HC Deb 12 March 1979 vol 964 cc52-4
Mr. Craig

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific, urgent and important matter, namely, the television programme yesterday known as ' Weekend World ', which, because of inaccuracies, distortions, biased opinions and uncorroborated and untested statements making serious allegations of dereliction of or failure in duty, in the total absence of balance as required by statute, must bring into disrepute the law in Northern Ireland and its enforcement by undermining the integrity and the authority of the judiciary, the police and the Army, as well as encouraging terrorist prisoners convicted of serious crimes to defy the prison authorities and giving aid and comfort to the terrorists of the Provisional IRA, an illegal organisation. Those are strong words, but I propose to stand by each and every one of them. I have in my possession an advance press release from London Weekend Television. It claims, amongst other things, that the programme was the result of six months' research into the whole operation of the law in the Province, and it comes only days before the expected publication of a report by the Bennett committee. The programme was badly researched and lacked the balance required by the statute. There appears to be a belief that if there are Protestants and Catholics on a programme it is balanced, regardless of the substance of what they say.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I want him to advance his case, but I shall be grateful if he will state his reasons why these things should be discussed in an emergency debate.

Mr. Craig

I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker. The programme cast serious aspersions not only on the judges of Northern Ireland but on the entire legal system. It cast aspersions on the police and the Army. In the difficult situation in Northern Ireland, that can have dreadful consequences. It is important that those misleading and erroneous statements should be corrected before there are sad consequences in our Province.

There were many disastrous allegations that were inadequately researched. The centrepiece was the so-called evidence given by a police surgeon, Dr. Robert Irwin, who manifestly failed to convince anyone that he was speaking with real authority. He alleged that between 150 and 160 cases that he personally examined involved brutality. But he did not indicate—nor was he asked to do so—that he had performed his statutory duty in reporting what he found. Indeed, we know from the Minister today that he did not report anything like 150 or 160 cases. We shall no doubt have more accurate information as the police investigation continues.

Dr. Irwin went on to say with remarkable carelessness, if nothing worse, that he had seen five cases of punctured eardrums. The advance press release states that ruptured eardrums are one of the most serious injuries and could not possibly be self-inflicted. Neither you nor I, Mr. Speaker, have medical qualifications, but many of us have had ear troubles and ruptured eardrums. Ruptured eardrums can be a self-inflicted injury. Anyone who has brought up children knows that there is a danger of their sticking things in their ears. Those who have served in the Royal Air Force and suffered ruptured eardrums will know that by holding the nostrils and blowing hard the rupture can recur. What the doctor was saying was manifestly not true.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Again I regret interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he must not make the speech that he would make if I had granted the application for an emergency debate. He should be making out a case for an emergency debate.

Mr. Craig

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I have been over-zealous in proving the vast scope of the programme and the harm that it has done, but I have a duty to stand by what I say. There are other examples of what I can only conclude to be a deliberate bias by the producers. People were asked to give their views on confessions. One of them said that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act has provided a legislative mandate to allow the police to obtain confessions at a standard lower than that in Britain. A natural effect of that is that they will apply extra pressure to obtain a confession. I gave a filmed interview for the programme on the law as I saw it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House is getting restless. The right hon. Gentleman is answering yesterday's television interview, which is what he would do if we had an emergency debate. He must advance arguments about the serious consequences if we do not have such a debate, if I may put words into the right hon. Gentleman's mouth.

Mr. Craig

I bow to your guidance, Mr. Speaker. But my filmed interview was excluded and it was the only evidence contrary to the weight of that programme. That alone should show the lack of balance. The producers had notice of a different view on the law as to confessions and the allegations made about the deficiencies in a trial without a jury.

When one is dealing with the difficult and dangerous situation in Northern Ireland, it is highly irresponsible to cast aspersions on Her Majesty's judges because they are jaded and tired, on the police, and on the Army, and to do so only a matter of days before a judge reports on an investigation. The House should consider the serious consequences of yesterday's programme.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the serious allegations made in the television programme ' Weekend World ' which brings into disrepute the law in Northern Ireland. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and also to the exchanges in the House earlier this afternoon. I have no doubt about the importance of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to take account of several factors set out in Standing Order No. 9 and I am required to give no reasons for my decision. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.