7.33 p.m.

HC Deb 15 February 1971 vol 811 cc1284-325

Mr. John E. Maginnis (Armagh)

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke about static politics in Northern Ireland. If he looked at the situation correctly, he would discover that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland vote Unionist because they think that that is the party which will keep them in the United Kingdom. If they were assured that any other party taking office at Stormont would still keep them in, there would be a change of Government.

I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) on his maiden speech. He delivered it with due dignity and decorum, and I hope that he will make many more useful contributions to debates of this kind.

I should like to thank the Home Office —not only the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East but my right hon. Friend—for the part they played in bringing about some semblance of reward to the farmers of Northern Ireland in importing feedingstuffs. A scheme has been announced this week whereby rebates will be applicable to users of feedingstuffs in Northern Ireland which will bring diem more into line with those pertaining in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that I am right to congratulate the Home Office on the part that they have played.

Many suggestions have been made today about solving the present political crisis in Northern Ireland. We have had suggestions of new political moves. I would go along with the suggestion that the restoration of law and order is the number one priority, but this is a very difficult task. I was a member of the R.U.C. for a number of years, so I know this to be true. I took part in the 1945 disturbances in Belfast, in the very same streets which we have been discussing today. I know how difficult it is to get any semblance of law and order in these so-called "no-go" areas. But we all know that the aim of the Irish Republican Army is to create dissension not only among the Protestant people but also among the Roman Catholic people.

I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that this is a struggle not between Roman Catholics and Protestants but between anarchy and the forces of law and order. I am a leading member of the Orange institution. I have been a member all my life, and since the day I was born my neighbours have always been Roman Catholics. I have always found them helpful. If I required their assistance I got it, and vice versa. The House will understand therefore that the present troubles are not inter-religious but a struggle between anarchy and law and order.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) went way back to 1928, referred to the troubles in Derry and Belfast and criticised the R.U.C. He talked about discrimination. A few facts have been made known, and I think that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was honest enough to say on his visits to Northern Ireland that he believed that the vast majority of local authorities there allocated their houses fairly. That has been borne out by the first report of the Ombudsman.

I am also well aware of the grass roots feeling throughout Northern Ireland about the Province's future prospects. I have given this considerable thought. We can talk here as long as we like about how to solve this problem, but I believe that, when the day dawns when there is a Government in Northern Ireland and a Government in Southern Ireland working under the Government of Westminster in a concerted effort on behalf of the whole people of the United Kingdom—then and then only will we have peace.

This may seem a far distant day, but I am convinced that this country will eventually turn to regionalisation. This House can no longer stand the strain of the amount of legislation which has to pass through it, and many of its respon- sibilities will be hived off to the regions. Here will be a chance to bring back into the United Kingdom that part of Ireland which opted out in 1921. We had for many years a United Kingdom, and I should like to give this as the basis of my argument.

The Unionists of Northern Ireland never wanted Stormont; they wanted to remain under Westminster. But, as the situation changed so rapidly over the years, the only solution is to have both North and South having their own regional Parliaments, but still under Westminster. Then we would have co-operation, the rule of the gun would disappear, and the rule of law and order would return.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)

Whatever ones views about having one Ireland or about making all of Ireland subservient to this Parliament or uniting all of the people of Ireland in one Garden of Eden under the British Government, certainly Her Majesty's Government would not want that. It is a novel solution, but I do not believe for a moment that it is on.

The whole question of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government for Northern Ireland is an interesting one to consider and I was happy to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talk about the Glens. I know them well and I agree with him that in that area one has a predominantly Catholic culture and population. There is also no trouble there, and that is because my co-religionists arc in the majority. This is really the fundamental issue. This applies in Canflough, Cushendun, Cushendall, Ballycastle, and Glen-arm.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke with eloquence, and I was glad to hear him expressing his views in the House. It is always good to hear the extreme point of view expressed in public, and I welcome his presence here. A lot of damage was done in the past because we were not able to discuss matters which we can now discuss. I recall how, when I was on the benches opposite, some of my hon. Friends tried to raise these issues, but were unable to do so. Indeed, a convention was established whereby one did not speak about the affairs of Northern Ireland. Mr. Speaker would rule one out of order. Had that convention not grown up, many of the problems which we are now facing might have been resolved.

Some hon. Gentlemen opposite speak as though the reforms which were introduced by my right hon. Friend when we were in power have been implemented. That is far from the truth. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) used to say that there was no need for reforms or commissions to inquire into the affairs of Northern Ireland. One might have had the impression listening to him in the past that everything was in apple pie order. "Evil people are putting wicked things into your heads," he used to say, in effect.

Captain Orr

indicated dissent.

Mr. McGuire

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT as having used that device frequently for claiming that there was no need for intervention.

Who were the dishonest and evil people who were putting these nasty thoughts into the minds of people in this country? Consider the position when the Commission took over in Londonderry and when the will of the majority there was frustrated by an electoral device which robbed them of their right to control the County Borough of Derry. That cannot be denied. It was a question of identifying political affiliations, and the majority of Catholics voted Nationalist. In other words, the majority of people did not get the majority of seats because of this device. If we are to solve the problems of Northern Ireland, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Only then will some of the heat begin to be removed from the situation.

I regularly go to Northern Ireland for my holidays. I hope to go next summer and I will probably spend a part of my time in the ancient province of Ulster, and that part of it which I know the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) regards highly. On my visits I meet the ordinary man in the street—the ordinary Catholic and Protestant—and I sympathise to a great extent with much of what I am told by Orangemen.

When I refer to Orangemen I should, perhaps, make a distinction because all too frequently one hears Protestants in general being called Orangemen. I should hate to think of them all being Orangemen. We should certainly not assume that they all are. I appreciate that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South holds a high position in the Orange Order. Be that as it may, whether they are Protestants, Orangemen, Catholics, Republicans, Nationalists, rebels or what have you, I meet them all and speak to them when I go there.

I am used to hearing both the Catholic and Protestant points of view. Protestants tell me of their fears of there being a united Ireland, though they appreciate that they are in a privileged position primarily because of their religious affiliation at the time of the creation of the Six Counties. When Carson was asked by a Unionist hon. Member for a Dublin constituency, "Why have you abandoned us?"—"us" being the Unionists—Carson's co-religionists in the Republic and Carson himself had to reply, "Because we have got as much as we can control. We do not have what we should have on the basis of having a majority in an area. It is just that, looking at Belfast and its environs, we can control so much and no more. We are sorry, but we must abandon you."

The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) spoke at length of the concept of a united Ireland. The trouble is that the Unionists have never really wanted it. What they have wanted is to remain with all the privileges that would flow from a united Ireland; and there is, of course, a big difference. For this reason they had to settle for second best.

When we consider the important and well-paid salaried jobs in certain sections of the Northern Ireland community we see that the minority—some put it at 33 per cent.—being Catholics, figure very low down in the list of jobs in those categories. In fact, the percentage is much less than that. Frequently it does not reach 10 per cent.

One speaks of the Commission investigating complaints. How does one expect such a Commission to investigate the complaint of somebody who says, "I did not get that job because of my religion"? Indeed, many Catholics are not even asked their religion. If I were being interviewed for a job with a Protestant firm in Northern Ireland, very few bookies would give odds on my chances of getting it, my name being McGuire.

Captain Orr

The Commissioner of Complaints is not empowered to inquire. He is empowered to hear the complaint and then to inquire. It would obviously be up to Mr. McGuire, in the instance which the hon. Gentleman gave. If Mr. McGuire felt that he had been discriminated against on grounds of religion or because his name happened to be McGuire, he could take it to the Commissioner. However, the evidence from the Commissioner shows that there have been a minimal number of complaints and that those which have been investigated have had no substance.

Mr. McGuire

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember the famous correspondence with the Bishop of Down. The man in question had the same name as myself, but he happened to be an Orangeman—one or two of us have gone astray.

The works were in Belfast, where the man admitted that, as a deliberate policy he did not employ Catholics, and he tried to put the best complexion possible on that policy by saying that it would annoy the other people if they got to know that the new man was a Catholic. One cannot have much more blatant discrimination than that. There is still a lot of ground for complaint on that score, but there was much more in years past.

Protestants have expressed the fear that their culture, religion and way of life would be submerged and weakened, and that there would be a tendency for them to be dictated to not so much by the government of a united Ireland as by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church which would put pressures, subtle and otherwise, on such a government to carry out policies detrimental to Protestants. That is a general feeling that I have had expressed to me outside the House and inside. The hon. Member for Antrim, North pointed out that in the Constitution of the Irish Republic a special place is given to the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland. I myself would not care one whit if that were removed. If to do so would remove such fears I would have it removed at once.

One of the good things is that we are now able to read what is said and done by men like Dr. Noel Brown in the Republic. His name springs to mind because he was considered to be a victim of this kind of strategy. I have never met the man, but what I have read of him I like. I particularly like anyone who professes Socialist convictions, and they are certainly wide ranging enough. Dr. Noel Brown is at present conducting a series of meetings—perhaps I should have said" seminars", because no one nowadays ever has just a meeting. His articles have appeared in the Irish Times and the Irish Press. He is now discussing social reforms including such things as abortion, birth control and the like, which were topics at one time anathema to anyone representing the extreme view in the Republic. I do not think that they are good things, but this dialogue is taking place, and I believe that the special place accorded to the Catholic Church is simply a recognition of facts.

I remember listening to John Hume, who was, I think, the Stormont Member for Foyle. He was discussing what offended him as a Protestant—

Rev. Ian Paisley

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Mr. Cooper, who is a Protestant living in mid-Derry. I think that he is the man to whom the hon. Member refers. Mr. Hume is a Roman Catholic.

Mr. McGuire

I am wrong, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting me right. The man I have in mind is Mr. Ivan Cooper who is a Nationalist Member of the Stormont Parliament. He was discussing with members of the Irish Government, members of the Dail, what would help to bring about a change in attitude towards the concept of a united Ireland. Here, I must say, in case anyone should misunderstand me, that I am a great believer in that concept, but in peaceful means of attaining it. Some people may say that it will never come about in that way, to which I reply that it will never come about any other way.

Mr. Cooper was setting out in his discussion things which offended him, a broad-minded Protestant representing what are generally called Catholic interests. He mentioned this giving of a special place in the Constitution to the Catholic Church. I emphasise once more that to do so merely recognises a fact. I do not think that things would be altered very much if that special place were removed, or if the Church had never had a special place.

He also referred to the Angelus coming over on the radio at noon and at 6 o'clock, and said that this created friction because it was strange and foreign to the Protestant ear. The dialogue was about whether it would much matter if that practice had never been started in the first place and what would result if it were now dropped. If it were dropped, of course, there would be reaction from those supporting it, but that is by the way.

The great thing about this present debate is that it is taking place in this House of Commons. For far too long we were frustrated by a convention in our desire to discuss something that was happening in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, but that convention has now been swept away.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North tells us that he represents working class Protestants. He has been quoted in the newspapers as saying that he is the sign of rebellion against the castle—the men at the top. One of the hon. Gentleman's strongest supporters appeared on television the other night. He is the Rev. William Beattie and he is a member of the Stormont Parliament. He said something which I find very difficult to accept, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has also said that he finds difficult to accept.

How can one say to a man, in this case to a Catholic that one admires him as a man and considers him to be as good as any other man and then utterly to belittle his religion and his religious beliefs, which are bound to some extent to be part of him? What would be the reaction if what has been suggested of Catholics was applied to the Jews, accepting—and this is debatable—that the Jews are a race, though the Arabs do not agree, and that one can have an atheistic Jew? We usually identify Jewish people as being bound up with the Jewish faith: it is part and parcel of their life. It is a contradiction in terms to say to such a man, "I do not mind you as a man, but I utterly demean, repudiate, hate and detest your religious beliefs".

The greatest contribution that the hon. Member for Antrim, North can make is to lower the temperature. If he wants to have theological discussions, he can have them. There is much that he and I would believe in about Christianity, although he would probably have the edge on me in a theological discussion.

I say "probably", because just before my election as the Member for Ince my agent told me that a vicar wanted to see me. This vicar was considered to be a very effective opponent of Roman Catholicism; he almost had a weekly column on the subject. I said, "I do not see why I must see him". My agent said, "I think you had better see him. He has a point of view and it is about your being a Catholic. In the first place, he does not think that you should have been selected Calithumpean." I said, "The Labour Party does not bother about whether a man is an atheist, a Jew, a Calithumpean, a Baptist or a Catholic. If he has satisfied the basic requirements, his religious convictions are no concern of the party". That is our great boast.

Anyway, I was prevailed upon to see the vicar, who thereupon engaged in a tirade to the effect that I had to take part in prayers here. The vicar obviously had an exaggerated opinion of the efficacy of prayers in the House of Commons. He must have thought that we were all queueing here to pray, whereas we know that if we queue for anything it is to get tickets.

The vicar said to me—as the hon. Gentleman's companion last night said—that he utterly detested and hated my religious beliefs and he did everything possible to demean them. I said to the vicar, as I say to the hon. Gentleman, "We are bound to have certain common areas". The vicar did not like our sacraments, and so on. However, we had a theological discussion, after which we parted the best of friends; because the proof of the pudding was in the eating. The vicar had had misconceptions about the role of Catholic Members of Parliament who happened to be Labour Members. Anyone can get misconceptions.

I am proud to say that after that when that vicar wanted a school to be opened, a May queen to be crowned, or a Christmas bazaar to be opened, the Member for Ince was the first person he called on. The vicar said to me that that was the first time that he had a straight forward discussion with somebody like me. Although I am not a pious Catholic, I am very proud to be a Catholic. We found some common ground and the vicar's misconceptions were the fewer as a result.

I therefore think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has a very important part to play in Northern Ireland, because he is a very powerful figure. He knows the power he has to influence people's minds. However, it is a contradiction for someone to say that he does not mind Catholics as people but he utterly detests and hates that which is bound to be part of their make-up. That does not help at all.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I cannot know what my colleague said, for I did not see the programme. In the City of Belfast recently the leading Jesuit protagonist of the hon. Gentleman's church—the Rev. Thomas Corbishly—and myself had a debate at Queen's University. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about Queen's University, he will know the types of debate that have taken place there in the past. However, the Rev. Thomas Corbishly and I had one of the best debates that has ever been held there. I believe that a man can sincerely hold strong religious views and can be opposed to the views of his constituents in these matters, but these things do not hinder many scores of the hon. Gentleman's co-religionists in the Glens of Antrim from flocking to my advice centre. After I have dealt with their parliamentary matters, many a time we have a theological discussion, but we do not go away sharpening our knives one against the other. The hon. Gentleman misrepresents my point of view in putting forward so strongly what he is saying this afternoon. I do not believe that he would want to do that.

Mr. McGuire

I do not suppose that we can reach agreement on that, but that is how I and many of my co-religionists react and how many people who have no religious convictions react. When the man who has no religious convictions listens to a debate between Catholic and Protestant, he probably says, as the man from Wigan said, "Thank God I am an atheist".

The hon. Member for Antrim, North, with his command of language and the way he has of inspiring people, would better serve the people in having theological discussions, if he wants to have them with someone, with somebody like the Rev. Thomas Corbishly. I read and heard of the very famous debate the hon. Gentleman had with that person. I believe that it was attended by a full house. That was a testimony of the eloquence of both religious gentlemen, but I think it occurred primarily because people wanted to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) for not having been here to listen to his speech.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) went to Belfast in August, 1969, his very first public utterance was that he had not been in Northern Ireland for more than a very short time before he realised that there were far too many guns about for people's comfort. This was why when we were debating the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill we referred to this and said that there was a danger that the store of weapons would be legally increased and that people who had demonstrated in the past how they would use guns would be able to get their hands on guns legally.

How does the Minister of State propose to curb these official rifle clubs or B Special clubs, whose past history means that they are effectively restricted to a certain class of person, which could be a very dangerous position and which is causing concern? I hope that the hon. Gentleman can tell the House what plans the Government have to curb this and strictly examine existing clubs and, if necessary, reduce their number.

On the question of arms searches, the worst thing the House could do would be to attribute to our soldiers all the qualities under the sun and say that they had no vices. Inevitably, our soldiers take with them the prejudices that they have acquired throughout their lives. This applies particularly with regiments and soldiers from certain parts of the United Kingdom who are known from past history to have an unfortunate historical association with Ireland.

The Army authorities would be wise to ensure that as far as possible such people do not get a chance to carry their prejudices to excess—for instance, on legitimate arms searches. I am convinced that there have been excesses and that there are legitimate grounds for complaint. These should be avoided. I think, too, that there should be impartiality when there are searches. If there is cause to believe that there are guns in two areas, a search should not be made only in one area. There should be a fully effective and humane search in both areas.

I did not listen to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East. I was out having a cup of tea. But I think the position of the Government of the Republic of Ireland has been misrepresented, quite unwittingly, from the benches opposite in debates of this kind. The Prime Minister of the Republic, the Taioseach, has been very courageous in denouncing the use of force as a means of achieving a united Ireland. He has come under a lot of pressure for so doing. But I think we should extend the hand of friendship from this House to the Republic. I am on good grounds when I say that, because I remember that the present Lord Chancellor, when in this House, said precisely that in a similar debate. He said that for far too long in this House, apart from Members who are Irish like myself, there has been a tendency, not overtly to demean, but nevertheless to slight the Government of the Republic.

Not always have we recognised the pressure which exists there. The year 1921 is not far away in terms of history. It is these kinds of pressures which the Prime Minister of the Republic is meeting very fairly and courageously, and we should pay more attention to him; we should pay a tribute to him and extend the hand of friendship.

Ultimately the real solution to the problem is economic. Theological debates, important and interesting as they are, are not the real solution. When we have a prosperous republic, unity will inevitably come. It will flow from measures of co-operation, from tourism, electricity supplies, fisheries and the like. This will inevitably lead people to say, "If we can co-operate and get such mutual benefit, why do we have to remain divided?"

The first solution is not to maintain the special privilege which was given to the people of the Six Counties in 1921. This could not happen in any part of the world today. The Six Counties were given a special privilege, and they abused it. I believe they have seen the folly of their ways. This House, in being able to debate the past follies, may be able to show the way to future peace and happiness in that unhappy Province.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

I have heard the word "discrimination" used in this Chamber this afternoon, and, indeed, I myself have been the subject of some discrimination by some of my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist group because I speak without the benefit of the briefing which the Ulster Prime Minister gave to my Ulster Unionist colleagues. I know that I irritate them from time to time because I cannot stand humbug, and I always like to prick the bubble of hypocrisy whenever I see it. By the same token, I do not mind them criticising me. It was only from the Lobby correspondent of the Irish Times that I learned that the Ulster Prime Minister had met my colleagues at 2.30 this afternoon. As I say, I speak without the benefit of the briefing which he gave to them.

I do not intend to speak for long and, therefore, my remarks may be somewhat disjointed. We heard the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who succeeded me in that constituency, and who makes very rare appearances in this House as opposed to the attendances which I made in the period 1964–66. Listening to the hon. Member for Belfast, West, one can imagine the politicians of the past who spoke in this House and in Dublin throughout the centuries. In fact, from what he and some other hon. Members opposite said, one would think that trouble in the Province occurred only in the period since Ulster was established. That is not so. I remember reading—I took a note of it—a remark made by one well-known literary figure. He said: They say it is the fatal destiny of that land referring to Ireland— that no purposes whatsoever that are meant for her good will prosper. That was written by Edmund Spencer 400 years ago. I could give other quotations from Macaulay and others who have despaired of the violence demonstrated in every part of Ireland.

When we speak of violence we should remember that when the Irish Free State was created in 1921 two famous men, whose views I would not agree with but who are worthy of the Irish nation, were murdered. There was Michael Collins who was shot down not by Unionists or by Protestants but by the Irish Republican Army. There was Kevin O'Higgins who was shot down, on his way to Mass, by the same people who were proud to call themselves Irish patriots.

Mr. McGuire

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman for the sake of historical accuracy? No one knows who shot either Michael Collins or Kevin O'Higgins. If I remember aright, Collins was shot when he was leading the Free State troops in that period of the civil war, or slightly before, and there was a sweep in a certain area of County Cork. He was shot at Beal Na Blagh, and nobody knows to this day who shot him.

Mr. Kiliedder

I am grateful to the hon. Member. At this hour of the night I do not intend to go into Irish history, except to say that there were bitter fights between the Irish Republican Army and the Government forces of that day. In Ulster the people were trying to create a prosperous State, despite the difficulties and the hardships brought about by the economic situation of the 1920s.

I believe that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is right. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. I, and I believe every hon. Member, will agree with him in that. One way in which we can help—a small way, perhaps—is by ensuring that in Northern Ireland High Court judges are not appointed from Cabinet Ministers. This would be one way in which we could prove the sincerity of the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

Several hon. Members criticised the Unionists. I am not going to repeat what they have said, but it is perfectly clear that they are blind to the inaction of the minority. The Ulster people always wanted the minority to play an active part in the life of Northern Ireland. We all know that Northern Ireland cannot be a viable unit unless every citizen plays his part. We on this side of the House want prosperity in Ulster, not just for Protestants or Unionists but for everyone —Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, and Nationalists as well as Unionists. We cannot have prosperity while the gunman is allowed to shoot down innocent people in the Roman Catholic areas. While the gunman is allowed to shoot down our soldiers, we cannot have prosperity. The very employers whom we wish to attract to Northern Ireland are frightened away from establishing factories there.

In the debate on Rolls-Royce the other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) feared the result of the cancellation of the RB211 contract, saying that it could mean the end of Short Brothers itself. What would happen, he asked, when 6,000 or 7,000 men were thrown on the streets? —"Idle hands would soon turn to dangerous and perhaps evil ways in today's conditions in Northern Ireland".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 95.] He included in his forebodings not only Short Brothers but Rolls-Royce, too, whose factory is in my constituency. I do not for a moment accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, that the decent hardworking employees of those two factories would, if they became unemployed, take up the gun or engage in any criminal conduct.

I was very upset on Sunday evening to see what appeared on B.B.C. television. An Irish Republican Army song was broadcast. It went into the homes of the people of Belfast, Protestant homes as well as Roman Catholic, and that only a few days or a week after the shooting down of a young soldier. It is terrible that an organisation like the British Broadcasting Corporation could wantonly broadcast such a thing over the air, and, what is more, to a part of the country, in Newcastle, where the relatives of that young solid soldier live. I cannot understand how the B.B.C. could behave in such a wilful and wanton fashion.

Independent Television has its share of responsibility, too, for it broadcast an interview with one of the leaders of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. This also is bound to add to the tension in Northern Ireland. Unless these organisations exercise some responsibility, there will be no lessening of tension in the Province.

If the voice of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland could be heard directly in this Chamber, they—not the minority—would be heard crying out for justice and for understanding. No other people in modern times have been so unfairly denigrated and maligned by politicians and by the news media as have the Unionists of Northern Ireland. No other State in history has been so wilfully forced by threats and blackmail, one might almost call it, to reorganise its whole domestic government in so brief a span of time as has Northern Ireland. We in this House know how difficult it is to prepare the way for legislation and pass it through Parliament. The same time ought to be granted to Northern Ireland.

There have been references to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I believe that it is this force which, when the Army leaves Northern Ireland as one day it must, will take over the protection of people and property in the Province. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us what ideas he has for providing financial assistance to members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, who are not paid by their employers when they take days off to serve with the Regiment.

I was not present when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke, but I believe that he referred to the Irish Republican Army funerals which took place recently in Belfast. They were an obvious provocation to the people there. I am not sure where the responsibility lies, but I assume that it must lie with the Security Committee of the Stormont Government. It is no use blaming the Army. I am the first to criticise any member of the forces who acts in a way he should not, but I do not think that we can blame the Army for the occurrence of that procession.

I put on record my admiration for the way in which the Army has behaved in Northern Ireland, and on this I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who is critical of the Army.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

My hon. Friend should not say that. In fact, no one has been more consistent than I have in praising the work of the Army in Northern Ireland and in defending it both in the House and outside. I should take grave exception to any suggestion to the contrary.

Mr. Kilfedder

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps my recollection is not good—perhaps I am the best Irishman because I have a very bad memory—but my recollection was that he had attacked the Government here for the way in which they were discharging their security rôle in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is not to put it in the words which I used, but I felt that there was an inference of criticism not only of the Government but of the British Army's activities in the Province.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

It is true that I have certain criticisms of the way in which the security rôle was being discharged, but I am sure that even my hon. Friend will understand that that is wholly different from criticising the conduct of our soldiers, who have behaved with great endurance and great valour and, on the whole, with great skill in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder

I shall close with two other comments, first about education, and second, about employment.

I have always regarded separate education in Ulster as tending to continue the divisions into the future. I should like to see all boys and girls, irrespective of their religion, educated at the same schools. It is no good saying, "Let them get together when they are 16, 17, 18 or 19". They should be together when they are toddlers, children of 5, 6 and 7, so that they may not only learn together but play together and grow up together. In this way, we could see an end to the real division which exists in Northern Ireland.

I interrupted the hon. Member for Belfast, West on the question of unemployment, and put to him that if all the people who emigrated to this country had stayed in the Irish Republic the unemployment situation there would be as grave as it is today in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGuire

As it similarly would be in Wales or Scotland.

Mr. Kilfedder

The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but then why do not the unemployed people in the areas to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West referred emigrate if they cannot get work in Northern Ireland? There is work in the new city of Craigavon, but they can not get enough people to work there. If the unemployed in the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred cannot get work in the Province, why do not they come to England to work, like the people from Eire? The reason is that in Northern Ireland, as here, we have the Welfare State, with unemployment benefits and family benefits. As a result, a man with a dozen children—and there are many such people in Northern Ireland —can receive more while unemployed than if he is working. Either something must be done about that, or wages in Northern Ireland must be increased to the same level as in this country. In that way, perhaps we might provide the incentive for people to work.

Mr. McGuire

If a certain section of the community is discriminated against and denied jobs, to ask "Why do not they go to England?" is to hope that as a result of discrimination they will leave so that the impression is given that there is no problem. Our case is that there is discrimination, and the majority of people who are asked to come over happen to be non-Unionist supporters.

Mr. Kilfedder

I was finishing with my last sentence before the hon. Gentleman intervened. But may I say in conclusion that whenever the accusing finger is pointed at Northern Ireland, we should look at the facts. The population has increased slowly in the Republic as compared with Northern Ireland. There is greater emigration from the Republic. It is only minmal in Northern Ireland. This seems to indicate that there is no oppression or discrimination in Ulster, because as most people point out, the Roman Catholic minority will be in a majority before the end of the century. That is what people say.

Mr. Fitt

It has been a fallacy promulgated in Northern Ireland throughout the years that 51 per cent, of the school children now attending primary schools are Roman Catholic, and that in 10 to 15 years they will compose the majority in Northern Ireland. But what has happened over the past 50 years is that when those children leave school they find it impossible to get a job in Northern Ireland because of the discrimination that has existed. That may change a little now. Those children, being unable to find employment in their own homeland, will have to go somewhere else, and the Unionists will still be in control.

Mr. Kilfedder

I will not be enticed into speaking longer, because other hon. Members wish to speak. Not only do Roman Catholic school children and university graduates go to England but so do their Protestant brothers and sisters. That is one of the contributions that Northern Ireland makes to the wealth of this country. We pay for their education in Northern Ireland and the brain drain is to England, Scotland and Wales, which enjoy the benefits.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder (Belfast, South)

This debate was described in the local papers in Northern Ireland as the debate that nobody wants. That was the Press comment in newspapers on both sides of the political spectrum, so I suppose that it was inevitable that quite a number of us should have approached the debate in that same mood. But for once I have been utterly confounded by a Northern Ireland debate in this House, because with one exception, and only for a short period, the debate has been the most free from acrimony of any that I can recall during my seven years in the House. 1 shall come to the brief lapse of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in a moment, but I fully understand his position in the matter.

The debate has been of value. I do not think that anyone could pretend for a moment that somebody, somewhere, would find the light that would solve the problem of Northern Ireland. But the mere fact that we have been able to have a debate of over four hours containing speeches from very different viewpoints yet all having as one central theme a genuine and total condemnation of violence, from whatever source, is encouraging. That in itself is something which I do not think we have previously seen in Northern Ireland debates in this House.

Equally, there has been a marked resistance to the temptation to rake over the embers of history. Nobody disputes—certainly, not even Lord Cameron disputed—that the Ulster man is enmeshed by the burdens of history. So often, there has been the temptation to go back to find arguments to justify almost any viewpoint which one has cared to express. Again, we have had marked good fortune in avoiding this.

There has also been—and I am glad that the debate developed as it did—relatively little talk about possible political solutions. It is right that these should have been relegated to a subordinate position in our thinking, for the simple reason that political solutions, whatever they may be, are of precious little value until such time as we have some form of stability on the streets of Belfast, and, indeed, Londonderry and other parts of Northern Ireland where there have been outbreaks of violence. I may be wrong in this, but my view is that everything is secondary until we have peace on the streets in our cities once again.

Frequent reference has been made to varying aspects of the much-publicised funerals of Republicans on Tuesday of last week. I do not want to rake over those, but I believe with some of my hon. Friends that it is little short of a miracle that there was not an outburst of appalling violence in Belfast that night. I remember being detained upstairs in Committee on the Coal Industry Bill when news came from home that all was quiet. I thought that we had, perhaps, achieved the first signs of a return to stability and sanity when the tremendous provocations which those funerals had presented had not sparked off the possible backlash that one had feared and that restraint and common sense had prevailed.

Having said that, however, there is no shadow of doubt that fear still exists in many parts of Belfast. That fear is frequently coupled with frustration, the frustration that the very lifeblood of the Province seems to be draining away, and yet, with the best will in the world, one has the most acute difficulty in being able to find possible solutions to our problems.

I do not belong to the internment lobby. I do not like that sort of thing, although I am quite prepared to recognise that circumstances may arise in which it becomes inevitable. One does so, however, very much as a last resort.

One thing that is rather upsetting is that we seem to be getting to the point at which the number of options remaining open to the security forces is beginning to become narrower owing to the apparent, almost steady, inexorable esca- lation of violence, which seemingly no methods have so far been able adequately to contain.

I am convinced that the Army in Northern Ireland has displayed a fortitude which is beyond reproach. It is a ghastly job for soldiers to have to carry out the sort of functions which they are being asked to do in Northern Ireland. Reference has been made to the quick turnover of personnel and the fact that many of them are there for only four months. During this period, however, most of us have got to know quite a number of soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland in each unit, and it is appalling to think of the conditions in which they have had to live and work. They have shown much more self-discipline and self-control in the sort of situations that they have faced than I could ever have done. I certainly do not belong to the lobby which condemns the Army for some of the incidents which have happened.

There have, of course, been unhappy incidents, but they have been due to lack of local knowledge. Therefore, the new arrangements whereby there is much closer liaison between the Army and the police have gone a long way, if not the whole way, towards eliminating the source of that problem.

Hon. Members opposite have criticised the arms searches, I think unfairly, certainly judging by the quantities of ammunition and weaponry which have been found. There may be an anti-rumour service in Belfast, but nothing spreads faster than the idea that someone, somewhere has a gun. From one gun in one street, it grows to "x" number of automatics in an area, and the rumour escalates until people are at breaking point. There cannot be proper peace in Belfast until all unauthorised weapons are unearthed, because of the rumour content.

It is easy to talk with hindsight and emphasise some events which may have happened in the past. In the statement of 29th January, issued after the meeting between the Northern Ireland Cabinet and the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State at the Home Office, I was delighted to see in paragraph 9: … the aim of the security forces in riot situations is … 'not simply to contain riotous behaviour but to seek out and subject to the rule of law those who take part in it and particularly those who foment and lead it'. That statement did a great deal to take much of the heat out of the situation. The containment argument has ceased to be valid and has been superseded by a more determined approach to riot behaviour.

I have found it difficult to accept the apparent contradiction between the words and actions of prominent spokesmen from time to time. I am thinking of the former G.O.C., Sir Ian Freeland, in that now famous "Panorama" programme on a Monday early in April last year in which he said that petrol bombers were liable to be shot. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will recall that that was said on the eve of a debate on Northern Ireland in this House.

Many people, including myself, welcomed that "get tough" statement. However, subsequently petrol bombs were thrown and the Army appeared not to enforce the rather rough words uttered by the G.O.C. That sort of situation did nothing to help the credibility of the Army, and I hope that that sort of dichotomy is now behind us and that if tough words are uttered in the future, they will be followed by actions of a similar kind. The current situation does not allow of any one talking tough and acting soft.

Many people may wonder why the communiqué of 29th of last month went out of its way in paragraph 8 to make it clear that … it is affirmed once again that Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom is a matter for the Parliament and people of Northern Ireland and will be maintained by both Governments against all kinds of violence or subversive activity. It may be that one reason why it is necessary to reiterate that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) made clear, that one of the aims and objectives of the Irish Republican Army is so to weaken public opinion here that Britain will become tired of the problem of Northern Ireland. If that is the case, the reiteration of the statement that subversive activity will not daunt the constitutional arrangement is to be welcomed.

I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West will never write a history book. If he does, it will contain even more inaccuracies of fact than many which are in current circulation. I will not go over all his points, because he has been more than adequately answered on many of them. However, I take exception to one. He talked in a historical context about the minority having been excluded. That is a very unfair statement when it applied to a section of a community which almost wilfully refused to co-operate with the institutions being established in the infant days of Northern Ireland. Places in the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserved for the minority were not taken up. The result was a weakened force which had to be strengthened wherever recruits could be found.

Mr. Fitt

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that on the Corporation of the City of Belfast there are a number of non-Unionist representatives and that not one has ever been offered the vice-chair-manship or chairmanship of any committee? Does he further agree that only in the past five or six weeks one well-known anti-Unionist and independent member was rumoured to be getting the vice-chairmanship of the Parks and Cemeteries Committee but that Unionist members turned up in force and voted against his nomination? This has happened in local authorities up and down Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Is not the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) aware that this is true not only of Republicans and Nationalists but of Unionists and that it is not discrimination on religious grounds but discrimination because of political party affiliation which dominates local authorities?

Mr. Pounder

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for answering the question for me. That was a perfectly fair comment. I am not aware that the party winning power goes round sharing the offices among many other people.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others mentioned the proportional representation argument. This is a hare which one sees running occasionally, but I should have thought that proportional representation would be the worst thing possible for a country like Northern Ireland, because where there is proportional representation, there tends to be political fragmentation —they tend to go hand in hand.

There has not been a stable Government, in terms of a reasonable working majority, in Dublin for many years, but there have been knife edges where Governments there have held on by two's and three's with the help of independents. There was the classic situation of France before the war where there were over 60 political parties. We emphatically do not want that situation in Northern Ireland and because of that I am not enamoured of the idea of proportional representation.

I make a comment about the Ulster Defence Regiment to have the matter looked at rather than to ask for a specific answer now. At the weekend, the local papers in Northern Ireland said that certain employers were being less than considerate or co-operative to employees who were enrolled members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The lack of co-operation included not making up the loss of pay for men on duty and not giving time off for training facilities.

I know that the charge was strenuously denied subsequently by a member of the Joint Security Committee in Northern Ireland. However, the only two questions I was asked over the weekend both concerned constituents whom I know well and whom I know to be members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and who both said that the charge was absolutely fair, that some employers were not being as co-operative as they might be in giving members of the U.D.R. time off for duties and training. In view of the valuable work which the U.D.R. is doing in Northern Ireland, if there is any substance in these charges—and it is my personal opinion that there probably i—I hope that they will be investigated to ensure that every facility and assistance are given to men giving their time, energy and talents to the Ulster Defence Regiment so that they may do their full duties properly.

I come finally to an economic consideration. Street violence has had its inevitable effect on industrial investment in Northern Ireland. But we have two additional problems. One is the level of inducements which Northern Ireland can offer vis-à-vis other parts of the country, but we have further difficulty in that we start from the position of what by English standards is abnormally high unemployment. This is a perennial problem.

When we have a high level of unemployment followed by competition from other areas for new industry and a riot situation which has been heavily publicised over the last couple of years, clearly we could be in acute economic difficulties. Compounding this has been the 1969 squeeze. I do not make this as a partisan point, but simply in an economic sense. It is a well-known economic fact that it takes a minimum of 12 months, more likely 18 months, for a credit squeeze, once imposed, to soak its way through the economy, starting with a shortage in the money supply situation, leading ultimately to the laying-off of labour.

We are now in that situation. The shortage of money has inevitably led to a cut-back in industrial development and investment. Additionally, owing to the shortage of money, there have been redundancies in existing firms. When that situation is produced on top of a basic unemployment level of 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. we are in great economic difficulties.

I have an ingrained dislike of special pleading but I should be negligent as an Ulster Member if I did not draw special attention to the economic consequences we are still suffering as a result of the 1969 squeeze. The hon. Member for Antrim, North ventured to suggest that by the end of the year our unemployment levels could be very high indeed, and I certainly would not dissent from that gloomy forecast. Like him I would be loth to put a figure on the likely projection. Even if there were an immediate reflation, that, too, would take time to bite. Therefore, whatever happens in 1971 we are in an acutely difficult economic situation in Northern Ireland. Is there anything that can be done to bring about a quick and effective alleviation, if only a short-term alleviation, so that we may be cushioned against the worst effects of the present situation?

The Northern Ireland Government with the assistance of London has worked manfully over the years to attract new industry. As John Thompson said in the Sunday Telegraph: The giant cranes of the shipyard, the humming new factories—these ought to be the realities of the new Ulster. I could not agree more. Whatever social and economic plans there are for the future they require, as a prerequisite, the establishment of peace on the streets of Belfast. I will go along with any necessary action to achieve that.

It seems incredible that in part of the United Kingdom we should have to talk about peace in the streets being a prerequisite to getting on with other things but that is the situation and we must face up to it. I hope that we shall be able to turn the corner and I hope that the future will not be as gloomy as many of us in Northern Ireland fear. I trust that peace, good sense and a complete ending of all violence are not far distant.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

I will try to be brief because although I put my name down to speak in the debate I am aware that it has gone on for five hours and that Ulster Members have had a fair crack of the whip. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) upon the way in which he opened the debate with a very well-informed and interesting speech. I look forward to more contributions from him.

We have had a lively and interesting debate, perhaps one of the best that I have heard on the subject in the 12 or so years that I have been a Member of the House. I want to concentrate on one or two points. I should like first to say how much I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given so much of his time to us, having sat through most of the debate. I saw the Prime Minister here at one time and the Minister of State for Defence. Many other right hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the House have been here, including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). This is an indication of the importance of this subject.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the ôle of the Army in Northern Ireland. He said that when the Army went to Northern Ireland there were "no-go areas". He wondered what one expected. Did one expect the Army to go into those areas? I ask him to consider the alternative. The police forces, as a result of the Report of the Hunt Committee which the right hon. Gentleman supported, had been disarmed and our home militia, the B Specials, had been disbanded. Is one expected to accept the state of affairs referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North when crimes are committed in Belfast? I refer not to civil disorder but ordinary crimes. I also have had a report of a person in my constituency whose car was taken. In his case they "upped the ante" and made it £25 before the car would be returned.

Like my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North and Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I believe that law and order must be restored in Belfast and, indeed, the whole of Northern Ireland. How can it be restored by unarmed police going into areas where people are heavily armed and where attacks are frequently made on members of the police and the Army and where civilians are murdered? There have been vicious attacks with guns and explosives. The nail bombs, about which we have all heard, are extremely vicious weapons.

Although I do not like to see the Army performing a quasi police rôle, it is the only force available to do it. Although I followed the point of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I do not see any alternative to the Army re-entering those areas and re-establishing law and order.

Mr. Callaghan

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the members of the R.U.C. were armed at a time when they were not entering these areas. Disarmament had nothing to do with whether they went into them or not. It was not right at the time to put an unfair burden on British soldiers when armed civilian police could not undertake that task. That was the only point which I made.

Mr. McMaster

I want to take the matter a stage further. At that time the police were extremely hard pressed in Londonderry. It would have been impossible for them to have restored law and order throughout Northern Ierland or, indeed, in any other part of the United Kingdom similarly affected by attempted anarchy. The rôle of the Army has always been to back up the civil forces in such circumstances.

Reference was made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to the skill with which the Republican elements in Northern Ireland had been pursuing their campaign against Northern Ireland. He has under-estimated the skill of their campaign—the way in which they originally used the civil rights movement to stir up trouble and the way in which articles in the Press like that by Tony Geraghty in the Sunday Times yesterday, taking a very biassed pro-Republican line, have been written. The way in which they have managed to infiltrate the mass media of the Press and B.B.C. shows the skill with which they have been carrying on their campaign against Northern Ireland.

Indeed, the publicity which they have received has done a great deal of damage to the cause of Northern Ireland because very often the truth is distorted in the arguments which have occurred—because of the way in which they have managed, even in this debate, to attempt to persuade the House of Commons that the root of the trouble is purely a religious difference. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) spent a lot of time in dealing with this point.

The point is, of course—and I believe this to be true—not one of religious difference, but one of political difference. The trouble in Ireland is one of a struggle for political power. A minority in the population, a convinced Republic minority, want to seize power in Northern Ireland. They are quite obviously not content with using ordinary constitutional means to do this. They will resort to any means at all, as they have done, resulting in the tragic death in my constituency of Gunner Curtis just a week ago. They are prepared to use any means at all to force their will upon the population, not only of Northern Ireland but of the United Kingdom as a whole. Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to one of the aims of the Republicans in Northern Ireland—and it is a very real fear—and that is to make the population in the rest of the United Kingdom thoroughly fed up with the whole situation so that they will put pressure on the Government to withdraw the troops from Northern Ireland.

I do not believe it is possible, but I do believe very firmly that the campaign, which was originally launched by certain Republicans in Ulster some 18 months ago, starting in the summer of 1969, has brought a great deal of misery to their own people. It has led to houses being burned down, to factories being destroyed, to people living in fear and suffering, to new industry, as other hon. Members have pointed out, being frightened away from Northern Ireland, and to existing industries being contracted.

The publicity which has been given to the Republican cause on this side of the Irish Channel has done a great deal to further that, because it has given encouragement to the minority that they would achieve their ends. I would say that there is a clear duty on the organs of the Press, and on the B.B.C. particularly, to act in a more responsible fashion, to bear in mind all the time that the more publicity they give to the minority, the more they encourage them, the more harm they do to that unfortunate minority.

I should just like to say a word on the role of the Army.

Mr. McNamara

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman giving way. I am somewhat concerned about his use of the word "minority". I wonder whether he would make it clear. When he talks about "a minority" and an "unfortunate minority", is he talking about the 35 per cent, of the religious minority? Or is he talking about the minority within the minority—people who are, perhaps, I.R.A. or pro-I.R.A.? Or is he talking about the minority within the majority—for instance, the Ulster Volunteers, people of that nature? He must be more precise in the use of these terms, because otherwise, while he may have the sympathy of the House in some of the things he is saying, he may create resentment on this side of the House because of a loose use of terms.

Mr. McMaster

I am sorry. I thought I had made it quite clear a few moments ago, when I said I was not referring to a religious division. The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening, but he will find it in HANSARD. I am referring to the Republican minority, the Republican element in Northern Ireland—simply and solely to that. People of the religious persuasion to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, and many others, on both sides of the House, Roman Catholics—and I hesitate to use that term because it becomes so emotive in this situation and so confusing—who support the constitutional position. I would never allege that this is a religious division or cause of trouble. There are many moderate Roman Catholics in Nothern Ieland who are at the moment terrorised by the Republicans and who perhaps give them positive assistance or contribute to their collection because of the present intimidation in Belfast.

Mr. McNamara

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I should like to come back to this point. When he talks about the aims of minorities, he should make it clear that he is talking of people of Republican persuasion who are seeking to use violence to attain a political end. We must do this, because all his phrases could have been grossly misinterpreted without his later explanation.

Mr. McMaster

The hon. Member puts it in a nutshell. I do mean Republicans who are prepared to use the rifle and gelignite.

Knowing and having visited all sites of my constituency, I can see the Army's problem, particularly in carrying out searches, and I can imagine the resentment which may be caused there and how moderate people may be driven into one extreme camp or another by such searches. But the cause of the trouble is the existence of this fanatical, armed minority and they must be weeded out, because the population of Northern Ireland are at their wits' end and at the end of their tether. There is a general air of depression about in Northern Ireland, I think my hon. Friends will agree.

We must deal with those who are responsible for carrying illegal arms. A red herring has been drawn across the debate by references to the shotguns of farmers and the target rifles in rifle clubs. They have very little to do with the problem. These arms have not been used in any case of which I can think for an attack upon the police or the Army. The areas in which these attacks have happened make this clear.

I believe that the rôle of the Army, where there is a civilianised police force, as a result of the work of Sir Arthur Young, following the Hunt Committee report, where we have no local militia, is to do the job of searching. This job must be done, wherever there is a breach of the peace. The Army must be prepared to go in, preferably with the police, and search for and find both rifles and high explosives, which apparently exist in large quantities in Northern Ireland.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, in a reply to me on 11th February, said: During the past 12 months, there have been 572 Beaches of occupied houses. …In this period, 743 lb. of explosive, 8,079 yards of fuse, 2,618 detonators, 282 assorted weapons and approximately 40,000 rounds of ammunition have been found. The number of persons charged with unlawful possession totals 171."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 780.] When that list can be found in 12 months—that is only the part which is found—one shudders to think how well armed is this disruptive group.

Mr. Fitt

The hon. Gentleman should be prepared to admit that these arms were found among all sections of the community, and not exclusively one section. Many of the arms, not just the ammunition, were found in the Dungannon area, where extreme Protestants were operating, and not in exclusively Catholic areas. This could be misleading.

Mr. McMaster

That is another clear attempt to mislead the House. I have no doubt that both sides are armed. Indeed, I know that to be a fact. However, one must ask who started it, why it was started and who is continuing it. There is no doubt that the people who are carrying out these attacks and who have organised them in the last 18 months or so are the Republicans and that they are doing it for the clear purpose of reuniting Ireland. This has led to a great deal of frustration among the majority part of the population.

I make no apology for those who have been carrying arms illegally. I hold no brief for anybody who does this. However, I understand their frustration. In my constituency a few months ago three men were shot dead. The Army did not turn up for three or four hours after the incident and, when the soldiers finally came, guns were going off around them and shots were being fired—not at them but over their heads, as it were—and they did nothing for four more hours. Any person in that street where shots were being fired through the houses, seeing the Army standing by doing nothing, was bound to feel that for the protection of himself and his family he should arm himself lest the same sort of thing happen again.

This is the root cause of the trouble. Though it may be embarrassing to the Home Secretary for searches to be carried out and though searches of this kind may sometimes aggravate the situation, the Army must act in this way and, indeed, search out with more vigour and resolution those who have arms illegally. This must be done to restore peace to Northern Ireland because unless it is done the already bad situation will become worse and the trouble will escalate.

I must refer to two major industries in my part of the world, shipbuilding and aircraft. Both industries are facing considerable troubles and they provide a way for Her Majesty's Government to help Northern Ireland. Harland and Wolff have serious financial problems. This shipyard employs 10,000 men and I need not say much to explain how important employment of this kind is to Northern Ireland, which now has 48,000 unemployed. As has been pointed out, the unemployment figures have been increasing recently and now almost one man in ten is unemployed.

The aircraft industry also has great problems. The naval repair yard is in difficulty and I trust that the Government will consider, both by way of grants to attract new industry and methods to help existing industry to become viable and efficient, this to be a good way to help Northern Ireland. Certain defence work, particularly like naval air repair work, could be directed to Northern Ireland to help us overcome our unemployment problem.

Though this is not the root of the trouble, a high unemployment rate in Northern Ireland cannot help. We cannot look forward to social reforms and a restoration of a happier life, including improved housing programmes and the rest, unless employment opportunities are increased and money is made available for the economy of Northern Ireland generally.

Mr. Callaghan

Would the hon. Gentleman support a proposal which I have put forward on many occasions, though I claim no propriety for it, that a quick, indeed instantaneous, injection of capital into the economy of Northern Ireland could be achieved by a doubling of the regional employment premium? This would have an immediate effect, though it would be costly, on labour costs there and inject additional consumer purchasing power.

Mr. McMaster

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has got a good solution, but I would modify it to the extent that the regional employment premium might be graded so that it related to the number of unemployed. The number of unemployed in Northern Ireland is four or five times the national average, and double that in the development areas in the rest of the United Kingdom. As I say, there might be some relationship between the premium and the number of unemployed.

9.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling)

This has been an excellent debate. I have had the pleasure of listening to all the speeches save the speech, I am sorry to say, of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), but I know that he will forgive me. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) both on his excellent maiden speech and on introducing a subject which has been so well and thoroughly discussed today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) said, some of us felt a little cautious about debating Northern Ireland affairs at present because experience has shown us that debates on this subject at difficult times can lead to trouble. That has not happened at all: as my hon. Friend said, this debate has been particularly marked by the serious way in which it has been conducted and by a total absence of acrimony on either side. This is rather important in reflecting the seriousness with which this House of Commons regards the British responsibility in Northern Ireland.

My hon. Friend in his very well reasoned and extremely interesting speech raised two points to which I wish to refer, and which were also taken up by other speakers. The first was the question of greater help from Scotland Yard to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) also referred. It is important to get clear what is involved here.

I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it has always been understood that a question of deploying some British uniformed police forces in Northern Ireland is a matter to be discussed with the Federation, because very difficult issues are involved. But what was involved here, as my predecessor described, was a request for technical help for the solving of particular crimes by detectives coming from this country to the aid of detectives operating in Northern Ireland who are already very heavily pressed. I am quite sure that all hon. Members would agree that this was a very sensible and practical thing. It seems totally different from large-scale deployment of uniformed forces, which would involve entirely different issues.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the other point made by my hon. Friend, which was whether security forces should come under the control of Stormont. This question, too, was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and also by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and many other hon. Members. Perhaps I could state once again the position on the responsibility for law and order in Northern Ireland which is, in a way, a difficult and unique situation because of the unique constitutional responsibility of Stormont.

The position is that the Northern Ireland Government are responsible for law and order. The British troops there are acting in support of the civil power, and they are acting under the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and, therefore, of the Government responsible to this House. So we have in a sense, formally speaking, a dichotomy which cannot he avoided, because the Stormont Parliament has its responsibility as we here have ours.

In practice, however, it works perfectly well because both sides know exactly what their responsibilities are, and because through the machinery of the Joint Security Committee liaison has been established between the Northern Ireland Government, our Government here in London, the police and the Armed Forces, with everyone working together in harmony with the same objective in view, and any attempt to institutionalise things and put one in control of the others would raise constitutional issues in one Parliament or another which would do no good to anyone and might cause considerable confusion.

Mr. Molyneaux

Will my right hon. Friend note that I said that we should work towards this as a solution at some time in the future? I was thinking more of this kind of situation cropping up again. I was not suggesting that this remedy should be applied in this situation.

Mr. Maudling

It was my fault; I must have misunderstood what my hon. Friend was saying. The position is clear; it is a position which subsisted under the previous Administration, and it is a position which must be right for the country in these circumstances.

Many other speeches were made, but I do not think that I can refer to all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) rightly said that a gunman does not win in a secret ballot and that the I.R.A. are trying to sicken British public opinion of the problems of Northern Ireland.

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I agree with him entirely that it is a question of establishing the rule of law and respect for the rule of law, and of seeing that justice is not only done but seen to be done. All of us agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's point of view on that. It was significant that, though the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is a somewhat controversial figure politically, his speech today was received with great interest on both sides of the House as making a great contribution to understanding and perhaps solving a problem which is with us all.

I want to comment on the situation as it now appears to me in Northern Ireland. Recent months have seen a number of very significant changes. There has been one noticeable improvement and there have been two definite deteriorations.

The noticeable improvement is the lessening of sectarian tensions. It is quite apparent that tension between the two communities, if that is the right word to use, is certainly far less than it was some months ago. The crowds appearing on the streets when there are riots and disturbances are far smaller than they were. There has been a very marked increase in the common wish of both communities at all levels to get peace established in Northern Ireland. I sense a lessening of the sectarian tension and a definite growth of the common will to find some solution. I believe that this is a genuine improvement which we should recognise and which we must do our best to cherish, because it is still a tender plant.

The first respect in which there has been a deterioration is in the new viciousness and violence and in the sorts of demonstrations which are taking place. The use of weapons of new power and hideousness, the use of nail bombs, and so on, the use of firearms on a growing scale, mark a quite different type of situation and a quite different type of violence from what we were experiencing a few months ago.

The other matter which has been deteriorating is the state of the economy. It was right for many hon. Members to stress the inevitable link between the economic situation and the level of unemployment with the difficulty of establishing peace and order in Northern Ireland.

The reason for the improvement in the relations between the two communities certainly lies in the development of the reform programme. I stress once again with all the power at my command how much the Government support this programme, how much we want to see it carried through, as we know that it will be carried through, fully and rapidly, and how much we think that it is contributing to a lasting solution of the Northern Ireland problem.

As the House knows, there has been a fundamental reconstruction of the police force on the lines of the recommendation of the Hunt Committee. This job was done extremely well by Sir Arthur Young, as the House will certainly recognise. A police authority has been created which represents the community as a whole. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said about the particular authority and what it is doing.

The housing legislation has gone through the Stormont House of Commons and is now before the Senate. This will surely create in housing a new situation and one where the discrimination charge will have been removed.

Major Chichester-Clark has made it quite clear that his Government intend to introduce reform of local government following closely on the Macrory Report.

As many hon. Members have said, much work has been done on the question of redress of grievance, and the report of the Commissioner shows quite clearly that, though there are a large number of complaints received, the level of administration in Northern Ireland has been very commendable indeed. Therefore, I think we are entitled in this House to take note of the progress of the reform programme, to give it our full and continuing support and to recognise, as I am certain the leaders of both communities in Northern Ireland recognise, that when this programme has been completed the old grievances of discrimination and all these important matters will have been eliminated. It is very important indeed to stress that.

Of course, it is deeply disappointing that despite the movement forward of the reform programme, we have now been cast back in the last few weeks into this turbulence and violence once again, particularly on the streets of Belfast. Surely it may be the fact that there is a linkage between these two things. Because the reform programme was going ahead, because there was more peace and quiet in Belfast, so the people whose tool of trade is violence felt that they were compelled to start a new campaign of violence in order to achieve the objectives which they have so long cherished. Of course, it is right to say, as has been stressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and others, that in Northern Ireland violence does not come only from one side. Extremists exist on both sides—indeed, on many sides—and there are men in many parts of the community there who do not shrink from using violent means to promote their own political ends. This is the tragedy of the country.

It is also clear that most of the trouble in recent weeks has been the work of the extreme provisional wing of the I.R.A. I do not think anybody would dispute that. The Provisional Army Council, the so-called Brady Group, the extreme men of the I.R.A., are at the back of these recent developments. They are the men who have adopted the despicable tactics of using crowds and even young children for promoting their own ends. Nobody in any community in Northern Ireland would support the sort of tactics and methods that these men employ. Many people may share their political ideas; many people may wish to see a united Ireland; many people may be Republicans, but very few people, I am sure, have any respect or any regard or sympathy or any support for these men who are perpetrating their deeds of violence for the sake of these political objectives.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)

May I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for the force with which he is making this point about the violence being the work of minorities and the two communities in Northern Ireland being hostile to it, since there is an impression created in British public opinion that the reform programme has failed in Northern Ireland because of this violence, whereas, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the answer may be quite different. It is extremely important to get this point over to the public.

Mr. Maudling

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is the point. The success of the reform programme has provoked acts of violence by these extremists who are very small in number but who are a very dangerous group of men. The problem, therefore, is how to deal with this new manifestation. It is a wholly new problem for the British security forces to face. It is quite different and it is quite strange.

The other problem is how to deal with these new manifestations without appar- ently rebuffing or victimising the Catholic community as a whole. Because the I.R.A. extremists operate in Catholic areas and because they have been dealt with in the areas within which they operate, there is a terrible danger that it may appear that the Army and security forces are operating not against the I.R.A. but against the minority. It is important to make the situation clear. I appreciate what has been said by many hon. Members about the task facing our soldiers now in Belfast. I find it difficult to imagine how a young lad in his late teens in the Army feels, having thought that he was going to fight the foreign enemies of Britain and finding himself in the streets of Belfast where death comes from a bullet out of the darkness, with the street lamps illuminated amongst people whom he thought were his own countrymen. It must be a baffling, be-wildering tragic situation for a young man. The bearing, dignity and restraint which our forces have shown in that situation is remarkable, a situation which both sides of the House acknowledge is not one for which our forces have been trained or could have been trained.

There is a lot in what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said about the rapid turnover. There is a difficulty about retaining people too long in that situation. We recognise the importance of maintaining continuity where possible, for a lack of knowledge of local conditions must be one of the greatest handicaps facing the security forces there. I think that the close liaison now established between the Constabulary and the Army has done a good deal to overcome this, but clearly it is a real difficulty.

Then there is the difficulty of search. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, if one searches a house, one has to look under the floorboards because, otherwise, one has not searched. If one searches indiscriminately over a wide area, one does, of course, arouse great antipathy among the people there. One understands that. But where there is evidence that there are arms in a particular area, where information comes that there are arms in a certain area, or where bullets come from that area when soldiers are on patrol, it is the Army's job to go and search. This is the policy which the Army is following. It is not carrying out indiscriminate searches but, rightly, following it up where there is real hard evidence either of bullets or of information that illegal arms are being cached and should be recovered.

In this situation, where the problem is to deal with extreme violence without offending the community within which this tiny core of violence resides, the main essential is to make it absolutely clear that violence will not succeed. I hope that I do not sound pessimistic, but, in face of this deep and difficult problem, I believe that we shall only see a withering away of support for these men of violence when it is quite apparent that they will not win. Any indication at any time that violence may be making progress will merely add to their appetite, and add to their prestige and chances of success.

The purpose of these men, the extremists, who are pursuing these tactics is one which politically we could not accept. Successive Governments have committed themselves time and again, as has the House itself, to the principle that there will be no change in the Border without the agreement of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I repeat that again today. There can be no political solution with men whose political objective we cannot possibly accept. We must make clear that the law will be enforced.

What I fear may be in the minds of many in the Provisional I.R.A. is the thought, if they go on long enough causing the sort of difficulties which they are causing now, the British public will become sick and tired of the whole thing. Undoubtedly, it will be an easy temptation for people here to say, "Let them get on with it. Why should we send our soldiers from Newcastle, from Yeovil or from London to be shot at in this way in the streets of Belfast while trying to keep apart two communities who cannot learn to live together in peace?". That is what people will say increasingly, but it must be absolutely resisted. No Government could possibly resile from the fundamental responsibility of the British Government and the House of Commons to maintain law and order and to carry out our pledges to the people of Northern Ireland.

We must stand absolutely firm in these matters. Obviously, at the same time we must do all we can to try to ameliorate the situation, to try to bring people together, to try to encourage people to work together and to eradicate suspicions.

There is the question of arms legally held in private hands. Major Chichester-Clark has just announced a review of all legally held firearms to see that the Government are sure that all these are justified and, where possible, to cut this down. I think that this is a matter which should be followed up, and I agree that the question of rifle clubs needs looking into, too. The legal holding of firearms in the conditions of Northern Ireland needs to be very fully justified. This is one of the steps which must be taken.

There are many other aims towards which we must strive. We must try to get more participation by the minority community in organs of Government like the police authority and the other bodies which are being set up. All this, I know, Major Chichester-Clark fully accepts, and he will certainly have the complete support of this Government in pursuing them.

Now, the economic problem.

Mr. Pounder

Before coming to matters of economics, will my right hon. Friend say what evidence he has of arms coming into an area, being suddenly used, and then being taken out again very quickly? The road block is a fairly effective weapon against this sort of thing, but is there much evidence that arms are coming in, being used, and then being taken out in that way?

Mr. Maudling

There is no doubt that pretty large quantities of arms move around, across the Border one way and another. I should not like to disclose what information I have. We do our best to get all the information we can. The quantities involved are considerable.

The economic picture has grown more difficult. I do not want to enter into a general argument on economic policy, but the particular problems of Northern Ireland, with the decline in employment in linen and shipbuilding and the movement off the land, have been aggravated very much recently. Certainly, the Rolls-Royce development is creating new problems for employment there.

I think that we can claim to have done a good deal in the past six months to assist in the economic development of Northern Ireland. One of the first things I did when I became Home Secretary was to take over from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East the very good £75 million development programme for Northern Ireland, which he and his Government had developed. I remember getting in touch with the late lain Macleod, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think in my first communication with him in that office, and asking whether he would agree to the programme going ahead, he replied, "Certainly," without any hesitation. We have carried on this very necessary programme.

We have recently been having discussions with the Government of Northern Ireland about the whole question of inducements and incentives to investment in Northern Ireland. They will be making an announcement on this in the fairly near future. I hope that they will feel that the discussions have been of value. We think that they have been useful and effective.

The message I must give to the House at the end of an extremely valuable debate is that the problem has been there for so many centuries that it is crazy to think that we can solve it in the course of a few years. What we need above all is patience and complete determination to preserve law and order against those who are threatening it, recognising that the threat comes from a tiny but very dangerous minority. We need complete determination to maintain law and order and the obligations of this House, coupled with the same determination to support the Government of Northern Ireland in the programme of reform which they have instituted, which they are carrying through, and which we believe will, when completed, have removed all the old discriminatory arguments and grievances that undoubtedly existed. Patience will be needed in abundance.

I can only conclude with what I think Sir Winston Churchill once said at the end of one of his speeches: "Above all, never flinch, never weary, never despair."