HL Deb 07 December 1982 vol 437 cc143-51

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie)

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, at this point, I repeated a Statement which has been made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the bombing at Ballykelly, Co. Londonderry. My honourable friend's Statement reads as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on yesterday's bombing at Ballykelly. Co. Londonderry. At a quarter past 11 yesterday evening, a bomb exploded in the Droppin Well Inn at Ballykelly, Co. Londonderry. No warning was given and the inn was crowded at the time with soldiers from the nearby army camp and civilians from the locality. The walls of the building were badly damaged and the roof collapsed. So far 16 people have died, 11 of them soldiers and five civilians. Four of the civilians were women. In addition, 66 people have been injured, 23 of them seriously. The injured are now being treated in hospitals in the immediate area and in Belfast. The Irish National Liberation Army have claimed responsibility.

"I know the whole House will join me in condemning this massacre, and in expressing our sympathy to the injured and to the relatives of all those who have been killed or hurt. Let nobody pretend that this is anything other than ruthless mass murder. May this atrocity bring home to people, wherever they may be, and if they need any reminder, the true consequences of offering support of any kind to the terrorists. Support for terrorists inevitably and invariably means support for what they do. The RUC will pursue relentlessly their search for the criminals responsible and in this task they will have the unreserved backing of the Government and this House."

My Lords, that ends my honourable friend's Statement.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for repeating the sombre Statement made in another place on behalf of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The House can well understand the reason for the Statement having been read rather later than usual, and we are grateful to the noble Earl for the speed with which he has endeavoured to return from Belfast to read the Statement to the House.

May I, first, on behalf of my noble friends—and, I venture to think, in accord with the wishes of the whole House—express our sympathy, too, with the relatives and friends of those who were killed and with those who were injured, during what was meant to be a brief period of relaxation for them from their task of protecting the people of Northern Ireland from the bombs and bullets of the terrorists. May we assume that the victims and their families will receive treatment, financial and otherwise, on a level fitting for those who are killed or injured in the service of their country?

Secondly, may I join in the condemnation of the fiendish actions of the terrorists who perpetrated yesterday's butchery. It was cowardly, it was without warning, it was, as has been rightly said, mass murder of civilians as well as of soldiers. Your Lordships may think it is right that the Secretary of State should remind everyone, whether in Ireland, in the North or in the Republic, whether in this country or whether in the United States, of the true consequences of supporting the terrorists.

Will inquiry be made into the security aspects of this tragedy? It appears that the disco, in a hostelry known to be patronised by the army, was a regular weekly event. Are not those who follow a known pattern of behaviour like this liable to be easy victims of the watching terrorists? If a regular gathering of soldiers outside barracks takes place, should there not be special security arrangements to protect them? Was that done in this case? Were any particular security arrangements made for the protection of the soldiers and civilians?

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl the Minister for repeating the Statement about the vicious bomb outrage at Ballykelly yesterday. When I spoke at the time of the London bombings last summer, I said that I felt sure the whole House must have reacted with a sense of shock, horror and sorrow. Those attacks were nearer home, but I am sure that the feelings of the House must be just the same today: shock that such a thing has happened; horror at the mutilations, the suffering and the agony which has been caused: horror that people can so treat their fellow men; sorrow—and, I repeat, profound sorrow—for all those whose lives will never be the same again, to whom we send sincere sympathy at this time.

It is possible to argue that we are getting nowhere and that, this is just another instance of an atrocity which could have been avoided if we had withdrawn from taking any part in the affairs of Northern Ireland. That, I believe, would be a devastatingly misguided policy, although clearly this is not the time to go once again over the reasons. I believe that we must, in all humility but with all determination and courage, remind ourselves of those often quoted words of Arthur Hugh Clough: Say not the struggle naught availeth, The labour and the wounds are vain". It is our task to see that the forces for good, which are very much at work in Northern Ireland today, are helped to overcome the forces for evil which, alas! are also much in evidence.

Perhaps I may just refer to Mr. Ken Livingstone's invitation to Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison to visit London next week as the guests of some Labour members of the Greater London Council. It must be widely held that, following this latest outrage, this is a quite exceptionally inappropriate time to allow such a visit to proceed, even if it were in any way the business of the Greater London Council. I suggest that Mr. Livingstone would be insulting those who have lost life or limb or loved ones if he proceeded without the most unlikely statement from the two visitors that they wholeheartedly deplore the appalling suffering that has been caused. I unhesitatingly endorse the closing comment of the Statement, that support for terrorists inevitably and necessarily means support for what they do.

I can think of no further question with regard to security at the present time that is unlikely already to have occurred to the Government. Our policy on these Benches is constructively to support the Government in every way we can in their search for an end to the sufferings of the people of the Province, inflicted, as has often been said, by small but vicious minorities. We sincerely hope that the Government of the Republic will work with this country, where relevant, to this end.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, may I say that the Government are grateful for the spirit in which they have received this very sad Statement? The noble and learned Lord pointed out that I come here from Belfast. I should like to confirm that, and also to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has come direct from the scene of the crime. I do of course take the point made by the noble and learned Lord about the favourable treatment which must be given to those who are killed or maimed in the service of their country and countrymen.

As to the reminders which are needed overseas—and one must confirm that they are sometimes needed—my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Scott, is in America at the moment. One of us is nearly always there. I know that my honourable friend will take this sad opportunity to underscore the message that we are constantly trying to give, that aid and comfort to terrorists is aid and comfort to people with no regard for the life of bystanders, civilians and people who, according to their own definition, are purely Irish.

As to the question offered me by the noble and learned Lord as to whether any particular security arrangements were made, the area was considered secure. It is difficult to guarantee absolute security if hard-pressed men are to have any normal life at all. The matter is primarily the concern of the GOC and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I shall of course bring to their attention the concern of the noble and learned Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned an issue which must now be in our minds, if it had not been already; namely, the Greater London Council invitation. I really do beg the Labour members of that body to consider what they are doing at this time. I know that all other parties represented in the Greater London Council and the vast majority of voters would be appalled if this visit went ahead. I think that they should reconsider, and I am sure that your Lordships' view should also be taken into account.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, may I associate my colleagues on this Bench—

Lord Shinwell

My Lords,—

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, it is for the Social Democratic Party to speak now.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, am I to understand that we are not all equal in this place? I raised the matter earlier in the day.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the convention is that the Opposition and the Liberal Party make their contribution and that then there is a contribution from the Social Democratic Party. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will then have an opportunity to take part.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would be happier to speak in front of me, I have no objection. It is a convention which is constantly broken by those opposite, and I do not wish to be awkward to one of the oldest Members of the House. If he wishes to speak now I am only too happy to hear what he has to say. I accept his wave with gratitude.

I want to associate my colleagues with what has been said: the fury we all feel about this disgusting incident and the compassion we all feel for those who have been killed, and their relatives, and for those who have been injured. One very pertinent question is the extent to which the Irish National Liberation Army overlaps with the IRA and whether it can really be regarded as in any way separate from the IRA.

Secondly, if there is any doubt about this, as the Sinn Feiners are a political party with political safety to say what they like and as they have always made it perfectly clear that they are in favour of IRA actions and violence, has not the time come when their freedom to support violence should be reconsidered? The Statement speaks about "the true consequences of offering support of any kind to the terrorists". I have never met a Sinn Fein member—I have not met very many but I have met a certain number—who was not perfectly frank in his view that there has got to be a violent wing to deal with the violence of our troops. That argument is entirely spurious. Does not the noble Earl think that the time has come to think about this again so that the really dreadful suggestion of Mr. Livingstone could never in future be made?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, the only distinction that can exist in our minds concerning the INLA and the IRA is that both organisations are illegal and that both are prepared to pursue political ends by violent means. We have made it clear that the legitimacy of political aims and aspirations is unconditional in a democratic society. But the means are conditioned by the law under which we are all equal, so we should not bother about the differences between two such organisations. The issue of the political party of Sinn Fein is, as the noble Lord with his experience as a Northern Ireland Minister will know, somewhat more complex. We have made it clear that for so long as the legitimate political party of Sinn Fein does not condemn violence absolutely, we can have no dealings with it on a political level.

5 p.m.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, earlier today when the noble Lord, Lord Denham, informed us that a Statement would be made by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on the disgraceful events in Northern Ireland yesterday, I accepted it although I felt very strongly about it at the time. If I may intervene now in what might be regarded as the Irish problem, may I first ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that I have been associated with the Irish problem since before the First World War, when I happened to be associated with the seafaring community and paid frequent visits to Dublin, Cork and often to Northern Ireland? I was associated with the Irish problem when Lloyd George endeavoured, with a divided Liberal Cabinet, to revive the subject of home rule. I should like to ask the noble Earl also whether he is aware that on the question of Irish policy of this Government and other Governments, that there have been three reasons why we have failed to create a united Ireland, which although politically unacceptable to large sections of the community both in this country and in Ireland is nevertheless the only solution possible?

The reason why home rule was not acceptable at that time was because, first of all, your Lordships' House was opposed to any change in the situation. The second reason was the amorous activities of Parnell with Kitty O'Shea. It was also because 70 nationalist Irish MPs decided to abstain and failed to come to the House of Commons when they had an opportunity of a majority in favour of home rule.

The events of yesterday, whether one likes it or not, have revived the whole question of the future of Ireland—unless we are prepared to accept another 10, 15 or 20 years of terrorism. Let me make it plain beyond peradventure that along with others, including my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I condemn with all the strength at my command, and with all my passion, the events and disgrace of yesterday. There can be no stronger condemnation. But I am not satisfied with this condemnation; it is not enough. What I have in mind is something of the nature of a joint meeting of Members of your Lordships' House and of another place when, in a debate, we can present the reason for our condemnation and can gather mighty support from Members of both Houses—and can also seek mighty support from the people of the United Kingdom. That is the way to tackle it.

The time has come for something like that to be done. Otherwise, what are we going to do? Are we to accept terrorism? Terrorism is no solution to the problem. If I may say so with great respect to Mr. Prior, when he presented his proposals for another Assembly—and Hansard proves what I am about to say—I objected to them on the grounds that every new Minister who goes to Ireland always has a new device or a new gimmick—but everyone of them has failed. I do not believe that what they have tried to do in Ireland now will be any more of a success than those attempts made previously. Nevertheless, we have to face the question, "What is to be the future of Ireland?"

I want to make it quite clear that, so far as I am concerned, the only possible solution is a united Ireland. I know that is unacceptable for various reasons—both military and otherwise. I know that we cannot have a united Ireland under threat of aggression from some aggressor—I know that we cannot have that, and I am aware of that possibility. Nevertheless, the only possible solution is a united Ireland, and sooner or later the Government must address themselves to the possibility of some convention of eminence in Ireland, of both sides in Ireland and of this country in order to provide some way out of the impasse which exists at the present time.

I know that Back-Benchers are not allowed to make speeches and are prevented from doing more than asking questions—which is what I am doing, by the way. I want to ask the noble Earl the most important question of all in my judgment: Can we have a debate on this subject so that Members of this House can express themselves and so that we can gather a mighty and momentous vote in favour of condemnation of the terrorists and of those associated with them? I do not want to mention names, but some names are appearing in the press. That is the first thing to do; to have a collective debate with Members of the other House and a mighty effort on the part of the people of the United Kingdom warning the terrorists that we are not prepared to accept what they are doing, that we condemn what they are doing, and that we denounce what they are doing. At the same time, we must seek measures which will help us to find a way out of this difficulty.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell (and I acknowledge his experience of the issues throughout the century) that there must be political means and political ways of trying to lessen political tensions within the Province, or tensions between the Province and the Republic of Ireland, or tensions between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Irish Republic. But I do not believe that this is relevant, if I may respectfully say so, to the events of yesterday, which were nothing less than dastardly crimes and which are unequivocally condemned by all right-thinking people everywhere, including this morning, in no uncertain terms, by nearly all the political leaders of consequence in the Irish Republic—as we would only expect. I must remind the House that the Republic is very proximately terrorised and threatened by terrorism as we ourselves are.

I must also say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that I cannot see an attempt to get some political movement within the Province and some focus on political activity there as a gimmick or device. It would seem to me that not to make such attempts would be to surrender to the violence of men who look for political solutions by violent means rather than by political means. I do not believe that any of us would want to do that. I will of course pass on to my noble friends, through the usual channels, the suggestion for a debate on these issues; but that is all I can say about the noble Lord's suggestion at this point.

5.8 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I believe it would be wrong of me, coming as I do from Northern Ireland, to sit here and not voice my support for the Statement, and also to express along with other noble Lords the sympathy which I know this House and others feel for those who were sadly injured or bereaved in this recent atrocity. Perhaps more than most in this House over the past 14 years, I have taken part in compiling statements of sympathy or condemnation of the horror. I do not know how one can get through to these persons whose evil minds construe such atrocities, but I do know of the terrible suffering of the innocents and of those left behind, and of those associated with them.

The point I should like to follow up was that made by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones when he said that we ought to draw the attention of everyone, wherever they are, to the need to exercise the utmost vigilance and co-operation with the security forces who are acting on our behalf. I wish to say that I was horrified and disturbed last Wednesday on entering the Palace of Westminster, after we had had a series of letter bombs, when I witnessed a couple of Members of this Parliament who were not co-operating with the security forces, who were exercising their normal duty, by not presenting themselves and their passes in the way the security forces require. I understand no representations were made on behalf of the persons who resisted this. I think this co-operation must apply to everyone who enters Westminster; everyone should co-operate. That goes, of course, for co-operation at airports and everywhere else. By giving help to the persons who are in place to protect us we can in the long run help to overcome this terrible problem. Your Lordships know the terrible problems of the Province and nothing is to be gained by a whole post-mortem on the situation at this time, so I will leave your Lordships with those few remarks.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has said. I would underscore it by begging all your Lordships to be extremely careful. We have reduced the overall capacity of terrorists to wreak mayhem both in this country and outside. We have not reduced it nearly enough. I hope all noble Lords will use their influence to urge people to be most attentive at this time.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question relating to the question put to him a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton? I think many of us increasingly recognise the need for self-publicity of the present leader of the Greater London Council, but does the noble Earl not agree that in the light of the outrage perpetrated in Ballykelly last night it would be something approaching a national scandal if this visit to London of a group of terrorists and the public relations officers of terrorists took place? Can I ask him whether he would not agree that nothing, except perhaps a further intervention of the Leader of the Opposition in another place, can possibly stop this disgraceful episode from taking place? Can I ask also whether the noble Earl would not recognise that there are real risks as far as public order in London is concerned when this visit occurs? Lastly, may I put this to him? He will be aware, as I am, of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act; as it is quite clear that a number of the people who are going to embark on this journey are clearly covered by the provisions of this Act, would it not be desirable to make it quite clear that this Act will be implemented if they arrive in this country?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, it seems to me inconceivable at the moment that the invitation should continue to be issued, but I think we must wait a little on events in regard to that.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware, in relation to the invitation by certain members of the Labour Party in the GLC to the two members of Sinn Fein, that Mr. Michael Foot on behalf of the Labour Party strongly condemned the invitation being sent and has asked that it should be withdrawn, and that in so speaking he was speaking of the condemnation of the whole Labour movement against the terrorism with which Sinn Fein is associated?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I for one certainly would not want to make any party capital over what seems to me a totally deranged invitation, deranged at best. I would, of course, acquit the noble and learned Lord and his noble and right honourable friends of any complicity in it.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, may I—

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt because I realise that the substance of this is a matter of great concern to all noble Lords, but I think we may be in danger of turning this into a debate. We have had half an hour on this Statement. If your Lordships felt it was appropriate, possibly after the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has put his question we should move on to the other business.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I intended to detain your Lordships for only one minute in support of what the noble and learned Lord has just said, and as someone who proudly sat in County Hall for over 20 years. May I say, and may it go out from this House, that when national Government interfere with the work of local government, local government is right to protest. Similarly, when local government tries to interfere with the work of national Government, national Government protests.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I agree with the sentiment so clearly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I know he will not take it amiss from me in any way if I say that I wish he still were at County Hall.