House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Jun 1992

Mr. Trimble : I am sure that it was merely a slip of the tongue by the hon. Gentleman, but I must correct him. Cowan-Heron hospital is in Dromore in his constituency, which underlines the difficulties. While there is still currently a hospital in Banbridge in my constituency, which is adjacent to his, there are ominous signs that it may face severe cuts or even be closed in the near future. That would aggravate his constituents' problems.

Mr. McGrady : On this occasion, I can thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and support, and I take note of what he says about the two hospitals at Banbridge and Dromore. However, the concept is the same--a pattern of closure.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the imposition of the English health and social security regime by way of Order in Council. Implanting that system in Northern Ireland, and translating the education order-- without a letter of it being changed--into an entirely different system-- will reduce the effectiveness of the education system in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister ponder whether such activities are the result of financial constraints or a dogmatic translation of party philosophy? If those developments are the result of financial restrictions, we know where the answer might lie. If they are the result of party dogma, the policies must be adapted so that they suit the requirements of Northern Ireland.

I hope that the process on which we are now engaged will bring us together to address those issues. At either departmental or ministerial level, the policies seem to diminish the quality of life and the opportunities available

Column 1076

to the people of Northern Ireland. If that is what direct rule means for the future, the people of Northern Ireland are in for a lean time.

5.48 pm

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I am happy to say that, since the point when the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to point out how few Members were present, there has been a slight increase in numbers in the Chamber. I could not help thinking at the time, however, that, although the Secretary of State had announced that he was using this speech to give an account of the way in which direct rule had operated over the past year, the absence of interest in the Chamber stemmed from the fact that he was not giving a proper account of direct rule. This is not a true exercise in accountability ; it is merely a ritual which offers pretence accountability.

If there were true accountability, that would be shown at the Northern Ireland Office in the same way as it is shown at other Departments : the proper Committee system of the House would be used to subject the Northern Ireland Office to scrutiny. That does not happen. To pretend that a short speech delivered to empty green Benches is an exercise in accountability is to insult the intelligence.

A few months ago we marked the 20th anniversary of direct rule. It was introduced in 1972 in an Act whose title included the words "Temporary Provisions." I refer to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. Those temporary provisions have lasted 20 years.

When the then Administration decided in 1972 to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament and to take direct control of affairs there, they did not need to put in place arrangements for direct rule. It was necessary only to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Parliament came into operation in 1921. Before then the affairs of Northern Ireland were treated in this House in exactly the same way as those of any other part of the United Kingdom--and so they had been ever since this Parliament was created. Since the creation of this Parliament in 1801 right through to 1921, the United Kingdom operated, generally speaking, as one political unit and the affairs of its constituent parts were handled in the same way. Legislation meant proper legislation--the introduction of a Bill, First Reading, Second Reading, Committee and so on. That was what primary legislation meant, and matters were handled thus with no problems or difficulties between 1801 and 1921.

Between 1921 and 1972, Northern Ireland was granted devolution. The Conservative Administration wanted to terminate this form of devolution, however, and to achieve that they needed only to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament and the status quo ante would be restored--legislation would be passed in the usual way, Ministers would be appointed in the usual way and there would be, one hoped, the usual accountability.

In 1972, the then Administration, followed by every successive one, took a deliberate decision to disapply normality so as to ensure that normal procedures were not followed. They did so by instituting for the first time in 1972 and thereafter renewing every year since the system that we call direct rule.

Column 1077

The Secretary of State referred to this as an inherent indignity, which is putting it mildly. The indignity is inherent in direct rule, not in the circumstances that obtained in Northern Ireland before 1972. The indignity was created for the first time in 1972 as a deliberate act of the then Government and it has been repeated by every Government since--subjecting the people of Northern Ireland to a continuing indignity. So the apologies of the Secretary of State carry no weight with anyone familiar with the situation.

What is happening is misrepresented elsewhere, too. Like other Members, I cannot comment directly on the discussions taking place elsewhere, but I want to say one thing about those talks. I refer to an editorial in The Times on Monday this week. It was a curious piece, replete with inaccuracies :

"Fifteen years of direct rule are widely regarded in Northern Ireland as having been, on balance, a good thing."

There are two obvious errors in that statement. There have been 20, not 15, such years, and direct rule is not widely regarded as a good thing. One wonders what the editorial's source of information was. The editorial goes on to say :

"direct rule has left intransigence more entrenched, local politics swamped by gang war Direct rule has driven communal leadership away from politics, leaving extremists to rule the petty baronies granted them by direct rule. Public money has been spent as nowhere else in the United Kingdom".

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates) : That is true

Mr. Trimble : I take it that the Minister is referring to public money having been spent in Northern Ireland as nowhere else in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Mates indicated assent.

Mr. Trimble : The obvious rejoinder is to ask whether the money has been wisely spent, and the evidence from the Public Accounts Committee yesterday shows that it has not been.

Mr. Mallon : The hon. Gentleman has referred to the confidentiality of the discussions to which I and all the other Members are adhering. What would he think of anyone involved in confidential discussions who, during those discussions, met leaders of paramilitary organisations to keep them informed of what was happening at the talks?

Mr. Trimble : I would not approve of that. I confess that I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's question. I am not aware of any such contacts with paramilitary leaders, but if the hon. Gentleman is, I should be grateful if he would tell me what they are. I am happy to give way to him for that purpose.

Mr. Mallon : Ask the Secretary of State.

Mr. Trimble : I notice Ministers shaking their heads. I know that it is a lot to ask, but perhaps when the Minister replies he will give us some elucidation-- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have pointed out before that we must not have muttered seated interventions. They make for confusion.

Mr. Trimble : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Column 1078

Mr. William Ross : The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has certainly caused a great deal of confusion in our minds. It seems that he is perfectly sure who has been meeting paramilitary organisations. He is free in this House to make the names public ; he cannot be sued outside even if he makes an inaccurate statement. Giving the names would allow those whom he is accusing by innuendo a chance to reply.

Mr. Trimble : I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman's comments have understandably caused a great deal of muttered bemusement. He has hinted at improper conduct by members of my party--I am sure, wrongly. Later he suggested that the matter was connected with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Mallon : I did not.

Mr. John D. Taylor : A serious smear has been cast on the Floor of the House to the effect that one of the members of one of the delegations to the inter-party talks at Stormont has been confiding details of the talks to a paramilitary organisation. The only Member of this House to have had contacts before with paramilitary organisations is the leader of the party of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)--the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who met Sinn Fein before the inter-party talks commenced. It is an even more serious matter if someone participating in the talks is passing secrets to paramilitary organisations.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that the Secretary of State knows which member of which delegation is revealing the secrets to the paramilitaries. Will the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate to reveal the name that the Secretary of State apparently has?

Mr. Trimble : I thank my right hon. Friend. I have already said that I should like whoever replies to the debate to touch on that matter. I have also given the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) opportunities to substantiate the hints that he has dropped. I was prepared to give way to him on that point earlier, and I am prepared to give way to him now.

Rev. William McCrea : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is easy for someone to come to the House and question the integrity of a number of other hon. Members or persons connected with the talks? If such a Member does not name the person or withdraw the allegation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that puts a question mark in the minds of a number of other hon. Members about the integrity of the person concerned? As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has brought the Secretary of State into the matter, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the Ministers on the Front Bench should draw the matter to the Secretary of State's attention so that he can return to the House and make a statement? A serious question mark has been placed over the integrity of a number of hon. Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) continues, I make the point once again that interventions, however strongly felt, should be brief.

Mr. Trimble : I am sure that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will

Column 1079

take your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, to heart. But their interventions were justified, if only to underline the seriousness of what has just happened and the reluctance of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to speak further on the subject.

When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh intervened, I was quoting from an editorial in The Times, which said :

"Direct rule has driven communal leadership away from politics, leaving extremists to rule the petty baronies granted them by direct rule".

That is a curious sentence. There are petty baronies that operate with indirect rule and there are people who rule over petty baronies. The implication of the editorial and the way in which it is expressed is that they are extremists. They are not defined, but the earlier sentence referring to gang war might lead one to think that they were members of paramilitary organisations or other bodies. Some areas are effectively dominated by terrorist organisations, but I suppose that Ministers would say that it is not their policy to encourage those organisations.

Rev. Martin Smyth : Is it possible that, despite that juxtaposition, "petty baronies" might be a reference to the elaborate growth of quangos which are unaccountable to the House or anybody else?

Mr. Trimble : Precisely. My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I was about to make. The petty baronies that are flourishing under direct rule--they exist under direct rule and are nourished by it--to which the large sums of public expenditure to which we have referred are granted are unaccountable bodies, quangos, creatures of the Northern Ireland Office, operating in an unacceptable manner and free from any proper accountability within the House or to the House. It is towards them that criticism should be directed.

I shall not refer further to the comments in the editorial on the inter- party talks because, as we said earlier, those matters should be regarded as confidential, but I could not help but notice that, in The Times on the same day, Monday 15 June, its Northern Ireland correspondent, three times-- once on the front page and twice on an inside page--said that the discussions that would take place in the afternoon of the next day were the first occasion since 1914 that there had been talks between unionist and nationalist leaders. Some of my hon. Friends are laughing, and well they might.

To say that there were no such talks after 1914 is to display a lamentable lack of knowledge about what has happened in the time in between ; to ignore the discussions that took place in 1921 and 1922, particularly the Craig-Collins pact ; to ignore the treaty of 1925 negotiated between north and south ; to ignore the ministerial meetings that took place afterwards ; to ignore the numerous meetings that took place from 1926 until the late 1960s at official level on a range of matters ; and even, although it is not a matter of particular pride to me and my colleagues, to ignore the participation of some unionists in the Sunningdale talks in 1973.

That is the quality of the information available to readers of a paper of record. I can assure them that the other comments in the paper on the inter -party talks, in so far as they touch on matters of which I have knowledge, are wrong. I shall say no more about that.

Column 1080

In the equivalent debate last year on 20 June, when I touched on certain matters, the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), said that he had no doubt that I would return to those matters. He was right : I shall. The points that I wish to develop relate to another aspect of the inherent indignity of direct rule.

The argument which I developed last year and which I want to place before the House this year is that the direct rule procedures in Northern Ireland are not just offensive, an insult and an indignity, but also contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under international law and a breach of the United Nations covenant on the protection of civil and political rights and other matters. On that occasion, I referred to article 25 of the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights, which states : "Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions :

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives ;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors ;

The hon. Member for Peterborough endeavoured to reply to the point by saying :

"I am not sure that I accepted the premise of his argument because all citizens of Northern Ireland enjoy the right to elect representatives at local and parliamentary levels and themselves to stand for election."--[ Official Report, 20 June 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 573.]

That is a correct and fair point to make. But it is pertinent only to article 25(b), whereas for the purpose of my argument the crucial provision is paragraph (a), which says :

"take part in the conduct of public affairs."

Other international human rights documents contain equivalent provisions and spell out a little more what is meant by the phrase "public affairs." For example, in the American declaration on rights and duties, clause 20 says :

"Every person having legal capacity is entitled to participate in the government of his country, directly or through his

representatives".

The African declaration of rights includes exactly the same phrase :

"the right to freely participate in the government of his country".

I think that the reference to public affairs implies not only the opportunity to be elected to a body, but to effective participation in governmental organisations.

Article 25 of the international covenant on civil and political rights uses the words

"without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2". Clause 1 of article 2 states :

"Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

The point is reinforced by article 3, which states :

"The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant."

Article 2 mentions various distinctions--those of race, colour and sex. We are familiar with those distinctions in the context of anti-discrimination legislation ; legislation

Column 1081

exists in part of the United Kingdom in regard to all of them. However, the article also mentions national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Surely there can be no doubt that to treat Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland differently in respect of civil and political rights is to fall foul of the anti- discrimination provision in the article.

There may be some argument about the precise definition of, for instance, "national status" or "other status" ; there may also be some argument about whether the United Kingdom contains several different nations. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that to provide different rights--lesser rights--for those in one part of the United Kingdom constitutes a breach of the anti-discrimination provision in the covenant. Linking article 2 with article 25, which relates to the opportunity to take part in public affairs or to participate in government, provides clear evidence that discrimination against part of the United Kingdom in that regard constitutes such a breach. When I raised the matter in the House a year ago, the hon. Member for Peterborough--then Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office--responded briefly in his winding-up speech. Some time later, however, on 27 September 1991, the then Secretary of State gave a slightly fuller response in an interview in The Irish Times. The interviewer had contrasted the Government's position on devolution for Northern Ireland--which they had advocated--with their opposition to Scottish devolution, and had happened to mention my name. That seemed to trigger off a slightly different response from the Secretary of State. Rather than answering the question about the contrast in the Government's two attitudes to devolution, he said : "I hesitate to cross swords with a distinguished academic ... but my recollection of 1886 and the crisis in the Liberal Party when Mr. Gladstone brought forward the proposals relating to Home Rule included observations by a very distinguished constitutional lawyer who was strongly opposed to the principle of Home Rule and indeed took a High Tory position on it, but who did acknowledge as a constitutional lawyer that there was nothing about the constitution of the United Kingdom which required the manner in which the different parts of the kingdom are governed to be universal." That of course, was a reference to Mr. Dicey.

A number of responses can be made to that. First, we are living not in 1886 but in 1992, and the United Nations covenants on international and human rights to which I have referred post date 1886. Secondly, I am not arguing for absolute uniformity ; it is reasonable to expect variations. There must be some leeway, but the question is, how far can that leeway go?

In the United Kingdom, as in other countries, there are various systems of local government. England and Wales have a system that involves district councils, county councils and so on ; Scotland has a system of regional councils. There are slight differences between English and Scottish local government. The differences, however, are matters of administrative convenience ; they are not fundamental to the system. I doubt whether the differences between English and Welsh local government and Scottish local government can be seen as depriving people of an opportunity to participate in public affairs or in government.

But what if there were no local government? What if it were decided to abolish local government in part of the United Kingdom so that county councils, district councils, parish councils and the like no longer existed? Would that

Column 1082

be regarded as a breach of the articles? I think that it would. That is virtually the position in Northern Ireland. There are bodies there called district councils, but, as we all know, they have no real function. Effectively, Northern Ireland has no local government.

A good analogy is the Potemkin village. In Tsarist Russia, when the Tsar was visiting certain areas, the local administrators would build facades of villages to convince him that everything was all right : they looked fine on the outside, but the reality was somewhat different. Similarly, the Northern Ireland district council structure boasts marvellous buildings, and some roads--I shall not describe them as marvellous. Behind that facade, however, there is nothing ; there is a complete absence of opportunity for participation in public affairs or government. That, surely, is a breach of the covenants to which I have referred.

The same applies to law-making functions. Hon. Members have mentioned the indignities of the Order-in-Council procedure, which deprives us of an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the way in which legislation is enacted. Again, it could be said that the empty green Benches in the Chamber reinforce the view that this particular law-making function--such as it is--is a ritual event. What I have said does not apply only to modern international law. We are part of the United Kingdom ; surely that very phrase must imply a single entity, with the same rights running through it. The principle was there, although perhaps not very clearly expressed, even in the treaty and the Acts of Union produced in 1800. Article 6 touched on what was a major point at that time--the principle that, in any treaties dealing with matters of trade, Ireland would be treated in the same way as Great Britain. Even the Act of Union included an obligation to treat all parts of the kingdom on an equal footing--limited to trade in article 6, but endorsing the principle that I am addressing : the principle of uniformity on, at least, core citizenship rights.

In a sense, it is in the treaty of European union. It tries to define the citizenship rights that would attach to the new European state--if it should come into existence, but that is another matter. The fact that the states involved felt that the treaty should specify the rights that attach to citizenship reinforces the point that certain core citizenship rights should exist throughout the Union. I welcome the comments made about race relations legislation by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He is right in saying that there should be protection for the civil rights of persons of different races residing in Northern Ireland. There may not be many of them, but the quality of one's rights should not depend on numbers. It should be the same whether it is a handful of people in Northern Ireland or thousands in England.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also referred to employment. To correct comments that have been made elsewhere, let me say that we do not oppose, and have never opposed, the concept of equality of opportunity. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North used the phrase "equality of opportunity". We are complaining about the way in which that concept is being applied by a particular quango in Northern Ireland.

Criticism has been made of my former employer, Queen's university, Belfast. It is not perfect and I will not

Column 1083

say that it was incapable of discriminating. In fact, I was a victim of discrimination on the ground of religion and political opinion. On that occasion I approached the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission to discuss the matter. I was left in no doubt that, if I attempted to pursue the case through him, I would be unsuccessful.

There is a distinction to be drawn between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is consistent with fair employment legislation. To try to compel equality of outcome in every different place of employment and at every different level in Northern Ireland is foolish and unlawful. The Secretary of State is nodding his head. If he is agreeing with me, I hope that he will speak to the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission, because equality of outcome in every different place of employment in Northern Ireland is the declared policy of that quango. It is not consistent with the legislation or with good sense. To use the words that the Home Secretary used on a previous occasion, it will be damaging, dangerous and difficult.

I touch on those points because we are dealing with the concept of core citizenship rights that should include freedom from discrimination on racial and other grounds. Any concept of core citizenship rights must have at its centre the right to participate in the political process in a realistic way. The direct rule system denies that to us. Direct rule is an indignity, an insult, a breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under international law and worse. As I said at the outset, in 1972 it was not necessary for Her Majesty's Government to impose direct rule. Suspending Stormont, in the absence of any other provision, would merely have involved a reversion to the status quo before 1921. No additional legislation was necessary. The normal position with regard to legislation and administration would simply have swung into place.

Instead, the Government decided to introduce a system that kept the affairs of Northern Ireland at arm's length. That deliberate decision nto to treat Northern Ireland as a genuine part of the kingdom sent a signal to others that Her Majesty's Government were, in some respects, qualifying their attitude to the Union and the rights of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson : I remind the hon. Gentleman that earlier in his remarks he gave way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). In that intervention there was the clear implication that some delegate in the talks process had been divulging confidential information to paramilitaries during a meeting that he or she may have had with those paramilitaries. When the hon. Gentleman challenged the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, he invited him to ask the Secretary of State. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to do that?

Mr. Trimble : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it again draws the Secretary of State's attention to the issue and reinforces and underlines to the Minister who will be replying that we expect this matter to be touched on so that that slur can be refuted. It is untrue of myself, and I am sure that it is untrue of my colleagues. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was referring to his colleagues or other

Column 1084

persons who are not present today but who are part of the talks process. All those persons deserve to have that slur removed from them.

By keeping the citizens of Northern Ireland separate, direct rule was carrying a signal to various people. This Tuesday was the birthday of a distinguished colleague who was active in the House for many years. I am referring to the former Member for South Down, the right hon.J. Enoch Powell. I remember vividly, a year or two ago, watching BBC's "Question Time" in which Mr. Powell was taking part. A member of the audience asked him when he thought that the violence in Northern Ireland would end. As quick as a flash, Mr. Powell said, "It will end when the British Government stop encouraging it." There was a gasp from some members of the audience, who did not appreciate the force or accuracy of his comment.

Mr. Powell was perfectly correct. Before violence can end, it will be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to stop encouraging it. They are encouraging violence because they repeatedly send to others, including terrorist organisations, the signal that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom is qualified and conditional and may change. That is an encouragement to those persons to believe that by their violence they may achieve what they would call progress. If we are to see that violence end, a significant step--it may not be complete--would be to end that signal by ending direct rule.

My next point goes back to comments made in 1986. It sums up the quality of democracy available to the people of Northern Ireland. In an interview broadcast to the electorate of Northern Ireland on the eve of the by- election referendum that my hon. Friends had organised on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the then Minister of State said : "It doesn't matter how you vote, it won't make any difference." As I have said, that was an accurate description of the quality of democracy. People who wish the ballot box to triumph over the bomb and bullet must ensure that voting enables elected people to play a genuine part in public affairs. That requires the ending of direct rule.

6.29 pm

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : The main political parties in the Republic of Ireland--Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Irish Labour--contested the last local elections in County Cavan. For the first time, there were candidates with another title--the pothole candidates. Not surprisingly in Irish politics, they topped the poll and won the seats. The person responsible for potholes in Northern Ireland is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ; he is charged with the responsibility of checking potholes and ensuring that they are filled and repaired. That is direct rule in practice, and one day my constituents will bring to my attention the various potholes in my constituency and I will have to table a series of questions to the Secretary of State asking when he intends to fill them in. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that that is a ridiculous situation. It was outlined in greater detail by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who identified the nonsense of the direct rule system. The people of Northern Ireland have no say in the main public decision-making process and in decisions affecting planning, housing and most aspects of local government

Column 1085

such as health and education. Yet those things could be achieved if the Government had the will to introduce them in Northern Ireland. Devolution is not necessary to give people democratic powers over planning, health, schools, roads, sewage and water supply. After all, there is no devolution in Scotland or Wales, but people there have control over those issues. There is no logical reason why such elementary matters are withheld from people in Northern Ireland. One reason why it does not happen is the inconsistency within the Conservative party and the Government on matters affecting the government and administration of the various parts of the United Kingdom. The Government recommend inter- party talks in Northern Ireland to get an agreed solution to the next system of administration and government of that part of the United Kingdom. That, apparently, is the policy of the Conservative party ; yet in Scotland it boycotts and campaigns against inter-party talks on the future administration of Scotland. The inconsistency in Conservative policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland stands for everyone to see. Conservative candidates stood for the first time in the most recent United Kingdom election. They campaigned against devolution, yet the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), proposed a policy for inter-party talks. It was noticeable that he spent only 20 minutes campaigning for those Conservative candidates. His absence had an effect, because those candidates made little progress in the election. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had advocated the same policy as Conservative candidates, the people of Northern Ireland would have had more respect for the Government.

It is not good enough to say that it is for the people or parties of Northern Ireland to reach a decision on how and when they will be ruled and governed. The Government also have a responsibility, but for 21 years all Governments have shirked it. The Government must remove all doubts about the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say, "Our position on Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is well known and I need not repeat it," only to imply in his next few sentences that it is much the same as his attitude to Scotland, Wales and England. We know that that is not so, and it is misleading the House to say so. There is always a condition in the Secretary of State's support--and, in fairness, in that of his predecessors --for Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, which does not apply to Scotland or Wales : that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom as long as that is the wish of its people.

The Prime Minister talks about how he will fight to strengthen and support the union between England and Scotland, but he has not yet said that he will work to support and strengthen the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We need new consistency in Conservative party policy on the union and on how the different parts of it will be administered and governed.

The Secretary of State said that he was here to give an annual report--a bit like a school report--on how the Government had administered Northern Ireland under direct rule. Direct-rule Ministers have a difficult job. At a personal level, they are very welcome, but at a political level they represent a system of government that is

Column 1086

offensive to the people of Northern Ireland. They are not elected by the people of Northern Ireland, nor are they answerable to them for their decisions. Scottish Office Ministers are elected by the people of Scotland and are answerable to them for their decisions, but that is not so in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland must be involved in the administration of that part of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State referred to transport systems and mentioned the improvement in the rail system between Belfast and Dublin. One welcomes any improvement in transport systems in the island of Ireland and the British Isles, but we must get our transport priorities right. A political decision has been made by Conservative Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to concentrate moneys on road and rail systems from Belfast to Dublin, at the expense of our main transport systems to Great Britain. In the past few years, schemes to Larne and around the city of Belfast have been dropped and money has been reallocated to the road to Dublin. That, of course, has taken place since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Secretary of State, in an attempt to support his programme of improving the transport systems to Dublin, referred to the support that he was receiving from business and industry. But only 5 per cent. of Ulster business goes to the Republic of Ireland ; 95 per cent. of our trade goes elsewhere, and the routes that that trade uses should be getting the priority attention of the Secretary of State. He should concentrate on the routes to Larne and from Belfast to Great Britain and actively work with the Scottish Office to improve the transport systems on the west coast of Scotland. That is where 90 per cent. of people want the routes improved, and those are the priorities on which the Secretary of State should concentrate rather than merely bringing into practice the Anglo-Irish Agreement and its preference for routes to Dublin.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : One of the uses of the Anglo- Irish parliamentary body is that we could make a study of the transport issue. Although 90 per cent. of the trade comes from Northern Ireland, how much trade comes from the Republic via Belfast and Larne because of Government investment in those ports? The answer is, a great deal.

Mr. Taylor : That is an important point, with which I agree. I believe that about 30 per cent. of the loads of the ferries from Larne to Scotland is now taken up by trade and business from the Republic of Ireland.

As I said, we want improvements in road and rail structures, but not just those from Belfast to Dublin. We want the Secretary of State to concentrate on the links to Larne and to make the No. 1 priority the improvement of the road and rail systems on the west coast of Scotland. Only then will the natural option of Northern Ireland industry and of southern Irish industry to use those routes be properly dealt with.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the present talks at Stormont. We all read The Irish Times every day to see what is happening at those confidential talks and, of course, the reports are of interest. We congratulate those who are contributing their time and effort to try to reach some accommodation in Northern Ireland and we wish them well in their work. Suffice to say at this stage that, just as the Anglo- Irish

Next Section

Home Page