| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Succession (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before your Lordships' House gives effect to a number of minor recommendations contained in the Law Commission Report, Family Law: Distribution on Intestacy, which have already been implemented for England and Wales in the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995.
The order makes three main changes to the law of succession contained in Part II of the Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
It amends the 1955 Act, which sets out an order of priority for sharing in the estate of someone who dies intestate, by introducing a rule that a surviving spouse should inherit on intestacy only if he or she survives the deceased by a period of 28 days. This is to prevent the somewhat arbitrary result where the family of one of the spouses inherits the property of both should the two die within a short time of each other--a common example of this is after a road accident. It has long been considered good practice for such a survivorship clause to be inserted in wills. The order will now reflect this good practice in the rules governing intestacy.
Secondly, the order will repeal the complicated and unclear "hotch-pot" rule enshrined in Section 17 of the 1955 Act which affects intestacies. Under this rule, benefits received by children (but not other relatives) of the intestate, during the latter's lifetime, must be brought into account against the share of the estate to which the recipients would otherwise be entitled. Not only has this rule proved difficult to operate, it is out of date and its strict application is undoubtedly capable of producing consequences which are not what the deceased would have wished. Consultation has revealed that its abolition will be widely welcomed.
The third change to the law brought about by the order is the introduction of a new category of applicant who may apply under the 1979 order for reasonable financial provision from the deceased's estate where the will or the rules of intestacy have left them without such provision. Under the existing law, cohabitees have to prove that they were actually dependent on the deceased. This can have the effect that a long-term cohabitee who has contributed fully to the running of the common household is unable to rely on the provisions of the 1979 order which was designed as a safety net.
This order will permit a cohabitee who has lived with the deceased for two years immediately preceding the death to bring a claim without having to show dependence. Rather, the court will take into account the applicant's age, the length of cohabitation and the contribution made by the applicant to the deceased's family.
Your Lordships will note, however, that some distinction between married and unmarried claimants is retained in that the definition of what constitutes "reasonable financial provision" is the same for cohabitees as it is for other applicants who are not spouses.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the provisions constitute a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform which has the support of all those who responded to the consultation on the proposed draft order. I beg to move the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.--(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we positively welcome this order. It is long overdue: the working paper which led to the consultation is dated as long ago as 1988. As the Minister indicated, this has been the law in England and Wales for about a year. The Law Commission has done a first-rate piece of work and we congratulate it on the thoroughness of its research.
One must bear in mind that sense and reason need to obtain at times of bereavement when those who survive are, in the nature of things, distressed and vulnerable. This provides an admirable scheme of additional protection for surviving spouses and also--extremely important--a just, appropriate provision by way of alteration which allows a cohabitee who has cohabited for the whole of the two years prior to the death to make a successful application without having to go through the sometimes rather unseemly formula, and sometimes rather an artificial formula at that, of proving dependency. We welcome the order.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, as I read the order, and particularly Article 4, I wonder whether it was written with undue regard to the welfare of the legal profession in Northern Ireland. We see the phrase:
- "living...in the same household as the husband or wife of the deceased".
Surely that gives a tremendous variety of cases which will be difficult to prove. I presume there could well be cases where, for example, a man lives apart from his wife but has not divorced her. He may live in a house, perhaps with a housekeeper, but they have chosen to "comfort one another", as we say, for perhaps a year or more. I can see that kind of situation being the cause of undue, costly and tedious litigation. I wonder whether a better definition can be given to "cohabitee" in that case.
Perhaps I may also point out that there appears to be a mistake in numbering. In Article 4, the "(1)" is against the article number rather than the first paragraph. The numbers should all move down.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, for those comments and also the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his welcome.
There is no attempt in the order to provide for the welfare of lawyers in Northern Ireland; that has always seemed to me well taken care of.The article is specifically aimed at cohabitees. Married couples are already covered in the main legislation but "cohabitees" are further defined by Article 4 so that a man and woman must be living together as husband and wife for at least two years immediately preceding the death of the partner. This is a definition for the cohabitee which is successfully used already in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. I shall examine the wording of the Bill. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Northern Ireland Peace Process
7.24 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham rose to call attention to the prospect for the peace process in Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships will have observed that during the course of the week this item has mysteriously metamorphosed through the usual channels from being an Unstarred Question, which would have put a tight corset on our debate. The corset has been loosened and it has now become a debate on a Motion which I am glad to move. I feel that one of the regrettable features of the way in which we deal with Northern Ireland business in this House, quite apart from the strange hours of the day at which we normally do so--for those who do not regularly come to Northern Ireland debates, this is luxuriously early in the day for us to discuss Northern Ireland business--is that we generally discuss specifics such as a government Statement or one of the flow of orders by which the Province is so inappropriately governed under the present arrangements. That being the case, we rarely have the chance to discuss the general state of affairs in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the Motion gives us a chance to do so.
This is an important moment in the so-called peace process. I believe that the question in a nutshell is this: can progress be made before the British general election and the Irish election which will follow it? Some may feel that the alternative is not too bad: to put the whole project in cold storage for a year, then try to warm it up again in the new political situation, whatever that may be.
I fear that that is not an option. In my belief we either move forward or we are likely to see a further retreat behind the barricades of the past and a relapse into sectarian zealotry and the barbaric acts with which we are familiar from the past 25 years. Consistently, the story of Northern Ireland over the past 25 years has been that, when hope is denied, despair fills its place.
We have an impressive list of participants in the debate. I thank those noble Lords who have put their names down. Perhaps I may say in particular how much
I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Alderdice, the leader of the Alliance Party. He has been a consistent and eloquent voice in Northern Ireland against sectarianism and in favour of inclusion. He has been a consistent and benign influence for principled compromise between historical adversaries. He has been active in the whole peace process in a way which reflects great credit on him and the Alliance Party. I know that he will make a major contribution to this House, as he has over many years in Northern Ireland.Let me start my own analysis of the prospects in Northern Ireland with something which is obvious to me but which is often ignored. Peace and political progress in Northern Ireland depend on one relationship above all others. No, it is not the relationship between Mr. Hume and the Republican extremists. Nor is it even the relationship between the British and Irish Governments, important though that is.
It is the relationship between sensible unionism and moderate nationalism. That means in party terms between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP. That is what matters above all. Can they agree to share power and live together in the same space on the basis of equal inclusion? We all know that the context matters a great deal; that the nature of the relationship with and between the parent countries of the respective traditions is important; that the degree of respect and protection for both majority and minority rights is crucial; and that the presence or absence of violence is a vital factor. But nothing can take away from the primacy of the central relationship between moderate unionists and their nationalist counterparts. Anything which detracts from them settling down to build an accommodation is frankly displacement activity and even potentially a distraction.
That is why I believe that the message of the past few months is so mixed. On the one hand there has been the deeply depressing spectacle of Sinn Fein and its IRA allies slipping back into hot words and dangerous deeds--like the Bourbons, learning nothing and forgetting nothing. For those who have not heard, tonight we have news of a 600-pound car bomb, fortunately defused, outside the RUC headquarters in Londonderry. The menace of violence is there in a very real way.
But, on the other hand, there has been maintenance, however tenuous, of talks and even the first glimmering of genuine dialogue, albeit of a largely procedural nature, between constitutional nationalists and unionists. That must be welcomed. Indeed, I believe that it is one of the reasons why some of the militant Republicans now seem to be trying to find their way back into the process. The synchronised McGuinness--Mayhew dialogue of recent days may or may not lead somewhere. We shall all have to see. I do not regard what has happened tonight as particularly encouraging.
But, for myself, I believe that Sinn Fein could only be readmitted to civilised discourse if the proof of its seriousness was represented by some combination of three things: first of all, words--unambiguous adherence to the Mitchell principles; second, deeds--unequivocal commitment to a parallel decommissioning
process; and third, time--the elapsing of peaceful time. Who can judge yet if Sinn Fein is serious enough to realise the depth of the distrust that it must now allay by the right words and deeds and the passage of peaceful time? In that context, I want briefly to refer, in comparison to Sinn Fein and the IRA, to the very great restraint that has been shown by the former Loyalist paramilitaries. That restraint over the past few months, when some of their supporters must feel that tit for tat must obtain again, has been, to say the least of it, impressive.Reverting to Sinn Fein, I believe that the show must go on with or without it. We must never again allow a Hume-Adams strategy to so overwhelm the agenda of both governments and both communities, let alone the US administration, that everything and everyone is paralysed until Messrs. Adams and McGuinness smile upon us. Waiting for Gerry is not a strategy; it is a recipe for disaster. So if the show is to go on, it demands movement and compromise from those who want peace and stability. A stable settlement in Northern Ireland is absolutely essential to the inward investment and prosperity for which the noble Baroness labours so tirelessly, effectively and, if I may say so to her, so often unacknowledged. It is good to have the chance to do so here this evening.
I say to my nationalist friends in the SDLP, "This could be your moment. Sinn Fein is currently discredited. You have the opportunity for making sure that peaceful constitutional nationalism is a bridge between a past of division and a future of reconciliation." To my unionist friends I say, "Please, please respond to the mood of the people of Northern Ireland who want to move on rather than march to the old atavistic drums of the past. You have won the prize of no surrender. You have won the prize. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom so long as that is what the people want. So now set that agreement in foundations of stone by making the compromises essential to share power and create equal rights, so that the people of the rest of the United Kingdom feel proud of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland can experience your confidence and friendship rather than the suspicious distrust of the past." To the governments, I would advise, if I may, "Stay close together. Don't follow the IRA will-o'-the-wisp into the bogs. Let it come to you, if it will. Be ready to modify the North-South All-Ireland strand of the negotiations, so that cross-border institutions are seen primarily as practical means of necessary co-operation rather than as an attempt to create shared sovereignty."
In my opinion, the primary role of the Irish Republic should be as a co-guarantor of a new settlement rather than as a co-administrator of Northern Ireland. I believe that the Dublin Government under the able leadership of Mr. Bruton and Mr. Spring are ready to be realistic in that respect. Canon Frayling, in a notable sermon in Westminster Abbey in July, talked of the sense of betrayal felt by unionists over the years and the sense of injustice felt by nationalists over the years. He also said that politics alone cannot heal the wounds. Of course, he is right on both counts. But even if
constructive politics are not sufficient, they are necessary. This is a time when the leaders of both main communities, like the Alliance Party which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, leads, need to listen to the people of Northern Ireland, who, in my belief, are ready to go that extra mile for peace. They must not be let down.My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. We are very fortunate that he is here today.
Two weeks ago Mr. Spring said that Sinn Fein/IRA received 17 per cent. of the total vote in the last election. Mitchell McLoughlin, while complaining of disenfranchisement, claimed that between 35 and 40 per cent. of the nationalist population in the North supported the Sinn Fein/IRA. A poll since the election showed that it was running well behind the SDLP. Sinn Fein/IRA has a party which represents no more than one-third of the nationalist vote, one-sixth of the whole electorate in the North. So why is it deemed impossible for the parties already attending the talks to speak for or represent the nationalist community in negotiating the future, especially since the leader of the SDLP has retained throughout the years of political negotiation both close links with Sinn Fein and a close working relationship with the Irish Government as well as our own?
Why are the two governments, and no doubt the American Government and the European Union also, striving so hard to get Sinn Fein/IRA into the talks at any cost? Mr. Spring says that it is because:
- "if you want an accommodation that has the broadest possible support, the 17 per cent. should be reflected in the negotiations that lead to the accommodation".
He does not say what the effect would be on the other 83 per cent. if Sinn Fein/IRA were to be brought in on any grounds other than the terms that have been laid down time and again in the Mitchell principles and by the governments.
The 83 per cent. might find it hard to understand why a party whose credibility as a political force rests almost exclusively on its claim to be able to influence the IRA--a claim which it effortlessly couples with disclaimers of any influence on that body--should expect to be allowed to dictate its own terms on the timing of its entry. Mr. Adams boasted, when he was asked at his book launch whether he would condemn the amassing by the IRA of 10 tonnes of explosive, that he had avoided the politics of condemnation before now and would continue to do so. How true! He never condemned Canary Wharf, Manchester or Lisburn; nor the punishment beatings. Was he perhaps not free to do so? Of course, he makes an exception when it comes to condemning the British for being prepared to defend the citizens of the United Kingdom as it is their duty to do. I hope that we shall not let down our security or our military guard.
We have come to live in a looking-glass world, or perhaps it would be true to say that we are being manoeuvred to look through the wrong end of the telescope. The reason why Sinn Fein/IRA has, in Mr. Spring's view, to be at the talks, whether or not that might drive the other parties away--and then, of course, they would be blamed for destroying the peace process; geese are not allowed to object if the fox is invited into the coop--is that Sinn Fein has friends, the IRA, who are accustomed to kill whatever gets in their way and to negotiate through the bullet, not the ballot. In fact, it is perfectly prepared in every sense to kill as many innocent people as will secure media attention. That is what makes that grotesque little party so special. And the IRA can make trouble in the Republic too, despite the fact that Sinn Fein/IRA is even less representative of the democratic vote there than in the North. I could wish, incidentally, that the media would question Sinn Fein as toughly and rigorously as they do all other political figures.
Sinn Fein/IRA has three conditions which must be met before there can be any prospect of a ceasefire, according to Mr. McLoughlin, which are: a guarantee of inclusive talks involving Sinn Fein; a time-frame for political settlement; and confidence-building measures. Mr. Adams has added a further condition: that the Taoiseach's brief must include defending the rights of the nationalists in the North. No one must defend the right of the majority in the North. On the contrary, as Gerry Adams said at the Sinn Fein conference in 1995, the British Government must be pressurised to adopt a policy of disengagement based on Britain becoming a positive persuader for ending the Union. At that meeting he spoke of an all-Ireland struggle and stated clearly that Sinn Fein's objective was to bring about an inclusive and negotiated end to British rule in Ireland and to seek to replace it with a new and agreed Irish jurisdiction. He said:
- "negotiations need to take place in a climate where no section of our people hold an undemocratic power of veto".
Ironically it is Sinn Fein/IRA which at present wields without scruple, through violence and the threat of violence, that undemocratic power of veto. All those who are urgently trying to make the peace process work should not forget that. Sinn Fein is prepared to be quite as undemocratic in the South, though hitherto the IRA has refrained from actual violence there--with one exception--in order to retain the freedom to operate from and train in a safe base. Mr. Adams said:
- "Sinn Fein seeks the transformation of all Irish society, not only in the occupied areas but throughout the entire island".
The present Taoiseach said loudly, after the Lisburn bomb:
- "We, the people of the Republic, have no agenda for a progressive take-over of Northern Ireland against the wishes of the majority there. There is no pan-nationalist agenda. Any government I lead would never be part of such an agenda".
That is what I call a confidence-building measure, and a great credit it is to him. I wish we could hear Mr. Spring say the same thing. Martin McGuiness said in February 1995:
- "What is our agenda? We want the ending of British rule in our country".
Let us examine Sinn Fein/IRA's latest three conditions which must be met before there can be a ceasefire. First, it wants a guarantee of inclusive talks involving Sinn Fein. Why should the other parties, including the Loyalist paramilitaries who have so steadily refused to be provoked into violence, allow the conditions to be set by the very party which is preventing any move to peace?
Next, it wants a time-frame for a political settlement. How can anyone set a date when the complex problems and difficulties of many years have to be resolved? If the date chosen is too soon, it will lead to recriminations and be used as an excuse for renewed violence, if no other excuse is handy. Thirdly, it wants confidence-building measures. Everyone but Sinn Fein and the IRA has leaned over backwards, including, let it be said, the Irish Government in their moves to legislate for decommissioning and their reference, at least, to eventual action to put the issue of Articles 2 and 3 to a referendum.
There is then the Loyalist offer, tabled as long ago as February 1995, to put the whole issue of decommissioning to an international body. We had the Mitchell Report; we had the President of the United States waving White House wands, only to find, poor fellow, that he had conjured up not the good fairy, but a wicked stepmother who was preparing for Canary Wharf at the very time that Gerry Adams was posing for pictures with him.
We have had the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, whose report Sinn Fein alone rejected. We have had, above all, wise negotiators in the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and his Ministers, and I pay my tribute to them tonight. It is not true to say that Sinn Fein/IRA--those infinitely skilled word- spinners--need a clear statement of the conditions required for entry into the talks. The Prime Minister said that we need an unequivocal ceasefire which is verifiable. What could be clearer or more reasonable? Mr. Hume has spoken of the need for litmus tests for the other parties on their commitment to the peace process. The IRA plays judo with us, requiring both the governments and the parties already involved in talks to prove their bona fides. The only people who can move us on, the only ones who can enable the peace process to be put into gear and move off are the IRA. It is the IRA's credentials which need testing. As the Prime Minister said, it is difficult to reconcile Sinn Fein's rhetoric of peace with the IRA's preparations for murder.
I am half persuaded that it would be no bad thing to call Sinn Fein's bluff--early rather than late--and once there is a ceasefire, let them into the talks to expose their real agenda; that is, a non-negotiable, undeviating determination to end Northern Ireland's present status within the Union, whatever the wishes of the majority, and to impose a united Ireland. Like the North Vietnamese, the IRA only negotiates to win. Once it finds it cannot secure, not partial, but total victory through talks, it will, I fear, revert to the only form of combat it knows--and it will be well prepared. If it has meanwhile succeeded in the negotiating phase in causing the other parties to withdraw from what could prove a travesty of democratic discussion if it was
present, that too would be a victory. If it can provoke the Loyalists into breaking their ceasefire, it would be a disaster.I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in believing that we should believe in the talks and carry them on. Therefore, though I admire the cool courage, patience and determination to find a way to talk and to be seen to satisfy in so doing the universal longing for peace for ordinary people on both sides, I fear the scenario is not encouraging. It could be another tactical ceasefire, probably preceded by a series of bombings which will be attributed, unless very successful, to mavericks. There will be the entry of Sinn Fein/IRA into talks and the presentation by them of a series of non-negotiable demands which the majority and at least one of the two governments cannot reasonably accept and which might lead to the break-up of the talks. Lastly, there will be the reversion to armed struggle, a renewed IRA campaign and inevitably in that case a Loyalist response.
Hence I hope that both governments will think long and hard before watering down the conditions or at least the timing for entry after any ceasefire until some verification has been provided. Meanwhile, let us get on with the talks as they are. The two governments should be seen by the majority who feel threatened already to be proceeding cautiously and not bounced by either Mr. Spring or Mr. Hume into premature action. I believe it is right and will be seen to be right to lean over backwards to let in Sinn Fein/IRA, after a ceasefire, once they comply with the necessary conditions.
At least by going as far as we have to meet the Irish Government, which is in general receptive to Sinn Fein for a variety of reasons, we ought to be able to expect from them a far more active policy of support; for instance, possibly the trying and imprisoning in the Republic of wanted IRA men when they cannot bring themselves--for good political reasons--to extradite. They cannot claim to advocate the interests of the North without accepting some responsibility for acting to contain and frustrate the IRA operations based in the Republic. The Garda is, of course, already doing something towards that.
The people who have had a taste of peace and prosperity, the Loyalist paramilitaries, who have shown such restraint, the American Government, who can so powerfully influence events, and the Nationalists, who trust the SDLP and the Alliance Party rather than Sinn Fein to represent them, must all see that everything has been done to bring Sinn Fein in. But it must not be perceived to be appeasement. The 83 per cent. must be given reason to trust the Government--indeed, the two governments--to remember that they are the majority and they have rights. If they lose faith in good government, that will be the real IRA victory.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the first thing I should do is extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I also want to take this opportunity to thank him sincerely for the patience and skill with which he has led the Alliance Party on a difficult path over the years, though I feel he has not as yet harvested the fruit.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, comes to the House with a great deal of up-to-date knowledge of the political position in Northern Ireland. I believe also that he has interests in some health matters as well. But his words will carry particular weight and be of great value to those who follow Northern Ireland affairs in your Lordships' House. I very much look forward to his maiden contribution on a very complex subject which is so near to his heart. If I have one caveat at all, it is this--and I speak as a Welshman. I believe that the Welsh branch of the Celtic family has an ancient and sceptical attitude towards your Lordships' House. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord can contribute to our work without in any way weakening his beneficial influence in Northern Ireland--because it is there that we want the enlightened leadership.
Over the past few weeks we had been expecting a definitive statement by the Government about the peace process. But that was not to be. Then the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked this simple but penetrating question: what is the outlook for the peace process in Northern Ireland? I find his question an extremely difficult one to answer, so I much look forward to the Minister's response to it.
Speaking on what is visible about the peace process--a great deal is not visible--I am saddened that the hopeful signs are so few as the obstacles are more and more visible. They have been mentioned this evening--the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire, then the events of last July surrounding Drumcree, the subsequent boycott of the shops and the continued discovery of arms. The cumulative effect of these events is that the general public are in a fairly pessimistic state about the political position in Northern Ireland. All this suggests to me that the peace process is proving far, far more difficult than most of us foresaw three years ago, two years ago or even a year ago. I am sure that there are lessons to be learnt for the two governments and for the political parties from the failure to make progress, but I have no wish to allocate blame--I have no wish to be involved in any argument--for the failure.
However, this week, like, I am sure, many others, I have been reading and re-reading carefully the report of the speech which the Secretary of State delivered at the Manchester Luncheon Club last Friday. I have a great respect for the Secretary of State's tenacity and for his judgment. I believe it to be an important speech for two reasons. First, the Secretary of State declares that we now have a basis for negotiations. Can I tempt the Minister to tell the House what precisely the Secretary of State had in mind when he used those words? In my view, the speech is important for another reason. The Secretary of State deals at some length with Sinn Fein's position, as outlined in the speech of Mr. McGuinness the previous night, a speech described by the Irish Foreign Secretary as "significant and important". It seemed to me that the Secretary of State's words throughout his speech--or what has been reported of the speech--are measured. The speech is carefully constructed. The analysis is a careful analysis. I welcome the tenor of his speech. But it is nevertheless not clear to me how great is the priority which the
Government attach to the entry of Sinn Fein to the all-party talks and whether there are any significant differences between the two governments about that. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that an agreement between the SDLP and the Unionists would be a huge step forward. However, I have to say for my own part--I speak for myself and not necessarily for the Labour Party--that I happen to support those who believe that both governments and the Northern Ireland parties should continue to seek ways and means of bringing Sinn Fein into the talks. If it be true that one or both governments are today in indirect touch with Sinn Fein, does this not indicate that the obstacles may not be insurmountable? Unless its voice is heard in the talks, after it has been given reasonable opportunity to take part in them, I believe that the prospects of a just and lasting settlement will be fairly remote. I leave that matter there.
There is at least one other development which is required, and required before next summer. Nowhere were the difficulties facing Northern Ireland more vividly demonstrated than in the marches last July. The rule of law had a substantial set-back. The RUC's chief constable found himself in a hopeless position. In a sense the marches issue goes to the heart of the deep-seated differences between the two communities in Northern Ireland. It has fallen to Dr. Peter North, the vice chancellor of the University of Oxford and one of the most distinguished jurists of our time, together with two assistants, to review the current arrangements for handling processions in Northern Ireland and establishing principles which will reconcile the exercise of almost mutually incompatible rights. If a way can be found which will not be a victory for one side and not a defeat for the other, that will be a huge development and it will strengthen the peace process.
To find or design such a way is an exceptionally complicated task, but the Secretary of State has called to his aid some of the best legal brains in the country. I trust very much that their task is not an impossible one. When do the Government expect to receive Dr. North's report? If it recommends legislation, will that lead to a process of consultation, or will the Government proceed to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of Dr. North's committee if it is acceptable to the Government?
I do not wish to raise any other point. I thought it was worth mentioning those matters and I did of course mention them to the Minister so that she would be aware that I proposed to raise them.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for introducing the debate. Secondly, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. They are difficult matters to have to tackle. Finally, I apologise for being unable to stay to the end of the debate. I was advised that it was likely to finish earlier and therefore I shall try to be brief.
I wish to raise only one issue in relation to the peace process. It arises from the 1995 annual report of the Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Annesley, of the RUC. Perhaps I may first recall the causes of the disturbances in 1968 and a report made in 1969 by the commission entitled Disturbances in Northern Ireland, which is Command Paper 532. That is often known as the Cameron Report, as he was the chairman of the committee. I shall not go into its contents. It showed only too clearly that for 40 years Catholics had been second-class citizens; that is, since Lord Brookeborough and his government took control. He should have been able to do much more for us--I speak as a Catholic--but, as the report shows, Catholic citizens were second class judging by the numbers in the Civil Service and the police force. The numbers taking part were laughable.
I believe that as a Catholic I have a duty to ensure that something like that never happens again. Using as yardsticks the composition of the Civil Service and the police force as regards Catholics and Protestants, one can see that during the past 25 years immense progress has been made. The composition of the Civil Service is about 60 per cent. Protestant and 40 per cent. Catholic. Given past history, that is a considerable achievement. It is well done and everyone should be proud of it. However, sadly, a very different state of affairs exists in the police force, the RUC. It is about 6 per cent. Catholic and the rest Protestant. I understand that during the last 18 months the figure for the number of Catholics has improved and that we welcome.
Why is it so difficult to get Catholics to join the Police Force? I shall quote from two paragraphs in the 1995 annual report of the Chief Constable. At page 14, he states:
- "Regrettably, it is necessary to highlight the practice of pressurising local people in some areas not to engage in police/ public consultation. This odious practice is not only clearly unacceptable, but it deprives members of the community of the benefits of information on important subjects such as drugs, child abuse and crime prevention. I salute the courage of those members of the public who have so firmly resisted this blatant attempt to thwart their freedom to talk to, and listen to, whom they wish".
An even more important paragraph appears in Appendix 1 at page 102. It states:
- "I am sensitive to the real difficulties experienced by some people in considering a career in the RUC. I can assure those in such a position of our ability and preparedness to help them to overcome these difficulties. I am committed to making the organisation as representative of the population as possible.
- A more representative police service, however, should also be the aim and responsibility of the whole community".
That is an extremely important point. He goes on to state:
- "I invite everyone, including those who criticise the religious balance within the RUC, to note what we are doing to bring about change, and also to reflect on how they may assist us in making further progress".
That is the point that I wish to stress. It is for all citizens of Northern Ireland to try and encourage Catholics to join the RUC. It is the duty of the priests, the schools and responsible citizens wherever they may be so that the whole population will trust the police force. In the peace process, nothing is more important
than a properly balanced police force. Everything that the Government can do to ensure that must be an essential and vital part of the peace process.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |