HL Deb 09 July 1987 vol 488 cc807-22

8.13 p.m.

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1987 which was laid before your Lordships on 30th April this year be approved.

It is not any news to your Lordships that every year about this time for the past 13 years the Government have sought renewal for a further 12 months of the powers contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I think your Lordships might legitimately ask for an explanation. The answer simply and sadly is that there remains an absence of political agreement in Northern Ireland on any way forward in politics.

Direct rule is a means of coping with this situation. In the absence of a devolved administration, the 1974 Act enables legislation to be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council rather than by measure of the Assembly; and further it provides that in the discharge of their functions the Northern Ireland departments shall be subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. For as long as we are unable to make progress towards devolution, direct rule must continue if government in Northern Ireland is to function properly.

Nevertheless, the Government recognise that direct rule is not an ideal arrangement. It is a firm and fair framework, and it enjoys a good deal of acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. It has brought many advances to Northern Ireland, and in many ways we should be proud of it.

But whatever its advantages direct rule does not provide a system of government which is close to the people of Northern Ireland and with which they can easily identify. It has never been envisaged as a permanent arrangement. The intention of Parliament, embodied in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, was that greater responsibility for governing Northern Ireland should be returned to the people of Northern Ireland themselves. That remains the firm objective of this Government.

In commending the order before us this evening to your Lordships I ought to give an account of the stewardship of the Government of the affairs of Northern Ireland during the past year, and also of the steps we have taken and intend to take to promote peace and stability in the coming months. As your Lordships will know, direct rule remains most people's second choice as a form of government for Northern Ireland. The need for dialogue about the future remains urgent. I shall have a little more to say about this in a moment.

First, it is right that I should say one or two words about the security situation. For the Government, security remains the top priority in Northern Ireland. We aim to defeat terrorism through the impartial enforcement of the criminal law, while maintaining a high level of security force activity on the ground to deter and to prevent terrorist attacks, and to reassure the community. The unremitting work of the security forces to prevent more violence and to deny the terrorists money, weapons, explosives and recruits will continue.

I know that all your Lordships will join me in praising the courage, the impartiality and the steadfastness of the RUC. The professionalism and determination that marks the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a constant reassurance to all law-abiding people in the province. I also want to pay tribute, as I know the RUC would wish me to do, to the support provided to it by the armed forces, including the Ulster Defence Regiment. We all of us owe the security forces a debt of gratitude which we and the people of Northern Ireland can best discharge by giving them our full support and co-operation.

In recent years the security forces have made substantial progress in bringing those who commit violent crime before the courts to be dealt with according to the law. But the continuing seriousness of the terrorist threat must never be underestimated. The first half of this year saw the terrorist campaign enter a new and vicious phase. Significant extra resources have been deployed to assist the RUC to meet and counter the new terrorist ruthlessness. All of us admire the community for its commendable steadfastness and resilience in the face of this latest terrorist onslaught. The Government give the community this assurance: the terrorists will not succeed. We are committed to fight and defeat the evil of terrorism, but the eradication of terrorism is of necessity a long haul.

Perhaps I may say one or two words about the economy of Northern Ireland. The troubled image of the province deters people from investing in, and developing, new projects there. Such investment is much needed in a province where unemployment, which was at a level of 18.4 per cent. in May this year, remains a grave problem. Unemployment represents a dreadful waste of talent and causes deep personal frustration. We will continue to do everything we can to alleviate that burden.

There are some bright patches in the economic scene, but we should like to see more. The Government have introduced measures to deal with Northern Ireland's special economic problems. In the financial year 1987ߝ88, the year in which we are now, the level of public expenditure will be in the region of £4,800 million, which per capita is substantially higher than that projected for comparable programmes in the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, Northern Ireland offers the most generous industrial development incentives available anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have in place a battery of special employment and training measures for adults and young people.

The results of the IDB for 1986ߝ87 show that, at a cost of £109 million of financial assistance, investment of £311 million was secured for Northern Ireland. As a result, companies entered into agreements to provide 4,187 new jobs and to renew and maintain 815 jobs in the province. At the same time, LEDU entered into contracts with existing local firms, which should lead to the creation of 4,244 jobs; it committed a total of £17.5 million and secured investment totalling £47 million. In addition, 773 jobs were promoted in new firms at a cost of £3.2 million. I think that those statistics go some way towards showing that there have been real achievements. However, we accept that there is no room for complacency, especially in view of the figure I mentioned earlier on. I think that every one of the unemployed people in Northern Ireland would concur with that statement.

We shall continue to encourage the development of a thriving and profitable private sector in which lasting jobs will be created, for Northern Ireland is overdependent upon the public sector. I cannot help but reflect on how much more successful our efforts to promote Northern Ireland and to achieve economic development would be if some widely acceptable and stable political settlement could be found.

As your Lordships are aware, the aim of the Government is to seek an agreed basis on which greater responsibility can be devolved to elected representatives in Northern Ireland. The test which Parliament has decided new devolved arrangements must meet is that of widespread acceptance throughout the community. That must be right. A system which did not command the support and confidence of both sides of the community would simply not survive, nor would it deserve to. In pursuing this objective, we know that formidable difficulties stand in the way of agreement. There is a need for all concerned to be realistic. We have to start from present circumstances, and with a consciousness of the strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements for governing Northern Ireland.

These arrangements provide for direct rule of the province by British Ministers. Although that system offers Northern Ireland efficient and impartial government, direct rule has obvious and widely recognised defects. Chief among these is the fact that it does not allow elected representatives with their roots in Northern Ireland to exert a major influence in the province's affairs. Direct rule involves too a legislative process which cannot easily give adequate time and consideration to Northern Ireland primary legislation. But direct rule was never intended to be a permanent arrangement and it does not provide an adequate input from Northern Ireland to the processes of government which might enable local people to have a real say in their affairs.

We also have in place the Intergovernmental Conference operating under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Government believe that this arrangement gives the minority the reassurance that their voice is heard in the administration of Northern Ireland. We acknowledge, however, that Unionists feel themselves excluded from that process and that they feel their interests are not necessarily given due weight.

The Government want to talk to the political leaders of both communities about the way ahead. The party leaders are, we believe, also seeking a way forward through dialogue, and we welcome that. It was in this spirit that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland welcomed in his speech in another place on 7th July 1987 the contribution to the debate made by last week's publication of an abridged version of the Unionist Task Force report. We hope that it can contribute to a movement towards dialogue in which, in due course, all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will be able to discuss their ideas, and the ideas of others, with the Government. We want to be able to talk to all the parties about the future form of government in the province. We therefore welcome the willingness of the Unionist leaders to enter into discussions which will need to be tentative and exploratory, without prejudice and without preconditions.

Meanwhile, direct rule provides a fair framework for the administration of Northern Ireland, despite its imperfections. We want the people of Northern Ireland to enjoy greater security and prosperity. We shall continue to do all we can to eradicate terrorism; we shall continue to promote reconciliation and partnership between both parts of the community; and we shall continue to encourage the growth of wealth-creating enterprise and industry. It is to serve those objectives that the powers contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 remain necessary, and I commend this order to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell.)

8.30 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, the Minister has reviewed the current situation in Northern Ireland and has made out the Government's case for the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for yet another year. Sadly we accept that the order must be passed, and we on these Benches give it our support.

Northern Ireland presents the most intractable and, we would say, probably the most important of all our domestic problems. In the Queen's Speech Northern Ireland merited at least one paragraph of seven lines, although, as I shall indicate, there were two omissions from that paragraph. It set out the Government's threefold commitment: to seek an agreed basis on which responsibility can be devolved to the people of the province; to work unremittingly for the defeat of terrorism; and to build creatively upon the relations established with the Republic of Ireland. We endorse those commitments.

The Minister's speech has been helpful. He has given the House a rough indication of how the Government propose to seek an agreed basis for devolution. As I interpret the Minister's speech, at this stage the Government are not committed to some new model which might be acceptable to the people of the province. Instead, it is one's impression that the Government will feel their way, seeking to encourage the constitutional parties to nourish the will to begin to construct the basis for an advance.

I believe that the Government can draw some encouragement from the debate on this order which took place in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening. I believe that there is some evidence to be found in those speeches that the political parties may be coming to terms with the reality of the Government's strong mandate. I regret that they have that strong mandate, but nevertheless it is there and that is the harsh reality. I trust that this will lead to an awareness among some of the politicians that a boycott of Parliament and of the Northern Ireland Office cannot serve the cause of Ireland. That would be a good start at the beginning of a new Parliament.

The Government rightly expect support for their resolve to stand up to and defeat the forces of terrorism, violence and coercion. We on these Benches agree that the defeat of terrorism must be the Government's top priority. I pause to join with the Minister in paying tribute to the officers of the RUC and the men and women of the security forces who died or sustained injury, pain and suffering while doing their duty in very difficult circumstances.

However, it must be realised that the paramilitary forces remain dedicated to their task and are still able to summon up resources and the will to prosecute their campaign. Undoubtedly and sadly there will be more suffering and yet more suffering before the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is one day set aside. We are gratified—I believe that that is the right word—that the Government, notwithstanding the high level of violence, and casualties to which the Minister has referred, are satisfied, on the basis of the confidential evidence available to them, that progress has been made in the last 12 months in achieving improved co-operation between the police north and south of the Border. However, the Minister will appreciate that that is not how it looks to many people in the Province. The sooner the Government can point to visible evidence of improved and effective co-operation between the two Governments the better it will be.

We are fully in support of the Government's third commitment. The Government must continue to build upon the constructive relations established with the Government of the Republic. Indeed, we believe that the improved relations with the Republic are one of the few important gains over the last few years.

It has not gone unnoticed that, unlike the Queen's Speech last November, there is no reference in the Queen's Speech to the Anglo-Irish agreement, which has been the main vehicle of co-operation in the last 20 months. The words of the Queen's Speech are of course very deliberately chosen. This tempted one at first to wonder what significance, if any, we were to attach to this omission. The Minister has gone a long way in his speech to assure me that there has been no radical departure from existing policy and that the omission of the reference can probably be accounted for by the Government's desire to create an environment in which political progress can be made in Northern Ireland. We gladly go along with such an explanation.

There was I thought another significant omission from the Queen's Speech. It contains no reference to the Government's intention to tackle, let alone solve, the problems of unemployment in the Province. I was particularly pleased therefore that the Minister brought unemployment and the economic difficulties into his speech. I do not propose to comment on the economic position in Northern Ireland because we shall have an opportunity next Thursday night to deal with it.

There are two matters to which I should like to refer. Although we give our consent to the order now before the House, we are not satisfied with the way in which primary legislation is enacted for Northern Ireland. Here again the Minster has anticipated our criticism. Since 1974 Northern Ireland, which had its own Parliament for 50 years, has had less influence on legislation than any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a very odd result. We suggest that it far outweighs the benefits that the 1974 Act may have brought to Northern Ireland. That very odd result to some extent is because Parliament has no effective influence over Orders in Council.

Last Monday evening the House dealt with three orders in just under one hour. It is true that their subject matter was not controversial, but next Tuesday night the House will have before it a highly controversial order, the Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, and that order cannot be amended in a single respect. We have voiced this criticism on many previous occasions, but apparently to no avail.

A year ago the Minister—no doubt on instructions—dealt with this criticism simply by asserting that it would place an enormous burden on Parliament if Northern Ireland legislation were to be enacted by Bill. Of course, it would be a burden, but it should not be an unwarranted burden. It was Parliament which imposed direct rule on the people of Northern Ireland. Having willed that end, it should now will the means to ensure that the legislation enacted for the Province is capable of being amended as necessary, at least by the elected representatives in another place.

There are many Orders in Council in the pipe-line. The Government must surely find a way of bringing public opinion effectively to bear on them. I believe that the Minister's speech this evening showed that the Government are alive to this criticism.

My final point is not entirely related to the last issue. It relates to the accountability of the intergovernmental conference. If the inter-governmental conference is to remain a part of the machinery of government in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future, do the Government intend to make it in some way answerable to the two parliaments? The conference is far more than a private discussion, as has been suggested, between two sovereign governments. It has been working for about 20 months and, on the Government's acknowledgement, it is bearing fruit in Northern Ireland. If it is to remain a part of the machinery of government of the Province for the foreseeable future—and we believe that it has a role to play, subject to the role to be played by the Assembly—the members of the two parliaments should be able to play their part within the machinery of the conference, thereby influencing its agenda, its discussions and possibly its decisions.

I have referred to some of the most important mischiefs and the difficulties that have to be resolved. They are of course old mischiefs apart from the non-accountability to Parliament of the inter-governmental conference. However, at the beginning of this new Parliament with the Government in a commanding position, there are hopeful signs, as I have suggested, that the mood among some of the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland is beginning to change. One cannot be too sure, but there may be prospects that the Government will soon begin to attract a coalition of interest broad enough to make talks, and thereafter negotiations, possible about an Assembly that will have proper checks and a balance of forces, and that at the same time will be an adequate instrument of government.

With those remarks, I support the order.

8.39 p.m.

Lord Dunleath

My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having introduced the order once again with his usual courtesy. It is of course inevitable that the order has to be accepted. I am afraid that the necessity for that is a reflection of the failure of those of us in Northern Ireland who have tried to take some part in the political process to find a more suitable way of governing the province. But I think that now there is probably more hope than there was this time last year because the report of the Unionist Task Force, An End to Drift, indicates at least a willingness to talk, which is a major advance and perhaps the most hopeful sign we have seen in the 20 months since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. Incidentally, whereas one can read almost anything one wants to read out of election results, perhaps it is not unreasonable to say that one could read out of the last general election results the indication that the electorate of Northern Ireland felt that just to say no was not good enough and that something more constructive was needed to be, in their view, acceptable and favourable.

However, if I may digress for a moment, I do not think it was for that reason, that sadly at the last election we lost one of the greatest parliamentarians who has ever represented Northern Ireland—I would say certainly the greatest parliamentarian in my lifetime. I refer of course to the previous right honourable Member for South Down, Enoch Powell. It is ironic that he actually sacrificed himself some years ago by pressing for an increased number of seats at Westminster for Northern Ireland. The result of that seemed to be that the newly-formed constituency of South Down had a built-in anti-Unionist majority. The surprising thing is not that he lost his seat a few weeks ago but that to his very great credit, he actually managed to retain it in 1983.

He may have been an adversary, but you could not but respect him. One might have disagreed with him but he had an irritating habit of being proved right on a discomfiting number of occasions. So I hope that the other place's loss will be this place's gain, and perhaps if the noble Lord on the Front Bench could have what is sometimes known as "a wee word" in the places that count, I am sure that the presence of that towering intellect, with his incisive eloquence and vast parliamentary experience, would be greatly to the advantage of your Lordships' House. I hope that I am not out of order in saying that.

To return to future prospects, one of the encouraging things that I read in this report, An End to Drift, was the statement that in the opinion of the authors, the expedient of compromise and barter can only succeed if it is a two way process". That is absolutely right and I am delighted that they said that. A two-way process means that there has to be generosity on both sides, as in any negotiation. There is no place for a "no surrender" attitude and no place for a "not an inch" approach—or perhaps in these days of metrication one ought to say "not a 2.54 centimetre" approach. There is the need for generosity and a strong government can afford to be generous. I sincerely hope that they will be, and I also hope that the Unionist politicians will reciprocate equally generously in this respect.

No doubt in the course of such talks the various options will be discussed once again. One of them is continued direct rule, with its imperfections, to which reference has been made. It may turn out that this will be identified as being a solution which, though far from ideal, is the one least unacceptable to the most people. In passing, I mention that it would be rather more acceptable—and certainly much easier for those concerned—if our Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office (and particularly our Secretary of State) did not have to spend quite so much time at altitudes in excess of 25,000 feet—that is, if they did not have to spend so much time in the air to-ing and fro-ing. If they could spend more time in Northern Ireland, I think it would be helpful. However, I would hope we could do better than continue direct rule.

A second option which may be looked at again is that of total integration. I was tempted to ask the noble Lord, just to clear the air, what the attitude of Her Majesty's new Government is towards total integration; but on reflection, I should not like to press him for an answer because I should not like to prejudice any discussions or negotiations which may take place. My own attitude is that total integration would not help the minority in Northern Ireland further to identify with the state in which they live. It would not be helpful in that respect. So far as concerns the campaign for equal citizenship—one of the main proponents of integration—I would merely observe that it is up to political parties to say whether or not they want to organise in Northern Ireland. It is not a matter for the Government.

A third option which might be looked at again is the one that the late Mr. Airey Neave was enthusiastic about before his most tragic assassination: the upgrading of local government. That could be looked at once more, but here again I would say it has not a lot going for it because unfortunately, as we know, the previous abuses in Northern Ireland occurred largely at local government level. Furthermore, it must be said that the recent record of local government over the past 20 months has not been such as to inspire confidence in public representatives in that field.

The fourth option is devolution. I was tempted to ask the noble Lord whether he felt that devolution would have to be of a partnership nature. I think he inferred that it would, when he said it would have to be acceptable to all sections of the community. This is something which my party and I myself have been advocating throughout. It is one which would be difficult for the Unionists to address themselves to in view of what they have said in the past. I recognise the disadvantage of partnership in devolved government in so far as there is no opposition, which is an essential part of the democratic process; but it may be the best solution in this peculiar situation.

However, it must be asked whether the SDLP, who represent the minority community, really want it. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, may possibly wish to comment on that—he knows more about it than I do—but they let us down, I am afraid, in the last Assembly by not taking their seats. We could have made something of the 1982 Assembly; but because of the absence of the SDLP it never really got off the ground.

The fifth option is some form of independence. People who talk about that are not just talking nonsense—it is not just dangerous nonsense; it is frighteningly dangerous nonsense. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will not give that any serious consideration whatsoever. It would not just be the minority community in Northern Ireland who would feel abandoned. I would myself, as would a lot of my friends; and a great many Unionists, if they addressed themselves to this, would feel the same. So I would sincerely hope that is not an option to which any serious consideration would be given.

We have to accept this order and I wish Her Majesty's Government good luck in whatever conversations, discussions—and ultimately, I hope, negotiations—that are entered into with political leaders.

8.50 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, this is by far the most important order that we have to debate every year in Parliament, because without it all the other orders would not be debatable at all.

Unlike my noble friend who spoke from the Front Bench, on Monday I sat through the debate in the other House and did not leave that Chamber with any degree of optimism whatsoever. Indeed, I was bitterly resentful at the intervention of the English newly elected Member for Brent, East, who made an incursion into the debate with one of the most damaging contributions to any hope for peace in Northern Ireland. The people of Ireland, North and South, can do very well without such incursions from people who know nothing about the situation there. Indeed, the speech that was made could very well have been made by the absentee Member for West Belfast because every sentence was laden with Republican sentiment and innuendo that was totally untrue.

I listened avidly to the speeches that were made by the Northern Ireland representatives. Having been born and reared in Northern Ireland and having been a member of a political party there for a number of years, I was able to detect some of the weasel words used in the Northern Ireland political vocabulary. In the other place it is easy to say that one is quite willing to enter into discussions with one's political opponents without preconditions when one knows very well that the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the biggest precondition that it is possible to place in the way of discussion. Like my noble friend on this side of the House I am quite happy to hear that the Unionists have called off their boycott of Government Ministers and institutions in Northern Ireland but I am only too well aware that they were not the originators of political boycotts in that country.

In the 1970s when I was leader of the SDLP, it continuously boycotted local authorities, called on people to withdraw from public life and totally took itself out of the political process. Looking back on the activities of the SDLP, if the Unionists thought that there was something to be gained from embarking on the same tactics I suppose they would have been quite justified in using them. However, it has been proved that the boycott tactic is no longer available.

All the Unionist politicians love to be called "major" or "captain" throughout their political life. Perhaps that is why they were able to pick out a task force to draw up a political judgment—the report of the task force. However, it appears that there are some sections—and only some sections—of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland who are prepared to acknowledge that the boycott tactic has failed and that they should enter into discussions with the representatives of the minority; in other words, the SDLP. The noble Lord. Lord Dunleath, has already alluded to this matter. But is it a fact that the SDLP now wants discussions to take place which would lead to devolved government? As a former leader of that party I have serious doubts that the SDLP now wants to bring into operation a devolved government in Northern Ireland.

During the recent election I listened to a broadcast on the BBC and to a talk-back programme on Radio 4 in which two prominent spokesmen for the SDLP took part: Seamus Mallon, now a Member of Parliament, and Brian Feeney, a councillor in Belfast. Questioned by the BBC interviewer as to whether they would like to see some form of political structure recreated at Stormont, both of them said no. They said that to recreate a talking shop at Stormont would not achieve anything. They would only get the same amount of financial subsistence from Westminster and it would come down to a question of apportioning its distribution. I listened to what they said with a great deal of disappointment. Both spokesmen said that they were not interested in the return of government to Northern Ireland.

What was even more damaging was that when justifying the Anglo-Irish Agreement one of them said, "The SDLP lays great store on the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement". They regard that as a great political victory, and in Northern Ireland terms if it is a great political victory for the SDLP it is a great political defeat for their opponents. There are victories and defeats in Northern Ireland. There are no compromises.

But what did the SDLP Member say in that broadcast? When questioned by the interviewer as to what effect he thought the Anglo-Irish Agreement was having, he said that he found it to be of great assistance. He said that when one of his constituents came to him with a problem he did not, as hitherto, ring up the local authority or the Civil Service department in Northern Ireland; he rang up the bunker at Maryfield. The Intergovernmental Conference is known as the bunker in Northern Ireland. In other words, he rang up the representatives of the Government of the Republic to settle some constituency problem that he had.

One needs to know only a little about Northern Ireland to understand how bitterly resentful any member of the Unionist community feels when he hears that within Northern Ireland his representative did not ring up the people who were elected or any of the civil servants but rang up what the Unionists term an agent of a foreign government. That is bound to create friction and discontent, bitterness and resentment.

Why are such statements made? I realise that the SDLP has to justify the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that the Unionist Members have to decry the importance or even the existence of the agreement. But while it is there there will be great difficulty in trying to bring the two communities together. I am a former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is now referred to as the constitutional Nationalist Party. That is not denied; it says it is the constitutional Nationalist Party. The raison d'etre of the SDLP is to further the aspirations of nationalism, and if that is its primary objective then to it the hunker at Maryfield is more important than the creation of political institutions at Stormont. The creation of political institutions at Stormont lessens the impact of the march towards Irish nationalism.

There you have the contradiction. Is it in the interest of the SDLP to maintain that line of communication from Holywood Arches in Belfast to Dublin, or to see it taken away and new political structures created in its place? I urge the Minister seriously to question the bona fides of the leaders of all those parties to make sure that they do not engage in discussions just for the sake of talking and in the course of those discussions begin to find the easiest way out so that they can lay blame for the failure of the discussions on their political opponents.

Throughout my lifetime in politics in Northern Ireland I have listened to such discussions. It would be better if the parties had no discussions whatsoever rather than engage in discussions which are bound ultimately to fail. I realise that it is very difficult for Members of this House and of another place to understand what has happended in the past 10 days in Northern Ireland. Although I do not now live in Northern Ireland I have relatives who still live there and they phone in with the news bulletins every morning. I read all the Irish newspapers and I am still very much involved with what is happening there. Eight people have been killed in 10 days; eight people cruelly and brutally murdered, six by the IRA and two by loyalist paramilitaries. It takes one who knows Northern Ireland to realise the great resentment brought about by these murders and the great panic that exists within the community. The question is: when is this all going to end?

Those who support constitutional nationalism would have argued that the coming into being of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was going to lessen the campaign of terror. It has not. The IRA terrorist murderers will continue with their campaign irrespective of whether or not there is an Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Anglo-Irish Agreement may mean that Irish-American or various embassies throughout the world call off their attacks on British embassies and the British Government. The British Government will then be able to say, "We brought into being an Anglo-Irish Agreement; it is not our fault." It will lessen the criticism that Britain was receiving internationally.

I have said repeatedly, and will continue to say as long as I remain in politics, that the problems of Northern Ireland cannot be settled in Brussels, Strasbourg, Washington, Dublin or in your Lordships' House. The problems of Northern Ireland can be settled only between the two communities which exist and inhabit that part of north-east Ireland. Unless and until discussions—real, honest and sincere discussions—can take place between people who live in Northern Ireland, then all attempts from Irish-Americans, the EC or Dublin to influence events in Northern Ireland will be to no avail.

My only reason for entering the debate was to tell the Minister that I have great reservations about the sincerity of some of the men who spoke during the course of the debate in the House of Commons. I believe that the SDLP—the party which I formerly led—could do a great deal to lessen the tension and hostility in the atmosphere of Northern Ireland if it were to make an unequivocal and non-ambiguous statement of support for the RUC in Northern Ireland.

The SDLP cannot say that it is a peaceful party, looking for reconciliation, while it continues to withhold support from the RUC, the only force in Northern Ireland that is capable of apprehending and bringing to justice the terrorists of both communities. If the SDLP is really sincere in seeking reconciliation and talks with its political opponents, I believe that its first step should be to give recognition to the RUC which has suffered so grievously over so many years.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister, before the talks take place, to make sure that the people entering into them are doing so with a dedication and resolve that they want them to succeed.

9 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we are all grateful for the tremendous interest which has been shown in the order this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as always, was most eloquent. He raised a number of very interesting points from what appears to be a somewhat brief and uninteresting order. However, the noble Lord and your Lordships appreciate this is attached to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Nevertheless, the noble Lord raised one or two serious and interesting points.

First, we are particularly grateful for his remarks on the tremendous and valiant efforts of the security forces in their attempts to stamp out terrorism and to bring evildoers to court in the due processes of law. Of course, the noble Lord was right—as always—in highlighting the women members of the security forces, together with those who still suffer from injuries which they acquired in the course of their duties.

The noble Lord raised one or two queries about security co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. The Anglo-Irish Agreement certainly provides a framework for promoting the co-ordination of activities by the security forces on both sides of the Border. However, as I have stressed on a number of occasions, both here and elsewhere—and I am sure this will not be any great news to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—the benefits will come only after fairly long and patient endeavour.

The noble Lord also raised one other query concerning the problems of legislating, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The query concerned the problems of legislation and dealing with Northern Ireland affairs properly in your Lordships' House or indeed, in another place; namely, do we carry out these duties in a reasonable way? We hope that we give the proper attention to the legislation which we introduce for Northern Ireland. As stressed before, Orders in Council are certainly not a perfect way of proceeding, but we believe that they are the best available.

Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the number of legislative documents that we have considered—in 1983 there were 17 affirmative Northern Ireland Orders in Council; in 1984 there were 14; in 1985 there were 13; and in 1986 there were 20. Most of them made different provisions for Northern Ireland and to accommodate such a volume of legislation in Bills would increase the work of Parliament, and I hesitate to suggest to the noble Lord what it may do to your Lordships' House. If we said that we could not deal with such a volume of legislation in your Lordships' House and elsewhere because of the problem of time, and we adopted a different course we would then lose much valuable legislation which is tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland.

I stress once again to the noble Lord and to the House that we appreciate the difficulties which are posed by Orders in Council which are unamendable. The problem may best be addressed in the context of discussions about devolution; but as I have said before, we are willing to talk about all of those issues to all interested parties and also to consider constructive suggestions against the background which I have described.

Before I come to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath and Lord Fitt, I wish to stress that I referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement in my opening speech and again just now. I acknowledge that many in Northern Ireland have strong feelings about it but we hope that a process of dialogue may now begin again. We were very encouraged by the mood and the tone of the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, attended in another place earlier this week when there seemed to be a sense of realism on both sides although that may not be the gloss of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on the debate which he witnessed from his eagle's eyrie above the other place. However, it would not be helpful to the process of dialogue if I said anything more at this stage.

We recognise the concerns that have been expressed for legislation in Northern Ireland by Order in Council; and, as your Lordships will be aware, similar concerns have been expressed in another place. But it is for the reason that we have never made any claim that Orders in Council are the perfect method of legislation for Northern Ireland that our existing procedures provide for extensive prior consultation. It is just this evening that I have not heard the usual point that is raised in your Lordships' House which is that there has not been adequate consultation. That point is usually very fairly made by many noble Lords, but perhaps tonight is the unique occasion when the question of adequate consultation is not raised. Nevertheless, we accept that that question poses problems and causes a great deal of discussion in Northern Ireland. I stress that we take a great deal of care to ensure that any points made to us on proposals for draft legislation are considered. It is much easier to do that before draft orders are laid.

However, our minds are not closed to the possibility of changes in legislation and in the procedures to bring legislation before your Lordships. However, Orders in Council during direct rule stand in the place of measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore we wish to consider any changes in a wider constitutional and political framework. I have stressed that we are willing to talk about the problems to all interested parties, including the Unionist parties, and to consider any constructive suggestions bearing in mind the wider framework of the whole of Northern Ireland.

I have probaby covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, as always, raises the voice of North Down in your Lordships' House and it is always so welcome. However, I noted one comment in the noble Lord's remarks when he said that we could have made something of the 1982 Assembly. I think that that is an approximation of one of the points that he raised.

I think that everyone in Northern Ireland and all of your Lordships would agree that nobody could have worked harder than the noble Lord both in Northern Ireland and here to make the processes of law and legislation work in Northern Ireland. I have always thought that the shining example shown by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has been apparent, certainly in the 14 or 15 years since I first spoke in your Lordships' House on Northern Ireland affairs—although perhaps in the past I spoke from a different position to my present one. The noble Lord need never feel any guilt that the Assembly of 1982 and subsequent years did not work.

The noble Lord also raised the question of the loss in political terms and on a personal basis of the right honourable Enoch Powell—although I understand that I may no longer call him that because he is no longer a Member of another place. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on that on a purely personal basis in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised briefly the question of integration. There is no evidence in our opinion that integration would prove widely acceptable in the sense of being in any way reasonable to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. It would make devolved government impossible and there would be no room for a devolved administration alongside the powerful local authorities recommended by those supporting integration. There would be a general parity of policy and Northern Ireland's special needs and problems would no longer be catered for in different legislation. We do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland desire integration or that it would be widely accepted that that suggestion represented a sensible solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was right to draw attention to the unhelpful comments made in another place during the course of the debate which he attended. I regret that those comments have been splashed around widely in media in this country. I shall only say in that regard that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is a shining opposite to the honourable Member of another place. The obverse of everything we dislike about what was said and the context in which it was said in another place is reflected in the conduct of the noble Lord and everything he did in his career in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord also drew some interesting analogies between 1974, which is the time I presume that he had in mind, and the current thoughts of the Members of another place and political leaders in Northern Ireland. I am sure that his words will be noted by many in Northern Ireland as well as in this country.

Finally, there is a great deal of truth in the words spoken by the noble Lord concerning the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It must be seen by everyone and above all by the minority community as being their police force and their guardian against evildoers, breaches of the law, terrorism and all the other problems that beset Northern Ireland.

I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by your Lordships. If there are any which I have missed, I shall write briefly and succinctly to the noble Lords concerned. With that, I hope that your Lordships will agree to extend the life of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for a further 12 months.

On Question, Motion agreed to.