Constitutional Conference (Hansard, 3 April 1980)

§ 2. Mr. Latham
asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his constitutional discussions with political leaders in the Province.

§ 11. Mr. Hal Miller
asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the 626 constitutional conference on his White Paper has finished its work.

§ 12. Mr. Stanbrook
asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he now intends to make for the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

§ 16. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the progress of the constitutional talks.

§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins)
The conference adjourned on 24 March after considering each of the 14 items on the agenda. All the participants agreed that it would be an appropriate time for me to take stock of all that had been said and to report to the Cabinet. As was made clear in the working paper published last November, the aim of the conference from the outset has been to identify the highest level of agreement on how powers of government might be transferred to elected representatives in Northern Ireland. The conference is part of a continuing process to find new arrangements acceptable to both parts of the Community in Northern Ireland.
The conference has led to a valuable dialogue between the Government and the Northern Ireland political parties attending. It has clarified the parties' views, and it has increased my understanding, and theirs, of what our aims must be and the problems that must be solved. Perhaps even more significant, it revealed an acceptance by all concerned of the seven principles laid down in paragraph 5 of the working paper (Cmnd. 7763) which provided the basis for these meetings.
The Government are now considering the progress of the conference so far. In the light of what we have learnt the Government will be putting forward proposals for the fullest discussion and consultation.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I propose to call first the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

§ Mr. Latham
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Following the conference, will he consider whether it would be valuable to widen the basis of the discussions to enable other people in the community—for example, Church leaders 627 or leaders of industry, commerce or the trade unions—to participate, to see whether as broad a base of support as possible could emerge?

§ Mr. Atkins
That is an important part of what the Government should do, because when we are seeking some arrangements, and support for those arrangements, it is hoped that support will come from the political parties. However, everyone who will be affected by the proposals which the Government put forward will also have their views. I want to obtain views from as wide an area of opinion in Northern Ireland as I can.

§ Mr. Miller
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Was I correct in hearing him say that he was thinking in terms of putting forward another consultative document after taking stock of the results of the conference? Can he give some indication of when he hopes to be in a position to take practical steps towards improving the quality of government in the Province, as outlined in our manifesto?

§ Mr. Atkins
I said that the Government would put forward proposals for the fullest discussion and consultation. That is what we shall do. I am not yet able to tell the House about the precise manner in which we shall do that. However, I assure hon. Members that we shall keep the House closely in touch with everything that we are doing, although I cannot give a final date at the present time.

§ Mr. Stanbrook
Is not it time, after nearly 10 years, for the Government to make up their own mind?

§ Mr. Atkins
So far as I am concerned, it should be 10 months.

§ Mr. McNair-Wilson
Can my right hon. Friend say whether, as a result of the conference, he has detected a sense of urgency to end direct rule? When he considers the question of the transfer of certain powers to a local government, does he see the need as being to create an administration to make good the obvious inadequacies of the present local government structure in the Province?

§ Mr. Atkins
All the political parties in Northern Ireland fought the general election on manifestos which included a desire to move away from the present system of direct rule to more locally based 628 arrangements. Therefore, in my consultation with the political parties it has been no surprise to find that they are keen to move forward. As I hope is well known, the Government are anxious to end direct rule as it now is and to replace it with some acceptable and workable arrangement in the Province.

§ Mr. Fitt
Is the Secretary of State aware that throughout the course of the conference there was intense speculation by political journalists and correspondents in Northern Ireland that the Government had a pigeon-holed plan, which had been conceived in advance of the conference? That was even stated by some of the participants to the conference. It was alleged that the Government were going through the motions of holding a conference but that they had preconceived ideas of what the solution might be. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned proposals. Are the Government now formulating those proposals? Were they formulated before the conference took place? Will those proposals be for discussion, or will they be for acceptance or rejection by the politicians in Northern Ireland?

§ Mr. Atkins
We are formulating proposals. They will certainly be for consultation and discussion—widely in the Province, in this House and so on. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was speculation, particularly among the press, that the Government had their own ideas, which they would put forward whatever the outcome of the conference. I hope and believe that the press and everyone else now recognise that that was not the case. This was a genuine attempt to find what level of agreement we could in order to formulate proposals which we could have reason to believe would command acceptability.

§ Mr. John
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems over the conference was that the circle of those originally consulted on the document was small? If he now thinks that that circle ought to be widened, will he take steps to ensure that the Government's proposals are circulated to them? He should take the initiative in calling talks.
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a paramount need for a parliamentay debate on these 629 proposals, and not merely that information should be supplied to Parliament? We shall need information not only about the Government's latest thinking but about the thinking of the participants to the conference, so that we may inform ourselves fully. Will the right hon. Gentleman resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)? There is nothing that some people in Northern Ireland, and some hon. Members, would like better than the imposition of a settlement from outside, but only a settlement that is arrived at by consensus is likely to be of lasting value.

§ Mr. Atkins
I entirely agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I note that he believes that a debate in Parliament, after the proposals have been published, would be advantageous. I agree with him, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to what he has said.
I totally agree about the widest possible level of consultation. We cannot possibly impose a solution upon the people of Northern Ireland against their will—at least, if we tried to, it would fail. Therefore, we all want to obtain the views of as many people as possible, be they the views of the political parties or of people who are not politicians but who nevertheless will be closely affected by anything that we do.

§ Mr. Kilfedder
Does the Secretary of State recall the warning given by myself and other hon. Members in November and December of last year that the conference would fail because he deliberately excluded all Ulster Members from the constitutional talks? Will he now consider the proposition that I made then, that all Ulster Members should debate the constitutional issue publicly in Stormont? We could then have a referendum in Northern Ireland, which would give the people the option of total integration, which I reject, or a devolved Parliament at Stormont, which I am certain they would wish.

§ Mr. Atkins
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that the conference failed. It did no such thing. It was extremely valuable to the Government and, I believe, to those parties which attended. As to the future, I note that he wants the matter discussed with Northern 630 Ireland Members. I suggest that it should be discussed here, because we can then obtain the views of all the Northern Ireland representatives as well as other hon. Members. After all, in the end, this House and the other place will have the final say about what is done.

§ Mr. Stallard
Has the Secretary of State yet discovered that the biggest stumbling block to any permanent solution in Northern Ireland is the existence of the unconditional underwriting of the Unionist veto in Northern Ireland politics? In the run-up to the proposals that he intends to put to the House, will he consider ways and means of bringing that unconditional underwriting to an end and thereby allow ordinary political development to take place in Northern Ireland?

§ Mr. Atkins
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The guarantee is not unconditional. It is highly conditional for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. That is a very severe condition, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong.