Northern Ireland Bill of Rights: Text and Explanation [1971-72]

[Editor’s Note: When, in July 1968, the majority Unionist Government of Northern Ireland was being squeezed between, on the one hand, pressure from London for reform, and on the other the pressure of the local Civil Rights Movement, Desmond Greaves wrote to Prime Minister Harold Wilson on behalf of the Connolly Association advancing the conception of a Bill of Rights at Westminster as the progressive way forward for the North. This was a month before the first civil rights march took place from Coalisland to Dungannon and before the Northern “Troubles” really began.

What the Bill of Rights proposal envisaged was a legislative straitjacket being imposed by the supreme Westminster Parliament on the subordinate Stormont Government and Parliament in Belfast, which would at once outlaw discriminatory practises, thus guaranteeing civil rights and freedoms for the Northern Nationalist population, while at the same time permitting, and preferably encouraging, the devolved administration in the North to develop closer relations with Dublin. Greaves and the Connolly Association saw such a constitutional initiative as the best way of enabling Northern Nationalists to take advantage of the divisions within Unionism, and as encouraging an alliance in time in a reformed Stormont between Nationalists and liberal Unionists. They regarded this as the optimal way of moving Northern Ireland toward eventual peaceful reunification with the Republic on the basis of the majority consent of its inhabitants.

This Bill of Rights conception, first advanced by the Connolly Association, was taken up by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association and by the pre-1970-split Republicans in Ireland. It was backed by various Labour Movement bodies in Britain, and in September 1971, as a result of the Connolly Association’s lobbying, it became the policy of the Trades Union Congress and thus of the entire British Trade Union movement. However, the Labour Government was by then out of office and Prime Minister Harold Wilson had thrown away his chance of making a constructive contribution to solving the Irish problem. Four months before this, in May 1971, following discussions with Arthur Latham MP, Lord Fenner Brockway and Geoffrey Bing QC, Desmond Greaves personally drafted a Bill of Rights in suitable parliamentary form. This was proposed as a Private Member’s Bill on the same day, 12th May 1971, by Arthur Latham MP in the House of Commons and by Fenner Brockway in the House of Lords. In the Commons the Conservatives imposed a three-line whip to deny the Bill of Rights a first reading. A reading was granted in the Lords, but the Bill was rejected on its second reading there in June. The vote in the House of Commons was Ayes 135, Noes 175. Among the MPs voting for the Bill of Rights were Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, Bernadette Devlin, Douglas Jay, Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock and the Liberal Jeremy Thorpe. Among those voting to deny it a first reading were Michael Heseltine, Tom King, Airey Neave, Ian Paisley, Enoch Powell and William Whitelaw.

The Hansard parliamentary report on the Bill of Rights that was proposed by Labour MP Arthur Latham on 12 May 1971 is given below in order to show the arguments used at the time for proposing and rejecting it.

The Bill of Rights demand was envisaged as an alternative to the call for “direct rule” from London over Northern Ireland as a solution to the problems there. The latter call was first advanced by the ultra-left People’s Democracy – another instance of the old pattern of the far-Left advancing policy positions which the political Right would implement in time. The People’s Democracy was followed by the political innocents of the recently formed Provisional IRA, who saw the call for direct rule as one of the things distinguishing them from their erstwhile comrades in the pre-1970-split Republicans. It swept like wildfire through the Parliamentary Labour Party. And it was eventually implemented by Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath following Bloody Sunday in Derry in January 1972.

The original Bill of Rights as drafted by Greaves and proposed by Latham and Brockway was printed and published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in May 1972. It was formally titled “A Bill intituled an Act to amend the powers of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland, to make other provisions for equating the civil rights of citizens of Northern Ireland with those of other citizens of the United Kingdom and to make provision for proportional representation in parliamentary and local government elections in Northern Ireland.”

Once direct rule was introduced in 1972 the political context of a possible Bill of Rights to be legislated at Westminster changed significantly. For one thing, there was no longer a local devolved Government and Parliament in Northern Ireland to which such a Bill of Rights could immediately apply. The other big change was that the Provisional IRA’s military campaign was by then in full spate, as the dilatoriness of the British Government in reforming Northern Ireland had given rise to the IRA’s attempt to pressurise Britain into surrendering sovereignty there by sheer physical force.

Hence the revised text set out in the pamphlet below, “Northern Ireland Bill of Rights” Text and Explanation”, which was drafted by Desmond Greaves and issued by the Standing Committee of the Connolly Association in 1972. The phrases in bold in Section 6 of this revised Bill of Rights text were aimed at taking account of the new circumstances of “direct rule” and did not appear in the original May 1971 Bill that was published by HM Stationery Office and introduced in the two Houses of Parliament. One change refers to the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland “or their successors”. The other provided for an explicit acceptance by Britain of the desirability of Irish reunification. Section 6 of the original Latham/Brockway Bill had added to it a provision in the revised text that the reforms it proposed would be implemented with a view to “preparing the way for the eventual establishment of a single Parliament for the whole of Ireland”. Greaves and the Connolly Association were confident that if the British Government accepted this principle and issued a “declaration of intent” along these lines, it would undermine the rationale of the Provisional IRA campaign. As we know now with hindsight, Britain then and for years afterwards gave no indication of a willingness to surrender sovereignty in Ireland, and the IRA campaign continued for nearly a further quarter-century.

An important difference between the Greaves/Connolly Association conception of a Bill of Rights and the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 is that Section 6 of the text below aimed to bring about conditions in which a Nationalist-Liberal Unionist majority would be encouraged to develop over time in a majority-rule Stormont Assembly, with the hardline Unionist element sidelined. By contrast, the Good Friday Agreement’s commitment to an enforced government and assembly coalition in Belfast, based on the d’Hondt system of allocating Ministerial offices, may arguably be contended to enshrine religious sectarianism and to encourage the permanence of contending community blocs in Northern Ireland.

Future historians may speculate as to which approach offered greater potential for solving the fundamental problem dividing the two Northern communities: that of religious/political sectarianism. It would be an historical irony if the Greaves/Connolly Association conception of Section 6 below were to be found still to have relevance at some future date.]

– – –

Northern Ireland Bill of Rights: Text and Explanation

[Connolly Association pamphlet, 1972, drafted by C.Desmond Greaves]

This pamphlet re-publishes the text of the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, as introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Brockway in 1971, slightly revised.

It is clear, of course, that events have taken place which render the original text out of date in certain respects. With this in view, a revised version was drafted early in 1972, but was overtaken by events and never introduced.

This revised version in turn required modification in the light of the imposition of “direct rule”, and the draft here discussed contains small suggested revisions.

It should be emphasised first that a vital part of a political settlement of the crisis in Northern Ireland must be the bringing about of discussions between the British Government and the various national and civil rights interests. It is a matter of securing to them the rights they want, not of imposing a system. Second, the draft is an attempt to show how this can be done within the English legal system. But no formulation needs to be regarded as sacred, and there might emerge from the discussions advocated, better formulations aimed at the same purposes. What is important is that the issues should not be ignored, and the points should all be met.

The idea of comprehensive legislation at Westminster to redress the grievances of the section of Northern Ireland society which had as a result of partition been lopped off from the majority of the Irish people, and converted into an artificial minority, first emerged in the summer of 1968, before the troubles started. If it had been taken up by Mr Wilson’s Government these might have been averted. The idea was simply to list the complaints and proposed measures to redress the wrongs contained in them.

It is widely held that these complaints were in process of redress at the time when the disturbances began. But this is not so. Reforms were promised, but had not been realised, and the delay was one of the causes of the crisis. Likewise, during the crisis itself, reforms were promised but were of the most limited effect. There has been no attempt to make a comprehensive gesture and remove once and for all the grievances that exist.

Perhaps it should be added that the provisions of the Bill of Rights, though designed to protect the minority that has been so grievously wronged, do in fact equally protect the political freedom of all sections of society, not the least important among which is the Labour and Trade Union movement. The grievances and the manner of dealing with them proposed in the Bill will be dealt with in order.

Discrimination

Catholics complain that they do not get their fair share of housing and employment. This has, of course, been denied by the Unionists. But it only needs that it should be alleged, and evidence brought, for protection to be rendered necessary, if justice is to be seen to be done.

The first section of the Bill of Rights extends to the six counties the provisions which exist in Britain for the protection of racial groups from discrimination. This is done by extending the Race Relations Act to Northern Ireland and including religion among the grounds upon which discrimination is made illegal.

This means that any person who had grounds for believing he had been denied some facility on the ground of religion, could seek redress in a Court of Law. Anybody wishing to discriminate would have to bear this possibility in mind, and though, of course, the law might at times be evaded, as it is said to be in Britain, there need be no doubt that the minority would have a solid protection they lack now. It should also be observed that Protestants also would be protected, together with any other religious group.

Republicanism and Nationalism

The origin of the minority in the six counties lies in the partition of Ireland carried out by Lloyd George’s Government in 1921, something in which the Irish people were not consulted. The Nationalists and Republicans who belonged to the majority of the Irish people, never accepted that they should be placed in an artificial minority, and by one means and another have sought for 50 years to secure the reunification of Ireland.

They complain that unreasonable restraints have been placed upon their right to organise and propagate their views. For example, it has been held that since “Republican Clubs” have been declared illegal under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts, if a club for playing Bingo described itself as “Republican” it would be outside the law. There have been repeated restraints placed on the distribution of newspapers advocating a United Ireland.

The second section of the Bill of Rights has as its object guaranteeing the right of organisation and propaganda for a united Ireland. Its second sub-section is intended to end the practice of exacting from prospective employees in the public service, or from candidates in an election, an oath of allegiance to the Crown and the Government of Northern Ireland. This is to refuse office to people who hold a quite legitimate political view, until they renounce it publicly.

Flags and Emblems

Generally speaking, the emblem of the Nationalists is the Irish tricolour, since their programme is based on the reunification of Ireland. It must be emphasised that the tricolour was adopted as the flag of Ireland before partition and is in no sense the flag of twenty-six counties.

The “Flags and Emblems Act” in practice restricts the right to display this flag. For example, election premises which displayed it in a window have been broken into by the police and the flag removed.

The third section protects the display of national emblems in peace time.

Gerrymandering

For many years it has been complained that electoral boundaries were unequally drawn for the purpose of giving a numerical advantage to the Unionist candidates.

The plan adopted by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was that all elections in Northern Ireland should be by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation.

Section 4 restores that position.

It is appreciated that the British Government has pledged himself to Proportional Representation, but it should be understood that there are more and less effective forms of this. It is possible by applying the principle in the wrong way to weaken its operation. Thus in certain recommendations of the Northern Ireland Government, the single transferable vote would have applied in constituencies returning too few members for a proper reflection of the wishes of the electorate. The ideal number of members is said to be four or five.

The Special Powers Act

It is doubtful whether any enactment of the Northern Ireland Government gives rise to so much indignation among anti-Unionists as this and certain associated measures. At the time of writing several hundred men are still imprisoned without charge or trial under its provisions. And what is equally alarming, its operations have been strengthened by Westminster enactments made after the prorogation of the Northern Ireland Government at Stormont.

It is the continued operation of these Acts which is the principal obstacle to wide-ranging discussions of the future evolution of Northern Ireland.

The method adopted in the Bill of Rights is to list the objectionable powers, irrespective of what legislation confers them on the Government of Northern Ireland, and to place these “ultra vires”. The Constituent Act, the Government of Ireland Act 1920, confers on the Parliament of Northern Ireland the power “to make laws for the peace, order and good government” of the area. But a certain number of powers – for example relating to the Crown, armed forces, external trade – are withheld. Others are withheld on a temporary basis with a view to transfer to a United Irish Parliament at a later date – for example the Post Office. The effect of Section 5 of the Bill of Rights would be to add to the number of powers withheld, and deprive the Parliament of Northern Ireland of the right to legislate concerning imprisonment without trial etc., etc.

The section thus lists the things the Northern Ireland Government should no longer be able to do. It should be noted that since we do not yet know what is to replace the prorogued Parliament at Stormont, in this section as in the preceding it is necessary to insert after “Parliament of Northern Ireland” the words “or its successor”.

But there are two other grounds of complaint which do not stem specifically from the Special Powers Acts, namely the creation of judges and juries and the treatment of prisoners in custody.

It is alleged that it is easy for the State to pack a jury because it can object to jurors without limit and without giving any reason; the defendant is limited to twelve objections. It is proposed in the Bill of Rights to place the two sides on an equal footing. Regarding the appointment of judges, there would seem to be a case, at any rate as a temporary measure, for having the selection done at Westminster, though in practice those selected would no doubt be members of the Northern Ireland bar. This arrangement might continue until the spokesmen for the minority expressed themselves satisfied that appointments could safely be made locally without prejudice to themselves.

There have been allegations of brutal treatment of persons arrested and interrogated. The responsibility for the admitted “ill-treatment” lies not in Northern Ireland but at Westminster, since British armed forces were involved. Sub-section two is an attempt to provide arrested persons with protection. It aims of speeding up their trial, and keeping them under independent medical supervision while in custody.

It may be asked whether the provisions of the Bill of Rights would bind Mr Whitelaw [i.e. the first Northern Ireland Secretary of State] in the event of his being given a further term of office in Northern Ireland. The answer is that it would, even if the words “or its successor” did not follow the reference to Stormont. Mr Whitelaw has been given the powers previously held by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and if any of these powers are annihilated, Mr Whitelaw can no longer hold them, unless they are separately enacted at Westminster.

6. A United Ireland

Very few of the anti-Unionists in Northern Ireland envisage an immediate reunification of the country. The intense sectarian passions of sections of the Unionists seem to necessitate an evolutionary approach.

What has been denied to the minority in the six counties over the years has been the opportunity of constitutional progress in the direction of unification. Thus under the Government of Ireland Act, which itself professed to envisage a united Ireland reached by consent, the subject was placed beyond the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

The final Section of the Bill of Rights establishes an important principle, that is, the right to initiate constitutional progress. There have been many suggestions that the English Government should issue a “declaration of intent”, indicating that it will not bar the way to a united Ireland. It has been suggested that even the most uncompromising Republicans would feel that under such circumstances their movement could play a purely political role.

But how could such a declaration intend become a political reality? The last section of the Bill of Rights proposes conferring on the Government of Northern Ireland or its successor a new power never possessed before, the power of linking up with the Republic, either in part or in whole.

Without having to ask permission of Westminster, it could initiate, or respond to, proposals of cooperation with the Republic in any field where it was felt that there was a mutual advantage. Thus, for example, there could be one electricity authority for all Ireland. It would be possible to set up a joint economic council if that were considered desirable. The English Government is said to be considering approaching Dublin with some such proposition. The danger is that it might become a means of attempting English control of Dublin. On the other hand, if the Irish themselves are permitted to work out their own destiny where they are able to see eye to eye, the prospect of reunification will be exactly measured to the lessening of tensions.

7. Political Settlement

The English Government “Green Paper” suggests the desirability of a Bill of Rights, but speaks of its enactment in Northern Ireland. This would be to give to Stormont or its successor the power to repeal it at some future time.

It is vitally important that the Bill of Rights should be enacted at Westminster and become part of the constitution of the six counties. This is not to say, however, that we should seek the creation of an ossified system like that which has broken down after fifty years.

The Bill of Rights should form part of a political settlement in which provision for future change should be agreed among the parties. But the nature of that settlement falls outside the province of this pamphlet, which is concerned with showing how the demands of the movement for civil rights and political freedom in Northern Ireland can be guaranteed by legislation at Westminster. If that movement adds to or modifies its demands, there is no reason to doubt that the necessary action can be taken.

In conclusion, let us hope that the English Government will abandon its obsession with security, and seek the basis of political evolution by consent, even though this means dropping the dubious principle of English sovereignty in Ireland. If they fail to do so, then the duty lies with the opposition to abandon their position of tacit bi-partisanship on essentials, while differing only on matters of emphasis, and, looking at Northern Ireland, to ask themselves are they prepared to allow all that misery to continue, when with a little courage and principle it can be ended.

Standing Committee, Connolly Association

[Text of the proposed revised Bill of Rights]

Bill of Rights

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, as follows:

1.(1)The Race Relations Act, 1968, is hereby extended to Northern Ireland and section

(4) is repealed.

(2)In its application to Northern Ireland section 1(1) of the said Act of 1968, (which

defines “discrimination” for the purposes of the Act) shall have effect as if after the

word “race” there were inserted the words “religious belief”.

2. (1) It shall not be an offence within Northern Ireland to advocate or work for the

establishment of a single Parliament for the whole of Ireland.

(2) Save as otherwise provided by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, it

shall be illegal to administer in Northern Ireland as a condition of Public Office

or employment, or in connection with any local or Parliamentary election, any oath

or test that is repugnant to the conscience of any person wishing to advocate or

work for the establishment of a single Parliament for the whole of Ireland.

3. It shall not be an offence within Northern Ireland to display the flags or emblems

of countries in friendly relations with Her Majesty.

4. (1) In any General Election for the Parliament of Northern Ireland or its successor,

the election shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each

elector having one transferable vote, as defined in subsection (2 ) of this section,

and each constituency shall return not fewer than four members.

(2) The expression “transferable vote” means a vote –

(a) given so as to indicate the voter’s preference for the candidates in order,

(b) capable of being transferred the next choice when the vote is not required to give

a prior choice the necessary number of votes, or when, owing to the deficiency of

the number of votes given to the prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list

of candidates.

(3) Whenever the number of candidates contesting a by-election exceeds that of

two, each elector shall have one transferable vote.

(4) At any election of representatives of a local government area, the election shall

be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having

one transferable vote, as defined in subsection (2) of this section, and each

electoral area shall return not fewer than four representatives, and in any by-

election in which the number of candidates exceeds two, each elector shall have

one transferable vote.

Her Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the method of voting and transferring and counting votes at any election to which this section applies according to the principle of the transferable vote and for adapting the provisions of any Act relating to Parliamentary or local government elections and the duties of returning officers in connection therewith; but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

5. (1) After the passing of this Act, the Parliament of Northern Ireland or its successor shall cease to have power to legislate in respect of the following matters:

The suspension of Habeas Corpus.

the imprisonment, detention or internment of suspected persons without charge or trial; the denial of recourse to Habeas Corpus or to a Court of Law; or denial of the right to trial by jury;

the physical or mental ill -treatment of suspected persons in the course of interrogation;

the entering and searching of private premises without the warrant of a Justice of the Peace;

the stopping and searching of any person without the warrant of a Justice of the Peace;

the imposition of a curfew or the prohibition of the holding of meetings, assemblies, fairs, markets or any processions in public places except where necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace;

the infliction on prisoners of flogging or other degrading forms of punishment;

the arrest of persons it is desired to examine as witnesses or the making of it an offence for any person to refuse to answer questions which may tend to incriminate him; or in the laying of penalties upon persons who refuse to be sworn or to answer questions;

the prevention of access by relatives or legal advisers to persons held in custody;

the imposition of mandatory sentence on persons found guilty of an offence;

the creation of an offence in the possession of any newspaper, book, film, sound-recording or other publication, except where their possession or circulation constitutes some offence by Statute or at Common Law, or when their circulation would be calculated to cause a breach of the peace;

the holding of an inquest after the death of a person held in custody;

the declaration of a state of emergency;

the arming or maintaining of any group of special constabulary;

the appointment of members of the judiciary of Northern Ireland;

the regulation of the election of jurors or the conduct of trials by jury;

And the Civil Authorities (Special Powers Act) 1922 of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and all other legislation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland repugnant to the provisions of this section shall be null and void.

(2) A person taken into civil or military custody on suspicion of having committed an offence, shall be charged with the said offence as soon as it is practicable, brought before a Court of Law within 24 hours of the time of his arrest, and be permitted the access of his medical adviser upon his own request or that of a member of the legal profession acting on his behalf.

(3) In any cause in Northern Ireland for which a jury is empanelled the rights of the parties in respect of objections to individual jurors shall be equal.

6.With a view to promoting co-operation between the Parliaments and Governments in

Ireland, and encouraging mutual intercourse in relation to matters affecting the whole

of Ireland, providing for the co-ordination of services which can with advantage be

operated uniformly throughout Ireland, and preparing the way for the eventual re-

establishment of a single Parliament for the whole of Ireland, the Parliament and

Government of Northern Ireland, or their successors, shall be empowered to enter

into direct discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on all matters

which it is agreed are of common concern, and to make proposals regarding such

matters notwithstanding that they are matters excepted or reserved under Section 4

of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

– – –

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), Volume 817, No. 140, Wednesday 12 May 1971, 384-394

Northern Ireland Bill of Rights

Mr Arthur Latham (Paddington North): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the powers of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland and to make other provisions for equating the civil rights of citizens of Northern Ireland with those of other citizens of the United Kingdom.

I fear that there are suspicions that a Conservative whip is he applied against this proposition. [Hon Members: “Shame.”] If so, that is a matter for regret, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to the case that I shall present and decide, in the light of that case, whether or not to oppose my Bill. They will find that the language I use and the approach I make is moderate and that my proposals are quite modest.

I emphasise at the outset that this is not a Bill to introduce direct rule by Westminster. Nor is it a Bill to abolish Stormont. Indeed, in some ways it might strengthen it. It is also not a Bill to end partition. I am aware of the complexities of the Irish situation, but complexities can sometimes obscure certain simple principles which might otherwise be generally accepted.

As far as I know, I have no Irish ancestry. I believe, however, that I speak for the majority of United Kingdom citizens who see British lives lost and at risk, and British taxpayers’ money expended, in Northern Ireland to maintain what in one set of language is called law and order and in another is said to uphold the authority of a Government who have fallen far behind the times.

Several thousand British troops are involved in all Northern Ireland. Many millions of £s of British taxpayers’ money is also involved. The rest of the citizens of the United Kingdom, the ordinary people of England, Scotland and Wales, may be forgiven for asking, “Why have we the responsibility while they, the Stormont Government, have the authority?”. Responsibility without authority is always bad.

I do not propose to enter the discussion of the historic, present-day or future arguments concerning a unified Ireland. Although my Bill would give Irishmen the right to advocating a unified Ireland, in the same way as Common Marketeers in the rest of the United Kingdom can advocate the giving up a British sovereignty to go into the E.E.C.

As Captain Terence O’Neill, as he then was, said after resigning as Prime Minister, in civil rights, Northern Ireland is at least a hundred years behind the rest of the United Kingdom. I want to see the British Parliament pulling Northern Ireland, if not into the 1970s, somewhere towards them.

As we know, certain reforms have been proposed, and even legislated for, by Stormont but they are not being implemented. My Bill would be intended not to take away Stormont’s powers but to re-examine the devolution of powers under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, with a view to recasting or re-allocating those powers.

It is common to most domestic Acts of the British Parliament that there is a Clause which expressly precludes their application to Northern Ireland. Yet, as was pointed out in the House the other day, hon. Members from Northern Ireland have the right to speak and vote on those matters, and, indeed, they do. One Measure, in particular, which applies to the rest of United Kingdom and which I want to extend to Northern Ireland is the Race Relations Act, 1968.

One aspect of the preliminary draft of the Bill – some hon. Members may have seen it as a result of the lobby last week – which might be contentious but which could on Second Reading or in Committee be considered for deletion – although I should want to defend it – is the proposal to re-introduce a measure of proportional representation. I put it to some of my hon. Friends who might hesitate on this point that we must accept that there is no ideal electoral system to suit all situations, all places and all times, irrespective of circumstances and historical background. The two-party system works here and in some other countries. In some situations, the one-party system might be more democratic and effective. In some places, the multiparty system has failed, and in others it has worked well,

But what the House should realise when considering the possible consequences of the reintroduction of a measure of proportional representation is that in Northern Ireland, although in theory there may be the opportunity for a two-party system, in practice that has been a one-party system for the past 50 years. I suggest to the House, therefore, that P.R. may be a means for achieving a more representative Parliament for Northern Ireland and ensuring that the minority is adequately represented, and I submit that that would give Stormont greater credibility and more right have its authority accepted.

I do not believe that it is possible to start out in days, weeks or months that which has gone by default for 50 years. Therefore, the Bill which I seek leave to introduce would not be intended as a revolutionary Measure. There was a convention at one time that this House did not discuss Northern Ireland affairs. As is its way, however, the House has responded to events and it has in recent times become customary for matters concerning events in Northern Ireland to be discussed. My submission is that, because of the involvement of the rest of the United Kingdom in the problems of Northern Ireland, the British Parliament should assert a degree of authority for what happens there in future.

I should want it to be in eminently reasonable Measure. I hope that those who have seen the preliminary draft will recognise that that is the intention and will acknowledge also that, if leave is given this afternoon, it will be open to representations from those interested so that the Bill may in due course be amended to meet their wishes.

I believe that it is it is desirable that leave should be given and that there should be a Second Reading debate on the civil rights situation in Northern Ireland, with an opportunity thereafter in Committee, I hope, to discuss in some detail what degree of responsibility the British Parliament has, and should have, and how it should assert it. All I am asking for – I emphasise this to hon. Members opposite, if they have a Whip operating in this matter – is support for the eminently reasonable proposition that leave should be given to introduce a Bill

“to amend the powers of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland and to make other provisions for equating the civil rights of citizens of Northern Ireland with those of other citizens of the United Kingdom.”

I am certain that the majority of the British people would agree that this is a laudable objective and would greatly resent, and rightly so, an obdurate refusal to allow to have full and proper consideration by the House.

Mr W.F. Deedes (Ashford): I oppose the Motion, embodying, as it does, what the hon. Member for Paddington North (Mr Latham), has described as fairly modest proposals for the Government of Northern Ireland. I oppose it not least because what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be wholly out of line with the declared policy of the parties on both sides of this House, rehearsed and agreed only a month ago in the debate on Northern Ireland. [Hon. Members: “No.”] I have afforded myself a full study of the preliminary draft. I am indebted to the Irish Times – I think it was – which provided a pretty full draft under the headline,

“ Bill seeks PR and Race Act in North. Chances of passage at Westminster poor. “

That seemed to be the understatement of the year.

Setting aside the merits of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, I think that a scintilla of doubt may enter the minds of some of my hon. Friends and, perhaps, some hon. Members opposite about whether a Ten Minutes Rule Bill is the best vehicle for revising the Constitution of Northern on this heroic scale.

Searching for the most reasonable and kindly thing I can say about the hon. Gentleman’s proposed Bill, I recognise that it is primarily associated with a former member of this House, then Fenner Brockway, for whom some of us felt enormous affection and respect even though we constantly disagreed with what he wanted to do. To his honour, be it said, Fenner Brockway proposed a Measure similar to this in, I think, 10 consecutive years, and then, as though to illustrate the force of an idea whose time has come, the Labour Government introduced his Race Relations Bill in1965, which was probably the most singular triumph – I acknowledge this, since it is really the noble Lord’s Bill which we are now discussing – that any Private Member’s Bill could have had for a very long time.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that although Fenner Brockway’s Bill was taken up by the Government, religion was excluded from the 1965 Act, and this not due to pressure from the then Conservative opposition but because we were persuaded by the arguments of the Labour Home Secretary who, after there had been much discussion,

made quite clear that religion could not sensibly be included in that Act.

Two points arise in this connection. The Northern Ireland Parliament has passed the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1970. I shall not argue now whether it is working well or ill. We have in this country some experience of the difficulty of making these Acts sensibly operative. But the fact remains that it is now an offence orally or in writing to incite hatred against or arouse fear in any section of the public in Northern Ireland on grounds of religious belief, colour, race or ethnic or national origin.

The second point I make is that, if that is felt by the hon. Gentleman and his friends to be inadequate, and if he wishes the Westminster Act to be binding on Northern Ireland in this regard, discrimination on grounds of religion would have to be applied here. But that is something which Parliament has already rejected, on the advice of the then Labour Home Secretary, and it would run contrary to the declared policy of successive Governments.

I come now to the proposal for proportional representation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I found him less than convincing on this aspect of the matter. In fact, this is the alternative transferable vote for multi-member constituencies. That system operated for Stormont elections before 1929. If we look at the figures before and after that date, we find surprisingly little difference in the overall balance of representation. I have the figures here.

Another Clause which the hon. Gentleman would include is what he calls his modest Measure would list a dozen spheres in which the Parliament of Northern Ireland would cease to have power to legislate. Some are highly suggestive. Few of the provisions which it is proposed should cease are, in fact, in use. The most suggestive is, I think, the proposed Clause 5(e), regarding the punishment of prisoners by flogging. The Stormont civil servants are unable to cite a single case of the flogging of a prisoner as a punishment. I accept that the power of search without warrant is still being exercised. Arrest without warrant, imprisonment without trial – these powers exist, but are not being used. [Interruption.] Detention without trial is not being used.

As to stopping up of highways, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) observed very fairly only a month or two ago in Northern Ireland:

“ . . . The Ulster Government, were ready and prepared to get rid of the Act. This was destroyed by the activities of those who introduced violence into this country shortly after they had taken this decision.”

That is a very fair comment on that aspect.

Nobody denies that the emergency has required the Government of Northern Ireland to exercise powers which they dislike as much as we here dislike them. That should be said in fairness to them. Responsibility for the emergency does not rest entirely on the Government of Northern Ireland.

The Bill also contains proposals which would afford freedom for the individual to argue and work for unification with the Republic, to display flags and so on. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the road to pacification, he has not read the history of Ireland. In effect, what he and his hon Friends are seeking is the unilateral disarmament in a political sense of the Northern Irish Province. There may be a case for unification, though it is not one that I would argue. There may be a case for direct rule from Westminster, though that is one that is at present rejected by both sides of the House. But there can be no case for directing from Westminster a policy which would coerce Northern Ireland into unification. It is that underlying sense in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals that causes me some anxiety. That is not a policy of pacification; Is a policy which would exacerbate and perpetuate internecine strife.

This propaganda exercise – it is fair to describe it as such – is founded on a series of propositions which discounts unfairly the progress Northern Ireland has made towards some of the reforms undertaken quite recently. It is irresponsible and less than honest to dismiss this progress as being of no account, and, to be fair, hon. Members know that that is so.

The new Housing Executive has been set up. The 1969 legislation has given full franchise on the basis of one man, one vote in local government elections, and votes at 18. All councils have made a declaration of equality of employment opportunity, and the majority have submitted their codes to the Government. The Parliamentary Commissioner has been at work, and had already looked into about 33 cases, of which only two showed maladministration and none showed discrimination. The Commissioner for Complaints, dealing with local government, has investigated 285 cases. Fourteen showed maladministration and none discrimination. There are 450 cases under investigation. We need not exaggerate this progress, but we should acknowledge it. In sum, the Northern Ireland Government have made far- reaching changes, and have shown an earnest intention to see their programme through.

The fact is that we have delegated certain responsibilities to them. The hon. Gentleman’s proposals would interfere with the discharge of those responsibilities to a point which would totally undermine the credibility and the authority of the Government of Northern Ireland. The object is not to liberate. It is to annihilate the existing Constitution under the Government of Ireland Act,1920 .

I am not clear in my mind whether the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is well-intentioned or simply mischievous. Either way, its consequences would be disastrous. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends should reject the hon. Gentleman’s motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.13 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business.

Division No. 361. The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 175.