NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)

HC Deb 11 December 1975 vol 902 cc742-60

7.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Concannon)

I beg to move, That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

This set of Regulations is a very narrow one.

Mr. Concannon

The effect of these Regulations is to require drivers to lock and immobilise unattended vehicles. Failure to do so will constitute a criminal offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and render the offender liable to imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to £400, or both.

The purpose of the Regulations is twofold. First, the measures are part of the Government's campaign to reduce lawlessness in Northern Ireland. In the first nine months of 1975, no fewer than 6,674 motor vehicles were stolen. No doubt many of these thefts were opportunist crimes: young persons finding an unlocked car succumbed to the temptation to steal it. Many of these might have been prevented. Each theft, moreover, means involvement of police time—which could better be devoted to more serious matters in the circumstances of Northern Ireland at present—as well as distress and inconvenience to the owner.

The second purpose is much more important, and is the reason why these measures are being brought forward in the form of Regulations under the Emergency Provisions Act. In the first nine months of this year, 273 stolen or hijacked vehicles are known to have been used for terrorist-type crimes. If a terrorist in Northern Ireland wishes to shoot members of the other community, he usually steals a car to aid his getaway. If a terrorist wishes to move guns, ammunition and explosives, he usually steals a car. If a terrorist wishes to make a car bomb—one of the most terrifying and appalling manifestations of terrorism arising in Northern Ireland—he invariably steals a car. A stolen car is as important to him as a gun. Anything, therefore, that will make the theft of a car more difficult for the terrorist may save lives and increase the chances of apprehending the terrorist.

It is true, of course, that the experienced car thief operating in ideal conditions will not always be defeated by a locked and immobilised car, but the inexperienced will be deterred by a well-secured vehicle. Even the experts will need considerably more time to bypass a lock and immobilisation device, a factor that will increase the likelihood of his being caught in the act, especially when he is operating in urban surroundings. The immediate effect of the Regulations should be that fewer cars will be stolen and less valuable police time will be spent in recording and tracing stolen vehicles.

Regrettably, the Regulations will impose restrictions on the law-abiding motorist. It is to be hoped, however, that most motorists, particularly in Northern Ireland, will already lock their cars and remove the keys when leaving them unattended. Most cars produced since 1972 have had an immobilisation device fitted as an integral part of the car during manufacture, usually in the form of a steering lock. It is the motorists with older cars who will be put to the most inconvenience and, perhaps, some expense. They will have to provide a device to immobilise their vehicle, although the Government have tried to minimise the inconvenience and expense by allowing a three-months' period before the immobilisation provision takes effect and by providing that, if a motorist does not wish to purchase a device, he shall be entitled to immobilise his car by removing, say, part of the engine.

The benefits for the community, however, should outweigh the inconvenience and expense. Innocent lives can be saved, as well as valuable police time. In placing these Regulations before Parliament, we are asking the people of Northern Ireland to help the security forces and themselves. I shall now turn to the details of the Regulations.

Regulations 1 and 2 specify the date on which the substantive provisions wilt come into operation and interpret various terms used.

Regulation 3(1) sets out the conditions that must be fulfilled before a motor vehicle may be left unattended. They are that the ignition key should be removed, the doors locked, and any other openings into the vehicle secured to prevent entry, and that the car should be left with the steering locked or otherwise rendered incapable of being taken away.

The first three conditions are precautions that are normally taken by any prudent motorist. Regulation 3(1)(c) is drafted in a way that allows drivers to leave a window or sun roof slightly open in case it is necessary for a child or pet to be left in the car. The only requirement is that access to the vehicle should not be possible as a result.

Regulation 3(1)(d), the immobilisation provision, is novel. It has been widely drafted to cover all types of effective immobilisation devices. These might include steering locks, fuel lead locks, locks applied to the gear box and hidden switches in the ignition system. The motorist will also have the choice of removing part of the engine. It is not the means but the effect which is important.

Although, as I have explained, most modern vehicles are fitted with steering locks, some private motorists and commercial users will need to fit devices to their vehicles. It would be unreasonable to expect this to be done in every case immediately after the Regulations are made. Regulation 5 therefore provides that the immobilisation provisions contained in Regulation 3(1)(d) shall not come into force until three months after the Regulations as a whole come into operation. All the other provisions come into operation 14 days after the Regulations are made.

Regulation 3(2) defines "unattended". The vehicle is "unattended" if there is not at least one person over 15 years of age in or on the vehicle, or in the immediate vicinity and sight of the vehicle. One person cannot be in attendance of more than one vehicle for purposes of the Regulations. It will not be permissible, therefore, to leave a car unsecured in a car park where someone may technically be in attendance of a vehicle but cannot be regarded as taking care of it. Tradesmen making door—to—door deliveries will not be required to lock and immobilise unless they go out of sight of their vehicle.

Regulation 3(1) enables a driver to leave a vehicle unlocked and immobilised, provided that he has a reasonable excuse for doing so. The onus of proof that there is reasonable excuse lies with the driver. It is not of course possible to specify the precise circumstances in which motorists will consider it necessary to leave their cars unlocked.

Regulation 4 provides for certain exemptions. Vehicles left in locked premises, the keys to which have been taken away, are not subject to the Regulations. Also excluded are vehicles being used by the security forces or for purposes of the other emergency services, and other public service vehicles that are not considered likely to be stolen.

In conclusion, the Government are constantly reviewing their policy in Northern Ireland in the light of the security situation. The measure before the House should be seen as a response to clear indications that car thefts in Northern Ireland are running at an unacceptably high level and that stolen cars play an important part in terrorist crime. As a result of this measure, life for the terrorist will become harder. The security forces' task will become easier.

The Regulations are an illustration of the Government's determination to ensure that the whole community in Northern Ireland is doing everything possible to support the security forces. As such, I commend them to the House.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

As you told us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Regulations are narrow in scope. They have been clearly explained to the House by the Under-Secretary, and I shall be brief.

I recall that early in the troubles I was staying with friends in County Down. My host on one occasion stopped his car and we alighted to do some shopping. He then locked the car, after some fumbling with his key, and apologised for doing so. He said "We never used to lock our cars in Ulster, but the security authorities have asked us to do so." Times have changed, lamentably, since Northern Ireland was so law-abiding a Province that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was less numerous than the police employed in Grosvenor Square to prevent demonstrators against the Vietnam war from attacking the American Embassy. The present troubles have now lasted longer than either world war.

It is, therefore, surprising that these Regulations have only lately been brought before the House. One would have thought perhaps that measures of this kind would have been introduced long ago. The people of Londonderry, for example—and we are debating in the shadow of the latest heavy bomb explosion on the Limavady Road—have long known that the stolen or hijacked motor vehicle is, as the hon. Gentleman said, as much a terrorist weapon as the bomb. It is used to plant the bomb, to transport the bomber or the assassin, and to enable him to make his escape.

What the people of Londonderry have known for a long time the people of London now know. I hope that the Home Secretary will be aware of the proceedings in the House this evening, because what we are passing this evening may have its application also in Great Britain.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

There is one United Kingdom and there is one war on.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

The Opposition therefore welcome this necessary but belated measure. We understand, of course, that it will cause some inconvenience and some expense to members of the public. However, because it is, as the Minister said, intended to save lives and to save police time, we must of course give it our support.

I think that all will be glad that the public in Northern Ireland are to be given a further three months before it becomes compulsory to immobilise—as opposed to locking—an unattended vehicle. We should be interested in hearing anything that the Under-Secretary can tell us about the number of stolen, hijacked or unlicensed vehicles believed to be at large in Northern Ireland at present.

It is now some while since I had the privilege of accompanying a special patrol group from Mount Pottinger RUC station in Belfast. A constable who was with us in the vehicle—the "pig"—had stored in his retentive mina the numbers of, it seemed, hundreds of stolen cars. That very evening, before we had been out for more than an hour, the special patrol group was able to retrieve about three stolen or abandoned cars in the streets of the capital city of Northern Ireland. They were, and I believe still are, legion. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any progress that has been made in the enforcement of the law in this regard, particularly near the border?

8.8 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

These Regulations are narrow, but the Order that will come after them is not so narrow, and some of the remarks that will be made tonight on the Order will be made in answer to certain strictures that were passed upon hon. Members on this Bench in a previous debate. We shall be hopeful that the Secretary of State, who is charged with putting people in the dock, will answer the question whether Members on this Bench should be put in the dock and what charges he would like to see laid against them—or dissociate himself from the despicable remarks made by an hon. Member—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman because we are now discussing the Regulations relating to motor vehicles. We shall have a wide debate on the Order

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am sorry for anticipating that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) might have had a record but for the Unionist Party, which withdrew the charge against him.

We are dealing with a matter that needs our serious consideration. Any step that the Government may take in attempting to stop proxy bombing, to stop the carrying of explosives from one place to another, and anything that could lead to the destruction of life, is to be welcomed on the opposition side of the House. We echo the words of the Opposition spokesman, who has said that it is strange that such Regulations have not been laid before today. That remark applies both to the present Government and to the previous Conservative Government. I see that the Minister is indicating that he is glad that the guilt is laid evenly on both sides of the House.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

The hon. Gentleman has said that it is strange that these Regulations were not made earlier, but in my view it is strange that the Regulations are necessary. It is strange that so many cars should be left unattended, unlocked and easily accessible. Is there any special reason for this?

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am sure the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) knows that it is not the usual practice for anyone to leave someone in charge of his vehicle. Cars are usually left unattended, and it would be most inconvenient if, when one parked a car, one had to leave someone, not below the age of fifteen years in attendance of it.

Mr. Dempsey

But why are vehicles left unlocked?

Rev. Ian Paisley

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) made the reason clear. It used to be the custom in Northern Ireland that people generally did not lock their cars, because there was law and order in the community. I am not saying whether that was a good or bad custom. We do not have law and order in the community now, and therefore we need these Regulations.

I am glad that in laying the Regulations the Government are giving time for those who have to immobilise their cars to be able to do so. Will the Minister assure us that the Regulations will have the widest possible publicity, so that people are forewarned and know the Regulations and conditions.

There are many places in Northern Ireland where people cannot live without the use of a car. I suppose that the controlled zones will still be in operation. I ask the Minister to note that many of the signs in those areas have become dilapidated. In fact, many of them have been used for displaying other posters, including election posters. Sometimes people who go to those areas are not sure whether they are controlled zones or not. They leave their cars and when they return they discover that they have either been blown up or dragged away.

I ask the Minister why the Regulations are limited. I understand that they will not affect a public service vehicle seating more than twelve persons in addition to the driver. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that many buses seat up to 15 people. Indeed, some seat 20. Those vehicles are most suitable for transporting explosives. Many bombs are placed in churns, and it would be easier to put a churn in a minibus than into the boot of a car. I can understand the Regulations not affecting a bus that seats more than 25 people, but there are many smaller buses that would be ideal for terrorists to steal in order to transport bombs.

Do the Regulations cover motor vehicles on private property? I understand that if a motor vehicle is parked on private property it does not come within the Regulations, because Regulation 4(a) refers to a vehicle which is left in locked premises". I am sure the Minister is aware that in garages where vehicles are being repaired it would be difficult to keep to the letter of the Regulations. I should like to see the spirit of the Regulations kept even with regard to vehicles in garages, but it will be very difficult to apply them to the letter in that respect. Perhaps the Minister will look into this point.

Regulation 3(1) contains the words the proof whereof shall lie on him. I understand that the onus is upon the person concerned. Anything that throws the onus of an offence on the person concerned needs to be considered seriously. I know that under certain firearms offences and the Emergency Regulations the onus of proof is not upon the Crown; it is upon the person who is accused of the offence. I draw the Minister's attention to that provision, because it is a departure from common law principles. We are in an emergency situation, but hon. Members must remember that the onus of proof has been placed upon the people concerned.

The Minister will no doubt agree that if Republicans plan a job the hijacked car is usually from a Republican area. If a job is planned by a Protestant paramilitary group, the car is usually, but not always, hijacked from a Protestant area. Everyone agrees that the present spate of bombing is definitely being done by the Provisional IRA. Therefore, will it not be hard to implement these Regulations in areas where there is not normal policing?

Does the Minister consider that the Army should be deployed in these areas, with the task of looking at parked cars and ensuring that they fulfil these Regulations? It would not be practical to say that this is a job for the police, because there are areas in which the police cannot check cars. The present spate of explosions is definitely coming from the Provisional IRA and it is the areas that they frequent that must be kept under strict police scrutiny.

We welcome these Regulations in the fight against terrorism. We trust that the people of Northern Ireland will become acquainted with them by a good publicity campaign from the Government. We hope that the people of Northern Ireland will be able to keep to them. If, by intoducing these Regulations, we save lives, we shall have accomplished something that will be beneficial to all sections of the community.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

Although I have an inherent objection to Emergency Regulations of any description, I fully understand the intention which lies behind these Regulations. It is an attempt to prevent explosions, and if it is successful it could lead to the saving of innocent lives and the further protection of property in Northern Ireland. From that standpoint I certainly have no objections to the Regulations. Indeed, I believe that they may be overdue.

I apologise to the Minister for being absent and unable to hear his opening remarks. However, can he give any indication of how many cars have been hijacked in recent years because of the negligence of their owners? I believe that the RUC would have that record in Northern Ireland. The greatest danger about cars is not the car which is found on the street unattended but the car which is hijacked. Within the last hour I have heard from Northern Ireland that another car bomb has exploded in the middle of Royal Avenue outside the Grand Central Hotel. I am not sure whether the car was driven by an IRA man or by a proxy driver.

I have always regarded those who make use of proxy bombs—persons who hijack cars and force the drivers to take the bombs to their destinations—as despicable cowards for not driving the bombs themselves but forcing innocent persons to take them to their destinations.

Rev. Ian Paisley

And usually holding hostages.

Mr. Fitt

And usually holding hostages as well, yes. I regard such people as despicable cowards, and I should like that message to be conveyed to them.

I have no doubt that whoever was responsible for the assembling of the bomb which went off this evening, for the hijacking of the car and making certain that it got to its destination in Royal Avenue was not unaware of the debate which took place this afternoon—the debate on hanging—and the debate which is to follow this one on the emergency provisions. I suppose that the IRA would regard it as an act of defiance. Had the bomb gone off at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock this afternoon, they might have hoped that it would influence the vote which took place earlier. That is the mentality of the people with whom we are dealing.

These Regulations, if we use the police and the security forces to enforce them, will involve a big increase in manpower. The police will have another onerous duty thrust upon them. Perhaps the Army will also be used to enforce the carrying out of these Regulations. A great deal of inconvenience will be caused to people in Northern Ireland. However, we are not living in a normal society. There is a war atmosphere in Northern Ireland. I am sure that people right across the political board in Northern Ireland will at least understand the necessity for the introduction of these Regulations. I certainly give my wholehearted support to their introduction.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. McCusker (Armagh)

I do not want to be churlish or argumentative about the Regulations. However, there is a tendency to look at these measures and to assume that there is nothing controversial in them and that, in the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland, this is what we must do. While I sympathise with that view, I think we must be critical of these Regulations and see whether we can learn anything from them.

The large bulk of the population in Northern Ireland have for seven years lived in conditions which people in other parts of the kingdom have not experienced. They have tried to behave in a normal fashion, but they have had to forgo some of the basic things which make modern life pleasant. They have forgone the pleasure of driving to the shops to do their shopping, to visit the doctor and to perform other basic services. We are now about to impose something further upon them.

This would have been an excellent idea if it had been implemented three or four years ago, and I think that it is desirable even now. I believe that all hon. Members have sympathy with the objective of the Regulations.

The motor car was and probably still is a major item of equipment in the terrorist's armoury. However, we must bear in mind that the IRA and other terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland have always been pushing back the threshold in terms of terrorist techniques in the violence which they are waging upon us. Undoubtedly the development of the car bomb was a major weapon for terrorists throughout the world. The car bomb was developed three years ago and its effects can be seen on every street corner and main shopping centre in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we have just heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that Royal Avenue has been blasted again.

I suggest that we should have been considering this measure when the IRA was in the process of developing the car bomb. Again, however, we appear to be reacting after the event, and this time reacting so far after the event that it might have very little meaning.

As I said in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill yesterday, it was a great comfort to anyone from Northern Ireland who has lived with terrorism for seven years to see the security forces in Great Britain last weekend being one step ahead of the IRA. For the first time in seven year the security forces seized the initiative. They had forward plans, they had taken action and they were able to nip a terrorist activity in the bud. That was the first time in seven years that the security forces had seized the initiative.

These Regulations are not seizing the initiative. Undoubtedly they will help the police in the control of crime generally and reduce the number of car bombings, but this is not seizing the initiative because it is too late.

It could be argued that the car bomb as we have known it is now outmoded. The IRA is probably already coming up with something else. Last weekend the IRA destroyed the last major store in my constituency with another device. The gunmen appear to have perfected the incendiary bomb. With such a bomb they burned down a store worth £2 million and Lurgan has no shopping centre left.

Instead of Regulations restricting people doing their shopping in a normal way, I should prefer an Order which sought to tackle the next stage in the IRA's campaign. We are merely imposing a further penalty on an already penalised law-abiding community. This is a victory not for us but for the IRA. We have been forced to inflict a further penalty on a law-abiding community. Who will benefit from that?

We are asking the car-owning section of the community, which is least able to bear the cost, to take certain action. We are told that most cars from 1972 onwards will already meet the requirements in the Regulations. However, it is the family man with the small car, perhaps made in the 1960s, who is already suffering the burden of rates, petrol increases and maintenance costs and who requires his car for many essential basic functions, who will have to bear the extra cost of fixing these devices.

I hope that thought is being given to advising the do-it-yourself motorist on how he can immobilise his car. It is not just a matter of removing the rotor arm, because the terrorist will carry a rotor arm with him. I hope that a cheap means can be found and that advice can be given to the average family man on how he can do it.

It must be admitted that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce the Regulations. Mention has already been made of the extra burden on the police. When one comes across a locked car which apparently meets all the requirements, how does one decide that it has in fact been immobilised and that it has a device which locks the steering or cuts off the engine? I spoke to a policeman today who told me that he was all for the Regulations but did not know how he would enforce them. Will the police or traffic wardens do the job, or will extra security patrols do it? It will be very difficult, and many people will be needed.

Under the Regulations, what is meant by "slightly open" in relation to the window of a motor vehicle? If a difference of fractions of an inch means six months in gaol or a fine of £400, "slightly open" will be a very debatable matter. It may depend on whether one is leaving one child or two in the car. On a very hot day conditions in the car may be very different if the window is an eighth of an inch open instead of half an inch or an inch. If the window is left open at all, is not the car exposed to the thief and the terrorist attacker?

Apparently, one can leave the car open and not immobilise it if one has a "reasonable excuse". What is a "reasonable excuse"?

Milk vans, other delivery vans and commercial vehicles are excluded, provided that the driver is in the immediate vicinity and in sight of the vehicle. When my milkman comes to my house he is only 20 or 30 yards from the road, because of the drive and the level of the road compared with that of the house, but he does not have sight of his van. Is it regarded as being in the immediate vicinity? If he goes next door and leaves the van where it is, is it still in the immediate vicinity even though he probably cannot see it? What happens if he goes to a third house? Where does it end?

It is the milk van and the commercial vehicle that the IRA will use. When IRA men have penetrated the security barriers recently they have done it not with a private car but by taking a commercial vehicle and using it to camouflage their bomb. By excluding that vehicle from the Regulations we are leaving the gate open. The vehicle could be left without being immobilised and the terrorist could steal it without difficulty.

I know that there are problems here. All I am saying is that we should be careful to see that we are not reacting so long after the event that our action is no longer meaningful, and that we are not inflicting more harm on the law-abiding community to no great purpose.

Having been critical, I shall try to convince my constituents that the Regulations are necessary, but we must remember that this is a time of serious economic restraint in Northern Ireland and that we are imposing a burden on the motorists who are least able to bear the extra cost.

A few hours ago the Home Secretary said that he did not wish to have a deterrent which would break in his hand. I should hate to think that tonight we were introducing a deterrent which would break in our hands. Can we enforce the Regulations in Republican areas? Can we check that vehicles in those areas are immobilised? Can we insist that in Newry, Newtown Hamilton, Keady and Armagh, for example, the Regulations are strictly enforced, when people from the Republic can drive backwards and forwards without even being stopped? There is no control in that area. I am not trying to make a cheap point, but we are inflicting this restriction on a law-abiding community when conditions enable it to be flouted.

These are important matters. The large bulk of the community will accept the Regulations, but only if they see the law being enforced impartially. I hope that the Minister can give us that assurance.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

It is wrong to criticise the Government or the previous Government for not introducing the Regulations before. The responsibility is on all of us to moot whatever ideas are sensible for the safeguarding of life and property in the Province. I think that the Regulations have only now been suggested to the Government, who have rightly put this draft before the House. They are not perfect. They are another burden on the law-abiding people of the Province.

We cannot expect these Regulations to put an end to bombings by proxy, nor can we envisage that they will be enforced by the police and the security forces right throughout the Province. All they can do is to bring to the attention of the people that they must secure their cars and deter those who might attempt to take away motor vehicles. On many occasions, as with the proxy bomb tonight in Royal Avenue, Belfast, the terrorists take a vehicle which will not cause suspicion in the minds of the security forces. In tonight's case I think it was a Post Office van. That is obviously the sort of vehicle that the terrorists like to use. On the occasions when they hijack cars they do not always select cars which are locked and stationary but take those which are moving in their area.

A valid point which arises from the debate is the question of the burden of proof. The law rightly recognises that normally the onus is on the prosecution to establish proof, but these Regulations shift the onus to the defendant. How can a citizen who is charged satisfy the burden of proof if he locks his car and a terrorist comes along and uses another key to open the door, gets into the car and drives it away? How can the owner prove that he locked it? That is the point that worries me. I do not know whether the Government have thought out these matters fully, but that is a worrying feature. Many people could be faced with the prospect of prosecution and found guilty when they are totally innocent. That is a matter to which the Minister might direct his attention.

Having made those comments, I welcome anything that will help to bring back some peace to Northern Ireland. I do not want to engage in any nit-picking in discussing these Regulations.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

In ordinary circumstances the Regulations would be highly objectionable, because they make it a crime to endanger one's own property. Normally, the sanction against those who fail to secure their cars properly is that their failure increases the risk of the cars being lost, and, in due course, increases the insurance premium. However, in this instance there is the decisive consideration that it is not the interests of the owner of the car which is the basis of the crime but the fact that by being careless of his own property he is endangering third parties. It is that consideration which entitles us to make criminal his carelessness with his own property.

A point which is very much a matter of presentation, and which I stress in the presence of the Minister, has arisen from a number of speeches, namely, that at best the Regulations can have only a partial effect upon the use of cars in terrorist activities. It will undoubtedly make the stealing of cars for terrorist purposes somewhat less frequent than might otherwise be the case. It will impose a limitation or a delay, and to that extent it will be beneficial, but I suggest that it will be unwise for the Government to promote the publicity for this new law in terms that suggest that a tremendous blow will thereby be struck against terrorism by the ordinary citizen. The Regulations are very modest in their possible effect, and it is always bad propaganda and bad publicity to exaggerate the significance and effect of what one is doing.

I stress that the more because my only other point is to invite the Minister to go into more particulars of the methods to be adopted to bring the new requirements to the attention of the public. It occurs to me that the Minister could arrange, in all car parks, for the display of notices with the full particulars of the requirements as a matter of course. In addition, the display of notices would be appropriate in streets and areas where cars are normally parked.

This applies equally to the man who leaves his own car in his own drive or garage. Nevertheless, the authorities can get at those activities only by the use of other forms of publicity. I suggest that it will be damaging to whatever benefit can be got out of this exercise if the citizen in breach of the Regulations can with some plausibility argue that such a matter has not effectively been drawn to his attention and that he has not been reminded of the Regulations relating to circumstances in which he is likely to leave a car unattended.

I hope that the Minister will be able to cover those two points regarding publicity to be given to the new law.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Concannon

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.

I should like first to thank hon. Members for the general welcome given to the Regulations. We all appreciate that these provisions arise only in emergency conditions under the relevant legislation.

I was asked who will be responsible for policing the Regulations. This will be carried out under the emergency provisions legislation covering the activities of Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that we have not taken this action without full consultation with those concerned. However, I assure the House that the authorities involved look forward to the enactment of this legislation.

I was asked about publicity. We shall, of course, be giving full publicity to these provisions, although we are not holding them out as a panacea for all ills.

Mr. Fitt

The provisions will lessen the civil and democratic rights of people in Northern Ireland. Would it be an expensive matter for the motor taxation authorities in Northern Ireland to send out publicity documents relating to these Regulations in order to inform the public of the situation?

Mr. Concannon

We shall examine any suggestion in this respect. We have a period of three months and two weeks before the immobilisation procedure comes into force. We have already begun our publicity campaign through the Press and we shall also use television and other forms of communication in Northern Ireland.

We must try to keep these matters in perspective. I repeat that these steps have been taken only after consultation with the relevant bodies. It would be wrong to say that there is no opinion to the contrary. Certainly the haulage contractors and the trade unions have put on record their dislike for certain aspects of the Regulations. We have to meet these people and persuade them to accept our views. We have discussed this with the police and the Army.

In 1972, 9,659 vehicles were stolen in Northern Ireland. In the following year the number had been reduced to 5,496. In 1974, the figure was 5,700 and up to 31st October this year the figure is 6,674. We could not bring in these Regulations unless we had public support in Northern Ireland. The time is now opportune. We hope that as many people as possible will agree with us on this matter.

I was asked how many cars had been stolen on the roads of Northern Ireland. The identification procedures speed up protection and work quickly. This is a security matter, and I do not want to go into it. I shall certainly take on board the point about controlled zones. I have been trying to deal with other signs for those zones but have had little success so far.

We have to draw the line somewhere in relation to the point made about the 12-seater minibus. We have always to bear in mind the security situation. The courts will have to decide in many instances, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, and will have to interpret certain of these actions. This is not a panacea. I thank hon. Members for giving the Regulations the response that they have.

Mr. Kilfedder

Perhaps the Minister will write to me and deal with the situation in which a person has left a car locked and secure. Anyone could tamper with a vehicle that has been left unattended. The window could be forced open for the purpose of stealing from the car, or the thief could attempt to drive the car away. Someone could use a key to open the car door and then be unable to move the car. What about the unfortunate owner of the vehicle? He could well be prosecuted. He would have no defence. Will the Minister examine that aspect?

Mr. Concannon

The onus of proof is on the car owner who parks the car, Regulation 3(1)(d) states that the steering mechanism has to be immobilised and that the car itself has to be immobilised. The onus of proof is on the car owner. The interpretation will have to be left to the courts. I know how well solicitors and others tackle these problems in Northern Ireland. We must convince the general public of the need for this measure and demonstrate to them that their cars should be locked up while unattended. If we can, we shall be doing a great service to the car owner and to the population in Northern Ireland. As a result, we hope that there will be fewer bombs and less slaughter.

I know that there will be problems. These Regulations will not solve all the problems in one fell swoop, but they will make the life of these thugs and terrorists more difficult and that of our security forces easier.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.