Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

HC Deb 02 July 1981 vol 7 cc1020-106

Mr. Speaker

I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

4.9 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins)

I beg to move, That this House approves of the Government's proposal to continue the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for further periods. The format of today's debate is a bit different from usual, and I am glad that it is. We shall later be debating the order renewing the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the renewal of direct rule, though much of the ground will no doubt be covered in this debate. But at a time when the last two years show a general improvement in the security situation, now seriously threatened by disorder and violence associated generally with the prison protests, it seems to me right that before deciding on the orders before it later today the House should undertake a more general review of law and order and political development in Northern Ireland.

Let me begin with security. I must do so because, despite the beauty and peace of much of Northern Ireland, criminals still provide too frequent evidence of their perverted desire to kill, maim and destroy. It is that factor which distinguishes the task of maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Sometimes IRA propaganda would have the world believe that, uniquely in Northern Ireland, British Governments want to see emergency provisions in force. As I have said at every renewal of these powers since coming to my present office, I propose their renewal only because they serve an essential purpose in the prevailing circumstances. If the terrorists drop their campaign we can drop the emergency provisions. If they dislike these provisions, the remedy is in their hands. We are doing what we can to achieve normality.

With great courage and dedication, ordinary policemen are doing ordinary police duties in increasing areas of the Province. There has been a distinct change in the nature of Army operations over the past few years, and it now acts only in support of and at the request of the police. This change, difficult to handle, has been made without diminishing in any way the closeness of co-operation between the two forces. The fact that it has gone so well reflects the greatest credit on the RUC and the Army in Northern Ireland, and especially upon the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding. The people of Northern Ireland and this House owe them a great debt of gratitude—and so, on a more personal note, do I.

Let us look at the progress made and, I must say, the present threat to that progress, even though I am convinced that that threat will be overcome. The gradual decrease in violence, which began in 1977, continued over the succeeding four years, with the result that 1980, although far from peaceful, was the least violent year since 1971. There were fewer murders, fewer injuries caused by terrorist violence, fewer explosions and fewer shooting incidents than for 10 years. The first four months of 1981 saw a continuation of this generally downward trend.

Over the past two months the picture has been sadly different. The impending death of Robert Sands at the end of April was the signal for an outbreak of street violence, which continued until after the death of a fourth hunger striker on 21 May. Although spasmodic, and never as widespread as the media sometimes portrayed them, these outbursts became particularly intense on occasions and presented the security forces with a formidable problem. Moreover, they were accompanied by a fresh upsurge of terrorist violence in the form of shooting and bombing attacks, aimed in large measure at the security forces. Although the street violence has died down, the terrorist attacks continue. Over the past two months 27 people have lost their lives—more than in the preceding four months.

The people of Northern Ireland reacted, as always with fortitude and restraint, in the face of the provocation, intimidation and disruption which flowed from the street rioting. Their coolness and courage helped the security forces enormously in their unremitting efforts to contain and bring to an end the rioting, while continuing their pursuit of the violent law-breakers, who have no regard for the safety and happiness of the people of Northern Ireland. I pay public tribute to the immense skill, stamina and personal courage of the policemen and soldiers who, often facing a barrage of stones, petrol bombs, acid bombs and blast bombs, ended the riots with a minimum of force and disposed of the risk of far greater violence.

I do not believe that the events of the past couple of months are a permanent setback. I am sure that the security policy that has been followed by successive Governments over recent years is the right one. That policy is very simply stated—those who break the law will be dealt with according to the law. This applies to rioters, those who hijack cars, those who murder and those who maim. Since 1 March this year, 577 persons have been charged and a further 431 summonsed in connection with offences arising out of the rioting. Furthermore, in the first six months of this year alone, 472 people have been charged with terrorist-type offences.

I am convinced that this is the right and only way to tackle the violence. I can understand those who become frustrated that terrorist activities still go on and who cannot understand why the police and the Army do not use more drastic measures to stop the men of violence. But the bedrock of a free and democratic society is the fair and impartial enforcement of the rule of law by the security forces. One cannot uphold the rule of law by stepping outside it oneself. To do so would merely play into the terrorists' hands.

We must, of course, ensure that the police and the Army have all the necessary resources to enable them to combat those who seek to undermine our society. The Chief Constable and the GOC tell me that they are satisfied that at present they have all they need in the way of manpower and equipment to cope with all the situations that their forces have to face. But an essential part of their total resources is the legal powers with which they seek to maintain law and order.

It is for this reason that I shall ask the House today for the renewal of provisions that are still necessary to enable the security forces to do just that.

The House will recall that 12 months ago I thought it right to propose that the detention provisions of the Act should be allowed to lapse. I recognised during the debate on the Act last December that many hon. Members were concerned that, given the continued reduction in the level of violence during 1980, I had no immediate proposals to allow other provisions to lapse. I scrutinise very closely the need for each of these provisions. I understand and share the concern of the House that the justification for them must be closely examined. There are various ways of achieving that. In present circumstances, the initial responsibility rests wholly upon me and my Department and then, when I bring to the House an order such as the one that we shall consider later today, the responsibility is Parliament's.

I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will move his amendment shortly, and of course I shall listen closely to what is said in support of it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will give a considered reaction in winding up this debate, when he has heard the arguments, but at present I am not persuaded that what is suggested in the amendment is a good idea.

Among the concerns that have been expressed recently is concern about the system of trial for terrorist offences in Northern Ireland, and notably about the absence of juries. I should like to say something on this in particular. The principal reason, in fact the sole reason, why this mode of trial was introduced for these cases was the intimidation of jurors. This was not just supposition; there are too many well documented cases of it. Regrettable as it may be, the plain fact is that nothing has happened to persuade not only me but the Chief Constable that this risk would be any less now than it was some years ago, when the provisions were introduced. I can conclude only that the reintroduction of juries in terrorist trials at present would be against the interests of justice.

Having said that, I want to emphasise that, notwithstanding the absence of a jury, the basic principles of the administration of justice hold good in the so-called Diplock courts as they do in any others. In particular, the defendant is tried in open court. This is no secret tribunal: the public and press are present and the press is free to report the proceedings fully. There are clear and fair rules of evidence. The onus of proof rests squarely on the prosecution, and, unlike in trials by jury, the accused has totally unfettered right of appeal. He can insist, if he wants, on having his case examined not just by one judge but by a total of four. These are substantial safeguards for the accused, by any standards.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

Is it not right to say that the appeal is on the documents only and does not involve an oral hearing? Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having three judges for the trial? If he has difficulty in recruiting enough judges from the Province, will he consider bringing others from mainland Britain?

Mr. Atkins

I was going to make a very similar point. The unfettered right of appeal includes the right of appeal on fact, which I understand does not apply where there are juries. The Diplock court has one judge, but the appeal court has three. That was how I arrived at my total of four judges who can hear questions of fact.

If there were three judges in the court of first instance, I do not believe that the right of appeal would be unfettered, and I know of no country where that happens.

Let us be fair. We should all prefer to see 12 jurors. At present there are four judges. I want one day to return to the jury system for all offences in Northern Ireland, but,

as I have said, juries are open to intimidation in a way that, to their great credit, judges are not. I am afraid that I cannot advise the House that it is yet safe to go back to juries, as we all want to do, for the scheduled offences.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

I share some of the opinions that the Secretary of State has just expressed, but does not he agree that the Government can take measures to enable the accused to be given an equal and fair opportunity at every stage of the judicial process? Accused people should have recourse immediately, during the first 72 hours of detention, to legal advice, which is now often withheld from them.

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I do not know what the circumstances were a few years ago, but now such people have access to solicitors as of right after 48 hours, and every 48 hours, at the maximum. There can be no question of persons arrested, either under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act or the orders that we shall consider later being denied access to solicitors. That follows upon the Bennett report. It was one of the recommendations which I remember telling the House we had adopted 18 months ago or more.

When we talk about the fairness of the system of justice, it is perhaps worth remembering that those who have engaged in various forms of protest in the Northern Ireland prisons over the years have not been protesting their innocence of the crimes for which they have been convicted. Many of them, I regret to say, have boasted that they did the things for which they are in prison. Their protest continues to be not against the system of trial but in pursuit of political status.

When considering the case for the renewal of emergency provisions, I have considered, as I have to, the upsurge of violence which may accompany the deaths of other hunger strikers if they persist in their action.

If more hunger strikers die, I have no doubt that such deaths will be the occasion of demonstrations and violence, which will fuel the vicious circle of hatred and bitterness. The Government's position on the hunger strikes must now be quite clear to everybody. It has been the same since before the hunger strike which began last October, and I repeated it as recently as the day before yesterday in a public statement, which I have placed in the Library. A public statement of that sort is inevitably a rather impersonal document.

Let me say simply in a more personal way this afternoon what I stand for in this matter. I stand unequivocally for the rule of law. I want to see those who break the law arrested and brought before a court where the evidence against them can be tested openly; and if they are convicted of serious offences I want them to be put away in prison for the protection of the law-abiding public.

I accept that that is not an end to my responsibility. Indeed, that is the point at which my responsibility begins. Whatever crimes they have committed, I stand for the humane treatment of prisoners. Nobody who has seen the facilities available in Northern Ireland prisons can deny that, if only the protesting prisoners would use them, the facilities there, which have no parallel anywhere in Europe, are available to assist them to live a good and useful life when eventually they are released.

As far back as last October I said that the Government were committed to maintaining and improving the regime in whatever ways practical and as resources allowed, provided such changes did not amount to conceding the substance of the political status which the prisoners have always demanded. I respect the continuing humanitarian interest of the Irish Catholic bishops and bodies such as the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace. I consider very carefully the opinions of such responsible bodies. I recognise the sincerity of their efforts.

Unfortunately, the intransigent statement of the Provisional Irish Republican Army only yesterday made it quite clear, in response to my own statement, what it is that those directing the hunger strike are seeking. They want acceptance of the five demands, which in their view add up to political status, and nothing less. There cannot now be any doubt in anyone's mind that this Government will not grant that, and will never accept that political motives justify violent crime. The European Commission of Human Rights, in its decision of June 1980 on this very question, put it succinctly. It found that the status of political prisoner was a status to which the prisoners were not entitled under national law, under the European convention or under existing norms of international law. Our stand against political status upholds a principle of international validity. And that, I believe, is why no Government in the free world have suggested, for one moment, that we should concede political status.

I know that I speak for the whole Government and, I believe, the whole House, when I say that none of us takes any pleasure in the prospect of further deaths by hunger strike. There has been enough violence in Northern Ireland already, without adding to it self-inflicted and pointless deaths. I applaud once again the forthright condemnation by the Irish Catholic bishops not only of the self-inflicted violence of those engaged in the hunger strikes but of those evil men outside the prison who play their part in directing these actions.

I urge the families of the hunger strikers, who are more closely in touch with opinion outside the prisons than their sons can be, to pass on what I believe to be the unanimous message of those with any concern for the future of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government will not grant what is being sought. The prisoners themselves may not realise that, and the cynical men who manipulate them certainly will not tell them. Out of parental duty, and in common humanity, parents, relatives and friends of the hunger strikers should tell them that any further deaths would be futile. They will not cause the Government to grant their demands but will merely be used by evil men as the pretext for further violence. I hope most earnestly that the prisoners engaged on hunger strike will bring their fast to an end.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

The sentiments that the Secretary of State expressed about the hunger strikes will win acceptance. He rightly quoted what the Catholic bishops said when they condemned the hunger strikers. We know that violence is being caused by the hunger strike as well as to those who are dying. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that short of giving political status—and there is no disagreement on that aspect—there is no way of making concessions by way of clothing and association which may finally resolve the crisis?

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman will remember that during last year, both before the European Commission of Human Rights reported and subsequently, we made a number of adjustments to the prison regime. The adjustments were all improvements, I believe. Out of the 12 that we made, eight applied to the protesting prisoners who at that time were engaged either in the no-clothes or the dirty protest. We made improvements to the regime. Virtually none of them was accepted by the protesting prisoners.

I have said time and again that we want to maintain a good regime and to improve it where we can. However, every time that we have said that we have been met by those in charge of the hunger strikers with the statement that they are not interested in improvements in the regime. They want us to meet the five demands that will give them political status, and nothing else. They said that again yesterday.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

I accept the point that my right hon. Friend is making, but does he agree that there is a danger of alienating moderate opinion in the Republic of Ireland that would not normally support the IRA by the apparent intransigence of the Government over the hunger strikers? [HON. MEMBERS: "In what respect? What rubbish."] In the light of that, although I realise that it is early days, how does my right hon. Friend propose to put over to the new Irish Government the points that he is making so well to the House this afternoon? Will he consider inviting members of the new Administration of Belfast so that they can see what conditions are like in the Maze prison?

Mr. Atkins

I agree that it is important that the new Government of the Republic and everybody else should realise the true position. If there is any intransigence—and there is—it is intransigence on the part of the prisoners. The Government have committed themselves to making improvements to the prison regime as and when they can. They have demonstrated their good faith in that regard. That has been met only with a total stubborness and refusal to move, except backwards.

It is worth remembering that only after we made the improvements to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) did the hunger strike begin. When we made the improvements we were met only with a backwards response.

I turn to the second of the two orders which we shall ask the House to approve later this evening.

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that prison conditions under which most of the IRA prisoners are confined are very favourable compared with those that operate in most of our prisons on this side of the Irish Channel?

Mr. Atkins

I am not familiar with the inside of many prisons. I do not know about my right hon. Friend. My understanding is that the conditions in the Maze, partly because it is one of our most modern prisons, are better than any that obtain in the United Kingdom. I am told by those who have greater knowledge than I that that favourable comparison can be made with the whole of Europe.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I recall to the Secretary of State the visit of the three Members of the European Parliament to one of the hunger strikers. Afterwards one of them reported that he was informed that political status was not a sticking point. Did the right hon. Gentleman explore the possibilities that that report seemed to present to him?

Mr. Atkins

On that occasion the prisoner visited said "I am not talking about political status. I want the five demands." When the prisoners were asked what "political status" meant, they expanded it into five demands. They have never budged from that. They seek to be treated differently from other prisoners because they claim a political motive for their crimes. That is something that the Government will never concede, and I do not believe that any Government in the Western world would contemplate that for one moment.

I should now like to turn to the second of the two orders that we shall be asking the House to approve later this evening—the interim period extension order, which continues the provisions for direct rule in Northern Ireland for a further 12 months.

Let me say a word about "direct rule" as it has existed since the end of the power-sharing Executive in 1974. I have found a great many people in the Province who approve of it. They believe that it has served the Province well and are not at all convinced that it ought to be changed.

I, too, believe that the system has worked well over the past seven years. It provides a Government acting with the authority of Parliament here at Westminster, with a Secretary of State in the Cabinet and a Civil Service which, while preserving its own identity, works closely with and is able to draw upon the experience and resources of the far larger administrative machine in the rest of the United Kingdom. Above all, I believe that it is generally regarded in Northern Ireland as being fair between one section of the community and another. Successive Governments in Northern Ireland have been heavily criticised for what they have done or not done—of course they have—but none of the criticism that I have heard accuses us of having the sectarian bias that earlier central and local authorities were alleged to have in the past. However, the 1974 Act always envisaged that those arrangements would be temporary—hence the necessity to renew them today.

Furthermore, all the political parties in Northern Ireland—not just some, but all—have been seeking for seven years an alternative way of running the Province. That is why successive Governments have made the most serious and comprehensive attempts to find a way forward that commanded general acceptance. That is why, as the House will remember, I convened a conference in the early part of last year to which I invited the main Northern Ireland political parties to establish what was the highest level of agreement between them as to how we should proceed.

We found out. We found that the level of agreement was nowhere near high enough to enable me to invite the House to pass legislation setting up a new system. I think that it is true to say that there was a genuine feeling of regret in the House and outside that this opportunity—which was real and from which there was much to be gained—was not taken. One party refused to come and those who did found themselves unable to move from their entrenched positions. No one in Northern Ireland can be said to have gained from the refusals. However, in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, it is no good looking back. We must look to the present and the future, and not to the past. One opportunity has been missed. We must look for another.

In the first place we must build upon one positive achievement of the last year. The development of relations between this country and the Republic of Ireland has been of great value. Everyone knows that in certain areas there is a community of interst between our two countries. We in the United Kingdom, including of course Northern Ireland, cannot be untouched by events in the Republic, any more than the Republic can have no interest in what happens in the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland.

Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Mr. Haughey in Dublin last December we have been actively developing the unique relationship that has always existed between us. In matters of trade, transport, energy, and agriculture there are links between us. In security we face the common enemy of terrorist violence. In European and world affairs, though some of our interests may diverge, our basic philosophy is much the same. Our economies face the twin evils of inflation and unemployment.

The past seven months have, I am sure, been of real and lasting value to both countries. One thing that we have not sought to do is to negotiate the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. Despite all the scaremongering, that accusation has not been made to stick. Indeed, I think that there is now a general and an accurate understanding and sympathy throughout the British Isles for the objectives of our efforts—to improve relations between two countries that are historically, geographically and economically inextricably linked, and between which misunderstandings are not only undesirable but positively dangerous. I am sure that I have the House's endorsement of our hopes that we can with profit continue this process with the new Government in Dublin.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that possibly one of the reasons for the misunderstanding about the discussions is that they they have been cloaked in secrecy? If they are to continue, does he not agree that it would be a good idea—if there is nothing to hide and they seem to be admirable discussions—that there should be a sensible statement after each discussion?

Mr. Atkins

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what has happened. On the last two occasions that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met, in May and December last year, a statement was issued. In between, officials get on with the work that they have been charged to do. I do not think that there is much benefit in the publication of notes between officials, minutes, suggestions, and so forth. Surely what matters is that when Heads of Government and Ministers meet to make decisions, those decisions should be public and open to question—in our case in the House. That is what will happen. I agree with my hon. Friend that the negotiations between the Heads of Government must not be conducted secretly—they are not and will not be.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

In the light of what the Secretary of State has said, what was the point that Mr. Fitzgerald was making?

Mr. Atkins

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman asks Mr. Fitzgerald, because I do not know. I have not talked to him.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

What have the officials been discussing, because that has not been made plain?

Mr. Atkins

It has been made quite clear. They have been discussing the areas set out in the communiqué of 8 December, issued after the meeting of the two Heads of Government. It seemed to the two Heads of Government that in those areas it might be profitable to consider whether relations between the two countries could be improved. The officials have been doing that. They are still doing it. They will report to the respective Heads of Government who will consider the reports, meet again and, if they decide that those are the right areas and we should proceed in that way or that there are other areas which would be valuable, they will announce it and will be subject to questioning about it. That is the sensible, proper and normal way in which Governments discuss matters between each other.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

Does the Secretary of State not think that one of the reasons why there may have been confusion—which, I think, was the word he used—about what was taking place in the Dublin talks was the statements made by the leaders of the Republic of Ireland that—statements that were not refuted by the Secretary of State or the Government—alleging that constitutional matters were under discussion?

Mr. Atkins

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the credit of acknowledging that I have repeatedly said—I said it about three minutes ago—that we are not negotiating the future of Northern Ireland. I have said that time and again, and I am happy to repeat it now. That is not a matter for discussion or negotiation.

Mr. James A. Dunn

I agree with some of the things that the Secretary of State has said and repeat what I said earlier. There are some areas of concern. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to normal discussions and questioning in the House, does he not realise that following the 8 December meeting no full statement was made? What headings is he talking about? What are the officials discussing at present? What areas are they examining? What reports is the right hon. Gentleman expecting? It is not too late to tell us.

Mr. Atkins

If the hon. Gentleman has studied the communiqué he will know that they are considering the areas set out in it, which have been agreed between the two Heads of Government as areas which they might profitably explore. No decisions have been taken about what should flow from any papers or any submissions from officials. That will be for the next meeting, after which any decisions taken will be made known to the House in the usual way. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to say what they think about them.

We need to ask ourselves whether it is right simply to rest where we are, with the existing system of direct rule and discussions with Dublin, which do not embrace constitutional matters, or whether we should consider alternative possibilities. Let me make one thing crystal clear. We shall not be influenced by what I can only call the doctrine of despair that we hear from certain quarters at the present time. Just because there is no easy answer and the going gets rough, we shall not give up—in Northern Ireland any more than anywhere else. We are certainly not going to cut and run, leaving the citizens of Northern Ireland, the vast majority of whom want nothing more than to get on with their daily lives in peace and quiet, without the services and protection that they deserve and need.

Nor shall we daily with the idea of redrawing the borders of the Province. Anybody who knows the distribution of population in Northern Ireland also knows how futile—as well as unprincipled and unjust—repartition would be. It would exacerbate, and not resolve, the problems.

During the two years that I have held this office I have come to understand with great clarity that the difficulties that Northern Ireland faces are long-standing, deep and complex, and can be solved only by patience, determination, and dedication. That is as true now as it ever has been. It has shaped our approach since coming into office. It will continue to do so. To allow frustration and impatience to determine our policies would be the utmost disservice to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe it to be of prime importance that hon. Members should not allow themselves to be infected by the call for glib, simple solutions which would not answer the real questions that we face in Northern Ireland.

I do not conclude that we should simply sit on our hands and do nothing. I have never made any secret of my view that direct rule as it exists today, while it has the many advantages that I spoke about earlier, nevertheless contains one major flaw—there is not enough of a Northern Ireland political input into the governing of the Province. Of course there are the 12 representatives of Northern Ireland in this House, but they, like Ministers, face the twin difficulties both of the range of subjects with which they must concern themselves and of geography. A Northern Ireland Member of Parliament has to represent his constituents here, as we all do, but he has also to do the job of a county councillor and much of the work that would be done in England and Wales by a borough or district councillor. Much of the latter involves contact with authorities in Belfast, Londonderry or wherever, and the impossibility of being in two places at once is a handicap that none of us can overcome.

Our exhaustive discussions during the past two years with Northern Ireland political parties have driven me to the conclusion that it is not yet possible to confer executive or legislative powers upon a representative Northern Ireland body. A body exercising such powers must be acceptable to both parts of the community. The basis for that acceptability still does not exist. We must, therefore, consider—as was foreshadowed in paragraph 64 of our last White Paper, Cmnd. 7950, and as I indicated in my speech to the House a year ago—a more gradual approach, under which a representative body can be set up which does not at the outset possess such powers.

We need that body as a matter of urgency. There is a pressing need to re-engage people in Northern Ireland in political matters and in the bread-and-butter, social and economic issues that most directly affect people's lives. But if a new body were to be directly elected it would need legislation and then elections. That would impose a long delay, possibly of 18 months. I want to move more rapidly than that.

I therefore intend to proceed without legislation and to set up, by administrative act, a representative Northern Ireland Council which, at least initially, will be composed of persons already elected by the voters of Northern Ireland to other representative bodies—to this House, to the European Parliament, and to the 26 Northern Ireland district councils. In the coming weeks and months I intend to carry forward detailed arrangements for setting up that new council, which I hope will convene about the end of the year. As part of that process I shall wish to have discussions with representatives of the Northern Ireland political parties. I shall want to take account of their comments in framing the details.

Following that, I intend to present my final proposals to Parliament in an appropriate form so that there will be an opportunity for the House to consider them. However, it may be helpful if I give the House a general outline of the kind of body I have in mind.

I envisage a council composed of perhaps 50 representatives from the elected sources that I have already mentioned—Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, district councillors. I intend to invite people to serve after seeking nominations from the Northern Ireland political parties which have been shown in recent elections to have a substantial following in the Province. Each party will be asked for a specific number of nominations related to their electoral strength. I shall provide appropriate facilities to meet at the Parliament buildings, Stormont. It will be for the council to decide upon its own procedures, including the question whether it should deliberate in public. Members of the council, invited to serve on that basis, will be paid an attendance allowance.

As I have said, these are outline proposals. I want to discuss the details with the parties during the coming weeks.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

The Government are about to embark upon a foolish move by creating a body that will be regarded as a body of castle Catholics, paid to acquiesce in Government decisions, without having the power of the vote of the people in Northern Ireland. It is possible to have an election for a proper democratic party. The Secretary of State has power to end some of the divisions in the community in Northern Ireland by getting rid of the religious apartheid that exists in education, at the taxpayers' expense in schools and in training colleges. He has shied away from that problem. The Government are tinkering with the situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman has much to say. He has made his comment. No doubt he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We shall be interested to hear what he has to say.

While not exercising executive or legislative functions the council will perform a positive role in a number of areas. Let me itemise three. First, I shall invite it to consider and report to me on the activities of the Northern Ireland Government Departments which cover the range of matters transferred under the Constitution Act 1973. I shall expect it to report on specific matters that I refer to it. I shall make relevant information available to the council, which I think might with advantage form representative functional committees to deal with particular tasks.

Secondly, I shall invite the council to scrutinise proposals for legislation affecting Northern Ireland so that I and my colleagues can take account of it before laying draft legislation before Parliament. I have already settled procedures for consulting interested people—who better to consult on political matters than political representatives? Naturally, the decisions on legislation will continue to be taken here.

Thirdly, I shall invite the council to consider the future government of Northern Ireland and what proposals for the exercise of executive powers and legislative powers by elected representatives might prove to be acceptable to both parts of the community in the Province.

As the House will recognise, in all aspects of its role the council will be advisory—not executive or legislative. Naturally, I would, when appropriate, take account of its advice when coming to Parliament with its proposals. I shall take account of its advice in whatever area I operate. In doing so, I would attach, as Parliament would attach, special importance to advice that was unanimous or, failing that, commanded widespread support from representatives of both parts of the community. The advisory council would be encouraged to adopt procedures that made it clear to what extent its views commanded such support. But, as I said before, responsibility for all legislation would rest with Parliament, and I would remain responsible to Parliament for the direction and control of the Northern Ireland Departments in the discharge of their executive functions.

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

I recollect the right hon. Gentleman saying that he intended to proceed by administrative action and not by introducing legislation. Surely something as important as this merits at least a day's debate in the House.

Mr. Atkins

I am announcing how I seek to proceed. I have given the House an outline of the role and composition of the council. I repeat that I shall have consultations with the political parties in Northern Ireland over the next few months. Following those consultations I shall return to the House with detailed proposals, which I shall ask the House to approve. The precise manner in which that will be done is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House than for myself. However, it is essential that the scheme should proceed only with the authority and backing of the House. I do not think that it will be possible to bring the detailed proposals before the House until the autumn.

Mr. Reginald Freeson (Brent, East)

Earlier the right hon. Gentleman referred to the communiqué that was issued following the Dublin talks between the Heads of Government. He referred to heads of discussion that were being pursued by officials, with ministerial guidance. I presume that the discussions include possible institutional changes between the two countries. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention—does he accept this as a desirable possibility—that the consultative council, if that is the right phrase to use, will be brought in on some of these discussions? Will it have any contact with the discussions on institutional changes?

Mr. Atkins

It will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that I said that, apart from examining the way in which Government Departments work, I shall ask the council to consider other matters that are referred to it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the other matters that it would be proper to consider referring to the council.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

Will the council that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to establish as a representative body of both communities be purely advisory and not an executive body?

Mr. Atkins

That is correct.

The House may wish that we could move faster and further now but we have to temper hope with realism. Given our experience over the past two years and the constraints that we have to recognise, I believe that we are proposing a sensible, reasoned way forward. We are keeping faith with the principles that we have enunciated consistently since coming to office, and we are building on the foundations painstakingly laid over two years.

I can only say again what I said at this time last year. We are offering an opportunity. Once again the Government are prepared to do all they can to build upon this opportunity as a way forward. It is now for others to respond.

In the meantime direct rule will continue, fairly, efficiently and as responsive as we can make it to the demands and needs of the Northern Ireland people. That is essential for the time being. But I hope that from here we can move to a point, one day, when the renewal of the direct rule provisions that we shall have before us later tonight is no longer required because new, stable governmental institutions have been established and accepted in Northern Ireland that are acceptable to both parts of the community.

I have been speaking about the motion on the Order Paper, which asks for the approval of the House to continue two temporary laws, the one for six months and the other for 12. But the future of Northern Ireland, like its past, is a great deal longer than that. There are a great many people with a great many ideas about what that future should be. I dare say that we shall hear some this afternoon. It is certain that we shall hear a lot in the coming weeks and months, including, I fear, contributions from some people who know next to nothing about the Province today and, indeed, in certain cases, have never even been there.

Everything that happens in Northern Ireland touches us here in the House very closely indeed. But we are all democrats, and when we take decisions, large or small, we want to know—and take pains to find out—the reactions of those whom our decisions will affect most directly.

It is for that reason that I commend to the House the establishment of the Northern Ireland Council that I have just outlined. It will enable the people of Northern Ireland, through representatives that they have elected, to have a greater influence on the governance of their own Province than they have at the moment and it will enable us, when taking decisions about Northern Ireland, to be even better informed about representative views there than we are now.

I invite the House to give its approval to the approach that I have outlined by voting in favour of the motion.

4.56 pm

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: `agrees that it is time for a wide-ranging inquiry into the workings of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978'. It is with regret that I speak on the renewal of the direct rule and emergency powers for Northern Ireland. It is a source of continuing disappointment to me and to many others in the House that the troubles in Northern Ireland are still with us. I regret that no political process has been found to bring the conflict to an end. I join with the Secretary of State in welcoming the format of the debate.

When the renewal orders came before the House previously the Opposition had to accept them as they were and there was no opportunity to amend them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that on this occasion we would have found ways and means of putting the amendment before the House even if we had been presented with the old format. However, the present format meets with our approval.

The Opposition are aware of the necessity for these measures, but we reaffirm that they will not remain on the statute book for one minute longer than is necessary. The debate takes place in a climate of deepening concern, throughout the country and around the world, about Northern Ireland. That is not new. Paragraph 11 of the Gardiner report, which was published in 1974, states: The presence of influential communities of Irish descent in many parts of the English-speaking world means that a number of Britain's allies and Commonwealth partners have a keen interest in the stability of communal relations in Northern Ireland. Yet some of these same Irish communities have themselves helped to sustain violence there by their support for para-military organisations. I pay tribute to all our security forces for the work that they have undertaken and for the tolerance that they have shown over the years in Northern Ireland. In a written answer that appeared on Monday we were able to read the names and ranks of the British soldiers that have been killed or mutilated in Northern Ireland. The answer spread over three or four pages.

We must recognise that there are many others in Northern Ireland to whom we should pay tribute. There is considerable unemployment in Northern Ireland but many workers continue to go to work and to go about their daily business. There is still too much violence in Northern Ireland, although the figures are decreasing.

My recent visits to Northern Ireland and my daily postbag have led me to conclude that it is essential for a new initiative in the Province. The politics of extremism and fear will thrive as long as there is a political vacuum. There are two substantive issues before the House. These issues are the extension of direct rule for another 12 months and the renewal of emergency powers for another six months. The amendment calls for a wide-ranging inquiry into the emergency powers. We have reason to believe that they are a real and continuing source of grievance and friction. In that regard, there is an urgent need for an independent review. In many other ways, our amendment provides a bridge between the two issues. It poses certain questions about the manner in which direct rule should be operated and requires the Government to account for their actions or inactions before the House.

Before I move on to the Opposition's case for a review I shall concentrate the attention of the House on the issue of direct rule and explain why the Opposition have agreed, with a number of reservations, to have the order extended for another 12 months. I am sure that I am expressing the thoughts of many hon. Members when I say that we deeply desire a resolution to the conflict in Northern Ireland and an end to the sickening violence of the last 12 years. However, there is still the question which was first posed in the summer of 1969: how best can that conflict be resolved?

The Opposition do not accept the notion that immediate withdrawal either of a political or of a military nature would best serve the ends of peace. The events of recent months have so galvanised opinion on Northern Ireland that I sometimes wonder whether we are back in the early 1970s. There is a marked difference, however, between the tenor of opinion in 1971 and 1981. I detect a new sense of urgency and hastiness which we in the House should be careful to guard against. Many people in mainland Britain are becoming frustrated with the polarised politics in Northern Ireland.

While some people have expressed their frustration in renewed calls for humanitarian and rational resolution to the hostilities, others have adopted the mantle of all human wisdom and have come forward with neat sounding, one-line solutions to the problems. It do not doubt the sincerity of those who have promulgated such ideas, yet I am afraid that many are ill-thought-out and, if implemented, might result in suffering and tragedy on a scale which is frightening to contemplate. For those who say that the situation cannot become any worse, let me assure them that it can. It can become a lot worse.

I cannot believe that by replacing the Army with a United Nations force or a workers' militia, or by unilaterally pulling out of Northern Ireland, we shall promote peace or stability in the Province. The deep-seated differences between the communities there would never be resolved by taking an india-rubber to the map of Ireland and trying to move or erase the border. At the end of the day the physical border is not the real issue. It is the border in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland to which we must address ourselves. There is little scope for the map maker in such a delicate conflict of national identity.

For the present, we do not seek an immediate available alternative to direct rule. The options for the Province's future that have captured headlines in recent weeks have tended to telescope out of sight the real problems which continue to exist in Northern Ireland. Where two communities are divided by culture and religion as well as by political sympathies, as they are in Northern Ireland, no easy settlement of discord is possible.

The problem is further compounded by a history of distrust and suspicion which permeates most contact between the communities. Superimposed on this is the continuing activity of terrorist groups that try to manipulate the population by the tactics of fear and intimidation. There cannot be an easy or swift answer to such a complex problem. If anyone thinks that there is, he is living in a fool's paradise. Direct rule is, for now, the only realistic option for the government of Northern Ireland. However, we do not believe that the lack of ocher realistic options should lead to complacency about direct rule. It is not now, nor has it ever been, an answer to the problems of Northern Ireland.

In 1972, when direct rule was first introduced, it was regarded as an interim measure pending some other arrangement for the stable government of Northern Ireland. That other arrangement has proved elusive. I need hardly remind hon. Members that successive Governments have tried and failed to find agreement between the two communities that would lead to a form of government acceptable to both sides.

After the abortive talks last summer, we should ask some probing questions about the purpose of direct rule and about the obstacles that stand in the way of the settlement that will bring peace to that strife-ridden province. It must first be acknowledged that there are elements in the equation of failure other than successive British Governments. Without question the continued campaign of violence in Northern Ireland is a major obstacle in the way of co-operation. It generates fear and drives an even deeper wedge between the communities, which are already divided on so many issues.

There is no doubt that violence has seriously undermined all attempts to find a peaceful settlement. We reiterate our view that the bomb and the bullet must never be allowed to overrule the democratic process. We believe that it is legitimate to work through the process of political persuasion for a united Ireland, a Northern Ireland integrated with the United Kingdom, or even a sovereign Northern Ireland. However, we can never tolerate the use of violence for political ends.

There is another obstacle in the way of political change that should not be allowed to escape our notice. I am speaking of the intransigent position adopted by certain Northern Ireland politicians who advocate a return to majority rule in the Province and refuse not only to compromise but even, on occasion, to talk. It is fruitless for certain political groups in Northern Ireland to demand a return to the old Stormont regime and nothing else. They must come out from behind the constitutional guarantee and start talking about ways of finding an agreed settlement. Such a settlement can be best achieved under the aegis of aggressive and positive direct rule while looking forward with imagination rather than being bogged down in the slogans and failed experiments of the past.

I should like to say a few words about the constitutional guarantee. That guarantee, enshrined in the Ireland Act 1949 and reiterated on numerous occasions since, recognized the logistics of the situation. It recognised that the mass of the population could not be forced to accept constitutional change to which it had not consented. That is the real guarantee. It was not intended to be used as a veto on political discussion and should not be abused as the excuse for political stagnation on the part of the majority. Any guarantee should operate in two ways. It is a reciprocal arrangement, in which there are givers as well as takers. In this case the 50 million or so guarantors who live in Britain have every right to expect reasonable and positive political behaviour on the part of politicians in Northen Ireland. Every time they see unreasonable or negative behaviour—the antics of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) must be included in that bracket—those people lose confidence and interest in Northern Ireland.

The time may come when we will have to look again at the written guarantee with a view to widening its ambit. Perhaps a formal recognition of the aspirations for dual nationality of the people of Northern Ireland would be no bad thing. We should think of guaranteeing the rights of the minority community as well as those of the majority. Whatever changes are eventually made, we in the House must not allow the guarantee as it stands to be used as an excuse for doing nothing. After two years of Tory rule in Northern Ireland, the time has come to stand back and consider how that rule should be operated and to question the purpose behind its continuation. We believe that it should work on two distinct—

Mr. Tom Benyon (Abingdon)

In view of the doubts expressed about the Labour Party's policy for the Province as identified in The Times leader today, can the right hon.

Member say categorically that that policy has nothing in it that would amount to a denial of self-determination for the majority in the Province?

Mr. Concannon

I can do that now if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I have had to listen to a heck of a lot of pontification about Northern Ireland over the last two or three months, so I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not miss the opportunity of having my word today on certain issues. If he cares to wait, I am sure that I shall come to the point that he raised.

I was dealing with the operation of direct rule. I accept that it should be worked on two distinct but complementary levels. The first involves the creation of channels likely to lead to a settlement of the conflict, and the second centres on influencing conditions of day-to-day life in Northern Ireland, so that when a settlement is eventually achieved it will have a solid base on which to flourish.

On the wider political level we recognise that the Secretary of State has sincerely tried to bring the parties in Northern Ireland to some form of common agreement in the most adverse circumstances. That is why I do not condemn what he has put before the House. We shall have to consider it seriously, and I trust that he includes the Opposition among those whom he is to consult. I hope that we can debate the issue and reach a conclusion. I welcome any genuine attempt to improve the government of Northern Ireland, and I wish the proposal luck.

We also welcome closer co-operation between London and Dublin, which has been a recent feature of Government policy, but we sincerely hope that the Government will not allow suspicion and mistrust to ferment by refusing to come clean on what the talks are about. Hon. Members have every right to know the meaning and tenor of the talks. We hope that it will be possible for the people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members to contribute to the important debate in a wider Anglo-Irish context. I am glad that in his speech the other day the Taoiseach said that that was one of his intentions. I hope that it is also the intention of the Government.

Over the past 18 months the Labour Party, too, has focused its attention on the problems of governing Northern Ireland. A special study group was set up to make policy recommendations to the conference in the autumn. I cannot pre-empt conference decisions, but the group, of which I and several other hon. Members are part, has left no stone unturned in the search for a workable policy on Northern Ireland. We have taken evidence from within our movement and from groups and individuals in Northern Ireland. Discussions have been held with a wide variety of organisations from North and South of the border. We hope by the end of the year to have a clear and credible policy on Northern Ireland to put before the House and the people of the Province.

It is by now almost common knowledge that the group's thinking reflects the long and deeply held belief in the Labour Party that Ireland should, by peaceful means and on the basis of consent, be united. However, I admit that the group's recommendations have a long way to go before they can be accepted as an authoritative policy statement, and I am not now in a position to expand further. Suffice it to say that we do not have and will not acquire any illusions about the difficulties of implementing such a policy. Too many of us on the study group have experience of working in Northern Ireland to believe that the task will be easy. We realise that changes in the Northern Ireland constitution cannot be made without the consent of those who live there, and we must win that consent.

After nine years of direct rule it is high time that the political parties in this country stated their intentions about Northern Ireland openly and clearly and said how they view the most satisfactory long-term settlement. The Labour Party will soon be in a position to do just that, and I hope that the other parties will follow our lead.

In the meantime, direct rule will remain, and it is within the context of the second level of direct rule—the day-to-day government of the Province—that I intend to raise the question of an inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

In response to a question from the Conservative Benches the right hon. Gentleman said that the principle of self-determination was fully accepted. If the Labour Party fully accepts the principle of selfdetermination—the belief that a majority part of the United Kingdom can determine to remain part of the United Kingdom—how is it possible for the Labour Party to propose as an objective of party policy a different answer?

Mr. Concannon

The right hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun. It is not yet party policy. There are a few hurdles still to go. Things do change. The study group is not thinking of change tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. I said that within a framework we must work towards winning over the people of Northern Ireland. It is a question of winning people's hearts and minds. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have some experience of Northern Ireland. I know what a task it will be, but it is the Labour Party's long established view that peace and stability will come to Northern Ireland once the disparity that the border brings is removed.

I said earlier that the border is not just a line on the map. It did not take me long to find out that it exists in people's hearts, and that is the problem that the Labour Party will have to tackle.

Mr. Powell

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's response. He says that the Labour Party will set itself to the task of winning hearts. In view of the objective that it puts before it, its objective is to win the hearts of the majority in Northern Ireland against membership of the United Kingdom. That must be so.

Mr. Coneannon

The right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I said that we should have to win the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland. I did not say anything about the majority or minority. We are thinking about the long-term future. I do not see the situation staying as it is today. I hope that people of the Province accept that there can be movement. I also believe that Dublin has a part to play. It is no good saying that the matters to be discussed are on the table. Dublin and the British Government must spell out their intentions for the whole of Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Party would work to persuade the Ulster people to leave the United Kingdom and to join the Irish Republic in a United Ireland. Does he realise that such statements are bound to create instability and tension and give a spur to the Provisional IRA terrorist campaign to coerce the people of Ulster to come out of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Concannon

The hon. Gentleman is also putting words in my mouth. I was careful about what I said. To hear him talk, one would think that I knew little of Northern Ireland. I have much greater knowledge of the situation than many hon. Members. I know the difficulties, and I know that certain things that are said may be picked up and wrongly used. That is why, within the study group, I have been assiduous in making known the problems, so that it cannot be said that we are helping the IRA. My credentials in the matter should not be questioned. The hon. Gentleman could possibly accuse others but never myself.

The hon. Gentleman says that we should continue the search for peace and stability. We should certainly not give the IRA the veto. We should progress towards stability and peace along the lines that I suggest, which does not mean that we are giving the IRA the veto.

Mr. Kilfedder

The right hon. Gentleman's courage and character are beyond question inside and outside the House.

Mr. James A. Dunn

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Speaker

It is out of order to have another interruption before the right hon. Gentleman has replied to the first.

Mr. Dunn

With respect, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend had replied.

Mr. Speaker

I did not hear a word that he said in reply to the other intervention.

Mr. Concannon

I shall merely thank the hon. Gentleman and accept what he has said. I think that on reflection he has taken my' point.

Mr. James A. Dunn

This cannot be allowed to go without challenge. On the basis of what my right hon. Friend has said and the questions that he has been asked, is it not also in his mind, and has it not also been put to him, that many of us believe that this is not a matter to be left to the sole decision of Northern Ireland? It is a United Kingdom matter and all the citizens of the United Kingdom should pass judgment on it.

Mr. Concannon

I believe that when I referred to the guarantee, I said that there were 50 million guarantors also looking for progress in Northern Ireland.

Britain has nothing to be proud of in her record of rule over Ireland down through history. We all have to live with that record. Indeed, I believe that we have a moral duty to try to right such wrongs as we can. Whatever the mistakes and missed opportunities of the past, we must now ensure that our actions in Northern Ireland are as far as possible above reproach and beyond criticism. Merely stating that fact, however, as some have done, does not mean that the troubles will go away.

During its five years in Government the Labour Party attempted to use direct rule in a positive and purposeful manner. On the economic front, it adopted a special policy of attracting high-grade industries to Northern Ireland and maintaining public spending levels intact.

I should mention that while working hard on this speech and other matters appertaining to Northern Ireland today, I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), had to meet two separate deputations of people high up in trade unions and industry in Northern Ireland. It grieves me that such people have to come here. I need only mention to the Secretary of State Enkalon and Abbey Meats and to ask what on earth is going on on the economic front in Northern Ireland.

We must know the policy and purpose behind what is happening, because these matters are related. The situation with regard to Enkalon is extremely serious and as we found out this morning, the same applies to Abbey Meats. All this affects the economic front, but I hope that the Minister understands that what happens on the economic and social welfare front has a bearing on the security and political front.

The Labour Government deliberately tackled the problems of bad housing and poverty and succeeded in stabilising the level of unemployment when it had started to rise in other areas. Our period of direct rule was also committed to eliminating the remaining discriminatory practices in Northern Ireland. An impressive range of Government and autonomous agencies, such as the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission, were set up specifically to remedy and prevent discrimination in public administration and all levels of employment. Through such works we began to win the support of both communities, which we regarded as essential groundwork for any discussions on a political settlement. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and Barnsley (Mr. Mason), having worked for both of them over that period—I was the continuity man in the middle, for my sins—for the work that they did in winning that wide support.

Everyone conveniently remembers the renowned Ulster Workers Council strike in 1974, but conveniently forgets the unsuccessful strike led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North in the early summer of 1978. Under our regime his personal following was dwindling—a situation hardly credible today—and I believe that at one time he offered to resign from political affairs if he did not win on that issue.

What is more, direct rule was seen to be working. Ministers were out and about in the community more often than they were settled in Stormont Castle. I, too, could be seen about. I remember two weekends, the first of which I spent in Lisnaskea with our late colleague Frank Maguire and the second at the Wheel Tappers and Shunters Club with Harland and Wolff. There are always hazards in these things. After five years in office I came back from Northern Ireland three stones overweight—full of potato bread and Guinness, no doubt. I am still waiting for the whippets on the Conservative Front Bench to show the same visible signs of the activities that Ministers should undertake in Northern Ireland.

It was a strict policy laid down by my two right hon. Friends at that time that one had to be out and about and be seen to be working hard at direct rule. We proved that there was a fair way of government, as the Secretary of State has said, but that work is never finished. Much of what we achieved needs to be constantly reviewed to ensure that real or imagined feelings of deprivation or discrimination are properly dissipated.

It is in that vein that we today call upon the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government to institute a wide-ranging inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Very early in our period of office we realised that such powers, which effectively suspend the normal course of common law for those accused of terrorist offences, needed to be independently reviewed if they were not to be seen as the tough arm of a repressive State. That inquiry, brought into being by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South and chaired by Lord Gardiner, recommended substantial changes in the emergency powers after they had been in operation for less than two years.

Most of the recommendations—notably the ending of detention—were accepted by the Labour Government and implemented either immediately or when the emergency powers were amended. Whereas there was a space of just 18 months between the passage of the first Diplock emergency powers Act and the setting up of the Gardiner inquiry, it is now seven years since the House had the benefit of an independent adjudication on the operation of the strong powers contained in the Act.

For the past 12 months Labour Members have been urging the Secretary of State to set up an inquiry along the lines of the Gardiner inquiry to see whether those powers are still appropriate to the security situation in the Province today. To use a sporting metaphor, I think that that suggestion was dribbled the length of the field by the Secretary of State and then conveniently kicked into touch.

I remind the house that the Gardiner inquiry stressed that the emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration. I suggest that some of my colleagues who are new to Northern Ireland should read some of those old reports. It is even good for me, having been there at the time, to look back at them. They provide a great deal of information on the real problems of government in Northern Ireland.

Paragraph 21 of the report says of such powers: Though there are times when they are necessary for the preservation of human life, they can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community, and they do not provide lasting solutions. Clearly, the Secretary of State did not have those words in mind when he effectively scotched our suggestion last December by saying that an independent review would raise false expectations, and, in his view, would increase tensions. Many Opposition Members believe that the very powers in the Act may serve—I only say "may serve"—to heighten tensions.

While we fully accept the need to protect the community against terrorism, we are deeply concerned about the erosion of basic civil liberties. The continued and unreviewed emergency powers as they stand may impede the possibilities of a peaceful settlement.

There are a number of areas in which we think that an inquiry would help the House when we consider these powers in future. In particular, as has been said, the one-judge and no-jury courts which deal with terrorist offences should be brought under close scrutiny. While Gardiner concluded that no change should be made in this area, the time may now be ripe to have a panel of lay assessors or a group of three judges sitting together. All the pros and cons on this are in the Gardiner report. There is also a strong argument for reconsidering the list of offences which have to be dealt with by such courts. It may be possible—I put it no higher than that—to deschedule some of them so that a measured return to jury trial can be achieved.

In this respect, I remind the House that the Gardiner report stated in paragraph 26: We believe that trial by jury is the best form of trial for serious cases, and that it should be restored in Northern Ireland as soon as this becomes possible. I am not giving my views. I am merely stating areas of concern which I believe should be seriously examined by an independent body, as took place in 1975.

Similarly, with other sections of the Act, most notably the provisions relating to prosecutions for firearm offences, many believe that the onus of proof is wrongly placed on the accused to explain why he happened to be in the same building as a firearms cache. That should also be looked at.

I am also concerned about rules laid down for the admissibility of evidence. Section 8(2) of the Act may not fully protect the accused from the use of force or threat of physical violence when under interrogation, and there is a strong case—this has been admitted in some of our previous debates—for the wording of that section to be tightened. There may also be room for change in the section dealing with proscribed organisations.

That was brought to public attention only recently with the finding of guns, and so on, at the headquarters of the Ulster Defence Association. I understand that the Secretary of State has instituted an inquiry, and we shall watch closely to ensure that all terrorist organisations, whatever their aims, are treated in the same way.

Many other aspects of the emergency powers need to be looked at again and reassessed in the light of the changing security situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will refer to some of them, and I am sure that many others will crop up during the debate.

An independent look at these powers could be of especial benefit in relation to the hunger strike protest at the Maze prison. Those engaged in the protest have used their conviction by unique judicial powers as part justification for their claim to special and unique treatment in prison. Anyone with any knowledge of Northern Ireland will know that the extraordinary judicial processes that exist to deal with crimes of a terrorist nature had to be introduced because of intimidation against witnesses and jurors. Indeed, the whole course of justice in the early 1970s was perverted in the most unacceptable way, when many witnesses and jurors were too scared of kneecapping or "knee-capping through the head", as the phrase used to go, to get involved with any court proceedings.

To those who doubt that, I quote paragraph 27 of the Gardiner report, which stated: we were given details of 482 instances between 1st January 1972 and 31st August 1974 in which civilian witnesses to murder and other terrorist offences were either too afraid to make any statement at all, or, having made a statement implicating an individual, were so afraid that they refused in any circumstances to give evidence in court. It is reasonable to assume that juries would be equally open to intimidation. My family and I really know what intimidation is all about, and we are also aware of the various obnoxious ways in which it can be carried out by all sorts of organisations.

An independent review of emergency powers would be able to look again at this situation to evaluate one way or another whether the conditions still exist to make special judicial processes unavoidable.

In such a sensitive and delicate area we believe that an independent voice would be of immense value. It would be able to place the claims of the protesters, that they have not been justly treated, against the distorting influence that terrorist activity has on the normal course of justice.

I stress, however, that we have not changed our view on the question of political status. No matter what intimidation I may experience, I do not think that anyone would expect me to acquiesce. The view of the Labour Party and the last two Labour conferences is that we are against the granting of political status, and I can do no better than quote paragraph 107 of the Gardiner report to explain how we stand: We can see no justification for granting privileges to a large number of criminals convicted of very serious crimes, in many cases murder, merely because they claim political motivation. It supports their own view, which society must reject, that their political motivation in some way justifies their crimes. I reject political status, and the Labour Party rejects it.

While we would support liberalising changes in prisons throughout the United Kingdom we could never condone the use of violence for political ends. That would be to fly in the face of all the traditions of democracy and freedom of speech which this House and my party hold dear. It is quite plain that the emergency powers for Northern Ireland are in urgent need of review. It means not that we must weaken our fight against terrorism but, rather, that we should look into the working of the system of justice to see whether it is not now counter-productive.

All of us would benefit from an independent look at the Act, for where such wide-ranging powers to arrest, detain, interrogate and convict exist we should always be looking to see whether a return to normality is possible. As a Minister, I know how helpful the first Gardiner report was. We could look at it and quote it and say that it was the way forward. I remind those who complain about it that one of its chapters is now defunct. That is the chapter on detention, but, of course, we had to introduce some kind of judicial process as envisaged by Diplock and Gardiner.

We do not wish to see provision for direct rule or emergency powers on the statute book for a moment longer than necessary, but while direct rule remains it must be seen to be impartial and fair. Where there is such notable and significant disquiet on the administration of justice, this House has an unquestionable duty to respond in a positive and sensitive fashion.

Our amendment is a reasonable and moderate proposal. I am amazed that the Government have refused to accept it. It will do their intransigent image no good at all. I ask all my hon. Friends and Conservative Members who support our idea to follow the Opposition into the Lobby tonight.

Finally, I want to make it absolutely clear that we regard a review of the Act as a matter of priority. As soon as the next Labour Government are returned to power they will institute a wide-ranging inquiry into the working of the Act to see whether such exceptional powers are still totally necessary.

5.37 pm

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

I am proud to follow the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He has served Northern Ireland well, and, despite all the difficulties with which he must contend within his party, he is still serving Northern Ireland well.

The right hon. Gentleman's speech was something of a curate's egg, because it had to reflect the views of an addled party. At the beginning of his speech he talked much good sense about the folly of the idea of reparation and the right of our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland to enjoy the same self-determination as was accorded to the people in Southern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been aware of it, but what he said about the border was a quotation from Kevin O'Higgins, who said that it was no good talking about abolishing the boundary until we had abolished it in our hearts.

The right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable speech. However, I must make one further small criticism. He said that we had nothing to be proud of in Ireland. But if we go to Ireland and look about us, we can see some things about which the British can be proud.

Mr. Kilfedder

Trinity college.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Yes, indeed—but that was the English and not the British.

If the right hon. Member for Mansfield looks at the speech by John Redmond in 1914 about social and economic conditions in Ireland compared with such conditions in Great Britain, he will find testimony from a great nationalist that there is indeed something in Ireland about which the British can be proud.

I must turn to the business before us before I test your patience, Mr. Speaker, too far. I think that my right hon. Friend knows that I long for a moratorium on political talks accompanied by boycotts and for a moratorium on political initiatives, political options, and so on. However, I am not prepared to say a word against his proposal for a Northern Ireland Council. It is not quite clear how it will be formed or how it will function. The council of Wales already plays a certain part. A Northern Ireland Council could conceivably be developed in the direction outlined in the Conservative Party manifesto. This proposal is either important or it is not. I presume that it is important. Therefore, it is only right that hon. Members should be given more notice of its provisions before debating it. It is only right that we should consider the proposal and then discuss it sensibly. We all want to extract as much value as possible from my right hon. Friend's suggestion.

In general, I regret the frenetic tendency to be seen to be doing something in order to impress others. The other day I read that the Northern Ireland Office had been awarded the palm of "institutional inventiveness". Sometimes that inventiveness should be kept within bounds. We should not always seek to do things that may impress those who are opposed to us. An extreme example of that is the letter from Mr. Peter Jay that appeared in The Times.It is a horrifying thought-and perhaps it explains some of the things now happening in the United States of America—that he was once our ambassader to Washington. He wrote to The Times to tell us that we can outflank the IRA and defeat it by doing what it wants. He suggested that we should give the IRA a united Ireland. However, the united Ireland that Mr. Jay had in mind is not the united Ireland that the IRA thinks about.

The right hon. Member for Mansfield clearly asserted the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination, but he then spoke about Irish unity. I hope that by "Irish unity" he meant that we might be able to rebuild the unity of these islands on the unique relationship that exists between the Republic and the United Kingdom, without prejudice to the sovereignty of the two nations within them.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

rose—

Mr. Kilfedder

rose—

Sir John Biggs-Davison

To whom should I give way, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

Mr. James Molyneaux.

Mr. Molyneaux

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker for calling me. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he rightly said that we should not be expected to express detailed opinions abut the proposal for the Nothern Ireland Council without being given more notice and detail. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not be expected to vote, even by implication, on any such proposal this evening? Does he agree that the way in which we vote tonight should not be taken as an expression of approval or disapproval of the Secretary of State's proposal?

Sir John Biggs-Davison

In any case, I propose to support my right hon. Friend. His proposal is not in a form in which we can give a considered judgment on it in the Lobby, or otherwise.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Before the Secretary of State resumed his seat it appeared to a number of us that he said that a vote in favour of the main motion would be taken as expressing general approval of the proposals that he mentioned. It would greatly help if we have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman and if a vote for the motion conveys no more than the words of the motion.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) must say something, otherwise we shall have a disorderly debate.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

With great relief, I see that my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins

I do not recall the precise words that I used. I intended to say that I hoped that the House would approve of what I said and that I hoped that it would also approve the motion. Obviously, we shall vote only on the words on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members approve of what I said.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I do not find the amendment offensive. We are constitutionalists, and special powers that invade the liberty of the subject and the normal judicial processes of the land should never be taken for granted. Nor should their authorisation by or renewal by Parliament be taken as read. In Northern Ireland we defend the rule of law against the law of the gun. As my right hon. Friend said, we stand unequivocally for the rule of law.

When we debated the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act last December I expressed approval of what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I said: I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not close his mind to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the effect that the Diplock courts should be reformed…We take note of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that any emergency power no longer needed will be dispensed with."—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1577–80.] The Secretary of State repeated that assurance today.

I do not attack the Diplock courts. On the initiative of the hon. Member for Belfast, West I interested myself in the case of the late Guiseppe Conlan. I happen to believe in his innocence, and I hope, with the hon. Gentleman, to discuss the case again with the Home Secretary. It was said that if Conlan had been tried by a Diplock judge instead of by a judge and jury he might not have been unjustly convicted. I mention that in order to defend the Diplock courts against some of the attacks made on them. The Cobden Trust has been busy again. There was a conference at Queen's university, Belfast, on 13 June on the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Lord Gardiner attended the conference and I travelled back with him from Northern Ireland. A pamphlet that is probably in the hands of many hon. Members loses much of its credibility because it makes the following wild assertion: According to widely accepted Queen's University study,"— that is rather a vague way of expressing it— up to 80 per cent. of all convictions in Diplock Courts have been based on out of court admissions under the 'cruel inhuman and degrading treatment' standard. I am sorry that that piece of work should have been vitiated by such an extraordinary and outrageous accusation. It is worth considering whether there are scheduled offences—the right hon. Member for Mansfield mentioned this point—that might be released for trial by jury. I do not pontificate one way or the other. However, we should be assured that there is the machinery for keeping such matters under continuous review.

I hope that the Minister of State, in summing up, will tell us whether any machinery exists, either in his Department or within the Joint Advisory Committee on Human Rights, for keeping under review the workings of the Diplock courts and of the emergency provisions generally.

Mr. Concannon

I think that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is labouring under a misapprehension. All the groups that he has mentioned are in favour of a new independent review of the emergency powers legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that just because we are moving towards a review of the Act we are against that legislation. We are not doing that, nor are we saying that. We are saying that there should be a review. Some of the matters that worry the hon. Gentleman and others could be looked at in that independent review. That is all that we are saying.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

The right hon. Member for Mansfield has shown, not only by his words today but by his deeds, that he supports these regrettably necessary provisions. We know that, and I did not question it. He has asked for an independent review. I am not sure what is meant by "independent". I am asking for an assurance by the Minister of State that the point is taken that concern exists in the House and that we are not prepared to go on six months after six months. It is a pity that opinion should be divided in the House by the text or the detailed words of the amendment that the Leader of the Opposition has properly tabled for discussion today.

Lastly, another review is required—a review of the workings of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, which runs parallel with the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act of the Republic. I do not know whether that legislation has been effective in any other case than that of one of the murderers of Captain Nairac. It is a piece of machinery which everyone has said is only a second-best to extradition. It presents difficulties to investigating officers and to witnesses, whether they come from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland. I do not believe that this legislation is working well. I do not believe that such modest expectations as we had of it have been fulfilled.

The truth is—I say this as one who has great respect for the statesmen and people of the Irish Republic—that the Irish Republic is not discharging its international responsibilities or its duty to a European partner. Its territory is still being used as a base, a haven and a place of training and re-equipment for terrorists who make their incursions into the United Kingdom. There is a new Administration in Dublin, and we wish Dr. Garret Fitzgerald and his colleagues well. Their detestation of terrorism is unquestioned, but we look to them to find ways of matching words with deeds, deeds—that can lead to the extinction of terrorism throughout the island of Ireland.

5.45 pm

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

Those of us who do not have our constituencies in Northern Ireland or who do not live in that tormented Province should exercise considerable reticence in intervening in its affairs—although every one of us is a part of the United Kingdom—because we cannot wholly judge the atmosphere in which contributions are made. I hope that what I shall say this afternoon will be construed in a constructive way, and certainly as no attempt to be in any way irresponsible about affairs, as I see them as an observer.

I add my hearty support to the tributes that have been paid to the soldiers, the police and other members of the public services who daily carry out their heavy responsibilities at the cost, sometimes, of their lives and personal safety. Having observed what has happened, I also wish to add my thanks to Ministers and politicians of all persuasions who are concerned with public life in Northern Ireland, who work under pressures over and above those that any of the rest of us in the United Kingdom have to endure. They do a thankless task with great courage.

I was glad to hear what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He has been a Minister or a Shadow Minister since 1974—longer than most of us have been associated directly with that problem. Speaking for myself, I admire the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities with vigour, honesty and commitment. I want to put on record how deeply I resent the slanders and attacks that are being made on him by those who should know better—such as the attempts by outsiders to organise a train from London on Saturday to descend on his constituency. It is a monstrous intrusion, and I am sure that Mansfield will repudiate those interlopers if they arrive.

I fully support the renewal of the emergency regulations, and also the request made by my right hon. Friend, which was supported by Conservative Members, for a review of the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that there is no particular advantage in refusing that. There is always an advantage in conceding it when it can be conceded, so as to satisfy those who feel that from time to time Parliament should have the opportunity to review these matters. I trust that the Minister of State will give art affirmative answer when he winds up.

The Secretary of State announced that in certain circumstances he will be prepared to consider improvements in the regime at the prisons. He also announced today a new proposal that will give some kind of political input into the affairs of Northern Ireland. I see no reason why we should not hope that that will prosper, although I had a wry smile when his two initiatives on two separate days were immediately repudiated by the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Such is the fate of all initiatives and proposals that are made about Northern Ireland. I have no hesitation in saying that what I shall say today will be met by outcry and outrage as soon as it is said, by one or possibly by all of those who are concerned with these problems.

That leads me to a conclusion, to which I shall come a little later. I fear that we must conclude that Northern Ireland is in almost total stalemate, both politically and militarily, with alarming adverse social and economic consequences, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend and others.

Our present policy, as the Secretary of State said this afternoon, with all of our support, is to pursue the dual policies of direct rule and persistent firmness and resolution to repress the violence of the IRA and any other terrorist organisations. I believe that all of us strongly support these measures, which are directed against those who have brought so much terror and suffering to Northern Ireland.

However, today, as we are asked to renew the emergency regulations, as we shall do, we must ask the two questions that the people in our country are asking. First, how long do we persist with these dual policies? Secondly, will they succeed?

There are those who argue that to say anything new will encourage the IRA, and that if we persist long enough and with the resolution that has been shown by all Ministers of both parties on this matter we shall eventually win. Then I have to ask the question: what does winning mean? History shows that during the past 25 years there have been only six years without political disruption or violence of one kind or another. Those periods occur when, temporarily, the IRA has shot its bolt and falls back exhausted. When it has regathered strength, the battle starts again.

So I repeat: what does winning mean? Does it mean another temporary respite? Does anyone believe that our dual policy of direct rule combined with firmness will result in Northern Ireland emerging permanently—I utter the word "permanently"—from years of torment, with its people reconciled to one another and all of them reconciled to the existing relationship with Britain? I must answer that question in the negative. I do not think that history or any judgment of the future can lead us to that conclusion. At best, "winning", in my judgment, would be merely—no, I withdraw the word "merely"—would be an uneasy period of lower tension until the IRA had found another pretext to start the cycle again and plunge the people of Northern Ireland, once more back into disruption and death.

It is 12 long years since I gave the signal for British troops to be deployed in the streets of Belfast. I might recall that this signal was given in answer to insistent calls from the Catholic population expressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) whose courage, again, over the years, all hon. Members must commend. It was given in answer to insistent calls from the Catholic population, expressed through my hon. Friend and others, for protection against extremist Protestant mobs. That should not be forgotten.

When the troops went in we said publicly that we hoped that it would be for a short time. Privately, I do not think that any of us associated with that decision really believed it. We knew that it was easier to get in than to get out. Time has shown how right that view was. Since then, the number of troops deployed on the streets in Northern Ireland has increased at times and has decreased at other times as the situation has fluctuated. I do not believe that there is any solution at all in the slogan "Troops Out" or in the belief that if we put more troops in we shall get a solution. Neither will bring permanent reconciliation.

I agree that direct rule carried out fully by Secretaries of State in Governments in which I have had the honour to serve in one position or another has been an important and major success in providing the government that the Province had to have. However, it does not provide a permanent political solution, as I believe the Secretary of State was acknowledging this afternoon, although he did not explicity say so. It is this that I say the House must seek again, despite what has happened in the past.

During the last 12 years many well-intentioned and well worked-out proposals have been put forward by Ministers and others inside Northern Ireland as well as by Governments of both parties in Britain. All these have been attempts to create a stable political structure. All have failed. Every plan or scheme that Britain has put forward has been criticised and found to be unsuitable by one community or the other, and sometimes by both. They have all ended in the waste paper basket.

Looking back over that last 12 years—this is the lesson that I draw—we see that Britain has proposed and Ireland has reacted. I believe that the time has come to change that kind of pattern. I shall say how I think it should be done. This afternoon saw another example. As soon as the Secretary of State had announced his proposal for a political council, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was on his feet to say how useless it would be.

Yesterday, on the hunger strikers—

Mr. Kilfedder

rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I shall give way in a moment. As soon as the Secretary of State made his proposal the other side were immediately on their feet to say that it was useless. The Secretary of State is an optimist, or he would be a very disheartened man.

Mr. Kilfedder

The point that I was making—I think that it is fair—is that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to operate through elected representatives. To create an advisory body made up of people nominated and without responsibility and power will not help Northern Ireland. At best, it may create an opposition group on the advisory council. Many of them might be the minions of the Secretary of State, paid to be there.

Mr. Callaghan

I understood the Secretary of State to say that his intention was that the parties should nominate their own representatives from among those who had been elected either to this House or as district councillors or as members of the European Parliament. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. One cannot, however, say that they would be creatures of the Secretary of State. If that happened, I am sure that the parties would soon replace them. I do not wish to discuss the matter at this moment. I instance it—I hope that the hon. Member for Down, North will forgive me—as an example of the perpetual reaction that occurs to any proposal made from Westminster, however good or bad.

Mr. Kilfedder

It is right that people should react.

Mr. Callaghan

I wish to address my next remarks specifically to hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The time has come when we in Westminster must remove any lingering belief among the two communities that it is the duty and the responsibility of the British Government alone to overcome the obduracy of whichever community is in opposition to what British Ministers propose. I believe that this would mark a sea change in our relationship with the Province. The Secretary of State has begun that process today in a minor way.

I must take my share of responsibility for what we have done and the mistakes that we have made over the last 13 years. I have had something to do with it. I believe that our well-intentioned but paternalistic attitude has undermined the sense of responsibility that the people of Northern Ireland should feel for their own destinies. We see examples of that every time a proposal is put forward.

The proposition that I wish to put is that Britain, from now on, should make it clear that she intends increasingly to regard the people of Northern Ireland as responsible for proposing and taking the initiatives to solve the problems of how they intend to live with one another. It is my genuine belief, following discussions, that many people in the Province would respond with courage and fair-mindedness to this challenge.

The Taoiseach, Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald, said during the course of the election something with which I profoundly agree. It was: The future of Northern Ireland will not be shaped by politicians or civil servants in London and Dublin aiming mirrors at Belfast and Derry. Ultimately it will be decided by Irish men and women acting together in Ireland. I am pretty sure, reading the context, that Dr. Fitzgerald was referring to Irish living in the South working with Irish living in the North. When he talks about "acting together", the same truth applies to those who live in the North whose need is also to act together.

My case today is that Britain should at once begin the process of formulating a new policy based on that principle. It should provide such a policy for a continuous series of separate steps taken at deliberate intervals with the ultimate aim of giving the people of Northern Ireland complete responsibility for their own affairs.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Complete?

Mr. Callaghan

Yes, complete. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will acquit me of any intention of finding a one-line solution. I do not intend to fall into that error.

Mr. Powell

Independence.

Mr. Callaghan

If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself he will find all these questions answered before I reach the end of my speech. By murmuring that word he will not get me there any sooner.

The process that I envisage would take some years to complete and the final step would be that a new Northern Ireland would emerge as a broadly independent State.

Mr. Powell

Broadly.

Mr. Callaghan

The right hon. Gentleman will find that the qualification is worked out if he contains himself. There would emerge a broadly independent State that had in the process forged a new relationship with both Dublin and London. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must not be too frightened when I say Dublin, too. The first step must be a fresh examination at Westminster. I welcome the fact that a study group in my own party is trying to work out a new policy. It will be difficult. I have the privilege now, as a humble Back Bencher, of speaking my own mind without having to take into account anything except my own conscience and judgment about matters.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

The right hon. Gentleman said, at the beginning of his remarks, that hon. Members must have some regard in the speeches that we make to the impression created in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Callaghan

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of what is only too much in the front of my mind. We have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, to the people of the whole United Kingdom. It is in that spirit that I approach the matter.

I know that there is some pressure to end what is called bipartisanship. Pressure is being put on the Labour Party to do that. As far as I know there has never been any formal agreement between Government and Opposition, whichever party was in office. Certainly there is strong disagreement between the Government and the Labour Party—expressed this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield—on the remedies for the economic and social ills of Northern Ireland, but I have never seen any advantage, and I see none now, in deliberately trying to magnify differences between the Government and the Opposition on the political future of that country, if by taking some steps together we can relieve any part of the torment.

Therefore, I believe that we should begin with a fresh discussion at Westminster. If the Government thought it right to ask the parties to join in, I hope that my party and the others would do so. Nothing should be excluded from such a debate. At present every fresh discussion is constrained by self-imposed limitations—justifiable limitations, I admit. There is the fear that anything that we may do will lead to the IRA being encouraged to renewed effort, the feeling that, of course, we must give no encouragement to it or to any terrorist organisation. There is no doubt that that has inhibited discussion in the House. There is the further limitation of the solemn guarantee, given by statute of this House, that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority so desire.

None of those self-imposed limitations can be taken lightly, nor should they be set aside without the fullest consideration. But circumstances may arise in which they should be set aside, in the interests of everybody, including the Protestants in Northern Ireland. In my view, the time is ripe for a fundamental, free and open discussion here at Westminster. That is the first step.

When such discussions are concluded between the parties or in whatever way the debate is to take place the Government should formulate their new policy and seek the support of Parliament for their general intentions. They should then call the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives together in some kind of convention to hear our intentions. This is where we change the boundaries. They would then have to consider what our intentions were. That is how I wish to see us approach the matter. The Secretary of State has set up a new political advisory committee to which he says he can refer any matter. I understand that on its own initiative it can consider these matters. Perhaps it would be an appropriate body. I do not know.

My hope is that if the policy that emerges at Westminster is that Northern Ireland should, in the fullness of time, take responsibility for its own future the Government will state to whatever body they call together that it is not the intention of the Westminster Government to produce further proposals, plans or solutions—no more action, with the consequential immediate reaction of dismissing what is said. The people of Northern Ireland would themselves produce their own plans, in the knowledge that they would have to decide under what constitution they wished to live together, how they would combat terrorism and how they would settle the future of their own country and of their own children.

Britain would clearly play an important part in this continuing process. We should need to indicate how we should help Northern Ireland to this end and what we should do when Northern Ireland finally became independent. For example, we should need, both morally and to secure a political solution, to give firm undertakings about social security obligations and such matters as pensions. We should regard ourselves as having a substantial obligation to build up the economy in Northern Ireland.

Clearly, a Northern Ireland citizenship is an essential element. Some Northern Ireland citizens already hold two passports—a United Kingdom passport and a passport of the Republic. In an independent Northern Ireland all those living there would, by virtue of residence, be citizens of Northern Ireland, but Britain should also undertake that if they so chose they would also be British citizens, with all the rights of British citizens.

"What, then, of the guarantee?" I shall be asked—and rightly asked, because it is not a matter to be dismissed. I believe that the best way of meeting the fears or aspirations of those who care deeply about the question is that when the necessary steps have been taken—step by step over a period, and not immediately—in the fulness of time the guarantee that we have given should be transferred from the territory to the people. Everyone who wished to remain a British citizen would be free to do so.

My purpose is that the people of Northern Ireland should recognise that their best hope for the future lies in finding a solution to their own problems, and that Britain's policy should increasingly, step by step, move in that direction, while we fulfil all our responsibilities.

I propose, as one of the series of steps that should be taken, a Bill of Rights to be drawn up, after discussion, to safeguard every citizen. We should be willing to enact it at Westminster and pass it to the people of Northern Ireland when they become fully independent.

It would be a matter for discussion of the way in which the new Northern Ireland Parliament would be elected. I am told that proportional representation would not help to bring a broken community together. I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South recognises that that is what he represents today—a broken community. It is his task and mine to see how it can be brought together. Proportional representation should be examined to see whether it could be of value, but I am told that it would not.

As for legislation enacted by the Northern Ireland Parliament—here I come to the qualification of my word "broadly"—it could be provided that there would be a right of appeal from any act of the Northern Ireland Parliament that seemed to infringe the constitution of the Bill of Rights. That appeal could be to a bench of judges from the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the Republic.

As an independent country, Northern Ireland would be able to make its own decision about joining international organisations such as the United Nations, the European Community, the Common Market and, if it wished, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. An independent Northern Ireland might find considerable advantage in having a direct voice as a member of such bodies as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I emphasise that such changes must be carefully prepared and presented, and above all must be carried out stage by stage and not in a rush.

The two communities would recognise that they would no longer be sheltered from discharging their own responsibilities and that their future was in their own hands. By virtue of its numbers, the Protestant majority especially would have a great responsibility and a historic opportunity.

Dublin's attitude would be crucial. There is no need for it to abandon—indeed, there is no point in calling on it to abandon—its cherished hope of eventual unification. But that is not a policy; it is an aspiration. Dublin's help is needed before this or any other plan can succeed.

If the forms of government devised by both communities permitted them to recognise their mutual interdependence and common identity, support for the IRA would dwindle, and so would the terrorism that now disfigures the country, although I am not optimistic enough to believe that it will ever entirely disappear. However, the suffering people of Northern Ireland would be able to lead a normal life for almost the first time, without the Army having to be called in regularly to support the civil power. So the result would be that our Army would be able honourably to give up those onerous duties that it has carried out for so many years.

I am aware that similar proposals have been canvassed from time to time. I am sure that what I have said will be dismissed and attacked from both sides. My purpose is to restart a political discussion that is badly needed, to get away from sloganising and to propose at least one possible way forward that would safeguard both Protestant and Catholic and enable them to recognise their interdependence.

I conclude by reminding those who will dismiss what I have said that, for all the commitments of successive British Governments, the people of the Province still seem to have no prospect of an orderly life in a thriving society, that the record of the past 12 years amply demonstrates the futility of contriving in Westminster solutions that cannot be imposed, and that therefore the time is ripe for the people of Northern Ireland to begin the process of working out their own future.

Their success will depend on nothing less than the supreme task—we do not underrate the difficulty—of establishing a common identity for themselves. With our encouragement, and by taking the process step by step, they can do so, especially if we remember the painful and tragic lessons that we have all learnt as a result of the last 12 years.

At the very least we should now talk freely among ourselves at Wesminster without inhibition of self-imposed constraints. At the very best we have another chance. In all seriousness I say, for God's sake let us take it.

c1053
1. Royal Assent 101 words
cc1053-106
2. Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) 31,273 words, 2 divisions