HL Deb 13 July 1990 vol 521 cc595-609

2.18 p.m.

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

rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. This is the 16th year that your Lordships have been asked to renew that form of government, imperfect as it is. It has gone on for too long and the Government continue to work towards the goal of replacing it with better and more accountable local arrangements. Although most people in Northern Ireland are content with direct rule as a second best, it is plain that the cause of democracy would be better served by returning to political representatives there a degree of responsibility over their own affairs. Noble Lords will not be unaware of our efforts on that front over the past six months, about which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke in another place last week. I should like to return to that issue later.

First, however, I owe the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year. Our overriding aim, as my predecessor remarked on this occasion last year, is to provide good government to the best of our ability. Good government is both firm, in pursuing policies which the Government believe are in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland; and fair, in ensuring that they take full account of the special needs of all sides of the community there. The Government are pursuing a range of policies designed to bring peace, stability, and prosperity. It will come as no surprise to the House if I, first, take the opportunity to give a brief report on the security situation in Northern Ireland and on what the Government and security forces are doing to bring terrorism there to an end.

Terrorism and the threat which it presents to our democracy, is utterly abominable, from whichever quarter it comes. Principally, that threat comes from the Provisional IRA, whose ultimate aim is to secure a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. How, after 20 years of unnecessary, futile and fruitless violence and murder they can possibly believe they have moved even half a step towards this goal is beyond my comprehension. They will never succeed in their campaign of slaughter.

I visited Ballymena in the wake of the massive van bomb which exploded there in the early hours of 25th March. I was struck not just by the resilience of the people—many of them of the minority community—whose houses had been devastated by the Provisional IRA; but also by their determination that, come what may, the terrorists must not be allowed to win.

I am sure that the same can be said of the inhabitants of Castlederg where a similar van bomb, the same day, damaged 150 houses as well as the local Catholic Church. If the terrorists thought that, by such acts of mass destruction, they could win, let them think again. Let us not dignify such people with the name of terrorists. People across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland agree with me that there is only one word for them: trash.

It is time, that the unshakeable resolve on the part of the Government and of the people of each and every part of the United Kingdom penetrated the closed minds of these people. Until it does, we will continue to spare no effort to prevent these trash from killing and maiming people whether in Northern Ireland, Great Britain or on the Continent. The most conspicuous and important role in the fight against them falls to the security forces to whose courage, determination and professionalism, in the face of continual risk to their lives, I would like to pay tribute. Through their dedication and alertness, each and every day of the year, they strive to prevent atrocities of the kind we have seen all too clearly and too often in the past 20 years. I appeal now to all the people of Northern Ireland, wherever they may live, whatever their political views, to give their full support to these brave men and women.

For our part, the Government will do all in our power to assist the security forces in their fight against terrorism, whether in legal, moral or physical terms. We are at the moment closely studying the review of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross on anti-terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland as a precursor to bringing forward proposals for legislation which will replace the existing Emergency Provisions Acts. I know that, when he does bring forward his proposal my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will not hesitate to ask Parliament to approve any powers which he feels are warranted and justified.

The Government's desire to build on the progress which has been achieved with the Irish Government on security co-operation is no less strong. We have achieved much since 1985. But more needs to be done if we are to prevent similar atrocities to that which was carried out at the Derryard permanent vehicle checkpoint last December. Such murderous attacks only serve to strengthen the resolve of both Governments to take whatever action possible to try to ensure that they are never repeated. We both are committed to ensuring that where action can be taken to improve security in the border areas, it will be taken.

Two things on which people in Northern Ireland are generally agreed are the importance of strengthening the economy and of improving social conditions. Even those who set themselves up as apologists for terrorism lecture us on the importance of more jobs and in proving the day-to-day environment of the people of Northern Ireland; at the same time the terrorists they support do their level best to drive out the first and ruin the second.

My ministerial colleagues have put great effort into the economic and social field in the past year. When we discussed raising money for the operations of the Northern Ireland departments of government in the appropriation debate a fortnight ago, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, accused me—I am paraphrasing slightly—of being rather bullish. The fact remains that there is, happily, a growing proliferation of evidence that the Northern Ireland economy is capable of rising to the challenge. In the year to March 1990, 5,131 new jobs were promoted with the involvement of the industrial development board. The local enterprise development unit was involved in the promotion of even more—5,944 during the same period. Largely, these came from domestic industry. The chemical, paper and printing, clothing and electrical engineering sectors were particularly buoyant. I had the pleasure recently of opening new premises for Software Ireland, Northern Ireland's largest software company. The success of the company, which has substantially increased its workforce over the past few years, and now has 60 per cent. of its sales overseas, is proof that Northern Ireland is a competitive location from which to serve the demanding and varied needs of the international markets of the information technology age.

There is particular hope in the increasing recognition among foreign investors that Northern Ireland is an ideal place to set up business. Almost 40 per cent. of the new jobs and investment attracted by the industrial development board in the last financial year came from outside Northern Ireland. They came from Great Britain, certainly, but also from Europe, from North America and from the Far East. They came in recognition of Northern Ireland's economic advantages, for example, the abundance of well-educated workers, the excellent industrial relations record, the ready supply of low-cost accommodation and much more.

The consequence of these developments is a level of unemployment which is down by 27,500 from its peak in October 1986. That is a real achievement. It is not, of course, satisfactory that seasonally-adjusted unemployment remains at 14 per cent. and all our efforts must be bent to reducing that figure much further. Unemployment has, as is well known, played its malign part in creating areas of multiple deprivation in Northern Ireland, notably in Belfast and Londonderry.

During the year, we have committed additional resources to the Making Belfast Work initiative, so as to encourage employment, promote training, develop community workshops, and in the broadest sense improve the quality of life of the people of the deprived areas of north and west Belfast. At Springvale we have announced a major initiative for the redevelopment of the site to be vacated by Mackies Engineering. In Belfast city centre the Castle Court complex opened in April, offering greatly extended shopping facilities and office accommodation. The Laganside corporation, meanwhile, has identified riverside development land in Belfast with the potential for £700 million of private sector investment.

In Londonderry we have committed £10 million over a three-year period to an inner-city initiative. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was delighted to announce in recent days a grant of £9.5 million from the European Regional Development Fund towards the cost of developing a new port facility for the city, downstream of the present facilities, at Lisahally. It is right that we acknowledge the contribution the European Community has made to Northern Ireland this year and in previous years. The Londonderry area stands to benefit greatly, too, from a new display of confidence on the part of United States companies. The O'Connell Corporation of Massachusetts will undertake a large commercial and shopping development in the city centre, while on the outskirts of the city the textile company Fruit of the Loom will set up a cotton spinning operation.

Great credit attaches to all those who have been involved in attracting these projects. The Government are determined to continue to play their part in bringing about increased economic growth, but it goes without saying, or ought to, that they cannot ultimately force people to be more competitive or more entrepreneurial. The drive must come from the business community. I accept that that is a stark message, but it is what the Dutch would call nodig which roughly translates as "necessary".

I accept that very much still remains to be done in respect of relations between the different parts of the community in Northern Ireland, and in the face of those whose only contribution is to spread division, diversion and hatred it is uphill work. My colleagues have been making energetic efforts on community relations. Spending stands at very much higher levels than before in these fields.

There is new machinery within government for the handling of community relations implications of policy. There is a new community relations council. There is a cultural traditions programme aimed at encouraging greater understanding about the richness and variety of traditions in Northern Ireland (which ought be a strength and not a weakness), and we are working very closely with district councils to develop community relations programmes which have support from all constitutional parties. In schools the curriculum will in future include the themes of education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage. In short, much is going on that is positive and promising throughout the economic and social area. We shall do all we can to see it continue.

We continue, too, to place great emphasis on equality of opportunity. The Second Report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR), on Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland, was published on 26th June. The report is the final part of the SACHR's review of this subject, which has enjoyed the Government's full moral and financial support. The report reviews the adequacy and effectiveness of existing laws and institutions in securing freedom from discrimination and furthering equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. It recommends legislative changes designed to improve the position here.

We welcome the report, which is a careful, thorough and valuable study of a matter of major importance. The Government are grateful to the commission for the considerable effort which has gone into its preparation. The importance of the subject and the detailed nature of the commission's recommendations are such that the report deserves, and is being given, careful consideration. That consideration will take account of any comments made on the report's recommendations, and it is open to anyone to submit comments. I have no doubt that the Government's deliberations will benefit from that process. In the meantime, I merely wish to underline to your Lordships, though I am sure this House needs no reminding, that the Government are fully committed to the eradication of discrimination and to equality of opportunity for everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religious background. We have already shown, through the introduction of stronger legislation, which came into force on 1st January this year, our determination to ensure fair employment.

I believe that the Government can take justified credit for the work they are doing in all these fields to tackle Northern Ireland's needs. However, despite our achievements, we are conscious that a vital piece of the jigsaw is missing. Insufficient scope exists for elected constitutional representatives of both communities to play a full role in the affairs of Northern Ireland. As my predecessor said on this occasion last year, their fuller involvement would make a major contribution to the process of peace and reconciliation. The prerequisite for any such involvement must be dialogue—a willingness to sit down and work out how the political stalemate in Northern Ireland might be resolved. As a result of dialogue, differing views can be accommodated and appropriate structures devised. Only dialogue will produce the consensus necessary to destroy once and for all the scourge of terrorism.

For the first time in many years, we see a new air of realism in political thinking in Northern Ireland, an acceptance that dialogue is the best way forward, and that envisaging dialogue does not imply abandoning essential principles or sacrificing important interests. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has sought, in his discussions with the constitutional Northern Ireland political parties and with the Irish Government in the period since January, to give substance to this new thinking, and to move towards formal political dialogue. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to pay tribute to the progress he has made, and on which he reported last week in another place. However, I mean no disrespect when I say that all would agree that he has merely been the honest broker in a process which has its roots in the political vision and resolution of those with whom he has been having discussions. Without their constructive attitude and their willingness to be flexible, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to make progress towards a goal that we all share: new structures of government in Northern Ireland to which all its people can give their support and commitment.

Until that point approaches, the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides a useful adjunct to the system of direct rule. It does not infringe United Kingdom sovereignty. As my right honourable friend said last week, the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is clear. Article I states that: any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland", and also notes that: the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland". But it recognises that the two governments aproach the situation in Northern Ireland from different perspectives. It does not seek to reconcile those, but rather attempts to put them on one side by accepting the principle of consent and self determination as the central issue relating to the status of Northern Ireland. The agreement does not itself provide a solution to all the problems of Northern Ireland, but it does provide the two governments with a valuable framework through which issues can be constructively addressed without prejudice to the different viewpoints and aspirations of both sides of the community. But there is no reason why the present agreement should be the last word. While neither government are seeking a new agreement, if one which commanded widespread support within both sides of the community in Northern Ireland were to emerge from a process of political dialogue, both governments would, I am sure, consider that an advance.

We have no prejudged ideas as to what form the outcome of any talks should take. That is a matter on which local politicians themselves are best qualified to decide. But our broad criteria for endorsing any particular system are that it should command widespread support and should be workable, stable and durable.

My right honourable friend is meeting today with the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Collins, to take this matter forward, and no doubt he will make another statement on progress in due course. I trust that your Lordships will understand if I refrain from going into further details here; at times it is best to say too little rather than too much.

If this process results in formal dialogue, it will be a major achievement which will reflect credit on all concerned. It is only right to express the prospects in cautious terms—in the last resort no one can be dragged to the conference table; they themselves must decide whether the conditions for carrying matters forward exist. But, if all sides are determined to seek a way forward, the chances are that the Government would not have to approach your Lordships for a seventeenth time next year to approve the renewal of provisions to continue direct rule in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I commend the order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive review of government policies in Northern Ireland during the past 12 months. I welcome his encouraging words.

A week yesterday, with other Members of your Lordships' House, I sat in the Gallery in another place and listened to the very important speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he introduced this order. Although his speech was a striking advance on the speeches that are usually made on the renewal of direct rule, I confess that it was a disappointment that he was then unable to announce that at last he had been able to establish a firm framework for formal negotiations to begin with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

It appeared at first sight that the substance of the preconditions for talks, for which the unionist parties had been pressing, had been met. Thus there would be a break in the meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference; the civil servants at Maryfield could not be engaged in servicing a conference which was not in session; and it was acknowledged by the two governments that an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Conference was possible. Those were the preconditions laid down by the unionist parties and it seemed to me that they have been met.

Moreover, it appears that there is agreement between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland that the three sets of relationships—the relationship between the political parties in the North, between London and Dublin and between any new Northern Ireland structure and Dublin—would have to be addressed if and when talks got under way.

It is therefore difficult to see what possible issues of real substance now remain to be resolved. If there is no outstanding issue of substance, I wonder whether it is right flat a procedural point should be allowed to delay the commencement of talks. We accept that, once talks are under way, there are many profound and complicated issues to be addressed and resolved. That point is obvious.

While encouragement can be drawn from a number of passages in some of the speeches made in another place last week, other speeches made in the debate reflected with some eloquence the strength of historical positions. We must therefore not underestimate for one minute the difficulties of seeking to reconcile main elements which do not appear to be reconcilable, at least in an obvious sense. On the other hand, I do not want to underestimate what has been achieved to date by the Secretary of State since he took up the seals of office a year ago. From these Benches I want to take the opportunity of paying tribute to his skilful and patient zig-zagging in a complicated area during the past six months.

It is also fair and meet that I should today, rather belatedly, pay tribute to the brave efforts of the late Lord O'Neill of the Maine—

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Prys-Davies

—to move towards peace and reconciliation in the 1960s, almost a quarter of a century ago. I am sorry that I did not pay that tribute three weeks ago when we last discussed Northern Ireland business in the House.

The late Lord O'Neill saw clearly and at an early stage that there were at least two sets of relationships to be addressed; that between the two communities in Northern Ireland and that between Belfast and Dublin. Surely in retrospect we can all see that he was proceeding at too fast a pace and that the ground had not been adequately prepared for his great initiative. Nevertheless, he was a man of vision.

I have touched upon dramatic political initiatives of great historical significance. Nevertheless, we do well to remind ourselves that there are small improvements which can be made and which can be seen as small instalments on the long journey towards reconciliation. I am glad that the Minister has referred to the second report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. That report, which we received a couple of weeks ago, puts up a large number of signposts which cannot be ignored. The Minister has acknowledged that it is an important review of the laws and institutions dealing with religious and political discrimination and equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland.

After reading the report, I am certainly persuaded that many issues in that area require attention. There are far more issues that require attention than I had appreciated. The report contains 84 specific recommendations. We are aware that the Secretary of State has invited the general public and those with a special interest in the subject to comment on the recommendations. Can the Minister tell the House this afternoon when the Government envisage being in a position to announce their response? Is it likely to be forthcoming within the next 12 months?

I wish to refer also to the important review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 recently completed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I collected my copy of the report last night. The Minister has referred to the report and clearly it raises important issues. We are indebted to the noble Viscount for the care that he took in examining the detailed operation of the legislation and in taking the evidence. Having collected my copy only last night, it would be inappropriate now to pick out any of his recommendations, let alone his novel recommendations. I am sure that at a later stage we shall hear a great deal more about the advice which the noble Viscount has tendered to the Secretary of State.

I join the Minister in paying tribute to the work, courage and achievements of the men and women of the security forces in Northern Ireland. I saw some of the men at work when I visited Northern Ireland at Easter. Clearly they are making a signal contribution towards the maintenance of law and order in the Province.

The Minister referred to some of the economic and social problems of the Province and to the initiatives taken by the Government during the past 12 months. We discussed the subject three weeks ago today and I see little point in repeating the comments that I then made. However, I see no reason for withdrawing or modifying any of the comments which I levelled at the policies of the Government. My criticism was not levelled so much at their present social and economic policies—indeed, I welcomed their conversion to the present policies—but my regret was aimed at their failure to embark on such policies 10 years ago.

This morning we heard on the radio that the Secretary of State and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs are meeting in London today to consider the position and how best to move forward. Indeed, the Minister has confirmed that. I wish to end my comments by expressing the hope that the meeting will be successful and that the Secretary of State will soon be in a position to announce that the gap between the two Governments has been closed. I am also hopeful that he will announce the date for the commencement of serious talks between the two parties. I am sure that I express the wishes of Members of the House when I say that we shall all be glad to hear such words.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, upon the re-enactment of the order each year one is ever hopeful that it will be the last and that after 12 months have elapsed it will be unnecessary to continue with direct rule in Northern Ireland. Never was that feeling more strong than last Thursday when, as my noble friend said, some Members of your Lordships' House sat in the public gallery in another place. We waited to hear what had been hyped up to be a dramatic announcement by the Secretary of State; that after 20 years of murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland at last we were beginning to take the first tentative steps in inching our way towards an agreement.

Rumours had been circulating before the Secretary of State rose to his feet. The journalists had been talking. We were bitterly disappointed that no announcement could be made. One asked what the reason was for the Secretary of State being unable to make the announcement for which we had been waiting so long. It would appear that the Irish Government, a party to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, had lodged last minute objections and had told the Secretary of State that they would not be in agreement with certain parts of the speech which he intended to make.

That was a great disappointment to me. And it caused great disappointment in Northern Ireland. Over the past six months the possibility of talks has been treated with a tremendous hype. Everyone has been told to express optimism, to run away from pessimism and not to say anything which could possibly throw the proposed talks into jeopardy. I know of some journalists, realists in the affairs of Northern Ireland, who sent in copy in which they honestly believed only to be told by their editors, "Do not say that. It is too pessimistic. You must express optimism in relation to these talks". That line can only be pursued so far because there is a reality in Northern Ireland—the reality of the tremendous and terrible divisions which have existed over centuries and which we saw illustrated yesterday on the 300th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne. Newspapers, journalists and well-intentioned politicians cannot wish away those divisions. There are tremendous obstacles before any solution can be even thought of in relation to Northern Ireland.

What has happened over the past six months? I immediately associate myself with the honour that has been given to the present Secretary of State in trying to find some way to have talks about talks. It is not a question of talks to settle the future of Ireland: the issue is talks about talks. My noble friend said that he was able to detect progressive remarks in the course of the debate in another place last Thursday. Some of the remarks made then contrast significantly with what was said by the very same speakers on Orange platforms throughout Northern Ireland yesterday. What they said in the House of Commons and what they said at those Orange venues throughout Northern Ireland are in great contrast.

The Secretary of State has been trying to get talks off the ground. The reality is that all the parties want to engage in them on their terms. We have been told that the Secretary of State is trying to do away with the preconditions. That is not a reality. Every party to the talks has preconditions. The unionist parties in Northern Ireland say that they would be prepared to enter into talks on an internal basis in Northern Ireland. They say that before they can talk to the Irish Government, the Irish Government would have to consider deleting Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution which claims jurisdiction over the area of Northern Ireland.

I listened to a Fianna Fail spokesman on radio recently. He said, "In no circumstances would we ever consider the deletion of Articles 2 and 3. Those articles of the Irish constitution which claim responsibility for Northern Ireland are very dear to the heart and soul of Fianna Fail". That may be so; if they are very dear to the heart and soul of Fianna Fail, they are absolutely repugnant to the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.

How can that position be reconciled? The Anglo-Irish Agreement gives what is a virtual veto to the Irish Government in relation to any talks that may take place. The unionist parties in Northern Ireland say that they would be prepared to talk to the constitutional nationalist parties and after they have found some mode of agreement they would involve the Government of the Republic. The Government of the Republic say that they have Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which gives them the right to be included in talks on the ground floor. They say, "We must be in on these talks from the moment of their inception in Northern Ireland".

The unionists say, "We will not speak to you because of Articles 2 and 3; because of your failure to deliver on extradition; because of a whole series of decisions which have been given by the Irish courts wherein it was stated by the Supreme Court that it was a constitutional imperative of the Irish constitution to claim the land which is at present Northern Ireland". In other words the unionist parties are saying, "How can we engage in meaningful discussions with a government that claims a right to the territory in which we live". That is a tremendous obstacle.

One must remember the attitude of the Fianna Fail opposition, as it was then, on the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The then Leader of the Opposition, Charles Haughey—now the Taoiseach of the Republic—on the publication of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, said that he rejected it out of hand. He would have nothing to do with it because he regarded Northern Ireland as a failed entity. He is now the Taoiseach of the Republic and allegedly working with the British Government in harmony with the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Charles Haughey said that the Irish Government must be included at the beginning of any talks that take place in Northern Ireland. The unionists say, "Let conduct three or four weeks of talks with the constitutional parties and then we shall invite you in". They say that that would be acceptable to them. But the facts of life are that the whole matter is about symbolism. The Irish Government are saying, "We have the Anglo-Irish Agreement. You cannot exclude us from any part of these talks". In fact the Irish Government would know very well what was happening at the beginning of those talks. The SDLP operates in close alliance with the Republic. Does anyone really doubt that John Hume, Seamus Mallon or soine other spokesman for the SDLP would not get into a car or on to a train and keep the Dublin Government well informed of the discussions taking place between the constitutional parties in the North?

The objections of the Dublin Government are therefore not valid. They would be made aware of all the talks. It is purely symbolic. They are saying to the electorate, "We have the Anglo-Irish Agreement and are sticking by that letter". That is an obstacle that cannot be overcome by leader writers in either national or local newspapers in Ireland expressing great optimism.

The Secretary of State is totally honest and has shown himself a man of great integrity in his attempts to get the talks off the ground. I cannot say the same for the other elements concerned. I wonder whether the SDLP—the party I formerly led, now called the constitutional nationalist party—is really concerned with bringing about devolved government in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it is concerned only with projecting an image of how moderate it is and how immoderate its opponents are; of how reasonable it is and how intransigent its opponents are.

As I see it, there is nothing in it for the constitutional nationalist party in Northern Ireland, the SDLP, to bring about devolved government. It is one thing to stand on public platforms and say, "We will talk to anyone at any time about anything"—the Martini-man approach. It is another thing then to say that you will not talk unless the Government of Ireland are involved and unless pre-conditions are met. That will effectively make certain there will be no talks.

I wonder whether the unionists are really concerned with bringing about devolved government. Some of their spokesmen speak with an integrationist voice. They say that they would like to see a committee of the House of Commons, on the lines of a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, where Northern Ireland issues can be discussed. If that were agreed by the Government, it would meet with ferocious opposition from the Government of the Irish Republic. They would say, "If you set up a committee at Westminster that is a step down the integrationist road. It is taking away some of the authority which we have under the Anglo-Irish agreement".

There are, therefore, no great grounds for optimism in any of those aspects.

I associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend about Terence O'Neill. I attended Terence O'Neill's funeral. I met his family and I know how much they were involved in a visionary way in the steps that Terence O'Neill attempted to take in Northern Ireland in the mid-1960s. I know how bitterly disappointed he was at the slow progress made in Northern Ireland. That disappointment stayed with him until the day he died.

Two or three things have been happening here in relation to events in Northern Ireland. I refer to the war against terrorism. I realise that there is a sub judice element but I believe that the decision taken by the Sir John May inquiry in relation to the Annie Maguire case and the decision on the release of the Guildford Four will do an awful lot to ease tensions in Northern Ireland among the nationalist community. The community will see that after a lapse of far too many years justice can be seen to be done. I am happy to have been associated with the Maguire case and to read the report of the Sir John May inquiry. I know that much will be said when the report is debated in this House. The devastating criticism of the Master of the Rolls made in the report will be reinforced by many noble Lords in this House when we have the opportunity.

We could prolong this debate. We could debate the economic advances, the economic problems, issues of unemployment, housing, and the many other economic factors that exist in Northern Ireland because this is the one debate that encompasses every facet of life in Northern Ireland. I believe it is right to restrict our comments to the possibility that a political

solution may be found in which economics, unemployment and housing can all be debated in another forum at Stormont in Northern Ireland.

The decision on whether that forum will ever be resurrected rests with the Northern Ireland political parties. I say, with a great deal of despair, that I am not convinced that the Northern Ireland political parties are prepared to give up some of the principles which they regard as important in order to make the transition from direct rule to a devolved government in Stormont as soon as possible. This Government can do no more than try to force those parties to the conference table. At the moment there are only talks about talks; they have not touched upon the real problems that will arise.

I understand that this afternoon the Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Irish Republic are meeting in London. I believe that they are trying to resolve a great difficulty that has been created not by the British Government or any of the constitutional parties in the North. The blame must be put exactly where it lies. The problem has been created by the Government of the Irish Republic which says that talks cannot be allowed to proceed without their involvement at the initial stages. If they persist in that attitude then the talks will never get off the ground.

Having expressed my views, with my knowledge of Northern Ireland, in such pessimistic terms, I conclude by associating myself with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in wishing the discussions well. It is my fervent hope that some agreement can be reached this afternoon; if not then, next week; but certainly before the summer Recess, and that this will allow the political parties to engage in discussions. I believe that the Secretary of State will have fulfilled his function. The responsibility for progress in Northern Ireland will then rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.

3 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, this is an important debate. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I speak with considerable brevity, given that for a Friday the hour is late and I do not wish to hold up some of the other debates. I must declare a personal interest in the last of those debates. I agree largely with everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. We shall certainly welcome the day when the people of Northern Ireland are able to take a greater degree of responsibility for their own affairs. I welcome, as others have, the initiative taken by the Secretary of State. He has handled the talks with a combination of considerable skill and great good sense. We all wish him well in the continuing talks that are taking place with the Government of the Irish Republic.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the position of the security forces. In a debate of this kind it is right to recognise the immense debt that we owe to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They are targets for terrorists when they are on duty; they are terrorist targets when they are off duty; and they are terrorist targets after they have retired from public service. We have now reached a situation where, on some occasions, their families have also become targets. On an occasion of this kind it is right to pay tribute to them. You have to be a brave man or woman to be a member of the RUC. I very much hope that, following this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will indicate that firm view of Members in all parts of the House about the work of the RUC to the Chief Constable. We support the order. I very much hope that we shall receive some message of hope arising from the talks in which the Secretary of State is now involved.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am grateful to the three noble Lords for their comments on this debate. Over the past 16 years contributions to this kind of debate by your Lordships have always been most helpful and encouraging and none less so than today. I am particularly glad for the support offered by noble Lords for the political process on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is engaged. Until dialogue among political parties in Northern Ireland results in institutions of government there which can command support on all sides of the community, orders such as that now before your Lordships are the only realistic way of continuing the Government of Northern Ireland.

Tributes have been made today to the late Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and quite rightly so. I believe that he would have been the first to admit the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that he went a little too far and a little too fast and that is why, politically, he came to grief.

I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on my right honourable friend's finesse in this matter. He is a patient man. He listens to and communicates with all sides and he will carry on doing so. Every now and again there is a hiccup. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, described it earlier as a disappointment. However, with a complicated triangular series of talks it is inevitable that the road to those talks will not go particularly smoothly at each and every moment.

One strand of this tripartite arrangement would involve the Government and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and would cover new structures of government in Northern Ireland and the relationship between those two structures and Westminster. The Irish Government would not be directly represented in the talks but would be free to put forward views and proposals. The other two strands would cover relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Those three strands could not be resolved in isolation. No agreement on any one aspect could be reached until all parties were finally satisfied with the outcome as a whole. Clearly, such an outcome would also have profound implications for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and both ourselves and the Irish Government have recognised that.

I take issue just slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, which by the look on his face does not greatly surprise him. He attributed various motives to various people on the political scene in Northern Ireland. I remind him of the headline in the Irish Times yesterday—yesterday, of course, being July 12th, the day of the annual marches of the Orangemen. That headline stated: Irishmen rally to Brooke". Under the headline there is a report that all the major speakers at the 18 rallies in the North expressed confidence in the progress of my right honourable friend's initiative. I see that as very significant indeed. I hope and trust that that confidence will be maintained.

The other major point to come out of this afternoon's debate concerned the second report of SACHR. In my opening speech I welcomed the report which is a careful, thorough and valuable study of a matter of major importance. I also said that the Government were grateful to the commission for the considerable effort which has been devoted to the report's preparation. The importance of the subject and e detailed nature of the commission's recommendations are such that the report deserves very careful consideration. No conclusions can be reached until that consideration is complete. The consideration will need to take account of any comments made on its recommendations and it will be open for anyone—literally anyone—to submit such comments.

When therefore will we respond to that report? As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, it makes 84 recommendations. I can tell him that a number of the issues raised were already under consideration by the time till; report was printed. Some obviously have implications for legislation in Britain and others have constitutional implications which require careful study before firm conclusions can be reached. My right honourable friend will meet the commission later in the year, but it is too early to say now when it will be possible to respond to all the commission's recommendations. I certainly doubt that it will be by that time.

Last but by no means least, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I most certainly accede to his wish in conveying to the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary the grateful thanks and the best wishes of the whole House to all members of the RUC in this terribly difficult role to which, alas, they are assigned. They carry it out with bravery and dignity and, generally speaking, the respect of all Northern Ireland. It is now appropriate for me to ask the House to approve the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.