NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)

HC Deb 11 December 1975 vol 902 cc760-814

8.50 p.m.

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

I beg to move, That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved. We are seeking the approval of the House for the renewal of the temporary provisions contained in three Acts—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974.

The 1973 Act contains powers for dealing with terrorism. The provisions affect the mode of trial—for example, the absence of juries for the trial of scheduled offences; evidence—for example, the reversal of the onus of proof over the possession of firearms; and the powers of the police and the Army—for example, powers of arrest and search. The Act also incorporates the provisions for detention which were previously enacted by Order. Most of the provisions have continued unchanged since 1973. Some provisions were amended and others added by the 1975 amendment Act. In particular, the detention provisions were significantly recast following the report of the Gardiner Committee.

The Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 provides a temporary power for the Secretary of State to give a direction for a young person to be kept in remand in prison to prevent his escape or to ensure his safety or the safety of others. The provision is necessary, as facilities outside prison in Northern Ireland were not designed to contain young persons who are determined to escape, particularly if outside help is forthcoming. There was a deal of that at the time the Act was passed. Although I have not made a direction since this provision was last renewed, I would not wish, yet, to see the power lapse. I understand that the courts are providing for far more remand to prison under this legislation.

The Order provides that the temporary provisions in all these Acts should continue in force for a further six months, from 25th January 1976.

We still need emergency powers in Northern Ireland. Violence continues, although, as I have said on many occasions, its nature has changed. We must, however, recognise the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland. Paramilitary organisations of various shades are a fact of life there, and these terrorist brigades and battalions, with quasi-military command structures and trappings. Their real significance, however, lies in the fact that nearly 1,400 people have been killed in Northern Ireland since 1969; that over £130 million compensation has been paid in respect of bombing attacks which, although much reduced in 1975, are still commonplace; that sectarian murders are rife, and that young children are killed on the streets. Not only is Northern Ireland different politically from the rest of the United Kingdom; it is very different indeed in the nature of its violence.

I come now to detention. I have explained on several occasions my reasons for releasing the remaining detainees. From the outset, detention has been a real and continuing cause of resentment, particularly in the minority community. It was a fertile ground for recruitment to the paramilitary organisations. Although detention played an important part in dealing with organised violence and breaking up the paramilitary structures, it did not end violence. From June 1973 until January 1975, there were never fewer than 500 persons detained. All of us know the scale and horror of the violence that continued during that period.

Let us not forget, either, that releases from detention are nothing new, whether by the Secretary of State or, until August, by the Commissioners. That is because it is implicit in the legislation. Even more implicit is the fact that detention is for a short period. A total of 809 persons were released in 1972, 208 in 1973 and 361 in 1974. Some of those released have returned to active terrorism, but, of over 2,000 persons released since August 1971, only just over 100 have subsequently been charged with terrorist-type offences.

I discovered on reading Hansard recently that in a debate on 25th November 1971, after a visit to Long Kesh and Crumlin Road, and only a few months after internment, as it was, had been introduced, I said: I feel that the key is internment. Whoever one talks to in the minority group in Ulster, one can be in no doubt that since internment the political situation has changed radically. Internment has hardened attitudes."—[Official Report, 25th November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1661.] I went on to say that internment was a turning point in Northern Ireland and that, whatever happened, things would never be the same again until that aspect had been dealt with.

I have felt that all along. I have never, in all these years, however, whether on the passage of legislation or signing interim custody orders myself—as I did last year—burked the issue that in some circumstances detention is the only course available to us. If there is a recurrence of widespread violence I would not hesitate to use the powers of detention again, but the responsibility would then lie clearly on the men of violence. The chance has been given, internment and detention have been used politically in Northern Ireland. The responsibility lies now not here at Westminster or at Stormont but with the people concerned.

In Northern Ireland too many people are guilty of double thinking. They appear to believe that some crimes can be justified—indeed, that they are not crimes at all—because they are committed with some allegedly political motive in mind. It is only necessary to list some of the crimes which have been committed to be disabused of the notion of any political motive. That is why I announced to the House that I would make a start next year with the phasing out of special category status for new entrants.

Earlier this year a child of 7, herding animals in a country lane, was blown to pieces by a land mine planted by the Provisional IRA. Recently the Provisional IRA was responsible also for the murder of a child of 6, shot dead in a wild burst of gunfire aimed at her father. In July, three men driving home from a dog show in the Republic were stopped on the open road and motivelessly murdered. Also in July this year, the Miami Show-band were ambushed and three out of the four of them shot and killed by members of the UVF armed with sub-machine-guns. In August, a council workman—a Protestant who volunteered to assist in the repair of bomb-damaged homes in the Catholic Lower Falls—was beaten to death by a Provisional IRA gang. So violence continues in Northern Ireland.

Hon. Members will know of the successes that have been achieved this year by the security forces—the police assisted by the Army. Good progress in combating the evils of sectarian murder and gangsterism has been made on both sides of the community. Many people are being charged and brought before the courts for serious crimes. A total of 149 people were charged in November alone.

Charges for murder and attempted murder have shown a dramatic increase. This year, 135 people have been charged with murder, compared with 75 in the whole of 1974. In the last two months alone, some 40 people have been charged with murder; only a dozen or so were charged over the same period last year. No fewer than 318 travelling gunmen have been apprehended and charged, and many of these people must be regarded as potential murderers. What I should emphasise to the House is that the number of convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland is 2,260 this year, compared with 1,748 at the end of last year—an increase of 512. More people are going to prison—they are not in detention; they have been convicted—and that is what the Government want to achieve.

In the White Paper on the Northern Ireland Constitution in July 1974, the Government made it clear that nothing would transform the security situation more quickly than a determination by the whole community to support and co-operate with the police service. With the release of the remaining detainees, I have removed what has been seen as the most intractable obstacle to community support.

Our aim now is to ensure that the police progressively assume full responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. The Army does a magnificent job in Northern Ireland. My praise must be unstinting for the way in which our troops carry out their most difficult rôle. But, however well they do their work, the Army in the longer-term is no substitute for the police. It has always been the aim of the Government to achieve a planned, orderly and progressive reduction in the commitment of the Army as the police assume once more their full r.le. This is still the aim and policy of the Government, and our actions, whether they be the moves that I announced in September 1974 to strengthen the police, or the ending of detention and the emphasis on proceeding through the courts, have been taken to this end.

The RUC is the principal guardian of law and order in Northern Ireland. It is the duty of the RUC to enforce the law. The Government support the police in every way they can, but the RUC is as independent of political interference as any police force in Great Britain. In his operational judgments, the Chief Constable is independent of me. His responsibilities are derived from the law, and he is answerable to the law. He is an agent neither of central nor of local government. Sometimes, in the discussions which take place and are taking place now, I find it difficult to understand what is meant by "control of the police". The Chief Constable is an agent neither of central nor of local government. As I have said before in this House, that is the way that it should be and the way that it must continue to be. There can be no question of any Government's putting pressure on the Chief Constable to act other than according to his own judgments in the discharge of his own responsibilities.

There has been much speculation, gossip and mischievous rumour about the Chief Constable of the RUC. Some of the more malicious rumours have alleged that I have taken steps to remove the present Chief Constable from office, and that I have been motivated to take these unspecified steps because he has been obstructive.

First, let me defend the person who is unable to defend himself. Sir Jamie Flanagan, the Chief Constable, has always carried out his duties efficiently—I use the word advisedly, as it is only on the ground of inefficiency that I could require the Chief Constable to retire, by law. He has co-operated to the full in policies that I have initiated. There has been no dispute. There is no question of deals.

I see in the newspapers a report that starts off correctly enough by saying: The Northern Ireland Office is blamed by politicians for exerting undue pressure on the police authority. That is correct, but the writer does not know what he is talking about, because he goes on: Earlier this year the Chief Constable refused to implement certain points widely supposed to form part of a cease-fire deal with the Provisional IRA. That is rubbish. He is reported to have rowed with Mr. Rees over a suggestion that certain PIRA or Sinn Fein leaders should be issued with firearm certificates or that the incident centres should be allowed to deal with local crimes. That is even bigger balderdash. It causes the Chief Constable and me great amusement at the way this sort of rubbish percolates round and gets into the newspapers. Sir Jamie also opposed the scaling down of troops in Republican areas as their presence is necessary to enable the RUC to carry out its already limited functions in the Roman Catholic ghettoes"— the number of troops is the same— … and made it quite clear to me that there would be no immunity from arrest for Provisional leaders like Seamus Twomey, their chief of staff. That is a curious twist to the story. Earlier this year, it was the other way round.

At the time, what people who ought to have known better misunderstood was that under the law I decide who shall be ICO-ed. I do not decide who shall be arrested. No one in the security forces is under any illusion about that, and never has been. That sort of rubbish does not cause alarm and despondency amongst the security forces; it causes a great deal of laughter at functions of the security forces, which I attend nearly every night of the week.

What sort of place is this that this sort of rubbish can go on day after day? Mr. Paddy Devlin, of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, has been speaking up in favour of the Chief Constable, so I got hold of a newspaper of two years ago and found that Mr. Devlin then said that Mr. Flanagan's appointment was disastrous. Mr. Devlin said that the new Chief Constable had been a part of the police hierarchy when all the deficiencies of the force were manifest and that he had never raised his voice in protest or made an impression on any incident in which he was involved. He said that the Chief Constable did not possess the characteristics needed to pilot the changes so desperately needed in the RUC.

So in the last two years there has been a transmogrification in Sir Jamie Flanagan. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has referred to his appointment as outrageous. He said the British Government had made no attempt whatever to consult the new Assembly members on the matter. He said he would raise the matter at the next meeting of the Assembly.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

The right hon. Gentleman should know that I repudiated that Press statement, and I have told Sir Jamie Flanagan that I have made no comment- on his appointment.

Mr. Rees

I am pleased to withdraw what I said. Much nonsense is being talked. It seems to me that we have been both treated the same way. The hon. Member complains about a report in the Press and I am complaining about reports in the Press. In this case we are treated equally, but things are sometimes different.

The statutory position of the appointment of the Chief Constable is quite clear. He is appointed by the police authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, in the same way as are chief constables in Great Britain. The police authority has advertised the post in the same way as in Great Britain and has sought professional advice from the Inspectorate through my Department, in the same way as in Great Britain. This is still awaited.

When the present Chief Constable was appointed he expressed a wish that his tenure should not continue beyond 1975. I understand that the Police Authority has asked him to continue in office until a successor has been appointed, and that he has agreed. That is the position. It is quite clear, and I have no role to play in this. I would not want one. It is vitally important that the police should be outside political control, because at one time there was general talk in Northern Ireland that the position was different. It is important that there should be no illusion in talking about the future Government in Northern Ireland. There is some concern and fear among the police about what might happen in the future. It is important that I should stick to the rules, and I do.

Mr. McCusker (Armagh)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I speak not as someone who has made any comment on this matter but as someone who has a high regard for Sir James Flanagan. I believe that he is the man for the job. If he is fit and able to do the job, could he not be asked if he would be prepared to accept an extension of his term of office?

Mr. Rees

It is not for me to ask. I am sure that the Police Authority will be told what people have said. It must be a matter for the Authority. My function does not enter into the matter, and it would be wrong for me to try to interfere.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

This is an important point. I am a regular listener to Radio Ulster and I heard it report that my right hon. Friend was pressurising the Chief Constable to retire prematurely. I am glad to hear the statement that he has just made. I hope that he will make the situation clear to Radio Ulster.

Mr. Rees

I have made my point clear, not for the first time. But once a rumour gets around it is difficult to stop it. If I believed half the things I heard about other people in Northern Ireland—but perhaps I had better keep them for my memoirs.

I have spoken of the support for the security forces that is forthcoming from the community in Northern Ireland. For success the Government also need co-operation from outside the Province. As the House knows, I have maintained close contact with the Irish Government. The two Governments have a common interest in dealing with terrorism. Continual progress is being made in preventing the supply of explosives reaching terrorists. Co-operation between the police forces north and south of the border has never been closer.

I am confident that the Irish Government are fully aware of the relevance of the border to violence against civilians and against members of the security forces in areas like Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and South Armagh. They know of the incidents in which shots have been fired across the border at members of the security forces, and of the times in which mines and booby traps have been left for our patrols in the North, with command wires and firing points in the Republic. They also know that terrorists have operated against us from bases in the South. I appreciate the efforts that the Government of the Republic are making to help us bring all this to an end.

This co-operation is vitally important. I hear nothing but praise from the RUC for the co-operation it gets from the Garda in the South. Despite Press reports to the contrary, what I have said is the case. I have responsibility for many things, but I am glad to say that I do not have responsibility for the Press of Northern Ireland, let alone the Press of the rest of the country.

Law and order is only a part of the story, however. We have also done everything possible to ensure that grievances are remedied. In a society in which divisions between communities have been as sharp as in Northern Ireland, and have led to such distrust of the law and of the fairness of the State's activities, it is particularly necessary that the rights of the individual should be properly protected and that this should be seen on all sides to be so. Such an attitude is part of our heritage in Great Britain, but, unfortunately, it is not accepted generally in Northern Ireland.

There is in Northern Ireland today a wide range of measures designed for the protection of human rights. Much had already been done before direct rule was imposed in 1972. I am thinking particularly of the establishment of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner for Complaints, whose job it is to guard the citizen against cases of maladministration respectively by central and local government. I wish more people would use this machinery.

The Conservative Government added further protection through the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which specifically outlaws discrimination in legislation or executive acts on either religious or political grounds. It also set up the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to review the adequacy of the law in preventing discrimination on these grounds.

The present Government have taken matters further. We have followed the work done by our predecessors and have introduced the Fair Employment Bill, which will protect the citizen against discrimination in employment in the private sector as well as in the public domain. I know that there is disagreement on some aspects of this measure, and no doubt it will be aired in the House—early, I expect, in the new year.

We have given the Human Rights Commission, under Lord Feather's chairmanship, all encouragement in its present far-ranging study to determine whether a Bill of Rights is desirable for Northern Ireland. I have also announced my intention to introduce an independent element into the procedure for investigating complaints against the police and I hope in the very near future to have the report of the working party considering the matter. I shall then lay appropriate legislation before the House. I remind the House that the Gardiner Committee praised the procedures of the RUC with regard to complaints under the existing system. I list these measures simply to demonstrate that a great deal has been done over the last five years. Whatever complaints were being made four or five years ago, they can no longer be laid in Northern Ireland.

Unquestionably, the dominant feature of this year has been the large number of interfactional and sectarian murders. My hon. Friends and I live with the statistics given to us at security meetings. Perhaps I should interpret these words for the House. I mean Catholic killing Catholic, as in the PIRA/OIRA feud, or Protestant killing Protestant, as in the case of the UVF/UDA feud. By sectarian murders, I mean the killing of a Catholic by a Protestant or of a Protestant by a Catholic. Sadly, and all too frequently, this has meant the callous murder of a workmate or of a member of some innocent family. Interfactional and sectarian murders have loomed larger than usual in the past year. Let me make it absolutely clear that the security forces have the fullest support from the Government in everything they have done to catch these people, who are sick in mind and are simply killing their fellow citizens for no purpose whatsoever.

There are so many horrible things I remember. I think of the friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—Senator Paddy Wilson—who was killed two years ago. I think of what was done to him and what had happened to him when he was found. I think of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) coming to see me some months ago, telling me of a constituent, killed on the border, whose face had been obliterated so that his family would not recognise him in his coffin. It is sick. Political ideals of the past? No, it is pure bloody murder by people who have forgotten what they were doing in the first instance.

There are some grounds for believing that the paramilitary organisations on both sides are beginning to realise that these killings bring nothing but discredit to them and that they should stop. The feud in West Belfast did no good to any of them.

It would be a major step forward if these paramilitary organisations were willing to make a public declaration of intent that interfactional and sectarian murders would stop. It is public declarations of intend of this kind that could mark the beginning of a real transformation. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not implying for a moment that they should turn to other forms of crime. I am determined that crimes of any kind should be rigorously pursued through the courts. What I would say is that there is real scope for the energies within these organisations to be directed towards the political, economic and social progress that is so badly needed in Ulster.

There is no doubt that in the early part of the year there was a significant falling off in violence from the Provisional IRA. As I told the House earlier in the year, a number of outrages then were committed by the IRSP, and these have subsequently been publicly admitted through the so-called National Liberation Army—one of its aliases. In the latter part of the year, the Provisionals have, in a number of areas, returned increasingly to acts of violence rather than follow a more constructive course, despite their saying in public that the time was coming when they would stand for elections in all parts of Ireland. Another bomb in Royal Avenue will greatly endear them to the Protestant population in East Belfast. It is the most curious form of electioneering that I have ever known, and it happens on both sides.

If all, or even the majority, of the paramilitary organisations were prepared to make public declarations of intent of the kind I have indicated, the meaningless loss of life would diminish. The senseless killing of people who have every right to live, work and bring up their families in Ulster would stop. This killing has advanced no one's cause one iota. All that it does is to sentence to death a number of the very people whom the paramilitary organisations claim to be protecting. A murder on one side has meant, and will mean, a murder on the other. A bomb on one side will sprout either a bullet or a bomb on the other side, depending on the circum- stances of the time. If the killing starts again, everyone will know clearly who is committing these mindless acts of violence. What I ask all the paramilitary organisations and fringe groups to remember is that the killing and wounding of innocent people is a crime against humanity, for which responsibility lies solely upon them.

If the Provisionals return to violence on the scale of the period from 1972 to 1974 there will be an inevitable counter-reaction. If the Loyalist paramilitary organisations, some of which arose in response to the PIRA campaign, kill Catholics, then, equally, there will be a counter-reaction. In either case it is a senseless descent into criminality. They should think deeply about what I am saying. In this situation, one act of mindless violence could trigger off a chain reaction.

It has been suggested that the problems in Ulster could be solved by saying that we would withdraw over a period of years. This is what the Provisionals mean when they ask for a declaration of intent. Indeed, it seems to be what one of the major parties in the Republic is also saying. I am firmly of the view that any such statement would be desperately dangerous. I am certain that any such statement would lead to an immediate outburst of violence on a scale that we have not yet seen. It would be motivated by fear on both sides. If such a declaration—which sounds so easy to some—were made in the morning, I would not give twopence for what would happen in Belfast before the afternoon was out.

It is easy to make these statements from a distance, but responsibility lies in the House, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I am equally certain that outrages in this country, and the killing of soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland, do nothing whatsoever to bring any solution nearer.

I believe that progress in Northern Ireland must be made by the Ulster people. The simple fact is that there is a Protestant majority in Ulster and a large Catholic minority. It is only when the politicians and the people in both these communities declare their intention to live and work together that real progress will be made. What are needed also, as I said earlier, are declarations of intent by the paramilitary organisations.

This debate has been about security and, increasingly, about criminality. We must return very soon to the constitutional and political problems of Northern Ireland, and all I would say about this tonight is that the Government will be putting their views before this House early in the new year. Meanwhile, we still need to renew the temporary provisions in the Acts that I described at the beginning of my speech.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

The House must fully support the Secretary of State in his vehement denunciation of the latest outrages which have taken place today and during the past few months. As he said, emergency powers are still needed in Northern Ireland. It is horrifying to think that 1,400 people have been killed since 1969 in circumstances of great brutality. The right hon. Gentleman rightly described those events as foul murders which should not be glorified in any political sense.

I support what the Secretary of State said about withdrawal. The Opposition take the same view as the Government on this matter. We believe that the Armed Forces must remain in strength in support of the civil power until normal policing can be restored throughout the Province. Those are the words of the Secretary of State which the Conservative Party also has been using during the last few months. We believe that it would be dishonourable for a lawful, democratic Government to shirk their duty to uphold the law in all parts of the United Kingdom. There can be no question of the withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from any part of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State has given a full explanation of the Order. I shall not detain the House for long because hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies wish to speak on their special aspects of this tragic problem.

We support the Order, just as we supported the three principal Acts as amended. I shall none the less make a few comments in addition to what I said on that occasion. These powers are no doubt essential to enable the Secretary of State to restore order and uphold the rule of law, but, as I said on Third Reading, it is the way in which the powers are operated that is really important.

The Secretary of State referred to detention, and he is aware that one of my reasons for opposing the release of detainees from detention in the past few weeks was that there might be difficulties in getting evidence for convictions. I know that the Secretary of State passionately believed that detention without trial should come to an end. I hope he will accept that there are others who were apprehensive about what might happen if he took this action. I shall say no more about that except to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in a Written Answer to one of my hon. Friends he referred to the number of internees and detainees released since August, 1971. This was in a Written Answer of 9th December. Of those persons, 108 have subsequently been charged with terrorist-type offences. That is 5 per cent. I simply note that. It may prove important in the future.

The Secretary of State also said that, now that detention has been brought to an end, the responsibility lies with the people of Northern Ireland in the future, and he mentioned in particular the minority community. I agree with what he says, but it lies with Her Majesty's Government as well, and I am sure that they accept the responsibility. It should not in any way be thought that that is not the case.

I turn now to one or two other points concerning the question of getting convictions. This should be further examined. The Government have in recent weeks given us very substantial figures of offenders being dealt with by the courts. On 4th December the Secretary of State mentioned a figure of 1,260 going through the courts this year. That is a very big figure indeed. I assume that this includes all types of terrorist activity.

On 10th December there was a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to the effect that 207 directions were issued for the prosecution of persons alleged to belong to the Irish Republican Army between 8th August 1973 and 30th November 1975. The end of the answer was that following these directions, prosecutions had been completed in respect of 187 persons.

If the Minister of State is to say anything in winding up, will he tell the House how many people during that period were convicted of that offence and how many were charged with that offence alone, as distinct from any other terrorist-type offence? I think that that is important. It has bothered many people.

Now that legal opinion appears to reject the procedures employed in the South of Ireland, where evidence of membership given by a senior police officer is admitted—this has been debated several times in the House—what will now be done about the numbers of persons who admit that they are members of an illegal organisation? I believe that many of those released from detention have admitted their membership. What is to happen now? I asked the Minister of State this question on 8th December.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I do not wish to help anybody as to ways of avoiding a court charge arising from admitted membership. On the question of self-identification within the prisons—whether a person has been convicted or otherwise—I am advised very strongly that this is not regarded as firm evidence of membership. The element of time comes into it. It is possible to say that someone is a member of a political party here and then to find that membership has lapsed, or something of that kind. It is very difficult to get evidence of that nature. Having said that, I should be very happy to talk about it to the hon. Gentleman, because I have looked at it.

Mr. Neave

I should like to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State on another occasion because there are members of the public who are concerned that persons released from detention or persons who are abroad at present are admitting membership of organisations which are proscribed. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for what he said and I should like to talk to him further about what should be done about this matter.

I should like to ask one or two further questions. Is the Secretary of State satisfied—I raised this matter in July on Third Reading of one of the three principal Acts —that the intimidation of witnesses to which he referred in July is no longer a serious problem? Is the situation improving in any way? This is important in regard to future enforcement of the law in Northern Ireland. What steps are being taken to protect witnesses in regard to their security in giving evidence and to the disclosure of their addresses? Has there been any further progress on that point? We attach considerable importance to this, because if it is right to say that detention should end and that the due legal process through the courts is correct the question of evidence and witnesses is obviously extremely important.

On the same point about proscribed organisations, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the strengthening of Section 9 of the principal Act and possibly making membership of a proscribed organisation part of the list of scheduled offences in the Act? That might be a way of strengthening the position.

I have two more points to make which are fairly important. The Opposition would like to have further conversations on the question of the offence of terrorism which was recommended by the Gardiner Committee. This matter was debated in the House earlier today, but it was a view that we urged on the Government during the debates on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. In the light of additional opinion from the first annual report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, of which the Government may be aware, would the Secretary of State be prepared to have discussions on the question whether an offence of terrorism could be created in Northern Ireland?

I was delighted, as we all were, by the great tribute which the Secretary of State paid to the Army. I hope that progress will be made in South Armagh in arresting those responsible for the recent murders. Will the Secretary of State say what progress is being made in finding the people who carried them out?

My final comments are about Sir Jamie Flanagan, who has made a deep impression on hon. Members on all sides of the House during their visits to Northern Ireland. Those who reside there and represent Northern Ireland constituencies certainly appear to be of that view. However, in view of the comments that have been made in the Press, it might be wise for the Police Authority, as the Secretary of State says, not only to note what has been said but perhaps to issue some statement of its own. This matter is arousing considerable comment.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme)

It has done so.

Mr. Neave

I have not seen that. I am glad to hear it. We have been very much impressed by Sir Jamie's success as Chief Constable and we are glad to note what the Secretary of State said about that.

Having regard to all the points which the Secretary of State has already made, with which I agree, we support the Order.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

There are some books in which the footnotes occupy almost as large a part of the pages as the text. I was reminded of them during that long passage in the speech of the Secretary of State—certainly it was the most vigorous and eloquent passage in his speech—in which he repudiated all sorts of untruth and self-evident untruth which he found to be in circulation. Before I come to the Order and to his remarks about it, I should like to offer him two reflections upon that spirited apologia to which we listened.

The first is that it is nothing exceptional for acts which have nothing to do with a Minister of the Crown to be personalised in public presentation, though no doubt it is more tiresome in the circumstances of Northern Ireland when this happens. If it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, I remember that, when I was Minister of Health and certain disciplinary procedures against practitioners and others in the National Health Service took place, procedures in which the Minister took no part and of which he could have no knowledge, I was constantly astonished to read in the newspapers such headlines as "Minister swoops on Kentish dentist", when I never knew that there was a Kentish dentist involved in anything. It all had to be personalised. So perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should not fall, as sometimes happens in Northern Ireland, into the idea that we are the only sufferers from what is a more general tendency. However, I agree that it can be more dangerous and more productive of misunderstanding in Northern Ireland than elsewhere.

My other reflection arose from the word "politician" which the right hon. Gentleman used when referring to those who discussed so eagerly and gave such currency to many of the absurd, exaggerated or distorted rumours. This leads me to say—I am making no personal criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not without importance—that above the level of district council the elected politicians of Northern Ireland sit in this House—the people who bear political responsibility to the electorate of Northern Ireland are all 12 of them Members of this House. I often wish that the Press and others who seek information and views about what is going on in Northern Ireland would more often come to those who are responsible and are elected than to people who are not responsible and not elected. If that were done, it might be found that some of these rumours would be quashed earlier in their lifetime.

From that footnote upon a larger footnote I come back to the Order itself. It is salutary, tiresome through it may be to those who arrange the business of the House, that these emergency provivisions have to be renewed every six months, for it forces the Government and the representatives of Northern Ireland—indeed, it forces the House so far as we can say that the House is present this evening—to review very seriously and acidly where they were six months ago, and where six months ago they thought they were going.

I have been refreshing my memory of how the position appeared six short months ago when on 26th June the predecessor Order was debated. On that occasion the Secretary of State said: There has been a significant reduction in incidents against the security forces and an overall reduction in terrorist incidents. This has exposed, or perhaps brought to the surface, much interfactional violence and violence between the communities in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 816.] We all wish that were as correct a description of the second half of 1975 as it was of the first half of 1975; but I am afraid that we have to record that in the second half of 1975 deliberate and murderous violence against the security forces—the police and the Army—and against innocent members of the public—selected because they are innocent, just as they are selected by the terrorists here in Great Britain because they are innocent—has been a renewed feature of the scene. Although the interfactional and sectarian violence—the right hon. Gentleman regrets these stereotyped expressions as much as many of us do—has continued, it has been overlaid once again by the resumption of warfare against the security forces and against the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland. Moreover, in the second half of 1975 this has been accompanied by and linked with an extension of the warfare into Great Britain, directed against public opinion in this country and directed against this House.

Before I come to a deduction from that change, I want to dwell briefly upon the two salient events which have occurred in the last six months. The first is the virtual ending of the so-called truce. It always was a so-called truce. When the Secretary of State was introducing the Order six months ago, the truce was still something to which he, at any rate, referred with some satisfaction. At that time too the incident centres were still regarded as performing a useful function.

Now, to the relief of many of us, both those features have disappeared. At least I hope they have completely disappeared, because I am sure I am not alone in hoping that the dark side to the truce—namely, the placing of the IRA on the same plane as the Government through exchanges between representatives of the Government and of the IRA—has followed the incident centres, which gave rise to so much anxiety and interpretation or misinterpretation, and the so-called truce, which never was a truce, never ought to have been called a truce, was never meant to be a truce, into the limbo of forgotten things.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, who normally chooses his words extremely carefully, would agree that, whatever else it was, it was not a truce. That it was a so-called cease-fire I would accept.

Mr. Powell

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I have the same objections to the term "cease-fire"; for ceasefire implies a transaction between two legitimate, legal, warring forces, and carries with it the implication that the two forces which agree upon the ceasefire are somehow of the same kind and stand upon the same level. Therefore, although I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his substitution of the correct for the incorrect terminology, the argument and the considerations remain the same.

That is one event of the last six months. Though it might appear superficially to be regrettable, it is to be welcomed, first because it has stripped away misunderstandings which might prevail outside Northern Ireland, and secondly because it has helped to dispel the notion that there has been, or that there still is, a deal between the Government and the IRA. The right hon. Gentleman knows how dangerous, in the most literal sense of the word, such a belief can be.

That brings me to the second event of the last six months—the ending of detention. I do not believe that any hon. Members, certainly on this Bench, ever believed that the Secretary of State was ending detention as part of a deal with the IRA. It was bound to be said; it was bound to do harm that it was said; but, to those of us who knew what the right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of this evening, it was incredible and never acceptable.

I think it is worth putting on record the fact that six months ago, when this policy, which has now been carried through, was at a much earlier stage, I said, speaking for my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as myself: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be among the first to admit that he has received steady, though not uncritical, support … from right hon. and hon. Members on this bench. We have understood, too, what has been his aim and his strategy in the gradual unwinding of detention"; and I described it as a policy to which we give general support". There has been considerable misrepresentation, which would not have taken place if some had taken the trouble to listen to what is said in this Chamber, of the position on this matter of those who are elected to represent Northern Ireland and who bear responsibility to their electors.

At any rate, with the ending of detention, and the ending of the so-called cease-fire and the whole menagerie that went with it, we are now facing a new phase. We can turn our back upon those two episodes and look forward. I come to what the Secretary of State said six months ago and substantially repeated tonight in his analysis of the causes of the violence, although he was then referring almost exclusively to interfactional and sectarian violence. I should like again to quote his exact words. He said: It is clear that this new age of violence"— that was the interfactional, sectarian phase— has not arisen out of political aspirations; it is an outbreak of gangsterism fostered no doubt by the atmosphere of disrespect for the law … in recent years".—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 824, 816.] The right hon. Gentleman this evening repeated somewhat the same analysis, though perhaps less emphatically.

With great respect, because the matter is one not of academic but of great practical importance, I want to take direct issue with the right hon. Gentleman. This violence in all its forms is politically motivated. It arises out of political aims and intentions. Of course, it is difficult for us in this House, reared in the tradidition of parliamentary democracy, to recognise as political actions actions such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. But we shall go astray if we seek to conceal the fact that behind even the most bestial, even the most apparently insane, acts of violence in Northern Ireland there is a political motive. However twisted, it is political.

There is no doubt what that political motive is. It is the same as the motive for the murders by terrorists which are taking place in London. It is the political object of inducing this House and this country, against their will and judgment, to sever Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, against the wish of the majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. That is the political object behind all the violence in all its forms and in all its phases.

Mr. Orme

That is not true.

Mr. Powell

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not true, he will have the opportunity to refute what I say.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his definition to embrace the violence from the Protestant quarter?

Mr. Powell

Of course. Nothing whatsoever that I have said has excluded violence by Protestant paramilitaries or from any part of the spectrum. That violence is motivated and in the end excused, or even glorified, by the alleged fear, or the real fear, that the underlying political object of detaching Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom may be achieved unless people take the law into their own hands. That is the real motive, although the mistaken motive, of much of the violence which comes from bodies such as the proscribed UVF.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

The question of whether there is a political motive and where that motive starts is an interesting one in the nature of Northern Ireland. Suppose, however, that there were a solution to the political problem, whatever that might mean. Is it not the case that in parts of Belfast especially there are people who take money off public-house keepers, and who in the Shankill and other parts take money off shopkeepers? Surely that would continue even if there were a political solution. The people who are so motivated seem to be a long way from the political scene.

Mr. Powell

I do not deny that mere crime, if I may so describe it, is fostered in the environment of the political violence which has raged in Northern Ireland during the past six or seven years. However, much of what appears to be mere crime, such as the robbery which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, frequently takes place on the fringes, as it were, of violence and terrorism which is political. The fact that in some cases these crimes are punished by those who hold unlawful sway in the areas concerned is a demonstration that much of what appears to be mere crime is crime supported by those who are politically motivated and related indirectly to the central political theme.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

If the right hon. Gentleman's argument is right, am I wrong in my strong feeling that it is necessary to end the political status of convicted persons? If he says that the violence is political, is he not strengthening the argument that people should be given political status?

Mr. Powell

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point so that I can refute it. A crime committed with a political motive is still a crime and must be punished like any other crime. A murder which is politically motivated is not thereby excused. Nor is the person who commits such a crime entitled to any consideration which any other murderer should not receive. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for enabling me to prevent anyone from drawing that fallacious deduction from what I am saying.

I repeat: I am not engaging in an academic or philosophical debate with the right hon. Gentleman. My purpose is intensely practical. I shall show how it is so from the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, when he spoke of those who urge a declaration of intent to withdraw the Army from that part of the United Kingdom. He said, quite rightly, that nothing would be more catastrophic. However such a declaration was hedged about—irrespective of whether it talked about years or decades—we all know that it would be catastrophic and would produce bloodshed on a larger scale than we have yet witnessed. Yet the right hon. Gentleman was saying in the same breath that that is the objective, the political objective, of those who exercise the dominant and underlying violence in Northern Ireland, and, incidentally, of those who are exercising it here in Great Britian. It is their objective to enforce just such a decision and just such an announcement as that.

The analysis of the cause of violence, and the measures which we use to deal with it, must be linked, the one following from the other. The Secretary of State rightly says that, faced with this violence—he was admitting, accepting and asserting its political objective despite his earlier remarks—the one thing he will not do is to hold out, under the influence of anything that has been happening, any prospect of the achievement of the political aim of the detachment of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, or anything that would be seen as a step towards its detachment; and the right hon. Gentleman added the words "because it is a part of the United Kingdom".

Now, there are many aspects of policy in which, by omission or commission, a diluted form of that very message is constantly being tapped out by the administration in Northern Ireland.

Let me give examples of what I mean; for it is this that proves how wrong people are who say "If the Army were only given a free hand, and if the security forces were simply told that no holds were barred and that they should get on with it, the situation in Northern Ireland would soon be cleared up". Those people misunderstand the fact that the physical and political are indissoluble from each other, that there is a closed circle which connects the political implications of Government action or inaction with the progress and continuance of violence.

I shall trespass on the time of the House to refer to only two very different areas of anxiety that come under this head. The first arises directly out of Section 23 of the 1973 Act which we are renewing. It reads: Any person who in a public place dresses or behaves in such a way as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member of a proscribed organisation shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding £400, or both". We all know that those offences are regularly committed in public under the television cameras and under the eyes of the security forces, the police and the Army. It is no good denying it; it happens. Moreover, on those same occasions illegally-held firearms are not merely displayed but are actually discharged. That is a crime and does not require the Emergency Provisions Act 1973 to make it a crime.

The Secretary of State said that it was the duty of the police to enforce the law independently of him and that there was no question of the Secretary of State putting pressure on the police force. That may be so. Moreover, the police force—everybody from the Chief Constable to the police constable on the beat—must form its own judgment when confronted with what appears to it to be, and no doubt is, a crime—nobody doubts or disputes that. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that a right judgment is being exercised in permitting the continuance, as an established institution, of the breach of the law governing firearms and the breach of the law in Section 23 of the 1973 Act.

I say that not out of vindictiveness but because the continuance of this connivance carries with it a political implication, the implication that, while this is a law which would be observed in Great Britain and nobody would get away with breaking, the reason why as a matter of principle it is not enforced in Northern Ireland is the view of Government and Parliament that in the last resort the political future of Northern Ireland is not the same as for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I have often considered this. Shortly before I first went to Northern Ireland, and when the Labour Party was in opposition, I appeared on a television programme with a young Army officers who referred to IRA funerals and the shots that were fired during them. He said that the Army failed to deal with them because of political control. At the first security meeting I attended in Northern Ireland I raised this point and said—I never dreamt of saying it later, because it was a silly thing to say—that I would not inhibit the Army. Shots are fired at IRA funerals as well as at UDA funerals. I shall deal with IRA funerals, at which young people fire shots into the air. It was put strongly to me that to break up a funeral in a Catholic area would do more harm than good and that the company commander on the spot has to make a judgment. On one occasion I went incognito to watch such a funeral and I appreciated that point. At similar funerals in recent weeks—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) can corroborate this—attendances have been falling all the time. It may be that this approach is best.

Mr. Powell

We do not discuss a matter such as this, from either side of the House, without a deep sense of responsibility or without being aware of the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention. Nevertheless, my point remains and to some extent he has come to meet it. The point is that continued connivance in a breach of the law in Northern Ireland, in circumstances that are highly politically charged with political symbolism, conveys exactly the message which lies at the root of the continuance of terrorism and bloodshed. The right hon. Gentleman comes to meet me in the sense that he, too, accepts that the indefinite continuance of those breaches of the law, as if they were institutionalised, is something that cannot be accepted. Perhaps by bringing this out into the open and by our exchange this evening something has been achieved.

The second area to which I wish to refer is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) namely, South Armagh, about which we hear every day. The area is in my hon. Friend's constituency, but in uncomfortable proximity to mine and not many miles from my Ulster home. There it is especially tempting for people to suppose that provided the correct military and security dispositions are taken the difficulties in due course will disappear. I am not suggesting that we have the military or the security dispositions right yet. On the contrary, I believe the events of the last few weeks have proved that we have not yet got the right tactical approach in South Armagh. However, that is not the point I am on.

The point is that all the tactics in the world in South Armagh will not eliminate that cancer—that political as well as physical cancer—from Northern Ireland unless the whole political framework of what happens in South Armagh is also perceived and dealt with. It is the control of the frontier which is there at stake. So long as it appears that as a matter of policy the frontier between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic is quite deliberately not treated as any other frontier anywhere else in the world would be, so long will those who wish to draw deductions draw the deduction that the frontier is regarded by Government, Parliament and opinion in this country as a transitory phenomenon. In other words, it becomes part of the political fuel of continuing violence.

When I refer to the control of the frontier I am well aware of the physical and practical difficulties of direct control. I have two specific comments to make in that respect. First, if there are to be controlled crossings of the frontier, then, once the Government engage upon a policy they must stick to it. They must adopt a policy which it is practicable to carry through, but having once adopted it they must not be deterred from persisting in it. It is worse than nothing to attempt to block or crater unapproved crossings and then abandon them afterwards. This does more harm than if no action is taken in the first place. A recognisable policy for the physical control of crossings, authorised and unauthorised crossings, must therefore be persisted with.

However, as on the Continent, physical control of a land frontier—unless there is to be an Iron Curtain—is not in itself sufficient. It is real only when it is backed by internal control over identification, over legality of presence, of entry and of movement. The Government's control of the frontier, which is part of the emergency law—although not part of that which we are renewing tonight—will not be treated seriously, and consequently the Government's political purpose will not be taken seriously, unless control becomes a reality both on the frontier—so far as that is possible—and by means of identification within the United Kingdom.

I will be specific. I know that I am not alone in believing that the time has come when the people of Northern Ireland, whatever might have been their opinion in very different years gone by would actually welcome it if their movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland were subject to the necessity of carrying a passport which showed that they were or were not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They would welcome it if it were a requirement in Northern Ireland for every person to carry not merely a means of identification but something which showed, if he was not a citizen of this country, how he came to be here and whether or not he came to be here legally.

The Secretary of State may claim that this is a very big issue, and it is; but it is something which would now have the backing of the bulk of opinion in Northern Ireland. Unless the Government are seen to be serious about the frontier between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic they will not be believed to be politically serious in their approach to violence in Northern Ireland.

I must refer once again to the precision with which the Secretary of State pinpointed the connection between violence in all its forms and the desire to force the British Government into foreshadowing the destruction, in the future, of the present status of Northern Ireland. Everything, whether omission or commission, which brings that status into doubt is the root cause of the continuance of all forms of the violence with which Northern Ireland is so afflicted and which none of us in this House doubts—and I assume that this includes the hon Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but he will doubtless speak for himself—makes at present inevitable something of the nature of the laws and powers which we are renewing tonight.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

Since the introduction of these emergency provisions in 1973 and our subsequent debates on their retention, this is the first time we can say that detention or internment without trial no longer exists in Northern Ireland. That is a tremendous advance towards achieving normality. I again extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State for his courageous decision in the face of the mounting and unwarranted opposition of the gunboat diplomats on the extreme fringe of the Conservative Party.

It has been said that many hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies have never wholeheartedly favoured detention. I understand that they have not raised objections to its ending. That onerous task has been taken up by the Front Bench Members of the Conservative Party, who were perhaps doing their little thing without the knowledge or support of elected representatives from Northern Ireland. In adopting that attitude Conservative Front Bench speakers were not being honest with themselves, because it was their own party which began the process of releasing detainees. It was recognised at the time that it would be a continuing process.

It was in 1972, after the abolition of Stormont and the imposition of direct rule, that the former Conservative Secretary of State began releasing internees, as they were then known—long before Sunning-dale was even thought of. Sunningdale was a golf course to me then. Little did I know that it would be written into the pages of history because of the political agreement reached there.

The process was therefore begun by the Conservative Party, and it ill behoves Conservative spokesmen now to mount completely unjustified criticism of my right hon. Friend when he is trying to end one of the greatest divisive factors in recent years in Northern Ireland's political troubles. It is certainly accepted that the introduction of internment in 1971 was the greatest morale booster, the greatest weapon, that the IRA had ever had. It has exploited its continuation and its propaganda and emotional value throughout the years.

I repeat what I said last week in a brief supplementary question. I think that it will be generally conceded by Northern Ireland Members, although they may be my political opponents, that in the years which succeeded 9th August 1971 Sinn Fein celebrated—that was its own word, not "commemorated"—every anniversary of the introduction of internment by hijacking and burning buses, by intimidation and riots—and all in minority Catholic areas. They did not celebrate it on the Malone Road or the suburbs and affluent areas of Belfast. They celebrated it in the minority areas, causing nothing but distress and despair.

But I repeat what I said last week. There were no bonfires lit on the streets of Belfast when my right hon. Friend brought internment to an end, because there was nothing to celebrate. In fact, a whole new industry was closed—the Christmas card industry from Long Kesh. One card bore a picture of wires with a little girl holding on to them saying "I want my daddy. My daddy is interned without trial and without any charge in Northern Ireland." Those cards went all over the world and were one of the biggest propaganda weapons that the IRA ever had. From them it received quite a lot of financial return from people all over the world, especially from Irish-Americans who did not understand what was happening in Northern Ireland.

Many of my constituents were the victims of internment in Northern Ireland. In the interests of my constituency, perhaps I might ask my right hon. Friend to apply his mind to setting up some new industry in the place of the one which has been taken away by the Secretary of State—the making of Christmas cards in Northern Ireland.

To convince people who are still opposed to the ending of detention, I want to repeat again that it was the right decision to take. However, many people will think that, now that detention has been ended, the minority community who suffered so tragically because of the introduction of internment ought to be able to put it out of their minds. I know that a number of Loyalists were interned as well. But we must not forget that every person interned without trial in Northern Ireland had a family who were involved. His wife, his brothers, his sisters and his relations were all made antagonistic towards the system. Hostility was generated because a member of the family had been interned.

The Secretary of State said at one time that 2,000 people had seen the inside of Long Kesh. If we multiply that number by all the close and distant relations—even people who would not want to be friendly with some of their relations—the figure can be brought up to 60,000 or 70,000 Loyalists and Republicans who were involved in some way or other with detention and internment.

I hope that my right hon. Friend is not so unrealistic as to expect, now that internment has been brought to an end, the whole minority community to begin to co-operate completely with the voice of authority in Northern Ireland. The ending of detention does not mean that everyone will wake up next morning with a clear conscience. The slate has not been wiped absolutely clean. There will not be a new beginning immediately. People will still feel strongly about it. They are people who were sadly affected by the tragedy of internment. It will take them some time to forget the effect that internment had on those who were interned and on their families. It is only understandable that they may not co-operate completely within hours, days or weeks.

But the great barrier against co-operation has been removed. I have said in Northern Ireland and I say again here to the minority community who were so sadly affected by internment and all that went with it that it has been a long political battle to have internment brought to an end.

I understand that the last detainee to be released is one of my constituents, although I have serious doubts whether he has ever supported me at the polls. When he was released, he made a statement and it was shown on television. It appears that he did not write the statement himself, because he did not pronounce the words very well when he read it. In the course of it, he said that the SDLP could take no credit for the ending of detention. I am not sure whether the SDLP can take credit for it. I leave that to my right hon. Friend. But the people who most certainly cannot take credit for the ending of detention are the Provisional IRA. They were the last people to want to see internment and detention ended, because it was the greatest weapon they had in their armoury.

But again I say that the minority community will not easily or readily forget the effects of internment. I hope to be able to stand in this House and see the obnoxious internment provision no longer necessary. But the minority community must recognise, and I am certain they do, that detention has been brought to an end. If it is introduced again in the future, and I hope to God it never is, it will have been brought about by an upsurge of violence by people who want to see internment reactivated. They will be people who engage in violence with the specific intention of detention being reintroduced. The minority must be warned to watch every action of the men of violence because they will try to bring about the return of detention.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the elected politicians for Northern Ireland were Members elected to this House, and he referred to local authority representatives in Northern Ireland. I know that it would be very difficult, particularly in relation to an Irishman, to put a correct interpretation on who is and who is not a politician, because everyone in Ireland regards himself as being a politician at some level. There are many Members who are now elected to the Convention in Northern Ireland and who were Members of the previous political establishment at Stormont, who were recognised as politicians. I am sure they would look askance at some of their new elected Members who sit in this House if they were no longer regarded as politicians, because they try to represent the political aspirations of those who returned them to the Convention.

I have some reservations about accepting the right hon. Member's interpretation of a politician. I hope it was not a subtle attempt to further his argument on total integration, because that could be the spin-off from the sentiments that he has just expressed. If we are the only elected politicians in Northern Ireland, this could be used as an argument for total integration.

Mr. Powell

Not at present.

Mr. Fitt

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has never been a supporter of devolved government for Northern Ireland. If that is so, there may be a real local difficulty with those who at present sit with him in this House.

Mr. Powell

I was sticking to what was in my election address, which was the same election address as that of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Fitt

One of the politicians elected to the Convention, Professor Kennedy Lindsay—he was a member of the Vanguard Party—said in his election address that the right hon. Gentleman and he were colleagues. But there is a big difference in interpretation.

The right hon. Member for Down, South uses his undoubted logic about the Northern Ireland situation, but it is not enough. If a newspaper wanted to do so, it could quite honestly say that he had justified every violent action over the past years on the ground that it was politically motivated. That is the way it will be taken in Northern Ireland. It is exactly what the provisional IRA, the UDA, the UVF and all the other illegal organisations want. They want to be able to say, "We were motivated by political idealism and, therefore, we are apart from ordinary criminals. We should have special consideration inside prison, and when and if there is an amnesty—"and there will be an amnesty—" we will be released." That is the way the right hon. Gentleman's argument will be taken in Northern Ireland.

I have lived and fought in Northern Ireland politics for a long time. I take the contrary view. I have said time and again, in the face of total opposition by the PIRA and the other illegal organisations, that I do not, never have and never will regard murder, maiming, kneecapping, bank robbery and intimidation as politically motivated. They are criminal offences and those who engage in them are criminals.

Mr. Powell

Of course they are—they are political criminals.

Mr. Fitt

I do not believe that they are politically motivated. Many of those committing these crimes have no political motivation but are out for personal and private gain. That goes for both sides.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is no different from the stance taken by all of us sitting on this Bench? We have said frequently that in Northern Ireland there is a primary source of violence—the Provisional IRA—with all its related violence and lawlessness. We have said that it is all part and parcel of the same problem and that until the primary source is dealt with we cannot hope to overcome all the other forms of violence and petty crime, because they are linked together.

Mr. Fitt

I do not think that the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South is completely in line with what has been said by his hon. Friends over the years. Perhaps the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will be able to influence him to a greater degree so that we shall hear a united voice from their party.

I accept that these people are criminals, but I argue that we cannot expect the security forces to settle a criminal problem to the total exclusion of trying to deal with the political divisions in Northern Ireland. This is not a simple security problem against criminals. One has to try to tackle both problems at the same time.

Earlier today we had a debate on capital punishment for terrorism. No one knows more about terrorism than we in Northern Ireland. My impression is that the debate was generated by the assassination of Mr. McWhirter. Some people in Northern Ireland might ask why the House of Commons became so hysterical and upset because of the assassination of an individual in London when there has been so much murder in Northern Ireland, although mostly of people less prominent than Mr. McWhirter. I never met Mr. McWhirter, but I sympathise with his family. Perhaps we would not have agreed politically, but he did not deserve the death he died.

But does anyone seriously believe that the restoration of capital punishment would have stopped the PIRA? The first thing it would have done would have been to recruit 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds for bombing missions. What court, jury, country or Government would agree to a boy or girl of 16 or 17 being hanged for a terrorist offence? That would have been the result had the vote today gone the other way and had the decision been implemented.

It is to the terrible discredit of the IRA that it has callously exploited the idealism of the young. I do not restrict my remarks in this respect to the IRA. because many young people of the tender age of 16 or 17 have been used on the Loyalist side. Those who are now before the courts in Northern Ireland—Loyalist extremists and Republican extremists—are usually of the age of 18 or 19. Those kids were 12 or 13 in 1968. It is the people who are using these youngsters who are the criminals.

Mr. McCusker

Has not the hon. Gentleman within the past few minutes contradicted what he said earlier? Is not the idealism which motivates teenagers of 16, 17 or 18 a political idealism? I disagree with it, but it is because of that that they are caught in the web and are prepared to commit the atrocities they are committing.

Mr. Fitt

I have said repeatedly in this House that they are people involved who are politically motivated, but I repeat that there are people who are in it for personal gain and they are exploiting the situation and are in no way motivated by any political ideals.

We have referred to the debate which took place here this afternoon. It is known in Northern Ireland that this debate is taking place tonight. It is known there that earlier we were discussing capital punishment. That is why the bomb went off in Royal Avenue. It was an act of defiance. It was to say "When we want to, we will." There was the hijacking of a Post Office van in Belfast this afternoon and the threatening of the legal driver of the van, forcing him to drive the bomb up to the side of an Army post in Royal Avenue. I understand that five soldiers were injured. That was despicable cowardice on the part of people who are allegedly motivated by political idealism but do not have the courage to drive their bomb to its destination. They used some poor innocent person, who was perhaps absolutely terrified by having to do that. I say without fear of contradiction that those who force innocent people to drive bombs in this proxy manner are nothing but despicable cowards.

In regard to our emergency legislation and the debate which took place earlier today, I must say that I feel more bitter about maiming than murders. We have a situation in which a person aged 75 or 80—although to me all life is sacred—could be killed in an explosion, and those responsible would, if the motion debated earlier today had been approved and implemented, be subject to the death penalty. On the other hand, a bomb could explode in a restaurant, killing no one but causing scores of people, young and old, male and female, to have limbs blown off and to have to live out their lives without their natural arms or legs. The persons caught and convicted of that offence would not be subjected to the death penalty. They would be sentenced to imprisonment. To me such people are far more guilty, in one sense, than those who kill someone.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly spent some time in his own defence and the defence of his Ministers in relation to the subject of the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has been very explicit in putting forward his point of view, in contradistincton to what others are saying in Northern Ireland. I have had absolutely no consultation with any of my colleagues from Northern Ireland on this issue, so there is no question of any collusion. However, when the present Chief Constable was appointed two years ago it was widely known that he was a Roman Catholic. It was pointed out in a Press report that he was a Catholic. At that time I issued a statement in which I said that the fact that he was a Roman Catholic did not influence me. I said that his religion meant nothing to me and that I wanted to see whether he was a good policeman.

The remarks of my colleague, Paddy Devlin, have been referred to. Perhaps Paddy Devlin felt justified in saying what he did at that time, and I know that he would not want to go back on his words. However, in the years which have elapsed since Mr. Flanagan was appointed Chief Constable the whole community in Northern Ireland has found him to be what he should be—a policeman who is acting in the interest of the whole community of Northern Ireland.

Sadly, all too often I have had occasion to go to the Chief Constable about assassinations which have taken place, in particular in West Belfast, where there is an interface area where cars come in. Some of the people who were guilty of those murders have subsequently been caught and convicted and are now serving terms of imprisonment. I remember a particular occasion before Christmas when two brothers who worked in the Post Office were on their way up Divis Road when a car came round from Northumberland Street and they were killed. I can recall another occasion when two or three people were killed in the same way in North Belfast.

When those murders took place, I thought it only right to go to the Chief Constable to seek his assistance about what steps could possibly be taken to prevent further assassinations of that kind taking place. I found him to be a very impartial and concerned police administrator. He asked me whether I had any suggestions about what steps should be taken to try to prevent these assassinations taking place. On some occasions I was accompanied by Mr. Devlin and on others, when brutal assassinations were taking place in what is called the "murder triangle", my colleague who represents that part of Northern Ireland accompanied me. We felt that in the circumstances it was only right to go to the Chief Constable.

I repeat that the everyday activities of the RUC, in its attempt to stamp out violence and criminal activities in Northern Ireland, receive wholehearted support. At present security is under the control of Westminster. Provided we can ensure that the police force is acting impartially towards all the community in Northern Ireland, showing no bias in favour of one community as opposed to another, it will have our wholehearted support in whatever steps it takes to eradicate violence from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Orme

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this aspect, I should like to point out that I have noted what he and other hon. Members have said about the present Chief Constable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not defending the situation. He was explaining the legal situation and his statutory powers. If my hon. Friend wants to address remarks about Sir Jamie Flanagan and the decision of the Police Authority, he must address them to the Police Authority.

Mr. Fitt

My right hon. Friend's intervention appears to indicate that there are deep feelings running in the Northern Ireland Office about certain allegations which are being made. I am making no allegation. Indeed, I have not done so throughout this controversy. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office officials about the controversy which has arisen over the retirement, or possibly the premature retirement, of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has repeatedly said—he has said it again tonight—that he has played absolutely no part in the decision which was taken by the Police Authority to replace the Chief Constable.

The present Chief Constable, on taking up his appointment, said that he would take it for two years. He was then 61. He is now 63. In the 24 months since he took up his appointment he and certain people in Northern Ireland have found that he has had the confidence of his own force as no other chief constable or inspector-general had. It is a unique departure from previous political developments in Northern Ireland that I can stand up in this House, sit in a television studio in Northern Ireland or make statements to the Northern Ireland Press and confirm that I have found the Chief Constable to be a man well fitted for the position that he holds. There is political progress there.

I do not think that this would be an occasion for any of my political opponents to bring up the question of the SDLP's non-acceptance of our support for the RUC. Many things which have happened in the past have led to the minority community's feelings about the RUC and the question of its non-acceptance or support. Many events in history—some of that history is not in the distant past—have led to the determining of the minority's attitude to the police.

I am confirmed in my belief when I see that Lord Hunt, who was appointed by the previous Labour Government, in a letter to The Times on 27th November, in which he appeared to be answering a letter which had been written by Mr. Harry West in Northern Ireland, said he would agree that security should be transferred to any new devolved governmental structures in Northern Ireland on the condition that there was full involvement and partnership between both communities.

That is exactly what the SDLP wants. We want new political structures which will allow participation by the whole community in Northern Ireland. In that event I would be the first to aid and abet the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his demand for a return of security functions to Northern Ireland.

The right hon. Member for Down, South—unusually for him—seemed to relate his remarks to the wearing of illegal uniforms in specifically Republican areas. I admit that the wearing of uniforms and the firing of shots over the graves of Republican soldiers, claimed to have been killed in action, takes place. However, that happens in other than Republican areas. It happens in Armagh—not South Armagh. It happens in Portadown. That is an area which is allegedly in support of all the security forces and where there is no objection to the operation of the RUC. After the murder of the Miami Showband, in which two UVF men lost their lives, there was a military funeral at Portadown. Many uniforms were worn and shots were fired over the coffins. Yet neither the RUC nor the military took any action. Therefore, it is unfair to point the finger at one section of extremists in Northern Ireland and not to look at the mote in one's own eye.

This debate is about security. I hope that we may quickly see the day when I can stand here, perhaps in association with my colleagues from Northern Ireland, and talk about houses, shops, education, poverty and the deprivation which exists in all our constituencies. That is what I wanted to do in politics. I am not happy to be talking about security situations, emergency legislation and people getting killed, and totting up the number of crimes committed in Northern Ireland by one side or the other. It is completely against everything which first motivated me to enter politics.

I prefaced my remarks by saying that we wanted to see an end to this type of legislation. We shall no longer have any reason to discuss it only when political progress and developments take place in Northern Ireland, when we can create structures which have the allegiance of all the people of Northern Ireland, when they can all act in government and in community with each other, trying to forget the sad divisions and tragedies of not only the past seven years but all the years before.

The men of violence can exploit the present vacuum to their own advantage. I urge my right hon. Friend to use whatever influence he can with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Northern Ireland Convention is reconvened, whatever the right hon. Member for Down, South may think of it. I know that he does not put it very high on his list of priorities, but many people in Northern Ireland do. Many people who have lived all their lives in Northern Ireland, young and old, want to see the return of devolved government to Northern Ireland.

I appeal to the Government to try to reconvene the Convention, to see whether it is possible to reach political agreement. My right hon. Friend is aware that it will be no easy task, but, with all the obstacles that we shall find on the road to a political settlement, we should be given a further opportunity. After all, six months was a short time in the life of Northern Ireland to try to find solutions to a problem which had existed for 300 or 400 years.

The Government would be right to give the Convention another opportunity to see whether it can find a solution, and they should reconvene it as soon as possible. I hope and believe that we could make some political progress which would make it unnecessary for us ever again to have to discuss the kind of legislation we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Both Front Bench speakers have agreed to limit the winding-up speeches to 10 minutes each, but that leaves us with only 26 minutes for four hon. Members who wish to speak.

10.44 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

There are many matters that Members on this side of the House would like to discuss tonight, but time is short. I suppose that we should be grateful that we are having an extended debate because the House finished its previous business rather quickly. We should normally have had one and a half hours to debate the Order. I believe that an extended debate is necessary in the circumstances.

There are some things that the people of Northern Ireland will want their representatives to say with great strength and force in this debate. First, I want briefly to refer to the despicable attack made on me and my colleagues by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in the first debate of the day. He said that he hoped we would be in the dock. He talked about going to Northern Ireland and meeting the heads of the IRA. I do not know how he can be willing to meet wanted men, but evidently the hon. Gentleman has some direct line to wanted men. He castigated myself and my hon. Friend because the UDA no longer says anything in our favour, but if we had the approval of the UDA, we should be greeted with a howl of condemnation.

As some of us have condemned the murders committed by various Protestant groups we have come in for the lash of those groups, but we intend to do what is right and to say what is right no matter what some hon. Members may think about us. I shall not say any more about that, because the hon. Gentleman does not happen to be present. I prefer to speak about people when they are present, but I must put that on the record.

Let the House know that in Northern Ireland we have a serious state of affairs. In the previous debate it was said that the people should not take the law into their own hands. That was put forward as a precious principle of British democracy. But when the police and the Army say that they cannot defend us, that they can do nothing for us, what are we to do? Do we say "All right, we shall be slaughtered."? My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has hundreds upon hundreds of constituents living in outlying farms. Tonight, and at any time, they will lie as prey to the IRA murderers. Neither the police nor the Army can do or are doing anything about that.

Let it be made clear that attempts have been made to murder many people in public life in Northern Ireland. Many of us have experienced such attempts. Reference was made today to such attempts by the Home Secretary, but he does not know about all the attempts to murder Northern Ireland Members. He does not know about the shots that have been fired through our windows. My wife has been attacked in the streets of Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that attempts have been made on the lives of only two Members, but some of us can list many such attempts. That does not apply only to United Ulster Unionist Members but to politicians on both sides of the fence.

Let the Government not wash their hands Pilate-like at the Dispatch Box and think that Northern Ireland people are not suffering. We know that law and order have broken down. We know that the police and the Army cannot defend the populace of Northern Ireland. We are in a sad and sorry state of affairs.

Mr. Orme

The hon. Gentleman says that the Army and the police cannot defend the Northern Ireland people, but that is not completely true. The Army and the police are defending. If the Army were withdrawn, the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be put in a very difficult situation. The hon. Gentleman may make his protestations but I am sure that he will recognise that the Army is doing an essential job on behalf of the civil power, whether it be in Belfast or within South Armagh.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I should not like my remarks to be interpreted in that way. I am not saying anything against what the Army is doing, but when the Army and the police tell my constituents "We cannot do anything for you" and when they tell the business people in Belfast "We cannot give you protection", it is clear that those people have a right to point out to their public representatives that security in Northern Ireland is in a sad state.

The Government Front Bench would do far better by waking up to the fact that we are in a serious state in Northern Ireland. Let no one try in any way to diminish the terrible tragedy that is happening in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland expect their representatives in this House to spell it out in crystal-clear language. They cry out for security, peace and defence.

Often it is not possible for them to have them. Even the Secretary of State must admit—and it was admitted in the debate on the first Order—that the police could not possibly execute many of the provisions. The Army will have to undertake that job. That shows the sorry state of things. There are instances where the Army cannot do the job of the police because the troops are not trained to do it.

Let me make clear that many people in Northern Ireland are on their own in terms of security. It is also a fact that many public representatives are told "You may have a personal weapon and if you are attacked you must do your best, because probably neither police nor Army will be present when you are attacked." We have to face up to that situation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

The hon. Gentleman is right in that sense, but I would remind him that there are 14,000 soldiers in Northern Ireland and each individual man in the five battalions works 18 hours a day. I can see what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but if he seeks to say that there is no defence, he is not facing up to the fact that there are sections of the community where support has been given to paramilitary organisations on both sides—and I shall not go into who came first. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not depreciating what the Army is doing. What he is saying gets through to the ordinary soldiers from this part of the United Kingdom. They do not take kindly to criticism when they are working as hard as they possibly can and doing an excellent job.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I have offered no criticism at any time of the Army or of the police. I am the first to say that these men are doing a terrific and tremendous job, but they cannot totally do the job of defending Northern Ireland.

It also needs to be said that Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom because the British Army happens to be there. A number of hon. Members come to me and say "If the Army pulled out, what would happen?" It would not change the determination of the majority to remain within the United Kingdom.

It is also a fact that Ulstermen who defended Ulster for 50 years by the Vote of this House were disbanded, destroyed, and told "We do not want you to defend the people of Northern Ireland." It ill becomes Members of this House to say that the British Army is defending Ulster. Ulster had its defences. Those defences were criticised in the same way as I have heard hon. Members criticise the Army.

We have one Member who flits in and out and who has not yet made his maiden speech. He was in today. No wonder—he is afraid that some of his IRA friends might be hanged for some depredation, so he came in to cast his vote. I said to my hon. Friends "He is saying things about the British Army that are almost as diabolical as the criticisms made of the Ulster Special Constabulary whose members defended Ulster". We in Ulster know what is happening. We live with this situation.

This House, by its own vote, decided that the RUC should no longer be an armed police force. Sir John Hunt has been quoted tonight. When we were about to be plunged into a savage IRA onslaught, the Ulster defences were taken from us. The Ulster Special Constabulary was disbanded and was left as the prey. This House has a serious responsibility in these matters.

I came to this House many years ago and I remember that for a debate such as this the Benches would be packed with Members all shouting against the RUC, the B-Specials and Stormont. We were told "Do away with these things and you will have peace". So the police were disarmed. Did that bring peace? The Specials disappeared. Did that bring peace? Stormont was destroyed. Did that bring peace?

An ombudsman and commissioner to hear complaints was appointed because it was said that there was religious discrimination right across the board in Northern Ireland. How many cases of religious discrimination has the ombudsman Droved? How many times has he even been used? The office of the commissioner for complaints and the ombudsman had to be held by one person because no one brought any complaints.

We were told to get rid of internment. I was always opposed to internment, although some of my colleagues were not. The Secretary of State said that if there were a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, he would finish with detention. He should not have said anything of the sort. He should have said that he was finishing with detention—full stop—because there has not been a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, but detention is now over.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

The major reason that I have been able to end detention is that nearly 1,200 people have passed through the courts and been sentenced. It is not because there has been a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, which I mentioned earlier this year. There has been a change and it is the success of the security forces that has enabled me to do it.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The Secretary of State may like to know that the words "genuine and sustained cessation of violence" are on everyone's tongue in Northern Ireland. There is no such thing. The bombings are continuing, but detention is over. The Secretary of State is critical of my party and probably more critical of me than anyone else. He brings many things on his own head in relation to Northern Ireland. One example was the result of the cease-fire because his officials and the Provisional Sinn Fein, which is the IRA wearing a political hat, whatever shape and size it may be, had talks. The Provisional Sinn Fein released certain information about what was said at those talks. Whether what was released was true, the talks were reported, and that gave rise to the serious situation of Government officials having talks with those who were the front-line propagandists of the bombers and killers. In Northern Ireland we saw these very people on our television screens defending violence. I saw one of them defending the shooting of a six-year-old girl. The other night Marie Drumm excused the shooting of that six-year-old girl.

Mr. Fitt

I should say in defence of the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that the person allegedly responsible for the killing of that six-year-old girl has been charged and is before the courts.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether Government officials and the Provisional Sinn Fein are still talking. I am told that at that meeting Sir Frank Cooper is reported to have said to the Provisional Sinn Fein that—

Mr. Merlyn Rees

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not the practice of the House to mention the Permanent Under-Secretary of any Department. However, I shall make it absolutely clear that he never met a member of the Provisional Sinn Fein in those talks.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The Secretary of State says "in those talks". I am saying that Sir Frank Cooper has talked to the Provisional Sinn Fein.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

It is not true.

Mr. Orme

Attack the Ministers, not the civil servants.

Rev. Ian Paisley

When men's lives are at stake it is far too serious to quibble over civil servants. If civil servants, acting in the name of the Secretary of State, are doing things that the people of Ulster do not like, we shall expose them. I shall go further, because things have been said tonight which have implied that we are responsible for what is happening to Sir Jamie Flanagan.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must make it absolutely clear that I am responsible for all these matters, and it is no use the hon. Gentleman repeating an untruth. No meeting has taken place with Sir Frank Cooper, and the hon. Gentleman is repeating the same sort of rubbish we had earlier in the year about Seamus Twomey. That was rubbish also.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps I may join in now. It is not out of Order to criticise civil servants, but it is not the custom of the House to do so. I cannot remember its being done. This seems to me to be a disagreement in argument, not a point of order.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am aware of that Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to finish now. Nevertheless, there are things which need to be said tonight in the name of the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has mentioned the Seamus Twomey affair. On that occasion an Army document came into my possession.

Mr. Orme

How?

Rev. Ian Paisley

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know how that document came to me, he should go to his friends in the Army and the police with whom I was in touch when I got the document and hear from them. I got that Army document—

Mr. Orme

Illegally.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I did not get it illegally. The Secretary of State denied that document existed although it was produced in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson). Yet the police questioned him under the Official Secrets Act. How can someone be questioned about a document which we are told did not exist?

The document, which I released to the Press, stated that Mr. Twomey was no longer a wanted man. The Northern Ireland Office said that what I was claiming was rubbish, yet the Army investigated the document and confirmed that it was authentic. As far as the Army was concerned, Mr. Twomey was not a wanted man. The RUC, however, issued a statement to say that he was wanted under a warrant which had been issued in the South of Ireland. The Army did not arrest the leader of the IRA and he was allowed to walk around in an Army area.

Mr. Orme

That is not true.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I have control only over whether an interim custody order is issued. At the beginning of the year I told the Army which ICOs I was signing. The Army knew that Seamus Twomey was not wanted under an ICO. The hon. Gentleman may say what he likes. The police will pick up whom they like. I never discuss with them whom they want. This issue involves only the issuing of an ICO to the Army.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Let us move on to the Jamie Flanagan issue. When he was appointed there was a move by the then Secretary of State to enlarge the membership of the Police Authority by including on it elected representatives. We met the Authority, and it gave us an assurance that it would not appoint the Chief Constable until it had consulted the elected representatives again.

Mr. Orme

You said you were going to raise it in the Assembly.

Rev. Ian Paisley

How could I say that when I had been kicked out of the Assembly?

Mr. Orme

It was said.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I know that it was said. What I complained about was the way in which the appointment was made. I never criticised Sir Jamie Flanagan, because I did not then know the individual. The Press thought that I would attack him because he was a Roman Catholic. But on the day that report appeared I told him personally the truth of the matter. Mr. Harry West, Captain Michael Armstrong, Mr. Ernest Baird and I met the Vice-Chairman of the Police Authority—

Mr. Orme

Recently?

Rev. Ian Paisley

Yes, recently. We asked to see the Police Authority about this issue. We asked a series of questions. We asked, first, whether the Authority was totally happy with the way in which Sir Jamie Flanagan had carried out the duties of his office. The answer was, certainly, Incidentally, Sir Jamie Flanagan is not 63, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) tried to make out: he is 61.

We then asked whether there had been a meeting of the Police Authority which had divided 8–8, when the chairman had used his casting vote in favour of asking Sir Jamie to stay on, not indefinitely but until an appointment was made. Then, quite properly, as elected representatives, we asked to meet the whole Police Authority, and that was arranged. But the meeting was suddenly cancelled.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West talked about the police. We all know that the SDLP does not support the police. The SDLP has tied itself to a resolution to that effect. One of the most prominent colleagues of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, Councillor Tom Donnelly, resigned as a result of that resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have no authority to ask any hon. Member who is addressing the House to sit down, but there is an understanding of which I think the hon. Member is aware.

Rev. Ian Paisley

It is all very well for the Minister of State to talk about violation. It is essential that the view of the representatives of Northern Ireland is heard in this House. We have heard a long statement from the Secretary of State. But if this is the way you want to run the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that elected representatives cannot put their views in answer to points made by Ministers, I understand. I will take my seat now and put you out of your agony. As an Ulsterman, I do not wish to put any Welshman, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that position.

No matter what the attitude of Mr. Devlin to Sir Jamie Flanagan, or of the SDLP to the police, there is a united feeling among all sections of the community that Sir Jamie is acceptable. He has done a good job. The Police Authority should open its ears and hear what the people are saying. The Secretary of State should use his influence to see that it knows what has been said tonight.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), for whose forbearance we are most grateful—

Rev. Ian Paisley

Thank you.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

—said that the Secretary of State had ended detention without fulfilling the conditions which he had himself laid down, and that is true. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) criticised the Opposition Front Bench for its attitude to detention. In this Order we are continuing the power to detain and if no Secretary of State ever finds it necessary to make use of the power again, we on these Benches will be very happy—particularly those of us who have visited the Maze, both when it was standing and when it was razed to the ground.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to the Christmas card industry. I well remember receiving a card from the Maze bearing a picture of the barbed wire and a little message saying, "Wish you were here".

Many fewer would be voting in public opinion polls to pull out troops were they wholly confident of the entire Government's will to win and to stick to their policy, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) urged. That is why the Opposition welcome much of what the Secretary of State said. We applaud his rejection of any declaration of intent to withdraw, and we are glad of his resolve that our troops will remain in strength in support of the civil power for so long as they are needed to safeguard our fellow citizens there—in other words, until normal policing can be established throughout the Province.

There has been mention of the chief constableship of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Secretary of State himself praised the success of the RUC in bringing political and sectarian gangsters and common thugs to book. If I express my own admiration of the achievement of Sir Jamie Flanagan, I am doing what has been done tonight on both sides of the House and what has been done in Northern Ireland in a rare, if not unique, exhibition of political unanimity uniting the SDLP and the UUUC.

Those who urge on Ministers courses of surrender to the IRA and scuttle from Northern Ireland fall broadly into 'two categories—the subversive and the confused. The former, the subversive, betray deliberate and callous indifference. The latter, the confused, betray an unwitting indifference to the lives of our citizens, overwhelmingly peaceable and law abiding as they are, overwhelmingly and democratically committed to the Union and entitled to look to the Government of that Union for protection.

The evacuation of Ulster would, in all probability, precipitate a civil war. It would not stop short at the Irish border. It would not halt at the Irish Sea. I do not have to tell right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that the Antrim coast is about 15 miles from Scotland. The Secretary of State has himself warned us of what he called a "Congo" in Ireland which would spill over into Britain. Such a catastrophe would delight the IRA and those in other parts of the extreme republican movement, some of whom may have their devil's compact with a few elements in so-called Protestant private armies. It would result in the capture of what Churchill once called "the sentinel towers of the Western Approaches". The 32-county Socialist republic desired by both wings of the IRA is not Socialist as it is conceived by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of State.

But why terrorism? Are these terrorist atrocities committed on both sides of the water "mindless" and "motiveless"? Those are two words used by the Secretary of State. I think not, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South about this. These political terrorist atrocities are coldly calculated in an attempt so to terrify people and their Government as to turn them from their purpose. Conversely, once it is convincingly established that the British Government and people are not to be intimidated, ultimate failure of the terrorist is certain.

So the Opposition support this Order. It was not always quite the same when the roles were reversed and we were sitting on opposite sides. But we in the Conservative Party supported earlier legislation; we support this. It was our duty, and it is our duty. But, equally, it has been the duty of the Opposition in recent weeks and months to express the concern felt not only on these Benches but in our constituencies at the response of the Northern Ireland administration to the so-called cease-fire—vehement reference was made to it by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—and what has appeared to so many people in this country as an uncertain political direction of the campaign against terrorism, whether in South Armagh or elsewhere.

But, that said, I assure the Secretary of State that Her Majesty's Government can count on the co-operation of Her Majesty's Opposition in the measures now necessary to end this cruel terrorism throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

11.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme)

When the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) disagree with Government policy, they have a perfect right to say so. However, it appears to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to other Ministers and to me that when we take decisions of which they approve, they give wholehearted support, but that when we take difficult decisions, such as to end detention, they leave the Government in a difficult position and do nor support us.

Mr. Neave

I thought that I had made it clear quite generously that I realised that the Secretary of State felt strongly about this matter, and I hoped he realised that there were others on this side of the House who felt equally strongly about the ending of detention. Perhaps we should leave the matter there. The Minister of State might think it better not to continue on this theme.

Mr. Orme

We have had our exchanges and we shall leave the matter at that. I thought it right to put our point of view on the record as hard as the hon. Gentleman has put his.

I do not think that there will be a vote against this Order, which will be unique. But the debate has been contentious. The hon. Member for Abingdon raised the subject of charges against members of proscribed organisations. There have been 291 charges since August 1973, when the Emergency Provisions Act came into force—50 for membership alone and 241 in conjunction with some other charge—while 57 prosecutions were instituted during the eight months from 31st March to 31st October 1975.

Linked with this is in some ways the case of Seamus Twomey, to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred again. I thought that my right hon. Friend had made it clear that when he stopped signing interim custody orders the power of the Army to arrest in that regard was removed. What was not removed was the action of the police in relation to any offence that they considered had been committed by any person in Northern Ireland.

If the Army were to arrest such a person, he would be handed over to the RUC. No instructions were issued by the Government. The security forces were free to operate. The myth perpetrated in Northern Ireland, not least by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, does no service to the security forces. The hon. Member may think that he is attacking my right hon. Friend, but he is attacking the security forces—the RUC and the Army.

Mr. John Carson (Belfast, North)

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State has made it clear to the House that he preferred to put responsibility for law and order more and more on the RUC? Would not he also agree that many areas, especially where Twomey was reported to have been seen in the company of the British Army, are non-go areas for the RUC?

Mr. Orme

The House well understands that the hon. Gentleman is talking about difficult areas for policing. This is one of the problems we are trying to overcome. We are trying to get the police into those areas. But no restriction was put on the Army. If anyone was operating outside the law, he would be arrested and handed over to the RUC.

The hon. Member for Abingdon mentioned the number of people released from detention who returned to violence. Of course the Government are concerned about this. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 5 per cent. This is an accurate figure at present. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, although that figure is regrettable, it is considerably lower than the figure for people released in Britain for what may be termed "normal" crime. The number of those who have returned to violence is very much higher than the 5 per cent. that we are talking about. We hope that the figure can be kept below that, but the present figures do not give the Government any concern as such.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) dealt particularly with the difficult situation in South Armagh. His logic was referred to earlier. However, his logic and the blinding reason he brings to bear on the situation does not measure up to the reality in South Armagh. He talked about an iron curtain, or an iron wall, or a division. One of the great problems in this area, which is not heavily populated, is that in certain key areas the population are hostile to the State and all it stands for. There is support there for certain activities. The security forces have to take that into account, apart from the terrain and the existence of the border.

Reference has been made to the support we are getting from the Garda vis-a-vis the RUC at the moment. Passports, barriers and the blowing up of roads will not resolve this problem. There has to be a political solution that defuses the situation. The terrorists must be defeated. That is why the Army is there, and that is what it will continue to do. However, we must move to a political solution.

On the argument about gangsterism and people not taking part in political activity, the right hon. Gentleman said that at base the crimes were political. I ask him to reflect on this, because it means that he underwrites political status and special category prisoners.

Mr. Powell

No, of course not.

Mr. Orme

It does. The right hon. Gentleman does not do that personally, but this is the interpretation that will be placed upon it in Northern Ireland when we come to face this difficult problem next year, when the Government will be grappling with this problem.

I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) about detention. We hope this will mean that the two communities can start to work together and that the feeling of co-operation will spread right across Northern Ireland, including among the police and all other aspects of society. We believe that there has been some positive movement and we ask the House to support the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved