted to act openly on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Lord President I would do so. This is not a clever way of trying to deal with the situation. The orders I have referred to are negative orders and I have no control over them. If the House is agreeable I shall continue giving the information.

The Northern Ireland order establishes control over entry to and departure from Northern Ireland in the same way as the Home Secretary's order establishes controls over entry to and departure from Great Britain. The Northern Ireland order is different from the Great Britain order in that it controls a land boundary as well as sea and air traffic. But land controls are administered in the same way and in the same spirit as the sea and air controls.

The effect of all this is that there are now the same powers in Northern Ireland to examine all traffic coming into the Province and leaving the Province, and that I can exercise similar powers to those which the Home Secretary can exercise to exclude from the part of the United Kingdom any person who has been concerned in terrorism. I regard the completion of these powers as an important step forward.

I give this information for the benefit of the House. I cannot affect the procedure of the House, but these two bits of legislation go together.

The other evening, when we were discussing the legislation for Great Britain, its relationship to Northern Ireland was raised on a number of occasions. A few moments ago I referred to the 72 hours arrest powers that I have under the 1973 Act, which we are renewing tonight, and the extra power given in Great Britain which also applies to Northern Ireland —in otherwords, to the United Kingdom as a whole.

The Emergency Provisions Act provides the statutory authority for detention. There is violence in Northern Ireland of the most vicious kind and it is my duty to use the powers in the Act until I have reviewed them in the light of the Gardiner Report. As I said to the House this afternoon, since Sunday I have signed interim custody orders on nine people in connection with the recent sectarian murders. I am satisfied that these men have been deeply implicated in murder and violence, and yet— as the organisers and members of assassination squads—no one is prepared to give evidence in open courts against them. It is difficult to blame persons who will not risk their own lives and those of their families, but I have to act.

Mr. McNamara

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to name the people on whom he has served ICOs?

Mr. Rees

I think that it would be better if I did not, but the names are available.

It is for this reason that I ask the House to renew the powers of detention in the 1973 Act for a further limited period of six months, in order to allow the Government to consider the Gardiner Committee Report. I assure the House, however, that, if the violence were to cease, I would take immediate steps to bring detention to an end.

As the House knows, I am carrying out a programme of executive releases. Since I announced this programme to the House on 9th July, I have released 71 detainees, and the commissioners have released a further 99. I said at the time that I announced this programme that this was to be an earnest of my intention to bring detention to an end. I regret that this earnest of my intention has not met with any reciprocal action on the part of the para-military forces. Murders continue. The campaign of violence has spread to Britain. During the same period, I have had to make 87 interim custody orders.

The draft order before the House also extends the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 for a further period of six months. Courts in Northern Ireland may remand a young person to prison only if they are convinced that he is unruly or depraved. Accordingly, most young persons were being held in remand homes pending trial. These homes are not secure establishments and some of the young persons charged with serious offences were absconding and immediately becoming involved again in terrorism.

The Act gives the Secretary of State power to direct that a young person charged with a scheduled offence who has been remanded or committed for trial may be held in a prison or other secure place. As well as preventing him from absconding, this works to ensure his own safety and that of those who are looking after him. The powers given by the Act have been used sparingly since it came into operation on 1st August 1974. Between that date and 30th November only eight young persons have been held in prison pending trial under a direction given by me. There have been no escapes.

At the time, I arranged that a number of hon. Members should visit Belfast to look at the facilities, and among their number was my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I think that they saw the reason for our action, but more important, they looked at the facilities available.

The House may also wish to know the position on prisons in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the recent riots at the Maze. I received the report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons last week. I have considered it and take this opportunity of informing the House of its contents, which is my main duty. As I explained in my statement on 30th October, the nature of the inquiry prevents publication of the report, but it deals with three main matters. The first is the extent of the damage to the Maze Prison on 15th and 16th October and how it was caused. This confirms what I told the House on 30th October. A working group has been considering the security and operational measures required to provide against future outbreaks and I cannot expand on this aspect.

The second is the need to move towards a greater segregation of Loyalists and Republicans within the Maze Prison. This poses accommodation problems, but the first steps have already been taken and, as the reconstruction of the prison proceeds, I hope to provide as far as possible that the two groups are confined in different and self-contained areas of the prison.

The third refers to matters of administration. The numbers in the prison have expanded very rapidly. Before the disturbances, it had become clear that, as in any large organisation, control and communications were of paramount importance, and that better forms of consultative machinery should be devised in the interests both of staff and of prisoners. With co-operation on the part of the prisoners, I hope it will be possible as a result of changes now being introduced to reduce tension within the Maze.

In the meantime, work has been proceeding very rapidly on the replacement of living accommodation at the prison, and all inmates are now rehoused in huts with heating, lighting and ablution facilities. Other facilities are also being restored as soon as possible, and accommodation should be generally getting back to normal by the end of January, although it may not be practicable to complete all the improvements planned before mid-April.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

What does my right hon. Friend mean by the phrase "with the co-operation of the prisoners"? If one runs a Colditz what else does one expect?

Mr. Rees

My hon. Friend must accept what I say, that there is co-operation with prisoners and with the prison staff. I say to him—I say it to someone whom I respect—that I have to deal with the prison staff and the prison governor daily. They are facing a most difficult job, not the least factor in which is the prison accommodation which is available in Northern Ireland. When I used those words, there was no wrong in using them. I take advice from those who have worked in the prison service for years. They feel very remote from politicians. What they say to me is this: "Politicians seem more concerned about the prisoners who burn the place down than about those of us who are attacked."

I have a responsibility to prison officers, which I very gladly take, and I take equally my responsibility towards prisoners. They are both my concern. The prison officers have been reacting very adversely in recent weeks to some of the comments that are being made. The point I make is that the advice that I get is in the terms in which I expressed it a moment ago.

As to long-term plans, the House will know that I have already announced an extensive prison building programme. Action has already been taken to survey the site at Maghaberry prior to a public inquiry. Prison accommodation cannot be provided overnight, however; plans have to be made well in advance.

I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that the prison in Belfast, the Crumlin Road Prison, would still need replacing even if the troubles had not broken out five years ago. I am not talking about the troubles. I am talking about a new prison for Northern Ireland. A new permanent prison there should have been started five years ago and not five weeks ago. I do not apportion blame for that. When my hon. Friend makes his remarks as though Northern Ireland does not need a new prison for peace-time circumstances, I think that he begins to reveal a certain lack of knowledge of what I am talking about.

I come now to the aspect of things about which he is concerned. A long-term prison is needed in Northern Ireland. The present prison is out of date. There was a report about five years ago recommending a new prison, and we are implementing it. We are now getting to the current situation. We shall be building there a temporary prison as well. Arrangements have already been made for the completion next year of a new wing at Armagh Women's Prison. If the troubles were to end now, there would still be women prisoners in Northern Ireland. The accommodation in the old prison is not good enough, and we are building an extension.

In 1976, closed borstal accommodation will be ready at Woburn, Millisle, and work has started on a young offenders' centre for 300 males at Hydebank Wood, which is due to be completed in 1977.

All these projects are proceeding as quickly as possible. I shall keep the House informed. I mention them in the context of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act because when we consider new legislation we shall have to consider it in the context of new prison accommodation and of Special Category prisoners—the administrative categorisation which was referred to earlier today.

All of that must be taken into account. Indeed, the original riots in the Maze were not initiated by detainees. They were initiated by properly sentenced prisoners, most of whom had been given Special Category status. Therefore, the House must consider the whole of penal policy in Northern Ireland. One must look at the young offenders' centre and at the work done at Millisle. In many respects Northern Ireland is advanced. In this respect, Northern Ireland is more advanced than we are on this side of the water. It is always as well to say so because we so often look at those aspects which are not as well advanced.

That is an important factor in considering the Gardiner Report early in the New Year and the legislation which will stem from it. Prison accommodation will be an important element in the report because there is no doubt that at the Maze the mixing of the different categories has an effect on the borstal boys who work around the place. That aspect of the present situation, which I inherited, is bad and something for which we all bear responsibility. I am not making a political point.

We have to consider that aspect. It is not good enough just to look at sentencing. We must look at the facilities, and that will be an important part of the Gardiner Report. The report will be available soon and we should discuss it and then translate it into legislation. I require another six months to do that. Without the provisions before us tonight the security forces would not be able to operate in Northern Ireland. As we talk those forces are on duty and we have a responsibility for them. For that reason, I hope that the order will be passed.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour (Chesham and Amersham)

The House will have been glad to learn of the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, of the progress that is being made in improvements and of the plans for adding to present accommodation in Northern Ireland. It will also be relieved to know that the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act has been used sparingly, though we agree that its continuation is necessary.

We agree that the renewal of the emergency provisions is inevitable pending the report of the Gardiner Committee, and I agree with the Secretary of State about the security forces not being able to operate without them. It would be odd just when the Government in Britain have taken emergency powers for them to be given up in Northern Ireland. We therefore support the order.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I wish to express my concern about the renewal of these emergency provisions, particularly because no one who has listened to the debate today could be anything but concerned about the apparent lack of Government policy.

I am worried that we seem to have adopted a procedure simply of waiting to see what the Convention will produce in the hope that it might produce something. If the Convention does not produce the kind of results my right hon. Friend is hoping for, what are we to do? The reason some of my hon. Friends are advocating withdrawing our troops from Northern Ireland is that at least to do that is to have a policy, which is more than I can say for some of the things I have heard from the Government Front Bench today.

As well as referring to the special provisions, I want to deal with the apparatus which I understand my right hon. Friend intends to establish to back up those provisions. I refer to the article on page 1 of The Times this morning. My right hon. Friend gave what I considered to be an accurate denial of the story in The Times until I chose to do a little research into what he said. It is my understanding of the situation that when he gave his denial this afternoon and said that computers were not at the moment being used except for vehicle registration and vehicle checking, he could have been technically right. But it is the conclusion of my researches that in Northern Ireland the computers, the punch cards and all the machinery and apparatus are ready, and that over the next two months it is intended to set up precisely the system described on page 1 of The Times this morning.

I have many times talked about the possibility of setting up Big Brother machinery with the use of computers. I have been laughed at a bit and have been told that what I was suggesting was ridiculous, because it could not happen here. But the conclusion of researches this afternoon is that it is about to happen in Northern Ireland—within the next two months.

Many of us regretted the introduction of internment and its political consequences. If I oppose the renewal of the provisions, it is because I believe that, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may say that they are necessary for the security forces, the wholly bad political consequences of internment more than outweigh the benefits to which he referred.

If there are political disadvantages and bad consequences of the renewal of the emergency provisions, there will be even more disastrous political consequences if my right hon. Friend goes ahead with the kind of computer system described on page 1 of The Times this morning. It will not be just a matter of the emergency powers of arrest and the orders that my right hon. Friend has told us he is signing. It will be the whole of the Big Brother apparatus that he will have at his disposal to back them up.

I shall not say that the use of computers and this kind of technology in the present context is entirely wrong. Computers may well have a function. It has always been my attitude that they can be useful in such situations. But before my right hon. Friend gets the punch cards going to set up the system, before we put half the population of the Province of Ulster on computer, will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly what he is doing, what he intends to do, and how he intends to put the system into practice?

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I was checking on the information I gave the House today. It would be extremely foolish not to check information that one is giving to the House. What I have just checked on is what is done for intelligence information. There is a computer for vehicle checking, for vehicles crossing the border and so on, and there is a computer—I nearly said where it was, but although that is probably known in Northern Ireland there is no point in throwing names about. There is a computer centre of the same sort as we have here, which the police use. There is no computer for intelligence, and I have not been asked to give permission for one. Intelligence information for a far smaller number of people than was stated is available on index cards. That is what I was checking on. The information is there, quite properly. The question of its going on computers would be a decision for me, and the matter has not been put to me.

Mr. Huckfield

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. But I still say that my researches indicate that there is every intention to pursue this kind of technology, computerised filing and storage of information, of exactly the kind described on page 1 of The Times today. I understand that it is already set up and raring to go.

Mr. Rees

I can say that it is not set up and raring to go, and before it is done I will inform the House.

Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)

Will my right hon. Friend say that if he is faced with that decision he will reject the proposal?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

It is very difficult for hon. Members addressing the House if other hon. Members intervene.

Mr. Huckfield

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his assurance, but I must press him on two or three technical points which are of fundamental importance not only to the use of this system but so that people can understand what he is trying to do. First, will my right hon. Friend make provision for the erasure of this information from the tapes when it is filed? If there is information stored in filing cards and placed in filing cabinets, it is clear that ultimately someone has to do something about getting rid of it. It is my opinion that once a person is stored on a computer he tends to be stored, whether or not the information is right, for the rest of his life. That is not the most encouraging of precedents that my right hon. Friend would want to set if he wants to bring people together.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he makes his statement what kind of control he intends to maintain over access to information? He will know that whoever has access to the computer will have access to an important source of information. I hope that he will maintain some kind of access control system. Further, I hope that he will maintain a record to ensure that what is called audit trail is maintained so that there will be information on exactly who has been getting into the computer.

If my right hon. Friend is prepared to do that, and if he is prepared to be frank about what he is doing, one or two of my hon. Friends and myself may be able to understand what he is doing. That does not mean that we shall find his proposal any more palatable. However, if he gives that kind of assurance there may, within limits, be some understanding. I hope that he will say something about the technical matters to which I have referred.

My right hon. Friend has said something of significance. It has long been accepted throughout the British Isles that information stores of various computerised systems—for example, public health data, educational data, car licence data and the national police computer data—would never be integrated. Once it is put together it becomes possible to make Big Brother type value judgments. That is the sort of thing that leads to computerised files, some wrong categorisation and some bad political decisions.

If my right hon. Friend intends to set up this kind of system, how in God's name does he ever think he will get rid of it? Once the police and the security forces get used to using it, they will be reluctant to see it dismantled. It will be a devil of a job to break down the system once it has been set up.

I remain unhappy about the sterile posturing that we have had from the Government Front Bench. I am not happy about pursuing a policy of watching, waiting and hoping. That is what the Government seem to be doing. We must do something much more constructive. Perhaps the most constructive thing that we can do is not to renew these powers.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. William Craig (Belfast, East)

My colleagues and I feel somewhat reluctant to consent to the renewal of this measure. When it was last considered we felt that we could not consent to a further renewal unless in the meantime there had been a complete review of the law. We are disappointed that we are now asked to give consent to a further renewal without having the advantage of hearing from the Scrutiny Committee and considering the law generally.

We are all conscious that we are dealing with a matter of life and death. Anyone who has lived in Northern Ireland and experienced the situation there will not lightly disarm in any way the forces of law and order. It would be reckless and foolish for us to refuse renewal of this vital part of the armoury of law and order, much as we do not like it. I felt reassured when the Secretary of State said that the Gardiner Committee is in the process of its final draft and that we may shortly be considering its report.

I hope that it will lead to the consideration of a wholly new code of law to deal with terrorism. The present system of detention is far from satisfactory. The longer it continues the more difficult it is to revert to a normal situation. In recognising that, we must not fall into the trap of saying that detention as it exists is a cause of violence. It is not. If we were to abandon it now there would be disastrous results. As a bare minimum it would increase by three times the hitting strength of the Provos.

None of us wants to do that. The passing of legislation to deal with terrorism is, I hope, the beginning of the shaping of a new code of law. As it develops we would like to see uniformity throughout the United Kingdom. We would like the problem of terrorism to be dealt with, as far as possible, through the normal legal machinery. We may have to vary the code of law on occasions, and vary the nature of the courts, but it is better by far to deal with such matters through the normal legal processes.

Many experts would agree that, no matter how effective the law is made, there will always be some need for a residual power of detention. In those cases I would like to think that it would be a matter for the Executive and that the Executive would be answerable to the representatives of the people. We feel unhappy about this order, but the need in Northern Ireland is great. We feel obliged to support its renewal tonight.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said because when his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke on the occasion that the order was last before us he used far more stringent language. He gave what amounted to an ultimatum to the Government when he said I and my colleagues do not propose to vote at the conclusion of this debate. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if at the end of this period, he has not brought in some amending legislation to deal with this matter in an effective manner, we shall have to vote solidly against any further extension of these powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1293.] Alas and alack. We 17 who voted against the order on the last occasion were looking forward to marching into the Lobby shoulder to shoulder with the serried ranks of the 10 Ulster Unionists. It is not to be. Perhaps on another occasion they will take up the courage of their convictions and try to make the Government get rid of this iniquitous legislation. I do not say this in any glib fashion. I do not say that I will not tolerate this and, when challenged, say that I shall think again and reassess the situation. I do not believe that these powers have ever worked.

The Secretary of State has just condemned nine men, without trial, without a shred of evidence, accusing them of mass murder and sectarian crimes of the worst possible sort. He has done it in this House today, saying, "I have put nine men behind bars. On the information before me they were responsible for sectarian murders and crimes of the most devilish kind." Who are these nine men who have had these interim custody orders placed on them? They are nine men who have been "hanged, drawn and quartered" by the Secretary of State today. They have not been able to say a word in their own defence, or necessarily see the evidence against them. Now we are to say glibly that we shall continue these powers.

I have great faith in my right hon. Friend, but once we start on this sort of track we put everyone inside on the same sort of basis. We are in a situation where my right hon. Friend can name the Rathcoone murderers on the basis of no evidence and no statements. He can say, "These are the men suspected of the Rathcoone murders." There will be no trial, and no evidence—only a bastard system of justice, perhaps before a commissioner with no possibility of anyone seeing what is before him.

This applies across the sectarian divide. IRA, UDA—whoever they are—all tried and all convicted and all named on the basis of dates and events which have come from my right hon. Friend since last summer. We have known that this has happened.

Where is it now? It is in the records, perhaps even on the computer of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield)—against their names for all time, with no trial——

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

We shall all be there.

Mr. McNamara

But my right hon. Friend says that if the violence ceases, he will let out these men. They are sectarian murderers and people who have planted explosives. They are evil people. My right hon. Friend says that he has already let out 71 men, and that 99 have been let out by commissioners. They are all murderers, and they are at large in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has taken a selective judgment to let them out. But he cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that it is necessary to have detention to put dangerous men inside, and then let them out. We cannot accept that. It simply does not stand examination.

I am even more unhappy about this because, when my right hon. Friend came most reluctantly to the House on the last occasion to move his continuance order, he did so against the background of the great reforming Lord Gardiner and his committee who were to report to this House, and he said that this House would have for consideration some legislation based on Lord Gardiner's Report. No one knew what was in that report, but it was to be the great miracle detergent to find a way of putting behind bars dangerous men against whom there was no evidence.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said: I ask the House to allow it to continue for this further period of six months, giving the undertaking that the Gardiner Committee will make its report as rapidly as possible and that when the Government have considered that report they will be in a position to come forward with proposals for whatever new legislation is required. So there we had the promise of a report. But it was not a complete promise, because earlier in his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend said: The very point of asking for a renewal for six months only when we could have asked for renewal for a longer period is due to our hope that before the six-month period is up the committee chaired by the noble Lord will be able to give the House its report and that we shall be able to act on it. My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that we must get it, consider it, and introduce legislation. The word he used was "hope".

In his remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said nothing about hope. There was a direct commitment that we would have the Gardiner Committee's Report. He said: I have reduced the period for which the Act will operate from a year to six months. That will be the period during which the Gardiner Committee will report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1974; Vol. 876, cc. 283–316.] He did not say that it "may" report. He did not say that it "may" be delayed by evidence coming through in a rush at the last minute. He gave a distinct undertaking that the Gardiner Committee "will report". All we hear now is that it is in draft, it will not be ready for six months, there is pressure on legislation, a referendum here, something to nationalise somewhere else, there is no time for it on the Floor of the House, it might be considered in an Ulster Grand Committee, or something of that nature. We shall not see the legislation, and we shall have to renew the powers once again.

What do we expect from Gardiner? Will he say that we have a system, and we can make do with that. Must we accept what Lord Gardiner says? Will he say that we should do away with the powers completely, and will my right hon. Friend say, as he said earlier today, that he will not put British soldiers at risk on the streets without these powers? That is a perfectly proper sentiment, but what happened in the three months from August to September 1974? There were 11 killed in the Army, four in the police and one in the UDR—the same number in three months as were killed in two years under the security arrangements before the introduction of internment. Look at the way the figures escalate.

British troops are at risk, but they are at risk because of internment, detention and emergency powers, and the figures show that they are more at risk than they were before because of the degree of harassment to which they are subjected from all communities. That we cannot accept. The figures show the escalation after the introduction of internment. The graph goes up and down.

Then there is the chicken and egg argument: "Stop violence and we will end internment. Do not stop internment and we will increase violence." Neither side gives way. Yet everyone says that what caused violence was the introduction of internment. So we get this stupid circular argument, and the Government do not know where they are going. They will say, of course, that they know where they are going; they are not putting their troops at risk; but the figures deny that.

We do not want our troops at risk; we want peace for our troops and peace in Northern Ireland. We want a decent society there. That is not the way to do it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I have to ask myself, if the order does not go through tonight, do we withdraw the troops immediately or do we put them at risk?

Mr. McNamara

When the troops were at risk before internment the casualties were considerably fewer than they are now. It is no good my right hon. Friend's saying that that is no argument because the situation was entirely different, which is what I think he is trying to suggest, because the situation we have now was created by internment. The figures of explosions, deaths and killings show that. We cannot continue in this way.

We must say at one stage or another that we shall stop internment. It is a difficult decision to take, and I understand that. But if Gardiner does not come up with a trump what will my right hon. Friend do then? Will be plough on with internment? How does he think that that will help his Convention elections? I do not think it will help them at all.

In six months' time we shall renew the powers, when the Convention will be at the height of its most productive function. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will be running around to throw powersharing wraps on the shoulders of everyone in the Province, and we shall be here continuing the internment powers. So long as we have this system it will all collapse. It is no answer. We said in opposition that it was no answer, and we voted against the whole of these provisions. Last Thursday we said in the House that it was no answer.

Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated dissent.

Mr. McNamara

My right hon. Friend shakes his head. He denies he said that it was no answer and that he voted against it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

This is a personal matter. My hon. Friend knows that in opposition I made clear on behalf of the Opposition that the community has the right to take steps even under the European Convention on Human Rights, extraordinary fashion, to deal with matters of this kind. I made it abundantly clear, and my hon. Friend has said so in the House.

Mr. McNamara

But my right hon. Friend also voted against it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated dissent.

Mr. McNamara

My right hon. Friend should look at the Committee stage proceedings. He will find his name there. I know with what misgivings he approached the whole matter. I am not denying that he feels that this residual power must be there, but I say that it does not really answer as a policy. It is not an answer to the problem.

If my right hon. Friend continues with the policy, he may for a time get all the Provos and all the Officials still fighting, and all the UDA and UVF behind bars, but he will have to let them out again. His prisoners will get out. But how will they get out? Where does all this stop? Do they get out in a box, or do they walk out, released by my right hon. Friend, who will say one day that they are a terrible danger and cannot be let out and the next day say that they can be let out? It is for these reasons that I shall vote against the order.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

It is not for me to defend the Secretary of State against his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. MacNamara), because if he has friends like that he does not need me to do it. The extreme attacks which the hon. Member has been bringing against the order and the position of the Government do not carry much conviction.

It is the case, no doubt that tonight we are in a rather negative posture. We realise that we are waiting for the Gardiner Report and the Convention to bring us some more facts, some more certitude, some more opinions on which we can form our judgment.

In the past five years there may have been a number of occasions on which it was possible to imagine that if the decision had been grasped in the way that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central wished it to be grasped, from time to time, we would have averted events which have subsequently taken place. But there again, perhaps, there were no such opportunities. It is difficult to say. No doubt every such chance would have presented the House and the country with very hard choices. Hard choices cannot be imposed from outside. Only free will can impose upon itself the discipline necessary to accept the sacrifices involved.

In these last years, one feature of our position which has made it impossible to grasp these decisions when they might have been taken has been the denial of one of the major principles of democracy—that if majority rule. In a democratic environment, only very special circumstances such as a colonialist environment can justify not entrusting to the majority of a country the responsibility for its government.

Colonialism justifies it because of the alleged inexperience of democracy of parts of the population. That surely cannot ever have been the case in any part of the United Kingdom during the time to which I refer. It may well have been that the minority in Northern Ireland were to some extent disadvantaged and oppressed, although I believe that that has been very much exaggerated. At any rate, legislation has now been passed which has made the situation very different from what it was then.

We have, as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, human rights legislation far more extensive than that of any other European country. We have the Human Rights Convention at Strasbourg, which is in operation, as we know, partly to our cost. We have the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and other ways in which the rights of minorities can be secured.

Whatever may have happened in the past, I do not believe that in future both sides will not realise that neither can triumph completely. Surely the lessons of the past five years will have brought that home.

I said that hard decisions would be involved in any policy that we could adopt. After the Convention we shall have to decide how the country shall be governed and, after the mechanisms have been decided, we shall have to consider questions of the greatest importance—for example, questions on the border, and on the movements of population. No decisions on questions of such magnitude can be imposed from outside. I shall not go into any detail on what they may be. I do not think that such decisions can be taken and imposed without the restoration of majority rule in Northern Ireland.

We have before us orders maintaining a state of emergency in Northern Ireland. These also need the support of the majority if they are to be effective. The majority must feel that, in the difficult decisions and tasks before them, their legitimate rights are respected. They must feel, in particular, that they have proper democratic representation in Northern Ireland—after the terms of the Convention, whatever they may be, have been carried out—and in this House. I do not see how anybody can argue that Northern Ireland should be represented to any less degree in this House than are the constituencies of England itself.

The debate today will have allayed no fears about the future in Northern Ireland. During the course of the earlier debate nothing depressed me more than the merriment of back benchers on the Government side when my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to the military methods which he thought were necessary to combat the IRA.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield


Mr. Kershaw

Yes, merriment. When my right hon. Friend said that he had been a guerrilla there was a roar of laughter. I wondered whether is was mere frivolity, lightness of mind, or whether, because hon. Gentlemen who have troubled to turn up today have not got their hearts in the matter, they are not on the side of their Front Bench.

The IRA is at war with the United Kingdom. Both military and political means are necessary to combat it. By their neglect and denigration of the military means, those of the majority party in this House who have been here today show either that they only half understand the problem or have only half the courage necessary to finish the matter.

We have heard indignation expressed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite about conditions at Long Kesh, which we all deplore. The Secretary of State sought to take credit for the way that the rebuilding has been rushed forward and the speed with which light and heating have been restored. We also heard that housing conditions in Northern Ireland are the worst in the United Kingdom. We heard that from the Minister of State. I see no reason for boasting about the quick rebuilding of these buildings in Long Kesh to retain in comfortable circumstances the people who are there.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in the politest way possible, put forward the most hair-raising proposition that I have heard in this House in many a long year. The hon. Gentleman is known as a genial eccentric, but today he deteriorated to the point of dementia in his attack upon his own Front Bench.

Mr. Dalyell

The hon. Gentleman, like me, has been to Long Kesh and to the women's prison at Armagh, has he not?

Mr. Kershaw

No, I have not, but everything that the hon. Gentleman sees does not contribute to the conclusions to which he comes. I think it would be much better if he stayed here and theorised rather than went to see things, because he comes back with the most extraordinary opinions.

I have no doubt that we ought to renew these Acts for six months, but we look forward on the next occasion to seeing the Gardiner Report and the further proposals for the long-term peaceful governing of Northern Ireland, which will, I trust, include the democratic principle of majority rule.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

Once again the retention of these Draconian powers, to use the term used last week by the Home Secretary, has given rise to great concern. The Government cannot be surprised that those of us on this side of the House who strongly opposed the introduction of these powers originally are tonight opposing their retention for a further six months.

I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was being a little unrealistic in expecting a former Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, now the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), to oppose this type of legislation after having been trained in the introduction of measures such as this over many years.

Last week we reluctantly passed through the House the terrorism Bill, which is now an Act, and today we heard that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has power to extend the measure to Northern Ireland, and he has introduced this order to do that.

What will be the position in Northern Ireland when an arrest is made by the security forces? Will the police, or the Army, or the arresting authority, whoever it may be, have in one pocket the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, and in another pocket the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974? Those measures will be in conflict, though my hon. Friend may say they will be complementary.

Under the temporary provisions Act, the security forces and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can detain for up to 72 hours, but under the new terrorism Act he will be able to detain for five days. When will the Government decide under which Act they are acting? Will they tell the person who is arrested under which Act action is being taken against him? It seems to me that all the arrests will be under the terrorism Act because that gives the Government more time during which to hold a person suspected of a crime.

Many people in Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant—but the majority have been from the minority community—have been arrested by the security forces. To use the polite language of my right hon. Friend, they have been served with interim custody orders. After being held for some time, they have appeared before the commissioner in Long Kesh, and he has found that the evidence has not permitted him to continue their detention.

On what evidence was someone in that circumstance served with an ICO? Why was the commissioner not prepared to accept the evidence in the first place? Has consideration been given to the fact that someone who is arrested may lose his job, or have great difficulty in finding a job, because of the stigma attaching to Castlereagh and Long Kesh? No compensation is payable to someone who suffers that injustice.

I know many young boys who have been served with ICOs. They have appeared before the commissioner in Long Kesh and, after asking various other questions, he has put this question to them: If you were released, would you be prepared to go to England, get a job and keep out of trouble? If they are released after that question has been posed to them, would they be admitted into this part of the United Kingdom? Would people take kindly to the arrival of a suspected terrorist in those circumstances? It would seem to be unfair, and the British people would have the right to question that traffic.

Of course, the traffic can go the other way. A person could be excluded from here by the Home Secretary, and once he arrived in Northern Ireland it is almost certain that he would be interned. I know that the Government will say that he had been excluded because he had been suspected of having been involved with an illegal organisation, so presumably internment would have to wait until he became involved with such an organisation in Northern Ireland.

But can anyone imagine the life that that person would then lead? From the very hour that he set foot in Northern Ireland, he would be under complete surveillance by the security forces, even if he stayed in his own home. It would be only right and just for the security forces to have suspicions about someone deported or excluded from this part of the United Kingdom. We are getting near to 1984 with all this repressive legislation. Has it led to any improvement? For how many people has the Secretary of State signed ICOs who have been released at the first hearing of the commissioners?

The Secretary of State said a dangerous thing tonight which will have repercussions. Last weekend the news in Northern Ireland contained words like "Following the recent spate of assassinations in Northern Ireland, 18 persons have been arrested, of whom 16 were Catholics and two were Protestants." That seemed to be pointing the finger at one section of the community. Now the Secretary of state says "I have detained nine." One does not have to have passed the 11-plus to realise that if only two of the 18 arrested were Protestants, seven of those detained must have been Catholics. Naturally, the Protestant community will see them as seven murderers who have been involved in the most heinous crimes. My right hon. Friend himself said that these people were involved in brutal, callous assassinations and murders. The Catholic community, in its turn, will say "Why did he get only two of them? There are plenty running around." The figures of assassinations over the past period show this.

Attention has been drawn to a leaflet distributed throughout the media in Northern Ireland in the last 48 hours, in which some organisation calling itself the Ulster Workers Defence Association has printed 13 names and addresses of Protestant members of the UDA, who it says have been involved in the assassination of Catholics. I do not know whether that is true. Perhaps an internecine war is going on between extreme Protestant factions. Perhaps it was published by a crank. Perhaps it is true. The Secretary of State ought at least to tell us what he knows about this publication. If it was published by a crank, it should not be beyond the capabilities of the police authority to catch him. If these people were involved in assassinations they should also be ICO'd—in the polite terminology of the Secretary of State. If they were not involved, it is even more crucial that the police find the people responsible for this publication, because it identifies people by their names and addresses, and they could possibly be the victims of assassinations.

Before the Bill became an Act I remember that in Committee great stress was laid on the power of a judge to withhold bail or to grant it in certain circumstances. I repeat what I said earlier today. Can the Minister explain the following case? A person was charged with having in his possession a machine gun, which the police authority and forensic experts claimed had been used for three murders and 14 other shooting incidents. After being refused bail by the magistrates, that person was brought before the High Court under the provisions of the Act. He then said that he had been a member of the UDA but had become disenchanted with it and that he would do nothing wrong in future. He was then released on £750 bail. If this law is to command any respect, someone who has had in his possession a machine gun which had been used to murder three people should not be granted bail.

This does not mean that I am supporting the Act. But if there is to be any sense to this, its provisions should be enforced and should be seen to be even-handed all round.

One hon. Member of the Opposition has mentioned the human rights that we had in Ireland. Earlier today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Standing Commission on Human Rights, which is chaired by a friend of mine—I hope—Lord Feather. There will never be any human rights in Northern Ireland with this type of legislation. It negates every basic human rights provision. This legislation on terrorism which has been applied to this part of the United Kingdom erodes the human rights of the people of this country.

One hon. Member referred to the European Court of Human Rights which is sitting in Strasbourg. Perhaps that hon. Member did not know that there is a case pending before that court in relation to what has happened in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, under the provisions of the Act.

I do not blame my right hon. Friend for trying to take steps to prevent people from being assassinated. If I thought that the nine people made the subject of ICOs yesterday were guilty of murder— it would be hard to convince me—I should have no hesitation about standing where I am standing now and giving my full support to my right hon. Friend. But I cannot do that. I do not think that he can be as sure as he would like to be, that he was as sure of their guilt as he possibly could be, before he signed those ICOs.

Again, we must ask a question. I have been told by the former Secretary of State and the present Secretary of State that they are convinced that many of the people interned in Northern Ireland since the introduction of the Act were guilty of murder. Indeed, I was told that a number of them were guilty of the heinous brutal murder of a colleague of mine, Senator Paddy Wilson. Since then, these people have appeared before the commission and the commission has released them.

Who is wrong? Who is right? Do the commissioners have authority to release people against whom the charge of murder has been proved in the eyes of the Secretary of State? For my part, if there is anyone in Northern Ireland, Catholic, Protestant, Provisional, UDA, or whatever he may be, who has committed murder, no one will hear me pleading for his release in any circumstances. But I could not accept, and I urge my right hon. Friend not to accept, the evidence which he is at present accepting which enables him to make ICOs.

Too many people have suffered a grave injustice at the hands of this legislation. That is why I say that it is no answer to the problem of Northern Ireland, and that is why I shall oppose the order tonight in the Lobby.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

This is the first time I have sought to intervene in a Northern Ireland debate. I hope that I shall be forgiven for so doing, because, like the Secretary of State, I feel that there should be a Westminster dimension, and the events in that unhappy Province are of sufficient gravity to trouble the conscience of all English Members and to cause us to give some thought, from time to time, to the situation there.

I have heard many of the speeches in today's debates. In particular, I heard that of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who suggested that we should immediately take the Army out. I heard, also, what was said by the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who violently attacked the internment powers, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) questioned the Secretary of State's right to use computers in security work, and raised points which in any peace-time situation would have been valid. I could not help wondering, listening to those hon. Members, whether the IRA had ever had a meeting such as this when it discussed the niceties of democracy, of human rights, and of legality in the operations which it has sought to carry out against the people of Northern Ireland, and latterly against the people of England, too.

I could not help thinking that the tone of the discussion this afternoon was totally different from the tone of the terrorist attack which we face, whether v/e be Irish or English, and I felt that there was such an unreality about the whole thing that I was finally brought to my feet.

It seems to me that much depends on whether one thinks that the situation in Northern Ireland is war or some normal peace-time state of affairs with an ugly disturbance which we do not admit to be war. Although I understand the ethnic troubles which lie at the heart of it, I cannot but conclude that it is war.

I am a Northumbrian, and——

Mr. Tom Litterick (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The hon. Gentleman uses the word "ethnic". What does he understand that to mean, in the context of Ireland?

Mr. Ridley

I gave way too soon. I was saying that I am a Northumbrian, and dimly in my memory is the tradition of the war between England and Scotland, which raged for 500 years. I think that there is a similar feeling, which is closer to surface consciousness, in the troubled island of Ireland between those of Celtic origin and those of English or Scottish origin—a matter to which the hon. Member for West Lothian referred.

But it was all very long ago, 350 years ago. The Irish colonised America long after the English colonised Ulster. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of it, the thought of settling this situation by war seems to me to be so absurd and so unreal that we must resist it with all the powers at our disposal. If this order and the Act passed last week contribute to those powers, they deserve the support of all people, and of all sensible Members of the House.

Of course there must be a political solution. That is the difficult part of the equation. Until that political solution is found this is a state where normal peacetime Queensberry rules as enunciated by some Labour Members are less important than the maintenance of law and order and the protection to whatever extent is possible of innocent people from being maimed, murdered and blown up.

I come now to the political solution. The bipartisan policy of the last five years has proved a failure. It is a lesson to us that what matters is not the degree of support that can be achieved for a policy but the fact that the policy must be correct and successful. There are, perhaps, shades here of the last election, where we sought wide agreement among politicians and parties for our Conservative approach to the electorate but failed to say what we sought to do.

In Ireland it is not enough to say that the support of both sides of the House —of this party or that party—has been achieved for the policies. What matters is whether the policies are successful—and they have not been. We must all now concede that there have to be other political solutions than that which has been tried. Only two are possible. The first is the policy enunciated by the hon. Member for West Lothian, that we should quit all our responsibilities, pull out the Army and leave the people to fight it out. That policy seems to be a poor reward to the citizens in Ulster who have paid their taxes to be defended and have expressed a desire to remain part of this country.

I wonder what the hon. Member would think if the Germans parachuted an invasion into West Lothian and we decided to pull out and leave it to the Germans. Would the hon. Gentleman's constituents feel that was a fair reward for what had happened to them in the past? His proposal must be rejected as a solution.

The other policy is to make clear that Ulster remains part of this country, that we shall defend it from those who seek to attack it, that we shall give it full parliamentary approval, and that we shall seal the border with Southern Ireland. I believe that the way the Government are moving towards controlling the frontier and stopping uncontrolled movement between this country and Eire is a policy in the right direction. I wish them well with it. I hope that they will proceed with it, because whatever might have been wrong in the past, it is now time for the British people to assert themselves and to assert a solution upon the problem which has a greater chance of success even though it may carry less support than the policies of the past.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

By leave of the House; I should like to answer a number of points that have been raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nun-eaton (Mr. Huckfield) asked about the computers. I make the point that we use computers for vehicles in Northern Ireland. They are most valuable for tracing cars carrying bombs and so on. On another point, I can only repeat that I understand the nature of the wider problems he has raised with my right hon. Friends about locking systems and so on, which are most important for the freedom of the individual. On the precise question about the computerisation of intelligence records, when that is to be done I will let the House know because my hon. Friend's points concerned the destruction of information, and this is important, too. Information is already available, but not on the large numbers of people suggested in the Press, and it is most important to have that information.

Hon. Members have mentioned the time that Lord Gardiner's Committee has taken. It has heard more than 100 witnesses and received more than 200 written memoranda and transcripts; it has visited the Crumlin, Armagh and Maze Prisons and talked to staff, welfare workers, prisoners and detainees, and visited the Army and the RUC. It is most important that Lord Gardiner's Committee has depth.

Other hon. Members referred to the Diplock system and ICOs and people going before the commissioners. I was asked how many people who had been made subject to an ICO had been subsequently released by the commissioners. I am told that 52 of those for whom I signed an interim custody order were subsequently released at first review. But that does not mean that I was wrong. The wording of the legislation means that the independent commissioners may decide that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the detained persons were concerned in terrorism and were a danger to the public. The system is that my judgment is put to the commissioners. That is the law that I operate.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked about the power under Section 10 of the 1973 Act to detain after 72 hours and the United Kingdom powers introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for detaining for two days plus five days. Anybody who is arrested will have to be told under which of the two Acts he is being arrested.

It was suggested that a person subject to an exclusion order could be detained under an interim custody order on reaching Northern Ireland. I may operate my powers when it appears to me that the person in question has been concerned in the commission, or attempted commission, of any act of terrorism, or in the direction, organisation or training of persons for the purpose of terrorism. My right hon. Friend said the other evening that if charges could be brought they would certainly be brought. The judgment that I have to make in Northern Ireland and the law that I have to operate concern involvement with terrorism in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West made a comment of the kind that I deplore. He spoke about people from certain communities and about certain powers and so on. He knows that I have said before that the police are in the Protestant areas and in recent months have had remarkable success in bringing people before the courts. The police are not in the Catholic areas in any strength.

Four of the interim custody order that I signed most recently were for Protestants. I am not sectarian in this sense. I act according to the nature of the evidence that comes before me and in the hope that as many suspects as possible will go through the courts, and more are now going through the courts than ever before.

That is the right development. The correct thing to do in Northern Ireland is to develop the police. I can only repeat what was said in the White Paper that was published in July. Some of my hon.

Friends believe that a policy for Northern Ireland which has been picked over three or four months can be pulled out of a drawer—a new policy a week. That is not so. There are in Northern Ireland basic problems that have existed for years.

The Government want the people of Northern Ireland to work together and to speak together and to put their views to us. If, despite what they say about wanting to work together as Ulstermen, that is not possible, that will be a factor in the development of any policy that we shall have to pursue.

As the White Paper said, the important thing was to reduce the role of the Army, and this has been done with the reduction of three battalions. This must mean a growth in the size of the police. Policing is the key to the problem of Northern Ireland. The more policemen the better. The quicker we can get back to the normal processes of law—although it cannot be done overnight—the better.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 22.

Division No. 23.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Anderson, Donald Harper, Joseph Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Archer, Peter Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Ovenden, John
Bates, Alf Hatton, Frank Parkinson, Cecil
Bean, Robert E. Horam, John Pavitt, Laurie
Beith, A. J. Hordern, Peter Penhaligon, David
Biggs-Davison, John Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Radice, Giles
Bradford, Rev Robert John, Brynmor Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S.)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle) Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Carson, John Kaufman, Gerald Ross, William (Londonderry)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.) Kerr, Russell Silkin, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk.)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast) Kershaw, Anthony Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S.) Kilfedder, James Spearing, Nigel
Dalyell, Tarn Lamborn, Harry Steen, Anthony (Liverpool)
Davidson, Arthur Lamond, James Tinn, James
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N.) Leadbitter, Ted Tomlinson, John
Deakins, Eric Le Merchant, Spencer Torney, Tom
Dunlop, J. Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)
Dunn, James A. Luard, Evan Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun) McCusker, Harold Ward, Michael
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Mackenzie, Gregor Watkinson, John
Evans, John (Newton) Mackintosh, John P. Weatherill, Bernard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Marshall, Or Edmund (Goole) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Fox, Marcus Meacher, Michael Whitehead, Phillip
Freeson, Reginald Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Winterton, Nicholas
George, Bruce Molyneaux, James Woodall, Alec
Gilbert, Dr John Moyle, Roland
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, George (Morpeth) Murray, Ronald King Mr.Donald Coleman and
Grocott, Bruce Noble, Mike Mr. Thomas Cox.
Hamllng, William Oakes, Gordon
Atkinson, Norman Litterick, Tom Skinner, Dennis
Bidwell, Sydney Loyden, Eddie Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Clemitson, I. M. McNamara, Kevin Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen Madden, Max Wise, Mrs Audrey
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast) Maynard, Miss Joan
Flannery, Martin Newens, Stanley TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gould, Bryan O'Halloran, Michael Mr. A. W. Stallard and
Huckfield, Leslie Richardson, Miss Jo Mr. Bob Cryer.
Kerr, Russell Sedgemore, B.

Question accordingly agreed to.


That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

Forward to