HL Deb 11 July 1986 vol 478 cc657-67

4.40 p.m.

The Marquess of Salisbury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to solve the problems of Northern Ireland in view of the continuing disorder there.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I raise it at this time because the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been in force for some six months or so, and at the time it was reached it was hoped that it would go a long way to reduce disorders in the north of Ireland. This is not yet apparent and the accord has been rejected by the vast majority of people and leaders of Northern Ireland. It was intended to improve relations with Eire, and it was also hoped that it would ease the cross-border problems. Again, there has been no sign of any improvement there.

I think it must be viewed against the Eire claim of the right to take over Ulster even if, under the agreement, this has been temporarily shelved or suspended. To me this is a claim to take over part of the United Kingdom, and I believe that the agreement allows Eire to put a foot in the door towards this objective.

I should also like to ask my noble friend Lord Lyell whether the agreement was in any way encouraged or pressed for by either our colleagues in the EC or the United States. I should like to point out that the only time Ireland has been united was under Great Britain, from the end of the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century. A long way back there was some tenuous claim to have a king of all-Ireland, the last of whom was Brian Borou about 800. I make no apologies for going back as far as that, because this is how the Irish themselves view the matter. However, for the benefit of our EC colleagues, I would point out that this claim is as ridiculous as if a nation today which belonged to the Empire of Charlemagne (a contemporary of Brian Borou) was to claim to take over the rest of his empire.

So far as the United States is concerned, it seems to me that two points are relevant. One is that the settlement of Ulster took place at the same time as the Pilgrim Fathers were sailing for America in the "Mayflower". Whereas the inhabitants of Ireland as a whole have continued, the natives of North America have virtually been eliminated by the descendants of those who went over. The other point I would make is that we are battling against international terrorism, that the United States have vigorously demanded support for attempts to control international terrorists, and that we have supported them. It ill-behoves them, as Americans of any kind, to give support to the terrorists righting in the north of Ireland.

In the past, and probably rightly, there have been many complaints from the Catholic minority that they have been ill-treated. As I understand it, most of those complaints have been corrected by now; but I doubt whether those concerned are any better off under the present conditions in the Province than they were before this happened.

I also believe that it is wrong to assume that all Catholics wish to be linked with Eire. Very likely most of them would prefer to stay as they are, under Great Britain, if it were not for the considerable intimidation that is pressed upon them. Indeed, I wonder how much religion comes into this matter. At the time of your Lordships' debate on the north of Ireland Agreement, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that it was wrong and that the people concerned should be referred to as tribes. This was further emphasised many years ago by a former dean of Trinity College, Dublin, who. when asked whether the troubles in Ireland were religious, replied, "There is no religion in this country; there are just Catholics and Protestants".

The troubles began to escalate when the then Government of this country abolished the B Specials, who were the eyes and ears of the security forces. Since then lawlessness and violence have continued unabated. The IRA have been consistently active, and successive governments here have been either unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to curtail their activities.

I should like to give three different examples of the sort of problems that we have to deal with, some of them comparatively unimportant. The first is important and that is that in South Armagh the Queen's writ no longer runs. For instance, when an isolated outpost of the army has to be relieved or replaced it has to be done by air because it is not safe for it to be done by road. Surely this is an entirely unacceptable situation.

When in the past an army patrol may have thought they had rounded up in a house a suspected terrorist, they had to seek permission before they could enter and arrest. I understand that invariably the first thing that was said to the patrol commander was, "Do nothing to escalate the situation". This was not helpful, and it was demoralising. If permission was given, by that time the suspect had usually managed to effect his escape.

Then there was the border outpost south of Londonderry. This was either blown up or shot up some 16 times. After that the authorities gave up the unequal struggle and it was replaced by a caravan which was towed out in the morning and towed back in the evening. Surely these examples show that there has not been the necessary grip by the authorities on the anti-terrorist activities. It is against this background that we should consider the position of the pro- British majority, who are not just Protestants. They know that they are better off under British rule rather than under poverty-stricken Eire where, according to the Garda, if the Daily Telegraph is correct, crime is out of control.

How do they view the situation? Of course, I am not in a position to speak for them, but I submit that it might go something like this: over the years they have seen the conditions in Northern Ireland deteriorate; they have seen bombing, murder and other violence; they have seen convicted criminals guilty of these crimes demand political status, and to a certain extent this has been met in the conditions under which they are detained. Your Lordships might compare that with the conditions under which the bulk of the army there have to live.

They have seen successive governments support, or adopt, direct rule. This has not given them any greater security. They have seen attempts to bring opponents of the United Kingdom into sharing responsibility for the government, and now they have the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Is it surprising that they have grave doubts as to what Her Majesty's Government's intentions really are? So far the Loyalists have remained quiet and, on the whole, law abiding, but surely they must now be wondering whether crime does pay.

I have no wish, any more than anyone else here, to condone or support violence in any way, but I can appreciate that some people who have been living in these conditions in the north of Ireland feel that this is a way out. They may well be right in thinking that time is running out for them. Surely it is up to Her Majesty's Government to make clear where they stand, not just by words but by deeds. Otherwise they may well feel, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in the debate on the agreement, that Eire is being given a share in the government and control of Ulster.

What of the agreement itself? It seems to me that it has given a foreign power a say in the affairs of part of the United Kingdom. This is the first time that such a thing has happened, apart from the agreement under the Treaty of Rome. To my mind, it is a clear breach of sovereignty. I know that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, say that that is not so. That may be true in the strictly legal sense, but it seems incontrovertible that once one allows discussions on how the affairs of Northern Ireland are to be run to be undertaken with the representatives of Eire there is a breach of sovereignty in fact if not in law.

We have to consider what chance this agreement has of success. At the moment, that is not very great. There is strong opposition on both sides of the Border. I wonder how long Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to go on supporting this agreement if they are unable to derive support from the population of Northern Ireland. What, may I ask, would happen if Charles Haughey came into power in Eire? Would he accept the agreement, abrogate it, or simply not enforce it? That is academic at the moment and it remains to be seen what would happen if he came into power. But it is as well to remember that he was reputed to have links both with Sinn Fein and with the IRA, and I believe it was suggested at one time that he was laundering IRA funds which were to be used in connection with terrorist activities.

It seems to me that Northern Ireland is once again at the crossroads. The Loyalist leaders oppose the agreement and seem uncertain what road they themselves should take. They do not trust the Government, but they must surely decide where they stand and what they want to do. Otherwise, is it not only too likely that the Protestant extremists will take the bit between their teeth and resort to even more violence—the long-prophesied Protestant backlash becoming a reality? The present position would be further polarised and there would not be any prospect of improved relationships in the foreseeable future.

Given the history of Ireland and the degree of current discord I do not believe it is possible to achieve a settlement acceptable even to a modest majority of the population. Indeed, when we hear the Minister talking about a new initiative we know that it is a preview to some form of trouble coming. There are only two courses open to this country to take, unless we are prepared to let the present situation continue indefinitely. That surely is something that none of us can contemplate willingly.

The first alternative is to hand over Ulster to Eire. That is not something I would support and it would not be acceptable to the majority of the inhabitants of the Province. It is something that the Government and I think previous governments have categorically denied on a number of occasions they would do.

The other alternative is to integrate completely Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom on the same basis, or something akin to it, as either the Scottish or the Welsh methods. That at least would have the advantage of bringing the present uncertainties to an end. If that alternative were adopted, no doubt there would have to be a plebiscite, for which there is a precedent in what happened in both Scotland and Wales. It is not something that I would normally support; but it seems to me that it would have advantages in this case. If the answer was in favour, I would hope that immediate action would be taken to implement it.

There is one other thing I would say about the future because on many occasions plans and ideas have been floated to give special provision to minorities. In many ways this has certain attractions, but it seems to me that it is open to very serious objections. If you do that in Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, what then is the objection to doing it on the mainland, here? Would we then be asked to have Members represent-ing blacks, Pakistanis and Indians who would claim that they were in a similar position? Surely this would drive a coach and horses through our electoral system. I hope that there will be no suggestion of a solution along those lines.

I conclude by saying that we have the agreement. There it is, for better or for worse. We have to give it a chance to work. I think that we all hope that it will work; but if it does not, this surely means that it has not got sufficient support in the north of Ireland itself. Surely it is better after a reasonable period to scrap it.

4.57 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I thought that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was developing an argument for changing government policy, but at the end of his speech he pulled back from that position. He told the House that we have to give the Hillsborough Agreement a chance to work. That is the final position which he has adopted. That is the government policy and we believe that it is a bold and major initiative on the part of the Government. And the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has authorised me to inform the House that if he and his noble friend Lord Hampton had been able to be in the House late on this Friday afternoon, they too would have expressed their support for the agreement.

The agreement is not yet eight months old; and it was not envisaged even by its staunchest supporters that it would bring peace and reconciliation in a matter of months. I think that we are bound to acknowledge that there have been setbacks and there have been disappointments. But we believe that the agreement has not as yet lost its validity because there have also been many achievements, and in our view the achievements outweigh the setbacks.

I think that it is fair that we should acknowledge the minuses. Clearly we would have wished that the wisdom of the two governments in working together to seek to achieve reconciliation had been reflected on the streets of Northern Ireland. But that was not to be, and the Province has gone through a very difficult period. The mood of the Northern Unionists is still one of resentment and the tempestuous shouting has not died down. That is a disappointment. It is not the only disappointment. The dissolution of the Assembly, and the withdrawal of the unionist councillors from welfare work in district councils and area boards, are also a negative result of the agreement.

For many of us, the decisive No vote in the divorce referendum in the South was a disappointment. There are far too many people in both the South and the North who are content simply to go on saying No. The No vote in the South has denied in the South the pluralism which the last 60 years have denied in the North. The No vote has therefore made it that much more difficult to make progress with the implementation of the accord. Yet awareness of that difficulty may be a powerful reminder to the citizens of the South that Irish unity cannot be achieved by clinging to the written articles of the constitution.

Those are the disappointments, but the evidence is not one-way and I now remind the House of the positive results of the agreement, which cannot be overstressed. First, there is the success of the moderate SDLP at the expense of the militant Sinn Fein movement in the Assembly elections. So there has been a reversal of the swing towards the militant Sinn Fein movement. We have been reminded many times by my noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Blease that the SDLP must now give firm evidence of its commitment to play a constructive role in preparing the way for a new Assembly under Article 10 of the agreement, where they will work together with the Unionist parties. We would say to the SDLP that they should produce that evidence.

Secondly, as the noble Lord the Minister acknowledged to this House on 2nd July in the debate on the order to continue the powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—and the words are to be found in col. 954 of the Official Report—a significant amount of work has been done by the RUC and the Garda in improving, arrangements for the exchange of information and to develop liaison structures". It seems to me that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was not acknowledging what has been achieved in the discussions between the Garda and the RUC. Of course, such measures cannot produce results overnight and that must be the reply to those who claim that there have been no more improvements in cross-boundary security.

It is well worth reminding the House—and I think the noble Lord the Minister will also remind the House—of what the Minister said on 2nd July. He said that the measures agreed to date, offer the best prospect that there has ever been for improving co-operation between the two forces."—[col. 954.] I am sure that those words were not planted in the speech to mislead the House.

I now come to the third achievement, which is the role of the RUC itself, which for decades past had been perceived as the shield of the Protestant communities. Over the last few months the RUC has demonstrated that it shields impartially all law-abiding citizens in the Province. Notwithstanding the great pressures from some leaders of the Unionist community, the RUC has shown during the last few months that it is now a national and professional police force impartially upholding the law for all the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is an achievement.

Fourthly, there is evidence that many of the church leaders in Northern Ireland are anxious to seek a way forward which will lead to the reconciliation of conflicting interests. My noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Blease and myself, as well as one or two other people, met two church leaders of great ability and grace the other evening. We were clear in our own minds that they were anxious to build hope and trust. That is yet another achievement.

Finally, the two governments, both members of the European Community, are still working in common harness to achieve reconciliation. That is another achievement. Those factors were not at work two years ago; they were not at work a year ago; they are at work today, 1lth July, and they will be at work tomorrow, 12th July. So they are positive results demonstrating that there is some movement. Where there is movement, there is hope. For those reasons, we say that the case made out almost eight months ago for the Hillsborough Agreement remains valid.

But we would say this to the Government. It is important that the agreement should be seen before very long to be producing even more results in at least three main areas. Handled sensitively, it should be seen to be speaking out hopefully to the two communities in Northern Ireland. More needs to be done, and there I think the noble Marquess. Lord Salisbury, has a valid point. It should also be seen to have provided a stimulus to more jobs and homes for those poor districts, poor wards and poor streets where jobs and homes are urgently required.

We all know that it already costs a lot of money to support Ulster. But in the light of certain evidence we have heard of recently, I should like to ask the Minister this question. Is this aid always reaching those who are in greatest need? We may come back to that one day in an appropriation debate, but I think it is time that we asked the question. The agreement should be seen to be speaking out hopefully to the EC so that it may stimulate more inward investment.

I am sure that our duty is not to the past—to the 8th century or to the 16th century. Our duty is to the future. The two governments must sensitively do everything in their power to make the present policy work. It is their creation. They designed it. We therefore say that they must stand by it.

5.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)

My Lords, we are particularly grateful that this Question has been raised by my noble friend this afternoon. It is right that your Lordships should regularly consider Northern Ireland matters, which otherwise are overlooked during dinner hour debates and during the appropriation debates. Among your Lordships there is a considerable store of direct experience of the problems of governing Northern Ireland, and much statesmanlike and relevant wisdom of a general kind besides that.

That is a time when many misapprehensions flourish, especially at this time of year in Northern Ireland but also elsewhere, about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I take this opportunity to attempt to correct some of those misapprehensions. For that reason, if for no other, we are most grateful to my noble friend for providing the opportunity to debate the subject this afternoon.

Perhaps I may be a little unfair and take issue quietly with the terms of the Question which is legitimately asked by my noble friend. I think my noble friend overstates the capacity of any government, let along this Government, in so far as he wishes us to answer how we are going to solve the problems. My noble friend will know that we approach the problems of Northern Ireland with a caution born of long experience as to what governments can actually achieve there; and I am not just looking at or thinking about the past 18 years.

We do not believe that the Government by themselves can take steps, as my noble friend's Question suggests, that will by themselves solve the enormous and diverse problems of Northern Ireland. However, we can provide what we think is the most helpful framework for advance, and we can make efforts to encourage those who must work within that framework to do so in the most helpful way for them, for everybody in Northern Ireland, and for everybody in the United Kingdom. I hope that my noble friends and all your Lordships will accept that it is not in our capacity nor in our gift to ensure that in the event everybody does what we would like them to do.

The salvation of Northern Ireland depends upon its people and particularly, I hope your Lordships will accept, upon its politicians working together. I shall briefly outline the framework that we believe best suits the solving of Northern Ireland's difficulties.

My noble friend's Question makes mention of the continuing disorder in Northern Ireland. The Government remain determined to create as quickly as possible the conditions for a peaceful, stable and prosperous society in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, accepts that. We may discuss and argue that point in appropriation debates, but our target and our objective is the same.

So far as concerns stability, the present arrangement whereby the Royal Ulster Constabulary takes the lead, supported by the defence forces and by the army, in bringing terrorists to justice in the courts for their criminal acts has achieved a substantial reduction in violence since the early 1970s. Last year there were 54 deaths as a result of the security situation. That is an appalling statistic, but it compares with 467 deaths at the height of the troubles, as we call them, in 1972. Last year there were 147 incidents involving explosives—and your Lordships know what explosives can do. However, in 1972 there were 1,382 incidents involving explosives. I hope that my noble friend and your Lordships will accept that the policy of this Government and of others since the most recent troubles continues to offer the best hope for the future.

The continuing dreadful, cowardly and murderous attacks by terrorists against members of the security forces, both on and off duty, and against members of the general public, remind the Government and everybody else that we must continue to press for our goal of eradicating all terrorism.

Your Lordships will permit me to express my sympathy, in which I know you will join, to the families and friends of Constable McVitty, who was murdered this week. Let us also not forget the relatives, families and friends of Privates Bertram and Davies, who were murdered earlier this week. I take this opportunity to add to all the others my own condemnation of the dreadful attacks of recent months on members of the security forces doing their duty in the streets, and which are still more contemptible when they are made off duty by those who call themselves loyalists. Those actions damage the efforts of the security forces whose prime objective is to eradicate terrorism.

Everyone in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water, in Great Britain, who opposes terrorism owes a great debt to the RUC, to the Ulster Defence Regiment, and to the Regular Army. We share an obligation to do everything possible to encourage them in their task. Everybody who tries to dissuade them from their duty does a profound disservice to Northern Ireland and to the people who are represented by those politicians.

I turn now to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which I believe is at the core of the Question asked by my noble friend. I must emphasise that Her Majesty's Government remain firmly committed to the agreement, which we believe is to the benefit of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we are very grateful for the forthright support of the noble Lord and his party, and for the views that he expressed in absentia for the Government's attempts to implement that agreement.

We believe that is to the benefit of all sections of the community. To the Unionists it brings acceptance by the Republic of Ireland, for the first time in a document which is binding on them in international law, that any change in the status of Northern Ireland will come about only with the consent of the majority there. This brings the promise of a more effective and better co-ordinated security effort both north and south of the Border. That is fundamental to reducing further the level of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Already there is much greater contact between the two police forces, and the agreement between them on steps towards enhanced co-operation in various fields, although the full results will take time to show, will go on yielding benefits in this area. Indeed, the agreement must go on yielding benefits for some years.

As for the nationalists, the agreement should give them greater confidence that their views are being represented and seriously considered in the process of government in Northern Ireland. I believe that already there are results to be seen here in the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Conference. To take one example, we addressed the somewhat thorny position of what we call the "I Voters". The Government have confirmed their view that the provisions which govern the franchise throughout the United Kingdom should be applied to local government and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, and we have expressed our intention of taking appropriate legislative action.

I repeat one fundamental point; and that is what the agreement does not do. The agreement does not change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland in any way; nor does it provide joint authority in law—and I stress this to my noble friend—or in practice. I believe that the reality of this agreement, and what it does not do, is becoming clear. The agreement was built on the assumption that we should continue to seek a form of devolved government acceptable to both communities. Indeed, if there were a devolved government, the remit of the conference would be significantly diminished. We are unapologetic in our continued advocacy of devolved government. It would have great, positive benefits.

A devolved administration with its own responsibilities which the representatives from both parts of the community could operate together would best reflect the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland. Indeed, Northern Ireland's elected representatives are better placed to understand the sensitivities of local people in Northern Ireland and the priorities which they seek. If the politicians in Northern Ireland can agree on ways of working together, we believe that it will surely help to promote reconciliation between the two parts of the community.

If any new system of government is to emerge, to operate effectively and to survive, it will need to secure the support and the confidence of both sides of the community. That is why the Government, your Lordships' House and another place, decided that proposals for the new devolved structure must be likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. This requirement reflects the reality of Northern Ireland society. We will continue to try to bring the parties together to discuss how progress can best be made. It will not be easy or rapid.

I reiterate that the Government stand ready to do everything they can to help this process. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister met the two main Unionist leaders on 25th February this year. At that meeting she offered to consider positively their suggestion of holding a round-table conference on devolution. That offer remains on the table. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has offered to talk. Again that offer remains open. Those are but two ways of making progress. There are others. But in the end the responsibility for working out an acceptable scheme of devolution rests firmly with the politicians who would have to operate it.

I believe that your Lordships will agree with me that the sooner the politicians in Northern Ireland address the challenge the sooner we shall cure and overcome these problems. Any political stalemate that there has been has gone on for too long and does not help anybody, let alone the people in Northern Ireland. I caught a hint that my noble friend was suggesting that Northern Ireland should be governed as part of the United Kingdom. I think he was veering toward what we call "the integration argument". Whether or not he thought that it should be in parallel with devolution, I do not know. However, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and since this is so—so the argument goes—the processes and structures of its government must be the same as those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

As my noble friend admitted, arrangements for government are different in England, in Wales and, above all, in my own parish of Scotland. All of us in the United Kingdom have to recognise that the Northern Ireland community is divided and holds different attitudes on many issues, which posess special problems. I think your Lordships will agree that Northern Ireland politics do not revolve around the same major issues as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. In saying this, I cast no doubts whatever on Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom. I stress that it is protected by law, and it is also now protected firmly in Article 1 of the agreement.

To set up in Northern Ireland a system of local government with substantially enhanced powers, as in Great Britain, would mean abandoning the aim of devolution. Certainly there is no room for both a devolved government and a regional council. I think that the setting up of any system of devolved government could still pose the problem of joint participation in the government of Northern Ireland, because there is no prospect of local government operating by majority voting, as in Great Britain, which commands the acceptance of the nationalists.

Local councils were responsible for some of the worst discrimination before 1973, and any of your Lordships who doubt it need only glance at one of the documents that I keep as background reading. It is the report by the father of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, who sits beside me. It is the Cameron Report of 1969. If one takes a glance at what was said in that report it bears out my remarks that they were responsible for some of the worst discrimination before 1973. Further, the present behaviour of some district councils hardly inspires confidence.

So far as concerns the political parties, although the Ulster Unionist Party considers integration to be a policy option there is a difference of view within that party. The Democratic Unionist Party want the return of a devolved government, similar to the Stormont Parliament. This indicates to us that there is no sign that integration would command widespread acceptance, and we do not believe that it offers a way forward.

My noble friend raised several points about the agreement and asked one or two important questions. He asked whether we had entered into the agreement at the behest, first of all, of the United States of America, or, secondly, the European Community. I wish to say to him that we entered into the agreement on its merit as it stands today. I hope that that is a clear indication of our position and a clear answer to the two questions that he raised.

I also stress to my noble friend that the United States Government has never supported terrorism in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think that your Lordships will already be aware that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has now passed the supplementary extradition treaty. I think that the vote in the special sub-committee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicated their firm support for the treaty that has now been passed.

My noble friend raised at least three points about security. I can tell him that we are determined to defeat terrorism. Perhaps he will accept that I cannot take up his particular points this afternoon, but I undertake to get in touch with him and perhaps we can settle this matter in writing. If I can, I certainly want to be of further help to him, but I think we all know that there is not much that I can say this afternoon on those particular points.

We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his forthright support for the agreement. He said that there had been successes in four major areas. I stress to him that the referendum on divorce in the republic has nothing to do with the agreement. We could debate attitudes on divorce in Northern Ireland until it gets dark. I believe that they could be similar to those in the republic. But this is much more a moral issue, and we are totally devoid of our spiritual colleagues this afternoon.

The noble Lord asked whether the financial aid was reaching the proper targets. We do our best to see that value for money is a priority in Northern Ireland and that aid and help of all sorts go to the right targets, be they people, companies, corporations or large urban areas, such as Belfast and Londonderry. Doubtless we can return to the matter if we take further steps on appropriation.

We have devoted much thought to developing a balanced strategy for Northern Ireland. We cannot be wholly responsible for solving the problems of Northern Ireland. They are the least likely to find instant solutions. We believe that the popularly canvassed alternatives to our approach are fraught with difficulty, and I believe that your Lordships will agree that we are following the most promising course that has yet been opened up to us.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past five o'clock.