| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Monson: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he aware that perhaps the main reason why Roman Catholics do not join the RUC in greater numbers is that those who do are branded as traitors by the IRA and INLA and are therefore at even greater risk of assassination and attacks upon their families than are their Protestant fellow officers, particularly those who choose to remain living in Catholic areas?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I fully realise that and the great difficulty and danger faced by Catholics who wish to join the RUC. However, the Government and chief constable have made progress and I beg all those in the Protestant and Catholic communities who are working so hard together to ensure that we achieve a balanced force in the RUC.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, first, I thank your Lordships for your welcome to this House. I appreciate it greatly. Secondly, I thank my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for bringing forward this topical Motion at this time. I know that a considerable number of noble Lords have a great deal of experience in Northern Ireland. As I look around the Chamber I see some who hail from our beloved Province. I see others who for a long time have had an interest there and those who have had experience as Ministers of Her Majesty's Government. I wish to refer in particular to the Minister. She has gained enormous respect right across the community in Northern Ireland for her indefatigable efforts to build up its economy, not least in its largest industry, agriculture. Her efforts are deeply appreciated.
Those who know Northern Ireland appreciate the enormous complexities, nuances and sensitivities of political life there. They are a minefield for the unwary and even sometimes for the wary. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Holme for showing not only his customary courtesy and political astuteness but also for an unfailing surefootedness in Northern Ireland politics and in dealing with Northern Ireland politicians across the divide. All will appreciate the considerable achievement that he has gained. Of course, we are all aware of his considerable achievements elsewhere, too.
I must also make mention of another Lord who is no longer with us. Henry, Lord Dunleath, was a member of my party and effectively the voice of the Alliance Party at Westminster for many years. Subsequent to taking his seat in your Lordships' House he stood for, and was elected to, Ards District Council where he served as a constituency councillor. He was also elected to a number of other assemblies in Northern Ireland. From 1982 to 1986 he served as Deputy Speaker in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He was a towering and significant figure in the business and agricultural life of Northern Ireland and also in the sporting, arts and charitable fraternities. We mourn his passing. We cherish his memory and pay tribute to his service in your Lordships' House, in Northern Ireland, and indeed to the continuing service of the Lady Dunleath.
Not only was he one who moved away from traditional boundaries and crossed the borders of class, creed and political allegiance in the course of peace and reconciliation, he was, for all who knew him, a remarkable individual and a remarkable individualist. That was one of the things that made him a particularly precious symbol of our party because we believe very much in the cherishing of individual differences. It is these things which enrich our society and it is at the heart of what I and my colleagues believe. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland it has become common to reduce all the variations of religious belief, class, gender, cultural, sporting, artistic interests and political conviction to the traditional sectarian divisions of Protestant Unionist and Catholic Nationalist thus splitting the community and setting the scene for endless feuds.
How does this manifest itself in political life? In recent years the British and Irish Governments have sought to work together to try to address our difficulties and this is extremely welcome. However, Unionists find themselves opposing this co-operation because they believe that Her Majesty's Government should be backing their case because, after all, they are the ones who wish to remain within the United Kingdom. They become suspicious, angry and very fearful when they believe that that is not so. Nationalists, however, welcome the co-operation between the two governments because it means to them that a sovereign, independent Irish Government is available specifically to address and represent their interests. But in our view if the British Government see themselves as there to represent the views of Unionists and the Irish Government is there to represent the views of Nationalists, that is a recipe for deepening the split and institutionalising the polarisation of our society. In passing, I may also say that such a thing would leave little opportunity for the representation of those of us who do not particularly want to view ourselves as either Unionists or Nationalists, but liberal-minded, tolerant Ulster people. We want to see both British and Irish Governments being sensitive to the needs of all sections of our community, not each government acting as a supporter to one side against the other.
There are, of course, sections of our community whose actions do not excite sensitivity, but rather a rightful and frosty opposition. I refer to those who see violence as a legitimate political instrument. Since 1992 the notion developed that it might be possible to get an agreement which would not only bring our troubles to an end, but canvass the support of people right across the divide, from Mr. Adams and his colleagues in the Republican movement to Dr. Paisley and those on the right wing of Unionism and Loyalism. I was always sceptical of this view, but I am not one to sit on the sidelines and snipe just because an analysis is not my analysis or a strategy is not my strategy.
As soon as the violence was stopped I entered into discussions with Mr. Adams and his colleagues and with the Loyalists, publicly and privately, week upon week, for something up to 17 months. It is with some sadness that I have to say to your Lordships that during that
time, while I find developments with the Loyalists, I find no indications that the republican movement is truly prepared for the kind of honourable compromise which is a pre-requisite for a settlement to our problems. Rather, it seemed to me, that despite the kind of memorandum of understanding which there had been in South Africa, which we had attempted to emulate by putting together the Downing Street Declaration, subsequently a framework document, and indeed in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin--a report which we had hoped that Sinn Fein could address and support--we find the republican movement turning back to violence and indeed a new form, the tactical use of the armed struggle.Be aware that simply because there is no return to an ongoing campaign that does not mean that the trouble is truly less. It is simply that it is frequently found more effective to have a tactical use of the armed struggle which keeps the agenda and the focus firmly on the republican movement.
It is for that reason that I find myself returning to what I regard as the firmer and more solid ground, not the attractive illusion that we can bring together everyone unanimously. I know of no place in the world where it has been found possible for everyone to sign up to a resolution. In the Middle East, Hamas and Jewish fundamentalists still find themselves opposing everything. It was the case in South Africa that the white Right and elements on the other side, too, refused to go along with a legitimate, reasonable and honourable compromise. I believe that we may have to accept that it is not always possible--in fact, it is rarely possible--to get everyone to agree. Indeed, it can be the case that going for the ideal is in fact courting disaster. I fear that what has happened in the past two or three years is that the community has divided itself even more deeply than was the case before.
Why should that be when there was the chance of peace? When governments were seen to be addressing those who were on the extremes they felt themselves to be the big fellows. They felt themselves to be the ones who were running the show and those who were in the broad centre of politics found that their message--and I speak here not just of my own party, but of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP--was of less interest to government and to the media. When people discovered that they found themselves moving to the extremes as well. It is not a counsel of perfection to address the concerns of the extremists and to ignore the desires of the majority of people on both sides and across the community as a whole.
The current government have devoted a great deal of time to Northern Ireland. Perhaps no Prime Minister since Lloyd George and, before him, Gladstone, has devoted more energy to addressing our problems than Mr. Major. He is to be commended by all sides for that. I trust that, whatever the vicissitudes of politics over the next 12 months and whoever it is who heads Her Majesty's Government, they will continue to make a non-sectarian and non-partisan approach to Northern Ireland a matter of the highest priority until the matter is resolved as fully as it can be.
But that is most unlikely to be successful unless we press ahead now with those of the broad centre who are prepared to build a sufficient consensus. We must deal immediately with the necessary structures and legislation which would facilitate the decommissioning of weapons in the event of a ceasefire. I and my colleagues have described in a detailed document elsewhere to the two governments and the other parties how that might be done. We are engaging in discussions each day to try to bring that closer. We must get beyond that and into substantive talks before the Christmas Recess, because I have to say to noble Lords that if that is not achieved, whether through the stubbornness and lack of courage of some Unionist leaders or because of Nationalist leaders chasing the end of a rainbow, this whole process could be in the most profound jeopardy.
The result will be much more serious than the running out of steam to which the Secretary of State referred yesterday evening. It will result in an ever-deepening polarisation of our community, the re-emergence of more serious and widespread violence, extending (as it has done before) to this side of the water and to the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps most seriously, it will result in a snuffing out of the hope which burned so brightly this time last year when the President of the United States of America, Mr. Clinton, turned on the Christmas lights in Belfast. The next few weeks will determine whether or not this Christmas sees a renewal of hope. I know that I and all concerned can depend upon your Lordships' encouragement in all our efforts to achieve that aim.
8.20 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to extend congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on his very interesting maiden speech. He has a good deal of experience of negotiations in Northern Ireland. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him speak again in this House in the future.
Since 10th June, the Ulster Unionist Party has been engaged in multi-party talks at Stormont with the sole aim of securing an equitable, inclusive and peaceful future for each and every tradition that makes up the Northern Ireland community. In recent years we have developed proposals for a regional assembly in which all could share on an equal basis. The key is the principle of proportionality: an assembly elected by proportional representation, with no executive or cabinet in the conventional sense, but a body which would work through committees, the members of which would be appointed in proportion to their party's strength; the chairman and deputy chairman of the various committees being elected from the parties comprising the assembly. Every party with significant support could participate at every level. However, we think that it should be essentially an administrative body rather than one with legislative or financial power. Financial power should rest at Westminster for the foreseeable future and all major policy issues should therefore be decided here. So, it is not a choice between devolution and integration; what we propose contains elements of both.
We also consider that the European Convention on Human Rights should apply to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, that cannot be done unless it is made to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not see why the Government should object to applying that to Great Britain or why they hesitate to apply it to the whole country.
Our proposals would involve replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, under which the government of the Irish Republic have a secret part in the government of part of the United Kingdom without any reciprocal obligations, without doing so openly in any democratic process, and still maintaining their territorial claim to part of the United Kingdom. That must be swept away. We believe that there should be co-operation on matters of mutual interest such as tourism and agriculture, but that that should be done openly and democratically, not secretively.
I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Perth, talk about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I hope he knows that in 1921, when the government of Northern Ireland was established, the then Prime Minister, Viscount Craigavon, reserved one-third of the places in the RUC for Catholics but they refused to take them up and have been very reluctant to join ever since, despite encouragement. Some of those who joined were probably very brave to do so, particularly if they lived in an area dominated by Sinn Fein, because they left themselves open to considerable danger. It is our desire to have the police representative of all elements of the community. It seems absurd to say that because Catholics have been reluctant to join they are being treated as second-class citizens. I submit that that is an affront to common sense.
Another difficulty at the moment is that the SDLP is now boycotting our only Province-wide democratic body, the Forum. It finds serving on a health committee with unionists unacceptable. That does not augur well for the chances of meaningful discussions about forms of government. I hope that everybody will see sense and that we can get down to what is an essential and important task.
We must move ahead with negotiations between responsible and law-abiding citizens whatever their political views, rather than trying, as the Government appear to be doing, to entice terrorists to join in. Surely they have learned something from the last ceasefire. It was a "ceasefire" in the sense that there were not so many bombings, but there was still intimidation. There were still punishment beatings and firms were still being blackmailed. There has now been a great increase in what is called "ethnic cleansing"--in other words, the boycotting of Protestant shops and businesses in the west of Northern Ireland with the intention of driving the Protestants out of those areas. I find such things beyond comment.
What we want is a genuine and permanent ceasefire. If it is to be permanent, those involved must show that they do not require weapons and explosives for future use. It is hypocritical to say, "We are going to have a permanent ceasefire, but we are keeping all our weapons
and ammunition just in case it turns out not to be permanent". We want something that can be guaranteed to be permanent.I have great pleasure in saying that I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, tabled this Motion to give the House the opportunity to consider this matter.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on a most excellent, interesting and well delivered maiden speech. The noble Lord is most welcome and we look forward to hearing his views on Northern Ireland for many years to come.
When I read the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on the peace process, I had to ask myself: what is the peace process? One might wonder how one can have a peace process without a war. My conclusion was that the peace process is fragmented into two very different parts. The first entails the containment of terrorism in Ireland. The second should be an attempt to create a peaceful environment in which Nationalists and Unionists can live together positively and fruitfully. On the plus side, at the moment some of the political parties are talking to each other. I understand that some useful work is taking place in the Forum. The Government of the Republic of Ireland are still giving strong and supportive leadership and, with the re-election of President Clinton, there is hope that the Americans will continue to have a positive influence.
Sadly, on the down side the terrorists have a well thought-out strategy. They have not given up, and I do not believe that they ever will. They will probably have to be defeated in one way or another. They have a well thought-out strategy which they have pursued with some success, despite the brilliant work of the intelligence services and security forces. It appears that the current terrorist plan is to have a mixture of fewer high profile incidents and periods of tactical ceasefires. Nobody should be fooled by that. It is linked to a rather nasty phenomenon--I do not know a great deal about it but I have heard and seen some evidence of it--known as popular violence. It involves inciting riots, barricading particular sectors and getting people in the street involved in destabilising the country. No one should be fooled by that either.
It is right that Ministers should be involved in high level talks with the elected politicians and the government of the Irish Republic in their attempts to find a solution to the problem of Irish terrorism. It is also right that as long as Sinn Fein represents an active terrorist movement it should not be at the table. It would be wrong, however, to allow the Dublin Government any say in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. Further, it is wrong to give an aura of respectability to ex-terrorists. I believe that the population of Northern Ireland as a whole has been horrified at the respectability accorded certain leaders of the Sinn Fein movement over the past year. Whatever success may be achieved and whatever agreements may be reached by
government in their negotiations, there will be compromise. It will not be possible to impose that compromise on the population from the top down.I turn to what worries me perhaps more than most. I believe that my noble friend Lady Denton knows what I am about to say. Part of the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, pronounced at the beginning was the coming together of the SDLP, the Nationalist movement and the Unionist parties, gaining a better understanding of each other and learning to live together. I, and I am sure others, have evidence that local authorities around the Province have done a great job. In many areas Nationalists and Unionists have found ways of working together on many important subjects. At times they have even brought in Sinn Fein. However, in Northern Ireland there is still a huge democratic void. To all intents and purposes, the country is run by the Northern Ireland Civil Service, with the exception of one or two departments from time to time. I have nothing against the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but it is not its role to run a country like Northern Ireland so that it is accountable only to visiting Ministers of the United Kingdom Government.
It is important that the Government address that problem and encourage local authorities to live and work together by returning to them greater authority, accountability and financial control, even if it means entering into another major reorganisation of local government. But in the democratic process in Northern Ireland we are seriously deprived of the budgetary controls and accountability that is expected of our local authorities.
I digress for one moment. As a Millennium Commissioner I have travelled the kingdom fairly widely and met a good number of local authorities who are dealing with major projects. I have seen the style, standard and size of budgets of local authorities across the country. Many of the projects that come to the Millennium Commission which are worth many millions of pounds, have been supported, backed and prepared by local authorities. Some have nearly 50 per cent. local authority funding. That has not happened in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is short of projects of any size and scale in terms of the Millennium Commission. I am convinced that in part the reason for that is that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is central government and many local authorities do not have the wherewithal to put together projects which similar bodies can put together this side of the water.
My plea to the Government is that they should look hard, seriously and quickly at how the democratic process can be significantly improved. We do not want the country to be run in future by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Civil Service does not want to run it either. We want elected representatives who are clearly accountable, and that is very much overdue.
I also ask the Government to put a little more effort, and perhaps a little more money if necessary, into balancing the propaganda account in Washington. My noble friend the Minister has done excellent work in America on the industry side in trying to bring inward
investment to Northern Ireland, but I believe from what I read in the press that the propaganda remains unbalanced. We want a truly balanced propaganda machine in America.8.37 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, this is proving to be a very interesting debate. I and I am sure all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for initiating the debate. I listened carefully to all that he said. In many respects he put his finger on it. One question that he regarded as critical was whether it was possible for the unionists and the SDLP to agree. I believe that they can. I believe that that view is shared by most of the Unionist Party and the SDLP, but not in the shadow of violence. It is that which makes it so very difficult. I believe that it will continue to be difficult as long as the violence is there. For one thing, the SDLP must look over its shoulder at what will happen to its seats at the next election if it does something which Sinn Fein alleges is not the proper thing for nationalists. It is the shadow of violence that makes the position so difficult. If Sinn Fein is not in the talks, they will fail because of the shadow of violence; if Sinn Fein is part of the talks, they certainly will not succeed, because it is difficult to believe that Sinn Fein can in a short time become a truly democratic party.
Any debate on Northern Ireland affairs is made more difficult by the expression "peace process". It suggests that in Northern Ireland we are at war. That is not so. Northern Ireland is at peace, as we who live there know. But the community is under attack, or the threat of attack, by the IRA. That is not the same as war. Ninety five per cent. of the people fervently hope that the IRA will decide that nothing is to be gained by force, and that it will lay down its arms and cease other activities, such as the horrific punishment beatings and orchestrated boycotts. That is hoped for, too, by the vast majority of people throughout the island of Ireland. Permanent rejection of violence by the IRA and the acceptance of democracy by Sinn Fein are the prerequisites of peace and stability. Only then can inclusive talks hope to succeed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page