Of course I started it in this Debate, and it is a perfectly legitimate point to make, since the whole reason given for the introduction of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act was the upheaval in the year in which the Act was passed. Surely, therefore, I can comment on the events of that year? In any case, this is 25 years later. And what shall we say of a Government which has had an uninterrupted tenure of office with, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) said, a bigger and stronger majority than any party has had in this House during the same time, but which after 25 years, with all those advantages, not only has not abolished that Act but has added to it year after year; which has stated, through the mouthpiece of its leaders, that it may now be regarded as a permanent part of the system in Northern Ireand? What shall we say of that Government? Does it not, by that very fact alone, stand self-confessed of being unable to govern its State in a normal and democratic manner?

It has also been stated today by two hon. Members opposite that these desperate I.R.A. men are now re-arming and re-organising, and again endeavouring to overthrow the State, and that, therefore, this Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act must be kept in force. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone pointed out, it is only a few weeks ago since it was publicly stated that things were quieter than ever; that there did not seem to be the slightest reason for thinking that there was likely to be any outbreak at all by the I.R.A. That was not stated by a Labour Member; it was not stated by a Nationalist Member; it was not stated by a back bencher. By whom was it stated? By the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. A few weeks later, having made a statement that on the strength of that he had released a certain number of political prisoners, he now has the effrontery to tell us that the I.R.A. are doing what he said a few weeks ago was false.

The right hon. Member for Antrim mentioned a point about which I speak with very great reluctance and with marked diffidence. He denied that there was any persecution of the people in Northern Ireland on account of their religion. Had it not been mentioned I myself certainly would not have introduced it. I have never stated it on a public platform and I hope I never do, but some answer must be made here. I must speak with restraint because I have certain memories which are still fresh. I have seen people evicted and their furniture burned; I have seen relatives of my own maltreated, and on that account all I wish to say—and I would be wrong if I did not say it—is that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to believe that there is no persecution of Catholics in Northern Ireland he is not only making a statement which nobody believes but at which even his own supporters would sneer.

In order to prove that there is no discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland the right hon. Gentleman produced, after a vast amount of search and after, no doubt, being carefully briefed by his experts, four examples in all the six counties of Northern Ireland to prove that there is no discrimination in choosing for jobs on account of peoples' religion. What has he produced after all his results? He produced the mayor of a small country town, the chairman of the Commission for Refugees from Gibraltar, one district inspector of police and some civil servant now dead of the good old Irish name of Bonaparte Wyse. That is the best he could do to prove to this House that there is no discrimination. It is a very poor best, and I think he would have been well advised not to have introduced the subject at all, or, if he introduced it, not to try to defend it because his own arguments defeat his own case.

In any case the right hon. Gentleman himself let the cat out of the bag when, after telling us there was no such persecution taking place, and after he told us he deprecated the remarks of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, he finished up by saying practically the same thing. Here is what he said, for I took down his words: Nevertheless it must be said that the bulk of the Catholics in Northern Ireland refuse all co-operation with the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) tried to give the House the impression, that although these abuses might take place and although certain repressive acts of this nature might he in existence, very few people knew anything about them and they were very little used, one confessed that he did not know one of his own statutes until he heard the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) today. He told us he did not know so many things were happening in Northern Ireland. He did not know his own legislation, and in order to prove his point he instanced in a very jocular manner how he himself was nervous when he met a policeman in Britain and if he was driving his car he took his foot off the accelerator. And he went on to give us other excruciating excuses.

What he did not tell us was that these policemen were armed. He did not tell us either that at the slightest trouble at any meeting these policemen cairn, out in armoured cars with steel plating sides and bomb proof netting on the top. I have not yet seen that in the Strand He did not tell us that these policemen numbered 3,000. He did not tell us that behind these policemen was another police force, the special constabulary, who are paid by the Northern Ireland Government, armed by the Northern Ireland Government and who number 13,000 men. Imagine, 16,000 policemen to control a State whose total population is no larger than that of Glasgow; and the hon. Gentleman cannot see any difference between those police and the police we see peacefully circulating in London.

I must now try to reply to one or two points which have been made by the hon. Member for Londonderry. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church had introduced this subject of religious persecution. What are we to do? Everyone who has studied the facts of the case, and everyone who has lived in Belfast for a few months, knows that religious persecution takes place. Are we always to keep quiet? Who introduced it first? It was not my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It was introduced long before he did so. He referred to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Beattie) who voted against the Loyal Address, and hoped to persuade the House by so doing that the friends of the hon. Member in the Northern House of Commons were the 99 per cent. disloyal people about whom we have heard so much today. He did not say that during the Debate upon the Loyal Address, Nationalists and Labour Members made it perfectly clear that they were voting against presenting a Loyal Address to their Majesties—several of them said that they did so most reluctantly—because they represented a section of people who had not the elementary rights of most of the subjects of their Majesties.