Sitting of 26 November 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1984
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before the House accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1984–85, showing:

  (1) the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 1985, and

  (2) the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Moore.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Local Overseas Allowance
    Mr. Terry Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received concerning Her Majesty's forces local overseas allowance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Spellerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the present levels of local overseas allowances for British forces in Germany; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): A number of representations were received from hon. Members and from service men in Germany following the reduction in local overseas allowance in Germany earlier this year. The reasons for this reduction were explained fully by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement when answering the debate on the Adjournment on 20 May.
    I am satisfied that the LOA system represents an extremely important financial protection for service men when they are asked to serve in countries overseas that have a higher inflation rate than that in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lewis: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's answer. The reduction in the local overseas allowance for BAOR troops has a certain pin-stripe logic in Whitehall, but it means a pay cut for the troops. I have discussed this with the troops. They tell me that single men in particular have suffered a pay cut of between £20 and £30 a month. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like having to listen to this, but I am afraid that they will have to. Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to that matter?
    Mr. Stanley: I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to those right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench who support him that the pin-stripe logic to
    730
    which he referred commended itself to the previous Administration. They operated the same LOA system as we operate. Where the differences in the cost of living narrow between the United Kingdom and an overseas country, the LOA is bound to be reduced. I ask the House to bear in mind that our service men in Germany, following the Government's adherence—unlike our predecessors—to the provisions of the armed forces pay review, have had a pay increase this year in excess of 7 per cent., although they are living in a country which enjoys an inflation rate of less than 3 per cent.
    Mr. Speller: While I understand the reasons for the change in the LOA, its effects upon BAOR are becoming quite frightening. A number of young, highly-qualified technical soldiers have given notice that they wish to leave the Army. These soldiers may or may not accept the argument about a lower rate of inflation, but their greatest argument relates to transportation back to the United Kingdom, since transport charges are a complete "fix" under the cartel.
    Mr. Stanley: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend and the House that in the last few days we have announced an important concession. It will enable all service men to have the costs of the third school visit of their first child, for which at present they have to pay, met out of public funds. That concession will apply as from the school Christmas holidays. It has been widely welcomed in Germany.
    Mr. McNamara: As it costs £2·8 million to train a fast-jet pilot for the central front, and as we are seeking to save only £17 million on the local overseas allowance, only eight pilots have to leave the Royal Air Force for all the savings that the Ministry of Defence hopes to make to be lost. The commercial airlines are recruiting vigorously among jet-trained pilots. Is this not another example of the Government being penny wise and pound foolish? They are seeking to make short-term cuts without considering the long-term interests of the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two completely separate issues. He rightly referred to the very considerable cost of training a fast-jet pilot. However, the relatively small adjustments of the LOA at the margin will not have a material effect upon the ability of the civil airlines to recruit trained RAF pilots.
    Mr. Conway: Most people understand the reasoning behind the change, but I suspect that there would have been a great deal more support for it had there been an elongated introductory time scale to give service men a chance to adjust. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this is not a false dawn for savings and that we are not losing the savings involved in this change to those who are opting for unaccompanied tours and the greater financial benefit that that involves?
    Mr. Stanley: The reduction in LOA in Germany had some phasing in, which was designed to get over the particular problem to which my hon. Friend refers. I remind him that it is important to ensure that normally there is immediate application of LOA changes, because a large number of them are upwards, and we want to give the service men the benefit of the LOA increases, such as those that have recently taken place in Cyprus, Italy, Sardinia, Gibraltar, Portugal, the United States, Denmark Belize, Norway and Hong Kong.

    Tornado Aircraft
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete negotiations with British Aerospace plc for an attrition order of Tornado aircraft for the Royal Air Force.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): Negotiations are in progress on the purchase of nine additional Tornado GR1 aircraft to help offset expected attrition losses. Orders have been placed for essential long-lead time materials.
    Mr. Atkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the order for the nine Tornadoes and, I hope, a few more, will be placed soon? Will he also confirm that the extra orders placed for Tornadoes for Saudi Arabia and Oman, which are much to be welcomed, will not affect the RAF order to replace the aeroplanes that have been taken out for the Saudi Arabian order?
    Mr. Lamont: The time of a production order for these aircraft has to be considered in the context of the Saudia Arabian deal, but if we lose aircraft through accidents or whatever, they will have to be replaced.
    There will be some diversion from the RAF to meet the Saudi deal. Our concern is to minimise that effect. We have a commitment to this aircraft, which will have to be replaced. However, the precise timing will depend on finance and on the extent of factors yet to be negotiated in the Saudi deal.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Would not the hon. Gentleman have saved himself some embarrassment if he had taken the advice given to him by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and ordered early so that he could have delivered both on time?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend understands, as the hon. Gentleman does not, that the point about diversity arises because the production lines at Warton will be full. Because of the substantial order obtained from Saudi Arabia, the production lines at Warton will be full well until the 1990s, and there will be excellent work for the European fighter aircraft programme as well.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the attrition rate for the Tornado in operational conditions on the central front will soon become high unless the aeroplane is equipped with an effective stand-off weapon? What progress is being made to procure such an air-to-surface missile?
    Mr. Lamont: We are studying this matter jointly with other countries, because it is important to ensure that the Tornado is effective. As my hon. Friend knows, it is also important to maintain the mid-life update.

    Procurement Programme
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the present methods of defence procurement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: We continue to seek improvements in the way that we procure the equipment the services require for a price which gives the taxpayer best value for money. To this end we shall pursue vigorously the twin aims of expanding competition and collaboration.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should defence contractors be able to hide behind rules of confidentiality from answering questions about the post-costing of defence contracts where excess profits have been made by them? Is the Minister aware that a prominent journalist wrote to me enclosing a list of post-costed defence contracts where excess profits had been made, all of which have been investigated by the Ministry of Defence? Is he aware, further, that I am prevented, by the rule of confidentiality, from raising that list in a public sitting of the Public Accounts Committee, when all those matters are in the public interest and should be made known to the public?
    Mr. Lamont: I shall certainly look at that point. Post costing occurs in non-competitive contracts. It is done in confidence because some matters are commercially sensitive, and, even if the contract is non-competitive in the United Kingdom, the intention may be to sell the equipment overseas. Therefore, commercial confidentiality is important. However, I shall investigate what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the defence procurement arrangements for the European fighter aircraft, which, as well as the United Kingdom, involves Germany, Italy and Spain? Will he take this opportunity to say whether the apparent efforts by the French to come back into the scheme are too late?
    Mr. Lamont: We are satisfied that work is proceeding with all speed on the project definition of the European fighter aircraft. As well as being a tremendous opportunity for British and European industry, it is a tremendous achievement. As for the French approach, we would have preferred the French to be in the project from the beginning, but we shall have to examine the details of what exactly they have in mind.
    Mr. McWilliam: What assurances has the Minister given to Dennis Ferranti to enable it to go ahead with a massive capital expenditure on CNC lathes to make mortar shells, when those shells are currently made quite effectively by ROF Birtley?
    Mr. Lamont: I am not familiar with the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but if he writes to me I shall look into it.

    Trident
    Mr. Franksasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress to date on the Trident programme.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The Trident programme is progressing satisfactorily. I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 2 July 1985, at column 116.
    Mr. Franks: In January this year, when the sterling-dollar exchange rate was $1·09 to the pound, Labour and Liberal Members were highly critical of the cost of the Trident programme. Since then, there has been a 34 per cent. increase in the value of sterling, with a commensurate decrease in the credibility of the Opposition. Can we now assume that the Opposition parties have become enthusiastic supporters—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to Trident, not to the Opposition parties.
    Mr. Franks: Can we now assume that in relation to the Trident programme the Opposition parties are enthusiastic supporters, and does their care and concern about the cost and the jobs that go with it depend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very long question.
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend announced that the cost of Trident was £9·2 billion at 1984 prices, assuming an exchange rate of £1 to $1·38. If, as my hon Friend has said, the pound strengthens against the dollar, that will affect the price of Trident, given that there is a 45 per cent. import content. My right hon. Friend has stated to the House the effects of changes in the exchange rate—any hon. Member can calculate those for himself—and he will be presenting his annual estimate of the cost of the programme in the light of changes in the exchange rate.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister confirm that the British-manufactured warhead for the Trident missile will have to be tested, if not at the United States nuclear test site in Nevada, somewhere else?
    Mr. Lamont: We shall have to carry out tests that are necessary, but I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Sayeed: As and when Vickers is privatised, how does my hon. Friend intend to ensure that it does not abuse its monopoly position in the building of Ohio-class and SSN submarines?
    Mr. Lamont: It is the Government's intention that there should be a number of submarine builders in this country, just as there are at present. Vickers has a monopoly, not of conventional, but of nuclear submarines. We envisage that there will be plenty of competition for conventional submarines, and I am certain that the privatisation of Vickers, which I am sure will be achieved shortly, will do nothing but good and will be good value for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not the case that the exchange rate is wholly outside the control of the Government and most other Governments? That means that if the cost of Trident is £10 billion, £5 billion in dollars is wholly outside the Government's control. Is that not a foolish financial arrangement, apart from the fact that it is ridiculous to spend that sum on a weapon which can never be used?
    Mr. Lamont: One thing is certain. If we had attempted to build and develop the whole of Trident ourselves, it would have been an extremely expensive programme, and far more expensive than Opposition Members would have been remotely prepared to contemplate. At £9·2 billion, the programme is excellent value for money, given the deterrent power that Trident missiles and submarines have. That sum spent on any other weapon system could not purchase the equivalent deterrent capability.

    Procurement Programme
    Mr. Soamesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the priorities in his weapons procurement programme.
    Mr. Lamont: I refer my hon. Friend to the details given in chapter four of the 1985 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which describes the equipment that
    734
    is coming into service or being developed for the armed forces to enable them to discharge their responsibilities to greatest effect.
    Mr. Soames: Whatever the rights or wrongs of those priorities, will my hon. Friend assure the House that we shall never again see such a scandalous fiasco as the Nimrod programme? When can he come to the House and make a statement on the cost of Ptarmigan?
    Mr. Lamont: Obviously, the Nimrod programme causes the Government considerable anxiety, and I hope to come to the House to make an announcement. At present we have completed our technical evaluation of options for development to an acceptable operating standard. We are discussing with the company proposals to reach that stage of development on a fixed-price basis. My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is a serious matter.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that the phrase, "We would not mind getting back into chemical weapons, if the public could be persuaded," is a non-attributable phrase used by certain senior Whitehall officials? In view of the fact that the Secretary of State's answers to my recent questions have been evasive, ambiguous and insulting to people who have a right to know what Government policy is, will the Minister make a definitive statement about the Government's attitude to chemical weapons?
    Mr. Lamont: We are trying to negotiate arms controls, and we are not planning to develop our chemical weapons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated the position to the House on many occasions.
    Mr. Merchant: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the regional economic dimension of weapons procurement policy, and consider the number of jobs, for example, on Tyneside, that are dependent on defence industries? Will he order his procurement policy in such a way that sufficient orders staged in the right way are maintained for such areas to keep the number of jobs at least stable, and preferably growing, in those industries?
    Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, with a £9 billion defence equipment budget, our first requirement must be value for money, and, in general, contracts must be awarded to the lowest bidders, but we also bear in mind the health of British industry. That is not to say that there are not occasions when other factors come into play.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: What priority do the promises made to Swan Hunter shipbuilders on Tyneside have in the Minister's weapons procurement programme?
    Mr. Lamont: Swan Hunter has received large orders from the MOD in the past. Swan Hunter can tender for the type 23s in future, and it has done extremely well from the defence budget.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Trident programme has high priority and is important to Scotland because it provides steel orders for Ravenscraig, the tubes are made at Babcock, and because it provides jobs at Coulport and Rosyth? Does he agree, therefore, that Scotland has a deep interest in that programme, and that it should continue to have high priority?
    Mr. Lamont: The Trident programme has a critical role, which is much appreciated. It also has a significant

    735
    effect on employment, because there are 17,000 direct jobs and 13,000 indirect jobs dependent upon it, which makes Opposition Members' concern about what will happen at Rosyth a little hypocritical.
    Mr. McNamara: Reverting to the question of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who started this exchange, what exactly does the phrase "acceptable technical standards" mean when applied to the new Nimrod radar? How does it differ from the original specifications laid down by the RAF for that type of radar? When with we have something to plug the gap in our radar defences?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman has, if I may say so, been here long enough to know that his first question cannot be answered in public.
    Mr. Wallace: Does not the fact that one of the major priorities for the Government's defence procurement is the Trident missile system mean that there has been undue delay in the placing of other contracts for conventional weapon systems and that some of the equipment being used by our forces is becoming increasingly outdated? By concentrating on Trident and not spending money on conventional forces, is not the Minister missing an opportunity to raise the nuclear threshold?
    Mr. Lamont: It certainly does not mean that, because Trident takes 3 per cent. of the defence budget and 6 per cent. of the equipment budget. Furthermore, Britain spends as a proportion of its total defence budget a higher proportion on equipment than any other country in NATO.

    Highway Code
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department gives advice to visiting forces about adherence to the " Highway Code" during military exercises in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Stanley: No. We expect visiting forces to see that their drivers are made familiar with the provisions of the "Highway Code".
    Mr. Davies: Does the Minister recognise that sufficient incidents have now occurred to suggest that United States forces personnel are either unaware of the provisions of the "Highway Code" or are deliberately flouting them? Is not that particularly serious when they are driving large vehicles in large convoys, often carrying nuclear weapons? Does he approve of the practice of United States cruise carriers driving round with stickers in their windscreens proclaiming:
    "We don't brake for CND"?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that I do not believe that there is any evidence that United States service drivers commit more road traffic offences than anybody else. I can assure him that all United States service drivers have to pass a test, which is prescribed by all United States service authorities, before they are allowed to drive in the United Kingdom, and that includes a test of knowledge on the "Highway Code".
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I recognise the driving skills of the United States Army in Britain. Surely the people who should be blamed are those members of the CND, especially Leicester CND, who deliberately get in the way
    736
    of cruise convoy carriers as they are going from A to B. It is no good trying to pass the buck back to the United States Army.
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those who obstruct the public highway and vehicles that are on it are not merely endangering themselves but can be endangering others.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: How many launchers and missiles are now deployed in the United Kingdom, and have there been any new deployments in the past months?
    Mr. Stanley: We have made clear the present situation in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and we have also made clear the long-term deployment numbers. It is not my right hon. Friend's policy to give detailed arrival times, for obvious security reasons.

    Aircraft Noise (Compensation)
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress of the departmental review on compensation for those living near operational Royal Air Force stations, and subject to significant disturbance from aircraft noise.
    Mr. Stanley: The review has now been concluded and a number of improvements were announced in the reply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 14 November, at columns 260–61.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents living near RAF Cottesmore will warmly welcome the tone of the Department's response to their representations? Will he ensure that the number of people to get insulation this time will be rather more than the 10 who were offered it in the previous review?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the announcement. I recognise that he has been extremely persistent on behalf of his constituents in representing their concerns. We estimate that some 7,000 extra private dwellings around some 50 airfields will benefit from the new availability of noise insulation. As my hon. Friend will understand, I obviously cannot say how many more will benefit in the Cottesmore area, but I hope for his sake, and particularly for mine, that it will be rather more than previously.
    Mr. Ashton: Can the Minister give a much better reply to those who complain about noise from low-flying aircraft and who will not get compensation? Is he aware that many of the answers that he gives are far from satisfactory? Could training involving low-flying aircraft take place on one day a week so that residents can be notified in advance and prepare themselves for the nuisance?
    Mr. Stanley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand the problem. It would not be possible for the RAF to be able to maintain the standards of proficiency and expertise required on the basis of training on one day a week.
    Mr. Baldry: The announcement that the noise compensation scheme is to be introduced has been warmly welcomed by many people living near airfields. Can my right hon. Friend say when it will be known which houses and which parts of the villages are eligible for compensation?
    Mr. Stanley: We shall have to carry out a set of new noise contour surveys around the airfields to be able to give that information. As my hon. Friend is aware, we are reducing the qualifying grant level from 75 to 70 decibels. We shall carry out the noise contour survey as rapidly as we can, but it may take some months for certain airfields, and even one or two years, or longer, to cover all 50 airfields. We shall press on as rapidly as possible.

    Arms Control
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the United States of America Administration regarding the arms control talks in Geneva.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government have been in close consultation with the United States Administration on their approach to the arms control talks at Geneva, most recently when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary took part in President Reagan's meeting with the North Atlantic Council after his meeting with Mr. Gorbachev. They made it clear that we welcomed the successful outcome of the meeting, and fully supported United States positions at the Geneva negotiations.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that we are now in a new situation with the atmosphere that was created at last week's summit? Does he agree that it is now time to consider asking the Americans to stand down on the issue of the strategic defence initiative research programme and the further deployment of cruise missiles in Britain, in order to give the Geneva talks a chance to achieve the radical reductions in nuclear arsenals that we all want to see?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman signally fails to understand that the reason for the better relationship between the superpowers is that we did not follow that advice.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the policy advocated by the Opposition were to be implemented—the unilateralist approach—that could substantially undermine the negotiations now taking place in Geneva?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. If the Western Alliance had followed the advice of the Labour party there would be no negotiations, because it would have thrown away all the cards in advance.
    Mr. Duffy: The Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend will be aware that the two superpowers have been close to agreement for some time on non-proliferation and a chemical ban. Does he not think that those are matters on which urgent representations might have been made so that at least something could have resulted from last week's talks?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has much experience of such matters, will realise that widespread and wide-ranging advice has been available on all matters. There has been the closest consultation in the Western Alliance on all issues of arms control.
    Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a gross error of judgment, whatever concessions
    738
    may be made in later negotiations, for SDI to be conceded at this stage? Does he also agree that the more pressing priority is to give real impetus and concrete terms to an interim agreement on a reduction in intermediate nuclear forces?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that all those matters will be weighed within the consultative process of the Alliance. The House must realise that no agreement is possible now or at any time, on the research programmes involved in the strategic defence initiative, because many of those programmes will continue into the technologies that will be at the heart of the civil and military capabilities of tomorrow, whether or not there is a defence initiative.
    Mr. Strang: Is it the case that one area where progress might be made following the summit is on an agreement covering intermediate forces in Europe? In that context, is it not unreasonable to expect the Soviet Union simply to ignore Britain's missiles? Will the Government review their policy of refusing to count Polaris or Trident among the number of missiles and warheads in Europe?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot see what interest the hon. Gentleman thinks he serves by persuading Britain and, I presume, France to trade in their intercontinental deterrence systems to try to persuade the Russians to reach an intermediate agreement. We have always made it clear, from the date of the 1979 twin track decision, that an agreement was available on the intermediate range nuclear weapons systems. It still is.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend recall Winston Churchill's famous words: "Peace through a balance of terror"? Does he agree that the talks will be successful because we are negotiating with a balance of terror?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has most successfully put the very words in my mouth.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give the House some information about his discussions with the United States on United Kingdom participation in SDI? What percentage of the £26 billion over five years does he expect to get for British industry? What effect does he expect it to have on scientific research and development in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have had very detailed conversations with my colleague Caspar Weinberger of the United States about two issues in connection with the research programme for the strategic defence initiative: first, that there should be a proper reflection of this country's technological capability and recognition of the dangers of a one-way flow of technology across the Atlantic; and, secondly, that it should be recognised that, for Britain to play a part, it has to be significant. I am glad to be able to tell the House that Mr. Weinberger and I reached agreement to recommend to our respective Governments the form of undertaking that we could enter into. I hope very much that we shall be able to make positive progress on that matter in the near future. In that case, I have no doubt that there will be substantial opportunities for British industry.
    Mr. O'Neill: We welcome much that has come out of Geneva, but will the Secretary of State assure us that the views of Caspar Weinberger on this issue are representative of the Reagan Administration, because, in

    739
    other areas relating to Geneva, they were not representative? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us of the Government's position in relation to what the Foreign Secretary said about star wars last March? In the absence of any debate or statement on star wars, what is the Government's position?
    Mr. Heseltine: The Government's position is precisely as it was when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the President of the United States at Camp David and made it clear that we believed that research into the programme was inevitable and that any further advance in the context of the programme would come within the ABM treaty. That remains our position.

    Defence Establishments (Location)
    Mr. Fallonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has reached any conclusions in his review of the geographical distribution of units and establishments.
    Mr. Heseltine: For a variety of reasons the services are disproportionately located in southern England and, as the House will be aware, I want to see what can be done to redress the balance. A more even geographic spread would benefit the regions and is highly desirable on those grounds, but all proposals must stand on their economic and operational merits.
    Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is it not archaic that so many units and establishments are located in the south-east facing the Channel, where the threat appears to have diminished, rather than in the north-east, nearer the NATO flank that we are pledged to defend?
    Mr. Heseltine: I thought that my hon. Friend was about to suggest that we should address the threat from Liverpool. I should tell him that the Ministry of Defence is carrying out further work on this important matter.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The Opposition welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he wishes to move defence establishments from constituencies represented by Conservative Members, near Bath and in Hampshire and Sussex, to areas of high unemployment. I hope that we shall see some fruits of that desire. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a defence establishment in my constituency was the first to be closed under the John Nott review. Will the right hon. Gentleman show his good will by keeping open factories and establishments in areas of high unemployment before he embarks on this exercise?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that even I cannot keep open establishments that have long since been closed. All those factors will be carefully borne in mind, although I must introduce the caveat that the underlying commercial realities are bound to have a significant influence on our decision-making.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend taking active steps to examine the scope for defence establishments to be located in the north-west?
    Mr. Heseltine: We are considering how the decision-making process tended for many decades to concentrate facilities in the south. In that context, the location of some facilities in the north-west is bound to be on the agenda.

    Dr. Richard Wagner
    Mr. Cabornasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet Richard Wagner, Special Assistant to the United States Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have at present no plans to meet Dr. Wagner.
    Mr. Caborn: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Since Dr. Wagner alleges that the Secretary of State misled the House, will the right hon. Gentleman apologise and take this opportunity to explain to the House which new nuclear battlefield weapons will be used in future by our Army in Germany?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have already made it clear to the House that I wholly reject the suggestion to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, and I have made my views known to the United States Administration. The effects of SACEUR's proposals on the composition of our nuclear forces are being carefully considered. If I have any announcements to make, I shall make them in the House at the appropriate moment.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has already mentioned his important discussions on the strategic defence initiative with the United States Defence Secretary. He will be aware that representations have been made, I believe to the Prime Minister and to others, by leading representatives of the computing community in Britain, suggesting that the important objectives of the SDI are completely incompatible with what is known of the potential of computing and software here and in the United States. He will also have seen the papers published at the weekend by Professor Parnass, who was a member of the SDI software team, stressing that the objective is unattainable. Since this is a matter of the utmost significance, will we have an opportunity to discuss it?
    Mr. Heseltine: Whether the House has an opportunity to discuss this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I dare say that my hon. Friend's views have already got through to that most important decision-maker. The attainments of the computing industry are secondary to the fundamental point that research programmes have been started in the United States. Those research programmes are of interest to us, whether or not they obtain the objectives.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The Opposition welcome what the Secretary of State said about Dr. Wagner's remarks. We also welcome the withdrawal of some battlefield nuclear weapons, but we are worried that, at the end of the day, we might have more powerful battlefield nuclear weapons in central Europe. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, before decisions are taken, the matter can be debated in the House? Part of the problem about remarks by Dr. Wagner and others is that the House does not debate such matters. Apart from any other consideration, such matters should be debated in the House before decisions are taken.
    Mr. Heseltine: The House must think it extraordinary that a representative of a Government who modernised our independent nuclear deterrent by the Chevaline process without telling anyone that they had done it should expect us to subject modernisation programmes for nuclear weapons systems to debate in the House. It is unthinkable.

    Nuclear Weapons (Road Accidents)
    Mr. Janneraskd the Secretary of State for Defence how many road accidents have occurred in the last year on roads in the United Kingdom which involved a vehicle carrying nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Stanley: It has been the practice of successive Governments, for security reasons, not to comment on the methods of transporting nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Janner: I am not asking about the methods of transportation. Why are the Government not prepared to give any information about accidents involving the transport of nuclear weapons, and in particular about the incident in Scotland on 20 June? Is the Minister aware that the results of the Ministry of Defence inquiry into that accident have not been made public and that there has been no inquiry whatever by the Strathclyde police?
    Mr. Stanley: I should have thought it was obvious that if the Ministry of Defence gave details of accidents involving nuclear weapons it would be disclosing the methods of transportation.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Brintonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she had time to note that the latest trade figures show a surplus of £400 million? Does not the hat trick of trade surplus, reducing inflation and increasing growth give the lie to opponents who say that my right hon. Friend's economic policy does not work?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for pointing these things out so forcefully. This is the sixth year of balance of payments surplus. When one adds to that the optimistic CBI forecast yesterday and today, it augurs well for the future and for employment.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the Prime Minister find time in her busy day to acquaint herself with the widespread concern expressed by employers and trade unionists in the textile and clothing industry about the latest negotiations for the new multi-fibre arrangement? Does she appreciate that if the Government weaken their position in those negotiations and allow a flood of imports, the result will be even higher unemployment in areas where it is already well above average?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of that concern. A new multi-fibre arrangement is being negotiated. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the possible knock-on effect on other industries and on export capacity. We have to take all those factors into account.
    Mr. Key: Will my right hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to convey to the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe the deep sense of shock and loss felt in this country at the murder last night of the headmaster of Tegwani school and
    742
    his English-born wife Jean? Will she also convey our sympathy to the Methodist Missionary Society? Does my right hon. Friend agree that terrorism and murder, wherever they occur, are an affront to the whole of mankind?
    The Prime Minister: I shall gladly convey my hon. Friend's message and reinforce it with the Government's message. I agree wholly that terrorism is the enemy of democracy and that we must try to defeat it wherever it occurs.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Conservative candidate in the Tyne Bridge constituency is on record as saying that the people of that area have been brainwashed into believing that they are deprived? Is that Government's policy and the view of the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I may reply with some facts and figures. In 1985–86 the Manpower Services Commission will provide 25,000 places on the youth training scheme, 27,000 places on the community programme by April 1986, funding for more than 3,600 people on the enterprise allowance scheme in 1985–86 and training for some 13,000 adults in 1985–86, an increase of 82 per cent. over the previous year. Those are the facts. I leave the hon. Gentleman to make up his own mind.
    Mr. Hickmetasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure of the Labour party in Liverpool to fix a rate for the past 10 months, its failure to observe the law, its use of a private army to intimidate those who oppose its views and the fact that it has displayed a monumental contempt for the democratic process, for the welfare of the citizens of that city and for the welfare of its 31,000 employees, shows that it would be a disaster for Britain if the Labour party were ever to be returned to national government with such members? Should not the Leader of the Opposition stop wringing his hands and denying their existence?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. McDonaldasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the Prime Minister aware that 415 pensioners have already died from cold this year? What will she do to stop that happening for the rest of the year?
    The Prime Minister: The amount of money given for fuel allowance under the present Government greatly exceeds that given by any previous Government and greatly exceeds the increase in the price of fuel. It is an excellent record, and I commend it to the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: As the teachers' strike continues to inflict damage on our schools, does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no lasting improvement until parents are given more choice and a greater say in school policy, and until headmasters are accorded the role of managing director, answerable to their boards and with authority to run schools properly, as is suggested in a recent and excellent pamphlet entitled "No Turning Back" drawn up by me and some of my hon. Friends?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has been kind enough to send me a copy of his most excellent pamphlet. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has also read it and will digest its contents. I am sure also that my hon. Friend will welcome the Education Bill announced in the Gracious Speech, which proposes a strengthening of the parents' voice in the running of schools and clarification of the roles of governing bodies, head teachers and local education authorities. I share my hon. Friend's and parents' concern that, although they are paying full taxes and rates, children are not at the moment receiving the education to which they are entitled, because of the teachers' strike.
    Mr. Kinnock: I thought that the Secretary of State for Education and Science might have been writing a response to the hon. Gentleman's pamplet "No Going Back" entitled "No Going Forward". [Interruption.] It is rubbish.
    The Prime Minister met President Reagan last Thursday after his welcome meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev. We have asked her to make a statement to the House. Why has she not agreed to do so?
    The Prime Minister: I gave a very full reply to a written question. It would be strange to make a statement on a summit that I did not attend.
    Mr. Kinnock: I think I can say on behalf of the House and of people outside that that is not good enough as an answer. The matters raised in this first summit for many years are of vital interest to us all, and the Prime Minister's reflections on her meeting with President Reagan are naturally important. Why could she give a full press conference but not make herself available for proper questioning by hon. Members who represent the British people?
    The Prime Minister: Immediately after we had the NATO meeting, I rightly gave a press conference. I do not think it right to give a statement to the House on a summit meeting which I did not attend and in regard to which I could therefore not reply fully. I had already put the statement issued from the summit in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why a press conference on a summit that the right hon. Lady did not attend, and no statement to the House for cross-questioning on a summit that she did not attend?
    The Prime Minister: Because the press conference was given on the NATO meeting immediately after that meeting, not on the summit. The press conferences given by President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev and the official communiqué will give the right hon. Gentleman far more detail than anything that I could give.
    Mr. Kinnock: Reagan is not the president of Britain.
    The Prime Minister: Precisely. On that as on other things, there is "no turning back". The right hon. Gentleman got it wrong.
    Mrs. Roeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roe: In recognising our support for the Local Government Bill, which is now going into Committee, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will help to stamp out abuses, such as that of the GLC spending more money on supporting anti-police groups in London than the Labour party spent nationally throughout its general election campaign in 1983?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, following the recommendations of the Widdicombe committee, the Bill is designed to prevent local government money from being spent on party political propaganda. That committee has a continuing remit. If it makes further recommendations, we shall follow them up with further legislation.
    Mr. Boyesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Prime Minister recall that in a recent television interview she told how Alderman Roberts, in his final speech, said that in honour he had taken up the gown and in honour he laid it down, and then she shed a little tear? There is no criticism of that, but how many tears will the right hon. Lady shed for the 700 miners at Herrington colliery who in honour took up the pick and shovel and in honour laid them down?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that there is a full and proper procedure for the closure of collieries—they were closed under the previous Labour Government—and that procedure will be followed.
    Mr. Dykes: Given the need for a far-reaching intergovernmental agreement this weekend in the EC, will my right hon. Friend assert that the Government will put their full weight behind developing a fundamental agreement that will really take the Community forward?
    The Prime Minister: We are not aware of what will come out of the intergovernmental conference. If there are proposals for any treaty amendments, they will have to come before the House.
    Mr. Foot: Is the effective cut in child benefit, which comes into operation this week, intended to be permanent, or temporary?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has heard the proposals for increases in social security which overall offer more than £2 billion. Child benefit has been increased substantially in recent years. For the future, the right hon. Gentleman must await further announcements.
    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend noted the recent statement by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the crime involving David Wilkie, which took place during the mining dispute, was not a crime? Will she condemn that disgraceful statement as an appalling example to our young people?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will understand when I say that that is a matter for the courts, not for the Government. What Opposition Members say about it must be judged by the British people rather than by the Government.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: May I jolt the Prime Minister's conscience about the disastrous effects that her monetarist policies are having in Scotland and, in particular, in Lanarkshire? Is she aware that Scotland's steel industry is in a dreadful state and that there are to be 200 more redundancies at the Clydesdale works in my constituency? The men are already working short time, and those redundancies will add considerably to unemployment in Scotland. What does the right hon. Lady intend to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: From the CBI survey and the figures, the hon. Gentleman will know that this year output is up for the fifth consecutive year. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that production capacity greatly exceeds orders for steel. There is no way in which we can continue to keep everything open in such circumstances. The previous Labour Government had to close some things, but held up many closures which should have taken place. This Government allocated £130 million in order to purchase quota to keep Ravenscraig open. That was this Government's earnest of good faith in the future of Ravenscraig.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruinvels: As the Prime Minister of a country that abhors terrorism and all that it stands for, will my right hon. Friend explain why the Tanzanian terrorists who came to Stansted have been given an amnesty and are to be allowed to stay in this country for a year when they have served their terms of imprisonment?
    Because of terrorist activity, is it possible to prevent airlines flying to Greece, where arms have been taken on to planes at Athens airport?
    The Prime Minister: We must await the inquiry into the events at Athens airport before determining precisely where the fault lies and reaching any conclusion.
    On my hon. Friend's point about the Tanzanian hijack in this country in 1982, those involved were tried in our courts, found guilty and given considerable prison sentences. Some of them are now out of prison. An undertaking given at the time has been interpreted as our
    746
    saying that the terrorists would not be returned to Tanzania. They have been refused asylum in this country, but will be allowed to stay for 12 months.
    Mr. McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time I asked the Minister of State for Defence Procurement what assurances he had given Dennis Ferranti about the purchase of CNC lathes to manufacture mortar shells currently made by the royal ordnance factory on Tyneside. The Minister replied—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I cannot be responsible for what a Minister says.
    Mr. McWilliam: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking you to be responsible for what the Minister said, but to rule whether it is in order for anyone to mislead the House. The Minister said—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. There is a major debate ahead of us. I cannot be responsible for answers given from the Front Benches, any more than I can be responsible for the questions asked.
    Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Question Time the shadow Secretary of State for Defence made a statement to the House—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
    Mr. Dickens: If I am upsetting you, Mr. Speaker, I will let it go.
    Mr. McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot deal with his point of order because the matter that he raises is not my responsibility. What is the point of order for me?
    Mr. McWilliam: Is it in order for an hon. Member to ask another hon. Member to write to him about a subject on which he has already written to him and to which he has already replied?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the answer is yes.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (Variation of Fourth Schedule) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Anglo-Irish Agreement
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the important debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement. I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper.
3.33 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Anglo-Irish Agreement (Cmnd. 9657) signed on 15th November by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald.
Since 1969, nearly 2,500 people have lost their lives in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism, more than 750 of them members of the security forces. As the House is only too well aware, there has also been further loss of life among the armed forces, police and civilians in the remainder of the United Kingdom, including three of our colleagues in this House.
That is the stark background to today's debate and it takes us immediately to the historic divisions between the two communities in Northern Ireland, which we cannot ignore.
Whatever the differences that may emerge in our debate, I believe that we shall all be united in our determination to end the violence and to bring to justice those who are guilty. We shall all be united in our deep sympathy for the thousands of families whose lives have been darkened by the shadow of the gunman and the bomber; and we shall all be united in our admiration and gratitude for the men and women of the security forces in Northern Ireland and, indeed, from all parts of Great Britain, so many of whom have paid the price of protecting us with their own lives.
But it is apparent that any initiative, however modest, to bring the people of Northern Ireland closer together to beat the terrorists raises emotions and fears rooted deep in the past. I understand those fears, although I do not believe them to be justified.
Faced with all that we have seen in the past 16 years, it was not enough for the Government to rely solely upon the security forces, valiant though they are, to contain and resist the tide of violence. Let me make it clear that there can be no such thing as an acceptable level of violence, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Government owe a duty to the security forces and to all the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic alike, to do everything within their power to stamp out terrorism—not by giving in to the terrorist, not by giving him a single inch. Indeed, the fact that the terrorists have condemned the agreement is a demonstration that we have done no such thing.
The fight against terrorism is greatly weakened if the community is divided against itself, and it is greatly strengthened if all people committed to democracy and the rule of law can join together against the men of violence. That, the Government felt, required a further attempt to reconcile the two communities in Northern Ireland.
The Unionist community, firmly loyal to the Crown and to the United Kingdom, represent a proud tradition of devotion to the Union which everyone in these islands should respect, and which this agreement does respect. They have a right to feel secure about Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom. This agreement, by reinforcing the principle of consent, should make them
748
feel more secure, not only today but in the future. Unionists have the assurance that neither an Irish Government, nor of course a British Government, will try to impose new constitutional arrangements upon them against their will.
The nationalist community think of themselves as Irish in terms of their identity, their social and cultural traditions and their political aspirations. The House can respect their identity too and acknowledge their aspirations, even though we may not see the prospect of their fulfilment.
The only lasting way to put an end to the violence and achieve the peace and stability in Northern Ireland is reconciliations between these two communities. That is the goal of this agreement.
I now draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be the most significant points of the agreement. The preamble sets out the commitment of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic to work for reconciliation; our utter and total rejection of violence; our recognition and respect for the separate identities in Northern Ireland; and our acceptance of the right of each to pursue its aspirations by peaceful means. These principles reflect the hopes of both communities.
Article 1 of the agreement makes it abundantly clear that there is no threat whatsoever to Unionists' heartfelt desire to remain part of the United Kingdom. It provides, in a formally binding international accord, a recognition by the Irish Government that the status of Northern Ireland will remain unchanged as long as that is the wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It recognises also that the present wish of a majority is for no change in that status. There can be no better reply to the fears that have been expressed in the House than this explicit recognition of the legitimacy of the Unionist position.
Article 2 of the agreement acknowledges in a practical and strictly defined way the concern that the Irish Republic has with matters relating to Northern Ireland. In the past, that concern has sometimes been expressed in critical or negative terms which did not help the cause of harmony between the communities in Northern Ireland. Article 2, therefore, establishes an Intergovernmental Conference. This will have no executive authority either now or in the future. It will consider on a regular basis political, security and legal matters, including the administration of justice, as well as cross-border co-operation on security, economic and cultural matters.
This co-operation will not be a one-way street. The Irish Government will be able to put forward views and proposals on certain matters affecting Northern Ireland. We for our part shall be able to pursue issues of concern to all peace-loving people in Northern Ireland. Notably cooperation in the fight against terrorism—co-operation which goes beyond the borders of Northern Ireland. The matters within the scope of the conference are spelled out in greater detail in articles 4 to 9 of the agreement. I should like to draw the House's attention to three particular points about these articles. First, if devolution is restored, those matters that become the responsibility of the devolved Government will no longer be within the purview of the intergovernmental conference. We hope that the agreement will encourage the constitutional representatives of both communities to come together to form a local administration acceptable to both. This hope has been specifically endorsed by the Irish Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern

749
Ireland will be exploring with the constitutional parties how best to make progress. Meantime, the Assembly continues in being, with all its statutory responsibilities.
Secondly, article 8, which deals with legal matters, says that consideration will be given to the possibility of establishing mixed courts. Let me say straightaway that we have absolute confidence in the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the integrity and courage which they have shown in recent years in maintaining high standards of judicial impartiality have been outstanding.
We know the difficulties which would be involved in mixed courts both in Northern Ireland and in the republic. We recognise the reservations which are held by the legal profession. We see no easy or early way through these difficulties. That is why, although we are prepared to consider in good faith the possibility of them at some future time, we have made it clear that we are under no commitment to introduce them.
Thirdly, I draw the House's attention to the proposals for improved security co-operation in article 9. This provides for a programme of work to be undertaken by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Garda to improve co-operation in such matters as threat assessment, exchange of information, technical co-operation, training of personnel and operational resources.
The really vital element in this programme is fuller and faster exchange of information, especially pre-emptive intelligence which helps to prevent acts of terrorism.
These are specific measures which I believe will lead to real improvements in security—improvements which will be welcome above all to those men and women who live in the border areas and who have been subjected to so many merciless attacks designed to drive them from their homes and farms.
That improvement should be further reinforced by the Irish Government's intention to accede to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.
The convention's purpose is to ensure that those who commit terrorist offences should be brought to justice and that any offences involving the use of explosives or firearms should not be regarded as political.
Irish accession should greatly increase our prospects of securing extradition from the republic of persons accused or convicted or terrorist crimes. This will be a major and a welcome step forward in the war against terrorism.
I draw the House's attention to the reference in article 12 to the possible establishment of an Anglo-Irish interparliamentary body. Both we and the Irish Government felt that this was a matter for our Parliaments themselves rather than for Governments to pursue. I hope that contacts will be established through the usual channels to consider how discussions on an interparliamentary body can most effectively be taken forward.
I have tried to explain to the House the most significant points of the agreement. In view of some of the mistaken claims about it, I want also to say something about what is not in the agreement. The agreement does not affect the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. It does not set us on some imagined slippery slope to Irish unity, and it is nonsense to claim that it might.
The effect of article 1 is to confirm the provision in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom as long as a majority there so wish. That again is a
750
recognition of reality. The guarantee for the majority lies in the fact that it is a majority. That fundamental point is reinforced by this agreement.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Lady. Can she explain why the Irish Government signed the agreement?
The Prime Minister: I believe that the Irish Government signed the agreement because they share with us its objectives: to try to defeat the men of violence and to try to achieve peace and stability for all the people who live, and who will continue to live, in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to read it, all of this is set out fully in the preamble to the agreement.
Second, I want to make it clear that the agreement does not detract from British sovereignty in Northern Ireland—or, for that matter, from Irish sovereignty in the republic. We, the United Kingdom Government, accountable to Parliament, remain responsible for the government of Northern Ireland. Yes, we will listen to the views of the Irish Government. Yes, we will make determined efforts to resolve differences. But at the end of the day decisions north of the border will continue to be made by the United Kingdom Government anc south of the border by the Irish Government. This is a fundamental point. There can be no misunderstanding.
Third, I want to dispel the absurd notion that the Government will listen to the views of the republic on Northern Ireland matters, but not to the views of our own unionist community.
There are already many ways in which the majority community in Northern Ireland can and do put their views to the Government. The right hon. and hon. Members of this House who represent the unionist parties are themselves an important channel. Another is the Northern Ireland Assembly, an important and experienced body which could be used to improve the arrangements for consultation. Yet another is the many representations that unionists make to Ministers. The unionist voice is clearly heard and will continue to be heard.
If the Anglo-Irish agreement is to bring about a real improvement in the daily lives of the two communities in Northern Ireland, it must be matched by a detennined effort on the part of all law-abiding citizens to defeat the men of violence. And that effort must rest on clear and consistent principles of justice, equity and fairness. For if democracy is the rule of the majority, the other side of the coin is fairness and respect for the minority, for all are citizens of the United Kingdom.
On the economic front, we will continue to pay special attention to Northern Ireland's needs. During direct rule, spending on economic and social programmes has risen since 1972–73 by 50 per cent. in real terms to £3,600 million last year. That amounts to nearly £2,500 a head, far more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Spending on that scale shows the high priority given by successive Governments to the needs of Northern Ireland and its people. Our concern will continue.
On security, our efforts will also continue. Thanks to the magnificent work of our policemen and soldiers, we have already made some progress, but we still have much to do. I believe that our security forces can take new heart from the promise of greater security co-operation that will flow from the agreement.
In commending this agreement to the House, I should like first to pay tribute to Dr. Fitzgerald, who has worked

751
honestly and sincerely for an agreement to bring reassurance to both communities and a real prospect of peace and stability.
Second, I say to the members of both communities in Northern Ireland that, if Parliament approves the agreement, the Government will steadfastly implement it. This House represents all the people of the United Kingdom and its decisions are binding on all of them. We shall not give way to threats or to violence from any quarter. We shall look to the co-operation of all men and women of good will who want a better future for Northern Ireland and for their families.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the point about the accountability of Parliament, will she say whether there will be any opportunity for Parliament to know about the deliberations of the Anglo-Irish conference? Will its deliberations be made public anywhere, or debated?
The Prime Minister: It is not expected that everything that is said in the intergovernmental conference will be made public. I am giving consideration to how we can report to the House, for obvious reasons. We attend many intergovernmental conferences in Europe and elsewhere and usually report to the House about those that we attend. I am giving urgent consideration to this matter because I realise that there is concern about it.
Finally, I address myself once more to those among the unionist community who have openly expressed their fears and worries about this agreement. Far from representing any threat to the union of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, the agreement reinforces the union, and that should bring reassurance and confidence to the unionist majority. It clearly recognises—as it should—the validity of their great tradition, and it holds out the prospect of greater success in the struggle against terrorism from which the majority have suffered so much. As one who believes in the union. I urge the unionists to take advantage of the chance offered by the agreement.
We embarked on this agreement because we were not prepared to see the two communities for ever locked into the tragedies and antagonisms of the past. The younger generation, above all, has a right to expect more than that. The price of new hope is persistent endeavour. That is what we ask, and ask equally of all.
3.52 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Today, as at all times when we discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland both inside and outside the House, we do so against a background of tragedy and atrocity. We think of those who have lost their lives, as the Prime Minister said, and we think of their loved ones and those whose lives have been devastated by sectarian killings and attacks. We remember those families who, when they felt the forces of violence, no matter what the status of those killed—soldiers, policemen, adults, relations or children—have always ended with a despairing question—"Why did it happen to us?" Many hon. Members have heard that question from grieving relations much too often, and, tragically those who represent Northern Ireland seats have heard it more often than the rest of us.
As we debate the accord, we remember too the courage and the fortitude of those who have lived and worked with
752
and within the tortured community of Northern Ireland. We know that the problem of Northern Ireland, plainly, has spilled across the water and scarred Britain. We acknowledge the debt that we owe, both on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, to the civil servants, the police, Members of the House and so many ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland who have been willing to help in the search for peace and a way out of the sterile sectarian divisions.
As we think of these things, we have to remind ourselves yet again that there are matters other than security that are of importance to the people of Northern Ireland, and that there are issues worthy of report and debate other than the constant plague of conflict.
We are sometimes told that there is no solution to the historic problems of Northern Ireland, but, however difficult it may be, and however long it may take, we must never give up the search for a solution. That would be defeatism paid for in blood. If we give up the search for peace, we say to the people of Northern Ireland, "Your agony must endure for ever". In all conscience, we cannot and must not do that.
This House has a special duty to recall that the problems of Northern Ireland are a matter not just for the Province or for the Republic but, most definitely, for Britain as well. In addition to the tragedies and their irreparable costs, there is the price of conflict which the New Ireland Forum research team has reasonably estimated to be over £9,000 million between 1969 and 1982 and a further £1,500 million or so a year with the addition of the £120 million or so a year that we spend out of public coffers in maintaining the armed forces in Northern Ireland. It is not fitting for this House remorselessly to consign such sums to Northern Ireland without at least being able to demonstrate to the people of Wales, Scotland and England that we deliberately pursue all means of achieving an end to the conflict and the massive costs that go with it.
We must also recognise that many of the legislative and other changes that have come about as a result of our inability to find a political solution in Northern Ireland disfigure the democracy of our entire country. Courts without juries, strip searches in prisons, internment without trial and many other things can be said to have arisen from the circumstances of their time, but no democracy can or should bear such changes lightly or for long, because if it does it puts at risk the very liberty that it seeks to defend.
For all those reasons, the Opposition will do whatever they can to promote the chances of peace, and the prosperity that depends on that peace, in Northern Ireland.
The status quo offers absolutely no solution to anyone at all. For that reason, we shall approve the Anglo-Irish agreement, which for reasons of accuracy and not affectation I wish had been called the British-Irish agreement.
The agreement is clearly a development from the New Ireland Forum set up in Dublin in 1983. That was a bold and visionary step taken by the major political parties in the Republic, together with the Social Democratic and Labour party. I pay tribute to those parties and their leaders, one of whom we are fortunate enough to have in this House. None of those leaders has given up his legitimate commitment to constitutional nationalism or his commitment to the reunification of Ireland. They have recognised that, just as they cannot be forced to relinquish their aspirations of getting rid of the border, neither can

753
the unionists be forced to relinquish their desire to keep that border between the north and the south. The constitutional nationalists have decided that, while retaining their historic ambition of unity, they will now give pre-eminence to reconciliation and a formal and binding acknowledgement of the fact that they have long recognised—that unification cannot be achieved without consent.
In the Dail last Tuesday, the Taoiseach, Dr. FitzGerald, said:
"No sane person would wish to attempt to change the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of its people. That would be a recipe for disaster and could, I believe, lead only to a civil war that would be destructive of the life of people throughout our island."
As well as speaking for the Irish people, Dr. FitzGerald recorded the sentiments of all the British people.
That is the reward that the gunmen got for their violence. They have engendered such revulsion against insecurity, fear and brutality that they have made nationalists seek change even at the cost of indefinitely postponing their own nationalist aspirations.
The terrorists can and will treat the matter with complete cynicism. They will undoubtedly deride the action of the Irish Government and Irish political parties, and they will rely on their sworn enemies in the unionist groupings to erode and erase the agreement. No doubt that is what the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army seek. Since they know that the most critical test of the credibility and acceptability of the agreement is its effect on secutity in Northern Ireland, they will continue with their terrorism and the noxious insincerity of their bullet and ballot strategy to sustain insecurity throughout the Province and in the Republic. Those terrorists, like every hon. Member, must know that the success of the agreement will be difficult to build and prove, but that its failure will be easy to contrive.
The gunmen alone cannot make the agreement fail. That outcome would need the most unholy, unsigned, unspoken alliance with those whom they most despise. Will that alliance be forged? Some hon. Members can make a major contribution to providing the answer to that. They do not belong to the Government or a future Government. They are not men of violence, and not even people who tolerate violence—to their eternal credit. They belong to the unionist parties of Northern Ireland. I recognise their fears, I know that they feel beleaguered, and excluded from designing their own destiny, that they live in constant anxiety about a sell-out, and that any failure by a British Government to explain their intentions heightens those feelings of fear. I know that they feel that deals have been done behind their back, and some will feel deep and genuine resentment at that. However modest the agreement, and however cautious and conditional the change, those feelings run deep, and in many quarters of the unionist community those feelings are absolutely genuine.
However, I cannot help thinking that there is a minority in the unionist community who quite enjoy the opportunity that is afforded by anxiety, and who will mobilise fear and bigotry in Northern Ireland. Zephaniah Williams, the Welsh Chartist, said:
"When prejudice blinds the eye of the mind the brightest truth shines in vain."
I do not address the bigots or the wallies on either side of the sectarian divide, when I plead with the majority of non-nationalists not to be blinded by prejudice. I ask them to
754
see that the sole beneficiaries of a breakdown would be the terrorists, that the objectives of the constitutional nationalists for the foreseeable future are limited to reconciliation and stability, and to see their acceptance of consent as the absolute precondition of any change. I ask them to see that the common cause of peace is a greater cause than the preservation of this miserable murderous status quo, and that in the agreement there is no loss of sovereignty by either Government or Parliament—certainly nothing that can begin to compare with the concessions of sovereignty that come as a natural consequence of our membership of the European Community.
I also plead with the non-nationalists to see that, if sovereignty is to be meaningful, it must involve the power to live effectively in peace under the law. Sovereignty cannot be an expression of vanity that covers the inability to rule with those conditions, like clothing on a skeleton. I ask them to see that the role of the Irish Government is consultative, and no more, that even that role can be transferred by progress with devolution, and that the basic reason for the involvement of the Irish Government, even in this capacity, is to be found in the refusal or inability of constitutional Northern Ireland unionists and constitutional Northern Ireland nationalists to share power, despite the opportunities afforded to them to do so.
I plead with them to see that the feelings of slight and suspicion, which are manifested, do not overwhelm them and leave them isolated as unionists from all those people, north and south of the border and on both sides of the water, who want to use their common longing for peace as the means of defeating violence. I ask them to recognise that the motives that led the constitutional nationalists, south and north of the border, to make the agreement are a convincing mixture of material self-interest and moral duty, not a cunning strategem for unification by stealth with the agreement of the British Prime Minister. That is the truth about the agreement.
The Irish state suffers from the contagion of violence—arms, robberies, killings, casualties, the waste of resources and the degeneration of its whole society which comes from a climate of conflict. The Republic cannot and does not want to afford that constant drain on its meagre fortunes, or the risk from it to the fabric of its society. Those are some of the pressing realities that brought Garret FitzGerald, Dick Spring and their colleagues first to the Forum and then to the agreement.
The other motivation, which is less tangible but no less forceful, of those men, whom I am happy to count among my friends, is their moral obligation towards the communities of Northern Ireland—the nationalist community, which is alienated and prey to either the temptations or the intimidation of terrorism, and the unionist community which is impaled, like its neighbours, on insecurity and estrangement.
The suspicious will understandably ask what is in the agreement for FitzGerald's Fine Gael, Spring's Irish Labour party and Hume's SDLP. There are three things that are in it for them. First, there is the possibility of promoting reconciliation. Secondly, there is the practical demonstration that they are trying to fulfil their moral obligations to the whole of Ireland—the Ireland that they love with a special passion. Thirdly, there is the chance of combating the terrorists by intensified joint security measures, and by achieving extra credibility

755
within Northern Ireland for constitutional nationalism to throw back the tide of terrorist nationalism that comes with various pretences.
All those people and parties take great risks, and bring great credit on themselves. They are earnestly trying, against all the odds piled up by history, to put the purpose of securing peace above the easier course of indulging prejudice and courting popularity. Some people in every land are paralysed by history. Others are provoked by it, and they are such people. They have decided to try to be makers of history, rather than observers of it. They took that decision in modesty and responsibility, not in vanity or ambition. They want the history of conflict and waste to be changed to a future of conciliation. They are certainly Irish nationalists, but they are front-door agents for peace, not back-door fixers of unification. Unlike many others, they have decided to be part of the answer, rather than part of the problem. For that, my colleagues and I will support them in their aims and the practical application of them.
In doing so, I wish to acknowledge the contribution made by the Prime Minister to the agreement. I do not underestimate the effort that she has made, and I say without any taunt that it has involved a significant and welcome adjustment in her position during the past six years. I say further that the change is all the more credible because those six years have not only been marked by the continuing pressures of tragedy that come from Northern Ireland; they have also for her been punctuated by personal losses with the killing of Airey Neave and with the death and destruction of the Brighton bombing. I recognise her contribution freely, and I recognise it fully.
It is not, therefore, in any spirit of recrimination that I put this consideration to the right hon. Lady. The cause of this agreement would have been better served if she had taken the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) last year when they asked her to try to spell out to the unionist communities what her intentions were in developing the relationships with the Dublin Government. That might not have assuaged all fears, it might not have silenced all the shouts, but it would have been evidence of trust and consultation which could have provided an essential credential for the agreement now.
I have to say, too, that the right hon. Lady's response to the report of the New Ireland Forum was, as I said at the time, precipitate and peremptory. Subsequent events, including the signature of the Hillsborough agreement, have demonstrated that. My party was the only party in Britain which gave the Forum the interest which it deserved, although I acknowledge the contribution made by a section of the unionist community in providing a coherent and cogent alternative review and set of proposals. That provided an opportunity for an informed debate, but unfortunately that debate was killed before it got started. But had we proceeded along those lines the atmosphere of accord may have been more literal and the atmosphere in which the agreement has been made may have been more propitious.
We gave evidence to the Forum on 19 January 1984. We said then that the way forward lay in the joint British-Irish initiative that could not easily be vetoed by either side of the entrenched communities of the North. We are glad
756
that the agreement recognises that. We further suggested major innovative attempts to cross-border co-operation which could lead to the closer operation of the economic and social policies of the North and South. That is also recognised in the agreement.
We suggested ways of creating links between the criminal justice system in the North and in the South and we note that the Government are at least going to consider such links at meetings of the intergovernmental conference. We endorsed the view of the report that the crisis in Northern Ireland and the relationship between Britain and Ireland required new structures that could accommodate the rights of unionists to effective political, symbolic and administrative expression of their identity, their ethos and their way of life, and the rights of nationalists to effective political, symbolic and administrative expression of their identity. The agreement establishes and defines such structural change and the accommodation of rights, and we welcome that.
That is all to the good, and I draw attention to these matters simply to show that there has been for some time a course which could have been navigated, as we recommended, in a different way and at a different speed, which might have made the circumstances of this agreement more propitious.
In addition to the matters of consultation with unionists and recognition of the validity of the report from constitutional nationalists, there is another point that I must put to the Prime Minister. It is not in any way retrospective and it has a direct bearing on the conduct of affairs and the potential of the agreement. It concerns the economic condition of Northern Ireland. As everyone knows only too well, Northern Ireland is a poverty-stricken place. It has the lowest male wages, the highest shop prices and the highest energy charges of any economic region in the United Kingdom.
The poverty is manifested in many ways, not least the high morbidity and hospital admission rates. It is also manifested among the young in the fact that a high proportion of them leave school without any form of qualification. Most of all, Northern Ireland has a 21·4 per cent. unemployment rate, and that has increased from 9·7 per cent. in 1979. Those rates do not respect religious or political demarcations. In Craigavon and Armagh, unemployment is more than 20 per cent. In Coleraine and Enniskillen, it is more than 25 per cent. In Dungannon, Derry and Magherafelt, it is more than 28 per cent. In Newry, it is 32 per cent. In Cookstown and Strabane, 35 per cent. of the registered workers are unemployed.
Against that background, it is obvious that the agreement between Governments for the purpose of promoting common objectives of reconciliation is a fine thing and the effort at popular consent is a creditable activity. But both need a crucial further element—the prospect, at the very least, of economic development and security.
In addition to the usual arguments for fighting unemployment and sponsoring recovery, Northern Ireland has its own special and unenviable case. It is that violence cannot be excused by poverty, idleness or unemployment, but it clearly cannot be said to be unconnected with those evils. Violence, support for violence, toleration of violence may come from political fanaticism or plain gangsterism, but it can thrive on the scale of Northern Ireland only in conditions of economic insecurity and the

757
alienation which that breeds. [Interruption.] I am telling the truth. I know that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is never very keen on that.
Therefore, I say to the Prime Minister that it is essential in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, for her to adopt new policies of expansion and employment in order to stimulate recovery, to increase opportunity and to generate jobs. [Interruption.] Those hon. Members who are groaning now must answer the question: Do they think that an increase in employment, a reduction in unemployment and the generating of prosperity in that community would have the effect of increasing or decreasing the alienation in that community? Common sense of today, not some imagined history of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, tells us that such alienation, especially among the young, is rooted in the poverty, ugliness and strife that comes out of continual levels of economic deprivation.
We want that kind of economic development and recovery for the United Kingdom and will continue to work for it. Meanwhile, in Ireland, steps could be taken through the provisions and procedures of the Hillsborough accord, to promote the possibilities of economic development. Transport and tourism, as the Secretary of State and, indeed, his predecessors have previously recognised, have obvious possibilities for joint economic strategies, and so, too, does energy, as we have heard from many Northern Ireland Members.
What an absurdity it is that Britain can exchange electricity supplies with continental Europe but that Northern Ireland and the Republic cannot. Why do the Government refuse to put money into the Kinsale gas link when it appears that they are going to accept EEC and even American money for projects? What proposals will the Government make for bringing the agricultural systems of North and South together so that the whole island can secure the advantages that would accompany that? Will the Government make proposals to fill the surplus college places in Northern Ireland with the students who encounter a shortage of places in the Republic?
Those are areas of action which can all give life to the words of the accord and meaning to the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. But the most useful source of reassurance and stability—I repeat it in order to emphasise it—would come from the promotion of economic recovery, deliberately and systematically by Her Majesty's Government.
There are other areas, of course, in which the Government could work in order to mobilise support for the accord. We expect the Government to take deliberate steps to go beyond the current strategy of sending out letters and circulars in order to ensure clear understanding among the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland of the nature, purpose, potential and limitations of the agreement.
Exaggeration, either of hopes or fears, will be of no practical help to anyone. That will not impress the bullies or the bigots on either side of the sectarian divide. In any case, they are beyond communication. That still leaves a huge majority in both communities to be talked with and not talked at. There are opportunities for Parliament to communicate with the majorities in both communities, too.
We note that the Intergovernmental Conference shall be a vehicle through which initiatives regarding the wellbeing of Northern Ireland are being channelled. However, that should not obviate the role of the United Kingdom
758
Parliament also to come forward with its own initiatives—for instance, the initiative to put into effect the recommendations of the Baker report which was debated in the House last year concerning the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. In addition, we need not wait upon the Intergovernmental Conference before demanding a review of the procedures for strip searching at Armagh prison, to get prompt action on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland and secure an early repeal of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act 1954 that has long been sought by the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Conservative Members should be acquainted with the fact that too many people in Northern Ireland say with justification that democracy is what happens in Westminster after 10.30 pm. When we have the opportunity for a two-day debate on those matters, they can expect the debate to be exhaustive and comprehensive, covering matters that concern our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: We are exhausted now.
Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman should go to bed earlier.
The agreement of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland to give appropriate support to the development of a British-Irish interparliamentary body is worthy of further consideration, and we shall be seeking additional details from Ministers. In that area and in many others, there are obvious obligations for everyone in the House to demonstrate interest and commitment in communicating the opportunities that can arise from the agreement.
As a matter of policy and of commitment, the Labour party wants to see Ireland united by consent, and we are committed to working actively to secure that consent. However, that is not the reason for our action in approving the Hillsborough accord. We recognise that the priority is reconciliation in the communities of Northern Ireland and between the communities of Northern Ireland. It is that objective which brings our agreement.
I do not honestly know whether at some time in the future unity will come out of that reconciliation. That can be determined only by a majority which, in future decades, will probably have different components, be in different conditions and have different leadership. However, that peace will come only out of reconciliation and the normality and confidence that reconciliation brings. Further, any unity or development towards community between north and south will come only out of that peace. As an effort for that reconciliation and for that peace, the Labour party approves the agreement.
4.23 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: Since my departure from the Government 10 days ago I have made no public statement or comment. I wanted first to explain to the House the reasons for that departure.
My first encounter with Northern Ireland took place nearly 30 years ago. As a young subaltern I was stationed at Omagh in county Tyrone. It has been my good fortune to return to Ulster on many occasions since then, first as a soldier and then as a Member of this place. I have been proud to count unionist Members of this House as my friends.

759
It is nearly seven years since I spoke in a debate on Northern Ireland, from the Opposition Front Bench, with Airey Neave at my side. I speak today to show that it is not necessary to have a big mouth or a loud voice to care deeply about Ulster. I speak, too, as one who condemns violence in all its forms. I speak as a unionist who repudiates today and who will repudiate tomorrow, every kind—I repeat, every kind—of unlawful or unconstitutional action. Unlike others I do not impugn the motives of Her Majesty's Government. In particular, I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity and the sense of honour of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Those who fashioned the Anglo-Irish agreement, principally my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, said to themselves, "We are faced with a continuing tragedy in Northern Ireland." I say in passing that I regret that no Foreign Office Minister is taking part in the debate. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary also said to themselves, "Lives are being lost, innocent people are being maimed and injured, property is being destroyed, unemployment is higher and investment lower in Ulster than in any part of the kingdom. We must try to abate those evils. Things cannot go on as they are. We must make a new initiative. We must do something about Ulster."
For years, successive Governments and successive Secretaries of State have told the House that a particular initiative could not be pursued in Northern Ireland because it would be unacceptable to the minority. Note that in this part of the United Kingdom the Government take pride, in my view rightly, in pursuing policies that they believe have the support of the majority despite the objections of a minority.
However, I will be told that Northern Ireland is different from England. I will be told that in Northern Ireland one cannot proceed save with the broad assent of the minority. I do not necessarily subscribe to that argument but if it is valid, how is it possible to proceed now with a policy that may be broadly acceptable to a minority but that is totally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority, among whom is a significant number of Catholic unionists?
The Government believe that the majority ought to be well satisfied with the agreement and profess some surprise that it is not. Conor Cruise O'Brien puts it well in The Times today. He writes:
"But the political impact will not be determined by … theories about how people ought to feel, but by how people actually do feel. And the feeling, on both sides … is that the Catholics have won a significant step in the direction of a united Ireland."
In round figures, as the House knows, there are 1 million Protestants and half a million Roman Catholics in Ulster, but it is a grave over-simplification to equate religion with political allegiance. I do not ask the House to accept my word for that. It is not only my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) who is testimony to that truth. In the past few days I have received letters from Roman Catholic unionists who endorse that view. I have been authorised to quote from one. A doctor now working in Liverpool writes:
"As an Ulsterman—and incidentally a Catholic—who has always voted Conservative (and Ulster Unionist before I came to England) I can only say that I am absolutely appalled by the terms and implications of the Anglo-Irish agreement which gives a
760
foreign Government a say in the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom. There is not a shadow of doubt that the status of Northern Ireland has been changed without the consent of the majority of its people".
Nor is it only the so-called Protestant bigots—and there are Protestant bigots in Northern Ireland—who oppose the agreement. Again, with the authority of the writer of the letter, I wish to quote. I do so not because I need to rely on others to support the views that I hold, but because the views of decent people from Northern Ireland are tragically misunderstood or simply unknown in the House. This is the letter that I have been authorised to read:
"I am now living quietly in a bungalow with my two sisters … We are the ordinary 'silent' Unionists of Northern Ireland. Our days are filled with caring for our families and homes, and we do not have the time, or the inclination, to demonstrate at protest marches, or wave banners, or gather at meetings of hate. But we are British. And we are also bewildered, and hurt, and angry. How do we, the silent majority, effectively express our hurt and fear and protest at what is being done to us? Our politicians hurl abuse and anger, but I do not think that they gain sympathy that way. The ordinary quiet-living British people of Northern Ireland are totally united in their opposition to the Hillsborough agreement, and in their desire to remain British without condition, but can you tell me, please, if there is any possible way we can convey our wishes to those who are in Government over us and at the same time to gain understanding and support from the other citizens of the United Kingdom? I feel that the lack of understanding from those who do not live here, together with the feeling of helplessness at not knowing how to gain that understanding, is the hardest part to bear."
I have done as my correspondent asked. I have brought her fears to the attention of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. However, I want to repeat her crucial words:
"the lack of understanding from those who do not live here … is the hardest part to bear."
For many Members of the House, Northern Ireland is a faraway country of which we know little. Indeed, it may be that more Members of the House have visited the Republic than have visited Ulster. I hope that in the coming months more hon. Members will be able to visit the Province, not just to listen to soldiers and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, heroic though they are, but to listen to the views of ordinary people who often are equally heroic.
Following the signing of the agreement at Hillsborough on 15 November, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that she was a unionist and a loyalist. I shall never question her sincerity, but I have to say to my right hon. Friend that those words were received with incredulity by unionists in Northern Ireland. The Anglo-Irish agreement has been signed without understanding of the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It has been signed against a background that gives wholly disproportionate consideration to the views of the minority. Under the agreement, the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on political, security and legal matters, including the administration of justice. The Government who will put forward their views and proposals relating to Northern Ireland are the same Government from whose territory murderous assaults have been made on the innocent in the Province and to whose territory the guilty have returned and found too often a safe haven.
Article 2 of the constitution of the Irish Republic lays claim to the territory of the whole of the island of Ireland. One might have thought at least that if the Republic's Government were to be allowed—and in the most

761
solemn terms of an international treaty—to put forward proposals relating to political, security and legal matters, they would have agreed to remove article 2 from their constitution. The British Government claim that it is a major step forward for the Government of the Republic to have given formal acceptance of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. If that is so, why was article 2 not removed?
We are told that the agreement will mean more effective co-operation on security matters between the Republic and the United Kingdom. Is it really suggested that without the agreement such co-operation would have been less effective? All civilised Governments, with or without a formal agreement, should commit themselves unreservedly to the elimination of terrorism. If the Government of the Republic have been unable hitherto to be as effective in combating terrorism as we were entitled to expect, why are we so confident that they will be able to deliver now?
The Intergovernmental Conference will be composed of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and a Republic Minister, who, in effect, will be the Minister for Northern Ireland affairs. The two Ministers will be the joint chairmen. The Republic Minister, even though he has only a consultative role, will be perceived to be the representative of the minority community. Thus, for the first time, a Minister from a foreign country will be representing at official level citizens of this kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the arrangement in her speech. That arrangement leaves unionists with no comparable status. That arrangement will be damaging, and incalculably damaging, for those who are asserting the principle that unionists and nationalists are fellow citizens. Instead of reconciliation there will be further division.
Our fellow countrymen from Northern Ireland will perceive—and will not be wrong in perceiving—that the agreement would never have been signed unless there had been a prolonged campaign of violence. The agreement will be perceived as having been won as a result of violence. The Irish National Liberation Army and the Irish Republican Army will believe that their violence is succeeding. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment will perceive that they have been betrayed.
The new agreement is being trumpeted in Dublin mainly because the Irish Government will be able, in the most solemn terms, to
"put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland".
When those views and proposals are submitted to the United Kingdom Government, they will be made known in Dublin. When those views and proposals are accepted by Her Majesty's Government, Ulster will feel that the views of a foreign power are being given greater weight than the views of the majority in Northern Ireland. The Intergovernmental Conference will not be able to receive the views of the majority. The views of the minority will be expressed, not by the minority itself, but by the Government of a foreign power.
No Member of the House should criticise the agreement without putting forward an alternative policy. I remember the words of our manifesto at the 1979 general election. They were words in which I had a hand. The manifesto said:
762
"In the absence of devolved government we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of powers over local services."
Alas, following the assassination of Airey Neave, that policy was never implemented. It may be that he was assassinated because that was his policy. Successive Secretaries of State have abandoned that policy. Six years on, although there is still an absence of devolved government, there is still no
"one or more elected regional councils".
I approved of the policy set out in the 1979 manifesto.
I approved, too, of the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at a meeting organised by the Ulster Unionist Council in Belfast on 19 June 1978, when she said of the Conservative and Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party:
"Our two parties share one overriding common purpose: the maintenance and strengthening of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. we shall not consider any plans for the political future of this part of the United Kingdom which could result in the weakening of the union."
To my deep regret, the Anglo-Irish agreement is inconsistent with those words.
The Government assert, and continue to assert,
"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."
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to understand that, with this agreement, the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that there has been a change in status. I must tell the House that frankly, so do I.
We should implement the policy laid down in the 1979 manifesto. We should assert that those in Northern Ireland who aspire to a united Ireland will be respected. We should assert that Ulster Unionists are ready to achnowledge the place in Ulster of the Roman Catholic, whether unionist of republican, as in any other part of the kingdom, and that all men and women should be entitled to express their views, opinions and identities under a rule of law which would safeguard their rights. We should assert that the policy of the Government is to maintain and to strengthen the union.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
Mr. Gow: I shall not give way. The House has been patient and I have almost done.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in her place. I do not recommend resignation. It is every bit as painful as I had expected. No doubt the Prime Minister would face the departure of some of her colleagues with greater equanimity than that of others. I do not know into which category I fall. However, Ministers of State are of no importance. They come and go, and when they go their room is soon filled. Life goes on for the Department very much as before—although, following the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), to whom we send our congratulations and good wishes, no doubt very much better than before.
As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House know, for the departed Minister, tomorrow is very different from today. Only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and possibly not even she, understands how deep is my regret at my departure. But I have one consolation that is denied to all others the memory of the four years of the previous Parliament, when it was my privilege to

763
have tried to be of some help to the finest chief, the most resolute leader and the kindest friend that any Member of this House could hope to serve.
I disagree profoundly with the new policy on which the Government have embarked. I fear that this change of policy will prolong and not diminish Ulster's agony. With all my heart—it is quite a big heart—I pray that I am wrong.
4.43 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), not only because he has articulated, in a way that I could never attempt, the views of the rank and file citizens of Northern Ireland—unionists, nationalists, Protestants and Roman Catholics—but because he was a promising Minister who sacrificed a promising career because of his integrity. The fact that the hon. Member was intently listened to, even by those who disagree with him, proves that he is respected and admired for that integrity.
The House will have gathered that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be voting against the motion. However, I fully recognise that I have a duty and responsibility to explain plainly and sincerely why we shall take that course. We opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement because it will destroy any possibility of achieving peace, stability and reconciliation—three words that have found themselves by accident in the agreement's preamble. Those words have been repeated—I do not say this in a disrespectful way—rather aimlessly in the debate so far.
During my six years as leader of the Ulster Unionist party, my objective has been to achieve for all the people of Northern Ireland those prizes of peace, stability and reconciliation. As leader of the largest party in Northern Ireland I feel, as I have always felt, that I have a duty to lead. For any party leader, that means some political risk. I accepted those risks, because I had to consider—today I still have to consider—the young people to whom the Prime Minister referred when she spoke at Hillsborough on the day of the signing. The fact that I am nearer the finishing post than are those young people, makes that consideration all the more compelling.
With all that in mind, in April 1984 I endorsed the policy paper "The Way Forward". The main thrust of that paper was equal British rights for all British citizens. I shall read what I believe, and what the Prime Minister conceded in the aftermath of her statement a week ago, to be the key paragraph:
"The time is now ripe for both communities in Northern Ireland to realise that, essentially, their problems will have to be solved in Northern Ireland by their political representatives and that any future prospect for them and their children is best provided for within the Northern Ireland context. This will require a mutual recognition of each other's hopes and fears. Only rights can be guaranteed, not aspirations".
The next phrase is probably the most telling for an Ulster Unionist leader to use:
"but it is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs."
When a leader gives a positive lead, there is always criticism. All party leaders, great and small—I do not mean in stature but in the numbers of their Back-Bench Members—are criticised, and this case was no
764
exception. After much criticism, discussion and persuasion, the entire document was endorsed as party policy. However, although there was widespread interest from within the ranks of the minority, as well as the majority, there was little response from the elected representatives of the minority, except one good friend of mine who said, "You really terrified us with that phrase about convincing our people that the Province is also theirs. That would not suit us." The Leader of the Opposition said that it was a tragedy that we did not carry forward our thinking on that occasion more than 18 months ago. He said that it was a tragedy that there was not fuller debate on that document and on the considerable shift in principles set out in the document. To my great regret, those proposals for achieving peace, stability and reconciliation within the bounds of Northern Ireland have been snuffed out by the Anglo-Irish agreement, and that document must be regarded as so much waste paper.
I owe it to the House to explain why the agreement will bring not peace, but the sword. On the day when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) announced his decision to abolish Stormont, he justified his decision—he could be forgiven for putting forward that justification at such an early stage—on the grounds that it would end violence. However, as the IRA had demanded Stormont's removal, it naturally regarded the decision as the first payment of the Danegeld. The right hon. Gentleman did not intend it in that way, but I hope that he will accept my word for it that that was how it looked to the so-called army council of the IRA.
The Prime Minister, like many of us in humbler positions, is tempted, especially in times of stress, to use phrases produced by her advisers—to give them their polite title—and such may have been the origin of a sentence uttered by the Prime Minister in her address to journalists at the signing ceremony. The sentence made my blood run cold. To quote from the transcript, she said:
"I was not prepared to tolerate the situation of continuing violence."
That fatal sentence—I fear that it will literally be fatal for many—will convince the so-called army council of the IRA that, reinforced by the sweeping one-way concessions in the agreement, continued violence will extract the third and final payment of the Danegeld in the shape of an Ireland designed to their specifications, not the specifications of Dr. FitzGerald or even Mr. Haughey. Indeed, the IRA claimed credit for the concessions two weeks before the signing. At the Sinn Fein conference, the IRA spokesman, Martin McGuinness, declared that any concessions to violence in the coming agreement would be welcomed by the IRA as a surrender to the armed struggle.
Far from the prospect of peace, I fear that we must brace ourselves for a renewed onslaught from a terrorist movement convinced of victory. That movement is in no way worried about the possible weaning away of Catholic support, which will not reduce its capacity for murder. As General Grivas said, there is a handicap in having too many supporters. He reckoned—he knew what he was talking about—that the maximum number of murderers he needed at any time was about 150. The IRA cares nothing for the predicted drop in support for Sinn Fein in terms of the ballot box, which it regards as ancillary to what it calls its "cutting edge" of terror.
The second casualty of the agreement is stability, because stability depends on a known way. But how can there be a known way when there is no consent? During

765
the past 15 years, the only period of stability was that achieved by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). He achieved that stability by making it clear in the honest, forthright terms for which he is noted, what was not going to happen, and by making it equally clear, in words and in deeds, that he would stand no nonsense from any quarter. I must say—this may pain Conservative Members—that, ironically, Conservative Central Office accurately forecast the end of what I call Mason stability, in the daily notes to candidates dated 11 April 1979. It stated:
"The next government will come under considerable pressure to launch a new high-powered initiative on Northern Ireland with the object of establishing another power-sharing government in the province which would pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic."
We need not await the verdict of history to judge the accuracy of that forecast. For the past six years, we have seen a constant stream of foolish, failed initiatives, confusion and instability.
The third casualty of the agreement is reconciliation. Progress in that area is possible only if those who must be reconciled believe themselves to be secure. If Roman Catholics are meant to be assured by the agreement, why do so many of them say that they share my view? Why do so many of them tell me that they have conveyed their reservations to the Northern Ireland Office? I am in no position to confirm that; I depend upon their word. The answer is that they have never accepted—nor do they want—Dublin's protecting power stance. Far more significantly, they have made it clear that they do not wish to live in a cold war atmosphere created by this proposed regime for which the necessary consent simply does not exist.
Tallying with the impressive quotations by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the nightmare of Roman Catholics was expressed to me last Saturday by three young Roman Catholic constituents as they left the so-called loyalist rally—in reality a pro-union rally—at the city hall. They begged me to persuade the Prime Minister to think again and, as one of them put it, to
"beg her not to condemn us to spending the rest of our lives in an atmosphere of distrust and tension with our Protestant neighbours."
That was a very moving occasion for me.
That grim prospect has been publicly recognised by church representatives, authoritative newspaper editors, moderate organisations and individuals, and, most of all, by those who have worked so hard for reconciliation in Northern Ireland and are now depressed because all that they have achieved has been obliterated at a stroke.
I notice that newspapers such as The Sunday Times and The Observer criticised the Government's failure to reassure unionists. I understand—this was hinted at by the Leader of the Opposition—that the Northern Ireland Office is contemplating, at the expense of the taxpayer, providing copies of the agreement to every household. But the Secretary of State, who is observant, will know that the main newspapers in Northern Ireland have twice set out the full text of the agreement, unabridged and without journalistic comment. The people have read it for themselves, and the Government's difficulty is that the people understand what they have read. Perhaps the Government intend to circulate a publication placing a gloss on the agreement. Dublin will do likewise, but they will conflict. The statements are already conflicting. I fear that the second state will he worse than the first.
766
The Government have a credibility problem, created not by them but for them by the Dublin Government, who leaked the agreement four days before the signing and who circulated copies of it two days before the signing to foreign embassies and other institutions. That breach of good faith with Her Majesty's Government, not by the Government, placed Her Majesty's Ministers in a position where they had no alternative but to mislead. That is no accusation; I am trying to defend Ministers. In good faith, they had agreed with Dublin to maintain as late as the Thursday afternoon before the signing on the Friday that agreement had not yet been reached. It is not in a spirit of accusation but out of sympathy with Her Majesty's Ministers that I say that three Ministers of the utmost integrity were placed in such a position—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during Northern Ireland Question Time, the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time and the Leader of the House at Business Question Time. All were forced to use the phrase, "if an agreement is reached", when, thanks to the Dublin double-cross, the whole world knew that agreement had already been reached.
I should like to address a personal word to the Prime Minister. Millions of our fellow British citizens throughout this nation feel that the Prime Minister has a lasting contribution to make to the destiny of the nation, but if she is to fulfil their expectations she must retain her standing and authority. I am sure that the Prime Minister knows that she owes it to those people not to damage those assets by lending her name to statements which have no validity or veracity.
One of the Prime Minister's statements asserted that the status of Northern Ireland is unchanged. I accept that the territory is not to be transferred—or not yet at any rate—and technically it could be claimed that the final approval of legislation will rest with Parliament and the Crown. In reality, however, as all hon. Members know and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne clearly stated, the legislation will be formulated and agreed, because the agreement states:
"determined efforts shall be made through the Conference to resolve any differences."
In reality, therefore, Parliament and the Queen will give rubber stamp approval to legislation designed by a form of coalition with a foreign sovereign state.
As I said earlier in my comments about the Prime Minister's commanding position in the nation, my plea to the Prime Minister is not to allow anyone to continue to say in her name that the status of Northern Ireland is unchanged. I trust that she has already rebuked the subordinates who led her to claim that the agreement contains, to quote her own words,
"the most formal commitment to the principle of consent made by any Irish Government."—[Official Report, 18 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 19.]
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup pointed out that the same commitment was given by a previous Irish Government in the Sunningdale agreement o 1973—which was also registered as an international agreement at the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman will also confirm that an even earlier commitment was entered into by the Irish Government in 1925 and that that agreement was lodged at the League of Nations.
In the course of what I hope will be a constructive and well ordered debate—I am not casting any reflection

767
upon the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the responsibility lies with hon. Members—the House is entitled to ask what is new about that commitment or in Irish attitudes since 1925 and 1973.
The Prime Minister will not mind my saying that, over the years, she has sought my assessment of attitudes and feelings in Northern Ireland. In what may be my last contribution in the House, I am sure she will not object if I report to her in the presence of right hon. and hon. Members. I have to say honestly and truthfully that in 40 years in public life I have never known what I can only describe as a universal cold fury, which some of us have thus far managed to contain. I beg the Prime Minister not to misjudge the situation but to examine and assess the damage which will be done to the aims of peace, stability and reconciliation. Perhaps the leader of the Labour party and the leaders of the other opposition parties will not mind me saying to the Prime Minister that she will lose nothing in the eyes of the House or of the country if she decides to steer a safer course.
5.6 pm
Mr. James Prior: Taking part in this debate is bound to be a painful business for anyone who has served in Northern Ireland, as one is bound to have mixed emotions. Over a period, in Northern Ireland and among one's unionist friends on the Back Benches, one develops a great affection and respect for their views. I have come to respect the views of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and of other unionist Members.
I did not share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) three years ago when I tried to set up the Assembly, but recognise that my hon. Friend has always held very strong views in favour of the unionists. I have always considered my hon. Friend to be a romantic unionist. I do not believe that his idea for a regional council, included in the 1979 Tory party manifesto, was a runner in Northern Ireland, but I am sure that I speak for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when I say that if it had been a runner it would have been by far the easiest course to take. I do not believe, however, that at that time or at any time since the proposal would have commanded the support of the people of Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) was applauded by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, but I must tell him that there was no great peace in his day. He will accept that terrorism continued and stability was lacking. It is a myth to believe that there has been peace or stability in Northern Ireland in the last 14 or 15 years, because there has not.
More hon. Members are dominated by a feeling that if one is in politics and trying to make a contribution one must take some risks, because the risk of doing nothing does not necessarily solve the problem. Had the Government accepted the option of simply continuing without change, there would be no progress towards peace and stability and the agony of terrorism, the murders and the funerals would continue. Accusations that the Government and the defence forces are not sincere in trying to contain and destroy terrorism would also continue. I came to the conclusion that the risks of doing nothing were greater than the risks of trying to make
768
changes, given that any change in Northern Ireland would be bound to be resisted by one side or the other. We have seen some examples of that today.
We have heard, too, that the rundown of the economy, rising unemployment and the sheer weight of public expenditure are far greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and it is a very bad thing for any economy to be so dependent on public expenditure. All those things lead one to believe that efforts must be made to bring the community together so that terrorism can be isolated and perhaps in the long term greater peace and security provided. I use the phrase "in the long term" advisedly, because we know that in the next few weeks wicked people will seek to raise the temperature by murdering people to ensure that no settlement takes place. We all know that such people are to be found in the IRA. Therefore, things may well get worse before they get better.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: They may not get better.
Mr. Prior: That may be so—who can tell?—but it does not and should not stop us making a great effort to see what we can do.
The unionists are proud people with a great tradition and they have suffered enormously. The whole House should recognise that. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has said that the silent unionist majority are not understood. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and most people in the House understand that silent majority and the worries expressed by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley today. We know that the agreement offends their view of the constitution. We must also accept that, although it makes no difference to the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, in the eyes of the unionists it changes that status in Northern Ireland itself. Frankly, if it did not do so to some extent, there would be no chance of getting the minority community to accept it. We must accept that and understand why it raises problems for the unionists. We do them less than justice if we do not appreciate that.
I believe that, despite the fears of the unionists, there are great advantages for them. First, there is the reaffirmation of the binding international treaty. Secondly, the signing of the agreement on extradition for political offences is also important. Thirdly, if they can do a deal on devolution, the effect of the Intergovernmental Conference will be reduced. Fourthly, they should now press for more local government powers, to which they are entitled under these arrangements.
I hope that the nationalists, too, will do a deal on devolution, because it is also to their advantage to have government within Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland with less influence from the Republic and perhaps from the Government and Parliament in London. Secondly, the nationalists should now co-operate much more fully on security. We know that the vast majority of them abhor violence, but in the past they have not done enough to convince all the people, and especially the unionists, that they are really serious about security matters. I hope that names will now go forward to the police authority and to the other institutions in Northern Ireland engaged in security matters.
The nationalists should also convince the Government of the Republic that, as the agreement has been well

769
received in the Republic, it is time for the Republic to go a step further and renounce article 2 of its constitution. The Government of the Republic may have been surprised at the welcome given to the agreement, so they are now in a stronger position to take action in that respect.
I am sure that the British Government understand the mood of the unionists, and it is important that they should do so. Hard things will be said and done. Hard things are often said in Ulster because that is the way in which people express themselves, although only the more adventurous spirits do so while the others simply keep quiet.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown enormous courage. I do not know whether my support is a help or an embarrassment to her, but I assure her that I have nothing but praise for the part that she has played in these negotiations. She has made a very difficult decision. If she has taken some time to make up her mind about it, that is the more to her credit and shows her desire that the unionists should in no circumstances be excluded from the United Kingdom.
A genuine effort has been made to try to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. We cannot go on as we are. Neither the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley nor my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has put forward any convincing alternative. There is no other way but to take some chances in the interests of peace in Northern Ireland as a whole. All who have been working for reconciliation will wish to know that there is much greater understanding of the position of the unionists in Northern Ireland than they may have thought in the past, but at the same time we look to them to try to come to terms with people whom that have disliked—I put it no higher than that—for so long.
I believe that the unionists should trust my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the House. I beg unionist Members to reconsider their proposal to resign their seats. I believe that by trusting the House and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is a unionist, they will be able to achieve a more peaceful and prosperous life for their constituents and that the whole of Northern Ireland will benefit. Those of us who have lived in Northern Ireland but are English make no bones about the difficulty of understanding all the workings of the Irish mind. I know that the Irish do not trust us and that they object to much of what we do, but perhaps for once they will recognise that there is genuine respect for their point of view and a determination to try to make some slight progress in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom. If they can approach this issue in that way, the courage of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—which is echoed a thousand times over by the courage of unionists and others in Northern Ireland—will have some reward.
Some of my hon. Friends may have doubted my motives over the years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), for instance, may not always have thought that I was pursuing policies designed to achieve reconciliation or that I fully understood the views of the unionists. I believe that we should all unite under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at this difficult time, because, if we show unity and understanding here, that may have at least some effect on the people of Northern Ireland.
5.20 pm
Mr. David Alton: During the course of this debate it seems that we have been tilting at a number of imaginary windmills. Some speakers have referred to the breaking of the Union while others have talked about the creation of a united Ireland. It is quite clear to anyone who has taken the trouble to read the proposals that neither of these issues is contained within the agreement. Repeatedly arguments have ben put up to defeat issues that are not within the agreement.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist part, talked about the possibility of a high-powered initiative for federation which he said was in the 1979 briefing notes sent out by Conservative central office. I personally believe in confederation as an approach. Confederation would enable the Irish of the north who are Catholics to look towards Dublin, whilst the Irish of the north who are Protestants or unionists would look towards London. However, this agreement is no more about confederation than it is about breaking the Union or the creation of a united Ireland.
The agreement is a genuine attempt by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to break the straitjacket that has become Northern Ireland. The Hillsborough agreement represents the outcome of months of effort by politicians and civil servants who have made a genuine effort to reconcile the two traditions in Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I have had the privilege of spending time in Northern Ireland and the Republic, most recently as part of a Liberal-SDP commission under Lord Donaldson. In July, we published our report entitled "What future for Northern Ireland?" Many of the ideas promoted in that report are contained in the agreement. However, we would have gone further on issues such as the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier. I was pleased when the Prime Minister said earlier that it is something that the House and the Dail could consider further. A parliamentary tier would help to compliment those initiatives which have been taken in this agreement.
We recognise the Hillsborough agreement as an honest and brave attempt to wrench the initiative from the men of violence and to take a few, albeit faltering, steps away from the bigotry and hatred which have led to 2,500 deaths during the past 16 years, 24,000 injuries, and some £11 million-worth of damage in Ulster caused through acts of political violence. We welcome the initiative because it marks an important change in the attitude of the two Governments towards one another.
Some years ago the brave non-sectarian Alliance party in Northern Ireland said:
"positive development of Anglo-Irish relations could lead to the growth of mutual trust and respect in place of bitterness and recrimination which has bedevilled Anglo-Irish relations for too long."
Hillsborough is a step along that road.
This agreement is the bulwark against Sinn Fein. If it fails, it will give credence to the lie that violence alone can bring progress. It will lead to the enticement of more young men and women into violent organisation and violent actions. This agreement is a courageous step by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to challenge and defeat that lie.
Those who choose to distort and lie about the content of this agreement will be taking the side of violence to sustain their tribalistic and sectarian positions, deliberately

771
keeping alive divisions for their own selfish political ends. The Nobel peace prize winner, Solzhenitsyn, understood the nature of violence. He said:
"Violence can only be concealed by the lie. Anyone who has once proclaimed that violence is his method is inevitably forced to choose the lie as his guiding principle."
The way forward in Northern Ireland is through mutual respect, mutual forgiveness for past injuries and wounds and building up the common ground.
During the Donaldson commission inquiry, I visited the Maze prison where I met a young man, Liam McAnoy. That young man, brought up on the Falls Road, at the age of 18 joined the official IRA, and he committed a murder. He has since renounced violence and 12 years later I had the privilege to meet him. Since then we have corresponded.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke earlier about people who had written to him and who had genuine fears about what might happen in Northern Ireland. Liam McAnoy, who has been consigned to the Maze for an act which he bitterly and sincerely regrets, can now see what needs to be done in Northern Ireland if we are to avoid more bitterness and hatred. In a letter to me he says:
"Justice requires, just as peace demands, the pacific coexistence of both communities in mutual acceptance and respect and in equality of rights. Violence and talk of civil war makes the attainment of co-existence more difficult."
The creation of that justice requires the establishment of bodies such as the Intergovernmental Conference which must win the respect of the Protestant and Catholic communities alike. The founder of the Corrymeela Community, the right Reverend Dr. Ray Davey, in a sermon at Westminster abbey in March 1980, signalled the other prerequisites for peace in Northern Ireland. He said:
"Truth demands that we be willing to look at another's point of view when it is opposed to ours and to try to understand it."
Liberals believe that this requires a moderation which is the only hope of reconciliation.
In the spirit of trying to understand another point of view it is incumbent on all the people of Great Britain, especially the English people, to try to understand the fears and anxieties of the unionists. This agreement was made in secrecy, largely without consultation, without information and without consent. While Dublin—I make no complaint about this—kept the SDLP in the picture, the British Government chose not to involve the Northern Ireland parties in the Hillsborough process. Assemblyman John Cushnahan, the Alliance leader, whom I met here last Friday, told me that many people in Northern Ireland are gravely dissatisfied with the way the agreement was made. We agree with him. Their condition, which is a fair one, is that the secrecy must now end. At the minimum, agendas and conclusions reached by the Intergovernmental Conference must be published. If that does not happen, every matter pursued by the Secretary of State will be represented by some unionists as deriving from the Republic through the deliberations of the Intergovernmental Conference.
Unionists may be tempted to shout treachery and no surrender and to retreat behind historical images of the siege of Londonderry. The unionists claim to be law-abiding members of the Union. How will that square with the erection of shutters and barricades and the repudiation of an agreement endorsed by two democratically elected Parliaments? The remarks by the hon. Member for Upper
772
Bann (Mr. McCusker) were out of accord with the unionist tradition which has always pledged itself to constitutionality. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) said:
"The so-called loyalists in Northern Ireland must look again at their definition of loyalty, which means nothing if it does not include support for the authority of the Westminster Parliament. To threaten unconstitutional action even before Parliament has had a chance to debate the proposals will be the action of disloyalists and would only harden the belief of the British people that the unionists are quite incorrigible."
Mr. Molyneaux: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that at the rally on Saturday in Belfast, when passions were running somewhat high, the main cheer came for the portion of my speech when I said:
"Violence is no part of our campaign"?
I was speaking on behalf of my colleagues on this Bench and of my colleagues who represent the Democratic Unionist party.
Mr. Alton: I am glad to hear the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley say that. It is in complete sympathy with everything that I have heard him say in my six years here. I was distressed to hear the comments of one of his colleagues. I hope that we shall talk, as we have during this debate, about how Parliaments and elected Members can reconcile the two traditions. That is the only way to defeat the people who murder and maim to achieve their political objectives.
We appreciate the suffering of unionists, especially during the past 16 years. As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, they are a keen and proud people, but they should remember that we on this side of the water have also suffered. Many of our constituents who were members of Her Majesty's forces have been murdered in the Province. The financial burden has been heavy, and there has been a not inconsiderable loss of civil liberties in Britain because of the tragedy of Northern Ireland.
We in the United Kingdom do not regard the Republic as our enemy. There is a special relationship between us. Many millions of Irish people live and work in Britain and many thousands of British people live and work in Ireland. We are closely integrated. The unionists have a right to be upset by the triumphalism and the talk of victors and vanquished, of which some Catholic clergymen, alas, and politicians have been guilty.
As an English Catholic, I regret the continued intransigence of the Catholic Church on issues such as mixed and inter-Church marriages and integrated Christian education. Like the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), I regret that the SDLP has so far made no gesture to the unionist community about whether it will participate in the Assembly. I hope that the leader of the SDLP will be able to say something about that later.
Mr. John Hume: The hon. Gentleman should listen to me more often.
Mr. Alton: I listen regularly to the hon. Gentleman and admire much of what he stands for. The SDLP should now drop its veto on the Northern Ireland Assembly and commit itself to partnership in government in the North. It should also encourage more Catholics to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary. When I was in Northern Ireland earlier this year and met Sir John Hermon, I was intensely worried by the RUC's difficulty in encouraging more Roman Catholics to join, although there has been some improvement this year.

773
A MORI poll, conducted in 1981, showed that 70 per cent. of Protestants and 62 per cent. of Catholics would accept Northern Ireland remaining as part of the United Kingdom, but with its own Assembly and guarantees for Catholics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) earlier this year said:
"What is needed is a partnership at the level of a devolved government".
If the Government use the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act 1973 as a framework for devolving power, the guarantees that the Catholic community in the North should be able to expect would be missing. I hope that the Secretary of State will be clearer about the power-sharing proposals and that the SDLP's lingering doubts will be removed. Partnership in government is the best way to remove the alienation of the north's Catholics—of finally extinguishing the Bunsen burner that has kept the cauldron smouldering.
Those of us who heard Noel Dorr, the Irish ambassador in London, speak here last night will have noted that he stressed the alienation of the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland. The agreement is about removing that alienation. That is why it is worthy of support.
For unionists, the incentive for being involved in such a partnership is that it will reduce the influence held by Dublin. If political leaders refuse to provide their people with the leadership that they are entitled to expect, the people must be prepared to change those leaders, whether they be unionist or nationalist. The Government should ensure that a copy of the agreement is sent to every household in Northern Ireland. It is not good enough to be told that it has appeared in some Belfast newspapers. If unionist politicians now try to wreck the agreement by forcing by-elections—and I desperately hope that they will reconsider such action—the Government should be prepared to consider holding those elections under a system of proportional representation, as currently applies to local government, Assembly and European Parliament elections. That would turn the elections into a far more convincing test of public opinion and enable the Government to reach over the heads of sectarian leaders.
There is something in the agreement for everyone. For unionists, there is a double guarantee of their right to self-determination within the Six Counties. There is an acceptance of their identity by Dublin and an acceptance that it will be registered publicly at the United Nations. There is to be no Executive rule and no joint authority, both of which are anathema to unionists. There is also the Republic's commitment to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. There is the promise of better cross-border co-operation and improved security—progress on extradition and trials in another jurisdiction.
For nationalists, there is a recognition of their identity, respect for their democratic aspirations and for their symbols, culture, sports and repeal of offensive legislation such as the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act 1954. There is a chance to be partners in government and of parity of esteem and equality of opportunity.
For all, there is an opportunity of better human rights for individuals and groups and a framework for greater cooperation between our two countries. There is the opportunity for more common services to be developed and the chance in the longer term of parliamentary cooperation and a permanent body to oversee the
774
Intergovernmental Conference. There really is something in this agreement for everyone, and I hope that moderate Unionist politicians will re-examine it in that light.
The alliance report, which we published in July, said:
"the status quo in Northern Ireland is not an option."
That view has been echoed time and again today. The Irish and British Governments have acted boldly in an attempt to shift the status quo. They deserve broad support. Perhaps a small window has opened in Northern Ireland. If men and women of ill will now slam it shut, the violence and despair that will inevitably follow will be upon their heads.
5.36 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: This debate provides a unique occasion for Ulster Unionist representatives, because it is not often that a man gets the opportunity to deliver the oration at his own funeral. When the Prime Minister signed the agreement in Hillsborough castle, she was in reality drafting the obituary of Ulster as we know it in the United Kingdom.
It is important for the House to understand why Ulster Unionists came to that conclusion. We did not reach that conclusion simply because of one document that arrived on 15 November. A long series of events led to that occasion. I am old enough to remember when, in 1969, the Labour Government issued the Downing street declaration, which said:
"the affairs of Northern Ireland are entirely a matter of domestic jurisdiction."
I can recall how our Prime Minister, on 8 December
1980 when in Dublin castle, signed a communiqué with Charles J. Haughey which altered that stance, because the communiqué said that
"the totality of relations within these islands"
was now a fit subject for discussion between the two Governments. From that moment we had the outworking of the "unique relations" between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. We had joint studies, cross-border co-operation and then the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council, the purpose of which was
"to provide the overall framework for intergovernmental consultation … on all matters of common interest and concern"—
wait for it—
"with particular reference to the achievement of peace, reconciliation and stability and the improvement of relations".
At that stage, the council had a responsibility to deal with matters of mutual interest and concern. We have moved from that to a new status which, under this institution, is to give the Republic of Ireland—a foreign Government—a direct role in the government of Northern Ireland.
It does not end there, because the agreement announced at Hillsborough castle is but the tip of the iceberg. I know that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and others have been careful to say that there is no other agreement. But, then, we were told that there was no agreement right up until it was signed at Hillsborough castle. Indeed, some weeks in advance of 15 November, the deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic had already had a document printed which he sent to every member of his party. It indicated the full text of the agreement. Incidentally, he said that that agreement was signed by
"the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister of Great Britain."
It represents quite a change in our status when the deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic recognises that Northern Ireland is not to be one of our Prime Minister's responsibilities.

775
The document says that the task upon which the conference will embark involves trying to achieve an agreement with our Government on matters such as parades and processions, and putting the UDR out of business. It implies—although we have not yet been told—that the meeting of Ministers will take place in Belfast. It is clearly a framework for further agreements. What other reason could there be for a front cover entitled, "The Republic of Ireland No. 1 Agreement."?
I notice that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is in the Chamber. He has at least been honest with the people of Northern Ireland in saying that the agreement is a process. In the Irish News—where else?—he said that it was "a first step." The next day he said that there were to be "progressive stages." Those who had any doubt about where they were to lead were told by him on RTE:
"We are not waiting for Irish unity. We are working for it."
I accept that there is no harm in the hon. Gentleman wanting to work towards that goal, but I wish to ensure that the unionist community in Northern Ireland knows what he and the Republic are working towards. It is clear that this process is intended to take us out of the United Kingdom. Yet the people of Northern Ireland have democratically expressed their wish to stay within it. The agreement is intended to trundle Northern Ireland into a all-Ireland Republic.
The unionist community in Northern Ireland has identified this process. It is not an end in itself, and was never intended to be. It is one step towards a united Ireland. Indeed, the Prime Minister has excused the deal by saying that its laudable aim is to achieve peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation. That is my aim too. Like some other hon. Members, I live in Northern Ireland. Our stake and investment are in the Northern Ireland community and, most importantly, our families and constituents live there. It is in our interests to have peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation. If I felt that they were achievable I would grasp them with a heart and a hand, but not outside the union. That would be too high a price to pay.
The document reminds me of another piece of paper waved by a former Prime Minister. In many ways the words are too similar. That Prime Minister's words were "Peace in our time". Under this agreement, peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation are not achievable. How can they be achieved by alienating the majority of people in Northern Ireland? It was never intended that there should be peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation as a result of this agreement. After all, if that had been the intention, the Government would have wanted, above all, to take the elected representatives of the majority community in Northern Ireland along with them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robinson: This may be my last opportunity to address the House. The first time I did so, it was without interruption. I trust that I will be able to speak without interruption today.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robinson: If the document has been intended to do us good, the Prime Minister would have been only too
776
willing to allow the unionist community to be consulted. She would have been only too pleased to take it along with her and to ensure that the representatives of the unionist people in Northern Ireland could have some input to the discussions.
The Government of the Irish Republic were only too happy to give the hon. Member for Foyle that facility. The Government of the Irish Republic and this Government briefed people all over the world. The Government of the Irish Republic briefed the Secretary of State to the Vatican. The President of the United States was briefed, as were the United Nations and the European Community. But those who were to be affected by the deal were kept in the dark.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robinson: I do not intend to give way during my speech. The hon. Gentleman can ask me to give way as much as he likes, but I do not intend to be interrupted by giving way.
I ask the Government to scrap this one-sided, anti-unionist deal and to involve unionists in the process of obtaining peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation in Northern Ireland. As I have said, we would participate with a heart and a half. More than many, I recognise that it is not my duty simply to say, "No, we will not have it." It is my duty and that of other Unionist representatives to say what can be done in a positive way in Northern Ireland. Before the debate ends, I hope that I shall have had the opportunity to do that.
I want to point out what unionists have done, and are prepared to do within the union.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the very nature of the House. I understand that, other than for major speeches and ministerial statements, the House is a place in which hon. Members' views can, within reason, be scrutinised. Some hon. Members complain that they are misunderstood and that we, on this side of the water, do not fully comprehend this or that. However, if we cannot ask questions of clarification, how can we be expected to understand them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With his long experience of the House, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is for the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.
Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) knows very well that I have given way to him and many other hon. Members before. But because of the uniqueness of the occasion, I do not intend to do so today. I have a message that I want to leave with the House before I walk out through those doors, and I do not intend to be diverted by any hon. Member.
I call upon the Government to consult and not to confront the unionist community. Unionists have been positive. The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who laid the Assembly legislation before the House knows very well that it was the unionist community in Northern Ireland that went into the Assembly and that co-operated with the Government. It was the hon. Member for Foyle and his party who stayed outside and withdrew their consent. Is it the reward for those who co-operate

777
with the Government that an agreement that is ultimately to their destruction should be foisted upon them to the benefit of the hon. Member for Foyle and his party?
The Northern Ireland unionist parties—the Ulster Unionist party with its document, "The Way Forward" and the Democratic Unionist party with its document, "Ulster—the Future Assured"—put forward positive proposals for peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation in Northern Ireland.
Even in the Northern Ireland Assembly, with the help of the conciliator, Sir Frederick Catherwood, the parties sat down and reached agreement on a framework that the Government could use in negotiations with the political parties—not only the Unionist parties but the Alliance party. We have been positive in Northern Ireland.
I say again that we are prepared to remain positive within the United Kingdom. We are prepared to allow the Prime Minister to engage unionists in constructive politics, and if the Prime Minister wishes to call my bluff, I should be only too happy. Do not confront us and put us out of the union with this deal.
The willingness of the unionist community to seek an agreement is undeterred. If the Government want peace and stability in Ulster, I ask them where that can best be achieved? There seems to be a new rule in British politics—if there is a dispute within a house, the way to solve it is to reach an agreement with the two neighbours. It is even more strange when the agreement reached between the two neighbours gives aid and succour to one of the parties to the dispute.
If the Government want peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation in Northern Ireland, they must recognise that that can be achieved only by the politicians|—the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland—reaching agreement. They cannot impose reconciliation; they cannot impose peace and stability and they certainly cannot impose such an agreement which strikes at the fundamental principle in which the majority in Northern Ireland believe, and that is the union. That is the strangest of British strategies.
Does the agreement measure up to the Government's test for the sort of proposal that would be acceptable? The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland brought the 1982 Act before the House on the basis of
"widespread acceptance throughout the community."
He argued passionately that there had to be "cross-community support." Throughout the years there have been homilies from politicians of one party or another about the necessity for consent in Northern Ireland. They told us that Northern Ireland could not be governed without the consent of the minority.
If that is true, I have to tell the Government that they can never govern Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority. Do they have that consent? Have they tried to access whether there is such consent? Will they test whether there is consent? The people of Northern Ireland have the right and entitlement to be consulted about their constitutional future.
Our citizenship of the United Kingdom does not allow the Government to do whatsoever they may wish with Northern Ireland. Our citizenship of the United Kingdom must be on the same basis as applies in any other part of the United Kingdom. If, for whatever reason—be it good or ill—the Government decide that Northern Ireland must be treated differently from the remainder of
778
the United Kingdom, that can be done only if there is consent, and the consent not only of the Government and Parliament, but of the people of Northern Ireland.
It was that principle, enunciated in the House, that resulted in the referendums for Wales and Scotland. Have not the people of Ulster the same right to be consulted as the people of Wales and Scotland? Do they not have the same right to give their approval to any deal that, ultimately, will affect their future and the way that they are governed? I believe that they have that right and that they should be given it. If this House is not prepared to give them that right, it is incumbent upon the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to give them that right.
Right hon. and hon. Members criticise me, but I ask them how they would like it if the agreement affected their constituencies—if the governance of their people was not directly by this House, but by a structure that allowed a foreign power, at its own behest, to make challenges and to request consultation. The agreement goes even further than that and requires that
"a determined effort is made to resolve the differences"
between the two Governments. I doubt whether many right hon. and hon. Members would want that for themselves or their constituents.
The agreement is not merely consultative. The House should not pass this measure believing that it is only a talking shop, in which the Irish Republic can make comments. It is much more than that. I am sure that the Prime Minister will not mind if I divulge certain comments made during our meeting yesterday, when we put the point about consultation to her on two occasions. On the first occasion, she was about to speak when the question was answered by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I asked whether only a consultative role was involved or whether it was more than that. He said, "It is not executive." On the second occasion, the Prime Minister said, "It is what it is in this agreement."
What do those who have been more candid say about the agreement? The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic says:
"it is more than consultation".
The deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic says:
"the agreement goes beyond the right to consult."
John F. O'Conner, the dean of the faculty of law at UCC, said:
"Whatever the eventual political results, the legal result of the new agreement is that Northern Ireland has now become subject to a status in international law which has no real parallels elsewhere. It never was, nor has it become, a separate entity in international law. It is not a condominium. It is a province of the United Kingdom which for the first time has become subject to the legal right of two sovereign governments to determine how all matters which go to the heart of sovereignty in that area shall in future be determined."
It is not only the unionists—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like what the dean of the faculty of law said, but if they want to dispute it, they had better do so with him.
It is not only the unionists who believe that the deal is unfair to the unionist community in Northern Ireland. Senator Mary Robinson of the Irish Republic—no relation of mine, I assure the House—rejected the agreement because it went too far. She said:
"This is absolutely the most serious moment in the political development of this island since we gained independence."
That lady is no unionist—she was one of the signatories to the Forum report. Yet even she says that the agreement goes too far.

779
The Belfast Telegraph, never a close friend of the unionist community, said:
"Even those who, like this newspaper, can see benefit flowing from closer consultation with Dublin, must draw the line at such institutionalised links between the two countries."
I say again that it is not only the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists who believe that the deal goes too far. The ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland, never previously involved in politics, were present at the mass demonstration at the city hall in Belfast.
I was born a free citizen of the United Kingdom. I was brought up to respect the Union flag. At my father's knee I was taught the love that I should have for the monarchy, and throughout my life I have put that into practice. I was nurtured on the principle of the greatness of our British heritage. I have taught all that to my children. I now have to tell this House that over the last 17 cruel years, when Ulster has been confronted by a vicious campaign of terrorism, not one of the unionist community was prepared to allow that campaign to shatter his loyalty to the United Kingdom.
It is not a one-way street. It never has been for Ulster. We cheered with this country during the Falklands campaign. Ulster suffered its losses just as many did on this side of the Irish sea. During the second world war, we made sacrifices, just as many people in this part of the United Kingdom, and we did it without conscription. During the first world war, Ulster gave of its best for Britain. After watching the Ulster Volunteers on the Somme when 5,000 Ulstermen lost their lives at the enemy's hand, a great British general—General Spender—said, "I am not an Ulsterman but there is no one in the world whom I would rather be after seeng the Ulster Volunteers in action." In peace and in war Ulster stood by the kingdom. That has been the way of loyal Ulster.
I never believed that I would see a British Government who were prepared to damage Ulster's position in the United Kingdom. Our resolve has been hardened by the bitter times in past years when a terrorist campaign was aimed at undermining our position in the United Kingdom. There would never have been a Hillsborough castle agreement if the IRA had not been bombing and shooting. That is a fact of life. Can one blame the people of Northern Ireland for thinking that violence works? It makes the task harder for those of us who chose the way of constitutional politics to tell people not to involve themselves in violence.
I wish that the House had a sense of the deep feeling of anger and betrayal in Northern Ireland. Yesterday, while I was waiting in an ante-room in No. 10 Downing street before meeting the Prime Minister I saw on the wall a portrait of Rudyard Kipling, who was a great patriot. I recall the words of his poem "Ulster 1912", which begins:
"The dark eleventh hour
Draws on and sees us sold
To every evil power
We fought against of old."
Later, it states:
"The blood our fathers split,
Our love, our toils, our pains,
Are counted us for guilt,
And only bind our chains.
Before an Empire's eyes
The traitor claims his price.
What need of further lies?
We are the sacrifice."
6.3 pm
Mr. John Hume: Listening to some of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate one could have been forgiven for thinking that we were not discussing a serious problem, but, after listening to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), one should not be in any doubt that we are discussing a serious problem.
I was glad to see a full House at the beginning of the debate. That is the first achievement of the Anglo-Irish conference. It shows that the serious human problem facing the peoples of these islands has at last been given the priority that it deserves. It has been put at the centre of the stage.
I was glad also that a meeting took place at the highest level between the British and the Irish Governments at which a framework for ongoing discussion was set up. In an excellent unionist speech, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) told us what we already knew—that he was a committed unionist and that he did not particularly like to associate with the loud-mouthed persons with whom I have to live. We did not learn from him of the problem in Northern Ireland—that we have a deeply divided society. The hon. Gentleman did not bother to analyse why we have a deeply divided society and the political instability and violence which the agreement seeks to address.
This is the first time that we have had a real framework within which to address the problem. The problem is not just about relationships with Northern Ireland. One need only listen to the speeches of Northern Ireland Members to know that it is about relationships in Ireland and between Ireland and Britain. Those interlocking relationships should be addressed within the framework of the problem. The framework of the problem can only be the framework of the solution, and that is the British-Irish framework. There is no road towards a solution to this problem that does not contain risks. The road that has been chosen by both Governments is the road of maximum consensus and is, therefore, the road of minimum risk. We should welcome that.
Our community has just gone through 15 years of the most serious violence that it has ever seen. Northern Ireland has a population of 1·5 million people. About 2,500 people have lost their lives in political violence—the equivalent of 86,000 people in Britain. Twenty thousand people have been seriously maimed. When I say "maimed", I mean maimed. That is the equivalent of 750,000 people on this island. About £11 billion-worth of damage has been caused to the economies of Ireland—North and South. In 1969, public expenditure by the British Government in subsidy, subvention or whatever one calls it was £74 million; today it is £1·5 billion. Two new prisons have been built and a third is about to be opened—our only growth industry. There are 18-year-olds who have known nothing but violence and armed soldiers on their streets. Young people reach 18 and then face the highest unemployment we have ever had. Forty-four per cent. of the population is under 25.
If that is not a time bomb for the future, what is? If that is not a problem that needs the serious attention of the House and the serious attention that the Prime Ministers of Britain and of the Republic of Ireland have given it in the past 18 months, what is? Is this not a subject that screams out for political leaders in Northern Ireland to take a good look at themselves, their parties and the leadership

781
that they have given? There is only one clear-cut lesson to be learnt from this tragedy—that our past attitudes have brought us where we are. Unless we agree to take a hard look at our past attitudes, we shall be going nowhere fast and we shall be committing ourselves to the dustbin of history, clutching our respective flagpoles.
We are being given some choices. The agreement gives us no more than an opportunity to begin the process of reconciliation. The choices offered to the people of Northern Ireland are the choices offered by hon. Members here present. The unionist parties have consistently sought to protect the integrity of their heritage in Ireland—the Protestant heritage—and no one should quarrel with that. A society is richer for its diversity. My quarrel with the unionist parties has been that they have sought to protect their heritage by holding all the power in their own hands and by basing that on sectarian solidarity. That is an exclusive use of power which is inherently violent because it permanently excludes a substantial section of the community from any say in its affairs.
That was spelt out clearly by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) when he said that he offered an act of leadership. He was sincere. He said that the majority should assure the minority that they would be made part of society. He tells me that it is an act of leadership to make me and the people I represent part of our society 65 years after Northern Ireland was created.
We have been lectured about democracy and the democratic process by hon. Members from both unionist parties. They are practitioners of the democratic process. I do not want to spend too much time on examples of their practice, but they were the masters of gerrymander. Today their voices are somewhat muted, but they have not changed much.
In Belfast city council not one position on any board has gone to a minority representative. One council has even apologised to the electorate because it made a mistake in appointing a member of the SDLP to one position out of 105.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is complaining because his party cannot win elections. Many people here have to face the fact that their party cannot win elections. It is a fact of life, but it is not a reason for power sharing.
Mr. Hume: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's intervention might be intelligent. I shall not lecture him on how Northern Ireland was set up, how it was deliberately created and how from day one it has been run on a sectarian basis. The only way to break that down is through partnership.
Hon. Members from both unionist parties have lectured us about democracy. That brings us to the heart of the Irish problem. The sovereignty of this Parliament is the basis of the British system and of the rule of law. The sovereignty of Parliament has been defied only twice in this century—on both occasions by Ulster Unionists.
In 1912 the Ulster Unionists defied the sovereign wish of Parliament to grant home rule. That was only devolution within the United Kingdom. They objected and accepted instead home rule for themselves. That taught them a lesson which they have never forgotten—that if one threatens a British Government or British Parliament and produces crowds in the streets from the Orange lodges the British will back down. Others learnt from that that if
782
one wins by the democratic process the British will back down to their loyalist friends and then they say, "Why not use force instead?" Those two forces are still at the heart of preventing a development in relationships within Ireland. Those who threaten violence are those who use it. The same two forces are opposing the agreement today.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in 1969 he brought on to the streets of Ulster the hordes who, when he left them alone, fell into the hands of violent men? The hon. Gentleman says that he is not allowed to share responsibility in Northern Ireland, but as I have told him before the SDLP refused to put their names forward for positions within the council of which I am a member and tried to nominate Sinn Fein members instead. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will apply his mind to that.
Mr. Hume: I am applying my mind to the record of the unionist parties, the members of which have spoken today. I shall apply my mind to my own party later. I am expecting everyone to do a little rethinking.
The logic of the road down which the unionist leadership is taking its people is inescapable. Unionists once again are prepared to defy the sovereign will of this Parliament. When they come back after their elections and Parliament says that it refuses to back down, what will they do? Where will that lead us? They are going down the UDI road. That is their logic. They say that they are loyal to the United Kingdom. They are the loyalists and they must accept the sovereignty of Her Majesty's Parliament. But they do not.
What would happen if London Members resigned, were re-elected and returned saying that the majority in Greater London wanted to keep the Greater London council? That would lead to a complete breakdown of parliamentary sovereignty. That is where the unionists are leading us and they must know it.
It is sad in 1985 to meet people who are suspicious of everybody. They are suspicious of London, suspicious of Dublin and suspicious of the rest of the world. Worst of all, they are suspicious of the people with whom they share a little piece of land—theirneighbours. It is sad that they never talk of the future except with fear. They talk always of the past. Their thoughts are encapsulated in that marvellous couplet
"To hell with the future and Long live the past.
May God in his mercy look down on Belfast."
That is more relevant than the words of Rudyard Kipling.
There has to be a better way. However grand we think we are, we are a small community. We cannot for ever live apart. Those sentiments were expressed in 1938 by Lord Craigavon, one of their own respected leaders. What are we sentencing our people to if we continue to live apart? People are entitled to live apart, but they are not entitled to ask everyone else to pay for it.
The other opposition to the agreement comes from the Provisional IRA and its political surrogates. They murder fellow Irishmen in the name of Irish unity. They murder members of the UDR and RUC—fellow Irishmen. Those members see themselves as protectors of their heritage, but the Provisional IRA brutally murders UDR and RUC members in the name of uniting the Irish people, the heritage with which we must unite if we are ever to unite Ireland.
The IRA's political wing is full of contradictions. I hope that no one in the House has any sympathy with it.

783
Its members blow up factories, yet complain about unemployment. Its political spokesmen complain about cuts in public expenditure and in the same evening the military wing blows up £2 million of public expenditure in one street. A motion rightly condemns the execution of a young South African poet, but the IRA then shoots in the back of the head a young unemployed man and puts bullets in the head of a young man and his wife in west Belfast. The IRA complains about Diplock courts, yet runs kangaroo courts. What does that offer Ireland?
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asks about Irish unity. In the late 20th century it is nonsense that there should be divisions. If European nations which twice in this century alone have slaughtered one another by the millions can build institutions that allow them to grow together at their own speed, why cannot we do the same? He quoted me in an interview as saying that I was working for Irish unity, but I went on to say that those who think that Irish unity is round the corner are wired to the moon.
The divisions in Ireland go back well beyond partition. Centuries ago the leaders of Irish republicanism said that they wanted to unite Ireland by replacing the name of "Catholic-Protestant dissenter" with the common name of "Irishman". That was in 1795. Thirty years before partition Parnell said that Ireland could never be united or have its freedom until the fears of the Protestant minority in Ireland could be conciliated. This is a deep problem. It will not be solved in a week or in a fortnight. The agreement says that if Ireland is ever to be united it will be united only if those who want it to be united can persuade those who do not want it to be united. Sovereignty has nothing to do with maps but everything to do with people.
The people of Ireland are divided on sovereignty. They will be united only by a process of reconciliation in which both traditions in Ireland can take part and agree. If that happens, it will lead to the only unity that matters—a unity that accepts that the essence of unity is the acceptance of diversity.
Our third choice is the agreement. For the first time it sets up a framework that addresses the problem of the interlocking relationships between the people of both Irelands. It is the approach of maximum consensus. It is the way of minimum risk. For the first time—this is a positive element in the agreement—it respects the equal validity of both traditions. That is what the right hon. and hon. Members of the Unionist party are complaining about. It is not a concession to me or to the people whom I represent. It is an absolute right to the legitimate expression of our identity and of the people I represent. Nobody can take that from us. The recognition of the equal validity of both traditions removes for the first time every excuse for the use of violence by anybody in Ireland to achieve his objective. A framework for genuine reconciliation is provided. Both sections of our community can take part in it.
Several hon. Members have said that the SDLP has a double veto on devolution. I have already said several times to them in public, but let me say it again so that they may hear it, that I believe in the partnership between the different sections of the community in Northern Ireland. That is the best way to reconcile our differences. By working together to build our community we shall
784
diminish the prejudices that divide us. The agreement means that I am prepared to sit down now and determine how we shall administer the affairs of Northern Ireland in a manner that is acceptable to both traditions.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hume: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I noticed that the right hon. and hon. Members of the Unionist parties were allowed to speak without interruption. When they were interrupted, they did not agree to give way.
The second question that appears to excite people about my party's attitude relates to the security forces and to policing in Northern Ireland. Our position—this is not a policy but a statement of fact that applies to every democratic society—is that law and order are based upon political consensus. Where political consensus is absent there is an Achilles heel. Violent men in Northern Ireland take advantage of that Achilles heel. For the first time the Intergovernmental Conference will address that question. It has committed itself to addressing that question. It has also committed itself to addressing the relationship between the community and the security forces. I want to give every encouragement to the conference to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. If it does so, it will have our fullest co-operation. I want the people whom I represent to play the fullest possible part, as do any citizens in a democratic society, in the process of peace and order. While we await the outcome we shall continue to give our full and unqualified support to the police force in impartially seeking out anybody who commits a crime in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has a position to state in this argument. I may not happen to agree with him, but just as it was wrong—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised this point of order before. He knows that it is at the discretion of the hon. Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way.
Mr. Hume: What is the alternative to the process of reconciliation and the breaking down of barriers? Why should anybody be afraid of the process of reconciliation? Anybody who is afraid has no confidence in himself or herself. It means that they cannot engage in a process of reconciliation. If they cannot retain mutual respect for their own position as well as for that of somebody else, they have no self-confidence. Therefore, they should not be representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. The only alternative is the old one of hopelessness, tit-for-tat, revenge—the old doctrine of an eye for an eye which has left everybody blind in Northern Ireland.
This is well summed up by a better poet than Kipling, the good, honest voice of the North, Louis MacNeice. Describing the old hopelessness, which is what we are being offered by those who will not take this opportunity, he said:
"Why should I want to go back
To you, Ireland, my Ireland?
The blots on the page are so black
That they cannot be covered with shamrock.
I hate your grandiose airs,
Your sob-stuff, your laugh and your swagger,
Your assumption that everyone cares
Who is the king of your castle.

785
Castles are out of date.
The tide flows round the children's sandy fancy,
Put up what flag you like, it is too late
To save your soul with bunting."
It is far too late for the people of Northern Ireland to save their souls with bunting or with flag waving. We should note that the followers of those who wave flags as though they were the upholders of the standards of those flags paint their colours on kerbstones for people to walk over. In other words, there is no leadership and no integrity in that approach and no respect. The alternative that we are offered is an opportunity which, like others, may fail. It poses great challenges and risks. The challenges are daunting and difficult, but the choices are not. There is no other choice. There is no other road.
6.28 pm
Mr. Adam Butler: I do not have in my voice today the power of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but I hope that I can emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Even if I speak quietly, I hope that I can speak as much sense as he did. So far, there have been three contributions from those who represent different parties in Northern Ireland. They make me believe that I was right the other night to vote for the televising of the proceedings of this Chamber. If the television cameras had been here, the viewers, whether in Northern Ireland or in the remainder of the United Kingdom, would have obtained a much better appreciation of the problem and of the advocates of the various points of view.
I served as a Northern Ireland Minister for nearly four years. Since then I have had the opportunity for reflection. Perhaps my views are now a little more objective than they were then. Whatever my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) said, although there was mistrust of English Ministers when we first appeared, I hope that I and my colleagues and friends who served with me in Northern Ireland left the impression that we were seeking to do our bit and to make our contribution to the resolution of the problems of Northern Ireland. I know that my right hon. Friend did that.
I have already expressed my view, on the occasion of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. It is one of general welcome for the agreement. However, I cannot say that I like it, or necessarily welcome one of its fundamental points. Why should I, as a British citizen, automatically like and welcome the fact that advice can come from a Minister of a Government of a foreign state? That is the technical position of the Republic of Ireland, whatever history tells us.
However, I accept the agreement, for a reason that lies in what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said. This is where I fall out with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and others who have spoken. This point is probably the fundamental point at issue in the Northern Ireland problem. Are we talking about a democratic system, or part of a democratic system, where a simple majority should hold sway regardless, where first-past-the-post should rule and 50 per cent. plus should win the day? If so, life would be easy, but Stormont tried that for 50 years.
I believe the reason to be that stated by the hon. Member for Foyle, and that is the difference within Northern Ireland between the two communities. There is
786
a division now that has been made worse by recent history. I do not need to lecture hon. Members about the position in Northern Ireland. However, one has to recognise certain basic facts. Two thirds, or less now, of the population are fundamentally unionists and loyalists, looking to London and Westminster, while the remainder of the population, on the whole, are nationalists, some republicans and nearly all Roman Catholic with a distinctive regard for the South and the Republic. It is with that that we have to concern ourselves, and that is what the agreement seeks to recognise.
It is no good saying to the people in the minority that, as they are in a minority in part of the United Kingdom, they must think like us, become totally British and prefer the Union flag, not the tricolour. Those people found themselves, because of a stroke of history, north of the border, thanks to the Boundary Commission of that time.
Mr. Harold McCusker: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that a simple majority rule is not appropriate in Northern Ireland—I can understand arguments along those lines—why should I accept, through article 1 of the agreement, that a simple majority should take me out of my citizenship of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland?
Mr. Butler: That point is somewhere among my notes to be dealt with later. If, by some magic, there were a 51 per cent. majority today, the position would be just as bad in terms of divided communities. The fact is that a majority in favour of leaving the United Kingdom—if such a situation should ever arise—is many years away. It is important to grasp this point because it is no good the Republic of Ireland saying that it has only to wait a little while longer, or for the minority in Northern Ireland to say that it has only to wait for a little while. It must be the greatest consolation to the unionist population that it is a question not of a few years but of many decades, if at all. Therefore, the imperative is on both sides to get together to work out their future.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is not the advice of the Northern Ireland Office to all those who visit Northern Ireland that demographic changes within Northern Ireland will lead, perhaps within the next 20 years, to the nationalist population becoming the majority? Has that not been said? [Interruption.]
Mr. Butler: I am reinforced in what I believe—that there are no such official forecasts—by the remarks of other of my hon. Friends. There are those who see a trend that will lead that way, but I re-emphasise the point that nobody, as far as I am aware, believes that a simple adverse majority—now now I am a unionist—could arise within several decades, if at all.
In looking at the options that should be considered, I have in the past taken seriously the possibility of repartition, because that is the only other option if the two communities will not resolve the problems themselves. Frankly, it is not an option. Anybody who knows he demographic map of Northern Ireland knows that in every square mile of every part of the Province there is a significant minority population. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) would hardly welcome that part of Ulster going to the South. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who is

787
not in his place at the moment, would not relish such a proposition for his constituency. I cannot imagine unionists ever wanting to give up the city of Londonderry.
Although that is not a feasible option, it is important to look at it so that it can be rejected, thus leaving the one option, which is working together. One welcomes the agreement because it recognises the fundamental character of the Province.
I follow that point one step further, in regard to the obligation on the two Governments that if a simple majority to leave the United Kingdom were achieved, those Governments would be required to lay before their Parliaments proposals for such a move. It is now in the agreement, although I would prefer that it were not. However, in that event, it would put the decision into the hands of this House, on behalf of the United Kingdom, regardless of what the proposals were, because this is where the decision should rest. We are talking about the choice not of Ulstermen, on whichever side of the divide they come, but of the British people. If I may presume to advise many of those whom I call my friends sitting on the Unionist Bench, this is why it is important to have regard to the feelings of the English, Welsh and Scottish about this affair. As others before me have said, too many are conscious of the resources that have been put into Northern Ireland and of the lives that have been lost by the Regular Army not to feel that this matter could be resolved through a united Ireland.
My last point is the one that I raised in an intervention following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement last Monday. No one must think that this is the tip of the iceberg or the prelude to a united Ireland. It is merely an opportunity for a step forward.
The hon. Member for Foyle was challenged from a sedentary position when he said that he was prepared to sit down and talk. If I may say so to the hon. Member for Belfast, East, it was typical of him to ask why the hon. Member for Foyle had not sat down and talked in the past. I have asked the hon. Gentleman before why he was not in the Assembly, and I am as critical as anyone of the fact that he has not been. But now that we have heard his positive statement as the leader of the constitutional nationalists, it is for the Unionist parties to accept that offer and to try to find a way forward. Only in that way can peace and stability be achieved.
6.41 pm
Mr. Roy Mason: This accord could be the most progressive and historic step ever taken by the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom since partition—more so in the light of the many attempts and failures at constitutional change since the dissolution of Stormont and the advent of direct rule.
One must recognise the courage of the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister. This time there has been a patient build-up to an accord. Both Prime Ministers have shown foresight and courage, have recognised the majority communities within their frontiers but have been ready to accept the anticipated hostility against the proposed changes, hoping that most people will moderate with an understanding of the accord, especially with the enshrinement of the Northern Ireland Province in a nationally recognised and binding agreement between the two countries.
788
But one must clearly and frankly admit that within the Province there is a great deal of uncertainty laced with anxiety. There is an urgent need to quell the unease, wrath and boiling anger in unionist breasts. It is difficult for most British minds to grasp the depth of feeling among unionists that they may have been secretly betrayed by Conservative Unionist friends, and hardly any of those fears—and fears for the future—have been allayed.
There are many uncertainties and dangers inherent in this treaty. Garret FitzGerald has, with stark reality, forgone the present goal of a united Ireland, and although it is still a claim in the Irish constitution, he has diverted from the immediate nationalist aspirations of the South. That is a major concession. Dr. FitzGerald has shown courage in his search for peace. He knows that the Provisional IRA and its political wing Provisional Sinn Fein will invade his Republic with violence and politics if they make much more political headway in the north. He has been prophetic, has seen the dangers and has faced reality instead of clinging to hope.
But—this is my first concern—will this accord, once agreed, be honoured by Charles Haughey and Fianna Fail in one or two years' time? Haughey began the cross-border talks some years ago, yet opposed the deal in the Dail. He decided not to sabotage it but to wait on the sidelines, knowing full well that politically he will benefit from all the frustrations if there is no short-term success. In a year or two, he is likely to be in the ministerial conference as Taoiseach of the South. What will happen when he has to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government on harmonisation rather than pursue a united Ireland as the priority?
While this accord exists in its present form—that is, that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until the majority of the people so decree—he is bound by it. What then? Unless much progress on security, peace and stability is made in the short term, his victory alone poses a danger to this accord. As he said in the Dail last week:
"We cannot accept … recognition of British Sovereignty over the North of Ireland in this agreement."
Therein lies the first danger in the not-too-distant future.
Running throughout the ministerial meetings in the last few years has been the urge to stifle the rise of Provisional Sinn Fein. That is why so much republican interference in Northern Ireland's affairs has been agreed—to pacify the green, to take politicking away from Provisional Sinn Fein and to let the minority community see that their interests are being progressed by the south and the Social Democratic and Labour party in the north. This is designed to blunt the edge of Provisional Sinn Fein campaigning.
However, there will be a high price to pay, and there are still too many uncertainties. There is to be intrusion by a foreign state—foreign in that it does not belong to the family of provinces within the United Kingdom and subject to United Kingdom law—in almost all Northern Ireland's affairs. On the political plane, the Republic will have a say in "electoral arrangements"—in other words, everything political. That will include district elections, Assembly elections and Westminster elections, and in almost every case intrusions will be seen as offsetting the natural majority in the Province by protecting and promoting the minority. Politically, that means the SDLP. We cannot effectively ban Provisional Sinn Fein, but we can isolate it. That is the objective of the political exercise, but in doing so we might as well recognise that we incur the wrath of all the Unionist parties.

789
On the legal front—and in spite of the Baker report only a year ago which did not recommend any major change in the Northern Ireland system—the Republic will now have an input to the entire judiciary, including the Diplock courts and juries. All the due processes of the law will be subject to southern political intrusion, and allied with that the Irish Government will also be able to put forward views on the role and composition of public bodies in Northern Ireland, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Fair Employment Agency, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Police Authority and the Police Complaints Board.
From the unionist point of view, that is seen as a frightening and sweeping intrusion by the south in Northern Ireland's affairs. Even intervention in Northern Ireland's cultural affairs, where many Orange traditions abound, is fraught with danger. There is so much of an assault on the cherished systems, traditions and culture of Northern Ireland life that one can understand the total disbelief of the unionists and their predictable reaction.
I welcome cross-border economic co-operation. That has been developing over the years, and has built on what has so far been achieved in respect of telecommunications, bridges, railways, customs, agriculture, border land drainage and so on. That is a welcome, steady blurring of the border.
Last week the Prime Minister described the accord as a two-way street, but the Province does not see it that way. It is much more a broad highway, with southern traffic invading all the affairs of the Northern Ireland state and taking away too much of Northern Ireland's identity.
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Mr. Mason: I shall not give way.
The Prime Minister has paid a high price for uncertain returns. On all the varied and sensitive matters, the accord is fraught with danger and anxiety for all those in the North, not just the majority community—because if in the end the majority wrecks it, the minority will also suffer, to the glee of the bomb, bullet and Provisional Sein Fein ballot squads. It is essential for all of us who are concerned about the future of Northern Ireland—I register my concern—to examine the good and positive aspects of the accord.
First, there is no derogation of sovereignty by the Government. That is clear beyond doubt. Secondly, there is no weakening of resolve to stand by the majority. Although southern Ministers and civil servants will be greatly involved, there is no diktat, and moves on all matters will be made only by agreement and with consent. There is a binding affirmation by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments that the status of Northern Ireland will remain unchanged so long as the majority so decrees. Moreover, there is the likelihood that that will be enshrined in an international agreement deposited at the United Nations. Safeguards of that sort on an international plane have never been agreed before.
Security, more than anything else, will determine whether the accord succeeds or fails, and that means the border. It will mean co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda, and between the British and Irish Armies. We know that the Provisional IRA undoubtedly takes rest and recreation, and has its training areas in the South. Its members raid, bomb and kill in the
790
North and then escape to a relatively safe haven in the South. Will there, therefore, be joint police board operations, covering chases across frontiers, hot pursuits across the border, helicopter patrols, Army liaison, and joint operations by the British and Irish Armies? If security co-operation, which matters most of all, is truly and seriously intended, that is what it will involve. Otherwise, the accord is a sham.
We already have the primacy of the RUC in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army are there to be called upon, if necessary. The Army is now almost down to its pre-1969 garrison strength. The test is to defeat the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army, and to be seen to be succeeding. That is the key to winning the majority community for the accord.
There is not much time. Progress must be made first on that front before progress can be made on any other fronts at the intergovernmental conference. Will the South respond rapidly on the ground? Increased security means stabilising the political turbulence in the Province. In that sort of atmosphere we shall wish to see joint missions of investment seekers from North and South, side by side, addressing the United States Congress, using their influence to denounce Noraid, and acting as ambassadors for Ireland as a whole. Only if that picture is portrayed as real, can we tread the stepping stones to political harmony in the accord, to the possibilities of an inter-parliamentary arrangement, and then to devolution. That is the path that we should all wish to tread.
I do not think that there will be a united Ireland for as far as I can see, but through the measures in the accord the border can be blurred and the two communities brought gradually closer together in the various and newly proposed structures. It will take both time and the unionists' co-operation. Above all, I ask unionists to encourage security co-operation, to help the accord defeat terrorism in their land, and to be careful not to aid and abet the Provos and INLA, and to give glee to Provisional Sinn Fein by any untoward activities which will heighten sectarian strife. We all know that the terrorist forces will do their murderous damnedest to wreck the Province. They may well try to smash the accord by a sudden and increased burst of terrorist activity. They do not want Irish unity. They want to destroy all democratic institutions in the North first, and then to take on the South. I ask unionists not to give them any succour by indirect means.
The special position of the Province within the United Kingdom has been strengthened. There is no need for a unionist election campaign. We know that the majority of the majority community is disturbed, but by elevating fears of the untried to national anger, unionists may well frustrate the laundering of the accord. That may be their objective, but the chances of security co-operation and success will be damned. It will be on their heads if the bullets, the bombs and the Provisional Sinn Fein ballots increase.
That outlook will be grim and bleak for Ulstermen. I believe that the Union is safe. I plead with unionists not to provoke a British backlash, which will alienate them from the mainland. That would be worse than acceptance of the accord. It is their choice. I beg unionist leaders riot to lead their people astray.
6.56 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) both on his decision to resign and on his speech. There is an old saying, "Money lost, nothing lost. Honour lost, much is lost. Courage lost, all is lost." My hon. Friend has shown a sense of honour and a degree of courage beyond the call of duty, and I salute his decision. For many years as parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he inevitably lived in the shadow of our political life. His public decision brings him a new status. It will earn him the respect of all hon. Members, whether we agree with him or not, and our admiration.
I should next like to congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place, and who is the architect of the Hillsborough agreement. It is no mean thing for the leader of a party, which represents a little more than half of the minority in the Province, to be able to convince the Governments in Dublin and London to reach such an agreement. However, I must warn him and the House that this is a fragile concept and an affair of mirrors. The nationalists are being told that the agreement is a step towards the reunification of Ireland, while the unionists are being told that it is a guarantee of their remaining in the United Kingdom. Although the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) spoke in praise of the agreement at the beginning and end of his speech, he showed clearly the difficulties that lie ahead.
The agreement is flawed in the first place—here my unionist friends will not agree with me—because it renews a commitment to devolution. It is worth recalling that Carson was against devolution. He said that he wanted the Province to be treated in exactly the same way as Scotland, Wales and England. Had it been so treated, the political division in the Province would have evolved along the same lines as it has here between Conservatives and radicals.
Stormont did many good things. It preserved law and order in the Province when the Free State, as it then was, was ravaged by revolution. It preserved law and order when the second world war came on. It was in many ways successful; but it, inevitably perhaps, put order ahead of justice. In my judgment—hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—it froze the political confrontation into one between unionists and nationalists or republicans. It also had the unfortunate effect, since corrected, I am glad to see, of keeping the leaders of both communities in Belfast instead of sending them here where they were represented by what might be called a second eleven, distinguished though many of them were.
I cannot help thinking that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) destroyed Stormont—I am not sure whether he was right or wrong—he had a chance to introduce what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne called the Airey Neave proposal, to integrate the Province completely into the United Kingdom and just have one or more regional authorities. He did not do that. Instead, my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw went out to try to destroy the unionist ascendancy. He succeeded; he got two of them. I do not know whether that has been of any help from the point of view from which he set out.
792
He and his colleagues then went on to embark on power sharing. Power sharing is a complicated operation. I have some experience of it. I helped to devise a power-sharing constitution for Cyprus. It was an admirable constitutional bit of work. It was approved by the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus and by the Greek and Turkish Governments and by our Government. Look at Cyprus now. My father before me tried to introduce power sharing in India. It was broken up, with millions of dead, into three bits. Some other Minister, I forget who, tried to have power sharing in Palestine. There was an admirable power-sharing constitution in the Lebanon, but read the papers this morning or those for any other day for the past few weeks. [Interruption.] I do not think that Sunningdale had much chance, but whatever chance it had was killed by the introduction of the Irish dimension, which introduced an element of condominium.
We have had a little experience of condominium. We had quite a good one in the Sudan because we would not let the other codominus, the Egyptians, come into it. We had an admirable one in the New Hebrides as a result of which no attempt was made to interfere with the tribal customs of the inhabitants, not all of which would have been approved in this House had it been informed about them.
Then we came to direct rule. I must pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) for the way in which they administered the situation. If I may say so, they did it rather better than we have. It had one important result. The leaders of the official Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and the SDLP came here. That is already a step in the right direction. Although they have mainly talked to us about Irish problems, they have been encouraged by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) to talk and to vote on other matters and some have even joined the European Parliament. That was the whole idea that Carson had at the beginning. He believed that this House should be the protector of the majority in the North against the Republic in the South and the protector of the minority in the North against the majority in the North.
People in Britain cannot sit still, particularly the civil servants. That is understandable, but there is a passion for initiative, encouraged by the United States and other elements. So we had the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) for the Assembly. Some of us bored the pants off the House keeping hon. Members up late at night saying that that would fail. I am sorry that we kept hon. Members up late at night, but who can say that we were wrong? The Assembly has produced the most disastrous fiasco. Although the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has talked a lot about co-operation, I am not at all clear from his speech whether he is intending to join the Assembly even now. It is expensive and totally unsuccessful, and I do not see what point it has served.
My conclusion is that devolution perpetuates division and that the best chance lies in integration. The atmosphere of this House softens differences and tends to ridicule extremism. I remember well when Mrs. Braddock, of blessed memory, came into the House. I approached her once on some subject and she said that she did not talk to Tories. Two years later I found her the most garrulous and agreeable of companions. There is some chemistry in the House that operates in this way.

793
I cannot help thinking that the commitment to devolution, as we rejected it for Scotland and Wales, makes the inhabitants of the Province, if not second-class citizens, at least citizens of a different category. It is imposing on them a kind of dual nationality, and that is a fundamental flaw.
Then there is the flaw of the condominium. We are assured, and I believe it, that the representative of the Republic, the Minister who comes, will have only a consultative right. He will not have a right of veto or anything of that sort. But suppose that any of us was in his shoes. He is responsible to the Dail. Any question on some alleged grievance in the Province can be referred through some member of the Dail to him in his capacity as a Minister in his own Parliament. So the affairs of the Province can be discussed in the Dail almost as intimately as if the Province were part of the Republic. He will be under great pressure. As election time approaches, he will be asked what is said and whether he stood up for the rights of Mrs. Maloney, or whoever it may be. That could become serious where security is concerned.
Let us suppose that the GoC or the Chief Constable wants to adopt a new line and puts it to the conference. Let us suppose that the Republic representative does not like it. Will the Secretary of State say, "Perhaps we should be careful. The Republic does not like it." Are operations to be subject to diplomacy? Where will that lead? It is not so much that we have the right to overrule and to decide, as that there could be a reluctance on the part of the British Government to override the view of the people directly responsible for security.
My third criticism is that there is no element of reciprocity. In the United Kingdom we are deeply involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. We have a large southern Irish population. It is difficult to be sure how many Irish there are here, but they are entitled to work, enjoy our social services, vote and stand for public office. They come here because of the way in which the economy in the Republic is administered.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Amery: I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows a great many of the Irish in Liverpool.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Amery: I could perhaps have swallowed the agreement if it had been a step towards a reunion of the British Isles or the Anglo-Celtic isles, whatever one may like to call them, but I cannot help feeling that this is an irretraceable step towards a united Ireland. Certainly that is how our friends in the United States appear to see it.
I accept the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the union, but I would add a qualification. People are led by the calculation of their brain but also by the heart. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, like her predecessors, has reiterated many times, and several times in her statement on 18 November, the old formula that there will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland unless the people of the Province require it. I cannot help finding that a chilling, cold and clinical formula.
The Queen does not want any unwilling subjects, but I should like to hear the Government and the Conservative party take pride in the patriotism of the majority of the
794
people of Northern Ireland and in the contribution that they have made in shipbuilding, aircraft building and the eight field marshals that they provided during the war out of a total of 11. I want to hear us say that, although we will not stand in the way of their joining the Republic, if that ever crosses their mind, we would do so with the greatest reluctance.
In the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I cannot find any of the warmth that I should like to see for our association with the Province. Because I cannot find that, and because of the arguments that I have attempted to put forward in criticism of the agreement, I find it impossible to support the initiative that she has taken.
7.14 pm
Mr. Hugh Brown: Earlier in the debate, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said that he hoped that it would be orderly and constructive. I think that it is fair to say that it has been knowledgeable and moving, too. Indeed, the contribution by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was entertaining. I say that with respect to a man of experience and knowledge on the subject of partition. It makes me feel a little humble, not just because of any natural modesty, to have the opportunity to make a contribution as a Back Bencher without the vast experience or detailed knowledge of hon. Members who have contributed so far. Having been a Member of Parliament for 21 years, this is the first time that I have ever contributed to a major debate on Northern Ireland.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Or Ireland.
Mr. Brown: Yes, or Ireland. Some of my colleagues are sensitive about how I describe things.
My opportunity to make a contribution denotes something that I think the House has already shown, that there is intense interest in the subject and that we all appreciate its seriousness. The attendance in the House is the highest that I have seen for many debates in many years. Therefore, I am conscious of the fact that I have to offer something constructive.
I have no interest to declare, in that I have no family, territorial or religious connection with Ireland. I do not say that by way of pride or criticism; it is merely a statement of fact. My interest in the debate stems from a strand of thinking in the Labour movement. Some of us take some interest in the history of Ireland and the struggles of countries to achieve a national identity. I confess—perhaps it is not fashionable—that I might ever have been influenced by the teachings of Lenin against imperialism. It is against that background and with some knowledge of Connolly, Larkin and some of the people who have made an enormous contribution to Irish politics, that I have something to contribute.
I think that there should be a voice from Scotland. I am not presuming to speak for Scotland. In fact, that is one of the disadvantages. Even in the parliamentary Labour party and the Northern Ireland group, of which I have been a member for many years, there are only a few Members from Scotland who even take part in discussions on Ireland. One of the things that we have to offer is that in Glasgow and the west of Scotland we understand what a Billy and Dan situation is. I shall explain that for the benefit of the unenlightened. It means that we are familiar

795
with some of the problems—they are not identical—of Catholics and Protestants, or Orangemen, to give them another description.
My contribution has some significance because in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, even the media—I make no complaint about that—accept that we have been muted in all the previous deliberations on the subject.
Mrs. Anna McCurley indicated assent.
Mr. Brown: I see the hon. Lady nodding her head. She knows what I mean by that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) recognises this. Some hon. Members who feel strongly about the issue have kept quiet because we felt that we could not do much to solve the problem, given the expertise of so many people in the House and in Ireland, both north and south. At worst, we felt that we could stimulate discussion in our own constituencies and in areas that would do nothing to contribute to the solving of the problem. In other words, below the surface, certainly in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, there are deep feelings on both sides of the argument.
Way back in the 1970s, with a Conservative Member who is no longer in the House, I paid a private/semiofficial visit to Northern Ireland. I thought that I had better consult some constituents before I went there. I used discreet sources to get at what I regarded as a representative group of people on the Catholic and on the Orange side. Needless to say, I did not meet them together. I was not really surprised but I was positively frightened at their intensity of feeling, which had never risen to the surface in any local discussions in the Labour party or at any election meeting that I had taken part in. That warned me that although things are quiet in the sense that there are no demonstrations of violence in Glasgow or the west of Scotland, there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue and, indeed, about the need to come up with a solution.
Therefore, I make no apology for taking part in the debate. I hope that I shall express what I regard as a pretty substantial point of view of ordinary people who are not always associated with my party.
I have three churlish thoughts to offer, perhaps uncharacteristically. I keep asking myself: why should a Conservative Government with a Prime Minister such as the one we have, get themselves into this situation? What is there in it for a Conservative Government? First, the Prime Minister likes to be seen as a custodian of law and order, so there is something in that argument for the Conservative party. Secondly, the Government are concerned about public expenditure, and there is the enormous cost of the subvention to Northern Ireland, so perhaps that factor comes into play. Thirdly, I even had the unflattering thought that Conservatives were thinking that if the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has failed, perhaps the Prime Minister can do something that he did not do. I have got the venom about the Prime Minister out of my system, but let me make it clear that I intend to support the agreement and will vote for it.
The agreement is well thought out. Some of my hon. Friends are too critical and suspicious of anything that any Conservative Government do. Sometimes colleagues are
796
afraid of being described as supporting a bi-partisan policy. That has never worried me. If I started analysing some of the occasions when there are many strange bedfellows in the same Lobby, I would never do anything unless I was sure that I was in nice, respectable company. I know that some of my hon. Friends will find extreme difficulty in going into the No lobby with some of the lot who will be in there tomorrow, but that is for them to work out.
Mr. Heffer: I am not going in with them.
Mr. Brown: It just so happens that my hon. Friend is sitting near me. I am not addressing my remarks to him in particular. There are other of my hon. Friends, and I know that they have signed an amendment. It is up to them to decide what to do.
In her statement on 18 November, the Prime Minister summed up the agreement well by saying that the principal aims and objectives were peace and conciliation linked with devolution. I do not have time, nor do I have the intention, to go into those two aspects, but devolution is important.
I agree that the ultimate aim of some sort of unification or a united Ireland is a legitimate aspiration for many people in Ireland. There is no doubt about that, and I support it. Ulster unionists' loyalty to the Crown has to be challenged. Perhaps the two arguments are irreconcilable. Perhaps there is no hope for peace or conciliation, but I suggest to the Ulster unionists that it is not enough to preach about peace and conciliation and then use the language of confrontation and, indeed, almost of war. The vocabulary is all wrong, and nothing will convince me that they genuinely want peace and conciliation.
We shall all wait to see what happens and what the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) says. He has a reputation for intellectual honesty and clarity, although sometimes when I listen to him I do not understand what he is talking about. When I understand I do not often agree with him. Nevertheless, on this occasion it will be interesting to see just what he and his colleagues hope to do, and where they are attempting to lead their followers.
We have to look for co-operation. I know that I am getting old, but I am an old-fashioned Socialist. I believe genuinely that there is something to be said for the slogan, "Workers of the world unite". I even thought in my innocence that it was a good enough argument for joining the EEC. I am in the minority in my party in holding that view. I cannot see for the life of me why there should not be an injection of some sort of co-operation between the workers on one side of the border and those on the other through the trade union movement and the labour and Socialist movements. That would be an attempt to bring people together. I want to see less of the flag waving, either the tricolour or the Union flag. Instead, I want to see genuine co-operation, which is about attempting to modify some of the discrimination that has existed and still exists against a minority population, in jobs and housing. Others can say that better than me and with more knowledge. In every part of the country, there is alienation of large groups of young people—in London, Birmingham—
Mr. Maginnis: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland has been administered for the past 12 or

797
13 years directly from the House? Is he accusing Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments during that time of continuing to discriminate?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) dealt with that to some extent. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. We have all been guilty of allowing things to continue that should have been stopped.
Mr. Maginnis: I am not going to pay for the hon. Gentleman's discrimination.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I hope that I have been reasonably objective and historical in my point about discrimination. No one can deny that it took place.
There is another factor—the alienation of many young people throughout the United Kingdom. I am not trying to make a party point, but let us face it, when I see youngsters, whether on the Orange or Catholic side, I see that some are just young hooligans and thugs. However much I understand the causes that give rise to such behaviour, I believe that the problem will not be solved merely by a constitutional agreement, however much I support it. The Government, who uphold society, are incapable of solving the economic problems in Northern Ireland, let alone those of Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom. That factor must be considered when studying the agreement.
Will the Minister tell the House where the economic assistance is to come from? I hope that it will not come directly from the United States. My gut reaction is that any assistance would be better if it came from some international agency such as the United Nations, although I do not know whether that body has any funds to dish out. If there is good will and a case is made for assistance, that aid would come better from the EC, because the United States is politically provocative to many hon. Members. I shall not go into the details, and I hope that I am not misunderstood on that point. Where is the international financial aid to come from?
I am not one of the diplomats who were involved in drawing up the agreement. I did not have to work out the fine detail, but I believe that there is long-term merit in the proposition that there should be some inter-parliamentary getting together. Social and cultural relations are also important. I would willingly play golf for the parliamentary team anywhere in Ireland, north or south, if that would enhance the opportunity to establish good relations. Sometimes we under-estimate the contribution of social and cultural exhanges.
This is not a priority, but I hope that there will be a general recognition that many hon. Members, who have no axe to grind in terms of votes or influence and power-seeking, can play a modest role in achieving what I believe to be the aim of us all—a more peaceful Ireland.
7.33 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I share the interest of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) in Irish history. The hon. Gentleman mentioned James Connolly, who said that when St. Patrick got the snakes out of Ireland, they went to America and became Irish-Americans. I notice that the hon. Gentleman had some suspicion of a transatlantic hand in the agreement.
798
When the agreement was concluded at Hillsborough, the Prime Minister reaffirmed her devotion to the unionist cause, and I believe her. The agreement is not so much a crime as a blunder.
I recall with sadness the occasion when Airey Neave and I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, on her first visit to Belfast. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was associated with Airey Neave and me. His was the definitive unionist speech in this debate, and I salute him. On that occasion in Belfast I remember how my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was rapturously received in quarters of the city that are now heavy with reproach, foreboding and bitter anger.
The thousands who marched on city hall on Saturday were not only the militant loyalist workers of shipyard and factory. Many of them were outraged business and professional people and clergy, several of whom are known to me and to my hon. Friends. Some would have been backers of Terence O'Neill and Brian Faulkner, but they have never warmed to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). They are quiet, not strident, men, and they are the salt of Ulster.
The Prime Minister will know of the anguished dissent, not merely of the Free Presbyterians but of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland and of other religious bodies. The Alliance party of Northern Ireland, so impeccably moderate, is split, and in the wings stand the paramilitaries. We have had a period of considerable success against terrorism. The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) told us that the armed forces in Northern Ireland are now almost down to the garrison strength that prevailed before the troubles. I only hope that our soldiers and the Royal Ulster Constabulary will not now find themselves between two fires.
This flawed agreement comes as a diktat, and it will be passed by the House with a tremendous majority. Whatever the verdict of Parliament and the courts, which have disposed so easily of the terms of the Act of Union, an agreement thus thrust upon us seems morally a suitable matter for a Northern Ireland referendum on the partial analogy of Welsh and Scottish devolution. Were that referendum to be granted, I should not wish to divide against the Government.
Despite what the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central said, I shall not cry hallelujah because once again the Irish Government have recognised, de facto, that Northern Ireland forms part of the United Kingdom. The permanence of the border was the subject of the tripartite declaration of 1925, referred to by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). That instrument was deposited with the League of Nations, as this agreement is to be registered at the United Nations. There was also Sunningdale in 1973.
The agreement is not a treaty. It is a question of interesting municipal and international law: which has stronger force, article 1 of the Hillsborough agreement or articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution? If that constitution were to be amended and those articles removed, that would do great good, as would the adherence of the Republic to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) said that the adhesion of the Republic to the

799
European convention was an advantage of the agreement. However, that is not in the agreement; it is only the intention of a transient Taoiseach.
Southern Irish politicians can now claim, and are claiming, that the agreement embodies at least a variant of the third option that was proposed in the report of the New Ireland Forum and counted out by the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition said that the agreement was a matter of consultation and no more. Those were the words I noted down when he addressed the House earlier in the debate. According to Dr. FitzGerald, it provides for "as near joint authority as can be". I have supported the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and I would support the parliamentary tier to which the hon. Member for Provan referred. Perhaps our debate could continue in that forum if it were set up. But this agreement is a dangerous distortion of the intergovernmental principle.
I heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott)—in a television panel of which I was a member, describe the agreement as "definitive". Is it? Others regard it differently. They regard it as a foothold, as part of a process—as the first sour sip from a bitter cup.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall give way this once, but I do not wish to take too much time, because many hon. Members wish to address the House.
Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend said that some regard the agreement as a foothold. In the Dail debate, Deputy Lyons said:
"The agreement reinforces British shackles."
Not all in the Irish Republic regard the agreement in the same light as my hon. Friend suggests.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I do not know who uttered those words, but I suspect that he is—
Mr. Butterfill: Deputy Lyons of Fianna Fail.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: No doubt on the extreme wing thereof.
When we were waiting for this agreement, unconsulted and uninformed, save by leak and rumour, I took courage from the words of the Sinn Fein president, Mr. Gerry Adams MP, speaking at his party conference in Dublin on 3 November. The Irish Times stated:
"Mr. Adams compared reports about an Anglo-Irish settlement with a report published by the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies, entitled 'Britain's Undefended Frontier—A Policy for Ulster'."
That is the title I gave it. The article continues:
"The report, he said, suggested a joint London-Dublin security commission, including a military sub-committee with representatives from both forces; a fulltime secretariat drawn from Dublin and Whitehall civil servants; and governmental summits at fixed intervals."
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is a signatory of the amendment which the Chair did not accept, and I contributed to that booklet. We were extremely grateful for the commercial from Mr. Gerry Adams. But, alas, Mr. Adams' fears that this was what would happen were exaggerated, because the Intergovernmental Conference is different. It is not machinery for the reciprocal discussion
800
of cross-border questions. The Taoiseach makes no secret of the fact that the agreement lacks symmetry—those are his words—and goes well beyond consultation.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): On the question of cross-border co-operation, there is total symmetry and total reciprocity.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: In that case, I hope that we shall soon see realised the improvements in cross-border security mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central. If that happens, I shall be the first to congratulate those responsible.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), I refer to article 4 of the agreement, which contains yet another wearisome call for devolution
"on a basis which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community."
Article 4 contains Dublin's backing for this, which is a matter for internal policy. It is easy to understand why Dublin and the SDLP want power-sharing devolution and why they are pleased that it is in the agreement. Power-sharing devolution would drive a wedge of difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and that is seen as a stage on Ulster's way out of the United Kingdom and into a united Irish Republic. But to talk of such acceptance is futile, because the majority rejects power sharing, save in local government, and the minority insists that if there is to be devolved Government, there must also be power sharing.
If the Province is to be allowed to settle down and if the terrorists are to be deprived of the hope of success which spurs and sustains them, Northern Ireland must be governed as truly part of the United Kingdom, and not tricked out with fancy constitutional devices that set it apart. Let there be the fullest administrative devoluton as there is to Cardiff and Edinburgh. I know that Northern Ireland is different. Wales and Scotland are different from England and from each other. Indeed, Scotland is more different, because it has its own legal and judicial system.
Yes, Northern Ireland is different and divided, but, contrary to the conventional unwisdom, that is why Northern Ireland is unsuitable for legislative devolution. Devolution is divisive. The minority is safer under the rule of Westminster; that is the lesson of Stormont. When Stormont was abolished, the hon. Member for Antrim, North assured me that it would never be restored. Westminster's rule has been found to divide Northern Ireland least. The celebrated priest, Father Denis Faul, says that Catholics in Northern Ireland would rather be under Westminster than under the hon. Member for Antrim, North and people of that sort.
The communiqué mentions the two major traditions in Ireland and the identification of religious faith with political allegiance. Let us be careful about oversimplification. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne warned the House about that. The picture of two communities—one Protestant, loyalist and British and the other Catholic, Gaelic and Irish—is false. A staunch unionist lady, fearful of British intentions, once said to me, "The trouble with you English is that you do not want us Irish to remain British."
Northern Ireland should not be patronisingly treated like some exotic colony with its troublesome tribes. It should be regarded and administered as truly part of the United Kingdom.

801
Hon. Members have referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I should have thought that those responsible for the Assembly would have kept quiet about it. It has turned out just as we who opposed the Bill predicted. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Unionists debate matters in this House, but they will not debate matters in the Northern Ireland Assembly because the SDLP will not take part in it.
I refer again to the remarks of the hon. Member for Provan and to something that was said by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) when questioning the Prime Minister on her statement on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman recalled that sectarian conflict had been killed on Merseyside, in Liverpool and in his constituency because Catholics there had the same liberties as the Protestant majority. I interjected, "And the same Parliament." The hon. Gentleman echoed, "And the same Parliament." The liberties that prevail in the United Kingdom are enjoyed throughout Northern Ireland today under the supremacy of this Parliament.
I am told that Northern Ireland is about the size of Yorkshire. It is narrow ground. In 1825, Sir Walter Scott wrote of Ireland's "envenomed" factions
"having so little ground to fight their battle in that they are like people fighting with daggers in a hogshead."
We must end provincial pump politics. Bring the political battles to Westminster and let the poison out.
7.49 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said that the Irish Prime Minister, Garret FitzGerald had forgone the claim to a united Ireland in his eagerness to have this agreement. That no longer meant anything, although it was still in the Irish constitution.
That was one of my great fears. I struggled to overcome it and return to the old Labour party policy because, in the past, the Labour party had a policy for a united Ireland. It later adopted a so-called bi-partisan policy which did not support a united Ireland. Many hon. Members fought a long battle to try to change that policy and to win the Labour party over to the policy of a united Ireland. That was a real struggle, but we finally achieved it. I want that achievement to be not merely a line in a policy statement but something that is striven and fought for and a fundamental part of the Labour party's policy for Ireland.
After considering the agreement and the sense of urgency that pervaded the discussions, I thought that a situation might arise—a situation that I fear—in which the Labour party merely intoned the line about a united Ireland. Therefore, I gave the agreement careful consideration and worried over it before I concluded that I should have to oppose it because I do not think that it is workable.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made a fine speech today and I profoundly agreed with most of it. He told me that it could not be wrong for us to be talking on these matters. Long before the hon. Member for Foyle came to the House, I argued passionately for talks to take place with the Republic of Ireland. I want agreement to come from such talks, but I do not want the agreement that we are discussing today because it is premature and not properly thought out.
My reasons for being fearful of the agreement are different from those of most hon. Members. In general the
802
Tory party is in favour of the agreement. The Government have made it clear that they are not in favour of a united Ireland and they try to win the unionists over by telling them that it is clear that they will not support a united Ireland unless one day it is united by common consent.
That is also the Labour party's policy and I abide by it, but I do not want the killing to continue until there is a Catholic majority. I want to try to stop the killing. The policy of the Labour party is for a united Ireland, and I believe that that must be striven for. I do not want to placate people by saying, "You can go along with this. It will not involve a united Ireland because different people are saying different things." I want to make it absolutely clear that the policy of the Labour party is for a united Ireland and I shall worry about anything that militates against that policy and is therefore not progressive.
I was rather worried as I listened to the mollifying and conciliatory speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), until he explained why things had gone wrong in Ireland. Immediately he did that, there were rumbles from the Tory Benches. As long as there seemed to be a bond in the House on that matter, everything was sweetness and light, but as soon as my right hon. Friend made his fundamental points about the poverty, lack of housing, and all the other terrible things, grumbles emerged from the Tories, trying to convey the impression that they had never done anything wrong in Ireland.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) expressed it very neatly in his speech of apology for giving up his post, when he said that the agreement did not have the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. The majority of all the people of Ireland were not consulted before the line was drawn across Ireland and Northern Ireland was separated by force from the Republic. The original Irish became a minority in a situation in which, according to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), the unionist majority were not really anti-democratic, did not do anything wrong and never deprived the minority of housing. As the hon. Member for Foyle said, out of 100 representatives there was only one Catholic on the council. The minority still exists. In reality, the unionists still regard as their enemies not just the IRA but the minority community in Northern Ireland which has been mistreated for so long.
During the long years of British occupation Ireland could not be ruled without force. It was a land of constant revolt against an imperialist force which had stolen the land from its owners. Often those revolts were led by Protestants like Wolfe Tone. [Laughter.] The Unionists are laughing at my serious points, but it is a nervous laugh because they know that what I am saying is true. They know about the rebellion of 1798 and what happened in Galway and Mayo. They know who Robert Emmet was just as well as I do.
What is now called Northern Ireland was brought about by force and has never been ruled by consent. It has always been ruled by force against the minority community. James Connolly prophesied in 1912 that the voices who wanted to split up Ireland would reap the whirlwind. The whirlwind has come, and our task is to stop it becoming worse.
Ireland was the first example of British imperialism and it will undoubtedly be the last. What would have happened if an imperialist Ireland had taken over Britain and eventually left but clung on to Lancashire? Obviously the

803
British would have something to say in such a situation. That situation is similar to the Falklands but it would be a lot worse. The partition of Ireland, and the creation of the border was a disaster from the beginning and it has created a whirlwind. It was a mistake which some people are trying to rectify, but that attempt sticks in the craw of others.
Successive Ministers have constantly said that things were improving in Northern Ireland, but the reality is that a short time ago something happened to show that they were not. The solution is still a united Ireland. Nobody has ever asked the Irish people whether they wanted to be ruled by Britain. Their country was taken from them.
If I thought that the Anglo-Irish agreement could begin to solve this terrible and intractable problem, I would vote for it, but I believe it to be a desperate and partly spurious measure. I am more than eager to be proved wrong—I hope that I am wrong—but I am fearful because when I have said previously what I am saying now I have regretted it and been in the minority in the Labour party. I hope I am wrong, and I hope that the agreement will lead to a peaceful solution and will not destroy the Labour party's idea of a united Ireland.
How did the agreement come about and what precipitated it? For years in this Chamber after 1969 all but a small minority of hon. Members said, "Let Sinn Fein go to the ballot box; they will not get any votes." Sinn Fein went to the ballot box and that caused a stir and a fluttering. When I was in southern Ireland a year ago after visiting Northern Ireland, I talked with southern Irish leaders. They were horrified at Sinn Fein's share of the vote. They had thought that Sinn Fein would not get a single vote.
I, too, believed for a time that Sinn Fein would never get any votes, but in fact it took a large number of votes from the SDLP, moving towards a section of the Irish people who did not think that their interests were being dealt with properly. We were all wrong and there was deep worry both here and in southern Ireland. That is what has precipitated this premature agreement. The development a year ago which has returned even stronger than before has precipitated an agreement characterised by a note of desperation that most people will not acknowledge. People who are desperate to reach an agreement will sometimes accept an agreement which strikes at their own fundamental beliefs.
Mr. Winnick: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's work on Northern Ireland matters, but does he agree that, however many votes Sinn Fein has gained, it remains a minority within a minority in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that some of its more recent electoral gains are undoubtedly due to the economic conditions described by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and do not necessarily represent an endorsement of armed struggle?
Mr. Flannery: I entirely agree. For whatever reason, those votes were cast, but there is more to it than that. I believe that my original proposition is profoundly true. People felt that no one was helping them towards a united Ireland. On my first visit to southern Ireland I was at a dinner with Conor Cruise O'Brien, who eventually went to The Observer and now seems to have left the scene altogether. He told me that Northern Ireland was not an
804
issue and explained why he held that view. It may not have been an issue to him, but it is now a monumental issue to the parties in Northern Ireland, the parties in southern Ireland and the British Parliament, and Mr. O'Brien has gone the way of those who do not recognise real issues. We now have to do something about that issue.
The Prime Minister calls herself a unionist and a loyalist. She seems to have told the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) something slightly different from what she has told other people, but no doubt they can iron that out between them. In my view, however, the agreement will not further the cause of peace because it is bound to fail. Indeed, it may result in the polarisation of the two communities in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that that will not be the result, but we are walking a very dangerous tightrope with a precipitate agreement in a situation fraught with danger for all concerned and especially for the people who have lived through 16 years of misery in Northern Ireland.
The agreement strengthens the border. It makes the policy of a united Ireland more difficult because it gives the border a spurious legitimacy and almost entrenches it in international law. Although it does not say so, I believe that it is a quirky, oblique return almost to a bipartisan policy in which the struggle against the border could be submerged by plausible agreements and plausible arguments. It tackles the consequences of partition, but it is only a palliative and leaves the real cause of strife untouched.
The amendment in my name refers to "British military presence since", but that does not mean that I want to pull out the troops. I believe that there are more troops than my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) suggests, but no doubt the Minister can clarify that. I believe that the troops should be withdrawn only by agreement and when the situation is such that their withdrawal will not precipitate a Lebanon in Ireland. That is very important to me.
The idea of a referendum brings great joy to the hearts of Ulster Unionists because they regard themselves as sure of victory.
Mr. McCusker: No, we do not.
Mr. Flannery: The unionists say that that is not so, but in fact it is so. That is how they have behaved through all the weary years in which the minority community has been held in subjection. To the unionists, democracy means assurance of victory. That is not what democracy means here. Democracy presupposes the right of a minority to become a majority, but that fact has never struck the unionists. If the matter is left to them and their referendums, the problem will go on for another 30 years.
Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flannery: No, I want to finish now.
There is no likelihood whatever of a minority becoming a majority in a referendum in Northern Ireland and the unionists know that. That is why they want a referendum. Their idea of a referendum is a veto on democracy.
The unionists are keen to have a referendum. They are always shouting about how they want to belong to the United Kingdom for ever more, although they often seem to regard it as a separate country from Northern Ireland which in turn is a separate country from southern Ireland. Yet they refuse the real democracy of the rest of the United

805
Kingdom. They want only tribal, communalist voting. I saw plenty of that in India during the war. We knew that in some areas the Moslems would always win and in others the Hindus would always win because real democracy had not yet prevailed. That is the kind of pseudo-democracy that the unionists love, but it is not democracy at all.
I believe that the deadliest enemy of terrorism is democracy, not the gun. Where democracy flourishes, nobody takes to the gun except a few villains who want to rob people. Where there is democracy, terrorism has no base. For too long the Ulster Unionist tail has wagged the Westminster dog. Whenever a British Government, of whichever political persuasion, were determined to do something, the unionists had only to say, "If you do that we shall be on the streets." We all know what happened to the Sunningdale agreement. It was smashed in exactly that way. Catholics could not get to work because the unionists came out on to the streets, and they may well try to do it again.
Let those who want a referendum have a referendum—a referendum of the entire United Kingdom. Let us invite all our people to vote on the matter. If the result was in favour of withdrawal, I should object strenuously to that being put into operation immediately. I am as confident of winning a United Kingdom referendum as the unionists are confident of winning a Northern Ireland referendum, but I would want the decision taken to form the backcloth for prolonged discussion before any final decision was taken about Northern Ireland.
I believe that unless something is done on the lines that I have suggested the killing will go on and in 30 years' time we shall still be discussing what is to be done. Moreover, if by that time the Catholics are the majority in Northern Ireland, I am sure that the unionists will not accept democracy on that basis.
8.10 pm
Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) does not have Hillsborough in his constituency for nothing, and it is ironic that his speech was a strong argument in favour of the agreement.
I strongly appreciate the Hillsborough agreement and pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her tenacity and courage in carrying it through. The reaction of the unionists in the North is sad, although predictable. Like many other hon. Members who have spoken, I hope that they will reconsider their position, and especially whether they will offer themselves for election. I fear that such action will exacerbate matters in the United Kingdom and drive a further wedge between themselves and the great mass of people in this country.
It is only through the co-operation of the two communities in Ulster and of the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland that terrorism will be defeated. There are two inescapable facts which, though they are self-evident, tend to be overlooked. The first is that the communities are divided by almost everything—politics, religion and culture. One acknowledges the Union Jack, the other the Irish tricolour. One may see similar situations in countries such as Cyprus, Belgium or Israel. I do not intend to talk about those countries' Governments, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). They
806
have been created by history, and we cannot overturn history overnight. Dr. Fitzgerald said in the Dail that this agreement provides the opportunity to
"remove the alienation of one community and to still the fears of the other."
That is the task before us.
Terrorism, it has been said, can be defeated by denying the terrorists a base. It can be done by counter-terror, which the German occupation forces attempted in the last war. That is a repugnant action and out of the question for any civilised state. The only alternative is persuasion. We must have a hearts and minds campaign. We must persuade the harbourers of terrorists that they have a stake in removing the terror. The harbourers of terrorists are not in the constituencies of the hon. Members opposite but in the minority community. The success of this agreement will be judged by its achievements in the reduction of terrorism and violence. This agreement does not please everybody—although to displease such opposites as Mr. Haughey and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is a good augury.
It is a remarkable agreement. It has produced, for the first time, an acknowledgement by the Republic of the right of the majority to decide their own future. This is of the utmost significance, and I always thought it had long been demanded by unionists. The sovereignty of their position remains intact. My constituents detest the IRA and the IRA will never force Ulster out of the United Kingdom, but I must say that the loyalists could quickly change that.
I pay tribute to the courage of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), although I do not agree with his views. He quoted a number of letters that he has received. I intervened during questions on the Prime Minister's statement on Monday and was surprised by the number of letters I received not just from my constituents but from people everywhere. I have two examples here:
"I do not wish to pay taxes to support the Northern rish."
"I am sure that I voice the feelings of many people in this country when I say that I am heartily sick of sending our young men to Northern Ireland to be injured, maimed and killed in defence of people like Paisley and his thugs".
The loyalists must realise that the country as a whole is interested in getting this agreement right. They must know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster and her colleagues are not traitors. They are good people trying to find a solution to the problem. The country recoils from the bigotry of some hon. Members. The longer I live the more I am convinced that hatred never wins. It produces a counter-reaction. Only reconciliation offers any hope. I admit that it is easy for me to say this in the security of this House, and, indeed, this country. It is not easy to say such things in the polarised attitudes of Ulster. But this agreement must come.
Article 12 concerns the parliamentary tier. I appreciate all the difficulties, but I urge that this should be set up immediately. It is essential to provide the necessary staff so it may operate efficiently. I hope it will not be too ambitious initially. I think that it should start by considering policy which is relatively uncontroversial, but where co-operation between the two countries can produce great benefits for Northern Ireland. It is important to strengthen the ties between Westminster and Dublin. We need to know each oher much better because so much is at stake, and we have an overriding common interest in combating and defeating terrorism.

807
There will be many who will seek to wreck this agreement. However, the agreement has the support of many in this House and, indeed, throughout the country. That support will encourage the Government in their difficult task.
8.17 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I do not believe that the Anglo-Irish treaty is only worthy of criticism because it is a bad agreement. It is an evil thing conceived from a clandestine relationship, in which there is an element of deceit. It is born to betray and it will have to be sustained on a diet of untruths, half-truths and ultimately blood sacrifices.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not find it easy to absolve those people who brought about this agreement, be they the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Foreign Secretary, because the result of their ill-conceived and wrong intentions will be that many of my constituents will die. I have to be as blunt as that.
Perhaps I feel better able than some to speak because I am closer to the sharp edge. I represent a frontier constituency where the terrorists come across from the Irish Republic. Indeed, in the last 10 days a father and husband, aged 45, was shot by the terrorists and it looks as though he will be confined to a wheelchair.
I have watched the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's pathetic efforts to justify this agreement during the past 10 days. His shoddy tactic has been to try to discredit people such as me, my colleagues and those we represent by alleging that we have arrived at a conclusion about the agreement without reading it. He has also suggested incorrectly, as have others—Saturday's demonstration in Belfast should put the lie to it—that there is an element of violence underlying our opposition. Both allegations are wildly inaccurate, to say the least.
Everybody knows that details of the agreement were publicised in the Irish Republic's press two days before the Hillsborough signing. We queried such reports during Northern Ireland Question Time on Thursday 14 November. They caused several Northern Ireland Office Ministers and the Prime Minister to employ every device and quibble to imply that what I and my colleagues were saying was incorrect. We turned out to be absolutely right. The Government's performance was utterly unworthy.
Even earlier information came out in Dublin. Although we suspected betrayal, we felt that democracy would reign in this place. Could the Government really ignore the democratically elected representatives of more than 70 per cent. of the Ulster community? In case it appears that I am wise after the event, I should like to quote from an article that I wrote for a newspaper two weeks before the Conservative party conference:
"The Prime Minister and her Government are about to surrender to the demands of the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland by allowing the Irish Republic a 'say' in the affairs of the United Kingdom … Northern Ireland, so the Irish Republic asserted, was not only to be overseen by an Anglo-Irish Council of Ministers but was to have an Anglo-Irish secretariat installed in Belfast. Does anyone believe that Ulster Unionists could possibly be persuaded to accept a wooden horse like this in their midst in return for the offer of a juicy 'devolution' carrot? … The real crunch of course is that John Hume and Charles Haughey are already signalling that this deal is not enough. It is, they say, just a foot in the door to a united Ireland. Ulster
808
Unionists understand exactly the point they are making. Meanwhile the IRA looks on without emotion … its declared interest in politics is merely to use the council chambers to promote and endorse further killing, irrespective of any concessions."
So much for the Secretary of State's allegation that we prejudged the agreement. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that he was dealing with dummies and that when he went conspiring behind our backs we were incapable of finding out the truth. The three short paragraphs of the newspaper article that I have quoted proved all too accurate. In the first six days after the agreement, the IRA killed three people in separate shooting incidents. Two of the victims were Roman Catholics.
When I tell the House that it will regret this agreement, I am sorry, again, but I know that I shall be proved right. The way in which the elected representatives of Ulster in this House have been patronised disturbs and angers me most. I listened today to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) lecturing us on the outcome of the agreement. Implicit in what he said was the threat that, if we do not concur, we shall be to blame for the violence that is bound to continue irrespective of what happens—the violence that our Government have not been capable of dealing with during the past 15 years. He is the type of person who, when we talk of loyalty, asks, "Loyal to what?" I call myself not a loyalist but an Ulster Unionist. That is the name of my party. I do not have to call myself a loyalist because I do not believe that my loyalty is in doubt. However, when loyalty is mentioned, hon. Members often ask us, "Loyal to what?"
Perhaps I can tell the House to what I am loyal. I am loyal, as my forebears have been, to the British way of life. If that has meant putting on a uniform to defend the values in which I believe, I have put on a uniform, as did my forebears. If loyalty means looking after my constituents, I can only hope that I have proved my loyalty to all of my constituents—54 per cent. of whom are members of the so-called minority Roman Catholic community. They believe that I am loyal to them because they come to me just as my Protestant constituents come to me. I work for them just as I work for my Protestant constituents. My colleagues do the same for their constituents, irrespective of their religious or political persuasion.
Implicit in what some hon. Members have said today is the suggestion that we intend violence towards those people. When will hon. Members get it into their heads that all of those people in Belfast on Saturday—I cannot say all, how could I, but the vast majority, 99 per cent. of them—are ordinary decent mainly working-class people. We are not as class conscious in Ulster as people are on this side of the water, but what are commonly called middle class and establishment people were also present on Saturday, in surprising numbers. They are decent people who are deeply worried about the agreement that has been foisted on us.
As for the performance of Northern Ireland Office Ministers and the dash to the United States made by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), what was the justification for the unseemly haste to report to old Uncle Sam even before Parliament had had an opportunity to ratify the agreement? Who is the monkey and who is the organ grinder? Let the Prime Minister or one of her Ministers tell the House what role

809
the United States has played in the plot. It obviously could not have involved the Ptarmigan contract, so what price have the Government paid for this sell-out?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chelsea is not in the Chamber to hear what I have to say, but it is a pity that he never seemed to display the same urgency and enthusiasm when it came to security—security which means life or death to my constituents. Such sterling efforts might have meant much more if they had been directed towards keeping 19 murderers in the Maze prison. But then the current story is that the hon. Gentleman probably visits the United States more often that he visits the prisons in his charge.
I should draw attention to the phrase "views and proposals" that is in the agreement. The Irish Government are to be allowed to put forward to the conference their "views and proposals". The phrase appears again and again. Let us assume that "views" relates to consultations. What then, does the word "proposals" suggest? It does not strike me as something that is merely consultative when I read in article 2(b):
"Determined efforts shall be made through conference to resolve any differences".
Surely that means that a reasonable number of proposals from the Government of the Irish Republic will have to be accepted. An analogy can be drawn with a coalition. Let us suppose that after the next election the Conservatives are in coalition with the SDP—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Serve them right.
Mr. Maginnis: Let us also be malevolent and assume that the Tories are the senior partners in that coalition. Proposals would be put forward by the SDP and the Tory party and a compromise would be reached in which many of each side's proposals would be accepted. Of course, the decision about which proposals to accept would be presented by the chief executive or by the senior party in the coalition. Is that not exactly what this agreement is? It is a coalition—joint authority.
Thus, through conference, in a thinly disguised way, the Irish Republic has been given an executive role in Ulster's affairs. I do not see any great rush to reassure me, but in case there is I ask hon. Members to consider what other meaning there could be and why Garret FitzGerald agrees with me that his Government have a role which is "more than consultative". Therefore, Northern Ireland's status has already been significantly changed without the consent of the majority.
Incidentally, I wonder what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has to offer. During the past 10 days he has been repeatedly asked what he intends to do now that he has got this great concession. He has been asked whether he intends to enter the Northern Ireland Assembly. Personally, I do not think it matters whether he does or not, because we are not listened to there any more than we are here, but if he wants to have a meaningful relationship with the majority, he should think about attending.
It is disturbing that the hon. Gentleman has not said what he intends to do about recognising the RUC. He made a strange and moving speech full of clichés. It did not say anything, but it sounded quite promising. I did pick up the suggestion that, when the conference met, it would carefully consider supporting the police forces. I wonder whether I shall be reassured that there will not be any tinkering with the RUC so that it is divided into county or sub-county forces, so that we have what the IRA has been
810
asking for for some time—a police force that is specially developed to patrol South Armagh. The IRA would not be prepared to shoot at such a police force and we all know what sort of police force it would be.
I notice that special efforts are to be made to encourage members of the minority community to join the police force. I know many members of that community who are in the police force. I have served with them, and admired them because they are tremendously courageous. They are picked out for assassination just as Catholic members of the UDR are. They are our bravest men in uniform. However, I wonder whether they are about to be betrayed. I hope not.
Mr. Alton: I very much endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he not agree that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) probably meant that there should be much greater co-operation between the Garda and the RUC? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that is a tragedy that John Hermon and Lawrence Wren have not had a closer working relationship?
Mr. Maginnis: I was first in the security forces in 1958 and I know that there was then a terrific working relationship across the frontier which had existed for many years in parallel operations. When such operations involve proper liaison there is no need for joint working groups between the police forces. However, I do not wish to pursue that point.
Article 2 clearly gives conference a right to deal with security and other related matters. That means that another Government are being given an opportunity to deal with a reserved matter—a right that will be denied to British citizens living in Northern Ireland even if they are members of a devolved administration or Members of Parliament. Having served in the security forces for about 17 years, I am not allowed to know anything about security or to involve myself in it, but another Government are to have that right.
A glaring deceit is evident in article 9, where conference is given the right to draw up a programme covering the full organisational role of the RUC, including "operational resources". We are told that
"Conference shall have no operational responsibilities";
but that is meaningless. How can the Chief Constable possibly be said to have operational independence when conference controls his resources? The double deceit is that this is cloaked under the heading of "cross-border cooperation", but the matter of operational resources, including RUC manpower and all military personnel working in support of the police, is dealt with on an all-Ulster basis. There is no separate border force, so the influence of conference and hence of the Irish Government will, de facto, be Provincewide.
Mr. Butterfill: It appears that Mr. Haughey does not share the hon. Gentleman's view. In the debate in the Dail he said:
"It is also our view that the Agreement will lead the Irish Government into an impossible political situation in which they will find themselves assuming responsibility for actions and becoming involved in situations, particularly in the security field, over which they will have no control."
Mr. Maginnis: Of course, neither I nor the hon. Gentleman should expect Mr. Haughey to say anything else. He will renegotiate the agreement as soon as he is in

811
power, and as he is 10 or 15 points ahead at the moment we can assume that he will be in power after the next election.
It should be remembered that, on cross-border security co-operation, the Chief Constable of the RUC voiced some criticism at the time of the Killeen bombings. That criticism was not of the professional police in the Garda, but of the lack of resources deployed by the Republican Government. He recently repeated that criticism in the United States. That immediately evoked a bitter response from Dublin and calls were made for Sir John Hermon to be sacked. Dublin claimed that it was doing all that it could to combat terrorism. If that is so, Dublin has nothing further to offer. If it could do more, it is not the good neighbour that it is made out to be in the preamble to the agreement.
Why would a so-called good neighbour wait for 16 years before meeting its obligation to deal with terrorists operating from and returning to its terrority?
The House should remember that more than 100 of my constituents have been murdered in my border constituency, which does not endow me with any great confidence in the Irish Republic. It has traditionally been a haven for the IRA, and traditionally has glorified that organisation. It is significant that one of the first undertakings given by Mr. Noonan, the Minister for Justice, following the signing of the agreement was that no more cross-frontier roads should be cratered. We cratered unapproved cross-frontier roads to hinder terrorists wanting easy access to murder our constituents. Therefore, the House will understand why I am not reassured by the agreement.
It was, of course, the same Mr. Noonan who stated on American television and radio that Dublin's role was substantial, not merely advisory. He said:
"so, in effect, we have been given a major and substantial role in the day-to-day running of Northern Ireland."
Whose version of the agreement is correct—this Government's or the Irish Republic's?
Will right hon. and hon. Members accept from me that, if the agreement causes confusion at this stage, it will not be long before it causes chaos, and chaos costs lives. It will add to the 2,460 deaths and the 27,772 injuries of the past 16 years.
On Saturday, 200,000 men and women thronged the streets of Belfast to show their opposition to the agreement. They were not bigots or extremists, but ordinary citizens who wanted nothing more than an end to the violence. They would not lightly or irresponsibly throw away an opportunity for peace—yet they know, as I know, that the agreement cannot bring other than more tragedy to their lives.
Surely neither the Prime Minister nor the lately arrived Secretary of State, who mocks the working class of the Shankill road in such a scandalous and arrogant manner, can believe that they alone know what is best. Have they forgotten that Ulster people have lived for more than 50 years in comparative peace?
The humorous mythology of the hon. Member for Sheffied, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is nothing but a fairy story. It will not be possible to please the Irish Republic. While Garret Fitzgerald may be prepared to accept a reduction of 2,000 in the establishment of the UDR, Charlie Haughey knows that it is a con trick because
812
the UDR has been running at more than 2,000 below strength for many years. Such a move will not impress the Irish Republic, and will cause only misunderstanding and concern in the regiment. It will please no one.
Similarly, the release of a significant number of prisoners serving sentences under the Secretary of State's pleasure will—although I welcome it—be recognised as having nothing to do with the agreement. The releases have been in the pipeline for some time and are overdue. Once again, the fact that those young men will be used as political pawns to enhance the agreement will be deeply resented.
The Anglo-Irish agreement was devised without any input from the 70 per cent. of the Ulster population who wish to remain within the Union. It will not have the cooperation, let alone the approval, of that 70 per cent. As a person who has spent his life upholding the merits of our democratic system, I wonder whether the House will abandon its principles and deny Ulster its democratic right to a referendum on the agreement.
The democratic system is not ideal, but it is known to be the best. I hope that the House will recall that in 1973, when those imperfect democratic structures were dismantled in Ulster, politicians were pushed to one side and the men of violence took over. I do not wish that to happen again. If there is no democracy, my colleagues and I will be pushed to one side, and the men of violence are bound to succeed because we will have been discredited in that place in which we placed our trust—this House.
8.47 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: In following the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), I want to quote Edmund Burke, who said:
"All Government, indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter."
The House may think that that is a rather surprising quotation but its significance is that it comes from the Ulster Unionist Council's own document "The Way Forward". It has a great deal of truth for the present position.
There is nothing to be feared from the agreement so much as the fear that is engendered by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. It is the fear that the unionists are themselves engendering in their Province, towards which we want to look warmly, that is causing the problem.
In substance, the agreement does two things that deeply needed to be done. First, it provides the strongest constitutional guarantee that could be devised for the Province. Secondly, it tackles what everyone recognises as the overwhelming problems in the Province, which is that the issues cross the border; the loyalties of the minorities cross the border, and the terrorists cross the border. I believe that the agreement realistically sets out to tackle those problems.
The constitutional guarantee is to be found first in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 in which this sovereign Parliament enacted that there should be no change in the Union
"without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll"
as prescribed by the legislation. That guarantee is expressly accepted by the Government of the Republic of Ireland in a legally binding international treaty, which is what this agreement will become when it has been ratified

813
by the House and agreed as provided in article 13. I understand that the treaty will be registered with the United Nations.
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Lyell: Although the agreement will be reviewed in not more than three years, I can see no way in which this Parliament or any Parliament of the United Kingdom together with the Government of the Republic could more firmly entrench the position of the majority in Northern Ireland. Unionist Members should recognise that as a real step.
"The Way Forward" states:
"minority representatives are, in any event, presently not interested in power sharing but solely in the withdrawal of the British guarantee of the constitutional position".
Far from that, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has negotiated an agreement in which that guarantee is expressly reinforced by the Government of the South. "The Way Forward" was published against the background of the All-Ireland Forum which had proposed constitutional changes. I well understand that those changes were deeply worrying to the hon. Members who represented the unionist interest in the North, and they are deeply worrying to me. The forum proposed three possibilities—joint sovereignty of the Province between Britain and the Republic of Ireland, a federation and a unitary state. Far from travelling down that road, this agreement turns its back on it. That route has been repudiated not only by the British Government, as the Prime Minister did immediately after the proposals came forth, but now by the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
Cross-border co-operation opens the way for more constructive development in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Lyell: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to come to the cross-border element.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. and learned Friend is leaving the issue. He will not face the constitutional problem.
Mr. Lyell: Very well, I shall be drawn by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on article 1(c)? On Friday night, on Channel 4 Mr. FitzGerald said that the nationalists in the Republic attached great importance to that article. I think that Mr. FitzGerald was right. It undoubtedly substantially changes the position in Northern Ireland. It does not merely say that there will be constitutional change only with the consent of a majority. It takes the matter much further and states:
"if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they"—
the British Government and the Government of the Republic—
"will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish."
Mr. Lyell: I thought that my hon. Friend would make a better point.
Mr. Budgen: It was a good point. My hon. and learned Friend should answer it and demolish my point. He should tell me what rubbish it is.
Mr. Lyell: No one knows better than my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the strongest guarantee for all Northern Ireland is the fact that the majority in Northern Ireland will never change their tune.
Mr. Budgen: No.
Mr. Lyell: If my hon. Friend does not realise that, he does not realise anything. He is a lawyer and it comes ill from me to tell him that he has made a legalistic and false point.
I return to the matters of cross-border co-operation. The agreement provides for four things, which are of crucial importance if progress is to he made. The first and the most important, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) said, is security. The agreement provides for cross-border co-operation in security, and that means to hound the terrorist. It provides for co-operation in security matters, and that means to catch the terrorist. It provides for co-operation in legal matters, and that means to prosecute the terrorist to conviction. If the agreement does not succeed, our hopes will have been disappointed. In so far as it seeks to make progress in these areas, it deserves, and I am sure that it will have, the support of all Northern Ireland Members. The agreement provides also for co-operation in political matters.
I do not wish to quote extensively from "The Way Forward" but it contains much wisdom. Whether the document goes for legislative devolution—it recognises the difficulties—or for administrative devolution, which it seems to prefer, it recognises that politically a way must be found to involve and to give confidence to the minority in Northern Ireland. I believe that this agreement gives an opportunity to build confidence among the minority.
Finally, I strongly support the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) about article 12. I say this in humility because most hon. Members—I openly include myself—know and understand less than we would wish and have fewer opportunities to become deeply involved in the affairs of the Province than we would wish. I believe that we and representatives of the Parliament of southern Ireland would have greater opportunities to learn and Unionist Members would have greater opportunities to teach us about the problems and difficulties of Northern Ireland if an inter-parliamentary body were set up and encouraged. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to encourage any parliamentary measures that go down that route.
8.58 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on this issue. We do not normally see eye to eye on political matters, but I admire his courage in resigning. Ministers do not normally resign these days when they disagree strongly with the Government. I have not noticed any resignation, for instance, by the Secretary of State for Energy. The hon. Member for Eastbourne certainly played honourably.
We should not build up the agreement, thinking that it will bring peace in the immediate future. It would be wrong to be too optimistic. Unfortunately, peace will not come to Northern Ireland for a long time. The danger also is that the Provisional IRA will escalate its violence to

815
prove that it remains part of the scene in Northern Ireland. We should therefore be careful about how we approach the agreement. We must watch our words.
The agreement is, I believe, a step in the right direction. It recognises the Irish dimension in the problems and future of Northern Ireland. For too long, Conservative politicians and Governments have argued that Northern Ireland is just the same as the mainland. That is what the unionists have said today. The agreement shows otherwise.
The government of Ireland should be able in the Intergovernmental Conference to reflect the feelings, problems and aspirations of the minority community in the Province. Some say that without the Provisional IRA and other terrorist organisations there would be no such agreement. Perhaps if the power-sharing agreement had been allowed to work and had not been destroyed on the ground by unionists in 1974, there would be no need for the agreement which has been negotiated with the Irish Republic. Far too often the unionists have been their own worst enemies. Controversies and debates in the House relating to Ireland go back to well before the first world war and the bitterness over opposition to home rule plans for Ireland.
We should not overlook unemployment, deprivation, alienation and the general economic circumstances in Northern Ireland. In an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) I argued that some of the electoral support that the Provisional IRA has built up in the last few years is due to the economic circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). Many Government Members know that what I say is true. Such deprivation—massive unemployment and the feeling among many young people, particularly in the Catholic community, that there is no chance of getting work—aids the terrorist cause.
I do not believe that the majority community in Northern Ireland can be bombed or terrorised into a united Ireland. I accept the Labour party's policy, which is clear. It is in favour of a united Ireland in time—but only by consent. Unity can come only from broad consent. That remains the view of the large majority in the Irish Republic. The Irish people know and understand that if a united state is achieved as a result of the bombing and terrorism of the last 15 years, such a state will not be viable. They know that it would be torn apart. They know that people who have been bombed and terrorised into a united Ireland against their will will not give up their old sectarian quarrels. They will not say, "We have lost today and that is it." Such a united Ireland would be totally unstable and a threat to the future of democracy in Ireland as a whole.
I do not therefore believe that a united Ireland is possible in the near future. Surely the lesson of Northern Ireland over the past 60 years is simply that a substantial minority within the Province strongly feel that no consent was given to the partition of Ireland. A great deal of the present difficulty, misery, hardship and suffering is the result of what happened in 1920. A large majority of the Northern Ireland minority community do not support terrorism. They feel, however, that gerrymandering took place when Ireland was divided against the wishes of the people of Ireland as a whole. It would be foolish to repeat
816
history, whereby a substantial minority—mainly the unionists—thought that they had been bombed and terrorised into a united Ireland against their will. There are all kinds of lessons to be learned from what has happened in Northern Ireland during the past 60 years.
As for the expected reaction of the unionists, Unionist politicians believe that they should have a veto on any matter that affects Northern Ireland. That view is completely unacceptable both to the House and to the British people. Right hon. and hon. Members of the Unionist parties have referred to a referendum, but they want a referendum in Northern Ireland where they know that they have an inbuilt majority. They argue, understandably, that this agreement should be tested in Northern Ireland. However, I want to put forward a different point of view. If there is to be a referendum on this agreement, it should be a United Kingdom referendum.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is right; and then let the agreement be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Winnick: If a referendum were to take place on this agreement, the overwhelming majority of the people of this country would be in favour of it, just as there will be an overwhelming majority in favour of it tomorrow night in this House. However, I very much doubt whether the critics of the agreement would like such a referendum.
If Unionist politicians continue to adopt what can only be described as a completely negative attitude, many people will feel increasingly impatient about this country's involvement in Northern Ireland. There will be an understandable feeling that there is no purpose in the considerable expenditure, blood and suffering in being involved in the Province. Most people are willing that this country should continue to be involved in Northern Ireland. They do not want Britain to be seen as giving in to terrorism. That is understandable, but there is a limit to the patience of British people.
Mr. McCusker: I am prepared to accept that there should be a subvention from the rest of the United Kingdom on the basis of equal citizenship and the richer part of the community contributing to the poorer part. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that subvention should be based upon charity to those who are no longer citizens of the United Kingdom, I do not want that charity. I speak personally because I have not put this view to my constituents. I would accept the decision of a United Kingdom referendum, but those who voted in that referendum would have to accept its consequences.
Mr. Winnick: Unionist politicians and their supporters will take their own decision. I have put forward a point of view that is, I believe, widely shared by many in this country. A growing number of people do not accept that the purpose of being involved in Northern Ireland is to bolster and maintain the unionist veto or to ensure that everybody should remember who won the battle of the Boyne in 1690. That battle is not of immediate concern to the people on the mainland.
The agreement is a step in the right direction. Unionists must accept that there is no going back to the days of Stormont. It is finished. It will never be resurrected. The sooner that Unionist politicians recognise that they cannot have a permanent veto over constitutional and political progress in Northern Ireland, the better it will be.

817
Unionist politicians must accept that in Northern Ireland they have to live on an equal basis with the minority community. That is why I believed that it was right, 11 years ago, to bring in the power-sharing Executive and why today I believe that it is right for the Government of the Irish Republic to have some say in the affairs of Northern Ireland. That is why the agreement will be endorsed by a large majority. Unionist politicians must decide whether they want to remain part of the Union on the basis that Parliament remains supreme, or go down a road that will undoubtedly lead to a unilateral declaration of independence.
9.10 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: The watershed of the debate came soon after the impressive speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), whose courage and eloquence we have all admired. It came when the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Foyle (Mr. Hume) both addressed the House for 26 minutes and in their separate ways reminded us that everyone who lives in Northern Ireland is a member of a minority. The Catholics are a minority in Northern Ireland itself and the Protestants are a minority in the island of Ireland.
Therefore, both traditions do not feel secure enough to make a gesture of generosity to the other, and there were few gestures of generosity in those speeches. I listened closely to what the hon. Member for Foyle said, as leader of the SDLP. Like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), I was not particularly upset when the hon. Member for Foyle did not say that he would join the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, I was upset that there still seemed to be an element of equivocation in the advice that the SDLP will give members of the Catholic community about wholehearted co-operation with the security forces and about encouraging people to join those security forces.
One lesson that I took away after living and working for almost two years in Northern Ireland was that no political or constitutional initiative can ensure that the people of Northern Ireland will live peacefully side by side. However, a foolish initiative can make it more difficult for the communities for Northern Ireland to live peacefully. I fear that this initiative will make it more difficult, although clearly the intention of those who framed it, both in the Civil Service and the Government, was to advance the cause of peace.
Plainly, the agreement would be much strengthened if there were some sign that the majority community in Northern Ireland at least accepted its existence. Some hon. Members will know that, over the years, I have advocated the use of referendums in constitutional matters. I was disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that she did not intend to hold a referendum on the issue but I was not entirely surprised because it is plain that if a referendum were to be held at this moment, it would be soundly defeated in Northern Ireland.
I commend to the Government the example of what happened on the EEC issue. After we had been in the EEC for some time, when fears about the Community had largely dissipated, a referendum was held and was won by those who advocated staying in the EEC. I urge the Government to consider holding a referendum in three years' time, when in any event this agreement will have to be looked at again, when tempers have had time to cool
818
down, because if the agreement works as well as its advocates say, at that time the majority community in Northern Ireland will be beginning to come around to it. If the Government were now to say, "No referendum at this moment, but we will test the temperature in three years' time," I believe that there would be a greater chance of success.
In her statement last Monday the Prime Minister referred no fewer than 12 times to the fact that the status of Northern Ireland will remain unchanged so long as that is the wish of the majority of its people. That phrase has often been used in today's debate, and at present there can be absolutely no doubt that the majority of the people in Northern Ireland wish to continue as members of the United Kingdom. That fact has been acknowledged by the Government in Dublin. However, given that at present this is wholly uncontroversial, it would be wise to say what we mean by "the wish of the majority of its people".
Plainly, on a matter as important as changing nationality and doing away with the border, a low majority on a low poll will not be enough. When we discussed devolution for Scotland and Wales this House made it plain that it would require a substantial majority on a substantial turnout. Therefore, when it comes to a change of status for Northern Ireland we should make it absolutely plain now—and get the agreement of the Government in Dublin—that this cannot happen until an actual majority of those on the electoral role vote positively in favour of a change. Only then would one begin the long process of deciding the financial arrangements and the preparation of a Bill which a year or two later should again be put to the people of Northern Ireland with the requirement that an absolute majority of those on the electoral role should vote in favour. That is looking a long time ahead. Despite the Anglo-Irish agreement, I fear that trouble will continue, and that the House will have to debate the serious security position in Northern Ireland for many years to come.
9.19 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: It is about a year since I had the privilege of speaking in a debate on Northern Ireland from this Dispatch Box, and I am particularly pleased to do so again in a debate on Northern Ireland that will last for two days. We should have undertaken such debates more often, because this is one of the most serious matters that affect the British people and the people of Ireland. Indeed, it might have been an advantage if the debate could have been seen on television, as many people would have learned a great deal from it.
The Labour party accepts the agreement as a small but significant step in the right direction. It is a small step because it does not change the status of Northern Ireland, and may change only the climate of the relationship between Britain and Ireland. That is particularly important, but it does not change Northern Ireland's status in the longer term, as some unionists have feared, and some people, including me, would have wished.
There are three significant areas in the agreement. First, it is significant that the British Government, for the second time in recent years, have ruled out one of the three options on the future of Northern Ireland—the integration of Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom. The unionists are most upset because they recognise that.
Secondly, the agreement is significant because it recognises that the problem cannot be resolved only within

819
Northern Ireland, nor merely in Ireland, but by Britain and Ireland together. It is and always has been a British-Irish problem, and it needs to be addressed at that level.
Thirdly, the agreement is significant because it recognises for the second time in recent years—the first time was at Sunningdale—that Northern Ireland is not a normal part of the United Kingdom. There is nothing surprising about that, because few hon. Members on either the Conservative or Labout Benches have ever treated it as such.
One may argue that Scotland, Wales and England are all treated differently, but for many years Northern Ireland has been treated much more differently. During the debate one of my hon. Friends tried to point out that during the second world war there was no conscription in Northern Ireland, and that the Irish people served in the British forces. On previous occasions I have pointed out that none of the British political parties organises in Northern Ireland. There are many fundamental differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The problem in Northern Ireland is that the two communities have only negative power; and they do not have the power to progress as we think they should have done. It is almost two years since I had the privilege of going to the Forum in Dublin—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), I, too, commend the Irish political parties for that initiative—and saying that an initiative by Britain and Ireland was needed because without it the leadership could not be available within Northern Ireland.
The British have claimed to be the referee for too long when, however well intentioned we may have been, we have been part of the problem. We must recognise that if we are to be honest with ourselves, and with the people of Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.
What do the British people want? Sadly, the Prime Minister has still not addressed that question. The significance of that is that almost everyone in the House, the Unionists excluded perhaps, is a conditional unionist. They are not conditional unionists when it comes to England, Scotland or Wales, but they are conditional unionists when it comes to Northern Ireland, for the reasons that I have already addressed. The unionists in Northern Ireland understand us, as conditional unionists, to be saying that they are only slightly a part of the United Kingdom.
It is precisely because there has been no effective leadership from Britain and Ireland that the negative power within the Northern Ireland communities has led not just to a splitting between the two communities but a splintering of the society. Four major political parties operate in Northern Ireland and many times more small ones. It is not just the political parties that have splintered; it is the communities. It can be taken even further because the paramilitary groups have also splintered. We sometimes address the House as though the paramilitary groups are some well organised, super-co-ordinated groups which do not disintegrate within themselves.
Again, it is worth looking at some of the underlying facts because they say a lot about the overall political climate. Between 1969 and 1985, 119 nationalist paramilitaries were killed by other nationalist paramilitaries. In other words, more members of the paramilitaries on the republican side have been killed by
820
their own people than have been killed by the security forces. Precisely the same applies to the loyalist paramilitary groups. More of them have been killed by their own side than have been killed by the security forces. That is what I mean when I say that the society is splintering.
A breakdown of the citizens killed in Northern Ireland shows that 1,100 Roman Catholics and 931 Protestants have been killed in the same period. Of those, it is worth remembering—unfortunately, we do not always say it outside as loudly as we should—that 570 of those civilians were killed by unionist paramilitary groups. At the end of the day I do not draw a distinction in Northern Ireland between a person who wears a uniform and a person who does not. The killing of any one of those diminishes all of us, and we need to say that loud and clear. But we have to recognise, as I have said many times before, that the paramilitary problem is on both sides of the community, not just on one. We cannot drum that message in heavily enough, not just in order to get balance in the debate, but, more importantly, to help us in the House and Britain to understand the problem in a way that perhaps we have not done to the degree that I would like.
The agony of the unionists—it is an agony—is that they recognise more than most Conservative Members, and, indeed, many of my hon. Friends in the Labour party, that the British people do not really recognise them as British. The British see them as Irish. They may call them Northern Irish or a range of other things, such as Ulstermen, but ultimately the British people see them as Irish.
After the Prime Minister made her statement to the House on 18 November, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) rose to speak, and his words ring in my ears now. He described his feeling of utter desolation. That says more than anything else. The utter desolation that the hon. Gentleman was expressing was the feeling of the unionist community that they were being pushed out.
In his speech today the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) reiterated that even more powerfully. He talked about the battle of the Somme, the Union Jack, his loyalty to the Queen and the flag and everything else. The battle of the Somme is talked about in Northern Ireland in a way that is not understood here. The battle of the Somme with its acts of incredible heroism, even blind heroism, and the enormous slaughter of the occasion, has some special meaning to all of us. But for Northern Ireland unionists it meant that they were cementing their place in the Union and tying the knot to Britain, to their mistress. Sadly, they saw it that way, but we did not. We wonder why they feel bitter and why they cry betrayal and treason. That is why and that is what we need to understand.
Although it is written down that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom unless it wishes to do otherwise, I have never ceased to wonder why any unionist wants it to be so. It is not there for England, Scotland or Wales. Unionists want it there for one fundamental reason—they feel insecure about their position.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East talked about three houses. Presumably, one was Northern Irish, one British and one Irish. If I walked into a family home and found a notice on a bedroom door saying, "I will not be forced out of this house unless I agree to go," I would ask why that person felt so insecure. The reason, as I have said on many occasions, is that he knows that Northern Ireland is

821
not a normal part of the United Kingdom. People know that not just because of the agreement but because British Governments, past and present, have reiterated that. Therefore, Britain, and particularly the Conservative party, has a duty to say what it believes. The Labour party has made it clear that it wants a united Ireland. We have spelt out on several occasions how we think we should move towards that and we have talked of consent. The Conservative party has not said what it wants. The unionists know what they want, and again that is the reason why they express fears of betrayal and treason. That is the problem.
The right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), for whom I have great respect, tackled a difficult problem extremely well. I do not know whether that praise helps him any more than his praise helped the Prime Minister. He knows, and I think still does, that agreements of this nature say to the Northern Irish people, "You will not be a normal part of the United Kingdom." There is only one end to that road. He knows that better than most. Somebody in the Conservative party must start to say that and recognise it.
If we do not address ourselves to that problem, the danger is that we shall drift into crisis management. That touches on all the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn mentioned in his opening speech when he talked about the erosion of democracy. It ends with the super-grass trials, the juryless trials and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I hear some people naively talking about trying to ban the Provisional Sinn Fein. One can almost hear the arguments. They assume that if one tries to smother the symptoms, the problem will go away, but I am afraid that the problem will stay.
Mr. McCusker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarkable speech. Will he bear one thing in mind? The inevitable conclusion of the Conservative Government, or any other Government, telling us where we stand in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom is not a united Ireland.
Mr. Soley: I do not accept that. I understand what the hon. Gentleman has been moving towards during the past few days since his comments about desolation—an independent Northern Ireland. I have looked at that possibility on several occasions, and I do not think that it is a viable solution.
Many people in Northern Ireland are prepared to fight and die for an independent Northern Ireland. That is the danger. We must address ourselves to that when we talk about the way in which we achieve our aims.
The unionists are not stupid or blind to what is happening. They feel betrayed because they recognise that conditional unionism—not outright unionism—the sort of unionism to which the Prime Minister said that she was attaching herself, is not a permanent solution for Northern Ireland. It cannot possibly be. No one is selling the agreement as a permanent solution. Everybody recognises that it is a small step. I describe it as a small but significant step in the right direction. Other people, on both sides of the water and in both the Republic and the North, see it as one useful thing to do to deal with the present problem. Not everybody sees it in the same way as I do.
This is the crucial point where I commend the agreement. It recognises the way in which we need to
822
protect the unionist culture, the religion of Protestantism and unionist civil rights. Those are the things that have to be protected. They represent an enormously strong tradition. If I had a message to give to the unionist people, it would be that such a tradition cannot survive if it lives only on the past and in a siege mentality. It needs to be part of a wider community. The tragedy of Northern Ireland is that it has become so isolated.
I have said that we believe in a united Ireland. We think that we can move towards it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said so eloquently, and as many others have said, it is no part of the Labour party's philosophy that the people of Northern Ireland should be driven into a united Ireland. People in Ireland who take the matter seriously would not want to do that either. No Irish political party believes that an all-Ireland political settlement could work unless a significant number of people of the North were willing to work that settlement, and that means a majority in one form or another. That is what we mean when we talk about a united Ireland by consent. It must be a solution that works for people.
It is important to recognise that one of the most positive things about the agreement, which applies whether one believes in a united Ireland, as I and my party do, or takes the Conservative party's view, which applies equally as much, is the harmonisation of the social and economic systems, which offers enormous potential to the people of Ireland as a whole. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said, it is nonsense that, for the purpose of EEC common agricultural policy grants, we treat the two parts of Ireland differently because of the different national policies. That is ridiculous. It does the unionists and the nationalists no good. Agriculture is an important basic industry for both the North and the South. There is great potential in food production, packaging and processing, and joint operations. However, we underplay those things at the moment. If the agreement did no more than realise that potential, I would give it a big welcome.
Mr. William Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking for himself or his party?
Mr. Soley: I was asked to speak for my party tonight, and that is precisely what I am doing. We are staying on the same lines. The hon. Gentleman might not understand it. I am willing to give him extra time afterwards if he wants to do his homework. Our policy is on exactly the same line and it does not change.
The agreement is a step in the right direction, whether one believes in a united Ireland or, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) put it so well, whether one maximises the agreement in order to minimise the violence. I thought that that was very good stuff. However, at the end of the day, the House has to remember that Parliament is sovereign. It decides what happens in the United Kingdom. As long as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, we shall make the decisions on Northern Ireland. That is why there cannot be a veto on political proposals or developments that are designed to win consent or, as some Conservative Members recognise, to improve an intolerable situation.
We are not saying to the House that the agreement will bring forth miracles. It will not. Sadly, it will not stop the killings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North rightly said, there is even a danger of further

823
killings, not just by one side. That is one of the constant problems that we have to live with when we deal with Northern Ireland.
However, the agreement is an important step forward and the House should support it. Neither I nor any of my right hon. and hon. Friends are prepared to support an attempt to make the present situation just work for ever. It is eroding our democracy and that of southern Ireland. It is playing havoc with the lives of people in Northern Ireland, republican and unionist, Catholic and Protestant. Sooner or later we shall have to deal with that in the way in which we have begun to do today.
9.39 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) for his support, although I do not agree with his diagnosis. There are alternatives, such as direct rule, but there is no single road.
We have had a wide-ranging debate involving hon. Members of all parties. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who has always been a man of honour and dignity. We entered the House together and we have often dined together. I regret, as many hon. Members do, his resignation, but respect his reasons for it. His integrity raises the standing of the House.
I enjoyed the speeches of the three "Bs." The constituencies of several hon. Members sent to Northern Ireland begin with the letter B—those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), of course, Brent, North is another.
I cannot refer to every point that has been made today. There have been many points and about 20 hon. Members have spoken. We have reduced the winding-up time to allow as many people as possible to contribute.
The most important reason for obtaining stability in Northern Ireland is to put an end to the killings. We all agree on that. We also want people to be able to walk the streets in safety. Another matter linked to unemployment and the economy of the Province is that until there is political stability, we shall not get investment from abroad to get the Province moving, a better standard of living and less unemployment, which is often a source of recruitment for the paramilitaries.
The Leader of the Opposition is not present, but I often faced him across the Dispatch Box when we were involved in education matters. We have moved on since then, although he has moved much faster than I have—[Interruption.] That was the understatement of the year. I am moving along gently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said that Ministers come and go. I come and go, but the Leader of the Opposition has gone. He has not returned to the debate tonight. The right hon. Gentleman said that unemployment had created the troubles, but it has not. We must get that right. Northern Ireland suffers from one tenth of the violence of 10 or 12 years ago, but three times the unemployment. That does not mean that we do not wish to get rid of unemployment. However, the violence comes from the tension between the two communities.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Rubbish.
Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman may be an expert on rubbish, but the facts are there. At present, we have one tenth of the killings of 10 years ago, with three times the unemployment. That does not mean that if unemployment increased there would be no killings, but it cannot be said that unemployment is the only cause of the killings.
We want more employment in Northern Ireland. The Government are creating more small and medium firms per head of the population in Northern Ireland than in any other region in the United Kingdom. Shipbuilding, small agriculture and textiles have run down more quickly in western Europe and in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland. However, more high technology investment is needed from large combines abroad.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned unemployment generally, but the worst aspect in Northern Ireland is male unemployment, which destabilises the family more than anything else and can help the paramilitaries. If a man has no integrity with his family because he has no wage to take home on a Friday, he will try to create it in another way. The Province has 21·6 per cent. male unemployment, compared with 15·9 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. Overall, the Province has 20·9 per cent. unemployment and the United Kingdom 13·4 per cent. In Strabane, there is almost 50 per cent. male unemployment.
The Leader of the Opposition said that Northern Ireland needs more money. Since I have been a Northern Ireland Minister, many of my friends have accused me of becoming a neo-Keynesian, despite that fact that I adhere to my monetarist views. Whatever is wrong with Northern Ireland, it is not a shortage of money. As the right hon. Gentleman said, £1·5 billion, or £1,000 for every man, woman and child, is transferred from the Treasury to keep Northern Ireland afloat. By saying that, I do not intend to insult the people of Northern Ireland. The Exchequer transfers money similarly to other under-developed areas in Britain. However, we must face the fact that, unless we can regenerate the economy, that transfer of money must continue, and a once-proud province, which was one of the industrial wonders of the world, will never get off the ground again.
Northern Ireland needs more investment from Great Britain, America, Germany, Hong Kong and Japan. What stops us obtaining that investment is political instability. However, foreign companies already in Northern Ireland are expanding, and yesterday we heard the great news that Du Pont will build its most modern Kevlar plant outside America in Northern Ireland. It is one of the largest investment in the United Kingdom this year. But Du Pont has been in Northern Ireland for more than 25 years. It knows how good is the work force, in Maydown, but the problem is obtaining investment from firms that have never been in Northern Ireland. At present, 11,000 workers are employed by 27 American firms. That represents one in eight workers in the Province; one in three is employed by firms based in Great Britain or other
Some hon. Members asked why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State flew to America after the agreement was signed. Had America forced us into the agreement, as some people believe, all that he would have needed to do would have been to pick up the telephone and say, "We have done it." He had to go to America to inform Americans of what was happening, because they were intensely interested. Never forget that 40 million Americans believe that their origins lie in Northern Ireland

825
or southern Ireland. My hon. Friend had to tell them what the agreement was about. It seems to me perfectly sensible. I have great faith in my hon. Friend. Sometimes we disagree economically and politically, but we stand shoulder to shoulder on this matter. If this was simply an American plot, he would not have needed to go there. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) appears to be asleep and not listening to my speech—
Mr. Hugh Brown: It is unfair of the Minister to put that on the record when the truth is that I am listening to his speech with great interest.
Dr. Boyson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I meant it in a cheerful way. I must stop being cheerful, because it is dangerous and from time to time one can be misunderstood. I am delighted to put on the record the fact that the hon. Gentleman made an extremely fair and caring speech, which was listened to with great interest. He asked about American investment almost as though American investment was wrong. The mass of the people of Northern Ireland, whatever their politics, would want 10 more American firms in Northern Ireland tomorrow, absorbing 10,000 to 20,000 of the unemployed. That would transform the Province's image.
Mr. McCusker: Would the Minister mind me bringing him back to the Anglo-Irish agreement? Is he saying that, in exchange for giving the Irish Republic—let me put it in media terms—a say in the government of Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic will forgo its investment opportunities? After all, Northern Ireland competes with the Republic for investment. Would that be realistic, bearing in mind the fact that, even taking account of the statistics on impoverishment in Northern Ireland, by any standards the Province is better off than the Irish Republic?
Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman has an extremely narrow view if he believes that the only alternative to investment in Northern Ireland is investment in the Republic. There are 137 other countries in the world. I should be delighted if we could co-operate with the Republic in attracting more investment and tourism to the entire island. If one reads the survey which we conducted three years ago among decision makers in Britain, the United States and Germany, one discovers that their biggest anxiety about investing in Northern Ireland is its political instability.
When asked, 88 per cent. of the decision-makers in Britain, 86 per cent. in the United States and 63 per cent. in Germany said that the greatest disincentive to investment in Northern Ireland was political instability. There must be political stability if the Province is ever to be revitalised economically and in many other ways.
There has been much discussion in the House today about what the agreement means. Opposition Members have stated their views and tried to explain the Government's view, but I shall now give the Government's view in a straightforward way. This agreement represents the first occasion when in a binding international agreement the Republic of Ireland has affirmed that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority and that the present wish of the majority is for no change.
The Sunningdale agreement did not become a binding international agreement, nor did it contain any recognition by the Republic of Ireland Government that the present
826
wish of the majority was for no change. The present agreement is different and that is stated for the record. The British Government have no desire to push Northern Ireland away. The speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) interpreted the Government's action and, although it was not a mischievous speech, he could have misled individuals into believing that the British Government were intentionally distancing themselves from Northern Ireland and saying, "Go your own way." The agreement does not say that. As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have said, that protection is written into the beginning of the agreement and so protects the unionist community.
The agreement will lead to improved security cooperation on both sides of the border and it registers the intention of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to accede to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. Right hon. and hon. Members have said that the Republic said that it was co-operating before, and I have no doubt that it was, but creating a structure in the Intergovernmental Conference where talks can take place and ideas can be exchanged will obviously lead to improvements in security. Such structured meetings should lead to the formation of relationships and should allow the RUC and the Garda to work closely together, which should help security in Northern Ireland for the benefit of all. Some hon. Members may laugh at that and think that I am being naive, but I believe that 99 per cent. of the people in this country would be similarly naive and believe what I am saying.
Mr. Michael Martin: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Boyson: I shall not give way. I have already given way and I must get through my speech.
I hope that, with the encouragement of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, there will be more recruitment of members of the minority community into the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment. In many United States cities and elsewhere Catholic emigrés from the island of Ireland have become the backbone of the police and influential in the army. The Government would welcome their help in increasing numbers in Northern Ireland in the defeat of the paramilitaries.
Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Boyson: I shall not give way. The hon. Member has already had his share and spoke for half an hour.
I can tell the nationalist minority, like the majority, what their responsibilities are and how they are covered by the agreement. The nationalist minority are not simply observers of the agreement. I am sure that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will agree with me. They are participants to help settle the fears of the unionist community by their increased help in security matters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) mentioned devolution. He is not with us because he is elsewhere at the moment. [Interruption.] At last I have the unanimous approval of the House. I must work on that achievement. I know where my right hon. Friend is. I am sure he is dining well and discussing very important political matters.
The agreement does not mark the end of consultations for the unionist community. The unionist community has

827
a voice in the House. If they disappear for two months, there will be no consultation with them in their absence. It would be difficult to discuss matters with them while they are fighting elections elsewhere. The unionists have representation in the House and in their own Assembly. They have the Assembly and the district councils. Those are all places for consultation if people would use them instead of shutting them down. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister devoted a considerable amount of time to a delegation of unionists who came over to see her.
Those four points are firmly delivered for the unionist community. For the nationalist community, there is full recognition of their identity in Northern Ireland. The agreement recognises that both communities are legitimately there and have a legitimate identity. As one Member after another has said today, we can set up structures to help—we believe that this one will help—but in the last resort success must rest on the co-operation of both communities and their wish to work together to make Northern Ireland a more peaceful place than it has been in the past.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Boyson: No. I am watching the time and I did not give way to others who wished to intervene.
Similarly, for the nationalist community, at the Intergovernmental Conference British Ministers and Ministers from the Republic will meet to discuss matters of mutual concern. In the long run, that should also be of advantage to the unionist community because the traffic will be two way. We shall not simply be replying to what Ministers from the Republic say. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I cannot imagine my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any Northern Ireland Minister in any British Government going along to listen to a list off things that the Republic says that we should do without taking a list of our own. It will be a two-way traffic. [Interruption.] I have more faith in our parliamentarians than some Ulster unionists now in the House.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Boyson: No, I shall not give way. I have only four minutes left.
Mention has been made of a referendum. Referendums were held in Wales and in Scotland because they concerned internal matters related to the way in which those regions should be governed. This is an agreement between two sovereign Governments as to how they
828
should work together for the benefit of Northern Ireland as well as the Republic, which obviously also means for the benefit of the United Kingdom. Two sovereign Governments have made an agreement. That is why we are debating it and I hope that the House will pass it tomorrow as the Irish Parliament passed it last week.
On investment, there was no bribe in the shape of money from America. There is still no specification of money actually coming. Obviously, however, especially on the industrial front where investment and jobs are needed, if America wishes to help in the creation of jobs in Northern Ireland and in the Republic it would be foolish and miserable to refuse that help. If 'Tip' O'Neill and President Reagan are delighted by that—[Interruption.] I am surprised at the insularity of Unionist Members sometimes. Most of us would take new jobs in our constituencies if they came from Timbuktu. For the past 14 months, I have worked to bring jobs to the Province and other Ministers have done the same. I regard that as vital in every way.
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Boyson: No, I am not giving way.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), with whom I used to argue reguarly about education—he has become somewhat hairier than in those days of yore—asked about the size of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland. It is now down almost to garrison strength—9,000 regulars with 6,500 in the UDR. I know that the hon. Gentleman would have worried if I had not given those figures.
Finally, it is vital that we take a detached but totally concerned view of the Northern Ireland situation and that we are not trapped in history, important though history is. The sense of the agreement is an attempt to distance ourselves from a past in Northern Ireland which has recently had severe difficulties both politically and economically. On one side it gives a firm commitment from the British Government and from the Government of the Republic of Ireland that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as the majority so wishes. On the other side, it accepts the legitimate identity of the nationalist community and recognises that the two parts of the island of Ireland have interests in common.
The agreement thus gives to the people of Northern Ireland a promise of a more settled, confident, cooperative and more prosperous future. Such a future is possible if both communities in Northern Ireland are prepared to work for it, and I commend the agreement to the House.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Parental and Family Leave
10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11118/83 and 10681/84, draft Directive and amended draft Directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons; endorses the Government's view that these matters are best pursued by voluntary negotiations between employers and employees; and welcomes the United Kingdom's endeavours to encourage instead Community initiatives which enhance job prospects for men and women.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Bottomley: The Department's explanatory memoranda which are before the House set out the background to this evening's debate. The draft directive seeks to create an entitlement for parental leave, and leave for family reasons, which would be harmonised throughout the Community. Both forms of leave will be an individual entitlement for both men and women. The proposal would give all employees an individual right to a minimum of three months' parental leave to be taken during the first two years of a child's life and a minimum number of days' leave per year for pressing family reasons. The proposal is intended to enable a working parent to stay at home to look after a child. It would require that any allowance paid during parental leave should be met from public funds and no level of allowance is specified.
The Commission's main aim in bringing this proposal forward is to promote equal opportunities by making it easier for women to combine work and childcare and to encourage men to play a greater role in looking after children. The Commission also believes that it will assist the development of its family policy, one aspect of which is to improve facilities for care of children of working parents. Finally, it believes that by reorganising working time it will contribute to a reduction in unemployment.
It is our view that Community legislation to impose parental leave is not necessary for the promotion of equal opportunities, for two reasons. First, reconciling child care with employment is not a problem to which there is a single solution suitable to be imposed by legislation. Indeed, there are a number of possible solutions, and parental leave itself is only a temporary and partial one. Other solutions include day nurseries—whether public, private, or provided by the employer—childminders, child minding by relatives, part-time work, and shared childminding among friends and neighbours. For the same reasons universally imposed parental leave arrangements are not essential to promote family life.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Before my hon. Friend goes on to the merits or lack of merits of the proposal it seems that he is talking about Community family policy. Did we join a European family and has it got any legal status in this issue? There is some dispute about this. The European Legislation Select Committee asked whether the Community had any legal competence to have a policy in this area. What is the Government's view? Is the Community legally competent to proceed with policies in this area? If the Government are not convinced of the Community's legal competence, what will the Government do about this?
Mr. Bottomley: The simple answer to my hon. Friend is that there are differing views on the Community's competence. It will fall within the first part of article 100, as my hon. Friend will know. The Government propose to take part in this debate and to listen to the views expressed in the House and then I shall reply to the debate if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. Parental leave is fundamentally different to maternity leave, where the physiological fact of childbirth creates a specific need for withdrawal from work. Like the other arrangements I have mentioned, parental leave can have a role to play, but the benefit which it brings is confined to the relatively short period of the leave itself. When parental leave is over, the needs of the child and the requirements of the job remain.
The second reason why we do not believe that the proposal promotes equal opportunity is that, to ensure that the arrangements are not discriminatory, it is not necessary to establish at Community level specific leave entitlements that must apply in all undertakings regardless of circumstances. In that respect, it is no different from many other important aspects of employment such as recruitment, and promotion procedures. There does not have to be a rigid formula for each of them at Community level to prevent discrimination. All that is necessary is that general anti-discrimination measures should apply.
It is widely recognised in Europe that the United Kingdom has a good record on equal opportunities. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is now supplemented by the Equal Opportunities Commission's excellent code of practice of 1985, which has the full backing of the Government, employers and trade unions. It ensures that personal leave arrangements and child care are addressed adequately by the United Kingdom's equal opportunities measures.
It is also argued—no doubt it will be by supporters of the amendment—that the draft directive offers new opportunities for work sharing as a solution to changing domestic circumstances. It is counter-productive to try to fight unemployment by imposing working arrangements on employers and employees that might not suit them and which they might not be able to afford. Many women who return to work after maternity absence are already able to go part-time so as to spend longer at home. Our job splitting scheme encourages that. It applies equally to a father or anyone else who decides to spend more time at home for whatever reason. Employers are increasingly recognising the benefit of job splitting, not least because of the grant of £840 available for taking on an unemployed person for the other half of a job.
Such voluntary arrangements would lose their attraction and flexibility if they were imposed without due regard to the costs and the longer-term viability of the parents' job. The proposal is unnecessary and would be damaging for four principal reasons. First, these matters are best dealt with between employers and employees according to their priorities, needs and circumstances and what they can afford. Secondly, the draft directive would impose minimum, but not harmonised, conditions of employment more favourable than currently exist in any member state. It is a piece of social engineering rather than a genuine proposal for harmonisation. Thirdly, implementation of the directive would give a wrong signal to the labour market, as it would add to employers' costs and increase the administrative burden on them, thereby damaging competitiveness and hindering the key task of reducing unemployment. Fourthly, in so far as the draft directive

831
would create costs that would fall on public funds, the Government do not consider that such expenditure is, or is likely to become, a priority over other more pressing demands on such funds. This is not the right time to give extra rights to people in jobs at the expense of the unemployed.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, irrespective of egality, article 100 and harmonisation, unless there is a fixed statutory limit which provides rights that may be taken up, the power of employers will be too great? Irrespective of the source of the legislation, will the hon. Gentleman agree the value of that principle?
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into broader considerations, some practical others philosophical. I prefer to wait until the end of the debate to see whether the matter comes up more generally or more specifically.
The Social Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg in June referred the draft directive back to its working group for further consideration. There have been regular discussions and negotiations about the text of the proposal in Brussels during the past few months. When the Department announced its consultation exercise earlier this year, it referred to several areas of the basic proposal that had been suggested in the Council machinery—member states might restrict parental leave to the period immediately following maternity leave, parental leave might take the form of an entitlement which parents could allocate between themselves as they wished, there might be a safeguard to enable employers to refuse or to defer leave in cases of serious difficulty with the undertaking, there might be a threshold excluding small and medium-sized firms from the proposal.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again and apologise for coming back to him. Perhaps he will clarify a point. There are people on hourly pay and people on salaries. Will the Government come forward with an allowance for those on hourly pay? After all, the firm does not have to pay them. Will those on salaries lose that part of their salaries while they are taking parental leave? Will it be one rule for those on salaries and another for those on hourly pay?
Mr. Bottomley: I think that the Government's intention is that there should not be a rule for anybody.
The variants that I have been discussing have since figured prominently in negotiations, but no clear resolution concerning them has emerged. We are unsure of the precise proposition that the Luxembourg Presidency will put on the table at the Social Affairs Council on 5 December.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister need not take too much trouble to persuade Conservative Members that the directive is a load of rubbish that should be thrown out. We accept that. But the Minister is moving a motion which says that, instead of all this rubbish, the Government want to encourage Community initiatives to "enhance job prospects". Before he sits down will he tell us exactly what the Government have in mind? Do they have in mind a lot of public expenditure within the
832
Community in order to create jobs, because that is quite contrary to what the Government have sought to do at home?
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has tempted me to pre-empt what I was going to say at the end of the debate. Perhaps I should list the aims. The first is to try to encourage deregulation in the EC's activities so that we can remove barriers to employment. The second is to try to ensure that every proposed directive has an employment impact statement tied to the proposal. Most of the things on the agenda during the last few years have been either neutral or harmful to employment. The third aim is to ensure that when Social Affairs and Employments Ministers come together in Brussels, they discuss the sort of things discussed in their national capitals, such as how to enable the spirit of enterprise and greater employment to overtake the increase in unemployment that has taken place in Europe during the past 12 years. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will listen to my words. He should be cheering them to the echo, but he does not seem to be convinced, or to be nodding his head in approval.
The draft directive has already been extensively discussed in the United Kingdom. The proposal has been debated and reported upon in the other place and, of course, the Department of Employment announced a consultation exercise to which the majority of interested parties responded. Many arguments both for and against the proposal were put forward and I may return to them at the end of the debate. I should record that the various proposals provoked little interest and still less support.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I am most anxious to help my hon. Friend, as I think that he is reading this nonsense terribly well. It is a great credit to any Minister to read rubbish well, and my hon. Friend is reading it very well. But apart from reading such Common Market rubbish well—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Pure nonsense.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I object to the word "pure". But does my hon. Friend the Minister think that the directives will promote equal opportunities? Does he really believe, as the Opposition seem to do, that they will
"improve the quality of family life"
and that they will make a useful contribution towards reducing unemployment? As an employer, I know that nothing will increase unemployment more than this rubbish that we have to discuss tonight for one and a half hours, so I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to read it quickly and to get the debate over with so that we can vote against it.
Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure whether some of my words have been misinterpreted as meaning support for the draft directives. I should make it clear that the Government are not asking the House to approve the directives. The Government do no intend to approve them in Brussels.
The Government have not disputed that leave and career break arrangements, and opportunities for part-time work can play an important part in promoting equal opportunities and improving family welfare. However, we have noted the sharp divisions that exist both at home and abroad over the relative merits of this proposal. It is our considered view that the proposal is unnecessary. Its objectives can be, and are being, attained in the United

833
Kingdom through voluntary agreements between employers and their work forces where the demand for them exists. To burden employers further especially in small firms, in the way that the directive proposes would in all probability damage rather than improve the employment prospects of those whom it seeks to assist. This draft directive will be bad for jobs and for that reason, if no other, this Government oppose it.
10.15 pm
Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes European Community Documents Nos. 11118/83 and 10681/84, draft Directive and amended draft Directive which recommend a Community minimum statutory provision for parental leave and leave for family reasons, which would promote equal opportunity, improve the quality of family life and encourage greater flexibility of working time and shorter working hours as a useful contribution to the reduction of unemployment; and deplores the fact that the United Kingdom is now the only member state in direct opposition to these proposals."
Like other hon. Members, I am not riveted by the Common Market. However, as the Government lack any genuine policies to move towards equality for women, I am willing to grasp at any straws from Europe that might persuade the Government to fall into line with what other European countries are doing—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Ms. Richardson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will wait for a few moments. I know that he will not let me proceed with my speech without attempting to interrupt me.
Any hon. Member not interested in the debate, who might wander into it having collected his documents from the Vote Office, might be forgiven for questioning the paucity of the documents, yet that is often the case with debates on EEC directives. Documents relating to this debate are dated no later than January 1984, and some are dated a year previous to that.
One of my complaints is that when the negotiations on EEC directives take place in Europe, at whatever level, this House is not taken into account, nor given any account of amendments tabled. Therefore, we are often faced with watered down directives, and the directives before us may be the result of what has happened during the past few months. I hope that, as a result of this debate, the Government will attend the meeting on 5 December and support the directives as a means of achieving more equality in this country. The content of the directives is of great importance to women in Britain.
However, throughout their period of office, the Government have shown many examples of their hypocritical attitude towards equality for women—and that goes for Conservative Members in the Chamber tonight. For example, the Government opposed the Bill on sexual equality that I introduced in 1983, they obstructed the proposal for equal pay for work of equal value, they gave a contemptuous response to the sex discrimination ruling against Britain's immigration rules and they mean-mindedly refused to extend the invalid care allowance to married and cohabiting women.
Mr. Marlow: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I sympathise with her desire for this legislation. The hon. Lady, like many hon. Members, has said that she is against any increase in European
834
competence in areas in which it should not put forward policies. Indeed, there is some legal doubt whether the EEC has the authority to put forward such policies. Does the hon. Lady want the matter to be challenged legally in the proper manner before it is brought before the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind hon. Members that they must speak to the terms of the directives. If the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) follows the line suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that will be out of order.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you have yet had the opportunity to read the documents, especially the report from the Select Committee. In its report, the Select Committee specifically said that there was some legal doubt about whether the EEC had any competence to pursue this issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate must concern itself with the terms of the directives.
Ms. Richardson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was proposing to do that.
With the Government's response to the European Commission's proposals for parental and family leave, we have a clear statement of the Government's attitude to men—
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Oh!
Ms. Richardson:—who wish to take a real and equal share in the care of their families. That surprised the hon. Gentleman, did it not?
The Government's curt motion to "note" the commission's proposals demonstrates yet again just how out of touch they are with day-to-day reality and the priorities of people's lives. It is a further example, despite all the Conservative party's claims to be the party of the family, of the Government's failure to support measures designed to help families.
As the Equal Opportunities Commission has said in its submission to the Department of Employment and the House of Lords, parental and family leave are two forms of leave provision which greatly assist workers with family responsibilities. The commission has given its full support to parental leave—which should not be confused with paternity leave—to give rights to fathers as well as to mothers to time off, following the end of maternity leave, to care for a young child under two. I can see nothing wrong with that. The EOC has fully endorsed family leave, which would enable employees to take time off for pressing and important family reasons, including the illness of a child or the person caring for it.
The TUC has expressed its support for such provision, together with many organisations concerned with the welfare of children, such as the Maternity Alliance and the National Council for One Parent Families, which have welcomed the proposals as
"providing a framework within which child care could be accepted as a manageable part of the working parent's life, rather than a source of crisis."
In Britain, almost half of all single parents—mostly women—are in paid employment; half of all women with dependent children are in paid employment; and about 88 per cent. of employed men have dependent children. Yet Britain's record on rights for working parents is, contrary to what the Under-Secretary of State

835
has said, one of the worst in Europe. For example, our service requirements for maternity pay and leave are now so strict that only half of all pregnant women qualify, while fathers have no rights at all.
From January 1986, nine EEC countries, excluding this one, will have some form of parental leave provision. I ask Conservative Members to note that those countries have introduced this provision without waiting for the directive to come into effect. It does not come into force until January 1986. Some countries will have a provision that goes beyond that envisaged in the Commission's proposals. The Government have been hellbent on proposing wrecking amendments throughout the discussions, which have been taking place since November 1984. However, the basic essentials of the original proposals remain—thank goodness—and they have been accepted by most member states. There is to be a minimum of three months' parental leave consequential upon the birth or adoption of a child, with the option to take this part-time, and a minimum number of days' leave per annum—to be fixed by states—for pressing family reasons, to be available to mothers or fathers in paid employment. By taking governmental responsibility for such provision, all those member states are demonstrating their willingness to accept one of the most important principles underlying parental and family leave—that the sharing of family responsibilities is a precondition for the achievement of equal opportunities and equal treatment for women and men in all spheres.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: The hon. Lady is giving the impression that all the other European countries have been busy adopting this directive. How many countries have no such intention? I put it to her that there are four such countries out of the 12. How many of the remainder have taken up this option with unpaid leave, which is a totally different matter from the paid-by-the-state proposals that are before us? Is it not a fact that six countries have unpaid leave proposals and that only two have full paid leave proposals?
Ms. Richardson: I wonder whether the hon. Lady would mind waiting a little, because I intend to come to the list of countries that have these provisions. She will then get her answer.
The European Commission is encouraging member states to confront another fundamental issue facing the industrialised developed nations—the need radically to rethink the distribution of time spent on waged work and that spent on other responsibilities and activities.
Although still a minority, an increasing number of men are also rethinking their traditional role in the family. Many are rejecting the role which deprives them of the experience of caring for their children. They are expressing the desire to build a new type of relationship with their partner and their children. I should have thought that all hon. Members would welcome that.
Evidence shows that many men are refusing to follow the traditional path to promotion—for example, by uprooting their partner and children to chase every offer of career advancement around the country, or even out of the country, just to prove their worth to an employer and their dedication to their work. Many men, rightly, are challenging some of the outmoded notions about what it takes to be a real man. We should all welcome that.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Lady believe in fairies?
Ms. Richardson: That is offensive. There are too many examples of the characteristic "real man." I can see a few on the Government Benches—thrusting, strutting, one-track minded macho types who neither know nor care who looks after the rest of society.
The Commission rightly proposes to harmonise provisions throughout member states to redress the imbalance in employment rights for working parents throughout the EEC, to eradicate discrimination against working fathers and to strengthen equal opportunities for women at work. The proposals should be welcomed and encouraged.
The proposals also offer the opportunity to improve the quality of child care that working parents can give in the early months after a child's birth. The acute shortages of nursery care in the United Kingdom cause distress particularly for single parents.
It is generally accepted that women's working lives are affected more than men's when a couple have children or when adult members of families require help. One in eight women is at home caring for elderly or infirm relatives. That is more than the number of women at home caring for children. Under pressure from Governments, such as ours, the Commission has withdrawn the proposal that family leave should encompass time off to care for an adult dependant.
Dame Jill Knight: Can the hon. Lady elaborate on the number of women at home caring for a relative? Does the number include the elderly wife of an elderly man looking after her husband at home and who would not be working outside because of her own age?
Ms. Richardson: My statistics come from the Association of Carers, the credentials of which are impeccable. Of course, the figure includes people caring for their partners. However, many women are caring for a relative at home when they might be out doing some form of paid work. That is because the community support system has been cut or withdrawn.
Employment conditions and the provision for social and community services fail to provide adequately for family responsibilities. Therefore, women returning to work after a career break often have to seek work in lower paid and lower status areas of employment. After having had a child many women who return to work have to enter a lower category of occupation. The 1980 survey of women and employment showed that broken employment patterns have a lasting effect upon women's lifetime earnings. Sometimes they involve a 25 to 50 per cent. reduction in earnings.
That illustrates the abysmally low value that employers place upon the skills and experience that people develop when they are caring for others and running a home. It illustrates also the massive waste of expensive training and the skills that women acquire in employment. Therefore, we regret the Government's view, which is implicit in the last part of their motion, that the Commission's proposals for parental and family leave run contrary to initiatives which enhance job prospects for both women and men.
Any Government who seriously sought to encourage job opportunities—not a claim that this Government could readily make—would face a long, hard haul to

837
bring this country back to full employment. Although a future Labour Government will seek to provide permanent employment for all who require it, we accept that, for a variety of reasons, there will always be a place for short-term or temporary employment. In West Germany it is estimated that when parental and sabbatical leave comes into effect in 1986, one year contracts may be made available for up to 200,000 people who are not in paid employment. Such opportunities would assist the unemployed, disabled workers who are unable to take on long-term employment commitments, workers who have taken early retirement but who wish to have occasional employment to boost their incomes and workers who have chosen to take a career break of several years to care for children or adult dependants and require only occasional employment to maintain their skills. Cover for colleagues who take parental leave may also offer opportunities for employees in junior grades to gain experience through temporary promotion. That would further reduce the need for people to transfer jobs and uproot their families.
Therefore, we reject the view that parental and family leave, although desirable, are far too costly to be implemented. The Government say that there is no economic crisis, so there should be no problem about this. Those who argue that luxuries like parental leave and family leave must wait for some distant economic revival fail to take into account the number of workers who could temporarily be removed from the need to depend upon social security while they cover leave. The Government are ignoring, too, the boost to personal morale that this would provide and the boost to the quality of life and purchasing power of all concerned.
We also reject the Government's view that the proposals can best be dealt with through
"voluntary negotiations between employers and employees."
That approach will discriminate against employees in the poorly organised, non-union sectors. The majority of workers in those sectors are low paid, and mainly women. Their existing minimal rights are being further eroded by the removal of those under 21 years of age from the protection of the wages councils, three quarters of whom are women. Even those workers who are protected by strong trade unions which are committed to equal opportunities—the Government have done everything in their power to weaken all trade unions—find that employers are unnecessarily obstructive about issues such as parental leave.
In its evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities in March this year, the National Union of Journalists—I hope that members of the Press Gallery are listening, although there are not many present—said:
"in spite of the strenuous efforts to improve these rights through free collective bargaining large numbers of employers are quite unreasonably resistant."
It went on to say that the result of this has been
"to reinforce the existing job segregation (between women and men) in an industry which has no conceivable skill-related reason to be segregated in this way. Without firm backing through legislation"—
such as that which we are discussing—
"it will take many years for the unions to eliminate these disparities at the negotiating table. It would, therefore, take a corresponding length of time for us to move closer to equality in the prestigious and higher paid jobs in the newspaper field. We believe that this constitutes a form of indirect discrimination against women and that our industry and our society is the poorer for it."
838
Similarly, we reject the view that parental and family leave would adversely affect the employers' ability to remain competitive. Even if we wished to apply the Government's "market mechanisms" and "balance sheet mentality", this would still encourage support for harmonised governmental responsibility throughout the EEC to ensure that employers who wish to demonstrate their commitment to equal opportunities and their social responsibility to working parents and their children are not penalised unfairly by an imbalance of competition from unscrupulous employers who refuse to negotiate.
The Opposition therefore urge the Government to take note of the opinions expressed by, among others, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Trades Union Congress, the Maternity Alliance, the British agencies for adoption and fostering, MENCAP, the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital, and the Royal College of Nursing, all of which have given support to the idea.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Richardson: No.
These organisations which represent the interests of working parents and children, will find it very hard to understand why the party that took the country into the EEC refuses to implement policies that so many other states have already accepted.
For those Conservative Members who are opposed to the Common Market, I point out that we need not have waited for the EC anyway.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) asked about figures. France offers two years of unpaid leave to either parent, or the right to work part-time for the same period and £100 to families with three or more children. Italy provides six months leave, paid at 30 per cent. to the mother or father. Denmark gives 10 weeks of paid parental leave. In Belgium, six to 12 months leave is available for the care of young children, and it may be taken part-time where cover is provided by a part-time worker who was previously unemployed. In Greece, employees of companies of more than 100 workers are entitled to three months parental leave.
Mrs. Currie: Unpaid.
Ms. Richardson: Yes, unpaid; but at least it is a step in the right direction.
In West Germany a new law on parental leave comes into effect in 1986, increasing the period of leave to 10 months, and then to 12 months from 1988. Leave is currently paid at £150 a month for women and there is extended maternity leave, but by next year that figure will be available to men also. In Luxembourg, public sector employees may take one year of unpaid leave, following maternity leave.
Portugal—not yet a member of the EC, but becomes one in January—already provides six months' parental leave. Spain will also not become a member of the Community until January, but it allows up to three years' family leave. Italy, Greece, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Portugal all make a variety of provisions for family leave to care for sick children. Portugal provides for 30 days' leave covered by social security benefits.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Richardson: I do not want to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

839
Can the British Government continue to argue that we cannot afford to implement these provisions? We think not. The working women and men in this country will be waiting for a decision from the House tonight which accepts that such socially desirable legislation cannot be costed merely on a pounds and pence basis. We remind hon. Members—
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the last person who would wish to interrupt the hon. Lady, but is this meant to be a debate or a lecture? If one is not allowed to question, why do we have a debate at all?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the length of speeches is not my business.
Ms. Richardson: After the hon. Gentleman's offensive remark earlier, I decided not to give way to him. I will end what he calls my lecture by quoting from the House of Lords Select Committee which found that there was
"no convincing evidence that parental leave would raise industry's costs."
The Committee recommended that
"any increased costs should be met in part by governments"
to ensure that the important social objectives of promoting equal opportunities for women—something that Tory Members do not know about—and improving child care can be met.
I could not express it better. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for our amendment, and I hope that some Conservative Members will be shamed into joining us.
10.42 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle: I shall not take up many of the points made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), but when she listed the terms and conditions of employment in various European countries she appeared to overlook the relationship between export performance in those countries and the need to be competitive. If the hon. Lady will ponder a while on the percentage of our GDP that goes on exports she may understand why we have to find our own way on competitiveness and burdens on business.
In the interests of brevity, I shall confine my remarks to parental leave. I believe that leave for family reasons should be subject to negotiation between employer and employee. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the directive and particularly his comment that it was bad for jobs. I am reassured that the Government's position has not changed from what was set out in January 1984 by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was at the Department of Employment.
Few would argue against the principles of equal opportunity in society for women, of shared responsibilities and particularly of equality of treatment at work. Those were the Commission's objectives in 1982 when the directive was included as part of the Community action programme. There is no disputing the attraction of those objectives as a broad statement of intent, but they lacked any sense of realism about the way in which the labour market works and there is still no evidence of that realism.
The directive aims at social ideals, apparently without the slightest recognition of the disruption in the work place, the added costs to employers or the taxpayer and the disincentive to take on young married workers which would inevitably follow.
Against those eventualities it seems remarkable that the Council should persist with the directive at a time when each member of the Community faces awesome problems of unemployment. Each member state needs to ensure that its industries compete more effectively on world markets to secure lasting jobs. Every Government within the Community now recognises that the control of inflation and lowering industrial costs is the only sure way to reduce unemployment. Yet the directive clearly embraces entirely different notions. Paragraph 5 states:
"Parental leave … as a form of leave of absence from work … can … make a useful contribution to the reduction of unemployment by promoting voluntary … withdrawal … from the labour market."
In other words, the directive advocates social engineering to tackle unemployment, and has in reality little to do with women's rights.
Mr. Tony Favell: Is it not a fact that the Labour party thinks that a married woman can pop in and out of work virtually as she pleases? Many of us who employ ladies realise that they are valued employees who are essential to our businesses and who need to be at work rather than at home.
Mr. Wardle: I am glad to hear a note of realism introduced in support of my remarks. It is regrettable if Opposition Members feel that they can set aside any concern about the methods of tacking unemployment.
The sort of back-door interference advocated in the directive will do nothing to solve the unemployment
842
problem. It is high time that the authors of the directive paid heed to the economic policies of the member states. The directive would merely result in a failure, which discredited other genuine efforts on behalf of equal opportunities for women.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the directive proposes that men and women should be entitled to voluntary leave. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I shall continue to read whenever it suits me to do so, in spite of the mood of liberty on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend pointed out that all part-time employees should qualify and that the maximum qualifying period should not exceed one year. Apart from the fact that that would mean that the amendments were against the tide of recent changes in the Employment Protection Act 1975; the measures proposed would increase the intake of qualifiers far beyond the present scope of maternity leave. It would also add considerably to industry's costs, whether directly or indirectly.
It is worth noting that during 1984 in Sweden the cost of parental leave was estimated at 1·5 per cent. of the total wages bill. Faced with such an outlay, the Government surely would have to transfer the burden to employers, which in turn could have a critical marginal effect on the cost of goods sold in highly competitive markets, an much the same way as the national insurance surcharge—the tax on jobs—under the Labour Government.
The report on parental leave published earlier this year by the House of Lords Select Committee seems to have been much taken with the objectives of the Council's directive but had little regard to the attendant costs, in spite of the persuasive evidence provided by the Confederation of British Industry and other witnesses to the cortrary.
Paragraph 115(3) of the report concludes that there is no evidence that parental leave would raise industry's costs, but paragraph 115(6) states that those costs should be paid for by public funds. Who will have to reimburse public funds other than industry?
Ms. Harriet Harman: Taxpayers.
Mr. Wardle: Opposition Members presumably like to assume that businesses are not taxpayers.
There are three practical reasons why that will inhibit the growth of employment in otherwise successful businesses. First, it will cause disruption in small companies, and the large companies whose employee strength was pared to the bone during the recession. Individual shops and departments in those companies have no reserves to turn to, if men and part-time female employees, as well as full-time female employees, take advantage of parental leave.
Secondly, business men are pragmatic, and never more so than since the recession. Therefore—
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I ask my hon. Friend to assist me as a simple seeker of the truth. He is making an excellent speech and I ask him whether the problem is that the Common Market organisation, which brought this nonsense forward, would be improved if at least a third of the staff had three years off for paternity leave or any other reason. How different that would be for industry, which would have to pay for this nonsense. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that.
Mr. Wardle: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Whether I should recommend that which the staff would have to do to qualify for parental leave is something that I shall leave to my hon. Friend.
I was saying that business men are pragmatic. The result of the scheme would be to ensure that the fruits of the YTS would be lost instantly. Young persons would be avoided like the plague by employers because of the inevitable consequences. Finally, the scheme would run contrary to the excellent spirit of the Government's policy of lifting the burden from business, which is the way to create jobs. The answer does not lie in the imposition of further administrative burdens by the European Community.
10.56 pm
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The behaviour of some Conservative Members is appalling. It is amazing that they treat the issue before us as a frivolous subject. That is their approach to debates on roles in society and women's rights. It is shocking.
The proposal before us is a logical extension of maternity leave, which was initially accepted reluctantly by British businesses. The chief beneficiary would be women who are in employment, especially those in single-parent families. There is no great opposition to the provision of maternity leave within our society. The report of the Select Committee on the European Communities in another place found that only 5 per cent. of employers felt that there would be a substantial problem with maternity leave. The study concluded by stating:
"in view of the controversy that has surrounded maternity rights in general and the right to reinstatement in particular, the extent to which managers reported any difficulty over the provisions since their introduction is surprisingly low."
The concept is not the same as family-reason leave, to which many firms are sympathetic and which arises capriciously. We are dealing especially with parental leave in the first two years of a child's life. Conservative Members have suggested that a huge change is proposed and that it would make a massive change to business practice and to industry. I am sure that that would not be the effect of the proposed change. It would affect about 1 per cent. of men who are in employment and 2 per cent. of women.
It is suggested that small firms with fewer than 20 employees should be exempt in the first instance. In other words, the firms involved would have the capacity to deal with that which is proposed because of the flexibility of employment within them. The issue that arises is whether the proposals before us would be detrimental to employment. The fears of the cost to industry are unfounded. If women did not return to good jobs after having children, businesses would lose their experience, knowledge and training. If enlightened businesses and employers were aware that it would help them to retrain trained, experienced and knowledgeable employees, they would be assisted in developing their businesses and the output of them.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is difficult to retain good will if employers think that all their employees are going to hop off for up to three years? Surely, the point is that it is not just businesses employing 20 people that have to be considered. One must consider the fact that some people
844
will go to the bigger businesses because they know that they are an easier touch. When will the hon. Gentleman think of all businesses?
Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is a choice between having a regular turnover, particularly of women because they will not return to jobs after having children, or retaining workers and letting them have leave for a number of months within the first two years of a child's life. That is a matter of balance. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the reply rather than being bothered by interruptions. He may feel that it is better to let women employees go after they have had children and not come back. One then loses their training and experience.
Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Meadowcroft: Let me continue. Essentially, it is a matter of women's rights and changes in the balance of society. It is a matter of changing the stereotypes in society because that will assist men to get back into the home looking after children if they so wish. It is a matter of assisting the different roles in society and assisting women to develop their own roles.
Mr. Favell: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that if the right is given to married women to pop in and out of work as they please, it will make them eminently less employable? Many small employers will avoid them like the plague.
Mr. Meadowcroft: I find it hard to believe that employers in other countries, who at least have a measure of these provisions, are worse and less enlightened than employers in Britain. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is true. He takes a low view of employers and employees in this country.
Mr. Marlow: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that a far higher proportion of women are employed in Britain than in other European countries, so there is a greater impact. That also shows that employers in this country are better employers of women than in other European countries.
Mr. Meadowcroft: If one believes that the only way to get good employment practice—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are far too many interruptions from a sedentary position. There is a proper way to intervene. I hope that hon. Members will observe it.
Mr. Meadowcroft: I feel that some people who intervene do not want to hear the answers.
If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) believes that the only way to get employees to behave themselves, to work full hours and to earn a living, is by employers imposing upon them, we shall never have good labour relations. We must develop the best relationship. Essentially, the proposition is not for 21st century labour relations. It is more like Quakerism from the 19th century. The proposal improves the outlook for enlightened employers' employees by giving them better social conditions. There is nothing revolutionary about that. I hope that employers in Britain will accept that it could be of benefit to them.
This issue is a suitable subject for legislation because I do not believe that one will achieve such a change

845
without putting the force of legislation behind enlightened views. If that was not the case, I would not want legislation. I have not seen evidence around the country of employers being prepared to give parental leave out of good will. I have not seen any examples of negotiations between unions and employers. Therefore, the measure seems to be a good thing. This is a good subject for legislation because at least an equal burden is placed on employers, if they believe that it is a burden. That is good if it makes the system fair.
The measure will be beneficial for our society if we can extend our provision. There is a financial cost for all improvements that are made in society. The balance must be considered when one is thinking about how far to go at any time. It saddens me that Conservative Members deride the measure, as if it were not a social improvement rather than trying to balance the advantages against the costs. That is what we should do.
11.1 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: We have discovered something today—that the European Community, where it initiates its own policies and where those policies are not brought forward by Governments and Ministers representing the people, appeals greatly to Opposition Members. The bureaucrats in the European Community who bring forward those policies are Socialists. That is why the Labour party is attracted to the measure.
I have a reputation—(HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—an undeserved reputation, for being anti-European. It is a calumny. It is not true. I am in favour of co-operation with Europe on foreign policy, and in defence, and I am in favour of removing barriers to the movement of goods. I am in favour of working together with other European countries in areas of major investment so that we can compete with the rest of the world, but I am not in favour of the petty regulations that come forward. I am not in favour of the growing burden of Socialism that is spawned by the Commission in Brussels, to which we in the Conservative party object strongly.
With other hon. Members, I went recently with the Select Committee on European Legislation to Brussels. I met people in the Commission. We know what they are—intelligent people who want a sense of achievement out of the job that they are doing and feel that the only way that they can get it is by changing the world and bringing forward policies. This is one of those policies. It has come from the Commission, from the bureaucracy, and it is supported by many countries in Europe, because many countries in Europe are Socialist. We are not a Socialist country, nor will we ever become one again. This is just the sort of policy of which we in this country disapprove.
I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary: is the measure ultra vires? Is it an area in which the Community should have competence? If not, I believe that the Government should challenge it in the courts. We do not want this creeping bureaucracy. We do not want these additional burdens put upon us. Gracious me, we have a brand-new Secretary of State for Employment who is trying to liberate and free industry. The measure is something that we do not want.
Any good employer will want to look after his employees. Any good employer whose female staff have a child will look after them, will want to have them back, will want to make sure that they are properly treated.
846
However, some businesses, enterprises, firms and industries are different from others. They have different requirements for their employees, and so treat them slightly differently.
In this case, we are saying that there should be imposed upon every employer a system of parental leave, whereby mothers have leave of at least three months at a stretch up to two years after the child is born. That is in addition to maternity leave. When the mother is not in work an allowance may be payable by Government, but on top of that, her stamp will have to be paid by them. Therefore, the measure will have to be paid for by the Government and the taxpayer. In addition, the time that mothers are off sick while on parental leave does not count. If they have other children at home, if their husband is ill or if there are family problems, they can take time off on family leave.
Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can visualise that some employees will not be as enthusiastic as they should be about going to work, but will stretch this out over a long period of time. They will be unsatisfactory employees, and the employer—because he wants to remain competitive—will not want to continue to employ these people. But if he does anything about it, he can be taken to court. This whole thing will be an obstacle course for employers. A good employer will look after his staff anyhow, and it is the good employers who, by and large, prosper and deserve to prosper.
Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware of the common practice in the midlands, whereby in many large factories a minimum amount of sick leave is allowed during the year? It is common for employees to take all that time, whether they are ill or not. Frequently, many people who become ill have already used up all their sick leave.
Mr. Marlow: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a cogent and valid point. All Conservative Members know that the good employer will do the thing properly and will look after his staff. It is in his interests to look after his staff, and he becomes successful because he looks after his staff. But if we impose this statutory burden on all employers, we shall lose our level of competitiveness, we shall lose our share of world markets and we shall lose jobs.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Minister, which is very important, is that employers will be reluctant to employ the very people whom the Opposition want them to take on. They will be reluctant to take on young women, because they will feel that, if they do so, they will have a lifetime of problems ahead of them. This measure is nonsense. It is Socialist nonsense, and I was delighted with the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister.
11.7 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: Britain has a deeply segregated work force. In any office, industry or service, there are men's jobs and women's jobs. Although each sector has exceptions, with women doing what are normally regarded as men's jobs, or men doing what are normally regarded as women's jobs, overall the pattern is deeply ingrained. Not only do we have deep sex segregation in the work force, but we have deeply entrenched discrimination in the pattern of employment between men and women. Men and women often work

847
different hours. For example, it is not unusual for men to work 35 or 40-hour weeks with plenty of overtime, yet many women work part-time in local jobs, which usually have low pay and no prospects.
A primary reason for that is the division of labour in the home. A fundamental obstacle to equality for women in the work force is the division of labour in the home. It is no good men groaning and saying, "But I help out at home from time to time." Anyone with any sense can see, and all the Government's surveys have shown, that women take responsibility for maintaining the household and, more importantly for rearing children. In the absence of proper public services to support families where there are small children or dependent relatives, it is to other women—usually friends or more often relatives—that women turn for help.
Britain has a chronic problem of male absenteeism from the home. We must crack that problem. How can women have equal opportunities to participate at work and in other activities outside the home if their unshared domestic responsibility will always hold them back from achieving anything, let alone their full potential, outside the home? The normal—that is to say, the male—working pattern completely denies and excludes the father's role as a parent, and at the same time it exploits the wife. A man with small children can work a 35-hour week with plenty of overtime only if he has a wife servicing him and his family—a wife who will get the children up, take them to school, go to work, shop in her lunch hour, go back to work again, take the children home from school, make their dinner, get his dinner on the table, put the children to bed, wash up, do his washing and then go to bed herself. Where a woman is servicing a husband, a home and a family, her scope for taking up further opportunities at work is severely limited.
We have to look at ways of changing the patterns of employment, and parental or family leave taken either by the husband or the wife is an important step down that path. Women as part of the work force are here to stay. There will be no going back to the kitchen. Only 5 per cent. of families conform to the myth of the husband going to work and the wife staying at home to look after two children. Women work because they want to, because they need to and because we need their work. If women went back to the home there is not an industry, an office or a service that would not grind to a halt.
The pattern of work obviously discriminates against women. It also discriminates against men because it discriminates against those men who want to play a more responsible part in bringing up their own children. Some men suffer and are unhappy because they are prevented from doing so by having to work all hours and cannot take time off for family responsibilities.
11.11 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I wish to support the stand taken by the Government against this silly proposal and I hope the House throws it out with more determination than the other place did in March when it was debated.
To suggest that the House should grant at least the three months parental leave on top of maternity leave, for both parents, paid for by the State, is extravagant, unrealistic and destructive. It is a product of bureaucracy gone mad,
848
dreamt up by the people in Brussels who have never employed anyone, never run a business, never had to balance a budget either in the public or the private sector and never had to face unemployment because their employer could no longer afford to employ them.
There have been strong objections from the CBI and other employers on the ground of cost. The proposal is that the state should pay and it would not add to cost. My hon. Friends are right—it would add to costs, because the companies would have all the expenses of replacement, retraining and administration. The money would come from the the social security system. The proposal is that we should raise the employers' and employees' contributions to pay for it. This week we have added £2 billion to the social security costs of over £40 billion. If the Government make any proposals to reduce that bill, the Opposition wll cry out, as if we were going to do something dreadful. Just as the Government are trying to cut the cost of national insurance contributions and of employing people, this proposal would try to increase those costs. The employee would pay in one way or another—in tax, national insurance or with his job.
The proposal would also have the most disastrous effects upon industrial competitiveness.
Ms. Clare Short: That happens throughout the whole of Europe.
Mrs. Currie: I hoped someone would mention Europe. The Aldington report and other reports from the House of Lords have proved that we cannot take any of our markets for granted. No other country in Europe can do that either. We should be aware that we are competing with countries outside the Common Market.
The proposal would not involve harmonisation of the 12 European countries. Four of them—the United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands and Spain—have no such scheme. Six of them—France, Germany, Greece, Belgium, Portugal and Luxembourg—have a scheme for unpaid leave. France has a scheme for paid leave, but it applies only to families with more than three children and it works out at only 1,000 francs a month, which is not a lot of money. Germany's scheme of paid leave involves only the private sector; it refers only to the mother and is roughly the same as our maternity leave scheme. Whatever the German civil service has been up to, it has not been looking after its own staff because its scheme does not apply to the public sector there.
Only two countries—Italy and Denmark—have such a scheme of payments. Italy allows a payment of 30 per cent. of average earnings, which is not a strong incentive to people to take it up. In July, Denmark introduced a new law that allows 90 per cent. of average earnings to be paid. It will be interesting to see what effect that has on Denmark's birth rate. The mind boggles at paying a man to be fecund, which is what that amounts to.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am reluctant to intervene in my hon. Friend's admirably constructive speech, but does not the concentration on maternity leave underestimate by far the largest demand for leave for family reasons, from the very large number of people with injured and disabld relatives? Does my hon. Friend agree that leave of that kind should be negotiated between employers and employees, because it is a very serious area of concern?
Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. But the proposals for family leave include time off to go to family weddings. I do not think that that is a matter for the state to interfere in or to pay for at all.
The effect on cost might be modified by the take-up. Paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum to the draft directive states that Sweden has had such a scheme for a long time but that it has taken several years for the take-up to rise to 13 per cent. In other words, more than 80 per cent. of Swedish men take no notice of schemes of this kind because they take their responsibilities to their companies very seriously.
Mr. John Prescott: So what is the hon. Lady worried about?
Mrs. Currie: If the scheme is going to be so ineffective, why bother legislating for it? Why not leave it to the companies to do it themselves?
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) referred to journalists. I suspect that somewhere in one or two of the unions someone cares about all this. The TUC has said that it is in favour—but then it would say that, would it not? Down the road at the Daily Mirror this week there have been negotiations about terms of employment and all the rest of it, but I bet that no one has mentioned the essential urgent requirement for parental leave. There has been not a jot of it. None of the unions has bothered to negotiate anything like this. They could not care less until someone else is going to pay for it.
We are also told that the Equal Opportunities Commission is in favour. I expect that there are people from that organisation sitting up in the Strangers Gallery. I hope that they will listen—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady knows that she must not refer to people in the Strangers Gallery.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Those are the people she is talking to.
Mrs. Currie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not know that.
I despair of that ragbag of a body which finds it so easy to waste time and public money fiddling around with stuff like this. It merely encourages women to think that equality grows out of a law book, when it does not. It comes from women taking the opportunities open to them and making the best of them. It comes when women face the demands of a responsible job and, like the men, ensure that they have made their arrangements accordingly. It comes when women stop asking for special concessions and special rules and make sure that they are good enough to take the men on at their own jobs and beat them.
The Federation of Business and Professional Women, which involves both employees and employers, is dead against the proposals. It says that they are counterproductive and that they will prejudice the employment especially of women, just as the employment protection legislation has done. The bulk of growth in employment in the past two or three years has been in part-timers and the self-employed—people not covered by those Acts. Legislation designed to protect the work force has merely succeeded in reducing it.
Finally, we must consider whether proposals of this kind fulfil the objective, with which we all agree, of supporting the family. If they were effective, which I doubt, they might just encourage more mothers with tiny
850
children—this will apply only to children under two years old—to work full time. In all honesty, I cannot see how that helps the family or the children. If we are serious about supporting the family, there are all sons of other things that we can do, such as correcting the tax anomalies which encourage wives to go out to work and penalise those who stay at home.
Children are the responsibility of their parents. We choose to have them and we choose how we care for them. They are not the responsibility of the state or of the employer. I fully support the Government.
11.19 pm
Mr. John Golding: No Conservative Member would miss his or her daughter's wedding to come to the House. They would put their top hats on and leave their nannies to look after their little children to go to the wedding. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout all they like, but they show that they do not understand how ordinary people live.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said that not one union has negotiated an agreement such as is proposed. My union—the National Communications Union—has. It has produced a maternity package because of the great need. The Common Market proposals are good and the Government are blocking them for no good reason. It is right that both parents should have time off to look after their nippers without risk of losing their jobs.
The proposals make it easier for women to work. I believe that women have the right to work. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South talked of a woman going to work rather than staying at home to look after a two-year-old nipper. She does not know the poverty and hardship that will drive a woman to go out to work rather than look after her baby. That is what Conservative Members do not understand.
I know that there is high unemployment, but the problem is not to be solved at the expense of working women. The responsibility for that unemployment lies with the Treasury Bench and Ministers, not with women, It is important that, after childbirth, women should be able to adjust to going back to work. It is clear to the trade unions that, if women are to have equal opportunity at work, childbirth must not be a barrier. I am not talking of any old work. Women are entitled to work that matches their experience and training. That is why the National Communications Union is anxious to secure satisfactory arrangements.
The number of single-parent families is increasing, and such parents must have work. We are talking not about pin money but about whether people can afford to pay the rent. They have to go to work. Many families cannot get a mortgage without two incomes. Housing depends upon it. For many women, work provides an escape from the house. Women often go to work because they need the social contact.
Conservative Members live in the world of nannies, prep schools and public schools. Their wives leave the children with the nanny to go to Ascot or Henley. Their wives leave the kids at home and enjoy themselves—I do not blame them. The women I represent have to leave the nippers at home to go out to work. That is the difference between the two sides of the House and why

851
Conservative Members have been so badly behaved throughout the debate. They do not realise the seriousness of the situation.
Why do the Government refuse to support the proposals? Because their paymasters at the last general election—the employers—have told them to do so. There is no point going to most employers to ask them for these concessions. If it had been left to the employers, kids would still be going down the mines and up chimneys. The employers were forced to change only by legislation. The only way in which parents, especially women, will get a fair deal, given the antiquated attitude of the Tory party, is through the implementation of the directive and other legislation.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose—
11.25 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for cutting him out of the debate, but I suspect that he has contributed as much as those hon. Members who have been called.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) contradicted himself in his remarks on parental leave and his union's negotiations. I wish to say in passing that I owe him an apology for mixing up his union with another.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) spoke of grasping at straws. She demonstrated one important point, which is the need to help people reconcile and balance their home and work responsibilities. She mentioned care for elderly dependants, an issue of which more people should be aware—especially the burden that many people, mainly women, carry. Indeed, many women spend more time caring for elderly dependants than caring for children. Perhaps it will be possible to return to that issue on another occasion. However, the hon. Lady demonstrated that European directives are not required in that or other areas.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: In view of this most bizarre debate on this incredible subject, I ask my hon. Friend to address his mind to one question—does he really think that the Common Market has the right to decide this internal affair? Are we to have one nonsensical debate after another? Why do we not tell the EEC to mind its own business and that we will run our country as we think best for the British people?
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend raises a point also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about the legality of the proposal. The Government, for the moment, prefer to concentrate on the practical question of the best way to promote opportunities for men and women. We want to persuade our partners in Europe, as well as hon. Members, that this proposal is not the way to do that.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend rightly said that this is a nonsensical proposal that we regard as rubbish. He made a super speech. Will he guarantee that in the discussions in Brussels on majority voting—which I understand will apply to article 100 regulations, to which this proposal relates—the Government will not allow Greece, Portugal, Spain and a majority of countries to
852
impose this proposal on the United Kingdom, whether Parliament wants it or not? Will the Government stand firm?
Mr. Bottomley: I undertake that one of my colleagues will write to my hon. Friend on that matter.
I want to correct an impression given in the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I am sure that she will wish to reconsider her remarks about the Equal Opportunities Commission—
Mrs. Currie: No. I happen to believe what I said.
Mr. Bottomley: I happen to believe that the commission is helpful to employers, and its code of practice has been warmly welcomed by the CBI. It does valuable work in encouraging women in skill shortage areas. We value its views on issues, even if we do not always agree.
It is worth mentioning that on 8 May I gave a list of European directives that had been accepted since 1979. Only one of them relates to employment protection, and I do not think that it could be regarded as social engineering. I said sufficient earlier to show that this proposal would be social engineering because no European country has the same provisions as any other, so there is a diversity of views among the countries. Indeed, the House has demonstrated the diversity of view within it as well as within the country.
We could have picked up many points from the debate, but I think that it is best to state plainly that we believe that the proposal should not be pursued. The issue will be discussed again by the Council on 5 December, but I do not think that final decisions will be reached because a number of important issues still divide the states, including our objection on principle as well as on practice.
I have explained that our objection flows from the fact that our overriding priority is to improve job opportunities for men and women. It is in that spirit that I trust that the Council will approach the issue on 5 December. If it is interested, it can look at the figures which show that, over a considerable period, the growth of jobs in this country has been greater than in the rest of Europe put together. It is well worth people recognising that many of those jobs have been for women. I think that we have been doing well. I advise the House to reject the amendment, and I invite hon. Members to support the Government's motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 177.

Division No. 11]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Caborn, Richard

Anderson, Donald

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clarke, Thomas

Barnett, Guy

Clay, Robert

Barron, Kevin

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Bell, Stuart

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Bermingham, Gerald

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Bidwell, Sydney

Corbyn, Jeremy

Blair, Anthony

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Boyes, Roland

Dalyell, Tam

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Deakins, Eric

Buchan, Norman

Dobson, Frank

853

Dormand, Jack

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Douglas, Dick

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Dubs, Alfred

Madden, Max

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marek, Dr John

Eadie, Alex

Maynard, Miss Joan

Eastham, Ken

Meacher, Michael

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Meadowcroft, Michael

Ewing, Harry

Michie, William

Fatchett, Derek

Mikardo, Ian

Flannery, Martin

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Foster, Derek

Nellist, David

Foulkes, George

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

O'Brien, William

Freud, Clement

Parry, Robert

Garrett, W. E.

Penhaligon, David

George, Bruce

Pike, Peter

Godman, Dr Norman

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Golding, John

Prescott, John

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Randall, Stuart

Hardy, Peter

Redmond, M.

Harman, Ms Harriet

Richardson, Ms Jo

Haynes, Frank

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rogers, Allan

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Rowlands, Ted

Home Robertson, John

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Howells, Geraint

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Hoyle, Douglas

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Snape, Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Soley, Clive

Janner, Hon Greville

Steel, Rt Hon David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Stott, Roger

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Strang, Gavin

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Kirkwood, Archy

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Lambie, David

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Leighton, Ronald

Welsh, Michael

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Winnick, David

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Woodall, Alec

Litherland, Robert

Livsey, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Mark Fisher and

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Mr. John McWilliam.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Butcher, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Butler, Rt Hon Adam

Ancram, Michael

Butterfill, John

Arnold, Tom

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Aspinwall, Jack

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Carttiss, Michael

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Cash, William

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Chapman, Sydney

Baldry, Tony

Chope, Christopher

Batiste, Spencer

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Blackburn, John

Colvin, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Coombs, Simon

Bottomley, Peter

Cope, John

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Couchman, James

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dicks, Terry

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dorrell, Stephen

Bright, Graham

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Brinton, Tim

Dover, Den

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Dunn, Robert

Bruinvels, Peter

Dykes, Hugh

Buck, Sir Antony

Eggar, Tim

Budgen, Nick

Evennett, David

Bulmer, Esmond

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Burt, Alistair

Farr, Sir John

854

Favell, Anthony

Parris, Matthew

Fookes, Miss Janet

Pollock, Alexander

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Porter, Barry

Fox, Marcus

Powell, William (Corby)

Freeman, Roger

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Gale, Roger

Raffan, Keith

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Rhodes James, Robert

Glyn, Dr Alan

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Roe, Mrs Marion

Gregory, Conal

Rowe, Andrew

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hampson, Dr Keith

Ryder, Richard

Harris, David

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Harvey, Robert

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hayes, J.

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Heddle, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Henderson, Barry

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Sims, Roger

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Skeet, T. H. H.

Jessel, Toby

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Key, Robert

Speed, Keith

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Speller, Tony

Lang, Ian

Spencer, Derek

Lawler, Geoffrey

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Lawrence, Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Squire, Robin

Lester, Jim

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lightbown, David

Stanley, John

Lilley, Peter

Steen, Anthony

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Stern, Michael

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Lyell, Nicholas

Sumberg, David

McCrindle, Robert

Taylor, John (Solihull)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Maclean, David John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Major, John

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Malins, Humfrey

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Malone, Gerald

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Maples, John

Thurnham, Peter

Marlow, Antony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tracey, Richard

Mates, Michael

Trippier, David

Mather, Carol

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Maude, Hon Francis

Waddington, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Wall, Sir Patrick

Merchant, Piers

Waller, Gary

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Warren, Kenneth

Moate, Roger

Watts, John

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Wheeler, John

Neale, Gerrard

Wolfson, Mark

Nelson, Anthony

Wood, Timothy

Nicholls, Patrick

Woodcock, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Osborn, Sir John

Tellers for the Noes:

Ottaway, Richard

Mr. Michael Neubert and

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Mr. Tony Durant.

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11118/83 and 10681/84, draft Directive and amended draft Directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons; endorses the Government's view that these matters are best pursued by voluntary negotiations between employers and employees; and welcomes the United Kingdom's endeavours to encourage instead Community initiatives which enhance job prospects for men and women.

Rail Services (Bradford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
11.41 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss Bradford's rail services. To understand the mounting concern in Bradford about rail services it is necessary to explain the city's unemployment crisis, the efforts that are being made to regenerate the city's economy and the city's anxiety about resources being deployed with a wrong sense of direction and priority.
The jobs crisis is massive. During the period 1961 to 1978, manufacturing industry in Bradford lost 54,000 jobs, 45,000 of them in textiles alone. Between 1978 and 1981 a further 23,000 jobs in manufacturing industry were lost, 16,000 of them in textiles. The rate of unemployment has increased from 2 per cent. in 1974 to 16 per cent. in 1985, and 35,000 men and women are desperately looking for work. Wage levels remain well below the regional and national averages. The result is that millions of pounds have been taken out of the pockets of the men and women of Bradford and the rates revenue of the local authority has rapidly diminished.
Car ownership in Bradford is very low. Only half of the families in the district own a car. There is substantial poverty and extensive deprivation. But the people of Bradford have a gritty independence. They want to help themselves. However, they are rapidly coming to the conclusion that although the Government have offered support to enable the people of Bradford to help themselves their help is inadequate. It is not being provided with the sense of urgency and commitment that the people of Bradford believe to be necessary. We have seen the city council, which is the city's largest employer, losing millions in rate support grant and paying millions to the Government in rate penalty. We have seen the university, the city's second biggest employer, suffering extensive cuts in 1981 and having to pay for substantial redundancies, and we have seen other unacceptable consequences as a result of those cuts, which are estimated to have taken another £6 million out of the local economy. All these pressures have led to extensive efforts being made by the city employers and others to diversify, to compensate for the losses experienced by manufacturing industry, by expansion of the service employment, especially in tourism.
Transport services are obviously of vital importance to the city, and this concern led Bradford council and British Rail to enter a joint review of inter-city services and to issue a joint report recently. The report highlighted the importance of transport, particularly rail services to Bradford, and the extensive and mounting concern about the future of our rail services in the city.
The chamber of commerce, trade unions, including the Transport and General Workers Union, by which I am sponsored, the Confederation of British Industry and many others, have stressed the importance that they attach to improving the transport services. The CBI, at its annual conference recently in Harrogate, devoted a considerable amount of time urging the Government to spend more on public works of all sorts, and there were numerous references to the need to improve transport services.
856
Bradford should have one of the best rail services in Britain, and should not be condemned to having one of the worst. Bradfordians using public transport, including rail services to work, business or pleasure are entitled to services that are reasonably priced, comfortable and convenient. Sadly, this is not the case today, and unless the Government intervene, the prospects are that Bradfordians will be asked to pay higher fares for an increasingly third class service.
It would be ludicrous for the line between Bradford and Leeds not to be electrified when the line between Leeds and the east coast main line is to be electrified, we hope by 1989. The investment for that electrification amounts to more than £300 million. The Government must find a way to give British Rail the £4 million that it needs to electrify the Bradford to Leeds line. The Government must ensure that British Rail expands the direct inter-city service between Bradford and London, which is now worse than it was 20 years ago.
The joint report prepared by Bradford city council and BR, commenting on inter-city services, said that 10 years ago there were five through trains from Bradford to London, and six in the opposite direction. Now, there are three in each direction, all via Leeds.
"It is unfortunate … that the Inter City service to and from London is worse in 1985 than it was in 1965. Industrialists comment about the length of time it takes to get from London to Bradford when a change has to be made at Leeds. They also criticise the scruffy, slow and often crowded nature of the link between Leeds and Bradford. Conferences are being, and have been lost because of the declining rail service between Bradford and London. Most tourists come by coach or car … Journey time, comfort and convenience by rail from London particularly, are important for many new and developing industries. At the present time, Bradford is at a great disadvantage. Decision makers and investors will not be attracted to Bradford if it becomes the largest city in the country without an Inter City rail service, or if it retains the worst Inter City rail service of any of the top six metropolitan districts in the country."
That is a succinct description of the concern in Bradford about rail services and particularly about the inter-city service.
Over the years, the declining rail service has had spinoff effects on other services. The Bradford post and telecom advisory committee wrote recently to a senior executive at the Post Office expressing concern that Bradford had been excluded from the new dedicated intercity transport service, which will be operating between the main cities of this country. The letter said:
"We have recently reached the stage where the 19.43 Bradford/Kings Cross train has been withdrawn and vans are having to be sent to Sheffield and York to catch trains there. This means that the evening posting time has had to be advanced in some districts by at least half an hour. This causes tremendous inconvenience to the business community who would normally be posting between 5.00 and 5.30 pm and who how have to get their mail to the Post Office before 5.00 pm.
We find it difficult to understand why Bradford has been excluded from the new service, yet Leeds with a far better transport network has been included. Surely it would be preferable to include in the dedicated service those large cities which are suffering from a poor network."
I raised the issue recently with a Department of Trade and Industry Minister and I regret very much that he gave me a dismissive and off-hand reply, saying that he was not prepared to raise the matter with the chairman of the Post Office.
The Government must take action to ensure that local rail services are maintained. The usual spiral of deteriorating services, leading to fewer passengers, trains being axed and lines being closed, must not be allowed.

857
There is also mounting concern about services to Keighley and Ilkley, and it is a genuine based anxiety. Clear assurances must be given by the Government. They must take action to ensure that those services are not only maintained, but improved.
The Government must recognise the vital importance of all transport services and do everything possible to find the money necessary to maintain and improve Bradford's services. The city council has suggested that we need an interdepartmental Government task force, representing the Departments of Transport, the Environment and Trade and Industry to ensure a joint Government approach so that our transport services, particularly the rail services, can be defended and improved.
Ministers visit Bradford fairly frequently, but not many travel by train and few experience the overcrowded, uncomfortable and inconvenient arrangements suffered by most passengers on trains from Leeds to Bradford. I urge the Under-Secretary to come to Bradford to meet the city council and discuss its proposals for ensuring that the Leeds-Bradford line is electrified, and its proposals for maintaining and improving the inter-city service. Such a visit would be welcomed by the council and would give the Minister some experience of conditions for passengers between London and Bradford.
Good transport, including a good modern rail service, is central to Bradford's efforts in providing new jobs, encouraging existing firms to expand or new firms to come to Bradford and in attracting visitors to the city.
I end by quoting a good editorial in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus on 5 November:
"If short-term, cost-cutting economic factors are the sole consideration in deciding whether or not to keep open the nation's main transport arteries, we are likely to end up with a few highly prosperous major cities, such as Leeds, surrounded by vast areas of neglect such as Bradford.
We believe it is time for the Government to take a longer-term, social view, before cities like ours are allowed to sink further into decline."
That view is generally held in Bradford, and the Minister can help to dispel it tonight. He can only hope to do so by promising action and cash. We are told that BR cannot electrify the line between Bradford and Leeds because of the stringent financial controls imposed by the Government, and that BR must show a proper rate of return on any investment made to proceed with that investment.
For those reasons and arguments, to give hope to Bradford, to give positive and practical help to back up the self-help it is already involved in, to try to overcome the unemployment crisis, and to help our efforts to revive our economy, I appeal to the Minister tonight to give clear assurances that he places the highest priority on ensuring that our rail and transport services are saved. That is what the people of Bradford want to hear. I hope that he can give those assurances in his reply.
11.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has told the House about rail services to Bradford, and the general economic prospects of that city. I can well understand the desire of his constituents, and those visiting Bradford by rail, to be able to use good quality rail services. I can also understand their concern at changes in service levels and their worries about those
858
levels in future. I am sure that they will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the concern that he has shown on their behalf and for raising this matter this evening.
I must make it absolutely clear at the outset that the quality and level of services on particular routes, and the timetabling of those services, are matters entirely for the Railways Board. Ministers have no powers to intervene.
The Government are responsible for setting the broad strategic objectives for the Railway Board, and we take a close interest in the progress that the board makes towards achieving those objectives. We have made it clear that we consider that the railway has a vital role to play in our national transport arrangements.
Our aim is to see the development of a modern and efficient railway system, which provides good value for money to passengers and taxpayers alike. That aim is reflected in the guiding objectives that we have given to the chairman of the Railways Board. We have also told him that rail services should be reliable, attractive and punctual. They should be at acceptable fares and charges, and the cost to the taxpayer should be reduced. We believe that that is the way to achieve a secure future for the railway and to permit worthwhile investment to go ahead.
In addition to those guiding objectives, we have set the Railways Board a number of specific business targets, including targets for its inter-city sector, and for that part of its passenger business which is supported by central Government grant through the public service obligation.
Successive Governments have followed a firm policy that there is no justification for subsidising inter-urban transport, whether it is provided by rail, road or air. The Government have followed this policy, and have built on it by giving British Rail's inter-city sector a commercial target. We have asked the chairman to ensure that the sector achieves a 5 per cent. return on its assets by 1988–89. We have also said that from 1 April 1988 onwards the sector will be ineligible for public service obligation grant.
This approach is consistent with our policy towards domestic airline services and long-distance coach operations. All three modes of transport are in competition. There is no case for favouring one at the expense of another. We believe that this competition will spur the operators towards providing attractive services, which travellers want, and in a manner that is efficient in its use of resources. BR's inter-city sector is already under a strong challenge from airline and coach operators and I emphasise that it is beginning to respond well.
I must stress, however, that the nature of the response, and the way in which BR works towards achieving the target is for the railways board. It is responsible for managing the railway. It must use its commercial judgment in determining such matters as service levels, including those to cities such as Bradford.
I turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Member, especially his concern at the recent reduction in direct inter-city services between Bradford and London. I understand that prior to 30 September, BR ran three through services in each direction on each weekday. I understand also that from 30 September, BR withdrew the weekday evening train to London and arranged for one of the evening trains from London to be terminated at Leeds. I believe that these changes were introduced because of light passenger loadings between Bradford and Leeds.
As I have already explained, these changes, and the judgments underlying them, are the responsibility of the

859
Railways Board. It is not for me to second-guess its decisions. However, I do note that it is continuing to cater for travellers who would formerly have used these direct evening services. I understand that it is providing connecting services to Bradford for passengers arriving at Leeds, and is providing a service from Bradford to Doncaster to enable Bradford passengers to connect with the Edinburgh to London services on the east coast main line.
There is also some good news for Bradford inter-city passengers. First, the prestige "Yorkshire Pullman", which starts from Leeds in the morning and runs through to Bradford in the evening, has, I understand, been very successful. As a result first-class business travel to Yorkshire has increased significantly. This service should be beneficial to the economy of Bradford and the surrounding area.
It is worth remembering that through trains from Bradford to London take 176 minutes for 195 miles, an average speed of 66 mph. The Pullman back in the evening is even quicker. Some of the journeys requiring a change at Leeds can also be done in under three hours. This is much faster than by car.
Secondly, Bradford passengers should benefit from the electrification of the east coast main line, which will be completed to Leeds in 1989. I understand that with this electrification scheme, BR has no plans to withdraw through services to Bradford, as some had feared. These services will be provided with the very latest rolling stock. The locomotives will be changed at Leeds.
The east coast main line electrification scheme is a very good example of the commercial approach being taken by BR's inter-city sector, which is sponsoring the project. This project, at a value of over £300 million, is the largest for British Rail for over 25 years. BR was able to demonstrate that the scheme will be financially worth while, and we, therefore, were pleased to give it our warm approval.
As a result, additional benefits will flow to British industry in general and to Yorkshire in particular, about which the hon. Gentleman rightly spoke passionately. The Government recognise the potential advantages of electrification in the right circumstances, where the benefits justify the high costs of installation, and we are ready to approve projects where the financial basis is sound.
Our record is proof of our good will. Since we took office in 1979, and including the east coast main line scheme, we have approved electrification schemes involving about 630 route miles—about 1,580 track miles—at a cost of about £570 million at today's prices. But it must be for BR to determine its investment priorities and to bring forward proposals for Government approval. I understand that it considered the case for electrifying the line between Bradford and Leeds in 1982 but found that it could justify spending only some £2 million to £3 million against an estimated cost for the scheme of £10 million.
It has been suggested that appraisals of possible electrification schemes, such as that between Leeds and Bradfford, should not be determined solely on a commercial basis, and that was the thrust of the case made by the hon. Gentleman.
860
Our position, however, is firmly to believe that BR's inter-city sector, where the responsibility for a Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme would fall, should operate efficiently and invest efficiently. In making investment proposals for the inter-city sector, BR must demonstrate a commercial rate of return.
The Government are willing to authorise such proposals if they are commercially viable and sufficient funds are available to BR to meet its investment needs. It would be wrong to ask inter-city to make uncommercial investments. That would impose a continuing loss at a time when its competitors are free to meet their customers' requirements on a commercial basis.
Mr. Madden: Is there not a case for at least considering making funds for investment available to BR through the regional assistance programmes operated by the Department of Trade and Industry? Is that something that he would be at least willing to consider, in conjunction with his colleagues at the Department?
Mr. Spicer: I have made the Government's position clear on inter-city services. If there is time, I shall talk about the local services on which the hon. Gentleman may be focusing his attention.
I understand that the issue of seeking a European regional development fund grant has also been raised in connection with a Leeds to Bradford electrification scheme. I should say that once a project, approved by Government as necessary, is firmly established as part of BR's investment programme, it is for BR to decide whether to prepare and submit an application for a European regional development fund grant through the Government. The initiative here rests with BR.
I refer to local rail services affecting Bradford. Our objective for BR's local services generally is that they should provide modern, cost-effective transport at less cost to the taxpayer than at present. In pursuit of the objective of making savings to the taxpayer—the taxpayer currently supports BR to the tune of £900 million per year—the provincial services sector is cutting its requirement for central Government grant while still funding a massive programme of investment, replacing old rolling stock with new. That is the right way to achieve the modern, efficient railway that I am sure we all want, including the hon. Gentleman.
In the metropolitan counties, responsibilities for local rail service, rests with the passenger transport authorities. Abolishing the county councils has not changed that. Decisions on local railway services are still a local matter. That is as it should be. PTAs and their executives are in the best position to judge the value of local railway services within the overall provision of public transport in their area.
On the subject of local services, I am aware of the views that have been expressed about a potential service between Bradford and Sheffield. That matter has been raised in connection with British Rail's proposal to close some link lines in the Halifax and Huddersfield area. Under the statutory closure procedures, the transport users consultative committee for Yorkshire has submitted its report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is now being considered. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take account of all the relevant factors, including any points that he has made in reaching a decision on BR's closure proposal.

861
In replying to the hon. Gentleman, I have tried to put the subject of Bradford's rail services into the wider context of the Government's policy towards the provision of railway services, both inter-city and local. I have explained the broad strategic objectives that we have set for the Railways Board, which act as a framework within which it runs the railway and decides on such matters as service levels, timetables, investment and fares.
The chairman of British Rail has accepted those objectives and is pursuing them with vigour. Like the Government, BR wants to provide good quality services at acceptable charges to its customers and at less cost to
862
the taxpayer. It recognises that there is a long way to go but is trying hard to improve its services overall and its financial position.
I am sure that British Rail will pay close attention to what the hon. Member has said tonight in raising this issue. It is for British Rail to listen to what he said. The responsibility for management of the railways lies with British Rail, by statute.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o' clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia (British Airlift)
  Ethiopia (British Airlift)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Public Houses (Opening Hours)
  Public Houses (Opening Hours)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Cyprus Official Secrets Act Trial
  Cyprus Official Secrets Act Trial
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees (Ethnic Community Reports)
  Select Committees (Ethnic Community Reports)
PRIME MINISTER
  Scotland
  Scotland
  USA (President)
  USA (President)
  Scottish Teachers (Pay)
  Scottish Teachers (Pay)
  Elizabeth Keayes (Burglary)
  Elizabeth Keayes (Burglary)
  Wales
  Wales
  Urban Renewal
  Urban Renewal
  Stonebridge
  Stonebridge
  Bristol
  Bristol
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Falkland Islands (Government Support)
  Falkland Islands (Government Support)
  South Africa (Commonwealth Commission)
  South Africa (Commonwealth Commission)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Contaminated Wine
  Contaminated Wine
  Irradiated Foods
  Irradiated Foods
WALES
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Plant Breeding Station (Aberystwyth)
  Plant Breeding Station (Aberystwyth)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  GCSE Examination
  GCSE Examination
  Maintained Schools (Parental Contributions)
  Maintained Schools (Parental Contributions)
  Anglo-Australian Telescope
  Anglo-Australian Telescope
  Ocean Drilling Programme
  Ocean Drilling Programme
  Undergraduates (Statistics)
  Undergraduates (Statistics)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue Records
  Inland Revenue Records
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Systime plc
  Systime plc
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
TRANSPORT
  A11 (Tuddenham Road)
  A11 (Tuddenham Road)
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
  Pelican Crossings
  Pelican Crossings
  Blisworth Bypass
  Blisworth Bypass
  Portsmouth Driving Test Centre
  Portsmouth Driving Test Centre
SCOTLAND
  Undergraduates
  Undergraduates
  Police Establishment
  Police Establishment
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Paisley (Labour Statistics)
  Paisley (Labour Statistics)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
ENVIRONMENT
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Systems-built Homes (Defects)
  Systems-built Homes (Defects)
  Sewerage
  Sewerage
  Council Houses (Purchase Terms)
  Council Houses (Purchase Terms)
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Local Government Bill
  Local Government Bill
  Toxteth Riots (Compensation)
  Toxteth Riots (Compensation)
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Silentnight Beds
  Silentnight Beds
  Hampstead Heath
  Hampstead Heath
EMPLOYMENT
  Small Companies (Profitability)
  Small Companies (Profitability)
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Job Creation and Redundancy Payments
  Job Creation and Redundancy Payments
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Hotel Classification
  Hotel Classification
  GCHQ (ILO Conventions)
  GCHQ (ILO Conventions)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Systime plc
  Systime plc
  Mogul Foods Ltd.
  Mogul Foods Ltd.
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Wages
  Wages
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Blood Stocks
  Blood Stocks
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Health Authorities (Land and Property Sales)
  Health Authorities (Land and Property Sales)
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Legionnaire's Disease
  War Widows (Pensions)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
  Physically and Sexually-abused Children
  Physically and Sexually-abused Children
  Smoking
  Smoking
  North West Thames Regional Health Authority
  North West Thames Regional Health Authority
  Brent District Health Authority
  Brent District Health Authority
  Lipotriad
  Lipotriad
  Benefit Statistics
  Benefit Statistics
  Organ Transplants
  Organ Transplants
  Renal Failure
  Renal Failure
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mental Illness (Hospital Provision)
  Mental Illness (Hospital Provision)
  St. James's Hospital, Portsmouth
  St. James's Hospital, Portsmouth
  Whooping Cough
  Whooping Cough
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Children at Risk
  Children at Risk
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Clothing and Textiles
  Clothing and Textiles
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Systime plc
  Systime plc
  National Space Centre
  National Space Centre
  Life Insurance Policies
  Life Insurance Policies
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
DEFENCE
  Fylingdales
  Fylingdales
  Procurement Programme
  Procurement Programme
  Communications System
  Communications System
  Tornado Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
  Cyprus Secrets Trial
  Cyprus Secrets Trial
  Type 23 Frigate
  Type 23 Frigate
  Falklands War (Medal)
  Falklands War (Medal)
  Emergency Powers
  Emergency Powers
  General Belgrano
  General Belgrano
  Japanese Prisoners of War (Compensation)
  Japanese Prisoners of War (Compensation)
  Ptarmigan System
  Ptarmigan System
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Nerve Weapons
  Nerve Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  China
  China
  Swan Hunter
  Swan Hunter
  Courts Martial
  Courts Martial
  Dr. Richard Wagner
  Dr. Richard Wagner
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Trident
  Trident
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  RAF Binbrook
  RAF Binbrook
  Summit Meeting (Defence Implications)
  Summit Meeting (Defence Implications)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Civil Aircraft
  Civil Aircraft
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  "Highway Code"
  "Highway Code"
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Iran and Iraq
  Iran and Iraq
  NATO
  NATO
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Soviet Ballistic Missiles
  Soviet Ballistic Missiles
  SkyNet Satellite System
  SkyNet Satellite System
  RAF Policing Policy
  RAF Policing Policy
  Colombia (Rescue Operations)
  Colombia (Rescue Operations)
  Overseas Defence Contracts
  Overseas Defence Contracts

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Earl of Harrington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Drug Abuse: School Advisers
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken in schools to combat the wide abuse of drugs by young people.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has announced several relevant measures including the publication of guidance on drugs misuse which has been made available to teachers and youth workers, the preparation of curricula and teaching materials for use in the education service and the appointment by local education authorities of drug advisers funded by the education support grant.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that quite encouraging Answer. May I ask him what steps are being taken to ensure that teachers coming into the profession receive adequate training in regard to drug abuse?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that this will be greatly helped by the appointment of LEA drug advisers. These are expected to increase advice and support for schools and colleges and to provide more training for their staff, as well as to improve liaison with the work of other local agencies. It is extremely encouraging to know that each of the 97 local education authorities has made a bid for the education support grant to fund the appointment of these drug advisers.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are some local authorities which will not allow the police in? It seems rather odd and strange that they should take an attitude of that kind. On the question of drugs education, one would have thought that certain types of policemen were absolutely essential in talking to youngsters about what they should do and how they should report anything to the authorities. Therefore, the police are a must. What will the Government do about those local authorities that are stupid enough not to allow the police in?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I agree very strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has said. Obviously if the police can go in and talk about drugs,
788
that is an extremely good thing. It is encouraging, as I said, that every single local authority has made a bid for these drug advisers. In fact, these bids are now being considered and will be announced later this year. We hope that their appointment may encourage some of those more reluctant authorities to ask the police for advice.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, what provision is there for exemplary punishment of those who supply drugs to the young?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that legislation on these lines will shortly be put in front of your Lordships.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will try to involve the parents, through the parent-teacher associations, in the studies that are being made in the schools?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. I am in favour of this, and I hope that it will be done. Again, I think that when these drug advisers are appointed this is just the sort of thing that they are likely to encourage.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say what is being done to combat and apprehend the purveyors of these drugs to young children and the vicious chains that stretch from airports and ports? That is where these drugs emanate and from where they spread to all the community, including the children we are talking about this afternoon.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that there are a number of measures being taken.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman whether he feels that individual teachers and schools are doing enough? For instance, do the schools have a designated teacher who is expert in drugs misuse in each school, as recommended by one of the Select Committees?
The Earl of Swinton: Again, my Lords, it is hoped that when we have these LEA drug advisers this is the sort of thing on which they will concentrate.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, in view of the gravity of the situation in which, for example, a few weeks ago a boy of 14 died in Liverpool as a result of heroin poisoning, and while children younger than that are getting involved in the use of soft drugs, any consideration can be given to the possibility of some sort of national broadcast, or series of broadcasts, which will warn parents and children and anyone who has to do with children of the dangers that beset them?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, among a number of schemes for which the Department of Education and Science has provided money, some £25,000 has been provided towards market research by Andrew Irving Associates to ascertain how a publicity campaign should be directed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as we have this Question this afternoon, does the Minister agree that these drugs are reaching British children? Therefore, is it not significant and a fact that the preventive measures are insufficient? Will he please answer the question? What ought to be done, what might be done, and will there be an improvement in the future in preventing these drugs from reaching British classrooms?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken in schools to combat the wide abuse of drugs by young people."
That is the Question.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman whether he is aware that many of us would like to congratulate Bob Dunn, the Under-Secretary at the Department of Education, on his very good drugs book, Drug Misuse and the Young, which has been sent to education authorities?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble kinswoman for that supplementary question, and of course I shall pass on what she has said to my honourable friend. I should say that this booklet has been extremely well received. I think that over 100,000 copies have now been supplied round the country, which is far more than the usual request for pamphlets produced by the DES.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that while physical punishment has proved quite ineffective in preventing crimes of violence, dope peddlers are of a very different type, and that a public whipping might be most effective and cheap?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am answering on behalf of the Government, and I am being briefed by the Department of Education and Science. I think we are moving slightly wide of the Question. I think of myself as a public Whip today, and I think perhaps we have had long enough on this Question.

Unauthorised Marine Broadcasting Stations
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present situation regarding unauthorised broadcasting stations operating from vessels at sea near the British coastline.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, until recently two unauthorised marine broadcasting stations, Laser 558 and Radio Caroline, were operating from Panamanian-registered vessels anchored in international waters off the British coast. On 5th November Laser 558 ceased broadcasting because of generator difficulties, and on 6th November the MV "Communicator", on which the station was situated, sailed into Harwich. Radio Caroline continues to broadcast.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Have any charges yet been brought against anyone in connection with the station known as Laser 558 since the vessel on which the station was situated was escorted into Harwich by a DTI patrol vessel?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since the Laser 558 vessel was escorted into Harwich it has been detained under a writ served by the Admiralty Marshal and an injunction served in connection with private claims against the shipowners. The vessel is also being detained by Department of Transport marine surveyors because of deficiencies in its equipment. In addition to that there are further deficiencies which give cause for concern to the Government of Panama. The Government have no power to detain the vessel in Harwich because of its illegal broadcasting as it was in international waters when broadcasting illegally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government any evidence that any of the pirate radio stations have been responsible for serious or even dangerous interference with frequencies allotted for legitimate uses?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Indeed, my Lords, that is quite correct. Broadcasts from these vessels have interfered with aeronautical beacons in the southern North Sea which are used by helicopter pilots in their work in servicing oil installations. They have been rendered non-operational. An international calling and distress frequency on North Foreland Radio was on one occasion completely blocked out. Furthermore, the stations have also interfered with the reception of authorised broadcasting stations in West Germany and the Republic of Ireland which use the same frequency. In addition, they have meant that it has not been possible to bring in the planned frequency for BBC Radio Essex.
Lord Bruce of Donington: But, my Lords, if the particular station to which the noble Lord has referred has been operated illegally it would seem to imply that somebody, some state somewhere, ought to be able to enforce the law. Would the noble Lord enlighten us a little more on the point of where a station is operating out of territorial waters and is conducting an operation which if it were within territorial waters would be illegal? How does one propose to rectify the position, either in concert with one's friends in the immediate states or otherwise?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are discussing the question with representatives of the Panamanian Government. That is the flag state under which the vessel is registered. I can say no more about that at present. However, I would point out that it is an offence either to supply the vessel or to advertise on the radio. We have a vessel stationed alongside at the moment which is basically taking down the name and number of any vessel which supplies Radio Caroline. Since 19th August vessels have been spotted doing this. A prosecution is in hand in respect of one of them. Fourteen others are being investigated by the police. In respect of four others, which were foreign

791
vessels, we have been in touch with the states from which they came.
Lord Bruce of Donington: But, my Lords, if it is illegal to advertise via the medium of this apparently illegally operating vessel, what action is being taken against British interests, British firms, within our own jurisdiction that have in fact been using it as an advertising medium?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Metropolitan Police are in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions about those who have advertised using the station.

Armed Forces: Overseas Allowances
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have reduced the local overseas allowance of Her Majesty's forces in Germany.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, local overseas allowance in Germany was adjusted downwards earlier this year because the gap between the cost of living in the United Kingdom and the cost of living in Germany had significantly narrowed. The same review resulted in an increase in LOA in other parts of the world. My noble friend may care to study the Written Answer which I gave on 6th June last, which describes the LOA system in detail.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is he aware that the average single serviceman in Germany is now £3 a day worse off? Furthermore, is he not worried that we spend so much money on training our highly skilled army only to find servicemen leaving it as a result of the cut in LOA? Is that not a dangerous false economy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this was not an economy; it was an adjustment in the allowance arrangement which was no longer justified. However, the point to which my noble friend referred is a proper one. It is the case that the PVR rate has nudged upwards in certain areas recently, but that is as much a result of improved conditions outside the services as of any problems within them.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, with the highest respect to the noble Lord the Minister, who I am sure is doing his best for all the members of the forces, was his not a very unsatisfactory Answer? The Minister made reference to some readjustment because of prices in Germany as compared with prices in the United Kingdom. However, has the Minister taken into account the boring conditions in Germany, the fact that servicemen are tied down there for many months on end, and that the terms, conditions and environs in
792
Germany are quite different from those at home? Sometimes there are also considerable transport difficulties for servicemen who want to pay a visit to the United Kingdom. Are all those considerations taken into account? They are factual and not imaginary aspects. Will the noble Lord the Minister try to persuade his right honourable friends in the Treasury—if such is possible at all, at any time—to reconsider the situation and give the members of our forces the conditions to which they are entitled?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hasten to agree with the noble Lord that we want to provide the very best possible conditions of service for the members of our armed forces, and the Government have a good record in that regard. We are constantly seeking to improve the various terms and conditions of the allowances which they have. For example, I was recently able to announce the provision of the third school children's visit—a matter which had greatly concerned members of the armed forces living in Germany and elsewhere. That will result in an improvement of, say, £200 a year for those serving in Cyprus, for example, and rather more for those serving further afield. All of that has to be done within the context of what can be generally afforded.
As far as local overseas allowance is concerned, the adjustment of that allowance was the result of the fact that the cost of living in Germany is no longer higher by a significant margin than it is in the United Kingdom.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if I may put another question with your Lordships' permission, I ask the Government to cut down a little on their fantastic ideas about space wars and satellite battles, and all the rest of it, which are purely imaginary and which are never likely to happen, and instead give to the people in the forces the conditions to which they are entitled and for which they were recruited.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only say again that I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we have a need and a duty to provide the members of our armed forces with the very best possible terms and conditions, obviously within the resources we can make available. We have a very good record in that regard. As a matter of fact, the total annual bill for allowances of all kinds in the armed forces is something of the order of £600 million a year. That is a figure of which we can be proud.
Lord Alport: My Lords, can my noble friend quantify his phrase "nudged upwards", preferably by rank?
Lord Trefgarne: Not without notice, my Lords, because the rates vary according to the different categories. The area where perhaps the greatest concern is being shown is that of technically qualified officers, where naturally the rewards and opportunities outside the armed forces are particularly great.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, is it not the case that the reductions in Germany have had some effect on morale? Is it not precisely within that sphere to which the Minister has just referred that effects have

793
been felt upon morale? Is it not the case that there have been significant disparities as between the ranks in the reductions and the effects of the reductions? If that is the case, can the Minister provide details—not necessarily immediately but in the form of a table—showing the effects of those disparities?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly the cast that the adjustments to LOA did bear differently on different ranks and different categories, particularly as regards single and married men. But as regards the latter category, the effect of the cost of living of course bears differently.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that basically the problem is with the young, unmarried soldier? On the last visit which some members of the defence group made, it was only servicemen in that category who had any gripes at all; all the married servicemen were perfectly happy.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the case that the young, unmarried soldier receives hardly any LOA; the rate is just about zero at the moment. But, then, the increased expenses which he incurs are minimal as well, because he does not have a wife or family.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the allowances and pay of British troops in Germany compare with those of the other troops there?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have those figures before me, but I shall see what I can discover and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Carver: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister confirm that commanding officers were given all the necessary information in order to explain to the troops under their command this perfectly reasonable adjustment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for that intervention. Commanding officers were certainly given all the information that they could have needed for this purpose. However, I have to confess that some of the information was not given to them as quickly as it might have been. We are seeing what we can do to overcome that in the future.

Agricultural Research Stations: Staff Losses
2.57 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many staff in the scientific grades of agricultural research stations have left the service since the Government's reorganisation programmes started.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I understand that about 700 scientific posts have been lost from
794
institutes and units of the Agricultural and Food Research Council since April 1984.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for that (to say the least of it) rather alarming Answer. I have two further questions to ask. First, does the Minister have any estimate of what the figure will be by the time the Government have completed their reorganisation and cutting exercise? Secondly, presuming that the noble Earl has read the first paragraph of Lord Selborne's forward policy, does he not agree that the challenge stated there cannot be met by cutting scientific staff at the rate at which the Government are cutting them?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I can answer both the noble Lord's supplementary questions in one. It is for the AFRC to decide upon the management of the funds it receives. I understand that the priorities board on research and development in agriculture and food, which advises on the allocation of resources between sectors, has agreed that the savings required in 1986–87 should be found through rationalisation of existing programmes. The board has yet to formulate its advice for 1987–88.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the figure he has given includes voluntary premature retirement, which is a euphemism for further redundancies? Is the Minister aware that such redundancies are particularly destructive because they mean that people who are very valuable to the industry are leaving while they can still get a job elsewhere, and that the head of the department does not necessarily have any choice about stopping them? Are they included in the figure which the noble Earl has given to the House?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, they are. Of the 700, about 280 were lost through compulsory redundancy; 260 losses were achieved by not replacing scientists who retired normally; and the balance of about 160 was through voluntary premature retirement.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether these losses were expected by the Government? Can he reassure us that they are not having a very deleterious effect on the service?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think they were. Obviously one of the ways of saving money was by making these cuts. There has been much rationalisation and restructuring, and I do not think that the loss to the service is too great.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, while I recognise that from time to time Governments have to make adjustments in their research programmes, may I ask my noble friend whether he recognises that the cuts in the plant breeding station at Aberystwyth have been viewed with considerable concern in Wales? Will the Government be very careful in future with regard to the programme and the establishment there?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I know only too well how these cuts were received because I remember

795
a somewhat tricky run I had on an Unstarred Question one night in your Lordships' House. In fact, 36 scientific posts have been lost in the Welsh plant breeding station. Losses there, and in Wales generally, have been broadly the same as in England.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is anxiety not only in Wales but also in that other great country further north, Scotland? Can he say whether his figures include what I believe is a proposed 70 per cent. cut in the establishment of the agricultural research station, which many people would say has done even more valuable work, if that is possible, than its counterpart in England?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not going to enter into battle on the relative merits between Wales and Scotland. The figures I gave were for past cuts and do not include future cuts.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that if one wants to cut a service then the way to do so is not by causing such anxiety that the best people leave? Is the noble Earl further aware that the same thing is happening in the advisory services in the colleges in Scotland, as well as in research? In the case of both the north college and the east college I know of several first-class people who have left to go to other jobs.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science accepted the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in 1982 that scientific priorities required a shift of funds towards work in areas such as information technology. That shift could be accomplished only by reducing the funds going to the AFRC from the science budget. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is right when he speaks about Scotland. I certainly would not argue with him on that matter.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the noble Earl in a position to help the House to discriminate between job losses from the agricultural research front and job redistribution within the agricultural research front—that is, redistribution between the public and the private sectors?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think I shall have to write to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, with that information.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl is very cagey about figures. Is he aware that the Institute of Professional Civil Servants, looking at the matter over a long period, is emphatic that there will be a 20 per cent. loss of scientists from the service? That is quite alarming. The noble Earl should take seriously what many of his noble friends obviously think of the situation and look into it more than he obviously has done.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think I was being at all cagey. I have not only said that there were 700 staff involved but have broken down how that figure of 700 arose. I do not know how I could be less cagey.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will not the Government's proposals to charge farmers for the advisory services that they need aggravate the situation and the difficulties for farmers, and not only in West Wales?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that is rather a different question.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the reply he gave to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, could be amplified a little? What matters is the destruction of a team. The fact that the people involved are distributed among the private sector does not help matters. Does the Minister not appreciate that it is the destruction of a particular team that is so devastating to the plant breeding institute in particular?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords; and, of course, when any Minister says during Question Time that he will write to a noble Lord, a copy of that reply is put into the Library for all those interested to see.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, while we deplore cuts in the establishment for agricultural advice and research, we greatly admire his personal efforts in the cutting of capacity?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that is one area in which I can share a great achievement with the noble Lord who asked that question.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Banks, L.

Templeman, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Willis, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and the reimbursement of Lords' expenses; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Denham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Kilmarnock, L

Tordoff, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I am not opposing reference to a Select Committee of this very important subject of noble Lords' absences and reimbursements, but when I see the names of those who will be responsible for examining reimbursements I wonder—and I say this without any malice in my mind—what their reimbursements are. I ask this merely as a matter of enlightenment.
The situation is this, if I may be allowed to put it to your Lordships. A vast number of Members of this House do not attend, for one reason or another. There are various reasons why they cannot attend—possibly complaints or illness, or they have other work to do. After all, there is a great deal of voluntary work done outside this House by your Lordships. In those circumstances, unless they attend they cannot claim for expenses incurred by them in the way of correspondence, transport, interviews, and research for information all over the place. Those are some of the activities that every Member of your Lordships' House has to undertake at one time or another.
In those circumstances, if I may put it in this fashion, these gentlemen—noble Lords, I should say, but I do not withdraw the term "gentlemen"—should take into account what I have just said. They should take into account the variety of activities which are undertaken by Members of your Lordships' House apart from attendance, and pay them accordingly.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, the committee actually has no particular powers in respect of the rules that exist for the claiming of expenses. It is appointed mainly to deal with individual claimants and difficulties that arise under the regulations as they exist. I am afraid that most of the suggestions made by the noble Lord would not be appropriate for this particular committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement
3.9 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw) rose to move, That this House approves the Anglo-Irish Agreement (Cmnd. 9657) signed on 15th November by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is fatally easy for those who have had responsibility in Northern Ireland to live in the past rather than face the future. Today I intend to avoid that danger. But I cannot escape two personal reflections which are relevant to our consideration of this new Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The first is that, contrary to the unfortunate impression given by some politicians in the Province, there are many people there who only want to live in peace with their neighbours and to carry on a normal
798
life in the beautiful country which is their home. Amidst all the trouble and difficulties no one should forget these friendly and warm-hearted people to whom we in the rest of the United Kingdom owe our understanding and help as their fellow citizens.
Secondly, it has become so dangerously easy to destroy, and equally so immensely difficult to construct, plans to end the conditions of violence and intimidation which lead to despair that the temptation just to keep going on becomes almost irresistible.
Yet no one here, in Northern Ireland, or outside, should be under any illusion. The status quo is not an acceptable option. No one in your Lordships' House needs reminding of the terrible toll taken by violence in Northern Ireland over the years, the appalling loss of life of young soldiers, policemen and civilians, the damage to property and the disruption of community and commercial life. Nor can we forget the tragedy and anxiety felt by families throughout the United Kingdom from events in Northern Ireland and, indeed, here also on the mainland. Surely, we all share responsibility to do all in our power to isolate and defeat the men of violence.
I am therefore seeking the approval of this House to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which I believe marks a useful step in Anglo-Irish relations. It offers a substantial opportunity, a chance to build, to the people of Northern Ireland, both Unionist and Nationalist. it can contribute significantly to the aim, which we all share, of peace, stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
I want first to stress that it is not the agreement some have made it out to be. It is not "joint authority" by some other name; it does not give the Republic of Ireland a veto over the exercise of our powers and responsibilities in Northern Ireland; and, above all, it does not derogate from our sovereignty.
But neither is it, as some have argued, an agreement which will change nothing. Of course, it will not solve all Northern Ireland's problems. But we hope that it will change things in Northern Ireland, in a measured and responsible way, in the direction in which successive governments have wished to go.
Underlying the agreement is recognition by the two Governments of the differing aspirations and cultures of the two communities in Northern Ireland. This is essential. Each of the two must be able to feel secure in its own identity and tolerant of the other's. The agreement offers important safeguards to both.
The majority in Northern Ireland wish to retain the link with Great Britain. We have never wavered from the position that a change in the status of Northern Ireland could come about only with the consent of a majority there. The present wish of a majority is against change.
Both Governments accept all this and have affirmed it in a binding international agreement. There are no ambiguities; I do implore people who think that there may be to look at what the agreement actually says on this. It says that there will be no derogation from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Government; responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland remains with United Kingdom Ministers accountable to Parliament.
Thus it is that Her Majesty's Government are seeking the approval of this House, and of another place, to an agreement which affirms the commitment of both Governments to the principle of majority consent. It is entirely consistent with that commitment for us also to say, as we have done, that if at some future date a majority of the people in Northern Ireland were to consent formally to a united Ireland, the Government would introduce and support in Parliament legislation to that effect.
Contrary to what some may say and feel, that should give no cause for misapprehension or uncertainty among Unionists. Their loyalty is, absolutely properly, to the Crown in Parliament. Only by an Act of the Crown in Parliament could the status of Northern Ireland be changed. That position is not altered by the agreement, and I earnestly hope that all sections of the community will remember that in our system of parliamentary democracy the decisions of Parliament are binding and must be respected.
As well as reassurance for the majority, we also believe that we cannot make progress towards reconciliation in Northern Ireland unless we can also reflect, understand and take account of the minority viewpoint. We need to create conditions which will provide the minority with the confidence that they have a role to play in the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is here that the Irish Government have a vital contribution to make. Of course, they already raise with us many questions about events in Northern Ireland, particularly where they affect the minority community. What the agreement will do is to formalise this procedure so that the Irish Government's views and proposals can be taken into account in a more structured and methodical way.
I shall now explain briefly how the agreement sets out to achieve this. It provides in Article 2 for the establishment of an intergovernmental conference. This will extend and build upon the framework of the existing Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. The conference will serve as a framework within which—I quote from the agreement itself—
"the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government work together;
(i) for the accommodation of the rights and identities of the two traditions which exist in Northern Ireland; and
(ii) for peace, stability and prosperity throughout the island of Ireland by promoting reconciliation, respect for human rights, cooperation against terrorism and the development of economic, social and cultural co-operation".
The conference will deal on a regular basis with matters relating mainly to Northern Ireland—on political issues, security and related matters, legal matters including the administration of justice and the promotion of cross-border co-operation. We are committed to consider carefully these views and to make determined efforts to resolve any differences. That means neither that we are obliged to accept the suggestions that are put to us by the Irish, nor that the Irish are granted a veto. It means simply that we will try our hardest to reach agreement. But we are realists. It will remain the clear responsibility of the British Government to take final decisions.
We welcome this arrangement on two accounts. First, it will enable the Government better to take
800
account of the minority views. It creates conditions whereby the minority community can be confident that they have a vital role to play in the affairs of Northern Ireland; and we hope too that it will increase their confidence in the institutions of Northern Ireland.
Secondly, we welcome it because it provides a new framework for more effective co-operation in a wide range of economic, social, cultural and security matters. Our foremost priority in Northern Ireland must be the complete eradication of terrorism which has menaced both Northern Ireland and the Republic, and indeed the mainland of the United Kingdom, for many years. This requires the closest co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Goverments as spelt out in Article 9 of the agreement.
We therefore very much welcome the Irish Government's commitment in the agreement to work with us to ensure that those who adopt or support violence do not succeed. We hope to make early progress against terrorism which is to the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland. We look forward to tackling this problem with the Irish; for the conference will help us to raise matters of concern, too, such as the improvement of cross-border security. We also welcome the Irish Goverment's intention announced in the communique to accede as soon as possible to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.
The confidence of all law-abiding citizens in the security forces and the courts is essential if they are to be wholly effective in upholding the law and in dealing with terrorism. The security forces in Northern Ireland are already highly esteemed throughout the United Kingdom for their dedication, bravery and professionalism, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying a special tribute to them.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I should add also no less a tribute to the judiciary, who have maintained the highest standards of impartiality and integrity of which we are proud. But we must never relax our efforts to secure the support of all sections of the community, including the minority, for the security forces and for the judicial system in Northern Ireland. Relations between the security forces and the minority, cross-border security co-operation and public confidence in the administration of justice are issues which will be for the intergovernmental conference to consider.
Article 8 also mentions, as one possible approach, the idea of mixed courts. We have made it clear, and I shall repeat now, that we cannot see any easy or early way round the very considerable difficulties in the way of that particular proposal. We have undertaken to consider this possibility entirely without commitment.
Let me now say something about the response to the agreement. It is clear that responsible opinion from many parts of the political spectrum accepts that the agreement is a constructive approach to the problems of Northern Ireland and offers hope of tackling the violence. I am one of those perhaps who can say with all honesty that I very well understand the anxieties and fears expressed from among the Unionist majority

801
of the community in Northern Ireland itself. However, I believe these fears are not well-founded.
It is claimed that the agreement is unprecedented; and that it is in itself a breach of sovereignty. But there is nothing unprecedented, nor any breach of sovereignty, when neighbouring states set up machinery to work together for common security and well-being. How can there be a breach of sovereignty when the final decisions rest with us, as they must and will? I very much hope that as time goes on more and more people will see the agreement in its proper perspective and that it is well worth the effort to make it work. Of course this will be difficult, but only in that way can progress be made towards peace, stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I hope those Unionists who are (in my judgment, understandably) voicing their grave doubts will carefully consider this aspect.
The arrangements set out in the agreement do not represent an alternative to the search for devolution: indeed the agreement reaffirms both Governments' commitment to find an acceptable form of devolved administration in Northern Ireland—and that means one which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community. We want the people of Northern Ireland to take over responsibility for the every-day decisions which affect their lives, but there needs to be agreement across the community.
Both Governments, however, recognise that devolution can be achieved only with the co-operation of constitutional representatives within Northern Ireland of both traditions there. We hope that the agreement will encourage the elected representatives of both communities to come together to discuss arrangements for forming a devolved structure acceptable to both. And should a devolved administration be established, the intergovernmental conference would cease to consider any matters which would become the responsibility of a new local administration.
No single agreement will solve all of Northern Ireland's problems. I know from firsthand experience the complexities of the situation in Northern Ireland, the depth of divisions and the magnitude of the task in trying to reach a solution. I have learnt the hard way through experience that progress can only be made slowly, one step at a time. I firmly believe that this agreement offers an important step in the right direction—it offers a real opportunity to make progress towards reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland and to tackle cross-border terrorism in a determined way. It contains reassurances for both communities that their rights will be safeguarded. It will create an improved climate of friendship and co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It is thus in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland that we do not let this opportunity pass. The people within the rest of the United Kingdom will certainly expect them to work constructively for its success.
That is the reality of the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the circumstances in which we as a Government thought it right to seek an agreement of this kind. We did so in the full understanding that it would not, and could not, produce a solution at a stroke. No agreement could do that. What it does
802
offer—and I very firmly believe this—is the chance to make progress in a situation where for some years progress has not seemed possible.
My Lords, I commend the Motion to this House.
Moved, That this House approves the Anglo-Irish Agreement (Cmnd. 9657) signed on 15th November by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the speech with which he has opened this very important debate. The noble Viscount has at least two qualifications to speak in this debate and to be heard with care and with respect. First, he was, as he has reminded us, for a period the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and, secondly, he is completely sincere, I believe, in his desire to achieve a settlement or at least the practical beginnings of a settlement of this intractable problem.
My own credentials are less obvious. I can, however, see the Wicklow Mountains from my home on a clear day, and the nearest city to us is Dublin, 60 miles away; so that I know Ireland very well. It would be easier for me, logistically at least, to be a Member of the Dail than a Member of this Parliament! I have also known the leaders of Ireland, north and south, including Mr. de Valera, with whom I discussed these problems in years past. And although he remained passionately in favour of a united Ireland, he had come to recognise the realities of the position and that there is no simple solution to the island's problem.
The history of the past 70 years demonstrates very clearly—from the Curragh mutiny and the Easter Rising to the present day—that finding a peaceful and permanent solution to the Irish problem has been and remains the most difficult continuing task in British politics. Everyone wants the problem to be resolved, but on his own terms. The failure to resolve it is costly in terms of lives, in terms of suffering and in terms of resources. It is a running sore that saps the strength of Britain and of Ireland. It gives our critics both East and West the opportunity to cast doubt upon Britain's commitment to human rights and to the freedom of the individual. The central, most important, injunction of the Christian religion is that we should love one another. That people, including ministers and priests, should invoke their religion, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, encourage violence and kill and maim each other without mercy, in its name, makes a savage mockery of Christianity.
It is against this background that we must look at this agreement. If it gives hope that it will help, even in a small way, to bring an end to this senseless and evil conflict, then I believe strongly that we must give it our support. It makes no great fundamental changes, as the noble Viscount has indicated. Indeed, like all moderate compromises, it attracts criticism from one side because it goes too far and from the other because it does not go far enough. The press over the last few days has demonstrated this. For example, the Spectator, over the weekend, contained three successive articles that reflected three differing and conflicting viewpoints of the agreement. This shows

803
the confusion that exists in the minds of intelligent and well-meaning people on the issue.
We can, and no doubt we shall, in the debate take different views about some of the details of the agreement. And there are some important questions to be asked. Before doing that, I would like to follow the noble Viscount and look carefully at the general Unionist reaction to the agreement especially as it was reflected in the meeting in Belfast on Saturday. It was angry, suspicious, highly charged and, of course further inflamed by public exhortation. But the views of Unionists and their leaders such as Mr. James Molyneaux, whom I like and respect, must be carefully taken into account.
Their apprehensions are clear. They think, or they are persuaded, that the agreement is the first step, the slippery slope to the abandonment of sovereignty. I remember well this slippery slope argument when we were debating devolution for Scotland and for Wales. But if the agreement is clear about anything, it is clear about this. As the noble Viscount has said, Article 1 and Article 2(b) set this out unambiguously. I take liberty to repeat what he has read out:
"There is no derogation from the sovereignty of either the United Kingdom Government or the Irish Government".
That is a specific statement. It is plain, furthermore, that the decisions of government in Northern Ireland and the responsibility for administration in the Province will remain with this Parliament where Ministers with executive authority are accountable.
The agreement also emphasises what has been made plain again and again by successive Governments and Secretaries of State; namely, that the status of Northern Ireland will remain unchanged so long as the majority of the people there so wish. It goes further than this and says that they—that is, the British Government, and, more importantly, the Irish Government—recognise that the present wish is for no change.
Let me say to the House and especially to my friends in the Province that this reform is negligible compared with the step that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland took when we entered the European Community. Northern Ireland, with us, did then concede sovereignty. Its extent was defined and debated in this House and in the other place. It is misleading, in my opinion, to try to argue or especially try to frighten people into believing that sovereignty is at risk in this particular document. It is not so.
This is not a constitutional step, in my view, in the same category as our entry into the Common Market and the documents which were signed at that time are clear evidence of this. A derogation of sovereignty in a real sense to the Irish Republic would need major legislation in this Parliament. That, in my view, would also justify a referendum on the precedent of the referendum on the European Community and on devolution to Scotland and to Wales. This agreement, my Lords, does not. And we and the people of Ireland should get that into perspective at this time. My personal view is that the Irish Government, in this agreement, are in fact making more positive concessions than the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland. It is the Irish Government, it is the Irish Prime
804
Minister, who are making significant concessions in this document. Anyone who is familiar with the history of Ireland will appreciate that what I am saying is true. Finally, the fact that Northern Ireland will continue to send Members to the House of Commons, to the British Parliament, should itself be sufficient reassurance on this document.
What I have said thus far reflects the policy of the party I represent, which would seek unity between the two parts of Ireland based on agreement and provided that consent is there—achieved by negotiation between the Government of the Republic and our own and with the support of the people of both the North and the South.
The House will recall the conclusions of the New Ireland Forum. We supported many of these, as noble Lords will recall. These proposals were of course rejected by the Prime Minister and the Government at the time. We remember the Prime Minister's words well. But this agreement is a step in the direction proposed by the Forum. I also believe that the British people will give this agreement a fair wind. But, as the noble Viscount has indicated, they will want to see how the Government here, and for that matter how the Government in Dublin, propose to make it work effectively. So far as our own Government are concerned, we shall expect practical steps to be taken to ensure that a clear understanding of what is involved exists both among the Nationalist and among the Unionist communities in the Province. This is of the first importance. They must be told the nature, the purpose and the potential of the agreement. This implies a well-planned programme of consultation with both communities within Northern Ireland.
Consultation is of the first importance. It is consultation that involves not only the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—we deplore the treatment that was meted out to him in Northern Ireland the other day—but consultation also between his colleagues in the Cabinet and in the Government with the communities in the Province.
I have one or two practical questions to put to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who will be replying to the debate. First, the intergovernmental conference, as the noble Viscount has said, is obviously to be a focal, joint authority. It will be of interest to know how often the conference will meet and what will be its precise role. How often will it meet at heads-of-government level? I believe that the conference should also meet at the top level, and that the Prime Ministers should be committed to meeting together at least once a year.
We again accept that the role of the Republic will be consultative—a very important point—but cross-border co-operation is, in my view, essential if terrorism is to be tackled. Article 7 and Article 9 are crucial in this regard. One of the tests of the success of this document will be a reduction in terrorist violence. This in itself would help to gain Unionist understanding and support.
The role of the conference on security and legal matters needs careful definition and clarification both for practical reasons and in order to assuage the fears of the Unionist community. This is also why the role of the Irish Government under the agreement must be made absolutely plain from the start. As I see it, this

805
role is limited to that of—and I quote from the document—"advancing views and proposals" on those Northern Ireland affairs specifically mentioned in the agreement. That will not apply to matters which are the responsibility of any devolved administration in the Province. It does, however, make for a closer practical relationship between the two Governments without affecting the relationship between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland itself.
I further note that the secretariat which is set up under Article 3 will have no executive functions. This again is a point which should be noted by Unionists. The secretariat is to be a channel of communication and will service the conference. I hope that the Minister can assure us at the end of the debate that this will be set up expeditiously so that it can begin to prepare the ground for regular meetings.
I should be grateful to the Minister if he can also say a word about the Baker report and its recommendations which concern the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and which will depend on action taken in and by this Parliament. Other actions which can or should be considered are a review of strip searching procedures at Armagh prison, a repeal of the Flags and Emblems Act 1954, and some action on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. All these measures can be initiated by this Government and can help to pave the way to a successful outcome.
Again, Article 10 refers to the need,
"to promote the economic and social development of those areas of both parts of Ireland which have suffered most severely",
and, of course, we support this. We have read references to the possibility of economic aid from the United States, and it would be interesting to know whether this is likely to be forthcoming and whether it will be by way of direct investment from the United States Treasury or private investment, or partly public and partly private. There must be doubts about a direct United States Treasury grant in aid. Perhaps we can be told the thinking of the Government on that point. The rebuilding of the Northern Ireland economy is no small matter after the damage of the years, but it must be tackled, not least by the people there, by Unionists and Catholics alike. But let both sides realise that there can be no real chance of economic growth and progress without the clear hope of stability. This again is why this agreement is important and why at the end of the day it is the people themselves in Northern Ireland who must settle their differences.
Having set their hand to this small reform, the Government's immediate task is to seek to create confidence in both communities, to allay the fears of the Unionists that this is not the end of the Union, and to give the Nationalists confidence that there is a decent life for them as equal citizens in the Province.
In giving the commitments in this agreement Dr. Garret FitzGerald has done a most courageous thing for which he deserves the utmost praise and respect. I congratulate him and all those who have worked with skill and patience to produce this agreement. I also appeal to those who oppose the agreement, or to those who have doubts about it, to give it a chance for the
806
coming three years. At the end of the three years there will be a review and a time to judge its value.
But those who seek to destroy it by violence, terror, misrepresentation or misleading rhetoric will carry a heavy burden of guilt before history. This small but active group do not represent the majority of this remarkable community—I use the world advisedly; it is a remarkable community—who, as the noble Viscount said, have made a great contribution to the history of these islands. I believe that the fervent desire of the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for a stable and peaceful future for their children.
I note the point that the noble Viscount made about the existence of two cultures. However, when we consider the huge area of common interest and sympathy which exists between us in these islands in the arts, in sport, in our legal traditions, in trade and industry, in the development of democratic institutions, in our common heritage and in our common interest in survival, is it not a tragedy that there should be any risk of the failure of this modest attempt to create a bridge between us?
I hope that the leaders of the churches of all denominations, the leaders of industry and the trade unions, and all people of goodwill will give this agreement the chance to succeed, for the Province deserves a period of peace and stability.
For their part let the Government determine to implement this agreement, and we shall support them. Let there be no turning back, whatever the difficulties, because I believe that the objectives of this agreement are good and honourable; and that is what matters in the end.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, debates are more interesting if a speaker occasionally differs from the speaker before him, but I am unable to differ from the noble Viscount or my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. What I have to say, therefore, will become variations on the same theme. I shall underline one or two differences in a slightly different way, but I speak for the two parties of the Alliance and I think that I must therefore say what I have to say. Although I could almost say, "I agree", sit down, and leave it at that, I think that would hardly do justice to our growing voting strength in the country to which I shall not refer again.
We welcome this agreement as a real step forward. We have within our two parties done a pretty thorough study of the Northern Ireland problem and at both our party conferences the recommendations put forward in our report—which we called What future for Northern Ireland—were accepted. They are largely in line with the agreement we are here to discuss. I think one can say that our views are a hundred per cent. bipartisan with the Government.
We welcome the agreement because it recognises the basic principles which are absolutely essential if peace is ever to return to Northern Ireland. These principles, which have been stated twice already, I shall state again. They are at the centre of our report. The first is that Northern Ireland shall not cease to be a part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. Everybody has

807
known this for a good many years. But this document reaffirms that from both sides in a very definite official way, as the noble Viscount pointed out. It is not quite the same as it was before, even though the words are not very different. It is stronger and more reliable.
Secondly, both the Unionist and Nationalist traditions in Northern Ireland—as both noble Lords have said—are legitimate and valid, and any approach to a settlement must take account of that fact. That principle was not only acknowledged in the Northern Ireland Forum Report, but it has also been acknowledged by the Unionists themselves in The Way Forward, which is the recently published document by the Ulster Unionist Council. It explicitly states that it is the responsibility of the Unionists, as a party representing the majority, to make the minority feel that Northern Ireland is also theirs. That is a very significant statement which tacitly admits the alienation so often denied. In our document there is a report from Professor Whyte, who is a great expert on divided societies, saying that there is no other way of producing reconciliation than something which we call "partnership in government" but which was known at one time as "power-sharing".
We realise that any movement forward in the Northern Ireland situation will be received with indignation and fury by one side or the other although, until the disgraceful assault on the Secretary of State, we had hoped without violence. However, the two principles which I have just quoted are agreed between the two parties in formal papers of their own. The question is how to implement them? There are two complementary ways of doing so: first, partnership in government in which the minority has a share in government as of right. As I have said, that is the only way in which a plural society can be governed. So far the Unionists have not been prepared to allow that to happen. We hoped that it might emerge from the present Assembly but the SDLP this time—very wrongly in my opinion—refused to play. However, if power-sharing is established we then come to the second question; namely, how can the principle of equal respect for both communities be implemented? The answer can only be, as stated in the agreement, through giving the Government of the Irish Republic, to whom many members of the Nationalist majority look to represent their interests, an advisory role with regard to matters affecting the two communities.
I want for the moment to try to convince the Unionists that the Government, in what they are doing, and we in supporting them, are not their enemies trying to chuck them out of our island community, but are their genuine friends trying to find a stable way of keeping them in it. In other words, I want them to stop fuming for a moment and to try to see the problem from the point of view of the British nation which supplies the troops and the money, and in thanks for which our troops are murdered, our mainland is attacked by terrorists, our rule is attacked and libelled from all sides, from American senators to Dr. Paisley. We want a change and we must have a change. As the noble Viscount said, the status quo is simply not an option.
I am proud to be English and prouder still to be British. I am proud to look on the Scots, from among
808
whom my family came South, and on the Welsh, with whom I have worked very closely in my earlier days, and indeed in this House, as my respected fellow countrymen. I am no less proud to look on the Northern Irish, whether Protestant or Catholic, as my friends and fellow countrymen. I do not have the slightest intention of supporting any move to push them out of our Union, and I personally see no reason why such a thing should ever be attempted. There are some British citizens who want to see a united Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has given his party's approval to that; we do not give our approval. We hold the matter open. Some people want a united Ireland but there is a certain number of people in England who do not want that at all. However, the majority of people in England—and I think that I speak for them—do not mind which way the future goes so long as it moves towards a contented Ireland, both North and South, and, above all, so long as we can begin to move towards stopping the killing.
In the short run, as the right honourable Jim Prior said in his last speech as Northern Ireland Secretary, an agreement of this kind is likely to increase terrorism because the IRA know very well that the only thing that can defeat them is reconciliation. They dislike the agreement with much better reason than the Unionists. In the long run, the agreement will be judged, as other speakers have said, by the extent to which it helps towards a real reduction in terrorism; but that must be in the long run.
There are two matters beyond all others which make it difficult to eliminate the IRA terrorist acts, and this agreement is constructive on both of them. The first is that some—not all, but a significant number—of the rank and file Catholic population are sufficiently nationalist to have some sympathy with the IRA or have sons and brothers with them, or are persuaded or intimidated even if they do not approve the violence, into conceding shelter and help. This means that the IRA have safe houses into which to disappear. This part of the population is suspicious of the police and is not helpful to them. By and large, they do not, I think, rejoice at the murders carried out by the IRA and they could be persuaded gradually to see the Royal Ulster Constabulary as an impartial police force in favour of law and order and not a sectarian one in favour of Protestant domination. Let me say at this point that I do not see the RUC as that at all and nor do they themselves. I join with the other noble Lords who have spoken in paying tribute to them, to the Army, the judiciary, and indeed to the prison officers, all of whom walk through that country under instant threat of death every day of their lives.
The particularly courageous behaviour of the RUC at one or two recent provocative Protestant demonstrations has done something to help in this connection, and, as has already been said, Article 7(c) of the agreement expresses very clearly the intention that both governments mean to do something about it.
Secondly, the IRA have naturally even more friends across the Border than in the North and can—and often do—operate from there and flee back there. The Unionists have for years been asking for more thorough Border co-operation with the South. This agreement offers it in a most comprehensive form. Article 9 spells it out.

809
From the point of view of the British, both of these things are very good and, in my opinion, the majority ought to welcome them. However, as Boyle and Hadden pointed out in the Financial Times last week, it is essential to woo the middle ground of Unionist opinion. In their words,
"there is little point in making such elaborate arrangements to reduce alienation within the minority community if the result is to create an equal degree of alienation within the majority community".
That of course is the dilemma. If the Government had offered less, there would have been no agreement. Joint sovereignty, or at least joint authority, are the least that the Irish Government and the Nationalists wanted. That the Government have totally rejected. They have stopped short of any derogation of sovereignty and, greatly to his credit, Dr. FitzGerald has accepted it. Is this such a humiliating defeat for the Unionists?
Since I made my notes for this speech I have spoken to my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who is to speak following me and who is well capable of giving his own views. I have also read the article in today's edition of The Times by Conor Cruise O'Brien. I have the very greatest respect for the views of both of those men. Both take the view that this agreement is too bitter a pill for the Unionists to swallow. However, they neglect an important new fact. There have always been two intractable positions in the Northern Ireland struggle—that of those who are determined to move towards a United Ireland, and that of those who are determined not to share power with the minority with whom they have to live. Now there is a third intractable position—that of the British nation which will support its government not to allow things to run on as they were. The Unionists do not seem to realise that if they would share power, the excuse for Irish advice would disappear.
Is this agreement really so awful? The suggested conference which all the trouble is about is, as has been stated by both previous speakers, only advisory and has no executive function, and comments from the South suggesting otherwise have been denied again and again. Decisions for the North will be made by the British Government and for the South by the Dail. What could be fairer than that? If we, the British, like to draw a little nearer to the South, why should we not do so? Our culture has been intertwined with theirs from the days of Swift right up to the very present, and it is very much the better for it.
My favourite play is still The Playboy of the Western World. I smuggled a copy of Ulysses in from Paris when I was at school, and I own—and I doubt whether any other noble Lord does—a first edition of Beckett's Murphy. I do not know anyone who has not a cousin somewhere in Ireland. The boot surely is on the other foot. It is the Irish who do not like us, even though if they come to live here, we welcome them and give them the vote.
But if our Government like to discuss the incredibly difficult affairs and complaints of the minority with a friendly Government to which the minority look for sympathy and understanding, who has the right to complain? We offer them no power, no decisions, no executive activity at all. But we shall discuss, for example, the tricky problems of how to improve
810
minority relations with the RUC, and things of that sort; and very useful it should be.
My Lords, this is how I see it, and in my opinion most of the British on the mainland see it the same way. We do not hate the Irish. We do not want to be in any way associated with Dr. Paisley's unchristian and unappetising attacks on the Pope and the Church of Rome and his fellow men who follow the Catholic religion. But we have absolutely no intention of acceding to any change in the constitution of Northern Ireland except as stated in Article 1 of the agreement. Why cannot they believe us?
I have tried to put the British point of view as I imagine it to be, and I believe that the Government's point of view is not dissimilar. We must persuade the moderate Unionists, of whom there are many, to help us give it a try—as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said as well—and move forward to devolved Government. Thus more and more can be left to the local politicians, and in a proper political forum they can gain proper experience instead of quarrelling in a vacuum, as they do now. It is now fairly and squarely up to the SDLP to come forward and offer to cooperate in the Assembly—this one or the new one—with the Unionists and the Alliance. We must give them a week or two, but if there is to be any agreement, they must play their part too.
I wish very quickly to make one or two points on the report itself. No action is recommended on the parliamentary tier, and we think in our parties that it is important that this should be erected as soon as possible. The proposed arrangements for Anglo-Irish co-operation, valuable as they are, do not fully take into account that both countries are democracies and both governments are subject to the popular will, and elected members from all parties on all sides should be involved.
Secondly, we think that conference meetings should be held in London and Dublin as well as Belfast to underline the fact that this is an Anglo-Irish agreement, one between sovereign states. Thirdly, the question of secrecy has caused much ill-feeling, though I do not see myself how it could have been otherwise until now. But from now on, as the Leader of the Northern Ireland Alliance Party suggested to the Prime Minister last week, every conference meeting should publish its agenda before, and its conclusions after, each meeting.
Lastly, though I hardly hope to persuade the Prime Minister of this, the extreme sectarianism of the voting population would be greatly modified by insisting on proportional representation for the Westminister elections as well as all the local elections.
My Lords, I have many valued friends among the Unionists—or I had until I made this speech. Let me beg them to believe our word, the British Government's word, backed by the four political parties, that the agreement means—as both previous speakers said—exactly what it says, no more and no less, and that we will stand by it.
I look forward to reading tomorrow that Messrs. Enoch Powell and Jim Molyneaux have dissociated themselves from the violence committed by their political colleagues on the Secretary of State. Surely, they can do no less. We must try to persuade them that

811
we do not want to lose them, but we beg them to co-operate and give us the opportunity to keep them in a stable province as part of our country. There are no last chances in affairs of this kind. The world has to go on. But I do not believe there will ever be a better or a fairer offer. We are happy to support the agreement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in our search to try to find a solution, to try to find some hope in the ongoing tragedy of Northern Ireland, most of us in this Chamber today, and most of the Members in the Chamber on the other side of this building, would want to express as much optimism as we possibly could regarding this agreement. But let us not blind ourselves to the realities as they exist in Northern Ireland, because if we set out with an inordinate degree of optimism and this agreement does not turn out to be what we would want it to be, the despair and disenchantment would be all the greater.
For personal reasons, because I know many Members in this House—people whom I would regard as friends—I should like to be able to stand up in this Chamber today and say with them, "Yes, I agree that this agreement is going to point the road to success". But when I received a summons to come into the House, a summons which all your Lordships received, I was called upon to come into the House and to treat, and to give of my knowledge in the governing of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I took that oath seriously. Whether or not it makes me unpopular, or someone who is always preaching despair, someone who cannot see an answer, I believe with my conscience that I have to tell this House of the situation in Northern Ireland as I see it.
We have heard of two cultures. We have heard of two communities. Let me put it in terms readily understood in the island of Ireland. In relation to Northern Ireland there is a Catholic, Nationalist, Irish and Republican tribe. The people in that tribe want to hasten, and to bring about in varying degrees a British departure from Ireland. The other side of that political and religious divide is the Unionist, British, Ulster Protestant culture and tradition who wish to maintain the present status quo.
We ask ourselves: are those two cultures irreconcilable? Are there any circumstances which could bring them together to accept the boundaries of the Northern Ireland state and to accept each culture as a legitimate expression? I sometimes begin to think that that is now impossible, but yet I do not give up hope. I say here, as I stand on my feet, that irrespective of what my following words might be, I want to give this agreement a fair wind, but I say it in the full and absolute knowledge of the awful obstacles in the way of this agreement ever attaining what it sets out to attain.
I remember very well in all the years I spent in politics the awful divisions which existed between the two communities in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland you do not have what you have in this House, what has been mentioned this afternoon and will certainly be mentioned by other speakers at the other end of the building; you do not have compromise. In
812
this House you do. When you stand here and talk of compromise you are speaking a language which the tribes in Northern Ireland do not understand.
In Northern Ireland there are two tribes, and a defeat for one is a victory for the other. A victory for one is certain defeat for the other. Throughout my political life I have suffered the defeats, and now the Unionist members, the majority party in Northern Ireland, are suffering what they would regard as the most signal defeat that they have suffered since the downfall of Stormont in 1972, which was brought about by a Conservative Government.
What has brought us to this position? Why was this agreement necessary? Let me, within a few minutes, give a potted history. Northern Ireland was partitioned against the will of the Irish people. The vast majority of the people in the island of Ireland did not want partition. The six-county state was created by the British Government. Given the circumstances in which that state was brought into being, with a 65 per cent. Protestant majority and a 35 per cent. Catholic minority, it was inevitable that attitudes would be built up between the majority and minority communities, because they could not agree on the most fundamental issue which could be agreed on in every other country. They could not agree on the legitimacy of the state. Sixty-five per cent. were for the state and 35 per cent. were against it. If agreement cannot be found on the most important issue of all, how then can agreement be found on anything else? It was inevitable, given the circumstances of the creation of the Northern Ireland state, that there had to be discrimination. I am not blaming the Unionists for it. They were part of the problem. There had to be discrimination if the Northern Ireland state was to be kept in being.
So there was this continual confrontation between the 65 per cent. majority and the 35 per cent. minority. Had it been a 5 per cent. minority, or even 10 per cent., there would have been no problem, because one can afford to be generous to a 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. minority. But one cannot afford to be generous to a 35 per cent. minority, because in a very few years their numbers would increase and the whole constitutional question would be thrown into the melting pot again.
I say again that the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland treated the Nationalist Catholic minority, the tribal minority, in a very unfair way. I was in opposition politics in those years. I did not hesitate to take a stand in defence of that embattled minority. So the civil rights movement began, and I took a part in it. We had demands which we believed were very modest and legitimate, and all those demands have been met. Every single demand which we carried on our banners when we went to Derry on 5th October has been met and agreed by a succession of British governments since then: a fair electoral system, a fairer allocation of houses, the setting up of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the coming into being of an ombudsman. They were immediate demands that had absolutely nothing to do with the clamour for a united Ireland or the clamour against it.
That immediately brought a Unionist backlash, which was very sore and bitter when it occurred. It

813
went on for three years. In the meantime, the IRA took advantage of the civil rights agitation and began their shooting war in 1970 and 1971. That war has continued, with untold tragedy for many families in Northern Ireland, in all the years that have elapsed since then.
In 1972 the Conservative Government abolished Stormont. That was a victory for Irish nationalism. It was a defeat for Ulster unionism. They saw the citadel of Stormont, a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people, being wiped out at a stroke by a Conservative Government. I know how bitter they were, and I also know how the nationalist population rejoiced when Stormont was brought to an end.
After 1972, the noble Viscount to whom we all listened this afternoon involved himself in the Irish situation. I have a high regard for him as one of the most courageous Englishmen ever to involve himself; though there may be some doubt about whether he is English or Scottish. He came to Northern Ireland in 1973. He got the Northern Ireland politicians together: a large section of the Unionist Party, the minority party, the Catholic party of the SDLP, of which I was then the leader, and the small Alliance Party. Behind closed doors at Stormont, without the interference of Dublin or any other outside agency, under his direction we were able to bring about the seeds of a power-sharing government, where Catholics and Protestants of the two tribes would be able to enter into an agreement on an executive which would act in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. We did not need to go to Sunningdale. I would have been quite happy to stop the negotiations then, because that was a tremendous advance on anything that we had ever had: the Catholic community and the Protestant community having their representatives in one executive trying to govern Northern Ireland in the interests of everyone.
However, we went to Sunningdale. When we went to Sunningdale with the representatives of the Irish Government we then had to discuss the Council of Ireland. I was not losing any sleep over the Council of Ireland. I believed it was much more important to see a coming together of the two communities in Northern Ireland, to allow ourselves to build up trust in each other, to see if we could forget all the hatreds and suspicions that we had nurtured against each other for years. Then after a period of one or two parliaments we could begin to consider whether we needed the Council of Ireland; whether we needed to take steps towards the unity of the country; whether it would be better if the country were united in the interests of everyone. But to me that was of secondary importance. By far the most important factor was the power-sharing executive.
When we left Sunningdale we came out with three ministries: Paddy Devlin in Health and Social Services, Austin Currie in Development and John Hume in Commerce. Those are three of the most important ministries that can operate under any government. We formed the executive on 1st January 1974. Then the objections began to be brought to the fore by a certain section of the Unionist Party—not the whole Unionist Party but sections of it who were not represented at Sunningdale. I urge your Lordships to
814
remember those words: a certain section of the Unionist Party and their leaders who were not represented at Sunningdale.
We began that executive, and in the five months that we were in existence there were never any disagreements about housing, about health and social services or about commerce. There was total unanimity and accord on those issues which affected Northern Ireland, but on the Council of Ireland proposals there was interminable trouble. It was interminable because the Unionists were absolutely petrified about the Council of Ireland. I again ask your Lordships to remember those words. They were absolutely petrified because they could see this as the first step towards taking them into a republic.
During the course of the five months, one of my own members in the SDLP, in a speech at Trinity College, when questioned about the importance of the Council of Ireland, said, "Do you not realise that this is the vehicle which will trundle the Unionists into a united Ireland?" One of my own members said that. Can your Lordships imagine what reaction that brought from the Unionist members? They went absolutely frantic because they were hearing from the mouth of one of the partners in the executive that the Council of Ireland proposals were the means to drag them into a united Ireland.
So began the Ulster workers' strike. Every shade of unionism was so opposed to the Council of Ireland that, although at the very beginning the strike was led by the extremists, as the days elapsed every shade of unionism began to withdraw consent from the executive and so it finally fell. It was the most courageous political experiment in the interests of everybody, not only in Northern Ireland but in the island of Ireland, and it was brought to an end because of the Council of Ireland proposals.
Following the defeat of the executive, we had the Northern Ireland Convention, at which no agreement could be found. Then the SDLP went into oblivion because there was no forum for it; it had nowhere to stand. Because of the frustrations that we had lived through in 1974—remember, it was a Labour Government who were in power in 1974 when the executive failed—many people have put all the blame on one party or the other. It was a Labour Government who were in power and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, would say that he has agreed with Mr. Merlyn Rees, who was then the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that there was no way, absolutely no way, that they could contain the Ulster Unionists' objections against the existence of that executive.
The difference now is this. That executive was an identifiable target. Every shade of unionism could say, "We want rid of that", and they eventually succeeded. However, after the failure of the convention to find agreement, the SDLP, because of its frustrations—frustrations which I can understand because I, too, was part of them—began to take an increasingly nationalistic view of the problem of Ireland. They no longer talked about housing, jobs or the standard of living. All they thought of was the nationalist day, the final reunion of the country, the beating of the Unionists, the symbolisms of victory and defeat. I left

815
the party because I could not live with that degree of nationalism that was then so evident.
Then, in 1980, the hunger strike in Northern Ireland took place. I was opposed to that hunger strike. Many of your Lordships will remember the consequences of it. The IRA deliberately put their own men on hunger strike, with the intention of murdering them and so creating the maximum emotion in the island of Ireland. They succeeded in doing so. In the course of that hunger strike the then sitting Member for Fermanagh, South Tyrone, Frank Maguire, died. The SDLP stood back and refused to put forward a candidate in that seat and so allowed the return of a hunger striker, Bobby Sands, to be Member of Parliament for the Fermanagh, South Tyrone constituency.
That was the beginning of the problem that we are debating today. That was where it all began, because the total Catholic population in that area went out and voted for the hunger striker, Bobby Sands, and the Protestant population stood back in amazement and in horror. They could not believe that educated Catholics, who were not farm labourers but solicitors, doctors, and other professional people, all went into the poll to vote for a man who that Protestant population regarded as an IRA terrorist. The polarisation and alienation which emanated from that is part of this debate today.
The IRA, in the form of Sinn Fein, had their first political victory. They received votes from the ballot papers and that was all they wanted; they were then legitimate. From that day on, the SDLP, the constitutional Nationalist party, were in competition with the IRA, in the rise of Sinn Fein, for the Nationalist vote. That competition has continued ever since.
Then in 1982 in the other place, Mr. James Prior, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as he then was, brought forward what I regarded again as a courageous attempt by a British Government to try to find some solution to the Northern Ireland problem. He promulgated the Northern Ireland Assembly. That Assembly was brought into being with the intention that the Catholic community and the Protestant community would go there, would attend there and would try to reach or find some accommodation that would allow them to live together.
However, the IRA won five seats in 1982. They won five seats in that Assembly. They said, "We are not going to that Assembly", and the SDLP, in a most cowardly way, said, "Well, if you are not going, we are not going". Thus, where were the communities to find any accommodation, if the minority community, through its representatives in Sinn Fein and the SDLP, totally rejected what was a valiant attempt to set up that Assembly? I was the only one who voted for it in another place, who supported the Secretary of State. The Unionists did not agree with it. However, when it was created, they attended, they went, and they tried to use whatever structures there were in it.
Thus, since 1982, the SDLP, representing the Catholic minority, with Sinn Fein, have not been engaged in politics. They did not attend the Assembly. They were not seeking reconciliation or seeking any
816
kind of accord with the Unionist population, the majority population.
Then this Government began to have discussions with the Irish Government. I believe that they did it because international opinion, particularly Irish-American international opinion, was laying down the rules that this Government should find some accord with the Irish Government.
Thus we have come full circle—a full and very dangerous circle. We arrived at the position where, when we left Sunningdale, we had the power sharing executive and the Council of Ireland proposals which led to the defeat of Sunningdale. We now arrive at this agreement. This agreement says to the Unionist party, "You did not like the Council of Ireland proposals. You brought the power sharing executive to an end. Thus we have now the Council of Ireland in another form, we now have it in this agreement. It will be known as the conference. Whether or not you like it, we will ram it down your throats". That is how the Unionist party see it. They are ramming down their throats that very part of the Sunningdale agreement which was so unacceptable to the majority. That is the stick. Then for the carrot they say, "We know you do not like this, but if you do not like it, the best thing you can do is to find agreement with the SDLP on some form of power sharing and devolution".
Does anyone in his right mind, or anyone who understands the slightest little bit about Northern Ireland, believe that any Unionist, having the conference, the Council of Ireland, shoved down his throat, will be in any mood to seek to find accommodation with the minority population? I tell the noble Viscount, who will know that I do not exaggerate, that within this past week I have had 500 or 600 letters and as many telephone calls from decent Unionists in Northern Ireland, decent Protestants, who would not have been my political supporters, and to whose political views I should not have been giving expression. They are people who would have voted for the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain Terence O'Neill. They are people who voted for Brian Faulkner. They are people who support the Alliance Party.
They do not want Ian Paisley as their spokesman. They do not accept the ranting, raving rhetoric that we have seen on the streets of Belfast over the past week. They do not support the attempts to beat up the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I, too, have many memories of such behaviour. I remember the first local authority election which I won in Belfast in 1958 and I, too, was beaten up, coming out of the very same place, Belfast City Hall.
Thus I understand the history. There are thousands and thousands of decent Protestant people in Northern Ireland who do not want to be associated with the hysterical thuggery that we have seen so far. However, they are very frightened. They are very fearful of the future.
I take issue with the noble Viscount. He tells us that the Protestant Unionist population should be very heartened by the fact that the Irish Government have recognised their existence; that they are not going out to upset the status quo. This is the first time that this has ever been brought forward in such a form; and it

817
will become an international document in the United Nations.
The Unionist population in Northern Ireland can read. They are not all stupid. They realise that 1920 made them a majority in Northern Ireland, that in 1925 there were the border arrangements and that the 1949 Government of Ireland Act, which was promulgated by a British Labour Government, said that there would be no change. And the 1973 Sunningdale agreement said that there could be no change. This Government do not have it within their power to force Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. They have within their power the right to eject it from the United Kingdom; but this Government cannot force the Unionists into a united Ireland.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me because he must be nearing the end of his speech—
Lord Fitt: Do not believe it!
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, surely what has been said by the two speakers before the speech of the noble Lord make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no intention on the part of the British Government or the British political parties to do any such thing as to drive them into the South. The noble Lord should not say that. He should know better.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I am saying exactly—if you will listen to what I am saying—that the Unionists realise that Britain cannot force them into a republic; they themselves will decide whether or not they go in. What the Unionist population are so incensed about at the moment is the fact that there will be people from the Irish Government, from the Republic of Ireland, who will be sitting in this conference which will be virtually the government of Northern Ireland. That is what this conference will be. It will be virtually the government of Northern Ireland because this agreement makes it quite clear that the Irish government will be able to pass opinions on every issue under the sun. The agreement makes it quite clear.
To prove that, this Government here are trying to sell this agreement on the grounds that it will help to bring about reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The wording on the front of the agreement says:
"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland".
That is exactly as we understand it. But the Irish Government's version, as printed by the Irish Government, says:
"Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom".
The Unionist who sent me this said, "What does that mean? Northern Ireland is not even mentioned". One is selling it to his supporters in one way and the other is selling it to his supporters in another way. I can tell the noble Viscount and the House that there is a burning, bitter resentment now existing among the Unionist population of Northern Ireland.
Lord Somers: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he may remember that some years ago our
818
country signed an Entente Cordiale with France. I have not noticed that the French have had any particular dictation over what we do.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, what I am trying to tell your Lordships' House is that people in Northern Ireland who are affected by this agreement will see the wording on these documents as to how it is going to affect them. The conference will meet and there will be people from the Republic giving their views. There will be British Ministers and the Minister of State from this House. But there will be no Unionist there, there will be no Protestant there. And the Protestants are the majority of people in Northern Ireland. If only they even had but one observer who would allay their fears and suspicions. I am talking now as a Catholic, as one who knew the jackboot of oppression under Unionism. I do not want to see the Unionist population in Northern Ireland being treated in the same way as they once treated their political opponents. The Unionist also says, "Why has this agreement been brought about?" The Government will say, "Because of the violence that we have had in Northern Ireland". That is what they will say. The Unionist will reply, "But I was at the receiving end of most of that violence. I was at the receiving end of it". You come from one tribe and you see one thing one way; you come from another tribe and you see it another way.
The Ulster Defence Regiment, Irish Catholic nationalism will say, is a sectarian regiment and that at least 10 members of that regiment have been found guilty of terrorist crimes. The Ulster Unionist will say, "Some 150 of our sons, brothers and fathers were murdered in that regiment and they were murdered in the most brutal circumstances". The same thing can be said about the RUC. I think that what the Government are hoping is that all the nationalists in Northern Ireland will get this agreement, that they will read it and they will say, "What a tremendous political constitutional advance we have had! We will withdraw our support from the IRA and the Sinn Fein". But the IRA and Sinn Fein, whatever support they have in the nationalist community, have got most of it at the point of a gun. They have intimidated that community. That community is frightened of them. But there is also a very significant number of supporters within that community.
I believe that this agreement was well-intentioned. I believe that this Prime Minister is very concerned about the ongoing situation in Northern Ireland. I believe that in the implementation of this agreement she will show tremendous resolution. I believe that the government of the Irish Republic under Garret FitzGerald were equally well intentioned to enter into this agreement. But let us not kid ourselves into believing that this is the be-all and end-all.
On the question of input and take-out on this agreement, we know what the Government and the Protestant population will get out of it. But what is the Irish Government's input going to be? We have heard the noble Viscount say that there will be better cross-border co-operation and that the Irish Government have agreed to sign the European Convention on Terrorism. Is that tantamount to saying that there has been less that wholehearted agreement from the Irish

819
Government in its war against terrorism over the past 15 years? That is what it sounds like. Why could not the Irish Government have signed the European Convention on Terrorism over this past number of years when all these ruthless murders were taking place in the island of Ireland?
Does it look as if the Irish Government are now saying, "Give us a say in Northern Ireland and we will give you this greater co-operation"? Is it being too cynical to believe that?—because that is what the Protestant population believe. This agreement is, I believe, an honest attempt to cope with the ongoing problem of Northern Ireland but I would say to the noble Viscount—and he has so much experience of Northern Ireland—"Do not shut out that Unionist community. They are the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. Do not cast them aside!" And I say that as an inveterate and longstanding opponent of Unionism throughout my life. But they are the people who are affected by this agreement.
Let me say this to the noble Viscount. Does he really believe, given the existence of the conference, that the SDLP has now any incentive to have a power-sharing government? If I were the Leader of the SDLP and had succeeded in setting up the structures of the conference, I believe that that would afford my community and my electorate a far greater protection than any thing which I could possibly negotiate with the Unionists.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord has been extremely generous to me in some of the things he has said—far too generous to me. I could be very generous to him by mentioning many of the things which he did for me in the past. I feel as frustrated as he does about some of the things which happened in the past. I put it all behind me. I think we have to. All that I am really asking the noble Lord now, because he has made a very considerable speech of great importance, is that, as he was able to co-operate with me once before in what was an effort for the future, while we may have had our doubts, I hope that he will be able to say at the end of his speech that he will co-operate once again with the British Government and with many people and with those of us—the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and others who have already spoken—in seeking to give this particular agreement the fairest wind that he can.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, may I say quite clearly to the noble. Viscount that anyone in his right mind, with his proper senses, could not do otherwise but co-operate with the Government in this attempt. No one in his right mind would attempt to do otherwise. But I point out again—and I make this my final word—do not cast aside that Unionist majority in Northern Ireland. Do not believe that they are all hysterical bigots. They are not. Many thousands of people in Northern Ireland in the Unionist community want only to live their fives in peace. Do not force them into taking any other action which we could all regret.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, my noble friend the Lord President probably had to listen
820
for many hours in another place to me making Cassandra-like noises from behind him about British policy in Northern Ireland. He may therefore be mildly surprised to hear me today giving a cautious welcome to this agreement; not perhaps as surprised as he might have been, and as I was, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, standing up as the spokesman for the peers of the Unionist Party, and a rather inflammatory spokesman, if I may say so, at that. But unless one understands—and he was quite right to go into it—something of the history which has bedevilled this Province and has caused the fears and resentments that afflict both sides, one cannot really understand what the problems are.
One does not want, as the noble Viscount said, to dwell in the past, but the past is what, unfortunately, determines the attitudes of the present. Despite the attempts of religious bigots—and not quite all on one side—to introduce a sectarian religious element into the political problems of Northern Ireland, this is really not a religious divide. It is essentially a racial or, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, a tribal division. And we have seen all over the world—in Canada, in Malaysia, in Sri Lanka and in the tribal states of Africa—that racial differences, particularly where the interests of the majorities and minorities sharply differ, can be the most potent causes of bitter strife.
It is no good imagining that either side has forgotten the history of the island of Ireland. The southern Irish have never forgotten William III or Cromwell or, probably, even Strongbow. The northern Irish majority have certainly never forgotten William III. Several centuries of arrogance and insensitivity on the part of the British in Ireland—and we must remember that it was only under British rule that Ireland ever was united—were fully matched after partition by several decades of arrogance and insensitivity on the part of the Unionist majority in Ulster. What could be more insensitive than to march with flags and banners in a divided community to celebrate the anniversaries of a seige and a battle which took place 300 years ago? It is as though the English were to march with bands and banners through the streets of Edinburgh on the anniversary of the Battle of Flodden. There is no doubt at all that these fears go very deep.
Of course, the Apprentice Boys of Derry marched once too often and once too provocatively in 1969 and the so-called Battle of the Bogside resulted. That resulted, also, in British troops being sent into Northern Ireland in a security role, and much bloodshed followed. Indeed, there was a time—and for all I know there still is—when two terms of service in Northern Ireland was enough to deter many British soldiers from signing on again for another term of service.
After that, the reign of terrorism started which again changed the whole face of Northern Ireland politics and the feelings of the two communities one towards another. I do not think anybody who did not frequently visit Northern Ireland during those years before direct rule can really understand exactly how deep the scars were, when part of the centre of Belfast looked like London during the blitz, when you drove up the Falls Road—if it looked suspiciously empty—with the doors and windows of the car locked and at considerable speed.

821
I remember staying with a Unionist Minister right down on the border. He carried a gun in a shoulder holster at all times, he had bullet-proof glass in all the windows looking over the lough, he had blazing floodlights all around the perimeter of his garden and two armed policemen patrolling around his house all night and every night. I shared a platform, too, with another Unionist Minister who could only croak huskily into his microphone with his jaw precariously wired together, after receiving a blast of machine pistol fire through the windscreen of his car. These were the sort of happenings, to say nothing of the indiscriminate, murderous bombings of shops, hotels and public places, in which scores of innocent women and children died, and the murders and assassinations of prominent personages on both sides.
Let us not imagine that the minority community did not suffer as well. They were being brought under increasing pressure, through fear, blackmail and the threat of physical violence, to give overt and covert support to the IRA. Their moderate leaders were brought under increasing pressure and rendered powerless, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who was himself, as I remember, a target for assassination at one time, knows only too well.
And so it went on. More moderate Unionist Prime Ministers fell, one after another, as the extremists of the DUP began to exert more influence. One can argue indefinitely whether the late Mr. Brian Faulkner ought to have made more concessions earlier or, alternatively, have stood out more toughly against the pressures brought on him by the Heath Government. There are those who hold both views. But, anyway, he fell, and direct rule was introduced.
I opposed direct rule at the time, though I readily concede now that it would inevitably have come sooner or later. I never believed that power sharing would work, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, experienced and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that the Unionists must accept power sharing and devolved government once again. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how you have an elected assembly with an executive in which the minority party has a built-in veto over the decisions of the majority, if there are no fundamental basic agreements on political aims and objectives. It has been proved over and over again not to work. My noble friend may remember that in 1980 I tried to dissuade my colleagues from going down the power-sharing road again, and to persuade them that the options that were put up for my right honourable friend Sir Humphrey Atkins to negotiate simply could not and would not be accepted. I was told pretty bluntly, not by my noble friend, that I did not know what I was talking about; but in fact I did. The soundings I had taken proved to be right. And so it will always be. The conditions do not exist for a devolved power-sharing government. We have tried that and failed. We are not, I believe, within years of a situation in which it could succeed.
But now we are offered something new and different. I readily concede that to view with suspicion anything new and different is a fairly sound conservative principle, but I also believe that if all the same old things fail, one should at least look at something new and different with an open mind, which I have tried to
822
do. Of course I see what upsets and alarms the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland. Of course I see the risks, the difficulties, the ambiguities and the dangers inherent in the whole exercise. I do not go for the sovereignty argument at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, there is no derogation of sovereignty; nor would anyone with a mind less twisted than a corkscrew manage to extract that reading from the agreement. As to consultation, well, my Lords, we consult any number of foreign countries under treaties and agreements—in the United Nations, in the Commonwealth, in NATO, in GATT, and so on. Heaven knows, there is no lack of leaders in foreign countries telling us British what we ought to be doing. One more lot will not make that much more difference. There is no way in which, provided that this thing is handled with caution, with tact and with flexibility and moderation, it should not lead to some modest improvements.
Of course there are risks. If the process of consultation goes even slightly over the brink of dictation or there is an attempt to interfere in what the British Government in consultation with the Irish communities consider right, the dangers are obvious; but there is no reason why that should be, and the agreement can also be terminated, or that part of it can be terminated if these dangers arise. If the Government of the Irish Republic really try, as I am afraid Dr. FitzGerald has vaguely hinted in his own country, to upset the security arrangements by making an attack upon the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment, we shall be in for trouble, because we shall lose the confidence of the security forces, who have recently been doing a quite remarkable job at great personal risk and sacrifice.
The toll of violence now is much less—far less—than it was. Some years ago we reached in Northern Ireland a stage where we were able to remove military forces from most of the Province and revert to normal policing procedures. That was an enormous advance. It is only in very small minority areas that a military presence is necessary. That is something we have to watch. We have to be quite sure that we work tactfully with the minority in Northern Ireland and that the Southern Irish Government work tactfully in respect of the majority in Northern Ireland, because it would be very easy to inflame passions more and to justify the suspicions which have been aroused on both sides.
I believe that, with goodwill and with some tact, flexibility and discretion, this can possibly lead towards what is really the only justification for the agreement which is the hope that it may begin to create conditions where the Irish minority in Northern Ireland may be prised loose from its overt, and, much more important, covert support of terrorism. If it can do that—and without it there is no hope of any political solution in Northern Ireland—it will have been worth while. I hope and pray that it will succeed in this, and in that hope I commend the agreement to your Lordships' House.
4.55 p.m.
The Lord Archbishop of York: My Lords, I have felt it right to speak in this debate because the Churches, whether we like it or not, are implicated in the

823
problems of Ireland. We would sometimes like to claim that these problems have nothing to do with religion but only with some devilish parody of it. But I am afraid we cannot escape responsibility as easily as that. The problems have an inescapable religious dimension.
I also speak because I have come hotfoot from a meeting of the Assembly of the British Council of Churches, which is in session in London at the moment. The council, as your Lordships will know, contains representatives of the Irish churches, of Ulster Protestants, as well as representatives of the Church of Ireland. The General-Secretary of the Irish Council of Churches is also a member and I have taken the opportunity to consult him.
Yesterday the council issued a statement about the Anglo-Irish Agreement which, if I may, I shall read to your Lordships. But before doing so I think I ought to mention a small preliminary discussion which took place when the agreement was mentioned. There was immediately some criticism of the phrase "Anglo-Irish", which particularly incensed the Scots and the Welsh. This may seem like niggling, but in a context where the crucial issue concerns complex relationships between minorities and majorities and strong nationalist feelings, simple questions of terminology are important. If we cannot get this right in Britain, and if we insist on talking about "Anglo"-Irish agreements, we are not likely to get it right in Ireland.
Let me read the statement to your Lordships:
"The Assembly invites all churches in Britain and Ireland to recognise that a new phase of relations between the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland is under way and at this critical moment to pray that the discussions now opening around the Anglo-Irish Agreement may point a way to a healing of the wounded relationships between the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland and within Northern Ireland. We hope this prayer will be informed by careful study of the text of the Agreement and a recognition of the complexity of the issues involved.
"We express the hope that the Agreement may fulfil the expectations of reconciliation associated with it and pave the way for a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
"We recognise deep feelings of hurt about the process of consultation and the fears arising from the long history of violence and mutual distrust but plead for the exercise of patience and Christian forbearance so that discussions can take place calmly, with candour and within the constitution.
"We note the constitutional assurances contained within the agreement and we call upon the British and Irish governments to ensure that the guarantees given to the Northern Ireland communities are honoured."
Your Lordships will see that the statement gives a firm welcome to the agreement while recognising—as has been made abundantly plain in your Lordships' House this afternoon—that there is much need for reassurance among the Ulster Protestant community.
My informants tell me that some of that reassurance may be forthcoming if the agreement can be shown to produce some fruits fairly quickly in terms of greater security. The point has also been made to me that it would be wise to stress and underline the three-year duration of the agreement as a way of emphasising yet again that nothing vital in terms of Ulster's future has been given away. It is obvious that both governments need to exercise extreme delicacy in handling Protestant opinion, in view of the great danger of fracturing and alienating further the Protestant community on which the present integrity of Ulster depends.
824
We need to recognise that it is a community whose identity is irrevocably bound up with its anti-catholicism and that, in many respects, it has no other raison d'être than that. People do not behave reasonably when their identity is threatened. Having said that, let me stress that the churches are trying to identify and strengthen some of the middle ground on which reasonable consultations can take place.
One of the ironies of the situation is that none of the major churches in Ireland recognises the border in terms of its own constitution. In our church affairs, therefore, there is already consultation and, indeed, common decision-making between those who belong to different sovereign states. It seems to me that those who talk about sovereignty in absolutist terms are simply ignoring the facts. I hope that some of the churches at least can be persuaded to see the agreement as an extension into the political sphere of what they are already doing ecclesiastically. That is particularly true of the Church of Ireland, which could have a vital role as a bridge between the two nations.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the Corrymeela community, which has been deeply involved in peacemaking efforts in Northern Ireland, has issued a statement welcoming the agreement and recognising its possibilities, but also warning about the fundamental changes in attitudes which will be necessary if the agreement is ever to work.
I may also mention a more modest initiative in which I have myself been engaged. It is a largely academic study of the question of minority and majority rights and responsibilities being conducted by Christians drawn from all the main churches on both sides of the border. That study is aimed at working towards some kind of interdenominational understanding of rights, and particularly of group rights, in pluralist societies. It will not by itself solve any of the political problems, but our hope is that the study may provide a better background of understanding and trust, which is seen by the churches to be rooted in their theology, and against which the politicans can then get to their work.
What is already very clear is that we shall not solve the hugely complex problems of interlocking minorities and majorities in Ireland unless we show ourselves sensitive to minority rights elsewhere, not least in Britain. It is simply not credible to act in Britain as though consensus politics were out of fashion and that the majority must always have its way but then in Ireland to set up elaborate arrangements to ensure that minorities do not feel swamped.
The problem of pluralist societies is a new one in our world and we have not yet begun to find how to maintain them and create sufficient consensus within them for their different elements to hold together. However, such societies are with us in all parts of these islands and the Irish problem is only a peculiarly intractable and vicious example of something that is widespread elsewhere.
In welcoming this agreement, therefore, and in praying that it may win the confidence of all those involved. I hope that we shall also see its wider implications in the kind of consultation and consensus that is needed in other aspects of our public life.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I consider myself privileged to follow the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in his message to the House today. Personally, I feel most encouraged, and I am sure that your Lordships very much appreciate and feel helped by the most reverend Primate in his repeating of the statement made by the British Council of Churches and also by the lead given in Northern Ireland by the Corrymeela community to which he referred. Indeed, my own parson is attending the sessions of the British Council of Churches this week and he has acquainted me with the excellent work that is being done with cross-border interdenominational arrangements. I warmly welcome the most reverend Primate's encouraging remarks.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who has himself experienced the situation in Northern Ireland. I was moved as he related to the House his experiences and knowledge of the Irish situation. I welcomed his wise words in giving his support to the agreement. Much attention ought to be paid to them by this House and by all those concerned with trying to implement the agreement.
For me, this is a crucial debate. The issues before us today are acutely controversial and very far reaching. The debate and the decisions directly and dramatically involve the citizens of Great Britain,and the issues are critical also to the lives and well-being of all the people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.
I welcome the moderate tone of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the understanding way in which he opened this debate and presented the Government's position. I support also and commend the positive, temperate and constructive case made by my noble friend the Leader of the Official Opposition Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. While not referring to all the previous speakers, having been acquainted with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his ministerial experiences in Northern Ireland, I should like to say that his observations, particularly about the present needs of the Assembly, were most reassuring and helpful. I am also pleased that my noble friend Lord Fitt, albeit with the reservations that he expressed from his background and experiences, gives the agreement a fair wind.
Before stating my own views about the agreement, I first wish to place on record my personal position as a Member of this Parliament. The reasons for making this clear will be obvious to noble Lords who know about the current abuse in Northern Ireland levelled at all those who wish publicly to express an alternative judgment or view on the agreement other than a blanket "no".
As a Member of this noble House I fully realise that I speak as an individual and not with the authority of an elected representative who may, or may not, have been mandated to speak on matters concerning this agreement. However, along with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, it will be my endeavour to express as honestly and as fairly as I can the position, as I see it, as it affects the lives and the general wellbeing of the people of Northern Ireland, including my wife, my family and my grandchildren.
826
I give my approval to the Anglo-Irish Agreement not as a solution but as a framework for the promotion of peace and stability in Northern Ireland; to help create friendship and effective co-operation among the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and as a means to encourage investment as well as employment measures and the general wellbeing of all Northern Ireland people. I accept what has been stated in the agreement and has been repeated by the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, by the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, the right honourable Tom King, by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and also in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
I accept that there is no derogation from the sovereignty of Parliament concerning the status of Northern Ireland and that the agreement is firmly founded on the Government of Ireland Act 1920. the Ireland Act 1949 and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. There is no change in Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. I have also noted the remarks made by the noble Viscount in his opening speech that the proposed intergovernmental conference will be a consultative body and not a joint authority. It is reassuring to have that made clear today.
It is difficult adequately to deal with such complex issues in a short speech. However, I shall try to deal with matters which I consider to be immediately relevant to the situation. Over the past 65 years, and especially during the past 16 years, there have been various earnest efforts and valiant attempts to find political institutional arrangements which could provide an accepted accommodation for the two traditions—the Nationalist and the Unionist—within Northern Ireland; an acceptable political formula as a basis for understanding, respect, trust and cooperation so that the wellbeing of all citizens might be promoted with equality and justice. Without this political stability it is my view, and the view of many others in Northern Ireland, that progressive economic development cannot be attained. It is my opinion that this agreement squarely faces the realities of the Irish situation. Unless this agreement is given a chance to work, there is little or no hope for the future in Northern Ireland.
Since Friday, 15th November, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was announced, there have been many ill-founded rumours which have been given wide publicity. There has been a surfeit of bitter, angry and malicious statements bandied about by public representatives and others at public meetings and in the media. There were the scenes of the disgraceful attack on the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Mr. Tom King, at the Belfast City Hall on Wednesday, 20th November, which were relayed throughout the world by television. On Saturday we had the massive Loyalist rally in Belfast which demonstrated a simple negative, a blanket "no", to the agreement. I use the word "Loyalist" in the Ulster colloquial sense.
However misplaced, however misguided and however demonstrative the reactions of the ordinary citizens to the harsh and sometimes inflammatory language, the sense and feeling of betrayal is real and, in many respects, understandable. This does not mean that I and many others in Northern Ireland condone or

827
agree with such conduct or methods. Indeed, many who claim to be Ulster Unionists have publicly condemned the use of such emotive and wild words and such rash actions.
The Lord Mayor of Belfast, Alderman John Carson, is a Unionist and a former member of the United Kingdom Parliament. During the débâcle at the organised protest against Mr. King, Alderman Carson showed himself to be a man of principled leadership in recognising and respecting the diversity of public opinion and in his appeal for reasonable public behaviour.
Notwithstanding the manifestations of Loyalist disapproval of the agreement, I join with others in Northern Ireland in claiming that the Government must share some of the blame for this Loyalist outburst and predictable reaction. In my opinion the Government's mishandling of the presentation of the agreement on Friday, 15th November, displayed a sad lack of understanding of the Northern Ireland scene. There is an apparent blatant insensitivity to the known fears and feelings of the Loyalist sections of the community and about the historical inbuilt abhorrence of some Unionists to any political constitutional dealings with Dublin. Indeed, I would say that instead of Saatchi and Saatchi it would appear that "Hatchet and Hatchet" were given the PR part of this presentation.
On Monday, 11th November, four days before the public announcement of the agreement, Mr. Tom King replied to questions by press reporters about the date of the Anglo-Irish summit. I quote from the Belfast Telegraph of 11th November 1985. He said:
"I don't know when there will be a summit. There are still some matters that have to be resolved and still some difficult issues. Until those are resolved we won't know if there will be an agreement…Any discussions involve difficult issues and there are bound to be some difficult issues in the later stages.".
That was said four days before the Government's announcement of the agreement. Whatever the reasons for the Northern Ireland Secretary of State's evasive answer—and I can understand those reasons, particularly about the date of completion of the agreement—he admitted in public that there were still some difficult issues. Surely, if all the specialist advisers and highly intelligent and politically aware practitioners working on the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council for some years were having difficulty, could it not have been anticipated that the ordinary thinking Northern Ireland citizens would also have problems of interpretation and definition concerning the text of this agreement, however well written it is?
There can be no doubt about the trauma sustained by the Loyalist/Unionist community and the political reactions to this agreement. It has opened up many old and deep wounds as well as the welter of self-inflicted injuries and feelings of alienation. In turn, this has given rise to much confusion and division among reasonable, law-abiding and peaceable citizens, and, may I say, clear-cut divisions among church leaders and others about the implementation and the wording of the agreement. It is sad that this should have happened in the Northern Ireland situation—that there were not clearly thought out ways for this to have been presented to the public in an informed method,
828
bringing the Northern Ireland community with us in reaching some understanding about the agreement.
The Government, and others, should take every opportunity to ensure that these wounds are not allowed to fester and the sense of alienation to be compounded. I know that the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Mr. King, together with his ministerial colleagues, have already taken some positive and constructive action to meet the reasoned and legitimate needs of the situation.
I have here a letter which, on 15th November 1985, the day the agreement was announced, the Secretary of State sent to Canon Eric Elliott, the chaiman of the Two Traditions Group. It explained in some detail the binding international accord concerning the status of Northern Ireland and also touched on matters dealing with the establishment of the intergovernmental conference. I am aware that similar letters have been sent out to a wide range of community organisations throughout Northern Ireland.
Last week I visited several such community organisations, comprised of people respresentative of both the traditions—and dissenters—in Northern Ireland. I am convinced that there are many people in Northern Ireland who are prepared to give this agreement an earnest chance to work. There are others who require some open and pronounced assurances from the Government about the precise arrangements for the implementation of the agreement. Many people have expressed concern about the simple negative declaration of the Northern Ireland politicians in opposing the agreement outright. It is my view that a blanket "no" to the agreement without a reasoned alternative is a destructive and cruel policy, a political act against the people of Northern Ireland.
Many Northern Ireland people are concerned by the form of the confrontation against the United Kingdom Government and even more by the defiance of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They are also deeply concerned about the future of Northern Ireland either by the way of integration or by unilateral declaration of independence. Notwithstanding the strong will and the tenacity of the Ulster people, I share with them the realisation that what Northern Ireland needs most at the present time is understanding and the support of friends. Sadly, many of them are frightened by these reactions and fear that Northern Ireland is being isolated still further.
It is my opinion that there is an urgent need for the Government to explain in some detail the elements and principles of the framework of this agreement and the institutional arrangements which will be erected on this framework. I believe that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Whitelaw, in his opening remarks attempted to clarify a number of matters which are being questioned in Northern Ireland, particularly questions about the status of the intergovernmental conference. I believe that these and other matters should be firmly processed by the Government and made clear.
Some of the questions which have arisen in the discussion groups concern the elected representative voice of Northern Ireland in the intergovernmental conference. I think it is reasonable for any self-respecting Northern Ireland person, and particularly

829
those who are elected representatives, to wish to have an input into that intergovernmental conference. I can only say that Scottish and Welsh Members would ask for a similar kind of representation on that type of body. Questions have also been asked about the methods and procedural arrangements for reporting to Parliament and obtaining approval for agreed decisions and recommendations of the intergovernmental conference; about the manner in which devolved matters are to be considered and approved by the conference; and the manner in which the future role, functions and structure of the Northern Ireland Assembly will be duly considered and approved.
Those are only a few of the reasons—and there are others—which would suggest that before the establishment of the intergovernmental conference sufficient time ought to be given—I suggest perhaps to mid-February—to enable the community groups in Northern Ireland, and others to whom the Northern Ireland Secretary of State has written, duly to consider the agreement and submit their views to the Government. I believe that during this period the Government should also undertake an intensive information programme about the principles of the agreement and the proposals for implementation; and especially that the Government should endeavour to arrange for a structured and objective dialogue with the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the Assembly Members.
In my view, the agreement is a flickering light in a very black situation. I appeal to everyone genuinely to try to keep that light alive by building trust with hope and compassion.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Moyola: My Lords, from the outset I shall be honest and say that I am afraid I cannot find it in my heart to give any warm welcome to the proposed Anglo-Irish Agreement. Having said that, I think I should make it plain that I am not here on a Unionist Party ticket. I do not belong to either Unionist Party. I am here simply as a law-abiding citizen of Ulster who does not want to see confrontation, conflagration or holocaust, and I think that any one of those could occur over the next few weeks unless attitudes can be changed.
My concern is not so much with what is in the agreement as with what it has in fact produced already in Northern Ireland in terms of real threats of trouble. Frankly, I do not know whether something of the sort proposed in the agreement was ever a starter, but I am bound to say that any chance it ever had of being acceptable to the majority was defeated by the way in which it was done.
We had discussions for something like a year, and all those discussions were in total and complete secrecy. No Ulster politician was allowed to be privy to what was going on, even had his opinion asked or was in any way involved; and after all it is the people whom Northern Ireland politicians represent who are far and away the most affected. The situation was made a great deal worse because most people in the North of Ireland believe that the leader of the SDLP and indeed some members of his party were quite frequently in
830
touch with the Irish Prime Minister in Dublin, were probably privy to what was being arranged and may well have been advising on it. This of course was a recipe for distrust, and a recipe for rumour and alarmist talk of every sort before anybody had any knowledge of what was in fact in the document.
I am bound to say that this takes me back to what I have said in your Lordships' House on many occasions, which is that we in Northern Ireland feel as though we are nothing but children and that we are not entitled to have any opinion of our own when it comes to governmental matters. Certainly it appears to most of us that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is that there is no such thing as an objective opinion on any side in Northern Ireland, and therefore the views of anyone in Northern Ireland are never consulted.
I do not want to sound insulting to members of the Civil Service. That is the last thing I wish to do, because I have many friends there; but it is a fact that to a very large extent the Northern Ireland Office is manned by English civil servants. The result of course is that the Ministers there do not understand the nuances or obtain all the insights as to what is going on in the Northern Ireland mind that they would get if they had more people who came from that part of the world. I assure your Lordships that I intend no insult to my friends, the English civil servants. It is just a statement of a fact which undoubtedly makes for difficulty and for much discontent in Northern Ireland. But until that is grasped I am certain that every initiative will get bogged down in some way because of lack of a little bit of objective thought and advice from some of the people of Northern Ireland.
On top of the secrecy the next bit of disastrous handling was having the signing of the agreement in Hillsborough Castle—the residence of the Governor of Northern Ireland for very many years; the residence, if one likes, of the Queen's representative in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that it would have been obvious to anybody that to bring the Irish Taoiseach up to Hillsborough Castle to sign the agreement would certainly imply that the Dublin Government were going to get some control or influence over affairs in Northern Ireland.
It is those two follies—I can only call them that—which have produced the misunderstandings, the alarmist talk and all the happenings which at the moment will not be easy to make lie down and which, unfortunately, are also undermining the trust in the promises of Her Majesty's Government. But now we are faced in Northern Ireland with a desperately serious situation which, as I said earlier, could easily produce a holocaust. The question in my mind and the question to which we all ought to be turning our attention is whether anything can be done to try to reduce the temperature, because no agreement will work in the present circumstances.
I do not think that anything will make the agreement terribly pallatable to the majority in Northern Ireland, but I might perhaps at least suggest two or three things that could be of some help. In the agreement there is much talk about better border security and better security in general. I must also say that that view was not given great strength by something that I heard on our local radio news on Sunday morning, when a spokesman from the south of

831
Ireland denied a report that terrorists who perpetrated crime in Northern Ireland were sheltering at times in the Republic. That is not a very encouraging start towards getting better security, and better security particularly for those who have to live along the borders.
Everyone believes—I am sure they are correct—that the south of Ireland is at times a sanctuary for terrorists who come across and perpetrate their crime, whatever it may be—murder, explosion or whatever else—and then retreat and find a bolthole on the southern side of the border. If we are to help bring the temperature down, that seems to me to be the obvious field in which something must be seen to happen and happen quickly. I am bound to add that there is no sign of anything yet.
This may be an over-simplification, but to my mind there should be immediately, and seen to happen, joint conferences between the two heads of the respective police forces; there should be joint conferences between the GOC in Northern Ireland and his opposite number in the army in the south; there should be joint conferences between the lesser commanders on the ground who only look after areas along the border; and as far as security allows we should at least be made aware that that is happening and, as security allows, be told as much as is possible. My view is that if one is to cool the temperature that has to happen in days, not weeks. The situation is extremely urgent.
I would go further than that. I think that many people are aware that the Royal Ulster Constabulary knows the names of many of the terrorists who go backwards and forwards across the Irish border; those names could be given to the south and I should hope that we would see them picked up; and, if the agreement works, the RUC could be called south to give evidence in whatever proceedings may follow.
The next thing that I think is essential and should be decided quickly is that Northern Ireland politicians, and naturally Northern Ireland politicians on both sides, should be present at the meetings of the Anglo-Irish conference. It would be far better if they had some executive power, but even if they were there as observers they could do a great deal to stem the rumours, cool the temperatures and prevent unnecessary alarm in the Unionist population.
Then there is a third thing. When this conference is held, for goodness sake let it be held somewhere else than in Northern Ireland. I know that rumour has it—and I suspect that it is true—that it will be in some building next to Palace Barracks in Holywood. No doubt the various participants can arrive in helicopters and they will of course have the protection of the Army. That in a way alarms me even more. The last thing that any law-abiding citizen of Ulster would want to see is a confrontation between local hotheads on one side and the Army. I might add in passing that from all one has heard, if I were a Southern Irish civil servant, or for that matter an English one, attending the conference, I should need a King's ransom to get me there in the present climate.
Those are some obvious palliatives. There might be a lot of others. But something is urgently needed to try
832
to cool things down and at least to show that if we in Northern Ireland have to swallow foul medicine it will do us some good.
I hope that I am not over-stating the position. I regard it as extremely serious and as something that has to be dealt with with great energy. Personally I shall of course accept the assurance of Her Majesty's Government, but at the moment I find I cannot accept the apparent inactivity; the lack of communication between the Northern Ireland Government and the people as a whole; the lack of trying to sell this thing; and indeed an air of complacency which at the moment we all perceive, certainly those of us who do not wish to see this sort of confrontation building up. We all feel that such things are sadly lacking.
I feel bound to say those things. I am afraid of what this thing has started, and I should certainly find it hard to Uve with myself had I not said then and in the future we found that a lot of people were dead.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, though the noble Viscount is not in his place at the moment I should like to thank him for the way in which he initiated the debate and for his kind reference to the warmth of the Northern Ireland people. I can reciprocate by recalling our warm feelings towards him as a congenial and convivial leader as our first Secretary of State. I must also thank the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson, Lord Blease, Lord Fitt and Lord Moyola, for having kindly delivered parts of my speech for me!
To start, I ought to make my position clear as spokesman in your Lordships' House for the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. We have always tried to be a constructive party; we have tried to make things work and to build rather than to destroy. In that spirit we should very much like to try to make the agreement work; but unfortunately one cannot make the unworkable work. With regret I must say that in my view—and I do not speak for all my party in saying this—in its present state it is not entirely workable.
One returns to the old cliche that politics is the art of the possible. I am afraid that for reasons that the other noble Lords have mentioned this agreement in its present state may not be workable. Unfortunately, it got off to a bad start. I regret to say that the presentation was disastrous and guaranteed to generate distrust. First, there was the long delay, shrouded in so-called secrecy that was punctured by numerous leaks, which in turn fuelled rumours that to a large extent were most unhelpful. There was no consultation with any of the representatives of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, nor with my party, the Alliance Party, which has caused some of our members to ask whether Her Majesty's Government take us for granted. Do the Government assume that the Alliance Party is always going to be helpful and reasonable? I am even asked by members, "Are you too reasonable? If you turned nasty, perhaps they might take more notice of you".
I explain that it is not in my nature to be nasty. I am not made like that. I am always reasonable, as your Lordships will know. I always tell them that any time that I am privileged to speak in your Lordships' House, I am always granted a most courteous and

833
attentive hearing. But we do feel that it was an unfortunate error of judgment that there was no consultation, although we accept that had there been consultation with my party there would have had to be consultation with the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionists as well. Anyway, this built up to an atmosphere generating distrust, particularly as everyone believed that Mr. John Hume, leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, was in close touch throughout with Dr. Garret FitzGerald. This was underlined by the final result—the fact that on Wednesday, 13th November, in the morning issue, the Irish press carried almost in its entirety the content of the agreement, actually using the same phraseology as was then released to the public two days later.
At this stage, when the Irish press was reporting the content of the agreement, our Ministers were still saying that no agreement had yet been reached, that they hoped it would be possible to finalise it within a couple of days, and that sort of thing. It was bound to generate distrust. By contrast, the document was only available to the elected representatives in Northern Ireland at three o'clock in the afternoon of Friday for those who happened to be in Stormont. For those who did not happen to be in Stormont that afternoon, a runner arrived with a copy the next morning, Saturday (when the Assembly had in fact already convened to debate the matter) just to make sure that Members had it. It is not surprising therefore that there was a feeling of lack of consultation, a feeling that something was going on behind the scenes that we knew nothing about.
Looking at the document, the preamble and Article 1 cannot be faulted. The developing of better cooperation with the Republic of Ireland, the aspiration towards peace, stability and prosperity, are things with which no one could disagree except those who have done very nicely, thank you, out of violence over the past 12 years. But it seems to me that one of the main purposes of the agreement is to encourage a devolved partnership government in Northern Ireland. The Alliance Party has been alone in its unequivocal advocacy of devolved government of a power-sharing, partnership nature. Therefore, we welcome that.
I fear, however, that rather than providing an incentive for such partnership government, this agreement could well do the opposite. If that purpose was being achieved, the SDLP would have already brought its members into the Assembly of Stormont. But no! Mr. Hume has said that the agreement does not justify their joining the Assembly in Stormont at this stage. Similarly, the SDLP would have expressed its clear and unequivocal support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary and would be supporting the agreement in encouraging recruitment to that body. But no! That has not yet happened. And why, after all, should the SDLP do so? What incentive has it, now that it has a direct input into the intergovernmental conference in the same way as it had direct input into the formulation of this agreement?
Why, after all, should it enter the House at Stormont as a minority party when, so to speak, it already has a seat in the Cabinet? It still does not acknowledge letters from other parties which write asking for consultation. Letters from the Assembly's devolution report committee are not replied to. We have still to see any
834
sign of reciprocation from the SDLP towards the gestures being made in the agreement with a view to making it feel more in support of the institutions and eliminating any alienation that may exist.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, surely the agreement is only being discussed today and tomorrow and does not exist until Thursday. I am not saying that the SDLP will come in on Friday. I think that it should. But until that day, I do not think that criticism is justified.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I hope sincerely that what he infers is right and that after the debate there may be a change of mind. But what I am saying is that so far there has been no sign of it. Mr. John Hume has specifically said that the agreement does not amount to enough to persuade him to bring his members into the Assembly at Stormont. I hope sincerely that the noble Lord is correct and that what I have been saying is wrong.
Similarly, the Unionists are on a hook. They have been driven into a corner and the Unionist electorate is now paying the price for the bankruptcy of its leadership in the past. They would be discrediting themselves were they now to agree to a power-sharing or partnership devolved government. They would be losing faith with their electorate. I do not see how they can bring themselves to do that. They have committed themselves to a position as a result of their sabrerattling in the run-up to the announcement of the agreement. They were encouraged in that sabrerattling by the so-called secrecy that surrounded it and by the periodic leaks and the extensive press speculation about it.
As to secrecy, in passing it is worth noticing that Dr. FitzGerald himself, while in opposition, was all in favour of openness and all against secrecy in his public pronouncements. But that is not the way that it has been this time, unfortunately. In 1973, I was in error in thinking that there was nothing sinister or dangerous about the proposed Council of Ireland. I thought that further consultation—my party has always been in favour of that—could do nothing but good. But, in the event, I was not alone in being in error on that occasion. In the event, the baby of power-sharing devolved administration was thrown out with the bathwater of the Council of Ireland. As more than one noble Lord has said, if the power-sharing executive had survived, we might have been spared all the problems with which we are now faced. Unfortunately it did not. My apprehension today, in 1985, is that the new baby of the proposed devolved partnership government will be thrown out with the bathwater of the intergovernmental conference, because that is what the Unionist and the majority in Northern Ireland are frightened about.
We have always favoured closer links between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, we have advocated a parliamentary tier to the Anglo-Irish Council. I made a major speech earlier this year advocating a parliamentary tier but, like so many of my historic utterances, it passed unnoticed because it was getting near lunchtime and the journalists and many of the delegates felt called to the bar—as indeed

835
happens at this time of the evening also. However, we are on record as having said that.
There is an ill-defined line between consultation and interference. We are in favour of consultation but we cannot accept interference as such. I am afraid that this is a grey area which is much open to interpretation. The former—consultation—is entirely beneficial. There are so many matters of common interest—agriculture, tourism, transport, many other areas—where consultation makes sense. But interference—which I am afraid must be read into this document—would be unacceptable to the majority in Northern Ireland. As I say, much of this is open to interpretation and we shall have to see how it is interpreted.
One matter which, in my view, is not open to interpretation is the sticking point as to the location of the permanent secretariat for the intergovernmental conference. This is to be near Holywood, just outside Belfast—about the most inconvenient place one could find to have such a secretariat. London would have been much more convenient. Dublin would have been more convenient.
In Cambridge, the Secretary of State, speaking a few days ago, tried to defend the Government against the criticism that, whereas the SDLP has a direct input to the intergovernmental conference, the Unionists do not. He said, quite rightly, that the Unionists have their Members of Parliament; the Unionists have their spokesmen in the Assembly. But the difference is that it is fundamental to our democracy that the Order Paper can be made accessible to the general public, that Hansard, the Official Report, can be obtained by the general public, and that therefore the electorate know what business will come up if they make it their business to find out.
They can lobby their Members of Parliament in advance; they can lobby the Government in advance; and after the debate, if they disapprove of what their Member of Parliament has said or failed to say, they can express their disapproval if necessary by not voting for him at the next election. The whole matter is open to the public. I would therefore respectfully suggest that to make this intergovernmental conference at all acceptable it would be necessary for the agenda to be published in advance, preferably for the party leaders in Northern Ireland to be consulted in advance of the sessions, and for its proceedings to be made public in an official report. Thus and only thus can the public be expected to have any confidence at all in this.
Returning to the document, Article 2(a)(iii) and Article 8 make hints at mixed courts, which would be quite unacceptable to the majority in Northern Ireland. We believe also that at present that would not be legal and would require a change in the law to make it legal. Article 4(c) and Article 5(a) demonstrate skilful use of the English language and are very much open to interpretation. One cannot avoid the feeling that they are supposed to be interpreted one way by the nationalist community and another way by the unionist community. But appointments to various bodies such as the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission are no business of the Government of the Republic. This should be an entirely internal affair.
836
It is also worth noting that whereas on the ill-fated proposal for the Council of Ireland the Unionists did have the right of the veto, in the intergovernmental conference they will not enjoy that privilege, which makes it therefore less acceptable.
Other articles are open to interpretation. In Article 7 we welcome an impartial complaints procedure affecting all the security forces. That is something which we have been advocating for some time, not just to protect the public but to protect the security forces themselves so that there can be no inference that there has been a cover-up or that colleagues have taken a partial view towards any complaint that has been made against the security forces. In Article 8 we welcome a regularisation of extradition procedures. Article 9, again, is open to interpretation. It could be interpreted, in saying that a programme of work has been drawn up for the Chief Constable, as saying that perhaps he had not been working before. That is contrary to what we have always been told—that security co-operation between the Republic and the North of Ireland is beyond doubt and leaves nothing to be desired. There again it is open to interpretation.
In Article 10 co-operation as suggested is certainly welcome, but the proof of the pudding will be whether or not it will work in regard to security and undermining support for Sinn Fein. Those are two matters which would convince the majority of the population in Northern Ireland that the agreement really means what we would like it to mean, as opposed to the way in which it might otherwise be interpreted.
Finally, my party and I myself would like to see an agreement of this kind working. We realise tht the status quo is unacceptable. There is a logjam which needs to be broken. We want to see progress being made. We should be happy to accept the agreement, subject to the reservations which I have outlined. As the agreement stands, we cannot accept it. I hope that it is negotiable even though it has been signed. But in the hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench will take account of what I have said, I trust that it may be possible to reform the agreement in places in such a way that we could wholeheartedly support it.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships have listened, as I have done, with tremendous interest to the last two speakers, the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath and Lord Moyola, with their very special knowledge as Ulstermen resident in Northern Ireland. I know that they will both forgive me if I do not follow them for that precise reason although I am half Irish myself.
Having been involved in the security aspects of the Province at the very beginning of the present troubles way back in 1969, and having more recently been a member of the Alliance Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Donaldson—whose policy paper has been endorsed by both the Liberal and SDP parties—it may be helpful, if I said a very brief word about the security aspects of this agreement. However, before doing so, I should like to say how very glad I was that the noble Viscount in his most moving and persuasive speech stressed the need to look ahead. I know that the noble Lord, Lord

837
Fitt, and other noble Lords who are Irish—as indeed I am half myself—will forgive me if I say that Irishmen both North and South, no matter where they live, have a great predilection for recalling the past.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to give a very brief anecdote to illustrate the point in lighter vein. When I and Mr. David Alton, MP visited Northern Ireland and Dublin way back last May, we went to Londonderry—to Derry City—where we were received by the Mayor and members of his council and entertained to lunch. One of the members of the council sidled up to me bearing a heavy package and said, "Have a look at this". Inside that package was a great stack of newspaper cuttings vilifying myself and my committee which, in 1969, had recommended the replacement of the Ulster Special Constabulary—the B Specials—by a regiment of the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment. It did not make a very happy prelude to what I had hoped would be an enjoyable lunch. Happily, I was able immediately to tell him that one of my ancestors had been one of the apprentice boys who had defended the gates of Derry against the army of King James way back in 1688, whereupon my host was all smiles and said, "That's different; that alters the whole situation". He produced out of his pocket like a visiting card a picture of the monument which records that gallant event and we identified the apprentice concerned!
I come back to the point made by the noble Viscount because the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has gone into great detail about the past. It is no doubt useful as a background to the debate. We have heard also from the noble Lord, Lord Maude. Indeed, I could go back to 1969 and say how I found conditions at that time. Personally, I find no merit in dwelling upon the past. We must look forward.
In that spirit, I have nothing but praise for this joint initiative and for the terms of the accord. I have no hesitation in paying a personal tribute to the Prime Minister for her resoluteness in not being daunted or detened by the vehement denunciation of herself and these proposals by the Unionist leadership in the North.
You will probably have gathered from my noble friend Lord Donaldson that in our policy document to which I have referred and which is called What Future for Northern Ireland?, we went into considerably greater detail, making specific recommendations for co-operation between the two countries. However, we were taking a longer look forward into the future beyond the next election, whereas by contrast, this accord is intended—and it is important that it should do so—to take immediate effect. Surely the intention is that the conference should be the means of considering the whole range of measures to develop closer relationships between the two countries and of making recommendations to Dublin and Westminster. Given the prospect of an early start to the conference, such steps are obviously better worked out by the membership of the inter-governmental conference than spelt out by Dublin and Westminster.
The Prime Minister has underlined the prospect of peace and stability which this accord may afford. For my part, that is its most valuable asset. Again I was so glad that the noble Viscount stressed that the security
838
aspect was the highest priority of the document. The security is of course aimed at the defeat of terrorism. Again I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, had to say about that. He laid great importance upon it and was positive in his expectations of it.
It is all too easily overlooked that IRA terrorism is not simply—or perhaps I dare say even mainly—a Northern Ireland problem. The fact that many more outrages have been perpetrated in the North over the years since 1969 and before, and with appalling figures—2,500 people killed and 25,000 people injured in the past 16 years by acts of terrorism—should not imply that the IRA presents less of a threat in the Republic than it does in the North. The IRA's objectives and operations are linked to those of international terrorism and envisage the overthrow of democratic government both North and South as a longer-term goal.
There is a good deal of room for improvement—and I am sure that those who live there will agree with me—in collaboration between the security forces on both sides of the border. I should like to give one example of that by referring back to the visit which I paid last May. We arrived in Belfast in the immediate aftermath of an outrage in the border town of Newry where your Lordships will probably remember that a police armoured car was blown up and three constables of the RUC were killed, including one woman constable. You may also remember the publicity given to the immediate reactions of the chief constable who stated that the outrage had been set up, planned and executed from the South. I am not disputing whether or not that was so. However, it was the reactions to that statement which were so significant. We were made painfully aware of the reactions in the South when, on the following day in Dublin, we had an audience with the Taoiseach. I only mention that illustration because it transpired that the chief constable of the RUC and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana had not met for the past two years, and then just in passing at a conference. That omission will be taken care of by Article 9 of the agreement.
The point has already been made, but perhaps I may stress it again, that the security forces alone cannot defeat the IRA; they can only do so if more support is forthcoming not only from the Republic but from the minority community in the North. I really believe that this accord could be instrumental in changing attitudes; and changing attitudes is an essential preliminary towards the practical co-operation envisaged in Article 7 concerning setting up joint consultative machinery and community-based crime prevention groups. Most important of all, it is an essential condition for success in the efforts to increase the minority membership in the RUC which started so promisingly after the report which I presented in 1969. I therefore very much hope that the Government will stick to their guns and see this agreement through. If ever determination—that outstanding quality of the Prime Minister—were called for, it is now.
My final word on the matter is this; it is worth looking at the obverse aspect of this accord being rendered null and void under pressures from whatever quarter. The effect could hardly be other than damaging if not disastrous, not least to this Parliament. After the hopes entertained for it in the

839
Republic and—I do not doubt—among the minority community in the North, there would be deep disappointment, deep disillusionment, boarding on despair and bitterness. Those are hardly the attitudes calculated to create closer co-operation for the security forces which is so necessary.
Although the matter has been referred to already, let not the reactions of the public in mainland Britain be left out of account. There is already a good deal of impatience over communal strife in Ulster and its cost in terms of lives of soldiers serving there these past 16 years. That could turn to exasperation and to alienation between the citizens of mainland Britain and those in the North of Ireland, and that would be tragic indeed.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to say how much I agree wholeheartedly with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said. I speak not as one who has ever lived in Northern Ireland, but as one who for the last six years has been spokesman on Northern Ireland in the European Parliament. Therefore it might be considered that what I have to say is that of a worm's eye view and, possibly even worse, a European worm's eye view.
Some of the speeches I have heard tonight do not to me reflect the feelings, the views, culture and traditions of the people I meet when I go to Northern Ireland. I meet people who work together, who co-operate. Perhaps none of your Lordships has touched on the enormous number of congregations, of communities, who work together for the peace of Northern Ireland, and no credit has yet been given to them tonight, nor have they even been recognised as a major political factor in wanting peace and stability to exist in that Province, that part of the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, any Prime Minister who has in part of the territory of the country over which she and her Government govern the figures of terrorism mounting regularly to the number the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, of around 2,500 cannot sit back and wait just "for something to happen". I would urge people to recognise the bravery and courage of our Prime Minister in going forward with this agreement. It is somebody who herself was a victim of an outrageous attack only last year on her and the whole British Cabinet.
It is a amazing that one person could have achieved so much secretly, overtly or covertly, with the head of a government of a country from which come people who have sought her own life and those of citizens whom she has the duty to protect. Much credit must be given to her not only for her courage in initiating these discussions but also for allowing them to continue in the light of what happened to her, in order to reach the agreement that we have before us tonight.
With respect, some noble Lords have said that the situation has not changed with regard to recognition by the Irish Republic, that there is, after all, a Province of six counties; but we are looking at today. It is difficult to imagine that Mr. Haughey, for instance, would have had the courage to go to the Dail and say,
840
"We will now vote on this agreement and say that we recognise that the majority of people in Northern Ireland should choose whether they want to join us or not". Perhaps nobody has given credit to the bravery of Dr. FitzGerald in bringing that before the Dail, and with success. As we know, the majority of the Dail have voted in favour of this agreement. It is a major political advance that the people of the South recognise Northern Ireland's right not only to exist but also the conditions under which they shall continue to exist, unless those people themselves decide to change how they wish to live.
There is one other point I would mention with regard to the detail of the document before us. My noble friend Lord Moyola, in an admirable speech, mentioned the question of dealing with terrorists. But here we have it stated in the joint communique that Dr. FitzGerald has agreed that their Government will ratify the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. That is the agreement which will enable terrorists who are hiding in the Republic to come to the North to be tried, and to be tried under English law or Northern Irish law for crimes they have committed within the United Kingdom.
We hope that Dr. FitzGerald will go forward and ratify this convention as soon as possible, and of course not with any derogations or changes in the definition of the status of a political prisoner, so as to enable such extradition to be carried out as quickly and effectively as possible. Let us also remember that there is a responsibility on the police and judiciary of Northern Ireland, that when they get these people into Northern Ireland they can give them first a fair trial and prove their guilt. This has not always been easy in the past. If we are going to get co-operation, and full co-operation, from now from the Republic of Ireland, we hope that those responsible in the North will be able to handle these matters effectively and efficiently.
I am surprised at Mr. Ian Paisley. As your Lordships know, he is a member of every assembly possible in Westminster, Europe, and the North, and I can admire him because of his logistics if for nothing else. Monthly, or at least yearly, he is asking for an extradition agreement to cover the European Community. He has now got in this document for the first time provision that those who seek a safe haven in the Republic can be extradited. He has got it, and he has been asking systematically for it. But I have heard no recognition from him that there is anything good in this document from beginning to end. Perhaps he has not read it. That may well be so. But it is regrettable, in view of the kind of reaction he is trying to whip up in Northern Ireland.
One of the worst elements of the story of the last week in United Kingdom politics has been that we have people who do not seem to know what they want so far as their own future in Northern Ireland is concerned. We have a Government seeking a solution. They have never come forward with a solution. Every time some group, or party, in Northern Ireland makes a proposal somebody else ditches it. Surely it is time now that people of goodwill should get together to accept that if you have terrorism, the one thing you have to do is to take action to stop it. If we can stop it, if we can reduce it by the proposal before your

841
Lordships' House tonight, we should wholeheartedly support it.
We must at least give it a try. If those who do not wish it to succeed seek to destroy it, they will not be representing the people they purport to represent, because what people in Northern Ireland want above all is peace and stability. Mr. Paisley over and over again in the European Parliament complains about the appalling unemployment in Northern Ireland, about which we know, the appalling social conditions, the appalling housing. He keeps telling us in the European Parliament that it is the worst in the European Community, and he asks: can they have some money?
One billion pounds has gone from the Community since 1973 to Northern Ireland to meet some of the demands of Mr. Paisley and others in the Province. We believe ourselves—and I firmly believe—that this money will be well spent, and has been well spent, in providing for better conditions and for better prosperity and stability, but from whatever party we come we all know that without peace you cannot have economic prosperity. It is simply not possible. Nowhere in the world is there economic progress and social development, with children growing up in an atmosphere of peace and prosperity, unless you have a stable society. Surely this is what the Prime Minister and the Government are seeking to obtain.
I would say a word in detail about Article 7(c) because this is one which has concerned a lot of people, and it is to do with the security forces. When I was last in Northern Ireland I spoke to the Deputy Chief of Police, who happened to be a Roman Catholic. When I asked what was the percentage of members of the RUC who are members of the Catholic faith he said, "Unfortunately, only about 10 per cent."
But why, my Lords? It was only the week before I was there that a Catholic member of the RUC was shot outside his doorstep by, of course, the IRA. What happened last week? Precisely the same again. We must have encouragement even, if need be, from the Southern Irish Republican Government—I do not care where the encouragement comes from—to stop the Irish Catholic minority in Northern Ireland from going behind and working with Sinn Fein the whole time.
What is the one element that those of us who have been to Northern Ireland notice more than anything else? It is fear. When I went to the Maze and met several of the hunger strikers and their families, what was the one element which struck me and still remains as a fixed memory? It was fear, fear of their own people, the menace and threats of their own people on their own families. Unless that can be removed, you will not have peace in Northern Ireland. You will not be able to fight the terrorist activities. And, as was so rightly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, it is an international problem and not just a local and national problem.
In conclusion I should like to say not only that the European Parliament on Friday morning, without having seen the document, welcomed and supported the initiative which has been taken by the United Kingdom Government, but that it has been one of the
842
greatest elements from this Government to show to the rest of the world what is their real role in Northern Ireland. It has so often been misunderstood. It has been so often considered that they are there as an oppressive régime on the poor people of Northern Ireland. We in this House know that that is not true, but the rest of the world does not. If ever there was a document to prove that it is not true, to prove that the United Kingdom Government are working for the peace and prosperity of the peoples of Northern Ireland, as they do for the rest of the peoples of the United Kingdom, it is this document, and I hope that we shall support it.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the agreement before us marks yet another landmark in the long, sad history of our dealings in Ireland, a problem which has baffled and exasperated us for so many years. We are concerned today with how to defeat the terrorists. It is not a new problem; indeed, it was much the same 100 years ago, when there were Fenian outrages in Ireland and here in Parliament, financed then as now by the Irish-Americans in the United States and denounced then by Parnell as they are now by Dr. FitzGerald. It is a problem that has been with us far too long.
I recognise the Government's anxiety, firstly, to do something radical to improve the situation, and, secondly, to take advantage of the fact that in Dr. FitzGerald they have by far the most sensible and realistic Irish head of Government that they have had for years or are likely to have in the future. So one must start by wishing to welcome an agreement to which both Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic can subscribe.
When we come to study it the agreement before us seems to be based on a calculation, or perhaps one should more accurately say a gamble, that if representatives of the Government of the Republic can, through the Conference, put forward views and proposal on their own account or on behalf of the Catholic minority about the most important aspects of policy in Nothern Ireland, then nationalists may withdraw support for Sinn Fein and the IRA, so that the terrorists lose their support and the level of terrorism is drastically reduced. If that really happens then obviously it will be an enormous gain. There is one encouraging sign, as the noble Viscount pointed out: the announced if belated intention of the Irish Government to ratify the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism.
But will there really be such a dramatic improvement? The prospects seem to me to be far from certain. And some of your Lordships will have read the powerful and sombre article by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien in this morning's edition of The Times. Nevertheless, to secure a desirable but highly speculative gain some time in the future the Government are proposing to pay now a heavy price. First, they have concluded this agreement with a foreign Government without consulting or taking into their confidence the majority of those British people affected. The Government must find it hard to reconcile their very reasonable insistence that union leaders should consult democratically the members of their unions before coming out on strike with their

843
own signing of this agreement without consultation with the people of Ulster. I was impressed by the resignation of Senator Mary Robinson from one of the coalition parties in the Irish Government because, as she put it, the agreement
"based on an intergovernmental structure alone"
and
"negotiated without the involvement in any way of the majority community in the North … would be unacceptable to all sections of Unionist opinion and not just to extremists".
That is the view of a knowledgeable Irishwoman in Dublin.
How can we expect any agreement to work if the majority in the North are not prepared to accept it? The Northern Ireland Secretary says now that he is:
"prepared to engage in discussions and sensible consultations with anybody".
But is it not now too late? The agreement is signed and unalterable. We apparently refuse to contemplate a referendum in Northern Ireland because we know all too well what the result would be. But elsewhere we have laid great stress on the principle of self-determination. Indeed, we are doing just that in today's debate on the Falkland Islands in the United Nations General Assembly.
When I was one of Her Majesty's representatives overseas I constantly pointed out, on television and in newspaper interviews, that in the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland the fundamental factors determining our policy were the wishes of the inhabitants. It is true that this agreement explicitly recognises in Article 1(a) and (b) the need to respect the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland on the status of Northern Ireland. But it seems to me to undermine our whole case overseas if what we are doing now is seen to be profoundly unwelcome to the majority. How can we pretend that in concluding this agreement we are respecting their wishes?
Secondly, the agreement commits us to the grave and, with great respect to the noble Viscount, unprecedented step of giving a foreign Government a role in the administration of part of the United Kingdom and the right to speak for a minority of British subjects there. We must be the only country in the world which is contemplating voluntarily letting another state take a hand in its internal affairs.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, this is simply not what is said in the agreement and it is not what is being said by the Government. The noble Lord is wrong to put it forward, in my opinion.
Lord Moran: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, it is true that we retain our full sovereignty but we are allowing a foreign Government a role. This is what the whole agreement is about.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: That is rubbish, my Lords.
Viscount Long: No, my Lords.
Lord Moran: My Lords, in this case it is not merely a foreign country but one which has deliberately chosen to be foreign and, which under Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution, lays claim to the territory of
844
Northern Ireland. Again, I quote a politician in the Republic. Mr. John Kelly, a member of Dr. FitzGerald's party, said in the Dail:
"I ask the House to picture an arrangement arrived at between the Northern Unionists and the British, which would put British Ministers into Merrion Street, in whatever capacity, and British police officers into Garda headquarters. How would we react? We should not imagine that Unionist feelings at the present juncture are any less strong".
I do not imagine that Ministers would contemplate allowing Argentine Ministers and officials into Port Stanley or Spanish Ministers into Gibraltar on a similar consultative basis. And if we concede the principle that a foreign power can speak for a minority in the United Kingdom, where will that process end?
Article 2(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) nevertheless gives foreign ministers and foreign officials, responsible to a foreign Government, the right to deal—that is the word—with political and security matters and with the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. But apparently British and Northern Ireland Ministers and officials are to be given no such opportunity to deal with these or any other matters in the Republic. Why not? Nothing has been said about amending Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Again, why not?
Article 1(c) of the agreement says that we will introduce and support legislation in Parliament if a majority in Northern Ireland wish to establish a united Ireland. that seems reasonable enough, but will we similarly allow the Scots and the Welsh to go their own way if they so wish? In other words, where would we stop in breaking up the United Kingdom? If this agreement does lead ultimately to Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom, can we be quite certain that the union with Scotland will continue to stick?
It is reported that the secretariat of the Intergovernmental Conference is to be in Belfast. If this body were to be simply to facilitate co-operation between the two Governments, it would clearly be most conveniently established in Dublin, London or Brussels. To put it in or near Belfast would make it clear that it was intended to oversee the running of Northern Ireland, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I hope, therefore, that the Minister who will answer for the Government will be able to tell us that it will not be established in Northern Ireland. Dr. FitzGerald is reported to have said in his broadcast after the signing that the agreement was,
"as near to joint authority as can be".
Do the Government accept that interpretation?
To those in Dublin who want a united Ireland this agreement must look like the thin end of the wedge to prise open the door to joint control of the Province. Is it not probable that before very long the thick end of that wedge will be controlled, not by the sincere and conciliatory Dr. FitzGerald but by Mr. Charles Haughey, whose attitude to the IRA is very different? What happens then?
Much was said at the press conference about devolved government. I was concerned at the proposals some time ago for devolution in Scotland and Wales, believing that these would lead to a loosening of ties between different parts of the United Kingdom. Happily, those plans were abandoned. Thus I do not understand why devolution should now be thought to be good for Northern Ireland. I have,

845
indeed, never understood why we have not offered to the people of Northern Ireland the option of permanent intergration with the rest of the United Kingdom, or why British political parties do not operate there. It has always seemed to me that full integration would be much the fairest and most sensible course, and yet we have always shied away from it. I wonder why.
This agreement seems to be notably one-sided. The only explicit reference to reciprocity that I can see is one sentence:
"Some of the proposals considered in respect of Northern Ireland may also be found to have application by the Irish Government"—
as weak a formulation as I can conceive. Even The Times, which welcomed the agreement, admitted that it
"is unbalanced to the disfavour of unionists".
And I must confess that I do not feel comfortable at the instant offer of massive American funds—a pat on the head for us, it seems, for taking a step of which not merely President Reagan but Mr. Tip O'Neill and, significantly, Senator Edward Kennedy, warmly approve.
A letter to the Daily Telegraph of 20th November suggested that if a referendum disclosed that a majority supported the
"wrecking policies of their local leaders, why not let them have Northern Ireland?".
To the writer of that letter, perhaps, Northern Ireland is a far-away country of which we know little. We need close co-operation with the Republic, above all in security matters, but in our anxiety to secure this agreement we seem to have been carried away by our national penchant for conciliation to make concessions which I do not think ought to have been made. As a result, the majority in Northern Ireland are convinced that their interests have been sacrificed.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made an eloquent and moving plea that they should not be pushed aside. Spokesmen from the majority in the North have pointed out that they, whose families fought and died for Britian, are now ignored and treated like second-class citizens, while the Irish of the Republic, who took no part in the war and closed their ports to us, which cost the lives of many British seamen, and who only recently were not to be numbered with our friends over the Falklands, are given unprecedented concessions.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will the noble Lord please give way? I am not a member of the Irish Republic but I recall that there were about 40,000 Irish Republicans who took part in the services during the last war and fought very valiantly for us. I hope he will accept that comment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I entirely accept that comment. Of course it is true. I was talking about the line taken by the Irish Government rather than the whole of the Irish people.
Most people in this country are, I think, put off by the ranting of people like Mr. Paisley. However, if some of the Unionist leaders do now often seem to us to be extreme, we must remember that it is we who cut the ground from under the feet of their moderate
846
forerunners like Mr. Faulkner, and we who are now presenting them with a fait accompli which they bitterly resent.
I am sorry to say that I oppose this agreement. I do so for three reasons: because I do not believe that it will work; because I think it wrong to have negotiated it behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland; and because I believe that it breaches the integrity of the United Kingdom and discriminates against a substantial number of its citizens. I hope, therefore, that your Lorships will think very carefully before you approve it.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, although I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who has just spoken, I think, in this case, the examples that he gave of the dangers of setting up similar frameworks with other countries are really irrelevant in that we have set up this framework in which a friendly country has a consultative role in dealing with a problem which we have failed to deal with in any other way. Thus in this case the arguments surely can be seen in an entirely different way.
I should like to start by saying this. It would be true to say that the affairs of Northern Ireland have been often debated in this House, debated from every aspect of security, of the economic area and the social area. However, although these subjects will be debated again, the debates from now on will be affected by one fundamental change; namely, that the affairs of Northern Ireland will never again be seen as purely internal matters. That is a historic concession that the British Government have made in signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is for the Prime Minister's courage in doing that, and in confronting and opposing long-held attitudes and assumptions, that I, for one, admire her.
As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, the Irish Government have also made an important and fundamental concession; namely, to give the pledge that they will seek no change in the status of Northern Ireland until the consent of the majority is forthcoming. For them, this is an equally great concession. Surely it would be right to recognise the tenacity, patience and perseverance of the Irish Prime Minister in coming to this decision, both against very great opposition at home and while holding an electoral position which is also very vulnerable at the present time.
I am sure that all those of us who have argued in this Chamber for closer co-operation with Dublin and for Northern Ireland to be put higher on the political agenda, will applaud the long and painstaking work that went into formulating this agreement and will also welcome it in itself as tangible evidence, as being an act of reconciliation between Ireland and Britain. As I say, that in itself, without thinking of anything else from the agreement, is of epic moment.
However, what about the people who will be most directly affected by this settlement—the people of Northern Ireland? As we know, the leaders of the Unionist tradition have already, I must say most logically, pointed out that, in spite of the fact that it will be their community who will be most affected by it, they were not in any way consulted and had no part

847
in the process of drawing-up the agreement. This has been reinforced by all those speakers today who have come from Northern Ireland. Regardless of from where they have come, they have agreed on both the process of drawing-up the agreement and the method of presenting it. Many of them have expressed great outrage in the majority community and have committed themselves to opposing it at all means at their command.
We must most fervently hope that they will recognise that those two major safeguards have been written into the agreement. They are safeguards which might indeed have been written into the agreement by themselves—that is, as I have already said, that not only is a guarantee for the union now built firmly into an international agreement but also if a devolved administration in Northern Ireland were set up, then any devolved matters would not be considered in the inter-governmental conference. These, seen absolutely at face value, without any kind of emotional content, must be very strong safeguards in their interests.
Thus it is very much to be hoped that the leaders of the two unionist parties and indeed the leader of the Northern Irish Alliance Party—although we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that they will take no part in, and that they are most concerned about, the settlement—will take heart from the assurances given by the two Prime Ministers, and indeed perhaps from the debates that are taking place in both Houses today.
Lastly, so far as concerns the minority community, of course their leader, John Hume, favours the agreement. I feel that his supporters may well be a little sceptical as to whether the agreement will change anything. I think it is for this reason that we so much hope that the SDLP leader will make strenuous efforts to contribute to the success of the process set up and thereby regain the support which his party lost to the Provisional Sinn Fein, and remedy the sense of alienation that has been felt by so many members of that community. Thus, there can be little doubt that a very epic moment in Anglo-Irish relations has taken place. However, of course we are all concerned for the immediate future. It is important to recognise that the handshaking between London and Dublin, admirable as I think it is, is only a prelude and that the difficult part is still to come.
Being someone who was in Algiers during the trauma of Algerian independence in 1962, I cannot but recognise one or two chilling parallels. For example, to begin with I remember the running sore that the Algerian conflict was for France as a country. Next, I remember, in the same way as the French settlers felt betrayed by General de Gaulle, who was a French leader they thought they could most trust, in the same way, the Unionists feel a keen sense of betrayal—misjudged as I think it is—from a leader and from a Government that they believed most sympathetic to their wishes. Nor can I forget the terrible backlash from those enraged French settlers and the havoc they caused after the Evian agreement of April 1962 and the hatred and the lack of sympathy that those settlers through their intransigence brought on themselves from the French of metropolitan France. Finally, I recollect the systematic campaign of
848
provocation that the OAS, the terrorist organisation representing their interests, waged against the Arab community in order to wreck the Evian agreement. But in the end, as history relates and as your Lordships will remember, the General held firm, and in spite of a terrible sacrifice in human terms the agreement was honoured.
I am not saying that there are any real comparisons between the entire Franco-Algerian episode and the one concerning Northern Ireland today; but I am saying that the next few months will call upon the determination and courage of many people in Britain and Ireland, North and South. The agreement, after all, is a basis only for setting the necessary machinery in motion, but it is upon the working of that machinery that so much will depend. It therefore seems imperative that more should be done—and the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, has said this himself—that the momentum created by the signing should not be lost and that so much could be done to dispel the fears that have been caused and that the inter-governmental conference should meet with the minimum delay and the permanent secretariat be promptly set up.
The first meetings of the conference no doubt will be concerned initially with security, with the courts, with cross-border co-operation; but I believe that social issues should not be pushed too far down the agenda. Otherwise, there is no doubt that the sense of grievance and disadvantage felt by the many Roman Catholics whose educational qualifications and job opportunities are lower than Protestants—in spite of the many efforts that have been made to counter this—will mean that they will continue to help sustain Sinn Fein whose electoral success, it must be remembered, provided the urgency behind these Anglo-Irish talks.
This leads me to my last point. There has been talk and mention in the debate today of the rumours of economic help for the Province. I do not know whether this will come about; but if it is the case, I would plead that a proportion of any such investment should go to supporting that great body of people involved in voluntary and community self-help initiatives which go on in the areas of great need in Northern Ireland. Not only does such work tackle the really serious social problems which are so divisive, but it also improves the understanding and communication within and between communities. Lagan College, for example, set up as an integrated school by voluntary bodies, and in fact the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, had a lot to do with it. I think there is so much more of that work that is needed before any kind of settlement can be made to work. Surely, without the work of reconciliation, there is really no hope in setting up any elaborate or sophisticated machinery for the future of the Province. No kind of machinery works without an oilcan; and, in my view, the work of reconciliation that goes on among those voluntary organisations provides the essential oilcan.
My Lords, perhaps I may end on a slightly personal note by saying that since I became involved and interested in Anglo-Irish affairs more than nine years ago I have tried to maintain an attitude which is not influenced by religious or territorial bias. Indeed, my only prejudice has been and continues to be against violence. Instead, I have found myself motivated by

849
considerations regarding the future of the Northern Irish people, the men, women and children of both traditions, and indeed the people of both Irelands. I believe that the opportunity presented by this agreement has a chance of strengthening the forces of peace in their fight against violence and also gives the people of Northern Ireland a better hope of leading normal peaceful and useful lives. It is for that reason that I support this Motion.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although I am not and never have been a member of her party, I have found myself time and again over the past six or seven years leaping to the defence of the Prime Minister, both in public and in private, often on occasions when her own political friends and colleagues have remained strangely mute. So your Lordships will see that it is much more in sorrow than in anger that I say that I think she has got it wrong this time round. The lady is for turning, after all!
It is a thousand pities that she has turned away so completely from the admirable and fairminded policy of total integration associated with the name of the late Mr. Airey Neave (my noble friend Lord Moran also commended integration). Had she not done so, things might be different today. The policy of total integration had much more wide-ranging support across the political divide in Northern Ireland than does the present Anglo-Irish Agreement. Although it was not the first choice of very many people, total integration was acceptable as second best by more than 70 per cent. of Protestants and by more than 50 per cent. of Roman Catholics.
The Prime Minister once said, "Ulster is as British as Finchley". This was never entirely true, mainly due to mistakes made in the early 1920s. But she had the power to make it so. Instead, we are now headed in quite the opposite direction. As the Spectator said in its leading article last Friday:
"The agreement would be perfectly understandable … if it were intended as a first step to a united Ireland. As such, it would be a cunning way of undercutting the Union by softening up British opinion, isolating Unionists and establishing a precedent of southern Irish intervention.".
This analysis finds support south of the Border. In an opinion poll published in a recent edition of the Irish Times, 2⅓ times as many people in the South thought that the agreement was more likely to lead to Irish unification as thought the opposite. Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien comes to much the same conclusions in his article in The Times today. Within Ireland, north and south, it is not just Unionists (with a capital U) who believe the agreement will be counter-productive by loading the dice against the Unionists. Let me give six short quotations which have to do with the agreement:
"[It] is fundamentally flawed in its approach to a reconciliation"
—the middle-of-the-road Belfast Telegraph.
"[It] is likely to further divide the communities and fuel antagonism between them"
—the Democratic Socialist Party in Dublin.
"I do not believe it can achieve its objectives of securing peace and stability within Northern Ireland or on this island as a whole"
—Senator Mary Robinson, who resigned from the Irish Labour Party over the issue.
850
"It is vital to understand the emotional repugnance which the Northern majority feel towards what is a deeply unwelcome structure wished upon them by two governments they do not trust"
—Mr. John Kelly of Fine Gael, speaking in the Dail; my noble friend Lord Moran referred to another statement of his earlier.
"The…most serious weakness of the agreement is that it is an external agreement, not an internal one. The Unionists appear to have been deliberately excluded and treated in a most offensive manner"
—the leader of the Workers Party in Dublin. Finally,
"It is a rotten deal, and extremely dangerous…I fear we are in for years of increasing turmoil, leading towards a terrible climax"
—that internationally respected socialist, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien.
Of course there are many others on both sides of the Border who are unhappy about the agreement in addition to those quoted above, including, as we have already heard, most of the non-sectarian Alliance Party, and bishops of the Church of Ireland, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church and the President of the Methodist Church of Ireland. A majority of those recently polled by the Irish Times in the south believed that the agreement would not improve relations between the two communities, and an even larger majority believed that it would not reduce violence.
Returning to this side of St. George's Channel, one thinks of absent friends. We all regret for a hundred reasons the sad and untimely death of Lord Vaizey last year. He was a good and genuine friend of Ireland and the Irish. He was a prominent member of the British-Irish Association, which I think he had something to do with founding, yet he was totally devoid of that guilt-ridden sentimentality which so often colours English establishment attitudes towards the Irish Republic. Despite his friendship for Ireland, he could be sharply critical of certain aspects of the Irish character and of Irish political attitudes, and I cannot help but suspect that he would not be entirely happy with this agreement if he were here today.
Then there is the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. He has been in India for some weeks now and one certainly would not wish to drag him back here to the sort of weather we have been having. But I am certain that we would hear a few sharp comments from him, were he here today.
Next there is opinion in another place, and I suggest that the Division lists tomorrow will not accurately reflect the underlying feeling of unease within the Conservative Party. We all know that those disparagingly referred to by the press as "a handful of right-wing Conservatives" will vote against, as if loyalty towards the United Kingdom within its present boundaries and loyalty towards those who have fought with one in two world wars was a prerogative of right-wingers. But there will be others who will swallow their feelings and vote for the Prime Minister out of loyalty.
The other day. a very well-known Conservative back-bencher, a former junior Minister but one who does not normally speak about Ulster (so your Lordships will not be able to identify him), said to me, "This is Algeria all over again". He was of course referring to the betrayal aspect. (I should like dearly to follow the noble Baroness on parallels with Algeria, but I do not think I have time). This individual will

851
almost certainly vote for the Government, but with enormous reluctance. I suspect that there will be a great many who will go through the Division Lobbies in support of the Government, but with a heavy heart.
There are of course other Conservative MPs, those who say, "Let's stop making a fuss about sovereignty. The important thing is to avoid violence". This is of course a valid point of view, but I should remind them that it was also the point of view of those who opposed the sending of a task force to South Georgia and the Falklands.
What we are promised as a result of this agreement is a condominium in all but name. Professor John O'Connor, a lecturer in international law, demonstrates conclusively that the Irish Government's rights under this agreement are much more than merely consultative, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, assumed. In nearly every condominium since the dawn of history, one partner turns out to be more energetic, more motivated and more involved than the other, and this one will be no exception. It reminds me a little of the Anglo-Egyptian condominium over the Sudan, with Britain this time round playing the role of Egypt.
The Irish Ministers will be virtually acting as agents for the SDLP, which tends to receive between 18 and 27 per cent. of the vote in Northern Ireland elections. British Ministers, by way of contrast, will certainly not be acting as agents for the monarchist majority, as I call them, by which I mean not only those who vote for the two Unionist parties but members of the Alliance Party and those who have no political affiliation but who are loyal to the Crown. Indeed, in so far as there is likely to be any pressure on British Ministers from mainland Britain, it will come from southern Irish voters living in marginal mainland constituencies. And heaven help the monarchist majority if a Labour Government ever come to power in which Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Ms. Clare Short and Mr. Ken Livingstone are prominent members.
Furthermore, it is not as if the relationship of the Republic to the United Kingdom were the equivalent of, say, that of Norway to Denmark. At a person to person level, the Irish people are as friendly as any in Europe; indeed, as friendly as any in the world. I have many happy memories of times spent in the south of Ireland. But at an official level, it has traditionally been a very different matter.
I would not deny that as a free and independent country, and so long as she stays at arm's length, as countries normally do from one another, the Republic of Ireland has every right to hold, and to have held over the past 40 years, different views from ourselves on such matters as Adolf Hitler, General Galtieri, the British Royal Family, laws affecting individual freedom and conscience, such as those touching upon divorce, contraception, abortion, censorship and the upbringing of children of mixed marriages. But once she is given the legal right to interfere with the laws and the institutions of part of the United Kingdom, these present and past attitudes start to matter very much indeed.
That the Republic is at last agreeing to extradite terrorist murderers on a consistent basis will only
852
partially dissipate the resentment caused by the fact that it has taken so long for her to fall into line with other civilised nations; and the constitutional claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom, which persists despite the agreement—there seems to be no intention of removing it—will continue to rankle.
It has already been said by people in both parts of Ireland and in this part of the United Kingdom that the agreement will hinder, not help, intercommunal reconciliation, in that it will impede the possibility of the creation of a sense of Ulster identity. The situation is analogous to that in Cyprus. There outside interference, by first the Greeks and then the Turks, prevented the creation of any sense of Cypriot nationhood, with the tragic results that we see today—and I have recently come back from that island.
What has not been remarked on is that the new arrangement tacitly implies that successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland since 1972 have not been even-handed, that they have not protected the minority, despite them having a virtually free hand in Ulster with no local government opposition to speak of, and with Parliament always ready to rubber-stamp primary and secondary legislation designed to achieve that end. I myself find it impossible to believe that successive Secretaries of State have failed in their duty to be even-handed. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, told us earlier that every single one of the demands of the civil rights movement has already been met, and met some time ago. So I am increasingly inclined to believe that the agreement is, at any rate in part, a desperate public relations exercise designed to stop Irish-Americans from sending arms and money to the IRA. I am interested to see that once again the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, shares my belief in that regard.
I should like to ask four specific questions of the noble Lord who is to reply. To what extent will the security forces be overstretched by the requirement that UDR search patrols be accompanied from now on by members of the RUC? More importantly, will the hot pursuit of suspected terrorist murderers be permitted by the Government of the Republic?—because if that were agreed to some of the opposition to this agreement among the monarchist majority, as I call them, might evaporate. Have the Unionist document The Way Forward and Sir Frederick Catherwood's subsequent proposals been totally rejected? Have they been put in the wastepaper basket or are they being dusted down and reconsidered? Why are the intergovernmental ministerial conferences to be held entirely in secret? Why can we not have open government? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, touched upon this point.
The biggest minefield in the document, though it will not be stumbled on for a number of years, I suspect, is the mechanism for bringing about a united Ireland if a majority vote in favour. I stress the word "a". In her 15th November press conference, the Prime Minister substituted the word "the", which puts a totally different construction on the agreement. As a barrister, she should surely know that the misinterpretation or misreading of a single word in a lengthy legal document can have cataclysmic effects.

853
Unlike all recent legislation governing constitutional matters in Northern Ireland—legislation introduced by both Conservative and Labour governments—there is is no safeguard built into these provisions requiring, in addition to a poll majority, which can be as thin as can be imagined, evidence of widespread support across all quarters of the Northern Ireland political spectrum as a precondition for unification—"agreement across the community", in the words of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House when he was speaking about the prerequisite for devolution. All that is required for unification to take place is a majority, or to be precise, a clear majority.
A clear majority is a majority of one, provided that this majority is confirmed by half-a-dozen recounts. If as a result of demographic changes—we know that the Republicans in Northern Ireland have a birthrate more than twice the western European norm—and of emigration of disillusioned Unionists from the North and immigration of Republicans from the South attracted by lower inflation, higher wages and social security benefits, 50.001 per cent. of the Ulster electorate voted for unification, both governments, whatever their secret misgivings—secret misgivings there would certainly be—would be forced to legislate to this effect even if 99 per cent. of Unionists had voted against.
The options of a three-or-four-county Ulster seem to have been ruled out entirely. (I was interested to read that Mr. Merlyn Rees suggested in his recent book a redrawing of the Border. I have always thought this an excellent idea, but this seems to be ruled out by the agreement.) A better recipe for chaos and bloodshed can hardly be imagined. As one Front Bench speaker emphasised this afternoon—I am afraid I cannot remember which one—nobody wants to force Unionists into a united Ireland, but this is what they might be obliged to do under the terms of the agreement. This, I think, is what Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien was getting at today in his article in The Times.
Finally, during his intervention when the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was speaking, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House seemed to suggest—I hope I may have misinterpreted him—that he was looking for unanimity when the time came this evening for a decision on the Motion. Unanimity may well be desirable when coping with a titanic challenge from, let us say, Nazi Germany; though even during World War II I believe a considerable amount of dissent was permitted within Parliament. But I suggest that unanimity is neither necessary nor desirable when dealing with a challenge (titanic or otherwise) from those of one's fellow citizens who, with some justice, in my view, feel ignored and threatened.
7.3 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I cannot say I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. My family has had very close connections with Ireland for hundreds of years, particularly with the North of Ireland. I was very surprised to hear the noble Lord say—at least, I understood him to say this—that this was very bad deal for Unionists. I am a Unionist, and I welcome this agreement. I shall tell your
854
Lordships a little later on why I do so, but first of all I should like to say—I have said this before in the House—that this question of Catholics and Protestants in the North, which television always plays up, is highly exaggerated in that the whole question of Northern Ireland is a territorial fear—I have said this several times—of being absorbed into the South. It is not a religious question. My family, which has been Protestant all the time, has endowed Catholic churches. The Catholic church in Antrim was endowed by my family. We gave them land although we have always been a Protestant family, so I do not agree with those who say that this is a religious question.
It is rather amusing in a way that Mr. Paisley's seat, with one or two others, used to be in the gift of my family. I am not an admirer of Mr. Paisley. I am rather ashamed that somebody like Mr. Paisley should occupy it now. Mr. Paisley's rantings and ravings and histrionics are raising the emotions of ignorant people (they are not ignorant through their own fault; perhaps I should say "simple people") and he has been doing his best completely to destroy any faith in this agreement. That is almost evil: I shall not use the word "evil", but it is almost evil of him. His extravagant language would be heard better at Hyde Park Corner. I wonder how many of the tens of thousands of people who marched in Belfast last Sunday have read the agreement. I doubt whether as many as 1 per cent. have read it. They were all presumably worked up by Mr. Paisley's extravagant language.
The agreement, after all, confers on the North of Ireland tremendous advantages. The chief clause on which the whole agreement hangs deals with what are called the executive powers to be given, so some people say, to the South of Ireland. But they are not executive powers at all: they are completely consultative. To call them executive powers is complete and utter nonsense.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount but if he thinks that they are solely consultative I would ask him to read an article in the Irish Times of 21 st November written by a lecturer in international law which demonstrates conclusively that they are not purely consultative.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, it depends on who wrote the article, does it not? The noble Lord was quoting Conor Cruise O'Brien, a political commentator. He is not a man that I would follow at all, so you cannot go by that.
Regarding Ulster sovereignty, if Ulster lost any sovereignty at all she lost it along with the United Kingdom when we joined the Common Market. The Common Market has executive teeth and executive powers, but the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not. To a great extent it is reciprocative between the two countries; it is consultation between the two countries. The other boon for the North of Ireland is the extradition treaty, for which Ulster and the security forces have been asking for years and years. Now they have it. It has closed the bolt-hole across the Border. The security forces must be absolutely delighted. Even Mr. Paisley has been asking for it. Now he has got it, but he has not said a good thing about the agreement.

855
One of the most important things about the agreement is that it will reduce violence in that the terrorists will be apprehended far more easily. It is bound eventually to make a better image for investment in the Province. That may take some time, but it is bound to come about.
The whole economic position in Northern Ireland at the moment is desperate. The cost to the British Exchequer is £4,254 million a year at the moment. The subvention—in other words, the difference if one deducts the sum that is raised in taxes from Northern Ireland from that which the British Government have to send out there—totals about £1,400 million a year.
Unemployment has now reached a figure of 121,000. The two biggest employers in Ireland are Harland and Wolff and Shorts Aircraft. Last year, Harland and Wolff lost £36 million and had to be heavily subsidised by the British Exchequer. That sum of £36 million represented a loss of £7,000 per employee. From the point of view of the Exchequer, it would have been better had those people been on the dole, but of course one would not want that to happen; I just make the point.
We must remember that the British public are becoming completely bemused by the situation in Northern Ireland. They are sick of the appalling violence. Times have changed since the days when Stormont was set up. My father was somewhat involved in that and said that he believed Stormont would not last more than 30 years. A great number of the British public do not any longer really regard Northern Ireland as being an integral part of Britain. That is very sad, but it is a fact. The public know about the vast amounts of money that pour into Northern Ireland from the British Exchequer. We must remember we are a very different race of people from that which we were even 30 or 40 years ago. Public ideas have changed.
I therefore believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will, if it is managed with sensitivity and tact, save Northern Ireland and not destroy it. I am absolutely sure that the sovereignty of Northern Ireland will remain for the foreseeable future; for years and years. I call upon my fellow Unionists in the North to allow the agreement to work. If they do not go along with it then it might fail. I beg of them to be behind it.
Before concluding, I should like to say how much I admire the courage of the Prime Minister and of Dr. FitzGerald in bringing this agreement forward. It was very courageous of them both. The situation in Northern Ireland cannot go on and on. If it ever came to the North declaring UDI, which would be disastrous, the standard of living in Northern Ireland would collapse and there would be the most appalling privation. I hope and I am sure that in the end the agreement will open up a new era in the North and lead to a far happier community.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I doubt whether there is more than a handful, if that, of the thousands of British soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland over the past 16 years who would not warmly welcome the Anglo-Irish Agreement, though I admit that they
856
would probably view it with that scepticism which is the hallmark of the soldier, reserving judgment until they can see what effect that which the politicians agree with each other has on the ground.
I believe that the view of the soldier has a right to be heard; 382 of them have met their death, in addition to 150 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, trying to maintain order and uphold the law in Northern Ireland. It has been the consistent view of the military throughout that time that the key to eliminating the threat of the IRA to security on both sides of the Border lies in co-operation with the authorities in the Republic.
My own personal first experience of this issue—we have been warned against going back, but perhaps this shows that things do not change—was within one-and-a-half hours of taking over the post of Chief of General Staff on 1st April 1971. I was summoned to accompany Lord Carrington, then Defence Secretary, to the first meeting between Mr. Heath and his ministers and the late Lord Faulkner (Brian Faulkner as he was at the time) just after the had displaced the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, as Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
I have vivid memories of that meeting. It started off with what seemed to me, a wholly unrealistic—and in the light of my subsequent experience it proved to be—discussion of how to seal off the Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. After the difficulties and disadvantages had been aired, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who was then Foreign Secretary, asked Mr. Faulkner how it was that on a previous occasion when the IRA had resorted to violence it had been controlled and put an end to. His reply was clear: that at that time the Republic took firm measures themselves against the IRA. Yet hardly had he finished saying that than Mr. Faulkner began to request the British Government to agree to a whole series of measures in order to pacify supporters who had helped him to supplant Lord Moyola and those who threatened him further to the Right; measures which were bound to have the effect of antagonising the authorities south of the Border. That seems to me to illustrate in a nutshell the whole question we have been discussing this afternoon.
One cannot shut off Northern Ireland from southern Ireland. Anybody who has had anything to do with Ireland in any field, whether it has been merely sport, or anything else, knows that people travel to and fro and that they regard the island of Ireland as one country, even though I absolutely accept that the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, of the two tribes was an accurate one. It cannot be shut off, and the two sides of the Border have a great deal in common, including, let us not forget, the threat from the IRA.
Therefore, the second point that came out of the meeting, and which remains true today, is the need for co-operation between the North and the South in dealing with their needs, including that threat. But as soon as one begins to take measures to bring about that co-operation, as this agreement does, one raises this bogey that it is the thin edge of the wedge of subordinating the Protestants of the North to the Papist hereditary enemy in the South whom the Protestants regard as a Celtic rabble.

857
Both Governments are to be congratulated on their courage and patience in arriving at this agreement. I sympathise very greatly with the Government on two issues. One is that for which they have been much criticised this afternoon—lack of consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland. The other problem is that of the emphasis which is given to the agreement. We have to be realistic. If there had been consultation with the political leaders in Northern Ireland, there would not have been an agreement. There is absolutely no doubt about that. There would never have been agreement on an agreement.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for giving way. It is not the trouble that there was consultation with one of the political parties only? If there had not been consultation with any of the political parties, that would have been one thing, but the SDLP was brought fully into the consultations. That is what rankles with those who are not members of the SDLP.
Lord Carver: No, my Lords, I was simply sympathising with our own Government. If they had tried to have consultations with the political parties in Northern Ireland, there would not have been an agreement.
The problem of emphasis seems to me to be exactly the same as the problem one faces throughout Northern Ireland—if you please one side, you antagonise the other. The more the Government emphasise, or wish to emphasise, that this is an epic, historic agreement which will change the situation and change the security climate and which will lead to co-operation, the more that antagonises the Protestants; and the more the Government tend to tone it down and say that there is nothing in it at all and that the council is not going to be able to do more than make a few noises off, then that antagonises not only the Republic but also the Catholic population of Northern Ireland and, therefore, prejudices the electoral and political chances of the SDLP. We have to recognise that one of the objectives of this agreement is clearly to try to stop the trend of the political influence of Sinn Fein to take the place of that of the SDLP.
I hope that it is the thin end of the wedge—not the thin end of a wedge that the Unionists fear, but the thin end of a wedge which leads to a process by which there is closer co-operation in all fields between the Irish Government and our own Government and between the South and North of Ireland within the European Community. It has always seemed to me that the European Community offers the best channel for progress. But that is the optimistic view, and it is certainly my hope. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made clear, the problem of arriving at the right balance between optimism and pessimism in dealing with Northern Ireland is an extraordinarily difficult one.
I am afraid that history shows us that without a doubt. One can refer back to Mr. Gladstone when he came back from a fishing holiday in Norway in 1869 and to the disappointments, and to the hopes of Mr. Asquith, and, more recently, those of Mr. Heath and the noble Viscount opposite. Through all that long
858
time the hard-liners—the hard line Protestant attitude so graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—have been able to dictate policy for Northern Ireland. It will need an enormous degree of skill, a vast amount of patience and a great deal of determination by the Government, which I hope and I am sure they will show, to ensure that that veto which has been exercised for so long by the antediluvian bigots is brought to an end.
What was the alternative to this agreement? It was implied by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, although not very strongly, that had it not been for this process of seeking to arrive at an agreement, there could have been a possibility, somehow, of the resurrection of a power-sharing administration in Northern Ireland. But there was not the slightest chance of that, not a chance from either side. Therefore, what was the alternative? The only alternative was to go on with direct rule, not trying in any way to achieve, realistically and strongly, the support of the Republic. So things would have deteriorated. The political situation would have deteriorated, and the security situation would have deteriorated. That situation I suppose one could say, using the phrase for which Mr. Maudling was so criticised at the time he was Home Secretary, today is "an acceptable level of violence". No level of violence is acceptable, but it is a great deal lower than it was in my day. That is the only alternative and is an unsatisfactory alternative. Therefore, I hope that this House will tonight give strong support to the agreement.
7.26 p.m.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, I feel that I am in rather an unusual position as I stand in your Lordships' House this evening to speak on this important matter. I was born in the Republic. I am a Peer of the United Kingdom. At the same time I am also an Irish citizen, holding an Irish passport. I have lived all my life in that country, until approximately eight years ago, yet my allegiance is to the Crown and Parliament. However, as your Lordships can imagine, I have a great love for home. It is for that reason that for a long time I have remained silent, but now I feel the time may be right to say a few words on this subject.
At long last I feel, as do others, that there can be some real hope of solving a lasting and very sad situation. However, I fear that it cannot be done overnight, as some people might think, and the recent weekend of demonstrations in the Province cannot be ignored.
I must touch on one of the underlying reasons for the years of bitterness and hate. One of the main reasons for discontent, as many of your Lordships know—although some would disagree—is religion. Religion is now, and always has been a touchy subject in both parts of the island. But changes have come, slow though they may seem. However, it is sad to think that religion is still being used by those who seek their own ends. These are the people who want the position to remain unchanged because it is to their own personal advantage; in other words, feathering their own nests by misfortune is fortune given to others. These are the untrue Irish leading the true Irish into a quagmire from which they will never get out unless positive steps are taken.

859
Now it seems that the lead many people have been waiting for has come. Let us remember that if the present situation is to continue, I and many other people I think would not like to hazard a guess as to who might be waiting in the wings to take advantage of the confusion. Surely the people of the Province must realise that they are in danger of losing people's patience, sympathy and goodwill.
Finally, I should like to say a word on the role of the media, which I think is most important in both countries. I feel that the media have a most important part to play in the solution of the problem. For the proposal to have any chance of success it has to be supported by the people of both countries and of all denominations. As we all know, the media have a great influence, and therefore have a responsibility to portray not only the negative aspects, but also the tremendous benefits that might be gained from this agreement. I feel that at times too much emphasis has been concentrated on the counterproductive views which are held by some people rather than on highlighting the benefits that could result from cooperation. I look to them as being helpful in this endeavour, which means so much to so many.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I speak today as an eyewitness. This morning I flew back from Ireland in order to take part in this debate; and on Saturday I was present at the demonstration in Belfast. I stood there in Donegall Square in front of the City Hall and I listened to the speeches as best I could—there were some difficulties with loudspeakers, and so on. It was a very large and very orderly demonstration. I think one must also say that it was a very negative demonstration and a slightly tribal one. Nevertheless, it showed clearly the shock and the trauma from which many sections of Northern Ireland opinion were and still are suffering. It showed the strength of the fears and suspicions.
I think we have to understand that Northern Irish people are not exactly the same as English people; that they react to treaties, agreements and current events in many ways which are different from ours. We have to understand that their mentality has been formed very much by history and in ways which are not well known in England. It has been formed partly by the myths drawn from history. We have to be aware of the Unionist consciousness, which can be described, not I think altogether unfairly, as a fortress or a siege mentality, with an outlook which is fairly quick to see betrayal where possibly others would not. Instances of this have been quoted going back as far as Mr. Gladstone or further, and coming right up to today with the present agreement. I think it is our duty to make it clear to Unionists that we understand their anxieties and concerns. Therefore, I was especially glad when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, mentioned this particular point in his introductory speech.
On Monday evening I attended a meeting in central Belfast of over 30 people who approved the following declaration:
"We, a group of community workers concerned with reconciliation, working from mainly Protestant areas in Northern Ireland, seeing the very real dangers which face our communities as
860
a result of the recent Anglo-Irish Agreement, voice our opinion that the agreement will not achieve the peace and stability claimed for it. The agreement has already driven a wedge within and between our different communities, which we believe will be very difficult to remove.
"As community workers from Protestant backgrounds actively involved over the past sixteen years in peace and reconciliation, we fear that the achievements made throughout the years of strife in our Province will be virtually negated through the agreement. We ask the British Parliament and people to take note of our concern about the detrimental effects that may flow from a decision to ratify.".
I suggest that this is a very serious warning, coming from people who are dedicated to calming, not to arousing emotions, and who have worked for years to bring the communities closer together, spending their evenings, weekends and holidays on such activities as mixed youth groups, housing associations, youth training centres and a hundred and one other very desirable and very necessary types of community work. They are men and women who know their own people and their own neighbours in the closest detail. What they said was confirmed by the Bishops of the Church of Ireland, who, incidentally, come from both North and South. I should like to quote just one line from the Bishops' statement:
"We would strongly urge the political leaders involved in the agreement to take very seriously the sense of insecurity and lack of trust that arises for future relationships and structures.".
I beg Her Majesty's Government not to brush aside these responsible views.
I come to the agreement itself. In the past I have spoken in favour of such an agreement, most particularly in your Lordships' House on 7th November last year. I am therefore glad that we have an agreement, and I think we need one. I agree with those noble Lords, who spoke earlier, who regretted the manner in which the agreement has been produced and its presentation. Like them, I deplore the lack of previous consultation and ask why no use was made of the various Northern Irish Privy Counsellors, not all of whom come from the same party. Surely they could have been put on their oath as Privy Counsellors and given some information so that opinion there could have been better prepared.
When the right honourable gentleman Mr. Hurd first became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, quite rightly and properly he announced that the Government were following a twin-track policy of which the British-Irish negotiation and search for agreement was one aspect and the search for détente and political co-operation within Northern Ireland was the other. I was therefore very glad when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, spent some time explaining how the agreement could, and we all hope will, lead to agreement on devolution, because greater local responsibility for public affairs is of vital importance. Without it we cannot hope to have any degree of responsible politics in the North.
I shall just say that I do not think it is necessary that we should expect or work towards a cabinet style of power-sharing, such as there was in 1974. The Social Democrat and Liberal document of last summer and Sir Frederick Catherwood's recent summing up of the Assembly's proceedings suggest that there are many other ways of sharing responsibility.
We now have an agreement, and we all look to the Government and to everyone else concerned to make it work. I appeal, however, for a delay in implementing

861
the agreement—and here I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I ask for that so that there may be a reasonable period for consultation before the new machinery goes into action. Such a delay, which could be for a stated period, will, I think, help negotiations, whether those take place within the Assembly (which, it is important to realise, the Secretary of State must consult; he has a statutory duty to do so) or on a more private and confidential basis.
I entirely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Blease, on the need to explain the agreement and to show that it has positive merits for all parties. I think that the proportional representation Bill mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, could be extremely helpful. Above all, we must make sure that there is major Unionist input into the future arrangements. That can come about, as I suggested, through the use of Privy Counsellors, or through the Assembly, and definitely through the Anglo-Irish interparliamentary body which we have been promised since 1981 and which I look upon as more important and more urgent even than the EC monitoring committees in which your Lordships have developed such great expertise. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that the agenda and proceedings of the conference of Ministers must be published. That will do a great deal to dispel suspicion and insecurity.
I say to the Government and to everybody else that it is no good hoping for the best. We cannot just expect that things will calm down of their own accord. I am glad that Article 4 of the agreement specifically mentions human rights. In your Lordships' House last summer, on 12th July (at col. 461) I called for a major investment of time, effort and resources in human rights in Northern Ireland, both individual and group human rights. As soon as that begins to happen it will be a great reassurance to all.
In conclusion, it is important that we as a Parliament should make a strong appeal to the Northern Irish political parties. We should urge them to be both generous and statesmanlike. If the present leaders cannot find it in themselves to show those qualities, we very much hope that other leaders will be found in the North. I should like to encourage those Unionist councillors or nominated persons who now serve on public boards in such areas as housing, health and education not to resign their posts but to continue to serve the public in the way that they have done so well for so many years. We may yet come to direct elections to those boards if we cannot reach an agreement as to devolution in the Assembly.
Above all, I think that we should call on the SDLP to be magnanimous. I shall not attempt to spell out that word, but I think that that is the one we should hang on to. As a Parliament we should urge Unionists to see that the days of domination by one tradition are over, once and for all. Neither Britain nor Ireland, nor the rest of the world, will stand for it any longer. What we need to build on is the constructive document that came from the Official Unionists entitled The Way Forward. We must urge Unionists to see that it is not enough just to say, "No". We must make sure by our encouragement and support that both traditions in the North of Ireland give to each other essential mutual
862
respect and what I would describe as proportionate equality. With those words I support and approve the agreement.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, this initiative is certainly brave and well-intentioned, but I fear that if we are not careful it could cause great danger to the long-term unity of the United Kingdom. I have no personal connection with Ulster and I speak as one whose foremost concern is the unity of the Kingdom. If (which heaven forbid!) Northern Ireland breaks away from or is forced out of the United Kingdom, I fear that it will be only a matter of time before there is a rekindling of nationalism in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I have always felt that the best course for Northern Ireland is a continuation of direct rule or preferably integration. Both communities would be far safer, so I feel, in the wider context of the United Kingdom as a whole; and it is best for Northern Ireland to be treated in the same way as other parts of the United Kingdom. I have always opposed devolution; I do not think that it is an answer. I opposed the Northern Ireland Assembly, and that has proved largely useless. It has not resulted in co-operation between the representatives of the two communities. The SDLP members and others have not participated.
I fear that this agreement will please and satisfy few and alarm many. As I see it, the main flaw in the agreement—perhaps the fatal flaw—is that the minority community in Northern Ireland is, as it were, invited and encouraged to look outside its borders for salvation to the Irish Republic, which will be able to pronounce, advise, urge and press on all sorts of matters. That is bound (and who can blame them?) deeply to antagonise the Unionist majority, who see an erosion of their links with Great Britain and a dire threat to the stability and political future of their Province, their part of the United Kingdom. In other words, they feel a sense of betrayal, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his impressive speech, realised all too well.
There is to be no change in the official status of Northern Ireland, but it cannot be denied that there is to be a most significant and breathtaking change in its unofficial status, reducing Northern Ireland to little more than condominium status. It is true that the Republic's role is to be purely consultative, but what in practice does that mean? It means that a foreign country—never really a very friendly one—can pronounce on virtually unlimited matters of all kinds concerning Northern Ireland. Apart from regular ministerial meetings there is to be a permanent secretariat of Irish officials—civil servants—sitting in Belfast, of all places; yet there is to be no clearly defined reciprocal right for the British Government in relation to the Republic. That is surely a state of affairs that just does not exist in any other part of the world. Small wonder, then, at the deep anger and humiliation felt by the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland!
As other speakers have mentioned, it is highly unfortunate that parts of the agreement were leaked in Dublin before it was announced, and it was crass stupidity for the agreement to be signed at Hillsborough Castle. There are parts of the document,

863
especially those rather ominous passages concerning mixed courts and implied parity of flags, which make me angry, and I am not an Ulsterman. It has naturally enraged and goaded the Ulster Unionists, whose case has gone almost by default through their almost total inability to argue their case coherently. It has been seriously impaired by the raucous utterances and the boorish behaviour of what might be termed the preacher element of the Ulster Unionist leadership, in marked contrast to the more restrained and responsible attitude of the leader of the Official Unionists, Jim Molyneaux. I can only trust that the Ulster Unionist leaders now realise that, if their case is to be put over at all, it has to be put over forcefully, yes, but also rationally and effectively.
There have been suggestions in certain newspapers, notably The Times, that the Government should "hard sell" this agreement. I am sure that the Government should, but it is really no good hard selling an agreement as some sort of detergent if it is inherently faulty. I find it very sad to see the rift, widening inexorably, between the Ulster Unionists and their old colleagues in the Conservative and Unionist Party. But far more serious and far more tragic is the apparent widening rift between the people of Ulster and the people of Britain as a whole.
It should desperately worry us all if more and more people feel that most Ulstermen are merely bigoted fanatics and, as much of the media would wish us to believe, that most people can no longer be bothered to understand Northern Ireland's problems; that the prevailing attitude is that Ulster is expendable; that its loss would not be a fatal deprivation; and that the sooner we get out of Ulster the better. Surely, this is just the time when we in mainland Britain should pause and remember our debt to Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has an unbroken record of loyalty and devotion to Britain and the United Kingdom in both world wars and since, in marked contrast to the less than friendly conduct of the Irish Republican Government, although I would be the first to acknowledge that a great many Irish Republican citizens came over and helped us in the last war. Many of our best generals—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord would not expect the people of the Irish Republic to be loyal to this country, would he? They are a different country.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, no. Many of our best generals in the last war were Ulstermen; and as Churchill made clear, the last war would have been lost if it had not been for Ulster's bases and ports. As he put it, I believe, without Ulster we would have been confronted with slavery and death. But, who knows, a future war may not be the nuclear holocaust that is all over in 24 hours. There may come a time when we have once more to fight a battle of the Atlantic, when Ulster's ports and air space would be vital. What happens in Ireland is very much our concern. It always has been, and it always will be. Nor should we forget that the ultimate aim of the IRA is a Marxist Ireland, with all its horrifying implications—something that we can never allow in the British Isles.
864
We owe a lot to Ulster, to both communities, and at this particularly difficult and humiliating time for the majority Unionist people we should do everything possible to reassure them. I only hope that we can. I only hope that we can reassure them sufficiently that this agreement will not be allowed in practice to diminish and soften sovereignty, although I greatly fear that it may turn out to do so.
In conclusion, I would say that no Prime Minister, no Government, have suffered more cruelly at the hands of the IRA than the present Prime Minister and her Government. The Prime Minister has a determination to see things through unmatched by any Prime Minister since the war, and has, on more than one occasion, confounded the pessimists. It may just be that some good will come out of this agreement, but only if the moderate silent majorities in both communities in Ulster can really assert themselves and if the Irish Republic can really do something effective in combating terrorism.
I feel that the Government have set themselves an enormous task. I, for one, remain deeply uneasy and sceptical. I do not believe that even now the Government have fully realised the bitter humiliation felt by the Unionist majority in Ulster.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will wholeheartedly support the agreement. I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister and Mr. Garret FitzGerald on this achievement. I would put aside past history. I would put aside the preparation of the agreement and how it was presented. I would look straight at the agreement itself and see what it comes to. I would draw attention particularly to the administration of justice in both North and South. On that matter there should be no disagreement between one Government and another. There should be no disagreement between majority and minority parties. There should be wholehearted support for the administration of justice by the great mass of the people.
I should like to discuss how this agreement deals with that problem. At the very outset, both parties affirm their rejection, their total rejection, of any attempt to promote political objectives by violence or the threat of violence. That is the function of the criminal law. The Government of southern Ireland say that they are also going to join the convention for the suppression of terrorism. That is the objective. If we can get justice administered, we shall do a great deal to solve the problem. Now, my Lords, how is it to be done? Articles 7 and 8 point the way. The laws as to terrorism and to violence are practically the same in both North and South, founded on the old common law of England. Murder is the same in the North and the South. Manslaugher is the same in the North and in the South. Arson is the same in the North and the South. And so is riot. There are some statutory additions like explosives and so forth. Grievous bodily harm and malicious damage are virtually the same. If they are not, they ought to be. And the first step that is advocated and agreed upon in Article 7 is an attempt to harmonise the criminal law of the North and the South. That can be done in the way that I have described. You can have laws against murder and

865
against violence. They should be the same in both the North and the South. That is the first objective in Article 7. Let them be harmonised. But let them be just laws.
The next step is to see that they are justly administered in both countries. There, we have had the problem in Northern Ireland. There, we know that, following Lord Diplock's inquiry, trial by jury was replaced by trial by judge alone. Mark you, those judges in Northern Ireland have done it very well. Your Lordships will remember how the Lord Chief Justice, when presented with the evidence of a supergrass, would not hold it and acquitted the defendants accordingly. That shows true justice going by the evidence. And, when someone was extradited from the South to the North and tried again there, again he was acquitted. That shows justice fairly administered in the North by the judges in the North.
I now come to Article 8. They have a most intriguing suggestion here: that they should consider the possibility of mixed courts in both jurisdictions for the trial of certain offences. That is a most intriguing suggestion. When there have been tribal or customary differences in the past the Commonwealth is the only place where I have known mixed courts to be set up and to succeed. What do mixed courts mean? Although the noble Viscount, the Lord President, had some hesitation, and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said that the Northern people would not accept this, would it not be a good thing? I would suggest that these terrorist offences, these offences of violence, and the like, should be tried by a panel of four judges, two from the North and two from the South. It does not matter what religion they are. Those judges would decide according to the evidence and according to the law. I have known judges in both the North and the South.
The judges of both the North and the South are first class, deciding upon the evidence before them without any prejudice or preconceived ideas of one kind or the other, without any political prejudice whatever. I should have thought that four judges of the High Court sitting as a body on these terrorist offences and the like would command respect and the confidence of the people in both the North (when they were tried in the North) and in the South (when they were tried in the South).
That brings me to my next point. They say that they shall consider the policy towards extradition. At the moment, as your Lordships know, if a person commits a crime in the North, a murder or whatever it may be, he may fly across to the South and escape the instrument of justice in the North. Perhaps in law the North can follow him in hot pursuit. That may be a good thing. But often he has gone away for a day, two days or three weeks, and then how is one to deal with him? One has to get an extradition application from the people in the South saying that there is sufficient evidence to send him to the North, let him be tried in the North. Is not this suggestion of mixed courts a valuable one? When the man having committed a crime in the North, or vice-versa, flees to the South, why should he not be tried where he is arrested by a mixed court of both judges, North and South together, determining according to the evidence without prejudice one way or the other? Is not the suggestion of
866
a mixed court well worthy of consideration? I am not saying that it should be adopted. All that is said here is that they should consider the possibility of it.
Linked with this is Article 9 co-operation in security matters by the police and all those concerned with security. What an excellent agreement that is. Why should not everyone—or the majority of both countries, North and South—agree that the police officers should co-operate in repressing crime? I am speaking about crime. The criminal law should be the same in both countries. They should be arrested for those crimes and dealt with according to law and that should command the respect of all communities, minority, majority and the like. Surely if we can get justice administered to all without fear or favour, affection or ill will, in Northern Ireland and in the South, we should have done a very great deal in perhaps setting Ireland on its proper path. I do not know whether one calls it united or not—I do not mind about that. I should like to see justice administered to man and men by courts having the confidence of both countries and the police in both countries following up the criminals accordingly.
On those very important articles, Article 8 and Article 9, I would wholeheartedly support the agreement. Although this is not my province, having looked at the rest of this, I see no objection constitutionally. There is no giving away of sovereignty by the United Kingdom over Northern Ireland. There is no giving away of sovereignty or control. There is just consultation. That seems to me quite a useful thing to do in the difficult situation which has arisen for years in Northern Ireland. I therefore wholeheartedly support the agreement.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, after my long connection with Anglo-Irish relations I am tempted to reply to some of the earlier speakers, but I shall refrain in view of the time. I shall praise only two speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, with whom I happen to agree and who are also here, so that they have that double qualification. Other noble Lords have made a valuable contribution in their own fashion. I am not capable of entering into the legal aspects with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, although I have been told more than once by the eminent Chief Constable of Northern Ireland that he receives excellent co-operation now from the police authorities in the South. But I am not capable of going into that issue with him. I endorse all that he has said by way of fervent support for this agreement; and I join the noble and learned Lord and everyone else in warmhearted tributes to the Prime Minister, to Dr. Garret FitzGerald, and to all those who have been in any way involved in producing this agreement. I am of course very happy to think that my own leader in this House and my leaders elsewhere are taking the same line.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, once told me that his father had said to him, "You are paid for your opinions and not your doubts". I am not paid for either, but fortunately I have no doubts about this agreement. I have plenty of anxieties. That is natural in any great enterprise. One would expect some anxieties, and they have been well highlighted by the

867
noble Lords, Lord Moyola and Lord Blease, who speak from the closest kind of first-hand knowledge. As far as I am concerned the Government are taking the right course. I am not at all dismayed by the fact that it took them a long time to reach this conclusion. A Minister in another place—and all honour and credit to him—resigned because he said that our Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, had changed her mind. Cardinal Newman once said that to live is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often. She has not changed yet as often as some of us on these Benches would wish, but in this respect I am very glad—and the Minister must be well informed about this—that she has changed her mind. She has matured and developed. Let us give her full credit for that also.
During the past century there have been half-a-dozen attempts to reach what used to be called a settlement of the Irish question, now called a settlement of the Northern Ireland question. The attempt in 1912 brought this country to the verge of civil war. Noble Lords may be familiar with the picture in the corridor, seen from two angles, in which the House of Lords is defeating a Home Rule Bill—passed by the House of Commons—by 419 to 41. This House was a good deal smaller then than now. That was the House of Lords at its most characteristic but, looking back, perhaps at its most regrettable. That picture is clear for anyone to see in the corridor. That was one attempt, as I said, in 1912. There had been an earlier one.
If we consider the events after the war, we discover that on the whole there has been a bipartisan approach. Mr. de Valera, whose biography I helped to write, once told me that he thought that Ireland would get more justice under a Tory government than under a Labour government. I used to dispute that idea. The point was that if a Tory government reached an agreement, the Labour Party would back them up; and that applies, no doubt, to the Alliance in these days. However, if a Labour government reached an agreement it was liable to be undermined by the Tories—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: But not by the Alliance, my Lords.
The Earl of Longford: No, my Lords. Mr. de Valera could not be expected to be quite so up to date, because the Alliance was not in existence at that time. Therefore he would have to communicate from somewhere else before he could comment on it! However, that was what he said, and there is a certain truth in it. Now we have Mrs. Thatcher with the Labour Party and the Alliance backing her. I was about to say that now we have all that is best in English politics, but that is just a value judgment beyond my power to make. Anyway, we have the overwhelming support of the two Houses of Parliament for this agreement, and therefore I am very hopeful about it.
Let us consider the real problem. There are many aspects. In my eyes—and I have surveyed it and written about it so many times and for so long—the core of the problem is to establish a better understanding between Protestants and Catholics. The extraordinary relationship between Protestants and
868
Catholics is unique to Northern Ireland. Incidentally, I have been both a Protestant and a Catholic—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, unlike most of us.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there may be others in the same boat. At any rate, I am well aware that there can be misunderstandings. But if one has done, as I have done, a kind of sex change, one views the matter all very dispassionately. If it were not tragic it would be comic and ludicrous that in Northern Ireland—which one might say is now almost alone in the world—there is complete suspicion and misunderstanding between Protestants and Catholics. I am not saying that all the bigotry has been on one side. My brother was very well treated by Mr. de Valera. He was a Protestant to the day of his death, but he was made a senator in Southern Ireland. When he died the only Catholics who actually went into the church at his funeral or who were encouraged by their own church to go into the Protestant church where it was all going on, were my family and a few people like Brendan Behan on whom Catholicism sat very lightly. At any rate, there was a vast crowd at the graveyard. That took place 25 years ago. However, it has all completely changed. The Archbishop of Dublin, who buried my brother, told me within a few years after that, that he could hardly remember such a thing had happened.
A completely new attitude has come about in the Catholic Church throughout the world so far as the Catholics are concerned, and, speaking broadly, also on the Protestant side throughout the world. I remember a debate started in this House by the late Lord Arran on Christian unity. I remember that it was when Archbishop Fisher was going to Rome, and it was approved by the House. However, it was a brave act because he was much criticised at the time. That was the initiative from the Protestant side in response to Pope John's initiative in the Vatican.
So there has been this worldwide coming together of the churches which is gathering strength all the time. However, in Northern Ireland—in that one small part of the world—the old suspicions continue. Somehow or other they must be broken down. I do not have time to set out my ideas on this matter at length. However, it was proved at the time of the Sunningdale Agreement—as everybody knew who understood human life at all—that the Catholics and the Protestants in that government could get on perfectly well together. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and Lord Faulkner became great friends. The Sunningdale experiment demonstrated for all time that in Northern Ireland, as in everywhere else in the world, Catholics and Protestants can work together.
However, still the suspicions remain exacerbated by a gentleman such as Mr. Paisley. I do not know what Christians do about a man such as Mr. Paisley.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, they reject him.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, one has to be charitable towards him. I think that I have said enough about Mr. Paisley for the time being to indicate my

869
attitude. It is an unfortunate fact that a great many of our friends in Northern Ireland find that man infinitely attractive. He is infinitely repulsive in this country, and that might be so elsewhere. However, in Northern Ireland he still has a spellbinding effect. It is a fact with which we have to cope, and therefore everything must be done to produce this better understanding so that Mr. Paisley either ceases to orate or suddenly becomes an angel of light, which perhaps is not on the tapis at the moment.
The question is: how deep seated is the antagonism between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland? Your Lordships have heard me speak, perhaps too often, about a youth centre of which I am chairman. It is represented here today. Two of our most valued members are girls—a Protestant and a Catholic—from Northern Ireland. One comes from Lurgan and the other from Ballymena. When the Protestant girl was married she asked the Catholic girl to be her sole bridesmaid at the Protestant wedding. I was invited as an old fellow who was interested in the centre, and so I went. It was a Protestant wedding attended by plenty of Catholics. The girl's father was one of the largest farmers in Northern Ireland and was well known to and respected by the noble Lord, Lord Moyola. I am sure that that atmosphere prevails over large sections of life and probably the farming areas that are known so well to the noble Lord, Lord Moyola.
I do not want to suppose that the kind of hatred demonstrated by Ian Paisley represents the ordinary atmosphere of life in Northern Ireland as between Protestants and Catholics. Let us take sport as an example. Ulster is doing very well at sport. Barry McGuiggan, a Catholic married to a Protestant, is the hero of the whole island. He is featherweight champion of the world. If we had a few more Barry McGuiggans and perhaps—at the risk of being uncharitable—one less Ian Paisley, the whole problem would be solved very quickly. Northern Ireland has qualified for the final of the World Cup. Catholics have never been excluded from the Northern Ireland soccer team. If we take, for example, rugger, Ireland has won or shared the championship for three years and won the triple crown twice. I think that last year there were six players from Ulster in the Irish team. Therefore, there are so many aspects of life where all this ridiculous nonsense that we hear from the platforms simply does not exist.
The last time I spoke on these matters here I was taking up the cudgels for some Protestant Loyalists who were protesting against the supergrass system. I twice went to stay with Protestant Loyalists at that time. The noble Lord, Lord Moyola, may say that that proves that I do not really understand Northern Ireland. However, the fact is that I could not have told when I was in that house whether I was spending the night with Protestant or Catholic working-class people. I am told that if I had raised a question about what we call the H blocks here, there might have been some slight difference. However, by and large they are all one people. I am saying that all this difference fanned by history and by the exploitation of rather regrettable public demagogues is, in the end, superficial compared with many of the antagonisms which exist in the world today.
870
In conclusion, let me say that there are two ways of looking at the Protestants of Northern Ireland. You can regard them either as brave, warmhearted, sensible people or as pathological cases as a result, perhaps, of their history. I unreservedly accept the first alternative and that is why I support the agreement so strongly.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, it is always interesting to follow the noble Earl. I am not going into all the details he raised tonight, but he always has something interesting to say. I welcome the excellent speech made by the Leader of the House. He did such a wonderful job when he was the Minister. I know that because when I went to Ireland and asked him any questions he always answered them most satisfactorily.
I should also like to say something to the Leader of the Opposition, because it is nice to hear an Opposition so full of understanding and not doing anything to jeopardise the good feeling which has been started in this House. It makes a lot of difference on important occasions like this when you get a sympathetic hearing from both sides.
I was also interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, because he has obviously been through a tremendous amount in his country. I told him that I was going to mention his name, but he has put on the record (which is a good thing) all the difficult problems that he found. I hope that in the future he will see that a lot of these problems are likely to be cleared up. He did a wonderful job himself, and we congratulate him on being in this House and still keeping in touch with Northern Ireland.
I thought, too, that the most reverend Primate was most helpful. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, may be interested in this. The most reverend Primate told us that the Church of Ireland was willing to be a bridge. That is a helpful statement, and I hope it works. May I mention finally Lord Grey of Naunton. He was the last governor, and he did his best—and he was a good governor—to simplify things and make them easier. He had already been in Guyana and Barbados, and had great knowledge of being a governor. He was very disappointed when things did not go quite the way he hoped to help them to go.
I heard something on the radio which disturbs me. I have heard it again today. It was said that the Prime Minister had been pressurised by the Americans to bring in this agreement. I do not believe that she was pressurised at all by the Americans. I should like my noble friend to answer this point when he replies. I am sure that it is her idea with Dr. FitzGerald and is not the result of pressure from the Americans. We should clear that up.
I want to say about Dr. FitzGerald that he was wise to go to Northern Ireland. He has been accused of trying to gain an input into the affairs of the North; an input and responsibility which are now in sight for the first time in 800 years. He has been very courageous in the attempt to establish some sort of agreement to help the situation in the North. It was a brave act because it is probably bad for his reputation in his own country and he is risking his career. It is nice that

871
somebody—and Dr. FitzGerald is the somebody I am talking about—is prepared to follow his convictions and not just attack others while accepting nothing constructive. We also ought to agree with the various letters in The Times written by Conor Cruise O'Brien, which have also been helpful.
I speak in this debate today because many years ago I was invited by the Members of Parliament in Northern Ireland to go to stay with them so that I could see the conditions in which people lived. It was the bad time of the bombings and the fires, and so on. Sometimes we were out until one o'clock in the morning with the buildings still on fire. The courage of those people going out at night—also in the daytime, but particularly at night—was remarkable. It opened my eyes to the conditions in which they were living in the Province.
I also went there with a parliamentary delegation, and also for the Council of Europe. Private visits are one of the best ways to get to understand the country concerned. We were invited into houses, we saw how the people were living, they spoke freely to one, and that is what has given me an interest ever since. I also lived in the county of Limerick for three years and I became interested in their way of life. I got accepted.
It was rather difficult to get accepted then in the 1930s when even the British Government were having trouble. In fact the Irish Free State army lent me their horses to ride, especially in the Dublin Show, which was courageous of them, and this was at a time when even British soldiers were not allowed to go over and ride in the show.
In the future political progress will have to be made in Northern Ireland. I have taken an interest in the New Ireland Forum since 1983, when Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Irish Labour Party and at that time the SDLP met together in formal conference and it was hoped that it would be a starting point—in fact it helped—to getting these political parties together, especially in Northern Ireland and Eire. Unfortunately, despite all their efforts, there was no real outcome except their documents, which may have been a guide to what is happening at the present time.
The next point I hope will be useful is that we must get down to the young people. What is going to happen to them in the future with all these awful memories of their daily lives? If there is trouble later among the teenagers, who can blame them? They have probably not had adequate time for schooling, they have not had the normal life of teenagers, and I hope there will be an understanding of them in the future.
I can understand the fears of the Unionists about letting the Irish presence have any say in the future, but if this agreement helps to control the IRA, it will be worthwhile. In thinking about the people we must also think about all the voluntary workers who have been behind the scenes doing excellent work to keep the two tribes, as we were told they were called, together.
I hope that the Unionists will not resign their seats. I hope that they will give the agreement a fair trial, and I hope they will keep their seats until the next election in two years' time. This will give them time to reconsider the various points they have; and not only
872
that—they will also be able to put their views in their election addresses, which will be advantageous to them and to us. Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland both get on very well within the EC and the Council of Europe. I also attended as a leader Council of Europe meetings regarding these territories.
Finally as a recommendation—I do not know whether anybody will agree with it—I should like, if all fails, that they should join the Commonwealth again. I have been into the details of this and I gather that there is nothing to stop them rejoining the Commonwealth. They are a republic, but now there are many countries in the Commonwealth which are republics, including India, and this might be another choice if things do not go as well as we hope they will.
I should like to refer to the excellent support we have had in the past from Northern Irish people, and we must never forget that in the future.
I should, finally, like to say something about Article 6. I agree with the preamble, but I should also like to say that I am delighted to see that there is going to be,
"the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights;
the Fair Employment Agency;
the Equal Opportunities Commission;
the Police Authority for Northern Ireland; [and]
the Police Complaints Board".
I think that this will be advantageous in the future.
We have had a long debate. When I read the details set out in the Motion I should like again to echo something which has been said many times following Sir Winston Churchill. If we can get ahead with jaw, jaw, it is better than war, war. This is what we want to do in getting the agreement about which we have been talking today.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, one of my earliest political recollections was in 1921. My uncle, Viscount FitzAlan, was to be the last Viceroy of Ireland, I remember that in my teens I was asked to pray for him. We were all asked to pray for him for it was a dangerous job that he was taking on. Our prayers were heard for, as your Lordships know, he lived long after to give great service. Ever after I was conscious of the Northern Ireland question. In greater or lesser degree I have kept following it closely. I assumed, wrongly, that things were going rather well for the next 50 years.
Then we had the troubles of 1969.I know that there had been disturbances before, but this was when it became a critical issue. There was the report made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. That report I read again yesterday. It is or was a shocker for it showed the discrimination that had been exercised over the past 50 years against the minority Catholics. Whether it was in education, in jobs or in housing, they were second class citizens. All of us to a degree were to blame for this because we as Catholics were not aware—at least I was not aware—of all that was happening, otherwise we might have probed and asked questions earlier in the hope that things would have been made more satisfactory for the Catholics. Not surprisingly by 1969 they had had enough and the troubles began. The tribal quarrels—if that is the right

873
word, which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—came out into the open with the Protestants versus the Catholics.
I shall not go over the next 15 years. Your Lordships will not only recollect, but the history was recalled in detail today by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in the very depressing account that he gave of events. Indeed the only encouragement I found in his speech was at the very end when he was challenged. He said, "I am all for giving this agreement a chance". That was both right and courageous. Indeed everybody who has spoken so far, with perhaps different variations, has made the same judgment.
The agreement has as one of its most important features Article 5. Article 5 pledges the two governments to prevent discrimination, and one must hope that the Catholics, who are fearful of terrorism and are anxious to see this tragic situation end, will be greatly encouraged by the fact that they know that there is a watchdog on their behalf. This is also of great importance to the Unionists, because they in their Way Forward had a most interesting sentence in which they said:
"It is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs."
After 300 years persuasion has to be slow and it will be difficult, but it will be made the easier for the Unionists (if that is what they wish, and I am sure it is the wish fundamentally of many of them) by the fact that the Catholics are comforted in the knowledge that the Irish Government, if I may put it that way, are behind them.
We have seen that in Article 6 there is to be a watching brief held by the permanent staff to see that discrimination does not happen again. I am sure it is right to ask only one thing of them—that is, every year we should be told that they have been watching matters and that we shall have a report on the progress of the continuing proper treatment on both sides.
The Unionists' fear, as I understand it, is that the Irish Government or the Irish people south of the Border have a dream of a united Ireland. I do not know what is wrong with the dream, but I have a dream. I dream of a united Europe with England, Scotland and Wales all as part of it. But that will not happen in my day. It may happen in the day of my grandchildren; but what matters at this moment is the reality of today. The Unionists should recognise this and they should accept Article 1, which, in the first paragraph states that:
"The two Governments…affirm 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.".
What can be clearer than that?
The more one studies the agreement, the more I feel—I think I am echoing the thoughts of many others in this House—that the two governments and above all the two leaders have this about right. I know there are outcries on the part of the Left in Eire. There is an outcry on the part of the Right, from the extremists of the Union. But it is for us all to prove that they are wrong and that the legacy of centuries will be changed, but it must be changed slowly. They must give this a chance. From the Unionist point of view if only they will give it a chance then what they want may come
874
sooner rather than later; namely, devolution. This becomes easier with the knowledge that there is on the Catholic side the Government of Ireland keeping an eye on things and trying to help if anything goes wrong.
To me the agreement shows courage, it is wise and constructive. It shows a possible way out of the status quo. I think one and all of those against this agreement should remember that the people of this country are not prepared to stand by indefinitely with all the trouble and cost that it involves. That is something which those who oppose at this stage should remember very carefully; that our patience in the end may result in something which may be far worse for them than giving all of this a try. It seems to me that this can be the first step—and I should stress the first step—in ending the fears and hates of the Catholics and Protestants. Let us pray that it succeeds and that in years to come the bitter division of the tribes will be a thing of the past.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, at this late hour the best thing I can contribute to this debate is brevity. However, I should like to reaffirm what was said by my noble friend Lord Donaldson a long time earlier this afternoon—that for once we have the unusual pleasure of being wholeheartedly behind the Government in what they are trying to do on this occasion. The Prime Minister obviously decided—and how right she was—that it would not be right to let matters drift any longer, as drifting they had been, because there was no sign whatsoever that they were drifting towards any kind of satisfactory solution. Left to themselves, they plainly were not going to come right. It was a very courageous decision on the part of the Prime Minister to get in touch with Dublin and to be prepared to go against what she knew would be the views of many of the people who supported her in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, in this country, by taking the initiative that she did. It was perhaps equally as brave, or even braver, of Dr. FitzGerald to make the agreement which he has made.
Anybody with any knowledge at all of Irish history must surely wonder that any Prime Minister, especially one who was losing ground in the polls, would be prepared to say, in effect, that he was relegating the possibility of a united Ireland into the indefinite future, which was as near as any politician in Ireland could come to saying that that subject was no longer on his agenda. This was an enormously brave thing for him to do. We in this House should express how grateful we are to him. Without that collaboration, all the courage and determination of Mrs. Thatcher, great as it is, would not have been enough to obtain the agreement.
Yesterday afternoon I had the privilege, as no doubt did some other Members of your Lordships' House, of hearing the Irish Ambassador to London speaking in a committee room upstairs. He said of this agreement: "It is not a settlement; it is an opportunity". That seems to me to be the way in which we should be viewing it. It is not a settlement—and he should say this to the Unionists—it is an opportunity. It is for the Government to say what degree of flexibility or possibility of change there should be. However, it is written into the agreement that it is for three years. I

875
imagine that none of what is down here is absolutely irrevocable and unchangeable. If sensible arguments or proposals are put forward, no doubt there can be adjustments. This is for the Government to say. In any case, it is for a period of three years. It is not a binding treaty. It is not something which continues indefinitely. It is a start.
It is an extremely modest start. It would be difficult to. imagine anything which could be described as an agreement which would in fact do less. The only difference between this and any other alternative is the difference between standing still and taking one small step. What matters is that it is one small step in the right direction. It is not a settlement, then, but an opportunity.
However—and this has come over to me very much this afternoon as I have listened to the debate—it is an opportunity that it is by no means certain will be grasped. It can be defeated or it can be rejected for one of two reasons. This afternoon we have heard a very great deal of one of those reasons. That is that extremists on both sides will decide to wreck it, that they will read into the agreement words which are not there, and that they will not read the words that are there because they are determined that it will operate against their interests and they are voting for no change.
Of course we have heard this afternoon only the arguments of the Unionists' intransigence. Of course one understands their position. One knows that with the majority that have been in power it is very difficult to give up the kind of dominance that they have had. If they refuse to read the lines and only imagine what lies between the lines, they see always the threat that they will be drawn as a minority into a country in which the Catholics would then become the majority. That is because they do not read what is in the print; they put in their own imaginative interpretation of what the future holds.
Then, as one or two speakers have mentioned, there are the extremists on the other side, the extremists who do not want reconciliation. These should be the enemies of all of us. This is where we should be asking for collaboration on all sides in Ireland, against the extremists to whom the ultimate enemy is reconciliation.
Once there is peace in Northern Ireland there is no job for the terrorists to do and, perhaps I may add, there is no money, either, for the protectionist rackets which sustain what is going on in Northern Ireland and which represent a very strong, if relatively silent, opposition to the agreement.
That is one reason to doubt whether this opportunity will be grasped. The other reason to doubt it is this. Although at the moment the feeling among the Catholics is far more favourable to the agreement than the feeling among the Protestants, as the months go on the argument may grow, the murmers may be heard, louder and louder, that the agreement is so much window dressing, that it is not producing real results. Those real results have to be results that appeal and mean something to the ordinary Irish Catholic voters, the people who have suffered discrimination over decades. It also means seeing results in terms of
876
human rights; less grandly, results in terms of better opportunities to obtain decent housing, and better opportunities to obtain the jobs which in the past have been given out on a discriminatory basis. Unless, in a few months' time, there is some concrete evidence that the agreement is really making matters different for the Catholic minority, the opportunity will again be lost because they will turn against it, as the Unionists at the moment seem to be turning against it.
Thus the ambassador is surely right; it is not a settlement, but an opportunity. However, it is an opportunity that we must not assume will necessarily bear fruit. As I have said, there are two directions from which it is challenged, from which it may be ruined.
Let me say also that we have talked about the doubts that come from the Unionists, the doubts that may develop over the months if there are not results from the Catholic minority; but how about the great British public? I do not think I am a very nationalistic person, but I think the mainland British have been pretty patient over all this. We have poured in our troops and we have poured in our money. We have had nothing but abuse from, for example, North America. On the whole, we have put up with it very quietly. I believe that if there was a referendum in this country about the future of Northern Ireland, there would be a result which would horrify Unionists and Catholics alike. I doubt how long the British public on the mainland can be expected to put up with it, if initiative after initiative—and, after all, we have tried before—is turned down because one side or another chooses to see the disadvantages and refuses to look for the strengths and the opportunities.
Thus the problem becomes one of how to see that this opportunity is seized. Much that we have heard this afternoon has not been particularly encouraging. I think most of us started this afternoon in a far more optimistic mood than we shall be in as this debate draws to a close. However, can we not ask ourselves what are the things that we can do, as it were, over the heads, or behind the backs of, the politicians? It is my profound belief (not based on a great deal of knowledge of the Northern Ireland situation, I must confess, but on certain signs and incidents that one encounters) that there is and surely must be among the great mass of ordinary people on both sides in Northern Ireland a desire for a quiet life, a settlement and an opportunity to bring up their families in decent security.
We in this House between us have a great many contacts with a great many organisations with which we are in touch which are linked up with organisations in Northern Ireland. Surely there are ways in which we can get through to the oridinary Irish men and women in Belfast in the Churches, in the chapels, in that wide range of voluntary organisations with which a good many of us have been connected in some way or another, who for years have been doing yeoman work in trying to hold the fabric of Irish society together in Belfast. Can we not through these contacts and through the help which is always given by the Irish Office renew our efforts to encourage ordinary people in Ireland to understand that this agreement is in their interests; that it is just a tiny building block of the foundation, but that it is a start?

877
One of the great encouragements I experienced on one of my all too rare visits to Belfast was on a visit to a trade union group in Northern Ireland. When I had talked for an hour or two discussing matters of employment—and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will remember this incident, I think—I asked the chairman, "Am I talking to Catholics or am I talking to Protestants?" He pointed round the room and said, "Catholic, Protestant, Protestant, Catholic…."— and they had been talking as one group with one interest, to get employment and jobs and a decent living for their own membership. May I pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and to other trade unionists in Northern Ireland? If anyone wants evidence of what trade unionism at its best can do, they can see it in what the trade unionists of Northern Ireland have done over the last decade.
So there is hope there if we can get through. The danger is that the powerful political forces, probably in reality not representing more than themselves and their immediate followers, will whip things up, as we saw them whipped up on television. But there is hope if we can get through to the ordinary people of Belfast and say, "This at last is a chance. It is not inflexible; it is not immutable; but it gives us a beginning". Do not imagine that we have to say to them, "If you fail to build on this beginning you can just go back to things as they were". My Lords, this can never be done. If we do not go forward, we will fall into the abyss.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is, but it has always been, an uphill struggle to achieve political consensus in or about Ireland, in or about Northern Ireland. For centuries this has been an elusive goal. I think we will all agree that to seek to make political progress in the Province is a goal which is worth struggling for. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn has handsomely acknowledged the courage of the Government and of Dr. FitzGerald in working towards a practical arrangement which could be beneficial to both communities in the Province.
I would also pay tribute to the skill of the civil servants of both countries who have worked patiently and constructively over the past 15 months. The fact that this agreement has been achieved between the two Governments is in itself a very high achievement indeed. Of course, it has been predictably and swiftly criticised. It has been criticised in two main directions: either as being too limited in its scope or, conversely, as being excessive. Regrettably, it has been denounced by others who are in a position possibly to ruin the basis of the agreement by denouncing it either as a sell-out or as a betrayal.
Sometimes the opposition in the Province has been expressed in extreme language; but we must acknowledge that that reveals deep-seated anxieties and fears and possibly a little bit of self-interest. A sceptical attitude has been expressed about its consequences. But I believe that the agreement, and in particular the proposed intergovernmental conference and its secretariat, are important concessions and should be seen to be important concessions by the Catholic minority community. This initiative should go a long way to satisfy the Catholic minority community that
878
the Government are genuinely seeking to move away from the status quo towards reconciliation.
We believe that it is far-fetched to regard this initiative (which we believe to be in the right direction) to be an inevitable prelude to dismembership of the Province from the United Kingdom. It has been pointed out time after time since three o'clock this afternoon that sovereignty has not been surrendered by this agreement. It has not even been shared. It remains untouched. This is clearly confirmed by Article 2 of the agreement, and that interpretation has been endorsed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The Government's view, as the noble Viscount demonstrated earlier this afternoon, is that the Province needs a rational and immediately practical development from the existing unsatisfactory arrangements for regulating its affairs and for regulating the relationship between the two communities.
The Government believe—and many Members of your Lordships' House believe—that the agreement will appeal to men and women in Northern Ireland who wish to see peaceful co-existence of the two communities on equal terms. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out that there is a great deal of positive activity among the communities, and we can build on that basis. The history of the last 15 or 16 years has shown that the arrangements for the governing of the two communities are totally unsatisfactory. How can one justify the killing of about 150 innocent people a year and the maiming of about 1,500 innocent lives a year? Those who resist the agreement must answer the question whether or not we are to conclude from their reaction that the continual suffering of the last 16 years is inevitable and unending. Those who oppose the agreement should at least come up with an alternative constitutional solution which is likely to be acceptable by the communities and which is likely to be supported by the two Governments. By what other peaceful means do they seek to resolve this bloodstained stalemate?
The new intergovernmental conference and its secretariat will be advisory, consultative, and not decision-making. It has not been given an executive role. Dublin's role will be no more than consultative. Indeed, the Prime Minister of the Republic has already been criticised across the waters for accepting responsibility without power. But we can expect that the conference will reflect on the views and the wishes of the current minority community, which makes up about 40 per cent. of the Province, and consider how their reasonable grievances can be met, while at the same time safeguarding the reasonable interests of the million majority in the Province who also have rights which cannot be ignored.
To achieve this objective will obviously be a tricky exercise, but the hope must be that the conference will provide an effective, built-in mechanism of balance between the two communities, and that this in turn will eventually—not in the short-term—lead to a greater enlightenment and to reconciliation. And reconciliation is a major theme to which the agreement returns on a number of occasions. So building on the experience of the intergovernmental council set up a few years ago, the governments are

879
anxious for early progress with early implementation of the agreement.
On my count, there are at least 30 items mentioned in the agreement which the conference can be expected to tackle or to consider. More often than not, the word that is used in the agreement is "consider". No doubt some of these issues are more central than others, but they cover a considerable range of activities. We would not wish at this early stage to go into the detailed items proposed for the conference agenda, but we welcome the fact that the conference agenda goes very wide indeed. There is hardly a subject, apart from sovereignty and defence, which would be outside its terms of reference and we think that that is a very good feature of the agenda.
Many noble Lords have asked: will the conference help? Is it likely to bring about a lasting peace to the Province? We think that it should be said, frankly, that we do not know whether it will succeed and that gives us an indication of the magnitude of the problem. Time alone will reveal whether it is successful. We accept that a majority in the Province have their doubts; but, as I have said, there are also men and women in both communities who support the Government's approach because they believe that it could achieve lasting peace. I am sure that the Government will derive comfort from the message earlier in the afternoon that the British Council of Churches supports the agreement, and we hope that its voice will be heard loud and clear throughout the Province.
My noble friend Lord Fitt, who obviously has great experience of the problems, was pessimistic but nevertheless he was not obstructive. At the end of the day he gave the agreement a fair wind. I have often listened to my noble friend Lord Fitt, who has played a notable role in seeking to implement the Sunningdale agreement, but I have the impression that he has grown weary and rather disillusioned. I suggest that his pessimism may be based on his judgment that neither community can at times avoid role-playing.
My noble friend Lord Blease, although fully aware of the gloom around him in Belfast, was more hopeful in his approach. My noble friend, a trade unionist who is very close to the men and women in Belfast—he moves around them, lives among them—is fully aware that it is their voice which will eventually win the day. So I am sure that the Government will derive comfort from his courageous speech.
He made the point—and it is a fair one—that there is widespread criticism of the lack of consultation with the leaders of the Protestant community, although the leader of the SDLP was apparently well briefed by the Irish Government throughout. That criticism has been made in the course of a number of speeches this afternoon and we have sympathy for it. Yet as my noble friend asked the House: would this agreement ever have seen the light of day had there been consultation throughout? But looking to the future, we hope that the Government will pay close attention to the need for wider consultation.
I hope that they will also give careful consideration to the measures suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, which could reduce the temperature. Is there
880
a possibility that in the future a representative of the communities could have observer status within the conference? I know not. But we hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the measures which were suggested.
A power-sharing assembly could go a long way towards achieving the improved accountability of the conference to elected representatives of the Province. We on these Benches attach a high priority to the general development of shared administration. Indeed, the point has often been made this afternoon that the setting up of the conference can itself be a positive incentive to work towards increased devolution of power. Notwithstanding the pessimism that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, we trust that the SDLP will make a strenuous effort to make devolution work. We are particularly grateful that the Government have already announced that they will go ahead with elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly next October.
I come to my concluding remarks. We accept that there is a widespread degree of scepticism as to whether or not the agreement will bring about the desired reconciliation, but if I judge the mood of the House correctly the overwhelming majority of your Lordships want to give the agreement an opportunity to see what can be accomplished in the next few years. They want the conference to be given an opportunity to search for—it is a question of searching—an acceptable agreement on a number of key issues that will bridge or help to bridge the differences between the two communities and to search for a way forward which will improve life for everybody in the Province. The agreement, wisely implemented, could bring benefits far outweighing the strains, the difficulties, the resignations and the by-elections of the next few weeks or the next few months.
Of course it will not be an easy task; but because it offers the prospect of a breakthrough we give the agreement our blessing and we hope that the Government will honour its provisions. However, in a notable speech the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that it is not merely a matter of government alone. We cannot shift our responsibility to the Government. The governments have a vital role to play, but we must also bring together all the affirmatives within the Province and in our own country to ensure that the agreement becomes a reality.
9.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon and this evening and everybody in your Lordships' House will have listened carefully to all the arguments. For my part, I am very reassured by the support and above all by the welcome, albeit in some areas a broad welcome, that your Lordships' House has extended to our initiative. As my noble friend Lord Whitelaw explained to us when opening the debate this afternoon, this initiative is not the solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. But it nevertheless offers hope—if the opportunity which was so eloquently described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is seized—of making

881
progress towards lasting peace, stability and above all reconciliation within Northern Ireland. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is what we, everybody in another place, the huge population of the United Kingdom and indeed of the whole of Ireland, want.
I have also heard some of the fears that have been expressed about the agreement; and the same fears have been expressed elsewhere in more apocalyptic terms. The language sometimes heard may not always be the language of debates in your Lordships' House; the gestures may strike observers on this side of the Irish Sea as at times even histrionic. But such language and such gestures give expression to real anxieties which we shall fail to take seriously only at our peril.
But those anxieties can, I believe, be dispelled by the document that is before us this evening. I ask all noble Lords to read it once again carefully in the light of the debate. Northern Ireland is not about to become a part of the Republic as a result of this agreement; indeed, the Government of the Irish Republic have recognised the principle of consent and that the present wish of the majority is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland. Article 1 of the agreement should be grounds for Unionist reassurance, not for Unionist fear.
I am sure your Lordships will not have failed to notice that some opponents of the agreement in the Republic as well as in another place have gone so far as to criticise the agreement as entrenching the Union. The agreement does not do, as some have falsely claimed, the dreadful thing of giving the Republic a veto in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Article 2 of the agreement is quite specific. Paragraph (b) states:
"There is no derogation from the sovereignty of either the United Kingdom Government or the Irish Government, and each retains responsibility for the decisions and administration of government within its own jurisdiction".
It has been argued that if the United Kingdom listens to the Irish Republic, surely their influence will destroy Northern Ireland; it will undermine the security of the province and trample on the rights and traditions of the majority of its people. I hasten to stress that nothing could be further from the truth. By putting our contacts with the Republic onto a more systematic basis and by developing a closer and more supportive relationship with our southern neighbour, it is our sincere belief that benefits will accrue to all the people of Norhern Ireland—Unionist as well as Nationalist.
I remind your Lordships of what those benefits could be. First, we shall be able to develop more effective co-operation with the Republic in future in our common battle against terrorism. We already welcome the decision of the Irish Government to accede to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Secondly, we hope that by enabling the Irish Government to put forward views and proposals on matters of especial concern to the minority, the minority community will in turn develop greater confidence in the public institutions of Northern Ireland and more increasingly accept that those institutions belong to them as well, work for them, protect them, and, above all, share in them.
Such an outcome, if the opportunity is taken, can only be of great value to everyone in the Province. It is for all those reasons that the Government are determined, whatever obstacles are placed in our path,
882
to ensure that the agreement is implemented in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
I should not want your Lordships to infer that in entering into the agreement the Government intend in any way to disregard the views of Unionists. Our policy is based, and will continue to be based, on respect for the identities and, above all, the traditions of both communities in Northern Ireland. We shall continue to listen most carefully to the views expressed by representatives of that community both within your Lordships' House and in another place; to views expressed in the Northern Ireland Assembly; and to views expressed in district councils.
My own door and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is always open to those leaders of the Unionist community who have views to express. It is also the case that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister herself has in no way refused to see the leaders of the majority community on matters of major concern to them. By such means the Government will continue to have a clear view of Unionist sentiments. I hope that Unionists will continue to use those channels so that the Government can discharge their responsibilities in the full and certain knowledge of their views.
I remind your Lordships that we are giving serious consideration to arrangements for keeping the community informed about the discussions at the intergovernmental conference and I hope that we shall soon be able to make some practical suggestions.
I shall now try to answer some of the numerous points raised during the debate this evening. The speech following that made by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw was, I am sure your Lordships will agree, a notable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I was personally very grateful for everything he said and for his support for everything we are trying to do through the agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the frequency of the intergovernmental conference and how often it would meet at ministerial and official level. As the noble Lord will see, the agreement points out that there should be regular and frequent meetings. I am unable to say how often those meetings will take place in practice. As the House will appreciate, much will depend on how often the business of the conference requires it to meet. I cannot say precisely how often there will need to be meetings at official level.
The noble Lord asked also about the heads of government meeting. Both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach agreed to meet again at an appropriate time. Given the commitment of both my right honourable friend and the Taoiseach, that is a very valid undertaking. The noble Lord stressed that cross-border terrorism must be tackled vigorously. Indeed, that sentiment is very much expressed in the spirit of the agreement. Both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have agreed to implement the agreement with determination and imagination. I can stress to your Lordships that the first meeting of the conference will be addressing the subject of cross-border security co-operation.

883
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked about legal matters. As your Lordships will see, the communique and indeed the agreement make it quite clear that we intend to carry out a certain course of action. My noble friend repeated this and, above all, repeated our views on mixed courts. The secretariat will be set up shortly but not until your Lordships' House and another place have approved the agreement.
We have already given our reaction to the Baker Report at an earlier stage. We have also undertaken to introduce legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament. I hope that information will be of some use to the noble Lord. He also asked about three other items—strip searching, flags and emblems legislation, and a Bill of Rights. I can only inform the noble Lord, and your Lordships, that a number of matters will be considered by the conference, but I could not say at what stage those matters will be considered, in what order, or indeed whether they will be considered. Nor can I say what the conclusions of the conference will be or what policies the Government might adopt in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked—as did, I think, my noble friend Lady Vickers—about United States financial aid. I am given to understand that the President of the United States said that he will be working closely with Congress in a bipartisan effort to find tangible ways for the United States to lend practical support to this important agreement. We welcome that, but I stress that nothing has been approved or agreed and we have received no formal offers. Therefore, I would not want to speculate on what these arrangements might be.
We are grateful for the solid support and very kind comments from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. As far as I recall, he asked about the parliamentary tier which is mentioned. This will be a matter for the two Parliaments to decide. However, the two Governments will support it if the two Parliaments agree to it. We shall have to see what support is expressed by your Lordships and in another place for that particular concept. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, also asked where the conference might or might not sit and whether it might take its deliberations to London, or to Dublin, as well as Belfast. Your Lordships will see that there is nothing in the agreement to preclude the conference from meeting outside Belfast, but I understand the intention is that it should normally meet there.
The suggestion was made by the noble Lord and, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that the conference agenda and conclusions should be published. I note that suggestion, certainly made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson; but we have made clear what the first meeting of the conference will discuss and I would not want to go any further than that tonight. I hope the noble Lord will accept that in the spirit of his noble ally, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that this is a first step and an opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a very powerful speech. We are grateful for his support in some areas and for his strong comments. However, I stress to him and to your Lordships that we believe there will be effective government of Northern Ireland carried out
884
by Her Majesty's Government. I suggest that the noble Lord and your Lordships read Article 2(b)—and I make no apology for reiterating this—which states:
"There is no derogation from the sovereignty of either the United Kingdom Government or the Irish Government, and each retains responsibility for the decisions and administration of government within its own jurisdiction".
Several noble Lords suggested that the meetings of the intergovernmental conference should be open and, above all, that the Unionists should have a role. As far as I recall, these were points suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Fitt, by my noble friend Lord Moyola and by the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath and Lord Monson. As regards the agenda and the conclusions, of course we understand that the publication of these two items might be desirable. As I have pointed out to all these noble Lords, the Unionists already have many means of expressing their views, both through the assembly and through its scrutinising committees in their areas of competence, which cover a fairly wide span in Northern Ireland.
We have also made known through the communique what is likely to be discussed at the first meeting, but I stress that the same communique made it quite clear that we do not normally expect the agenda to be published. Of course, we recognise the concern that the conference should not proceed in conditions of secrecy, and we are looking at ways in which information about its deliberations might be given out. So with that sprat I hope your Lordships might be suitably tempted this evening.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who raised one other point about the two documents which were signed at Hillsborough. I am able to tell your Lordships that the agreement follows the form of Anglo-Irish agreements since 1946, and it is the substance of the agreement which is far more important: no change in status without the consent of a majority.
We were very grateful for the forthright support of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. We are thankful that he let us know about the statement of the Council of Churches and, indeed, for his welcome of the agreement. I hope that the most reverend Primate and your Lordships will accept that the agreement, at least as we see it, does not last merely for three years. It must be reviewed after three years or, indeed, earlier if requested by either Government. I hope the noble Baroness will also accept this. But it may be of some clarification to the most reverend Primate.
We were very grateful for the forthright comments and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease. Indeed, we agree that the aims of the agreement, which we see as being peace and stability, are absolutely essential to be achieved if there is to be investment in the Province and, above all, an improvement in the economy.
My noble friend Lord Moyola was concerned about security co-operation being intensified, and particularly that the chiefs of the respective police forces north and south of the Border should meet. I am given to understand that both Sir Jack Hermon and the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Wren, are expected to be in early contact. I hope that my noble friend will also accept that the agreement makes it clear that

885
consultation between the two will be necessary—and that last word is of particular relevance, I think.
Perhaps I may also say to my noble friend, and to those of your Lordships who are interested in these particular points, that security co-operation will be discussed at the first meeting of the conference. Both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach are committed to implementing the agreement, as they said, with both determination and imagination. Indeed, the Taoiseach spoke in the Dail of confronting terrorism by joint action of the most effective kind. I hope that will give your Lordships and my noble friend some thoughts on the attitude and commitment of both Governments to cross-border security co-operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, was particularly worried about Unionist distrust and, above all, about the lack of consultation. We had to keep confidential the details of all these negotiations, which were fairly lengthy. I believe it is the opinion of your Lordships that without this confidentiality they almost certainly would not have had the success that they have had so far and which we believe they will have in the future.
We are immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his kindness in looking to the future. We enjoyed hearing the history of his family. I think he said that his ancestor had been involved in the closing of the gates. It was a point that had escaped me until I heard various songs sung in Northern Ireland to the effect that the apprentices slammed the gates and of course they spoke Irish, which is something of a difficulty apparently for those who proclaim their loyalty to the Crown. We are grateful to the noble Lord for looking back into history in an amusing way and, above all, looking forward to what we hope the agreement will achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked me several searching questions. He asked about the location of the secretariat. I stressed earlier that there was nothing to say that it should be situated in a particular place. But we have our plans and all will be revealed once your Lordships' House and another place have given approval to the agreement.
The noble Lord also asked why the agreement was not reciprocal. I hope that parts of it clearly are, particularly Article 1, which gives the same commitment by both governments on the status of Northern Ireland, and Article 9, which concerns cross-border co-operation. But a wholly reciprocal agreement was not required by the situation of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord asked in addition quite what I or anybody else made of the broadcast by the Taoiseach. He of all people should know that no government spokesman would interpret words spoken in a broadcast or elsewhere by a head of government. I commend him for his efforts to draw me.
We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for her optimistic, cheerful and spirited speech. I particularly relished her comparison with the years 1956 and 1962, since the same thoughts went through my mind 10 and 15 years ago when I began my first amateur study of the position of Northern Ireland. But I think that your Lordships would not wish me to pursue that this evening.
886
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked about the operations of the RUC with other sectors of the security forces. I hope that he will allow me to write to him. As for his thoughts on hot pursuit, that is a matter for the conference to consider. He also asked me about the Catherwood proposals and devolution in general. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be exploring with the constitutional parties how to make progress on those proposals and, indeed, on devolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was concerned with human rights and community affairs, as we would expect from him. He was also concerned with Unionist fears. He advocated a period of consultation for the agreement. I am afraid that I cannot go along that road with him. I am sure that he and all your Lordships will accept that the agreement is for Parliament to decide.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us encouragement that the Government will at least consider a slight delay in full implementation of the agreement so that we may have a thorough and effective period of consultation?
Lord Lyell: I should love to, my Lords, but if the noble Lord has been present throughout the debate, I am sure he will have captured the will of your Lordships' House that we should at least take this opportunity to do our part to try to implement the agreement. I hope he will accept that the Government really are of this mind.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made, to my mind, a sparkling speech. I was personally very grateful for his support and for his clear thoughts on legal matters. These will be considered by the conference, and I am sure by other noble and learned Lords in your Lordships' House. We shall all read his remarks with great interest in the Official Report. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his kind words and support.
My noble friend Lady Vickers asked particularly whether United States pressure was responsible for the agreement. Perhaps if I say "pressure" that is a little strong. "Influence" might be better. The answer I give unequivocally is, "No." We concluded the agreement—at least my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach concluded it—on its own merits. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his support and for a very carefully thought out speech which brought out several factors of great relevance still today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, began the process of concluding the debate in admirable style. I was very grateful for her remarks. I certainly agree with her and with the Ambassador of the Irish Republic that the agreement is in no way a settlement but far more an opportunity. The noble Baroness went some way to suggest that results must flow from the agreement. I would refer the noble Baroness and your Lordships to the commitment of both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in the communique to implement and sustain the measures set out in the agreement with determination and imagination. Above all, they went on to state that they would encourage the people of both the Unionist and

887
the Nationalist traditions in Ireland to make new efforts to understand and respect each other's concerns with a view to promoting understanding. I stress that the Government will do their very best to fulfil our commitments.
I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Above all, we will do our best to see that the agreement will appeal to his silent majority, as he put it, in Northern Ireland. We were very grateful for his thoughts that the conference is intended to lead to—and above all to foster—reconciliation. He noted that there was great support from the British Council of Churches. We were very grateful for the forthright support that came from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and from all his colleagues.
As your Lordships have already heard, and far more eloquently than from me, the agreement that we are discussing is the first step. It is an opportunity to make very real progress in Northern Ireland and in the history which goes back hundreds of years. It was superbly put by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he said that we must look to the future. In that spirit I commend this agreement to your Lordships tonight.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.

  BRITISH CONSULATE IN MIAMI: REOPENING
  BRITISH CONSULATE IN MIAMI: REOPENING
  NCC: GRANTS FOR PURCHASE OF SSSIs
  NCC: GRANTS FOR PURCHASE OF SSSIs
  CONSERVATION: DESIGNATION OF SCOTTISH SITES
  CONSERVATION: DESIGNATION OF SCOTTISH SITES
  HAMPSTEAD HEATH: FUTURE MANAGEMENT
  HAMPSTEAD HEATH: FUTURE MANAGEMENT
  REDUNDANT CHURCHES FUND AND LONDON AREA
  REDUNDANT CHURCHES FUND AND LONDON AREA
  DRUG ADDICTION: STATISTICS AND TREATMENT
  DRUG ADDICTION: STATISTICS AND TREATMENT
  DRUGS: ESTIMATED STREET TURNOVER
  DRUGS: ESTIMATED STREET TURNOVER
  FISHING VESSELS AND BRITISH REGISTRATION
  FISHING VESSELS AND BRITISH REGISTRATION
  INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENDITURE: SOUTH EAST REGION
  INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENDITURE: SOUTH EAST REGION
  MOTORWAY LIGHTING
  MOTORWAY LIGHTING