Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

HC Deb 09 December 1982 vol 33 cc1057-83 9.31 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior)

I beg to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

I invite the House to renew the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I do so at a time when all are particularly aware of the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland and of the misery that it is capable of inflicting. The incident at Ballykelly was ruthless mass murder. It has been condemned by people from all parts of Northern Ireland and well beyond.

Hon. Members might find it convenient if I briefly said where matters stand following the bombing at Ballykelly. I am glad to say that since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made his statement on Tuesday afternoon, no more lives have been lost, although some people remain seriously ill. Thirty-nine people remain in hospital—25 of them members of the security forces, and 14 civilians. The Chief Constable has set up a team of some 40 detectives under a detective chief superintendent to investigate the incident, and I can assure hon. Members that no effort will be spared to identify and arrest the perpetrators. Our shock and our sympathy are none the less for the passage of two days, but the tasks now are to provide comfort for those who are grieving and the best possible care for the injured and to do everything possible to bring the guilty to justice. I know that all hon. Members will join me in giving our support to the people on whom those tasks primarily lie.

Despite our strong feelings about this outrage and other terrorist incidents, the question of the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act is a serious one to be addressed carefully, as it is every six months. Hon. Members will be in no doubt about the strength of feeling in the Province, and in Great Britain, about the activities of terrorists. The results of those activities are plain for all to see. No one who has witnessed the consequences of terrorist action—as I did earlier this week—can forget them. Terrorism shows contempt for everybody. It has affected both Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland alike, and is felt within communities as well as between them. It offers nothing but death and destruction. It is vital that unremitting pressure be maintained on terrorists of every kind. I believe that Parliament should pay the closest attention to the needs of the Province, and to the requirements of an effective security policy there, of which this act is still an essential facet.

The challenge of the terrorist is first and foremost to the rule of law, to which we are unshakeably committed. The law must be applied impartially and fairly in Northern Ireland, as in every other part of the United Kingdom. No one understands what this implies better than the Chief Constable and the GOC. Terrorist outrages are crimes. However, clearly, terrorism is a complex phenomenon. If there were measures that could bring terrorism instantly to an end, I would take them—as Governments and Secretaries of State before me would have done. There are no straightforward panaceas, although it is wholly understandable that people should look for a short cut. We must seek to create the conditions for a long-lasting end to violence in the Province. A temporary hiatus created by blanket security measures that are indiscriminate, and thus ultimately counter-productive, would do no good. We must not allow ourselves to be goaded into what the terrorist wishes to provoke of us. To be successful, security policy must have the support of the community as a whole, because the first weapon against terrorism lies in the co-operation of the public and in the provision of evidence which can secure convictions before the courts.

We have also to face the fact that terrorism feeds on divisions in the community. For these divisions to be healed, political movement and economic development are needed, but equally needed is constructive, evenhanded and sensitive maintenance of the law. I have no doubt that we can be deeply proud of the security forces in this regard. We owe them a great debt for their unremitting, patient and skilled work on many fronts. I know that the House will join me in paying tribute to the example of courage and sacrifice which they set, and to the unswerving devotion to the law and to duty which they display.

I want again to place on record our abiding sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who have died or who have been wounded in the performance of their duty. I am thinking here not only of what faces the regular Army, the UDR, the RUC and their reserves while they are on duty, but also the shadow cast over them while off duty. This week's outrage at Ballykelly is another—particularly horrific—example of an attack on members of the security forces off duty. We must not forget the number and quality of men and women from Northern Ireland and from Great Britain who have devoted themselves to the community's cause in Northern Ireland, particularly those volunteers who go about their ordinary jobs and are in some danger the whole time from terrorist attack.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

As my right hon. Friend rightly says, and as I think we all accept in this House, there is no panacea whatever in the fight against terrorism, but is it not just possible that the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism over an experimental short period might be shown to have some effect on the perpetrators of these devilish crimes, because so far nothing seems to be able to stop them?

Mr. Prior

I do not think so. In any case, I do not believe that the legislation would get through this House. I do not think so, because men who are prepared to fast themselves to death are unlikely to be deterred from committing capital crimes by the thought of capital punishment. I am faced with this problem, and many people in Northern Ireland put this problem to me. In my opinion, that proposal would have a disastrous effect. It would lead to the demonstrations and problems which always start the process of violence all over again. There would be a spiralling effect. It would be 10 times worse than the funerals of the hunger strikers last year and all that that meant in terms of public order and getting away from the normality which, to a great extent, is the normal daily routine in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

Although I am in favour of the death penalty, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would not be appropriate by itself. However, surely it must be clear by now that a great many perpetrators of these crimes are guilty of treason. Is it not time that we considered implementing the law of treason because that carries the death penalty—it is merely part of the raison d'etre of that crime? It does seem clear that many such people are guilty of treason and that it could be established. This is an area which I would invite my right hon. Friend to investigate with more care, to see whether in the present circumstances we have reached the position where we should introduce this penalty for those who perpetrate clear acts of treason against Her Majesty.

Mr. Prior

My hon. and learned Friend could be right. I understand that treason is still subject to the death penalty. Yet having told me that he is not in favour of the death penalty for the reasons that I have given, he now invites me to seek convictions for treason which would have that effect. That would not get us anywhere at all.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Is it not obvious to all hon. Members that if the death penalty were applied to a terrorist from either side his own side would immediately reciprocate by killing somebody? If it is not, it is a sad reflection on the stage that we are now at. That is the harsh reality that we must face. Both sides can do that. Therefore, it would merely deepen and intensify the terrible problem that confronts us. The death penalty might give satisfaction to some people, but that is all that it would do.

Mr. Prior

The death penalty would not have the desired effect, although one must understand the strong emotions that it arouses among the people of Northern Ireland who have been affected so long by terrorist activity. I do not believe that it would solve the problem in any way. It would make the problem more difficult. Without wishing to dismiss in a cavalier manner what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, I shall write to him on this point.

The prevailing security position is a further factor against which we must regularly consider the need for this legislation. This week's incident, taken with recent intersectarian murders and attacks on the security forces, means that killings this year are sadly higher than in any comparable period in 1978 and 1980, although the number still remains below that for 1979 and 1981.

The number of other incidents is also lower this year than last. In the period up to the end of November this year, there were 361 shooting incidents in the Province and 201 bomb explosions. That compares with 784 shootings and 382 explosions in the same period last year. Physical injuries have been 506 compared with 1,244 last year.

There is also the other side—the fruits of the efforts of the security forces. To the end of October 1981, 450 were convicted of scheduled offences on indictment. In the same period this year there have been 617 such convictions.

I do not point to those figures of violence with even the slightest degree of complacency. How could anybody be complacent in such a week as this? Nor can there be a level at which violence somehow becomes acceptable or tolerable. For all of us one death or maiming is one too many. However, we do no justice to the fortitude of the people in Northern Ireland by imagining that the overall position is much worse than it is, any more than we would be deluding ourselves about the character of the terrorist and of his continuing activities.

None of the achievements of the security forces is without financial cost. Indeed, I have recently secured resources to provide for an increase of 800 in the strength of the RUC and the full-time reserve. It has also been possible to budget for an increase of 336 civilians in supporting jobs. I regard this as evidence of the firmest possible commitment to provide the chief constable with the resources he needs to do his job.

I must tell the House that I do not believe that the situation in Northern Ireland is such that it could be said that the emergency measures of this Act are no longer required. Indeed, for the present, I have again to tell the House that the security situation does not allow me to recommend that any elements of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act should be allowed to lapse; and hon. Members will know that when we are renewing the Act the question of amendment cannot arise.

It may be helpful to hon. Members if I briefly outline one or two of the provisions. The three most significant elements of the legislation have been the introduction of non-jury courts to try terrorist cases; the powers of arrest and detention of suspected terrorists which are conferred on the security forces; and the proscription of organisations involved in terrorism.

I shall go into a little detail, because I know that there are Opposition Members who think that these powers should be withdrawn, and I want to explain why I believe that we must keep them. The introduction of non-jury courts reflects the view of Lord Diplock that it was not possible to be sure that jurors could be free from the influences of intimidation or the fear of it. Sadly, that is still the situation, but whereas because of the risk of intimidation the courts continue to need to try terrorists in the absence of juries for "scheduled" offences, the central principles of justice are maintained. The onus remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and witnesses may be called and cross-examined. Defendants have a right to legal aid, to take legal advice and to be represented by a lawyer, and there are safeguards in the operation of Diplock courts, especially the unfettered right of appeal against conviction or sentence.

The legislation provides powers to proscribe organisations concerned in terrorism. It also makes it an offence to belong to such an organisation, or to solicit support for or to recruit for one. But no bona fide political organisation is or can be proscribed. It is not an offence to hold a political belief, whatever it is, nor is it an offence to express that belief provided that expression will not itself cause a breach of the peace. But if organisations openly declare their terrorist aims or demonstrate that the sole purpose of their existence is terrorist violence, those belonging to these organisations must expect to be punished.

There has been much comment and justified criticism in the past few days about the invitation to two members of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland to visit London. The House well knows the Government's views about this, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has signed orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act excluding Gerald Adams, Daniel Morrison and Martin McGuinness. The decision was his, following an application from the police. But there has been a good deal of misunderstanding and I should like to set the position clear. These people were not excluded because they were members of Sinn Fein or because of the views that they hold. Nor were they excluded because of the strength of public feeling which has been expressed in the past few days. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is quite clear. Persons may be excluded either from the United Kingdom as a whole, if they are not United Kingdom citizens, or from Great Britain if their primary affiliations are with Northern Ireland, or from Northern Ireland if their primary affiliations lie elsewhere, if there is evidence that they have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. My right hon. Friend was supplied with such information, and he acted upon it and I agree that he was perfectly right to do so.

It has also been argued that the logic of the decision is that these people should be prevented from circulating in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) was making that point last night.

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)

rose—

Mr. Prior

That is a spurious argument. The distinction between the nature of the information that would satisfy the requirements of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the evidence of the commission of criminal offences that would be required were people to be arrested and prosecuted, is quite clear. The police will, without hesitation, move against those on whom it has evidence that will stand up in court. Unless and until they have such evidence, there can be no argument that exclusion from Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should lead to arrest on return to Northern Ireland. That has been the position since the provisions were first established in 1974.

Mr. Harold McCusker (Armagh)

The Secretary of State's action last night was illogical as a means of defending the citizens of Northern Ireland from those people. Would it be logical if we had another form of exclusion so that those men could be expelled to West Belfast, the Bogside or the part of Northern Ireland from which they come? The law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland, who suffer from the same threat as is posed to the citizens of London, would be safeguarded at least to the extent that we can put them back in the corner where they belong where, hopefully, they cannot wreak depredations on the rest of us.

Mr. Prior

I do not believe that one could do that; nor does the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) believe it.

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

My views are fairly well known. Would the Secretary of State explain the hurry for the exclusion orders? I cannot see why the orders were put through at 7.45 pm yesterday evening. If there had been some consultation, one could have helped him. I still believe that the visit would never have taken place. If the exclusion orders had been postponed for a couple of days or even for 24 hours, there would have been no need for them.

The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that those two or three gentlemen were praying that the Government would do what they have done. I speak only in political terms. I do not know the security aspects of the matter and, if I did, my view might be a little different. Why the hurry, last night, when many other things were happening?

Mr. Prior

I am not certain that I can answer that, as it is the business of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, on the information that he has available, to advise the Home Secretary whether the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should be implemented. Once my right hon. Friend has been given that advice, it is up to him to act upon it. My right hon. Friend would be wrong if he did not act speedily on that information. That is the reason why he acted in the way that he did at that time.

Nearly all of us in the House deeply and bitterly regret the invitation that was given. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has made no bones about that. I believe that those people would have come and that they wished to come. That would have caused much agonising by many people, but that is beside the point. The Commissioner gave his advice and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted upon it.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St Pancras, North)

The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there has been a large increase in interest following the incidents this week, in the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Many of those who have a new-found interest in the Act will not agree that the right hon. Gentleman answered the illogicalities mentioned by the hon. Member for Armagh. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he had seen the evidence with which the Home Secretary was provided before he made the exclusion order. In view of the background to the affair, is the Secretary of State prepared to show that evidence to the House, or at least to tell the House what evidence he saw to justify the use of this extraordinary Act?

Mr. Prior

I have not seen the evidence. It is not my responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am certain that my right hon. Friend would not be prepared to divulge the information to the House and it would be wrong for him to do so. My right hon. Friend's decision was correct. It was a difficult decision to make, but he could have made no other in the circumstances.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said that it was impossible to expel those people to West Belfast or to the Bogside, but it is possible to expel them to the Irish Republic because they are holders of Irish Republic passports. Why does not the Secretary of State exclude them from Northern Ireland and send them to the Irish Republic?

Mr. Prior

They are domiciled in Northern Ireland. That is their place of residence. It is one matter to exclude people from another country but it is quite different to expel them from the country in which they are domiciled. That is what the Act says. If my answer is incorrect, I shall write to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I am sure that it is correct.

Sir Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)

Although I accept that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted completely within the legislation, are we not in danger of getting into the embarrassing and awkward position that fairly elected representatives of my right hon. Friend's Assembly are banned from coming to this part of the United Kingdom but are allowed to wander freely in the part of the United Kingdom in which they are domiciled? Are we making the Province a ghetto for criminals who can wander about there as much as they wish but who cannot come here?

Mr. Prior

First, it is not my Assembly and, secondly, the principle of the Act is not changed by the fact that those people or others were elected to an Assembly. They are domiciled in Northern Ireland and they have a right to be there. They are not criminals. If they were criminals in the sense that charges could be brought against them, it would be the duty of the police to bring charges against them and I am sure that they would.

The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act gives the Government and the security forces the essential powers needed to act against terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, it is perfectly correct that, in dealing with those exceptional powers, we should from time to time check with the greatest possible care whether they need changes. The House will recall that some months ago I announced my intention to establish an independent review of the emergency provisions Act. Some of the measures are similar, although not identical, to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 which, unlike the Act before us, applies to the entire United Kingdom. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is currently being reviewed by Lord Jellicoe, who is likely to complete his work early next year. That will clear the way for the task of reviewing the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, as I told the House last summer.

There is no doubt that the task will be onerous. It will involve the holding of hearings in Northern Ireland and the collection and analysis of evidence from everyone with an interest in the operation of the Act. I expect the review to take at least six months and I do not wish it to be prolonged. It is important that the review should be conducted by a person of high ability and standing. The Act is complex and the issues that it raises are of fundamental importance. I hope to be able to announce the name of the person to conduct the review before long.

In the meantime, I must ask the House to agree that the evidence of continued terrorist activity tragically speaks for itself. The need to counter terrorism effectively remains, and our security forces should be enabled to continue their task. Thus, the draft order should be approved.

10 pm

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

I do not know who said a week is a long time in politics. Anyone who has anything to do with Northern Ireland affairs will know after this week that that was an understatement.

I join the Secretary for State in his tribute to the security forces and in his expression of sympathy for all those who have suffered from the violence fostered by the terrorists in Northern Ireland not only in the latest outrage but in all the other outrages that have taken place. I should also like to thank him for the further information he gave about Ballykelly. I am sure that we can discuss some of the security measures at other times.

The Secretary of State was questioned about the death penalty. On a previous occasion when the House discussed the issue, I gave my views on the effect the death penalty would have on terrorism. I agreed entirely with what the Secretary of State said in answer to his hon. Friends.

The terrible history of Ireland is a perfect example of the effects of the death penalty. When one considers the summary executions which have taken place over the years, if the death penalty was ever going to help to bring peace to any nation, Ireland should be the Valhalla of this world. We all know that it is not.

As a young man I served in Palestine towards the end of the Mandate. I know full well the stresses and strains that were placed on the ordinary soldier in the street when executions were beginning or about to take place in prisons in Palestine at that time. It was confirmed to me later when I spoke to Mr. Begin, now the Prime Minister of Israel, who told me that executions only served to increase the morale and the intentions of the terrorists to go even further. His offhand reply to me as he walked away—he was not the Prime Minister at that time—was, "Anyway, you were not sentencing our people to death. You were sentencing your own people to death". That is what took place. When terrorists were executed, British soldiers suffered as a consequence.

I agree with the Secretary of State that the death penalty would not deter terrorists in Northern Ireland. It would be a spur to recruitment. We do not need the death penalty in Northern Ireland. Other things are required in Northern Ireland. The terrible history of Ireland is its own recommendation that the death penalties and summary executions do not bring peace. They have brought exactly the opposite to Ireland.

Information coming to me from the Army and the families of serving soldiers in Northern Ireland tells me that they feel forgotten, especially this year. It is incumbent upon the House to pay tribute not only to our forces in Northern Ireland but to all the security forces and to everyone in Northern Ireland for the day-to-day grind. It is a day-to-day grind. There is nothing glamorous about serving in Northern Ireland. It is a hard grind. We should be thankful that we have the lads and lassies who are willing to go to Northern Ireland at our behest. We should be careful about how we treat them and how we treat their families afterwards. We cannot treat one section of the British Army, no matter how gallantly it served, differently from any other section of the British Army.

The debate has disappointed me. Much time has passed since the introduction of the emergency provisions and many renewal debates have taken place. I have taken part in most of them. Only section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has not been continued, but it still remains on the Statute Book. Even after this week—and more importantly this week—it is right that we should take a close look at the legislation.

It is more important now than at any other time closely to examine the Act to ensure that it is doing the job that it is supposed to be doing. The circumstances are changing. Since the Act was considered by Lord Gardiner, the emphasis of terrorism in Northern Ireland and that of the court procedures have changed. We should not treat these renewal debates as formalities. They provide a genuine opportunity to scrutinise the operation of the Act.

I have said everything that I can say about the Act. Everything is well set out in previous debates. Sadly, the emergency provisions are still necessary. Recognition of that fact should not blind us to the real concern that is felt in Britain and Northern Ireland that what began as emergency measures are becoming part of the normal judicial procedure in Northern Ireland. A study of the Act that was carried out last year showed that 90 per cent. of arrests under the emergency legislation never reached the courts and that only 60 per cent. of cases appearing before the Diplock courts are of a political or terrorist nature.

The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the National Council for Civil Liberties have expressed continued concern about the arrest and interrogation procedures, the operation of the Diplock courts and the list of scheduled offences. They are unhappy about a procedure that seems to undermine the principle that a person should be presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty.

In his report Lord Gardiner stated that the Emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration … they can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community, and they do not provide lasting solutions. One can agree with that.

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

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman shares the reassurance that I find in the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights of 1979–80, which expresses relief at the progress that has been made on the problem of remand. It observes that it has not found any evidence to suggest the previous existence of and the subsequent ending of an Executive practice of detention". In its most recent report it has not referred to that at all. Progress is being made.

Mr. Concannon

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is stressing what I said earlier. Clearly, circumstances are changing all the time. This is why we should consider every six months whether the Act is doing what it was intended to do originally.

It is high time that the emergency legislation was reviewed. During the last renewal debate in June, the Secretary of State, in answer to me, said: I expect to set up the review in September or October."—[Official Report, 30 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 944.] When the Under-Secretary of State replied to the debate, he said that I would not be disappointed by the terms of reference. I am disappointed because I still do not know the terms of reference. What has happened? Why has there been slippage from September-October? The delay makes my job especially difficult. In June I was promised an inquiry for which we had been asking for some while. I am sure that the House will accept on reflection that such an inquiry is necessary into the operation of the legislation that we are now asked to renew. I welcomed the announcement of the inquiry, for which we had been pressing for quite a long time.

The Labour Party's policy document contains the following sentence: there is in our view, a strong case for a fundamental review of the operation of the Act with a view to changing some of its operations and to provide for its ultimate replacement. We recommend that a review of the Act be given a high priority. That represents the policy that has been approved at the previous two Labour Party conferences. The voting has been virtually unanimous. When the Secretary of State announced his promise of a review, we welcomed it. However, we must know why the slippage has occurred, and I must press the Minister to offer the House an explanation when he replies to the debate. I trust that he will not disappoint me by failing to tell me what the terms of reference will be. What is the Government's position on emergency legislation? I was glad to be informed that Lord Jellicoe has not yet reported on the PTA. Some of my colleagues have received evidence concerning this emergency legislation. There is a danger that if this legislation remains on the statute book for very long its provisions will creep into other legislation. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is now in Committee. It is a matter of concern that the emergency and PTA legislation is now creeping into our domestic legislation.

I warn the Secretary of State that we must have some evidence of action pretty soon about the review. As there is to be another review in six month, I do not want to be in the position once more of asking the right hon. Gentleman when the review will commence. What action he takes might colour the advice that I shall give my hon. Friends about the action we should take against the renewal order as it is presently drafted. I give fair warning to the Secretary of State on this matter. I shall be under continual pressure with regard to the procedures that we adopt.

Mr. McCusker

The right hon. Gentleman has spent much time expressing concern about how the legislation infringes individual liberty on our fellow citizens and how it eats into basic human rights. I have listened to hon. Members on other occasions when we have debated this topic. I have much sympathy with what they have said. I wait for the right hon. Gentleman to make one suggestion which ensures that in six months some of my constituents, who might otherwise be dead might survive until then. Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest something which might save people's lives in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Concannon

That is a fair point. If more people from this House visited Northern Ireland and saw how the hon. Gentleman's constituents had to live, they would be more aware of the difficulties. It would awaken them to reality as to what life in Northern Ireland is like instead of having one-slogan solutions to the problem of Ireland I am talking about civil liberties as well. Bearing in mind the kind of life that I lead, I have to curb my civil liberties, as do a lot of other people. This is why the Labour Party working group went to great lengths to find out from the people of Northern Ireland what the problems were. That is the reason for our policy document. To the surprise of many people, one of the findings was that the emergency provisions were still necessary. It is fair to say that there are certain areas of concern that we must look at.

One of the changes in Northern Ireland concerns intimidation. The Gardiner report recorded 482 instances between 1 January 1972 and 31 August 1974 in which civilian witnesses were either too afraid to make any statement at all or, having made a statement, refused in any circumstances to give evidence in court. In a press notice issued before the last renewal debate, the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights concluded: In the last two or three years there have been times when there is little doubt that the pressures which would have been exerted on a lay jury could have poisoned and subverted the operation of the legal process. Regrettably, the time for the return of the jury in its traditional role has not yet come. What has occurred between the last debate and this debate has backed up what the Secretary of State has said about intimidation.

The intimidation of certain people and their families has become more vile and vicious. In addition, the use of supergrasses as well as intimidation is now rife. Nothing is more demoralising for the legal system in Northern Ireland and for the RUC than to have someone who can give evidence that will put these criminals where they belong, only to find that when the time comes, as a result of intimidation, the witness must pull out thereby allowing the criminals to go free. Certain actions have been circumvented by the use of the small print in the Act, and that is bad for the image of law in Northern Ireland.

Although there are many areas of concern, I shall not rehearse them again, because I did so in my last two speeches. My comments can be read in Hansard of 30 June 1982, columns 947 and 948. I do not intend to spell them out tonight, but they reflect our concern about the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

The Diplock court system was looked at closely by our working group, and its report stated: In respect of the Diplock Courts, we do not see any prospect of a return to ordinary trial by jury, so long as paramilitary and terrorist activity continues on the present scale, and witnesses and jury members are subjected to intimidation and violence. It added: There is, however, some support for a system of three judges, similar to that in the Republic of Ireland, to replace the single judge courts. We believe this should be given serious consideration". For goodness sake, let us have another look at this. We want to make sure that the Act is relevant to the situation now, not to 1978 when it was introduced. Things have changed, and the Act ought to be amended in the way that I have suggested. All my suggestions are on the record, and I shall not repeat them now.

The criminalisation policy is the right one to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, as the paramilitary opposition to it shows. However, if it is to work, it is vital that the normal legal processes should be subverted no more than is absolutely necessary.

I have just mentioned the increasing reliance on so-called supergrasses. I hope that we shall be told about the rumours of unconditional immunities for supergrasses. This is all part of the process of law in Northern Ireland, and we must do what we can to protect it.

Another procedure used in Northern Ireland is the invocation by the DPP of voluntary bills of indictment to bypass the need for committal proceedings. To people outside, it looks as if we are using the law in a way that we would not use it elsewhere. That is also a cause of concern.

I accept the need for extraordinary legal measures in Northern Ireland, but they should not become entrenched. We must be constantly alert to the dangers and question not only the extent to which such measures are needed but the form that they should take. It is futile to examine the security problem in isolation. It must be considered in a wider context, as it will be impossible to make any significant advance on the security front while political conditions remain so inherently unstable. Whoever is confirmed as Taoiseach next week, we should be prepared to discuss the suggestions that have been made with him. We should discuss the all-Ireland police force, the courts and other matters, whether they be political, economic or social. The achievement of peace in Northern Ireland concerns not only the people of Northern Ireland but the people of Great Britain and the Irish Republic.

I was astounded when I read a Minister's speech recently in which he said that the border is now a "non-question". To me and my colleagues it is far from being a "non-question". Nevertheless, we should be moving towards circumstances in which it becomes a "non-question". The Opposition believe that a commitment to a united Ireland on the basis of consent will bring that prospect closer. It is a psychological battle that we must wage. It will not be easy to win it, but we must win if we are to bring peace and hope to Northern Ireland in the long-term. We should not be deterred from pursuing a political solution, nor should we allow a Unionist or an IRA veto.

There is much talk about the guarantee. There are 56 million people in Britain who are the guarantors of that guarantee. I do not know how long those guarantors will go along with what is happening now. My understanding of the British people is that they do not blame just one side. They blame the entrenched positions of both sides of the argument.

The Opposition will not divide the House on the order. Nevertheless, I know that some of my hon. Friends have consistently voted against the renewal order. I do not expect them to act differently tonight. Indeed, I should be a little disappointed if they did not carry on as they have in the past.

The Opposition believe that, unfortunate though the emergency provisions are, they are still necessary. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State must exert himself and get on with the review so that there is not a recurrence of tonight's negative debate. Although the Opposition do not mean that, if I do not receive some assurances or see some action between now and the next renewal debate, my advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain as it is tonight.

10.22 pm

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

It was a little flippant of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) to say that he might be disappointed if some of his Friends did not vote against the order. It is a serious subject. Nevertheless, I strongly agreed with him when he paid tribute to our soldiers in Northern Ireland.

Those who died at Ballykelly were unarmed and off duty. They were not on operations. In the past few months there has been a change in Northern Ireland in that the Regular Army has, to a cosiderable extent, withdrawn to its proper role in a disturbed Province. It has acted in support of the civil power and in the defence of the land frontier of the United Kingdom.

The gallant men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as distinct from the Regular Army, are much more in the front line and the courage of the part-time soldier on a lonely farm near the border is beyond measure. The Army in support—that has always been the legal position. Sometimes, however, that has been the position more in law and theory than, as today, in actuality.

The primacy of the police is now a fact. Re-armed, re-equipped and rejuvenated, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is clearing up many difficult cases with remarkable speed and efficiency. It is non-sectarian, not merely in the sense that it is made up of Catholics and Protestants —the previous Chief Constable but one was a Roman Catholic and I understand that the present No. 2 is a Roman Catholic—but in the sense that it is trusted by everyone of good will to do its dangerous duty impartially. One thinks of recent successes against a murderous and sadistic mafia, who debased the title of Loyalist and besmirched the flag that they brandished.

Much credit is due to the co-operative relations achieved between the RUC and the Garda Siochana. In connection with the South, I am sure that we shall all watch with great interest certain judicial processes which may lead to the solution of the important problem of extradition.

The great respect that I have, as I am sure everyone has, for Sir Kenneth Newman—a brilliant Chief Constable of the RUC and now Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis— leads me to endorse his advice to the Home Secretary to issue exclusion orders against the two members of the Provisional Sinn Fein whom Mr. Livingstone, in his admitted ignorance, invited to visit what was once the greatest local authority in the world, although my personal feeling was that the visitors should have been left to the contempt of Londoners.

The exclusion orders have disclosed—not for the first time, as has already been mentioned—an anomaly and a seeming injustice in the application of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, in that men who have the freedom of the streets of Belfast are refused the freedom of the streets of London. But the power exercised under that Act is an arbitrary power, necessitated by the difficulty of convicting terrorists, especially arch terrorists, when Crown witnesses are intimidated and murdered. That arbitrary power expresses the principle, Salus populi suprema est lex".

Whenever we debate the renewal of that Act or of the provisions before us today, I am not alone in expressing my reluctance and distaste. Nevertheless, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act seems to me no more or less moral or defensible than the power of detention that still residually exists in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I know the arguments. I believe that my right hon. Friend is against any renewal of detention, and I should be hesitant to recommend it except as part of a policy agreed with the Republic. If he is not ready to do that, however, he must have an open mind to the many suggestions put forward—for example, those put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies)—and perhaps look again at the Gardiner proposals for the creation of an offence of terrorism, which might make it easier properly to convict terrorists in the courts.

I do not ask for answers today, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not foreclose options in security matters as he foreclosed constitutional options more acceptable to many of his own party when the Assembly was introduced by the guillotined Northern Ireland Act 1982.

Terrorism, like war, is politics pursued by other means. It is political propaganda pursued by other means. There is never any shortage in our debates of those who suggest that the solution to the troubles is political rather than military. There are two political attitudes on the two sides of the House, which seem to me to encourage the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army to continue their dreadful work. There is, first, the nonsensical, self-contradictory and dangerous aim of the official Opposition to bring about a united Ireland with consent.

There is nothing in the voting patterns of either community to suggest that consent to a breach with Great Britain would be forthcoming. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that no doubt a Labour Government, if there were ever to be one, would try to erode the will for union with Great Britain. The Minister used the words "voluntary compulsion".

I ask the right hon. Member for Mansfield whose service to Northern Ireland we all respect, whether he should re-consider his party's policy or his own position, as a number of us would ask the Secretary of State and the Cabinet to think again about a policy which we believe feeds Unionist fears and separatist hopes, and thus emboldens terrorists to persevere.

10.30 pm

Mr. Tony Benn (Bristol, South-East)

This is the first time that I have participated in a debate on Ireland, though I had responsibilities for Northern Ireland as a Minister for many years. My reason for participating in the debate is that the renewal of the emergency provisions this week comes against a background of two events—first, the horrific killings at Ballykelly which have aroused the horror of people all over the country and the world; and second, the use of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisons) Act 1976 to prevent talks from taking place, thus implying that even those who are elected will find no solution in discussion when elected, and will suggest to others that violence is a course of action that offers better results.

Like everyone else in the House, I detest the use of violence and want to see it end, but tonight we are being asked to renew the most draconian powers. Everyone recognises that the powers go far beyond what anyone in this country would accept as being within the range of normal democratic procedures.

The problem does not lie in the detail of the legislation, which the Secretary of State will examine, but in the policy that has failed. We are being asked to continue a policy that has failed. The critics of the policy do not represent the major threat to the Government Front Bench, but the fact that the policy that has been pursued by successive Governments does not work. That cannot be dealt with by rhetoric directed at those who put a contrary view; it can by corrected only by looking at the real position.

Like a growing number of British people, I believe, and have done all my life, that the root cause lies in partition, because partition denied Ireland the self-determination for which the Irish people voted at the end of the first world war. That is why the arguments about the democratic route are not credible in Ireland, because in the North many feel that it was a British Parliament that cheated them of their right to self-determination and that that partition has failed.

I was a member of the Cabinet in 1969 which, after some heart searching, sent the troops into Northern Ireland, in part, it was argued, to protect the Catholic minority from what was happening as a result of the activities of the B Specials and others. That policy failed, too. The troops cannot solve the problem because their prime purpose is to enforce partition and partition is the problem.

When the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that we should use the Treason Acts, which carry the death penalty and the Secretary of State made his position clear, he was putting his finger upon the central item of policy—that to be in favour of a united Ireland is treason.

The other day the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) introduced me to Mr. Ian Smith who was wandering about the House. For 15 years, with the support of the Conservative Party, that traitor ran the colony of Rhodesia. Now, back in the country of Zimbabwe, he faces problems less severe than he imposed on Mr. Mugabe. Once the argument of treason is used, the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the core of the matter. It is partition that he wishes to enforce by the Treason Acts and nothing to do with temporary emergency provisions.

Mr. Prior

The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. If he argues that believing in a united Ireland is treason, it is palpably not treason. Anyone is free to believe what he or she wants to believe. What people are not entitled to do is to work for those beliefs by means of violence and terrorism.

Mr. Benn

Neither are they allowed to come to London to argue their case peacefully. The Cabinet destroyed their own argument against violence by preventing discussion. I have listened to many right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friends, who have had responsibility for Northern Ireland. For a time, I tried to do my best for Harland and Wolff, Shorts and various other enterprises. I have concluded, like many people, that there is no policy that hon. Members can decide in this House for Northern Ireland. The problem is that we should not be there at all. [Interruption.] I am talking about Britain. I am referring to the policy of the Labour Party at the time of partition. A whole series of conferences culminated in one at Central Hall, Westminster, that came out overwhelmingly against partition. I am referring to the old Labour Party that we need to remember perhaps on this occasion.

The problem is that we can discuss every detail of detention and the Diplock courts, but we do not discuss the basic question. If anyone tries to discuss the basic question, we are told that it could lead to bloodshed. The tragedy is that the bloodshed goes on when we do not discuss the basic question. I have no knowledge, other than what I have read in the newspapers, of the invitation issued by Mr. Livingstone to two members of the new Assembly to come to London. There was a greater furore over the invitation than has occurred over many of the incidents of bloodshed in recent years. I ask myself, "Why?".

Is it because Mr. Livingstone believes in violence? Not at all. Quite the reverse. Time and again, he has made it clear that he is opposed to violence. I shall come to the offence that he is really guilty of in a moment. He does not believe in violence. Is it that the Sinn Feiners are unrepresentative? No, for they have just been elected under legislation established by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman established the legislation. The candidates were elected. No one can argue that, in their own constituencies, they are not as legitimate as any of us are in our own.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete this passage. I do not wish to occupy too much time. Is it that we can never talk to terrorists? My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) mentioned Mr. Begin. I was in Palestine at the end of the war. I remember that. It is now the official policy of this Government that there should be talks with the PLO. I have been present in this Chamber when Hastings Banda whom I first met as a doctor in Brixton—he used to come to meetings after his surgery carrying his Gladstone bag—was put in gaol by a Tory Government for his alleged part in a "Forest plot". Everyone remembers Jomo Kenyatta. The Government published a Blue Book on Mau-Mau. The annex contained the actual words of the Mau-Mau oath, considered so obscene that only hon. Members could obtain it from the Library. He was a terrorist. So was Mugabe until Lord Soames recognised that he was one of the greatest statesmen of the African world. These arguments do not hold water.

Mr. Livingstone's offence is that he opposes partition. So do I. So do millions of others who want to be free of Britain's responsibilities in Northern Ireland. They do so for many reasons, one of which is that they fear and suspect—and they are right—that many of the techniques that have been developed in Northern Ireland will creep back and be used when our people are faced with the same level of unemployment that is the principal problem over there.

Mr. Proctor

Which hand of the Sinn Fein is he shaking—the one with the ballot box, or the one with the Armalite rifle?

Mr. Benn

I assume that anyone who met the Sinn Fein representatives would be doing exactly what the Home Secretary is supposed to have done when he invited some of them to London in the past. Does anyone believe that terrorism is other than a political definition? The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said terrorism is "politics carried on by other means", as war—and, if anyone thinks that terrorism excludes negotiations, no war would ever end.

The Labour policy that was mentioned is a great improvement on what has been done before, because bipartisanship is over. We are committed to reunification. We are beginning to erode that veto which is nothing more than a ticket that commands British troops to defend the old partition. However, we should be clear that Britain must withdraw from Northern Ireland. That is what many people feel. The only questions are: How? When? By which Government? Under what conditions?

We shall withdraw. There will be an amnesty. All international conflicts of this kind end with an amnesty. It is not an offence—nor is it a defence of terrorism—to say that it might be right to set a date on it, as we did in Palestine and India. There are precedents that the House would be ill-advised to forget. If we withdraw, we would release some constructive forces to plan for the future. The problems as I understand them, in Northern Ireland are not that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) disagrees with the Pope on matters of theology but that the grinding poverty which was mentioned tonight and unemployment pit one group against another. The Labour movement must play a greater part in the solution of those problems than the presentation of the problem as a sectarial dispute up to now has allowed us to believe.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

rose—

Mr. Benn

I do not want to detain the House, because there are other hon. Members who have much more claim to speak. I shall finish in a moment.

If there is a security crisis during the transfer, some other force, some international United Nations force, is better able to meet that problem than a British force which would be interpreted as being there, not to deal with civil disturbance but to enforce partition.

How can we start that process? We can tonight deny the Government the renewal of this order and force them to think again about these matters. Along with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall go into the Lobby and vote against the order for that reason.

10.43 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Along with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I walked behind three coffins in Ballykelly today. The speech that has just been made, and the speech of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), would bring no comfort to the people who mourned today. Rather, they would plunge them into deeper hopelessness and helplessness.

The House should come back to the grim facts of the situation in Northern Ireland. We should realise that we are dealing with people who are totally committed to a campaign of murder and degradation, and who rejoice in it.

I heard Daniel Morrison, one of the men who has been mentioned tonight, on the radio today. He was justifying that dastardly deed that was done in Ballykelly. He said that there was no difference between that and the acts of British troops in the Falkland Islands. That was his thesis. I stood in the wreckage of that inn, from which the bodies were pulled out. Gallant members from this side of the water who serve in the British Army, whose homes tonight are in the same dark shadow of anguish as thousands upon thousands of homes in Northern Ireland, surely realise that no politician has any right to try to justify what has happened in Northern Ireland.

I would go further. It may not be well received on Government Benches, but it needs to be said. The people of Northern Ireland find it strange to hear from Government Benches very strong condemnations of the reception of those two men by the chairman of the Greater London council, when they remember that one of those men was entertained by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That was not right. We said that at the time, and we continue to say it. But what do we find? It is revealed that the No. 2 man at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), had a secret meeting with both those men. He talked with them just before the terrible La Mon massacre.

Therefore, while the people of Northern Ireland realise the anguish of London people and their resentment, they feel that they—the Ulster people—are as entitled as the people of London to be rid of the presence of those men, who are just as guilty of murder as the people who are committing the dastardly deeds in Northern Ireland.

Let it be said to the House that not only do those people walk the streets of Belfast but they are received in the Parliament buildings and a Minister meets them there. How can the people of Northern Ireland be convinced that there is an even-handed way of dealing with terrorism when that goes on? Those are the facts of the situation that grieve the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley

No, I shall not give way. I promised to keep my speech to a certain time. Many hon. Members want to speak. The debate finishes at 11.30.

The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) told us that we were against discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those men set themselves up for election to an assembly in Northern Ireland. Did they say that they were prepared to attend that assembly and discuss their ideology with other elected representatives? They said: "No, we will not enter into any discussions."

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

So did the SDLP.

Rev. Ian Paisley

That is right. The SDLP did the same and was condemned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He knows the politics of Gerry Adams. No one has been stronger in his condemnation of such politics than the hon. Gentleman, as the House knows.

When those men say that they want discussions, it is only an excuse. They do not want discussions. They want to destroy, kill and take from the people of Northern Ireland their rights.

The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East told us that partition was the problem in Northern Ireland and that the people of Ireland resent the fact that the island is divided. Before hon. Members discuss Northern Ireland they should read some Irish history and find out what exactly did happen in Ireland. Ireland was partitioned and the elected representatives of Ireland in the Dail approved that partition. This House approved that partition and Stormont approved it. It was done by an international agreement, which was lodged at the League of Nations. So it did not happen in a corner. It was done by the elected representatives of the people of both parts of Ireland.

The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East says that we should get out of Ulster. Who does he mean should get out? Does he not realise that, if every member of the British Army were taken out of Northern Ireland tomorrow, Northern Ireland would not become a united Ireland by the will of its people?

The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that 50 million guarantors hold the guarantee. Let me tell him that it is a million guarantors who hold it. It is the majority of the people of Northern Ireland who will decide their future. The so-called remedies put forward in the House are ridiculous. To say that if there were an all-Ireland court and an all-Ireland police force and if everyone were to withdraw that would bring peace is a recipe not for peace but for absolute calamity. Every right-thinking person in Northern Ireland knows that—Roman Catholics and Protestants alike.

The catchphrase "We get out of Ireland" is exactly what Sinn Fein is saying. However, when it says that the British should go it means that every Unionist should go. That is exactly what de Valera said. He said that every person who believed in the union should either come into a united Ireland or leave. I do not believe in a united Ireland, as the House well knows. A million Protestants do not believe in a united Ireland. Many Roman Catholics do not believe in a united Ireland, as they showed by their votes in a recent election. It must be said in the House tonight that that is the guarantee. I think nothing of successive Governments telling me that they have given us a guarantee. The guarantee is the will and wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

This is not a matter of employment. It is not a matter of a run-down economy. If that is settled, it will not give the answer. There is a basic conviction in the hearts of people that they want to remain in the country in which they were born and retain the citizenship to which they are entitled.

We have in the House tonight a dark shadow of another massacre. I warn the House that it is only the beginning of many more if measures are not taken to deal with the matter.

Let us be realistic. Praise was given to the UDR tonight, and rightly so. Where were the local UDR men on the night of this atrocity? Were they doing security duty in the village that they knew, when they would have recognised the strange car and the strangers who came in to do that dastardly deed? No. Under Government policy they were shifted many miles away to the village of Kilrea. It is not Government policy to use the UDR in places where they know they can be effective. In a debate last night the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) dealt with that point.

We are not asking the Government to go outside the law. We are asking the Government to allow those who are in the police force and the Army to do the job that they are entitled to do and give protection to the people of Northern Ireland.

The saddest thing about this awful calamity was the statement made by the Secretary of State that nothing more could be done and that we shall just have to carry on with the same policies. If that is so, matters will get worse and worse. I do not know how the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was briefed in the Cabinet, but it certainly was not because of acts by B Specials or members of the RUC that the troops came to Northern Ireland: it was because law and order in the city of Londonderry broke down because of attacks made upon those who were responsible for law and order. That is why the troops were brought in.

The people of Northern Ireland have been patient. If England had had half the battering that we have had, there would be trouble on every hand. I once told the Prime Minister that if as many people had been killed in her constituency as have been killed in mine, or as have been killed in Armagh and South Tyrone, there would be uproar in the House.

What an uproar there is because two men are going to see the GLC. I am talking not about politicians, or so-called politicians who invite gunmen to discuss the future of Northern Ireland, but about the lives of our people. The people have a right to live. This House is dedicated to the rights of the individual, but there is one very precious right—the right to live. If the House uses its powers in the way that the Ulster people feel that they should be used—I am not asking anybody to step outside the law—it may bring some ray of hope to a darkened Province tonight. Some people will hope and pray that it is not from their homes that another coffin is carried, and that they will not have to share and mingle their tears with the thousands of those who have mingled their tears in the dark tragedy of the past 10 years.

10.56 pm

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry)

I am sorry that I was late for the debate. However, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has informed the House of the reason. I was carrying out one of the saddest duties that a Northern Ireland Member regularly carries out.

It does not give one any pleasure to listen to some of the things that have been said. It may give the Secretary of State even less pleasure to read his opening sentence on 30 June, when during a similar debate, he said: I believe that progress on the political front has an important contribution to make in diminishing the tensions in Northern Ireland on which the terrorists feed."—[Official Report, 30 June 1982; Vol. 7. c. 941.] One could make a good long speech on that first sentence alone, because of the inaccuracies contained within it. The tensions in Northern Ireland are largely caused by the terrorists, although they also feed on them. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about looking forward to progress on the political front, and I assumed that he was thinking about the election. But he has had that election. Tension has not been reduced. The number of murders has not fallen.

The Secretary of State gave us some figures, but only those for Northern Ireland. He forgot about the poor lads in the bandstand and about the guardsman going on duty. They were not included in the toll of IRA murders during the past few months. They should have been, because those people murder throughout the nation, and intend to do so for as long as possible.

All Government spokesmen harp on having to act within the law. Who has ever asked them to act outside the law? However, we have asked them to change the law. Year after year the Government behave as if they are dealing with a normal policing situation. They are not. We all know that that is so. In abnormal times of murder and violence, measures that might otherwise be considered abnormal can be justified and put into operation. I refer to measures far beyond those that we are discussing tonight.

Those who object to that statement do so on the ground that to take draconian measures will give Britain a bad image abroad. Is it not a far worse image of democracy that Britain cannot defend its people and keep them alive? Is it not a far worse image of this country, of which we are all so proud to belong and to live in, that the Government cannot defeat a fistful of murderers? That is the real issue and it is the measure of the failure of both Front Benches during the past 14 years.

The remarks of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) were covered adequately by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, but I shall comment briefly on some of them. He said that in 1969 the troops were sent in to protect the Roman Catholic population. Of course, they were sent there on a false premise and on false evidence. I shall tell a story to the House that I may have told before, but, like a good sermon, it is worth repeating. It was said that for many years before 1969 the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not patrol the Creggan estate or the Bogside. That is a lie. Members of the RUC patrolled there nightly on foot. The records that prove that fact can be inspected by those who believe the lie that the RUC did not patrol. That is only a pinprick on the tissue of lies that emanated from our political enemies for many years, but it shows what went on and how easily many people here were misled. Those who think back to the early days of the present outbreak of troubles would do well to consider the solid evidence about the allegations on which the Government acted. They will be convinced, as any reasonable person would be convinced, that the Government acted foolishly and wrongly on falsehoods. To this day we are reaping the grim harvest of wrong decisions taken then.

The Secretary of State told the House during the previous Northern Ireland Question Time that the policy would continue. That was repeated, in slightly different words, to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The nub of that policy is that, to obtain agreement in Ireland, to keep the peace in Ulster and to defeat the terrorists, we must keep Dublin happy. The strength of the link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom will be diminished, not increased, because the price of Dublin co-operation must be a weakening of the link. It must mean the edging and sliding of Northern Ireland slowly but surely in the direction of Dublin rule. The House must know that what I say is true. The majority of the population in Northern Ireland resent that undermining of their position and demand that they be dragged steadily closer to their fellow citizens, not thrust out.

There are three aspects to keeping Dublin happy. First, there must be an open frontier, which is an open invitation to the murderers to flee south and then to return. Some interesting conclusions could be drawn if one were to examine the number of people from the two communities, respectively, who are serving prison sentences for murder in relation to the total number of crimes of murder that have been committed. Secondly, there is the demand for power-sharing in Ulster. Thirdly, there is the holding out of the long-term hope and vision of a united Ireland.

The statement that Where there is no vision, the people perish is fundamental to any nation, but it is also fundamental to the terrorist organisations which are trying to destroy the nation. It works both ways. The terrorists have a vision and the majority population in Ulster have an opposing vision. The hope of victory, the hope of achieving their ends, keep them going. When that hope is buttressed by the demand that we give a place, as of right to the politicians—someone recently called them the democratic Republicans—or a place by a more insidious method of exerting pressure through the rules for the Northern Ireland Assembly that have been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and passed by the House, the strength of will of the Republicans of all stripes, whether they have an Armalite rifle in one hand and a ballot box in the other, or whether they work only through the ballot box, is greatly increased at the expense of those who desire to maintain the Union. Because the morale of the terrorist is strengthened, and because he believes he is winning, he redoubles his efforts and carries on thrusting into more and more vile and dreadful crimes, and more blood is spilled in our streets.

The IRA demonstrated in my constituency this week the third leg of that vision—the long-term hope. If members of the IRA did not have that long-term hope, if they did not believe that they could win, if they did not believe that one day, through winning, an amnesty would be given, they would not take the risk of planting a bomb, or the risk that is inherent in moving so close to a military establishment—but they did and they do so time and again.

Far too many people either do not know or have already forgotten that that bomb was only one of several that were prepared for use. It may have been a back-up bomb, because the main weight of the explosive that was assembled was found by the civic guards in the Irish Republic and exploded at the weekend. This terrorist organisation is like an octopus. It has a central direction regardless of the name that one may put on the terrorist who pulls the trigger. It appears to be controlled from a central point. If one leg of the octopus is crippled or cut off, another one immediately reaches out to carry out a corresponding deed, to keep the machine of terror in motion.

Very few hon. Members, other than those who live in Northern Ireland, have been to a scene such as that at Ballykelly the other evening. Unless one has been there, unless one has looked at those people strewn about in bits and pieces, and unless one has said to oneself "These are the folk who voted for me, these are the people whom I represent, these are my people in the special sense that one's constituents are", one cannot understand the depth of bitterness, anger, frustration and sheer helplessness that a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament feels. We have all been through it time and time again. Time and time again we have put our arguments to Ministers, in Government after Government, and time and time again the Government of the day have refused to accept the central point, which is that it is hope that keeps the terrorists going.

Do not think that the Ballykelly tragedy could not have been worse. It could have been far worse and there will probably be more death even yet. Above all, do not think that it is the last. Do not think that the next one will not be worse. After all, the Ballykelly bomb was probably only the back-up bomb.

I have the greatest regard for the professionalism, the skill and the courage of all the security forces. Let us give them a chance to win. Let us remove the hope and the vision that the terrorist has of victory in the long-tern. Let us remove the power-sharing provisions. Above all, let us close the frontiers. That is one of the central keys in the battle against terrorism. It provides the safe haven, the hiding place, the planning room and the place where the decisions are taken and from where, very often, the attacks are launched. It can be done and if victory is to be achieved it must be done. If it is ever to be done, why should it not be done now? Let us get this thing over and done with once and for all.

The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that he would like to comfort the grieving. The greatest comfort that all the grieving of Ulster can have lies in measures to ensure that the murderers are caught. The greatest comfort that the people of Ulster can have is the vision of a sure and safe haven, where they wish to belong, within the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about harsh measures, the people of Ulster are not worried about them in the slightest. We are worried far more about harsh murder and the evil and violence that we face every day.

Let us consider the history of the death penalty in Ireland as a whole. The willingness to execute would show a determination, which until now has been lacking. Secondly, the Irish Republic in its early days faced similar violence and stopped it by a liberal use of the death penalty. Thirdly, many men went on hunger strike and were glad to find any excuse to come off it. So they fear for their lives and they value them. At the end of the day, by an iron will, the hunger strikers were beaten. They had to forsake that weapon. They would not have forsaken it if they had thought it would be successful. It was unsuccessful, because they were allowed to commit suicide. That hunger strike provided the clearest evidence that the death penalty will work.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)

Order. I remind the House that the debate must end at 11.30 pm. The Minister hopes to catch my eye at about 11.20 pm.

11.15 pm

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

In Northern Ireland today there are 130,000 unemployed. There are massive social and economic problems. In the Republic of Ireland today there are nearly 200,000 unemployed and even greater economic and social problems. Last Monday night 16 young people in Ballykelly—British, Irish, Catholic and Protestant—were blown to smithereens, allegedly in an attempt to bring about the unity of Ireland. Many more have been maimed for the rest of their lives. Let us think for a few seconds of the terrible distress and despair that has been brought to those bereaved relatives. We must ask ourselves "What motivates people to carry out such an horrific act?" I listened tonight to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and I was sadly disappointed. However well intentioned he may be, and I do not dispute his motives, his speech will give succour to the people who plant bombs and kill. It is that kind of logic which generates paramilitary organisations.

As I have said before, I am in total dispute with all the Unionist Members in the House. I believe passionately in a united Ireland. I believe that there will never be peace in Ireland until the border is removed. It was the creation of the border that has led to so many of the deaths and tragedies in Northern Ireland. I believe passionately in the unity of Ireland, and I do so only because I know there will be continuing murders until Ireland is united. I believe passionately that Ireland cannot be united by the actions that we saw in Ballykelly on Monday night. There is nothing in Ireland today to justify any murder.

That is why I was so disappointed yesterday evening when I heard that the Home Secretary had placed an exclusion order on the two Sinn Fein representatives who were coming here to explain the policy of Sinn Fein. They were coming here to defend the policy of the IRA. I do not believe that we can defend murder in any circumstances. I do not believe that we can explain away the terrible atrocities that have been committed by a series of paramilitary organisations over the past 10 or 12 years. I do not believe in the great sincerity of Ken Livingstone in inviting the two Sinn Fein candidates to London.

The problem in Ireland has existed for many centuries, but particularly over the last 13 years. Why did not Ken Livingstone go to Belfast last year and the years before that to acquaint himself of the terrible problems with which we have had to live? Why did he say today that he will find time in January to go to Belfast to have discussions with Sinn Fein?

I came to London this afternoon. It is one-and-a-half hours from here. Ken Livingstone should avail himself of the opportunity to fly from Heathrow to Aldergrove and take a bus from there to Ballykelly. Let him stop off and visit Altnagelvin hospital and the homes of the bereaved relatives tonight. If he showed humanity and compassion along those lines, I might be inclined to believe him.

I have never yet met Mr. Ken Livingstone, but I am not intimidated or frightened by him. I would say it to his face. I think Ken Livingstone is more interested in the deselection of the Brent, East constituency and getting that seat for himself. That must happen before Christmas. That is why Ken Livingstone is so mixed up in Irish affairs. He wants to unseat a sitting MP and get himself into this House.

I was in Belfast yesterday, where I heard Ken Livingstone say, "The only reason I invited the Sinn Fein candidates to London was that I do not want bombs going off in London". What response did he expect? Everyone living in London is bound to support such a proposal, because no one in the run-up to Christmas wants to walk around in fear of being killed. Mr. Livingstone did not have to look far for support when he expressed that sentiment.

Northern Ireland is coming to the end of a tragic week. One must see these events at first hand to realise how futile these murders are. I have experienced an incident such as the one that occurred at Ballykelly, when McGurk's bar in my constituency was blown up and 16 people blown to smithereens. I was even closer to the scene, because I helped to pull the dead out of the rubble.

I was in Belfast last weekend when the news of Ken Livingstone's invitation was first announced. On Monday morning, the day before the murders at Ballykelly, Sinn Fein was shaking in its shoes. It did not want to come, because it knew that because of the controversy it might get an uneasy reception. I knew that Sinn Fein was desperately seeking any excuse to prevent it from coming to London.

I telephoned the Home Secretary's office—I place this on the record so that it can be verified—and spoke to his private secretary. I said, "Sinn Fein is shaking in its shoes. It will not go to London. It is looking for any excuse".

Those who let off bombs, smuggle in bags of gelignite and jump on to buses, blow the brains out of bus drivers or shoot men in front of their 10 year-old sons have a special type of courage. The Sinn Fein representatives invited here knew that they would get a hostile reception.

I appealed to the Home Secretary not to place any exclusion order on the Sinn Fein candidates and not to have them arrested when they arrived at Heathrow. In fact, the Sinn Fein candidates are so courageous that they do not even go to Aldergrove airport to fly to London. They go to Dublin. But there is no Dublin on this side of the water. That illustrates their courage.

It was a mistake for the Home Secretary to have placed that ban on Sinn Fein. It has gained a considerable political victory out of it. In Belfast today it was claiming that it had been denied the right to free democratic expression to come to London and put its views, but many other members of Sinn Fein, who have not been involved in terrorism, would not be excluded.

Sinn Fein took upon itself the role of a martyr. The only martyrs in Northern Ireland today are those who were killed and maimed in the Ballykelly explosion and the bereaved relatives whom they left behind. The Home Secretary was utterly wrong to have stopped those men from coming. They cannot, and never will be able to explain away such acts as happened in Ballykelly. Nor will their apologists in the House —there are a few around—or those in Ireland be able to explain them away.

Some time ago, a book called "On Another Man's Wound" was written in the South. There are an awful lot of people in the House who would be prepared to live on another man's wound.

Having said all that, I must say that I have opposed this type of legislation because I believe that many innocent people are caught in its tentacles. I am not opposing it for the first or the second time, nor am I making a speech for the first time. I am being as consistent as I ever was in my opposition to this legislation; and I shall vote against it tonight.

11.25 pm

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

I am sure that all hon. Members will have been moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the depth of feeling in the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the great depth of feeling that was expressed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). All hon. Members who come from this side of the water must recognise that we cannot possibly understand fully the depth of feeling that they have expressed. We do them a grave injustice unless we recognise that.

I am also afraid that in the five minutes that are left to me, I cannot possibly do anything like justice to the arguments that were adduced by hon. Members from across the water. I hope that they will exonerate me if I devote a few seconds of my limited time to suggest to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that it ill befits him to use the sweet talk of democracy, human rights and democratic procedures to advance the utterly undemocratic suggestion that simply because there is a group of people who inconveniently are part of the United Kingdom they should be expelled from the United Kingdom because of that inconvenience. The sweet lingua franca of democracy should not be used to those ends.

I have rightly been pressed hard by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). His case for pressing us on the review of the Act was extremely soundly based. Whatever has happened since we last extended the emergency provisions, the Government believe that the courts have continued to discharge their duties in scheduled cases without fear or favour. I utterly reject any suggestion to the contrary. I also reject any such suggestion with regard to the security forces. We have the utmost confidence in them and in the sensitivity with which they apply the terms of the emergency provisions legislation.

The right hon. Member for Mansfield rightly said that the emergency powers were necessary for the present, but he went on to say, equally rightly, that we must not allow them to become part of the fabric of Northern Ireland society because if they became a permanent part of the warp and the weft of the Northern Ireland way of life in the long term that would be anti-democratic in the true sense of the term.

I fully appreciate the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's feelings in condemning the delay in bringing forward the review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Unfortunately, however, that review is closely linked with the review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act by Lord Jellicoe, which has taken a little longer than we expected. As the two reviews are closely linked, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to take long and deep soundings to find the right person to conduct the EPA review.

To do their job properly, the police and security forces in Northern Ireland need three things. First, they need the support of the whole community, on both sides of the sectarian divide and to that end the Government are devoted. Secondly, they need the resources of men and arms to do the job. Those they have in plenty, as my right hon. Friend announced last week, with an increase in the RUC. Thirdly, until the review takes place—I do not intend to prejudge the results of the review—they need the emergency provisions provided by the Act. Therefore, I commend this order to keep the Act in play for a further six months, pending the outcome of the review which we hope will take place in the near future.

The Act is vital to the conduct of safe and proper policing and to the security of the people of the Province, and for the moment we cannot do without it.

Question put:—

The House Divided: Ayes 94, Noes 15.

Division No. 28]	[11.30 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Mellor, David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ancram, Michael	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Arnold, Tom	Molyneaux, James
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Murphy, Christopher
Berry, Hon Anthony	Needham, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy	Onslow, Cranley
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Blackburn, John	Paisley, Rev Ian
Blaker, Peter	Parris, Matthew
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Patten, John (Oxford)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon	Prior, Rt Hon James
Brooke, Hon Peter	Proctor, K. Harvey
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Browne, John (Winchester)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Butcher, John	Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Roper, John
Chapman, Sydney	Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Rossi, Hugh
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Cope, John	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Costain, Sir Albert	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Dorrell, Stephen	Silvester, Fred
Dunlop, John	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Elliott, Sir William	Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Speller, Tony
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Forman, Nigel	Stainton, Keith
Fox, Marcus	Stanbrook, Ivor
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Stanley, John
Gow, Ian	Stevens, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Gummer, John Selwyn	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Hamilton, Hon A.	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith	Thompson, Donald
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Lamont, Norman	Waddington, David
Lang, Ian	Waldegrave, Hon William
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Waller, Gary
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Ward, John
McCusker, H.	Wells, Bowen
MacGregor, John	Wheeler, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Marlow, Antony	Tellers for the Ayes:
Mather, Carol	Mr. Alastair Goodlad and
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Mr. David Hunt.

NOES
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Richardson, Jo
Cryer, Bob	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Fitt, Gerard	Skinner, Dennis
Flannery, Martin	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Tilley, John
Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)	Tellers for the Noes:
Lamond, James	Mr. A. W. Stallard and
Maynard, Miss Joan	Mr. Alfred Dubs.
Race, Reg

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

c1083
1. INCOME TAX 94 words