§ 9. Mr. Stonehouse asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to consider the repartition of Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesNo, Sir. This would not contribute to the solution of the problems of Northern Ireland and is not supported by either part of the divided community in Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. StonehouseIs the Secretary of State aware that there is general admiration for the patience with which he approaches his responsibilities, but that there is a limit to patience? If his initiative in calling for the Convention to reach a form of power-sharing agreement fails because of the intransigence of certain groups, would not all other options have to be considered, including the voluntary emigration of the population?
§ Mr. ReesWhat my right hon. Friend suggests falls into the category of the easy solution, which will not work in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government, the Northern Ireland Protestants and the Northern Ireland Catholics are not interested. The ethnic map is such that no computer, let alone any person, can redefine the border. That is the wrong approach.
§ Mr. TownsendI accept that the redefinition of the border is out of the question, but has the Secretary of State recently requested the Government of the Republic to set up a strip on the Republic side of the border that could be used for the hot pursuit of terrorists by forces on both sides, and, if not, why not?
§ Mr. ReesThe Government of the South would not be prepared to allow forces of another country to cross into their territory. That is plain. I do not think that it is necessary. What matters is co-operation between the forces in the North and South. I do not mean paper co-operation but co-operation that enables the Army in the North, when someone is seen crossing the border, to get that information quickly to the security forces in the South. That, I believe, is most important.
§ Mr. FittAfter having served two difficult years in Northern Ireland, does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority in Northern Ireland will bitterly resent the gross impertinence and arrogance of the intrusion of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) into the affairs of Northern Ireland? They have had to live there and see their relations killed. They could not evade their responsibilities by going to Florida or Australia. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it was the original partitioning of Ireland that led to the present troubles, and that any further attempt to interfere with the border would lead to further trouble? Will my right hon. Friend take it upon himself to advise the right hon. Member for Walsall, North of the realities of life in Northern Ireland and to give him some literature, because, if predictions are right, he will have plenty of time to read it in the coming years?
§ Mr. ReesI have been to and from Northern Ireland frequently in the past two years and I understand some of the views expressed there. It is not the Government's policy to alter the border.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonDoes not the argument of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) rest on the assumption, which has been proved false time and time again in elections and in the border poll, that Protestants as a whole are necessarily in support of the 1528 Union and that Catholics as a whole are necessarily in support of a Republican United Ireland? Is not this a dangerous assumption, which has been proved false by events, elections, and the border poll?
§ Mr. ReesIt is extremely difficult to draw conclusions from polls or anything else. There are two sections of the Northern Ireland community and our aim must be to get them to work for Northern Ireland.