HL Deb 20 November 1984 vol 457 cc504-11

3.42 p.m.

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the Anglo-Irish Summit on 18th and 19th November. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on my discussions with the Taoiseach on 18th and 19th November. I was accompanied by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Dr. FitzGerald was accompanied by Mr. Spring, the Tanaiste, and by Mr. Barry, the Irish Foreign Minister. The text of the Communique issued after our meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

This was our second bilateral meeting in the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. We exchanged views on European Community matters and on other current issues in international affairs. We also reviewed the work done over the year under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council at both Ministerial and official levels on a wide range of matters.

We had a thorough and realistic exchange of views on developments in relation to Northern Ireland taking into account the positions of the two Governments; the Report of the New Ireland Forum; and the proposals of constitutional democratic parties in Northern Ireland as set out in documents published in recent months. We agreed that it was a major interest of both our countries, as well as both the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland, that there should be lasting peace and stability there.

The Taoiseach and I further agreed on the need for efforts to diminish the division between the two communities in Northern Ireland and to reconcile the two major traditions that exist in the two parts of Ireland. I affirmed yet again that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and that it will remain so unless the majority in Northern Ireland wish otherwise. The Taoiseach for his part, while reaffirming the Irish aspiration to a united Ireland, recognised that any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

We also agreed that:

  1. (i) any attempt to promote political objectives by means of violence or by threat of violence must be rejected, as must those who adopt or support such methods;
  2. (ii) the identities of both the majority and the minority communities in Northern Ireland should be recognised and respected, and reflected in the structures and processes of Northern Ireland in ways acceptable to both communities;
  3. (iii) the process of government in Northern Ireland should be such as to provide the people of both communities with the confidence that their rights will be safeguarded;
  4. (iv) co-operation between our two Governments in matters of security should be maintained and where possible improved.

We also agreed on the importance of creating a political framework in Northern Ireland which was acceptable to both the majority and minority communities. We recognised that this can only be brought about with the full co-operation of the Northern Ireland political parties themselves. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be continuing his discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties with this in view.

The Taoiseach and I agreed that there should be close and continuing discussion on these subjects between the two Governments in the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. We decided that it would be useful for us to meet again in the early months of next year to take stock of progress and to pursue our established aim of promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.47 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council for repeating this very important Statement given by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the other House. The fact that these talks, at the highest possible level, took place between the two Governments is itself of the utmost importance. The general tone of the Statement is welcomed, as also is the report that the two Prime Ministers have commented that the talks were full, frank and most realistic. From these Benches we welcome the points of agreement on the attitudes towards violence, co-operation on security, respect for the identities of both communities and on building confidence of the two communities.

The Statement refers to the review of work under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. Can the noble Viscount give more information about that work? What matters have been considered at that level? Although respecting the agreement that constitutional changes cannot be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland, will the noble Viscount confirm that the Government recognise that Northern Ireland is a United Kingdom responsibility and that the Government have a duty to lead?

I note that the report of the New Ireland Forum was included in the matters discussed at this summit meeting, and it is reported that at the subsequent press conference the Prime Minister ruled out the three main solutions offered in that report. Do the Government accept that there may be other possibilities for political initiatives which they are prepared to consider together with the Irish Government? Naturally the intention to continue the dialogues in the new year is highly welcomed.

In conclusion, I understand that your Lordships are to be given the opportunity next month to debate the report of the Kilbrandon independent survey of the problems of Northern Ireland. It is to be hoped that at that stage the Government will be able to give some indication of their thinking on this important question of the problems of Northern Ireland.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for being good enough to repeat the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. May I ask him whether he is aware that we on these Benches welcome a great deal of what has been said in the Statement and find nothing which gives us cause for great anxiety? In particular we welcome the Statement referring to the reaffirmation that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so unless the majority in Northern Ireland wish otherwise. We also welcome the Taoiseach's recognition, while reaffirming the Irish aspiration to a United Ireland, that, as the Statement makes clear, any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

Notwithstanding that it has been said many times, I do not think that we on these Benches can say too often how we abhor violence and those who are connected with it. On my own behalf in this connection, now that some of the emotional content of the bombing at Brighton has evaporated, may I say how much I, myself, appreciated the deportment of the Prime Minister in the hours and the day immediately following that terrible event and shocking experience.

We welcome again the Statement mentioning that the identities of both majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland should be recognised. These are all statements of highly desirable objectives. I hope I will not be considered unappreciative if I add that a great deal has not been said about how these objectives are to be achieved. Nevertheless, my experience of being on a summit leads me to believe that you should watch your step very carefully indeed lest you fall a very long way. In those circumstances I recognise the reason why the Government have failed to go into too much detail, and content myself for the time being with looking forward to the next meeting. It is very important that that should have been arranged already, and I hope that it will be very successful.

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Diamond, for their response to the Statement. I am grateful, too, for the welcome given to the tone of the Statement and to the nature of the very full and frank discussion which clearly took place and which was emphasised throughout the Statement. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who associated himself with those particular points of view.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me what other matters had been discussed arising from the Anglo-Irish governmental council. Clearly, the most important of these is the question of cross-border security. Naturally, that was very fully discussed, with all the implications that are carried with it. Equally, I think that no noble Lord would expect much to be said in public about the details of that particular discussion. No doubt other matters concerning the economies of both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, and their interaction with each other, were also discussed in this forum. The communiqué does not refer to these, but clearly there were further discussions on them.

The noble Lord also asked me whether, if other political solutions were found to be available, they could be considered. Of course that is possible, but always in the context to which both noble Lords referred: that they are likely to be broadly acceptable in Northern Ireland to both the majority and minority communities. Therein, of course, lies (as perhaps I know as well as anybody) the real root cause of the problems with which we are faced. I think it is therefore right that there should not be too much said in the communiqués about how objectives are to be achieved, because everybody appreciates how difficult it is to achieve the objective of an arrangement suitable for all parties in Northern Ireland. Everybody knows how difficult that is, and it is therefore a mistake to make promises which are clearly unlikely, in the event, to be fulfilled.

I am grateful to both noble Lords for reaffirming their belief in the view stated clearly in the communiqué of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, and, indeed, the position that the majority in Northern Ireland must have the say. Equally, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said: that, of course, Northern Ireland is a United Kingdom responsibility, and the Government have a responsibility to lead—and that is exactly what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be seeking to do in his discussions with the political parties.

Perhaps I would be permitted the personal observation that such discussions cannot be conducted quickly, and certainly are not certain to reach conclusions; but if you try to rush them you certainly will not get anywhere. I believe that that is why it is very important to proceed cautiously at this stage. I am grateful to both noble Lords for welcoming further meetings. I believe these are of very great importance. A continuing dialogue between the countries is, I believe, widely accepted by everyone concerned, is one of the major results of this particular meeting and will be continued in the future.

3.56 p.m.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he agrees that on several occasions we have had either reports of summit meetings or Orders in Council galore? There has been any number of Orders in Council that we have had to listen to and much has been said about achieving objectives. But, in point of fact, there is nothing meaningful about it; we have achieved little or nothing. We are in the position today that we were in 15 years ago, and even before then. Indeed, the position is more serious now than it was then, despite all that was done by Members of the other place, such as Mr. Prior, who did his very best in difficult circumstances, and by others, as, indeed, by everybody here. One has to recognise that unless we can remove the principle to which we attach so much importance—namely, that nothing can be done in the rate of progress towards a solution without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland—we might as well close the door completely. And there is little or no hope of that so long as there are sectarian differences, as there are at the present time and as there have been for so long.

My Lords, what is the use of this sort of thing? I will not proceed any further along those lines because I think that it would be unwise and because it does not get us anywhere; I recognise that. I have studied this problem for a long time, I have read everything about the Sinn Feiners, I have met the rebels, I know something of what is happening in Northern and Southern Ireland and, therefore, I want to put a question which is important. With great respect to my noble friend Lord Underhill, who talked about important matters, as did the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, my question is this. As a result of these Summit discussions, have we achieved any progress, not with Northern Ireland or about Northern Ireland, but with the Irish Republic?—because that is exceedingly important. There is the matter of extradition, there is the matter of using forces. There is a possible matter—and I say "possible" for I would not use the world "probable"—of an aggression against the United Kingdom when we would seek the aid of the Republic of Southern Ireland. We must be assured at any rate that Southern Ireland will not be against us if it is not in our favour. This is the nature of the problem. I would put it in a simple form. What is wrong is that the minority in Northern Ireland are subject to conditions which are unsatisfactory. Until these are removed, there is no hope there. Furthermore, so long as we have terrorism and the belief that terrorism can count, when ordinary conversational, democratic discussions are of no avail, there is not much hope either.

Therefore I end on the point that I ventured to touch on earlier. Have we achieved anything between ourselves and the Republic of Southern Ireland? If we have, we ought to know what it is. Is there any hope there? If so, let us hear a little more about it. If not, let us simply understand that this is a problem that is not going to be solved for a very long time.

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will not go through the various points of history with him except to say that if one has spent, as I did, nearly two years of one's life in Northern Ireland, there is nothing that one has not heard about the history of Northern Ireland from all the many people who spoke to one over that period of time. So I would confirm much of what he has said about the immense problems that attend this particular position.

I think it would be fair for me to say, on behalf of Governments of both parties during the period of time since we took direct rule, perhaps of myself, perhaps of all the other Secretaries of State who have been there, that we have done a great deal to seek to improve co-operation between the two communities in the North, and indeed we have done a great deal to improve the position of the minority community. We have done it with considerable expenditure of the United Kingdom taxpayers' money—let no one have any illusion about that; but that I think we can claim to have done.

The noble Lord asked: what actual progress have we achieved with the Government of the South? I believe that we have achieved closer co-operation on cross-border security. That can only be proved in the event, as the noble Lord will be the first to appreciate. One can talk about it and one can make plans, but is it better on the ground? That is the question. I would say to the noble Lord that unless there are discussions and there are contacts, one can be quite certain that it will not be better on the ground. The hope of having these discussions is that it will prove to be so.

4.2 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I very much welcome the long and clearly thorough discussions which took place between the British and Irish Prime Ministers and also the commitment to have early talks again. Would the noble Viscount the Leader of the House not agree that at those future meetings some of the ideas that were produced by the Kilbrandon Committee should be looked at? I know the three options put forward by the New Ireland Forum were not accepted per se, but the Kilbrandon Committee put forward some interesting ideas on the three options produced. Would not the noble Viscount agree that in those future talks some small token of tangible progress on the matter of opposing the para-military forces should be put forward? Finally, would he not agree that this is the moment to find some small measure of progress as it is at the invitation of a friendly government rather than from under pressure from a para-military group?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and particularly for her last remark. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House would clearly agree. The problem is how to make this progress.

The noble Baroness's remarks enable me to repair an omission. I did not refer, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to the question of the debate on the Kilbrandon Report. I do not think I can be particularly constructive at this stage because it would be wrong for me to pre-judge in any way what my colleagues might wish to say on that particular occasion. But clearly it is important that that report should be debated in this House, and naturally the Government welcome that opportunity. I hope that we can find some appropriate way. I would only say to the noble Baroness that she would be the first to agree that progress has to be based on realities, and the realities of the position in the North—the realities of the majority and minority communities, the realities of the feelings of the majority community—have to be taken into account. Any solution which runs away from those realities clearly will not work.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, the noble Viscount spoke encouragingly and hopefully about the progress that has been made, and the hope that was entertained during the recent discussions of further progress in regard to trans-border security. Would the noble Viscount not agree that, irrespective of any different perspectives and aspirations that there may be between the two governments on political objectives, on this matter of security both governments are on common ground? Would the noble Viscount not agree that on the question of security, in so far as it concerns terrorism and acts of violence of the IRA and other terrorists, the prospects of progress and the need for action are not, and should not be, confined only to matters along the border?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I agree with him. Clearly, security is much wider than the situation on the border. Equally clearly, the situation on the border is crucially important to both states and to the security of both states. As the noble Lord has referred to security, he enables me to repair another omission, and that is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, very much for the kind remarks he made about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that I, too, in common with other noble Lords, welcome the dialogue that is taking place, and that we understand will be taking place again in another few months? Can he tell me, in relation to the intergovernmental council deliberations that are mentioned in the report, apart from the issue of security, which is important, whether other matters of common concern between the United Kingdom and the Republic, as well as Northern Ireland, were discussed? Will the results be available in report form for Members to read? And can the noble Viscount say whether the Government will consider extending the membership of the intergovernmental council to include perhaps Members of Parliament, and so widen the discussions? Secondly, may I ask the noble Viscount to enlarge on part of the report? I listened very carefully when he said that both the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister agreed that the identities of the minority and majority communities and their aspirations should be recognised and reflected in structures of administration. What does that mean in terms of the Northern Ireland Administration? Are the Government inferring that some form of power sharing is at the back of their mind, and could that be a possibility in the near future?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I think I must say in answer to the noble Lord that I have been in politics for perhaps too long, and involved in Irish politics perhaps too long, but at least it gives me one advantage. I know it would be very wrong of me to enlarge on what is said in the communiqué at this time, and I do not think I would wish to do so.