UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Julian Amery – 1985 Speech on the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Julian Amery, the then Conservative MP for Brighton Pavilion, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1985.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) both on his decision to resign and on his speech. There is an old saying, “Money lost, nothing lost. Honour lost, much is lost. Courage lost, all is lost.” My hon. Friend has shown a sense of honour and a degree of courage beyond the call of duty, and I salute his decision. For many years as parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he inevitably lived in the shadow of our political life. His public decision brings him a new status. It will earn him the respect of all hon. Members, whether we agree with him or not, and our admiration.

    I should next like to congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place, and who is the architect of the Hillsborough agreement. It is no mean thing for the leader of a party, which represents a little more than half of the minority in the Province, to be able to convince the Governments in Dublin and London to reach such an agreement.

    However, I must warn him and the House that this is a fragile concept and an affair of mirrors. The nationalists are being told that the agreement is a step towards the reunification of Ireland, while the unionists are being told that it is a guarantee of their remaining in the United Kingdom. Although the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) spoke in praise of the agreement at the beginning and end of his speech, he showed clearly the difficulties that lie ahead.

    The agreement is flawed in the first place—here my unionist friends will not agree with me—because it renews a commitment to devolution. It is worth recalling that Carson was against devolution. He said that he wanted the Province to be treated in exactly the same way as Scotland, Wales and England. Had it been so treated, the political division in the Province would have evolved along the same lines as it has here between Conservatives and radicals.

    Stormont did many good things. It preserved law and order in the Province when the Free State, as it then was, was ravaged by revolution. It preserved law and order when the second world war came on. It was in many ways successful; but it, inevitably perhaps, put order ahead of justice. In my judgment—hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—it froze the political confrontation into one between unionists and nationalists or republicans. It also had the unfortunate effect, since corrected, I am glad to see, of keeping the leaders of both communities in Belfast instead of sending them here where they were represented by what might be called a second eleven, distinguished though many of them were.

    I cannot help thinking that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) destroyed Stormont—I am not sure whether he was right or wrong—he had a chance to introduce what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne called the Airey Neave proposal, to integrate the Province completely into the United Kingdom and just have one or more regional authorities. He did not do that. Instead, my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw went out to try to destroy the unionist ascendancy. He succeeded; he got two of them. I do not know whether that has been of any help from the point of view from which he set out.

    He and his colleagues then went on to embark on power sharing. Power sharing is a complicated operation. I have some experience of it. I helped to devise a power-sharing constitution for Cyprus. It was an admirable constitutional bit of work. It was approved by the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus and by the Greek and Turkish Governments and by our Government. Look at Cyprus now. My father before me tried to introduce power sharing in India. It was broken up, with millions of dead, into three bits. Some other Minister, I forget who, tried to have power sharing in Palestine.

    There was an admirable power-sharing constitution in the Lebanon, but read the papers this morning or those for any other day for the past few weeks. [Interruption.] I do not think that Sunningdale had much chance, but whatever chance it had was killed by the introduction of the Irish dimension, which introduced an element of condominium.

    We have had a little experience of condominium. We had quite a good one in the Sudan because we would not let the other codominus, the Egyptians, come into it. We had an admirable one in the New Hebrides as a result of which no attempt was made to interfere with the tribal customs of the inhabitants, not all of which would have been approved in this House had it been informed about them.

    Then we came to direct rule. I must pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) for the way in which they administered the situation. If I may say so, they did it rather better than we have. It had one important result. The leaders of the official Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and the SDLP came here. That is already a step in the right direction. Although they have mainly talked to us about Irish problems, they have been encouraged by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) to talk and to vote on other matters and some have even joined the European Parliament. That was the whole idea that Carson had at the beginning. He believed that this House should be the protector of the majority in the North against the Republic in the South and the protector of the minority in the North against the majority in the North.

    People in Britain cannot sit still, particularly the civil servants. That is understandable, but there is a passion for initiative, encouraged by the United States and other elements. So we had the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) for the Assembly. Some of us bored the pants off the House keeping hon. Members up late at night saying that that would fail. I am sorry that we kept hon. Members up late at night, but who can say that we were wrong? The Assembly has produced the most disastrous fiasco. Although the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has talked a lot about co-operation, I am not at all clear from his speech whether he is intending to join the Assembly even now. It is expensive and totally unsuccessful, and I do not see what point it has served.

    My conclusion is that devolution perpetuates division and that the best chance lies in integration. The atmosphere of this House softens differences and tends to ridicule extremism. I remember well when Mrs. Braddock, of blessed memory, came into the House. I approached her once on some subject and she said that she did not talk to Tories. Two years later I found her the most garrulous and agreeable of companions. There is some chemistry in the House that operates in this way.

    I cannot help thinking that the commitment to devolution, as we rejected it for Scotland and Wales, makes the inhabitants of the Province, if not second-class citizens, at least citizens of a different category. It is imposing on them a kind of dual nationality, and that is a fundamental flaw.

    Then there is the flaw of the condominium. We are assured, and I believe it, that the representative of the Republic, the Minister who comes, will have only a consultative right. He will not have a right of veto or anything of that sort. But suppose that any of us was in his shoes. He is responsible to the Dail. Any question on some alleged grievance in the Province can be referred through some member of the Dail to him in his capacity as a Minister in his own Parliament. So the affairs of the Province can be discussed in the Dail almost as intimately as if the Province were part of the Republic. He will be under great pressure. As election time approaches, he will be asked what is said and whether he stood up for the rights of Mrs. Maloney, or whoever it may be. That could become serious where security is concerned.

    Let us suppose that the GoC or the Chief Constable wants to adopt a new line and puts it to the conference. Let us suppose that the Republic representative does not like it. Will the Secretary of State say, “Perhaps we should be careful. The Republic does not like it.” Are operations to be subject to diplomacy?

    Where will that lead? It is not so much that we have the right to overrule and to decide, as that there could be a reluctance on the part of the British Government to override the view of the people directly responsible for security.

    My third criticism is that there is no element of reciprocity. In the United Kingdom we are deeply involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. We have a large southern Irish population. It is difficult to be sure how many Irish there are here, but they are entitled to work, enjoy our social services, vote and stand for public office. They come here because of the way in which the economy in the Republic is administered.

    Mr. Heffer rose—

    Mr. Amery

    I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows a great many of the Irish in Liverpool.

    Mr. Heffer rose—

    Mr. Amery

    I could perhaps have swallowed the agreement if it had been a step towards a reunion of the British Isles or the Anglo-Celtic isles, whatever one may like to call them, but I cannot help feeling that this is an irretraceable step towards a united Ireland. Certainly that is how our friends in the United States appear to see it.

    I accept the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the union, but I would add a qualification. People are led by the calculation of their brain but also by the heart. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, like her predecessors, has reiterated many times, and several times in her statement on 18 November, the old formula that there will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland unless the people of the Province require it. I cannot help finding that a chilling, cold and clinical formula.

    The Queen does not want any unwilling subjects, but I should like to hear the Government and the Conservative party take pride in the patriotism of the majority of the ​ people of Northern Ireland and in the contribution that they have made in shipbuilding, aircraft building and the eight field marshals that they provided during the war out of a total of 11. I want to hear us say that, although we will not stand in the way of their joining the Republic, if that ever crosses their mind, we would do so with the greatest reluctance.

    In the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I cannot find any of the warmth that I should like to see for our association with the Province. Because I cannot find that, and because of the arguments that I have attempted to put forward in criticism of the agreement, I find it impossible to support the initiative that she has taken.

  • Adam Butler – 1985 Speech on the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Adam Butler, the then Conservative MP for Bosworth, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1985.

    I do not have in my voice today the power of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but I hope that I can emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Even if I speak quietly, I hope that I can speak as much sense as he did. So far, there have been three contributions from those who represent different parties in Northern Ireland. They make me believe that I was right the other night to vote for the televising of the proceedings of this Chamber. If the television cameras had been here, the viewers, whether in Northern Ireland or in the remainder of the United Kingdom, would have obtained a much better appreciation of the problem and of the advocates of the various points of view.

    I served as a Northern Ireland Minister for nearly four years. Since then I have had the opportunity for reflection. Perhaps my views are now a little more objective than they were then. Whatever my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) said, although there was mistrust of English Ministers when we first appeared, I hope that I and my colleagues and friends who served with me in Northern Ireland left the impression that we were seeking to do our bit and to make our contribution to the resolution of the problems of Northern Ireland. I know that my right hon. Friend did that.

    I have already expressed my view, on the occasion of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. It is one of general welcome for the agreement. However, I cannot say that I like it, or necessarily welcome one of its fundamental points. Why should I, as a British citizen, automatically like and welcome the fact that advice can come from a Minister of a Government of a foreign state? That is the technical position of the Republic of Ireland, whatever history tells us.

    However, I accept the agreement, for a reason that lies in what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said. This is where I fall out with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and others who have spoken. This point is probably the fundamental point at issue in the Northern Ireland problem. Are we talking about a democratic system, or part of a democratic system, where a simple majority should hold sway regardless, where first-past-the-post should rule and 50 per cent. plus should win the day? If so, life would be easy, but Stormont tried that for 50 years.

    I believe the reason to be that stated by the hon. Member for Foyle, and that is the difference within Northern Ireland between the two communities. There is a division now that has been made worse by recent history. I do not need to lecture hon. Members about the position in Northern Ireland. However, one has to recognise certain basic facts. Two thirds, or less now, of the population are fundamentally unionists and loyalists, looking to London and Westminster, while the remainder of the population, on the whole, are nationalists, some republicans and nearly all Roman Catholic with a distinctive regard for the South and the Republic. It is with that that we have to concern ourselves, and that is what the agreement seeks to recognise.

    It is no good saying to the people in the minority that, as they are in a minority in part of the United Kingdom, they must think like us, become totally British and prefer the Union flag, not the tricolour. Those people found themselves, because of a stroke of history, north of the border, thanks to the Boundary Commission of that time.

    Mr. Harold McCusker (Upper Bann)

    If the right hon. Gentleman believes that a simple majority rule is not appropriate in Northern Ireland—I can understand arguments along those lines—why should I accept, through article 1 of the agreement, that a simple majority should take me out of my citizenship of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland?

    Mr. Butler

    That point is somewhere among my notes to be dealt with later. If, by some magic, there were a 51 per cent. majority today, the position would be just as bad in terms of divided communities. The fact is that a majority in favour of leaving the United Kingdom—if such a situation should ever arise—is many years away. It is important to grasp this point because it is no good the Republic of Ireland saying that it has only to wait a little while longer, or for the minority in Northern Ireland to say that it has only to wait for a little while. It must be the greatest consolation to the unionist population that it is a question not of a few years but of many decades, if at all. Therefore, the imperative is on both sides to get together to work out their future.

    Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

    Is not the advice of the Northern Ireland Office to all those who visit Northern Ireland that demographic changes within Northern Ireland will lead, perhaps within the next 20 years, to the nationalist population becoming the majority? Has that not been said? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Butler

    I am reinforced in what I believe—that there are no such official forecasts—by the remarks of other of my hon. Friends. There are those who see a trend that will lead that way, but I re-emphasise the point that nobody, as far as I am aware, believes that a simple adverse majority—now now I am a unionist—could arise within several decades, if at all.

    In looking at the options that should be considered, I have in the past taken seriously the possibility of repartition, because that is the only other option if the two communities will not resolve the problems themselves. Frankly, it is not an option. Anybody who knows he demographic map of Northern Ireland knows that in every square mile of every part of the Province there is a significant minority population. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) would hardly welcome that part of Ulster going to the South. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who is ​ not in his place at the moment, would not relish such a proposition for his constituency. I cannot imagine unionists ever wanting to give up the city of Londonderry.

    Although that is not a feasible option, it is important to look at it so that it can be rejected, thus leaving the one option, which is working together. One welcomes the agreement because it recognises the fundamental character of the Province.

    I follow that point one step further, in regard to the obligation on the two Governments that if a simple majority to leave the United Kingdom were achieved, those Governments would be required to lay before their Parliaments proposals for such a move. It is now in the agreement, although I would prefer that it were not. However, in that event, it would put the decision into the hands of this House, on behalf of the United Kingdom, regardless of what the proposals were, because this is where the decision should rest. We are talking about the choice not of Ulstermen, on whichever side of the divide they come, but of the British people. If I may presume to advise many of those whom I call my friends sitting on the Unionist Bench, this is why it is important to have regard to the feelings of the English, Welsh and Scottish about this affair. As others before me have said, too many are conscious of the resources that have been put into Northern Ireland and of the lives that have been lost by the Regular Army not to feel that this matter could be resolved through a united Ireland.

    My last point is the one that I raised in an intervention following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement last Monday. No one must think that this is the tip of the iceberg or the prelude to a united Ireland. It is merely an opportunity for a step forward.

    The hon. Member for Foyle was challenged from a sedentary position when he said that he was prepared to sit down and talk. If I may say so to the hon. Member for Belfast, East, it was typical of him to ask why the hon. Member for Foyle had not sat down and talked in the past. I have asked the hon. Gentleman before why he was not in the Assembly, and I am as critical as anyone of the fact that he has not been. But now that we have heard his positive statement as the leader of the constitutional nationalists, it is for the Unionist parties to accept that offer and to try to find a way forward. Only in that way can peace and stability be achieved.

  • John Hume – 1985 Speech on the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hume, the then SDLP MP for Foyle, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1986.

    Listening to some of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate one could have been forgiven for thinking that we were not discussing a serious problem, but, after listening to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), one should not be in any doubt that we are discussing a serious problem.

    I was glad to see a full House at the beginning of the debate. That is the first achievement of the Anglo-Irish conference. It shows that the serious human problem facing the peoples of these islands has at last been given the priority that it deserves. It has been put at the centre of the stage.

    I was glad also that a meeting took place at the highest level between the British and the Irish Governments at which a framework for ongoing discussion was set up. In an excellent unionist speech, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) told us what we already knew—that he was a committed unionist and that he did not particularly like to associate with the loud-mouthed persons with whom I have to live. We did not learn from him of the problem in Northern Ireland—that we have a deeply divided society. The hon. Gentleman did not bother to analyse why we have a deeply divided society and the political instability and violence which the agreement seeks to address.

    This is the first time that we have had a real framework within which to address the problem. The problem is not just about relationships with Northern Ireland. One need only listen to the speeches of Northern Ireland Members to know that it is about relationships in Ireland and between Ireland and Britain. Those interlocking relationships should be addressed within the framework of the problem. The framework of the problem can only be the framework of the solution, and that is the British-Irish framework. There is no road towards a solution to this problem that does not contain risks. The road that has been chosen by both Governments is the road of maximum consensus and is, therefore, the road of minimum risk. We should welcome that.

    Our community has just gone through 15 years of the most serious violence that it has ever seen. Northern Ireland has a population of 1·5 million people. About 2,500 people have lost their lives in political violence—the equivalent of 86,000 people in Britain. Twenty thousand people have been seriously maimed. When I say “maimed”, I mean maimed. That is the equivalent of 750,000 people on this island. About £11 billion-worth of damage has been caused to the economies of Ireland—North and South. In 1969, public expenditure by the British Government in subsidy, subvention or whatever one calls it was £74 million; today it is £1·5 billion. Two new prisons have been built and a third is about to be opened—our only growth industry. There are 18-year-olds who have known nothing but violence and armed soldiers on their streets. Young people reach 18 and then face the highest unemployment we have ever had. Forty-four per cent. of the population is under 25.

    If that is not a time bomb for the future, what is? If that is not a problem that needs the serious attention of the House and the serious attention that the Prime Ministers of Britain and of the Republic of Ireland have given it in the past 18 months, what is? Is this not a subject that screams out for political leaders in Northern Ireland to take a good look at themselves, their parties and the leadership ​ that they have given? There is only one clear-cut lesson to be learnt from this tragedy—that our past attitudes have brought us where we are. Unless we agree to take a hard look at our past attitudes, we shall be going nowhere fast and we shall be committing ourselves to the dustbin of history, clutching our respective flagpoles.

    We are being given some choices. The agreement gives us no more than an opportunity to begin the process of reconciliation. The choices offered to the people of Northern Ireland are the choices offered by hon. Members here present. The unionist parties have consistently sought to protect the integrity of their heritage in Ireland—the Protestant heritage—and no one should quarrel with that. A society is richer for its diversity. My quarrel with the unionist parties has been that they have sought to protect their heritage by holding all the power in their own hands and by basing that on sectarian solidarity. That is an exclusive use of power which is inherently violent because it permanently excludes a substantial section of the community from any say in its affairs.

    That was spelt out clearly by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) when he said that he offered an act of leadership. He was sincere. He said that the majority should assure the minority that they would be made part of society. He tells me that it is an act of leadership to make me and the people I represent part of our society 65 years after Northern Ireland was created.

    We have been lectured about democracy and the democratic process by hon. Members from both unionist parties. They are practitioners of the democratic process. I do not want to spend too much time on examples of their practice, but they were the masters of gerrymander. Today their voices are somewhat muted, but they have not changed much.

    In Belfast city council not one position on any board has gone to a minority representative. One council has even apologised to the electorate because it made a mistake in appointing a member of the SDLP to one position out of 105.

    Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

    The hon. Gentleman is complaining because his party cannot win elections. Many people here have to face the fact that their party cannot win elections. It is a fact of life, but it is not a reason for power sharing.

    Mr. Hume

    I thought that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention might be intelligent. I shall not lecture him on how Northern Ireland was set up, how it was deliberately created and how from day one it has been run on a sectarian basis. The only way to break that down is through partnership.

    Hon. Members from both unionist parties have lectured us about democracy. That brings us to the heart of the Irish problem. The sovereignty of this Parliament is the basis of the British system and of the rule of law. The sovereignty of Parliament has been defied only twice in this century—on both occasions by Ulster Unionists.

    In 1912 the Ulster Unionists defied the sovereign wish of Parliament to grant home rule. That was only devolution within the United Kingdom. They objected and accepted instead home rule for themselves. That taught them a lesson which they have never forgotten—that if one threatens a British Government or British Parliament and produces crowds in the streets from the Orange lodges the British will back down. Others learnt from that that if ​ one wins by the democratic process the British will back down to their loyalist friends and then they say, “Why not use force instead?” Those two forces are still at the heart of preventing a development in relationships within Ireland. Those who threaten violence are those who use it. The same two forces are opposing the agreement today.

    Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

    Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in 1969 he brought on to the streets of Ulster the hordes who, when he left them alone, fell into the hands of violent men? The hon. Gentleman says that he is not allowed to share responsibility in Northern Ireland, but as I have told him before the SDLP refused to put their names forward for positions within the council of which I am a member and tried to nominate Sinn Fein members instead. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will apply his mind to that.

    Mr. Hume

    I am applying my mind to the record of the unionist parties, the members of which have spoken today. I shall apply my mind to my own party later. I am expecting everyone to do a little rethinking.

    The logic of the road down which the unionist leadership is taking its people is inescapable. Unionists once again are prepared to defy the sovereign will of this Parliament. When they come back after their elections and Parliament says that it refuses to back down, what will they do? Where will that lead us? They are going down the UDI road. That is their logic. They say that they are loyal to the United Kingdom. They are the loyalists and they must accept the sovereignty of Her Majesty’s Parliament. But they do not.

    What would happen if London Members resigned, were re-elected and returned saying that the majority in Greater London wanted to keep the Greater London council? That would lead to a complete breakdown of parliamentary sovereignty. That is where the unionists are leading us and they must know it.

    It is sad in 1985 to meet people who are suspicious of everybody. They are suspicious of London, suspicious of Dublin and suspicious of the rest of the world. Worst of all, they are suspicious of the people with whom they share a little piece of land—their neighbours. It is sad that they never talk of the future except with fear. They talk always of the past. Their thoughts are encapsulated in that marvellous couplet

    “To hell with the future and Long live the past.
    May God in his mercy look down on Belfast.”

    That is more relevant than the words of Rudyard Kipling.

    There has to be a better way. However grand we think we are, we are a small community. We cannot for ever live apart. Those sentiments were expressed in 1938 by Lord Craigavon, one of their own respected leaders. What are we sentencing our people to if we continue to live apart? People are entitled to live apart, but they are not entitled to ask everyone else to pay for it.

    The other opposition to the agreement comes from the Provisional IRA and its political surrogates. They murder fellow Irishmen in the name of Irish unity. They murder members of the UDR and RUC—fellow Irishmen. Those members see themselves as protectors of their heritage, but the Provisional IRA brutally murders UDR and RUC members in the name of uniting the Irish people, the heritage with which we must unite if we are ever to unite Ireland.

    The IRA’s political wing is full of contradictions. I hope that no one in the House has any sympathy with it. ​ Its members blow up factories, yet complain about unemployment. Its political spokesmen complain about cuts in public expenditure and in the same evening the military wing blows up £2 million of public expenditure in one street. A motion rightly condemns the execution of a young South African poet, but the IRA then shoots in the back of the head a young unemployed man and puts bullets in the head of a young man and his wife in west Belfast. The IRA complains about Diplock courts, yet runs kangaroo courts. What does that offer Ireland?

    The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asks about Irish unity. In the late 20th century it is nonsense that there should be divisions. If European nations which twice in this century alone have slaughtered one another by the millions can build institutions that allow them to grow together at their own speed, why cannot we do the same? He quoted me in an interview as saying that I was working for Irish unity, but I went on to say that those who think that Irish unity is round the corner are wired to the moon.

    The divisions in Ireland go back well beyond partition. Centuries ago the leaders of Irish republicanism said that they wanted to unite Ireland by replacing the name of “Catholic-Protestant dissenter” with the common name of “Irishman”. That was in 1795. Thirty years before partition Parnell said that Ireland could never be united or have its freedom until the fears of the Protestant minority in Ireland could be conciliated. This is a deep problem. It will not be solved in a week or in a fortnight. The agreement says that if Ireland is ever to be united it will be united only if those who want it to be united can persuade those who do not want it to be united. Sovereignty has nothing to do with maps but everything to do with people.

    The people of Ireland are divided on sovereignty. They will be united only by a process of reconciliation in which both traditions in Ireland can take part and agree. If that happens, it will lead to the only unity that matters—a unity that accepts that the essence of unity is the acceptance of diversity.

    Our third choice is the agreement. For the first time it sets up a framework that addresses the problem of the interlocking relationships between the people of both Irelands. It is the approach of maximum consensus. It is the way of minimum risk. For the first time—this is a positive element in the agreement—it respects the equal validity of both traditions. That is what the right hon. and hon. Members of the Unionist party are complaining about. It is not a concession to me or to the people whom I represent. It is an absolute right to the legitimate expression of our identity and of the people I represent. Nobody can take that from us. The recognition of the equal validity of both traditions removes for the first time every excuse for the use of violence by anybody in Ireland to achieve his objective. A framework for genuine reconciliation is provided. Both sections of our community can take part in it.

    Several hon. Members have said that the SDLP has a double veto on devolution. I have already said several times to them in public, but let me say it again so that they may hear it, that I believe in the partnership between the different sections of the community in Northern Ireland. That is the best way to reconcile our differences. By working together to build our community we shall ​ diminish the prejudices that divide us. The agreement means that I am prepared to sit down now and determine how we shall administer the affairs of Northern Ireland in a manner that is acceptable to both traditions.

    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Hume

    No. [HON. MEMBERS: “Give way.”] I noticed that the right hon. and hon. Members of the Unionist parties were allowed to speak without interruption. When they were interrupted, they did not agree to give way.

    The second question that appears to excite people about my party’s attitude relates to the security forces and to policing in Northern Ireland. Our position—this is not a policy but a statement of fact that applies to every democratic society—is that law and order are based upon political consensus. Where political consensus is absent there is an Achilles heel. Violent men in Northern Ireland take advantage of that Achilles heel. For the first time the Intergovernmental Conference will address that question. It has committed itself to addressing that question. It has also committed itself to addressing the relationship between the community and the security forces. I want to give every encouragement to the conference to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. If it does so, it will have our fullest co-operation. I want the people whom I represent to play the fullest possible part, as do any citizens in a democratic society, in the process of peace and order. While we await the outcome we shall continue to give our full and unqualified support to the police force in impartially seeking out anybody who commits a crime in Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Dalyell

    On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has a position to state in this argument. I may not happen to agree with him, but just as it was wrong—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

    Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised this point of order before. He knows that it is at the discretion of the hon. Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way.

    Mr. Hume

    What is the alternative to the process of reconciliation and the breaking down of barriers? Why should anybody be afraid of the process of reconciliation? Anybody who is afraid has no confidence in himself or herself. It means that they cannot engage in a process of reconciliation. If they cannot retain mutual respect for their own position as well as for that of somebody else, they have no self-confidence. Therefore, they should not be representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. The only alternative is the old one of hopelessness, tit-for-tat, revenge—the old doctrine of an eye for an eye which has left everybody blind in Northern Ireland.

    This is well summed up by a better poet than Kipling, the good, honest voice of the North, Louis MacNeice. Describing the old hopelessness, which is what we are being offered by those who will not take this opportunity, he said:

    “Why should I want to go back
    To you, Ireland, my Ireland?
    The blots on the page are so black
    That they cannot be covered with shamrock.
    I hate your grandiose airs,
    Your sob-stuff, your laugh and your swagger,
    Your assumption that everyone cares
    Who is the king of your castle.
    ​
    Castles are out of date.
    The tide flows round the children’s sandy fancy,
    Put up what flag you like, it is too late
    To save your soul with bunting.”

    It is far too late for the people of Northern Ireland to save their souls with bunting or with flag waving. We should note that the followers of those who wave flags as though they were the upholders of the standards of those flags paint their colours on kerbstones for people to walk over. In other words, there is no leadership and no integrity in that approach and no respect. The alternative that we are offered is an opportunity which, like others, may fail. It poses great challenges and risks. The challenges are daunting and difficult, but the choices are not. There is no other choice. There is no other road.

  • Peter Robinson – 1985 Speech on the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Robinson, the then DUP MP for Belfast East, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1985.

    This debate provides a unique occasion for Ulster Unionist representatives, because it is not often that a man gets the opportunity to deliver the oration at his own funeral. When the Prime Minister signed the agreement in Hillsborough castle, she was in reality drafting the obituary of Ulster as we know it in the United Kingdom.

    It is important for the House to understand why Ulster Unionists came to that conclusion. We did not reach that conclusion simply because of one document that arrived on 15 November. A long series of events led to that occasion. I am old enough to remember when, in 1969, the Labour Government issued the Downing street declaration, which said:

    “the affairs of Northern Ireland are entirely a matter of domestic jurisdiction.”

    I can recall how our Prime Minister, on 8 December 1980 when in Dublin castle, signed a communiqué with Charles J. Haughey which altered that stance, because the communiqué said that

    “the totality of relations within these islands”

    was now a fit subject for discussion between the two Governments. From that moment we had the outworking of the “unique relations” between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. We had joint studies, cross-border co-operation and then the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council, the purpose of which was

    “to provide the overall framework for intergovernmental consultation … on all matters of common interest and concern”—

    wait for it—

    “with particular reference to the achievement of peace, reconciliation and stability and the improvement of relations”.

    At that stage, the council had a responsibility to deal with matters of mutual interest and concern. We have moved from that to a new status which, under this institution, is to give the Republic of Ireland—a foreign Government—a direct role in the government of Northern Ireland.

    It does not end there, because the agreement announced at Hillsborough castle is but the tip of the iceberg. I know that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and others have been careful to say that there is no other agreement. But, then, we were told that there was no agreement right up until it was signed at Hillsborough castle. Indeed, some weeks in advance of 15 November, the deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic had already had a document printed which he sent to every member of his party. It indicated the full text of the agreement. Incidentally, he said that that agreement was signed by

    “the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister of Great Britain.”

    It represents quite a change in our status when the deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic recognises that Northern Ireland is not to be one of our Prime Minister’s responsibilities.

    The document says that the task upon which the conference will embark involves trying to achieve an agreement with our Government on matters such as parades and processions, and putting the UDR out of business. It implies—although we have not yet been told—that the meeting of Ministers will take place in Belfast. It is clearly a framework for further agreements. What other reason could there be for a front cover entitled, “The Republic of Ireland No. 1 Agreement.”?

    I notice that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is in the Chamber. He has at least been honest with the people of Northern Ireland in saying that the agreement is a process. In the Irish News—where else?—he said that it was “a first step.” The next day he said that there were to be “progressive stages.” Those who had any doubt about where they were to lead were told by him on RTE:

    “We are not waiting for Irish unity. We are working for it.”

    I accept that there is no harm in the hon. Gentleman wanting to work towards that goal, but I wish to ensure that the unionist community in Northern Ireland knows what he and the Republic are working towards. It is clear that this process is intended to take us out of the United Kingdom. Yet the people of Northern Ireland have democratically expressed their wish to stay within it.

    The agreement is intended to trundle Northern Ireland into a all-Ireland Republic.

    The unionist community in Northern Ireland has identified this process. It is not an end in itself, and was never intended to be. It is one step towards a united Ireland. Indeed, the Prime Minister has excused the deal by saying that its laudable aim is to achieve peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation.

    That is my aim too. Like some other hon. Members, I live in Northern Ireland. Our stake and investment are in the Northern Ireland community and, most importantly, our families and constituents live there. It is in our interests to have peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation. If I felt that they were achievable I would grasp them with a heart and a hand, but not outside the union. That would be too high a price to pay.

    The document reminds me of another piece of paper waved by a former Prime Minister. In many ways the words are too similar. That Prime Minister’s words were “Peace in our time”. Under this agreement, peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation are not achievable. How can they be achieved by alienating the majority of people in Northern Ireland? It was never intended that there should be peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation as a result of this agreement. After all, if that had been the intention, the Government would have wanted, above all, to take the elected representatives of the majority community in Northern Ireland along with them.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Robinson

    This may be my last opportunity to address the House. The first time I did so, it was without interruption. I trust that I will be able to speak without interruption today.

    Mr. Dalyell

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Robinson

    If the document has been intended to do us good, the Prime Minister would have been only too ​ willing to allow the unionist community to be consulted. She would have been only too pleased to take it along with her and to ensure that the representatives of the unionist people in Northern Ireland could have some input to the discussions.

    The Government of the Irish Republic were only too happy to give the hon. Member for Foyle that facility. The Government of the Irish Republic and this Government briefed people all over the world. The Government of the Irish Republic briefed the Secretary of State to the Vatican. The President of the United States was briefed, as were the United Nations and the European Community. But those who were to be affected by the deal were kept in the dark.

    Mr. Dalyell

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Robinson

    I do not intend to give way during my speech. The hon. Gentleman can ask me to give way as much as he likes, but I do not intend to be interrupted by giving way.

    I ask the Government to scrap this one-sided, anti-unionist deal and to involve unionists in the process of obtaining peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation in Northern Ireland. As I have said, we would participate with a heart and a half. More than many, I recognise that it is not my duty simply to say, “No, we will not have it.” It is my duty and that of other Unionist representatives to say what can be done in a positive way in Northern Ireland. Before the debate ends, I hope that I shall have had the opportunity to do that.

    I want to point out what unionists have done, and are prepared to do within the union.

    Mr. Dalyell

    On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the very nature of the House. I understand that, other than for major speeches and ministerial statements, the House is a place in which hon. Members’ views can, within reason, be scrutinised. Some hon. Members complain that they are misunderstood and that we, on this side of the water, do not fully comprehend this or that. However, if we cannot ask questions of clarification, how can we be expected to understand them?

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

    With his long experience of the House, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is for the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.

    Mr. Robinson

    The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) knows very well that I have given way to him and many other hon. Members before. But because of the uniqueness of the occasion, I do not intend to do so today. I have a message that I want to leave with the House before I walk out through those doors, and I do not intend to be diverted by any hon. Member.

    I call upon the Government to consult and not to confront the unionist community. Unionists have been positive. The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who laid the Assembly legislation before the House knows very well that it was the unionist community in Northern Ireland that went into the Assembly and that co-operated with the Government. It was the hon. Member for Foyle and his party who stayed outside and withdrew their consent. Is it the reward for those who co-operate ​ with the Government that an agreement that is ultimately to their destruction should be foisted upon them to the benefit of the hon. Member for Foyle and his party?

    The Northern Ireland unionist parties—the Ulster Unionist party with its document, “The Way Forward” and the Democratic Unionist party with its document, “Ulster—the Future Assured”—put forward positive proposals for peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation in Northern Ireland.
    Even in the Northern Ireland Assembly, with the help of the conciliator, Sir Frederick Catherwood, the parties sat down and reached agreement on a framework that the Government could use in negotiations with the political parties—not only the Unionist parties but the Alliance party. We have been positive in Northern Ireland.

    I say again that we are prepared to remain positive within the United Kingdom. We are prepared to allow the Prime Minister to engage unionists in constructive politics, and if the Prime Minister wishes to call my bluff, I should be only too happy. Do not confront us and put us out of the union with this deal.

    The willingness of the unionist community to seek an agreement is undeterred. If the Government want peace and stability in Ulster, I ask them where that can best be achieved? There seems to be a new rule in British politics—if there is a dispute within a house, the way to solve it is to reach an agreement with the two neighbours. It is even more strange when the agreement reached between the two neighbours gives aid and succour to one of the parties to the dispute.

    If the Government want peace, stability, reconciliation and co-operation in Northern Ireland, they must recognise that that can be achieved only by the politicians—the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland—reaching agreement. They cannot impose reconciliation; they cannot impose peace and stability and they certainly cannot impose such an agreement which strikes at the fundamental principle in which the majority in Northern Ireland believe, and that is the union. That is the strangest of British strategies.
    Does the agreement measure up to the Government’s test for the sort of proposal that would be acceptable? The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland brought the 1982 Act before the House on the basis of

    “widespread acceptance throughout the community.”

    He argued passionately that there had to be “cross-community support.”

    Throughout the years there have been homilies from politicians of one party or another about the necessity for consent in Northern Ireland. They told us that Northern Ireland could not be governed without the consent of the minority.

    If that is true, I have to tell the Government that they can never govern Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority. Do they have that consent? Have they tried to access whether there is such consent? Will they test whether there is consent? The people of Northern Ireland have the right and entitlement to be consulted about their constitutional future.

    Our citizenship of the United Kingdom does not allow the Government to do whatsoever they may wish with Northern Ireland. Our citizenship of the United Kingdom must be on the same basis as applies in any other part of the United Kingdom. If, for whatever reason—be it good or ill—the Government decide that Northern Ireland must be treated differently from the remainder of ​ the United Kingdom, that can be done only if there is consent, and the consent not only of the Government and Parliament, but of the people of Northern Ireland.

    It was that principle, enunciated in the House, that resulted in the referendums for Wales and Scotland. Have not the people of Ulster the same right to be consulted as the people of Wales and Scotland? Do they not have the same right to give their approval to any deal that, ultimately, will affect their future and the way that they are governed? I believe that they have that right and that they should be given it. If this House is not prepared to give them that right, it is incumbent upon the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to give them that right.

    Right hon. and hon. Members criticise me, but I ask them how they would like it if the agreement affected their constituencies—if the governance of their people was not directly by this House, but by a structure that allowed a foreign power, at its own behest, to make challenges and to request consultation. The agreement goes even further than that and requires that

    “a determined effort is made to resolve the differences”

    between the two Governments. I doubt whether many right hon. and hon. Members would want that for themselves or their constituents.

    The agreement is not merely consultative. The House should not pass this measure believing that it is only a talking shop, in which the Irish Republic can make comments. It is much more than that. I am sure that the Prime Minister will not mind if I divulge certain comments made during our meeting yesterday, when we put the point about consultation to her on two occasions.

    On the first occasion, she was about to speak when the question was answered by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I asked whether only a consultative role was involved or whether it was more than that. He said, “It is not executive.” On the second occasion, the Prime Minister said, “It is what it is in this agreement.”

    What do those who have been more candid say about the agreement? The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic says:

    “it is more than consultation”.

    The deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic says:

    “the agreement goes beyond the right to consult.”

    John F. O’Conner, the dean of the faculty of law at UCC, said:

    “Whatever the eventual political results, the legal result of the new agreement is that Northern Ireland has now become subject to a status in international law which has no real parallels elsewhere. It never was, nor has it become, a separate entity in international law. It is not a condominium. It is a province of the United Kingdom which for the first time has become subject to the legal right of two sovereign governments to determine how all matters which go to the heart of sovereignty in that area shall in future be determined.”

    It is not only the unionists—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like what the dean of the faculty of law said, but if they want to dispute it, they had better do so with him.

    It is not only the unionists who believe that the deal is unfair to the unionist community in Northern Ireland. Senator Mary Robinson of the Irish Republic—no relation of mine, I assure the House—rejected the agreement because it went too far. She said:

    “This is absolutely the most serious moment in the political development of this island since we gained independence.”

    That lady is no unionist—she was one of the signatories to the Forum report.

    Yet even she says that the agreement goes too far.

    The Belfast Telegraph, never a close friend of the unionist community, said:

    “Even those who, like this newspaper, can see benefit flowing from closer consultation with Dublin, must draw the line at such institutionalised links between the two countries.”

    I say again that it is not only the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists who believe that the deal goes too far. The ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland, never previously involved in politics, were present at the mass demonstration at the city hall in Belfast.

    I was born a free citizen of the United Kingdom. I was brought up to respect the Union flag. At my father’s knee I was taught the love that I should have for the monarchy, and throughout my life I have put that into practice. I was nurtured on the principle of the greatness of our British heritage. I have taught all that to my children. I now have to tell this House that over the last 17 cruel years, when Ulster has been confronted by a vicious campaign of terrorism, not one of the unionist community was prepared to allow that campaign to shatter his loyalty to the United Kingdom.

    It is not a one-way street. It never has been for Ulster. We cheered with this country during the Falklands campaign. Ulster suffered its losses just as many did on this side of the Irish sea. During the second world war, we made sacrifices, just as many people in this part of the United Kingdom, and we did it without conscription. During the first world war, Ulster gave of its best for Britain. After watching the Ulster Volunteers on the Somme when 5,000 Ulstermen lost their lives at the enemy’s hand, a great British general—General Spender—said, “I am not an Ulsterman but there is no one in the world whom I would rather be after seeing the Ulster Volunteers in action.” In peace and in war Ulster stood by the kingdom. That has been the way of loyal Ulster.

    I never believed that I would see a British Government who were prepared to damage Ulster’s position in the United Kingdom. Our resolve has been hardened by the bitter times in past years when a terrorist campaign was aimed at undermining our position in the United Kingdom. There would never have been a Hillsborough castle agreement if the IRA had not been bombing and shooting. That is a fact of life. Can one blame the people of Northern Ireland for thinking that violence works? It makes the task harder for those of us who chose the way of constitutional politics to tell people not to involve themselves in violence.

    I wish that the House had a sense of the deep feeling of anger and betrayal in Northern Ireland. Yesterday, while I was waiting in an ante-room in No. 10 Downing street before meeting the Prime Minister I saw on the wall a portrait of Rudyard Kipling, who was a great patriot. I recall the words of his poem

    “Ulster 1912”, which begins:

    “The dark eleventh hour
    Draws on and sees us sold
    To every evil power
    We fought against of old.”

    Later, it states:

    “The blood our fathers split,
    Our love, our toils, our pains,
    Are counted us for guilt,
    And only bind our chains.
    Before an Empire’s eyes
    The traitor claims his price.
    What need of further lies?
    We are the sacrifice.”

  • David Alton – 1985 Speech on the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Alton, the then Liberal MP for Liverpool Mossley Hill, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1985.

    During the course of this debate it seems that we have been tilting at a number of imaginary windmills. Some speakers have referred to the breaking of the Union while others have talked about the creation of a united Ireland. It is quite clear to anyone who has taken the trouble to read the proposals that neither of these issues is contained within the agreement. Repeatedly arguments have been put up to defeat issues that are not within the agreement.

    The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist part, talked about the possibility of a high-powered initiative for federation which he said was in the 1979 briefing notes sent out by Conservative central office. I personally believe in confederation as an approach. Confederation would enable the Irish of the north who are Catholics to look towards Dublin, whilst the Irish of the north who are Protestants or unionists would look towards London. However, this agreement is no more about confederation than it is about breaking the Union or the creation of a united Ireland.

    The agreement is a genuine attempt by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to break the straitjacket that has become Northern Ireland. The Hillsborough agreement represents the outcome of months of effort by politicians and civil servants who have made a genuine effort to reconcile the two traditions in Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I have had the privilege of spending time in Northern Ireland and the Republic, most recently as part of a Liberal-SDP commission under Lord Donaldson. In July, we published our report entitled “What future for Northern Ireland?” Many of the ideas promoted in that report are contained in the agreement. However, we would have gone further on issues such as the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier. I was pleased when the Prime Minister said earlier that it is something that the House and the Dail could consider further. A parliamentary tier would help to compliment those initiatives which have been taken in this agreement.

    We recognise the Hillsborough agreement as an honest and brave attempt to wrench the initiative from the men of violence and to take a few, albeit faltering, steps away from the bigotry and hatred which have led to 2,500 deaths during the past 16 years, 24,000 injuries, and some £11 million-worth of damage in Ulster caused through acts of political violence. We welcome the initiative because it marks an important change in the attitude of the two Governments towards one another.

    Some years ago the brave non-sectarian Alliance party in Northern Ireland said:

    “positive development of Anglo-Irish relations could lead to the growth of mutual trust and respect in place of bitterness and recrimination which has bedevilled Anglo-Irish relations for too long.”

    Hillsborough is a step along that road.

    This agreement is the bulwark against Sinn Fein. If it fails, it will give credence to the lie that violence alone can bring progress. It will lead to the enticement of more young men and women into violent organisation and violent actions. This agreement is a courageous step by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to challenge and defeat that lie.

    Those who choose to distort and lie about the content of this agreement will be taking the side of violence to sustain their tribalistic and sectarian positions, deliberately ​ keeping alive divisions for their own selfish political ends. The Nobel peace prize winner, Solzhenitsyn, understood the nature of violence. He said:

    “Violence can only be concealed by the lie. Anyone who has once proclaimed that violence is his method is inevitably forced to choose the lie as his guiding principle.”

    The way forward in Northern Ireland is through mutual respect, mutual forgiveness for past injuries and wounds and building up the common ground.
    During the Donaldson commission inquiry, I visited the Maze prison where I met a young man, Liam McAnoy. That young man, brought up on the Falls Road, at the age of 18 joined the official IRA, and he committed a murder. He has since renounced violence and 12 years later I had the privilege to meet him. Since then we have corresponded.

    The hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke earlier about people who had written to him and who had genuine fears about what might happen in Northern Ireland. Liam McAnoy, who has been consigned to the Maze for an act which he bitterly and sincerely regrets, can now see what needs to be done in Northern Ireland if we are to avoid more bitterness and hatred. In a letter to me he says:

    “Justice requires, just as peace demands, the pacific coexistence of both communities in mutual acceptance and respect and in equality of rights. Violence and talk of civil war makes the attainment of co-existence more difficult.”

    The creation of that justice requires the establishment of bodies such as the Intergovernmental Conference which must win the respect of the Protestant and Catholic communities alike. The founder of the Corrymeela Community, the right Reverend Dr. Ray Davey, in a sermon at Westminster abbey in March 1980, signalled the other prerequisites for peace in Northern Ireland. He said:

    “Truth demands that we be willing to look at another’s point of view when it is opposed to ours and to try to understand it.”

    Liberals believe that this requires a moderation which is the only hope of reconciliation.

    In the spirit of trying to understand another point of view it is incumbent on all the people of Great Britain, especially the English people, to try to understand the fears and anxieties of the unionists. This agreement was made in secrecy, largely without consultation, without information and without consent. While Dublin—I make no complaint about this—kept the SDLP in the picture, the British Government chose not to involve the Northern Ireland parties in the Hillsborough process. Assemblyman John Cushnahan, the Alliance leader, whom I met here last Friday, told me that many people in Northern Ireland are gravely dissatisfied with the way the agreement was made. We agree with him. Their condition, which is a fair one, is that the secrecy must now end. At the minimum, agendas and conclusions reached by the Intergovernmental Conference must be published. If that does not happen, every matter pursued by the Secretary of State will be represented by some unionists as deriving from the Republic through the deliberations of the Intergovernmental Conference.

    Unionists may be tempted to shout treachery and no surrender and to retreat behind historical images of the siege of Londonderry. The unionists claim to be law-abiding members of the Union. How will that square with the erection of shutters and barricades and the repudiation of an agreement endorsed by two democratically elected Parliaments? The remarks by the hon. Member for Upper ​ Bann (Mr. McCusker) were out of accord with the unionist tradition which has always pledged itself to constitutionality. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) said:

    “The so-called loyalists in Northern Ireland must look again at their definition of loyalty, which means nothing if it does not include support for the authority of the Westminster Parliament. To threaten unconstitutional action even before Parliament has had a chance to debate the proposals will be the action of disloyalists and would only harden the belief of the British people that the unionists are quite incorrigible.”

    Mr. Molyneaux

    Would the hon. Gentleman accept that at the rally on Saturday in Belfast, when passions were running somewhat high, the main cheer came for the portion of my speech when I said:

    “Violence is no part of our campaign”?

    I was speaking on behalf of my colleagues on this Bench and of my colleagues who represent the Democratic Unionist party.

    Mr. Alton

    I am glad to hear the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley say that. It is in complete sympathy with everything that I have heard him say in my six years here. I was distressed to hear the comments of one of his colleagues. I hope that we shall talk, as we have during this debate, about how Parliaments and elected Members can reconcile the two traditions. That is the only way to defeat the people who murder and maim to achieve their political objectives.

    We appreciate the suffering of unionists, especially during the past 16 years. As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, they are a keen and proud people, but they should remember that we on this side of the water have also suffered. Many of our constituents who were members of Her Majesty’s forces have been murdered in the Province. The financial burden has been heavy, and there has been a not inconsiderable loss of civil liberties in Britain because of the tragedy of Northern Ireland.

    We in the United Kingdom do not regard the Republic as our enemy. There is a special relationship between us. Many millions of Irish people live and work in Britain and many thousands of British people live and work in Ireland. We are closely integrated. The unionists have a right to be upset by the triumphalism and the talk of victors and vanquished, of which some Catholic clergymen, alas, and politicians have been guilty.

    As an English Catholic, I regret the continued intransigence of the Catholic Church on issues such as mixed and inter-Church marriages and integrated Christian education. Like the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), I regret that the SDLP has so far made no gesture to the unionist community about whether it will participate in the Assembly. I hope that the leader of the SDLP will be able to say something about that later.

    Mr. John Hume (Foyle)

    The hon. Gentleman should listen to me more often.

    Mr. Alton

    I listen regularly to the hon. Gentleman and admire much of what he stands for. The SDLP should now drop its veto on the Northern Ireland Assembly and commit itself to partnership in government in the North. It should also encourage more Catholics to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary. When I was in Northern Ireland earlier this year and met Sir John Hermon, I was intensely worried by the RUC’s difficulty in encouraging more Roman Catholics to join, although there has been some improvement this year.

    A MORI poll, conducted in 1981, showed that 70 per cent. of Protestants and 62 per cent. of Catholics would accept Northern Ireland remaining as part of the United Kingdom, but with its own Assembly and guarantees for Catholics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) earlier this year said:

    “What is needed is a partnership at the level of a devolved government”.

    If the Government use the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act 1973 as a framework for devolving power, the guarantees that the Catholic community in the North should be able to expect would be missing. I hope that the Secretary of State will be clearer about the power-sharing proposals and that the SDLP’s lingering doubts will be removed. Partnership in government is the best way to remove the alienation of the north’s Catholics—of finally extinguishing the Bunsen burner that has kept the cauldron smouldering.

    Those of us who heard Noel Dorr, the Irish ambassador in London, speak here last night will have noted that he stressed the alienation of the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland. The agreement is about removing that alienation. That is why it is worthy of support.

    For unionists, the incentive for being involved in such a partnership is that it will reduce the influence held by Dublin. If political leaders refuse to provide their people with the leadership that they are entitled to expect, the people must be prepared to change those leaders, whether they be unionist or nationalist. The Government should ensure that a copy of the agreement is sent to every household in Northern Ireland. It is not good enough to be told that it has appeared in some Belfast newspapers. If unionist politicians now try to wreck the agreement by forcing by-elections—and I desperately hope that they will reconsider such action—the Government should be prepared to consider holding those elections under a system of proportional representation, as currently applies to local government, Assembly and European Parliament elections. That would turn the elections into a far more convincing test of public opinion and enable the Government to reach over the heads of sectarian leaders.

    There is something in the agreement for everyone. For unionists, there is a double guarantee of their right to self-determination within the Six Counties. There is an acceptance of their identity by Dublin and an acceptance that it will be registered publicly at the United Nations. There is to be no Executive rule and no joint authority, both of which are anathema to unionists. There is also the Republic’s commitment to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. There is the promise of better cross-border co-operation and improved security—progress on extradition and trials in another jurisdiction.

    For nationalists, there is a recognition of their identity, respect for their democratic aspirations and for their symbols, culture, sports and repeal of offensive legislation such as the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act 1954. There is a chance to be partners in government and of parity of esteem and equality of opportunity.

    For all, there is an opportunity of better human rights for individuals and groups and a framework for greater cooperation between our two countries. There is the opportunity for more common services to be developed and the chance in the longer term of parliamentary cooperation and a permanent body to oversee the ​ Intergovernmental Conference. There really is something in this agreement for everyone, and I hope that moderate Unionist politicians will re-examine it in that light.

    The alliance report, which we published in July, said:

    “the status quo in Northern Ireland is not an option.”

    That view has been echoed time and again today. The Irish and British Governments have acted boldly in an attempt to shift the status quo. They deserve broad support. Perhaps a small window has opened in Northern Ireland. If men and women of ill will now slam it shut, the violence and despair that will inevitably follow will be upon their heads.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Statement on the European Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2019.

    Mr Speaker, before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our very best wishes to the former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.

    All our thoughts are with him and his family at this time – and we wish him a full and speedy recovery.

    Mr Speaker, last week’s European Council focused on climate change, disinformation and hybrid threats, external relations and what are known as the EU’s “Top Jobs”.

    The UK has always been clear that we will participate fully and constructively in all EU discussions for as long as we are a Member State – and that we will seek to continue our co-operation on issues of mutual interest through our future relationship after we have left.

    And that was the spirit in which I approached this Council.

    Mr Speaker, earlier this month the UK became the first major economy in the world to commit to ending its contribution to global warming by 2050.

    And I am pleased that the regulations to amend the 2008 Climate Change Act – which are being debated in this Chamber later today – have received widespread support from across this House.

    But ultimately we will only protect our planet if we are able to forge the widest possible global agreements.

    That means other countries need to follow our lead and increase their ambitions as well.

    At this Council the UK helped to lead the way in advocating for our European partners to follow suit in committing to a net zero target by 2050.

    While a full EU-wide consensus was not reached, “a large majority” of Member States did agree that “climate neutrality must be achieved by 2050”.

    And I hope we can build on this in the months ahead.

    In the margins of the Council, I also met Prime Minister Conte and discussed the UK’s bid to host next year’s UN climate summit, COP26, in partnership with Italy.

    This will continue to put the UK at the heart of driving global efforts to tackle the climate emergency and leave a better world for our children.

    Turning to disinformation and hybrid threats, we agreed to continue working together to raise awareness, increase our preparedness, and strengthen the resilience of our democracies.

    I welcome the development of a new framework for targeted sanctions to respond to hybrid threats.

    This sends a clear message that the UK and its EU partners are willing and able to impose a cost for irresponsible behaviour in cyberspace.

    Mr Speaker, we must also make more progress in helping to ensure that the internet is a safe place for all our citizens.

    That is why we are legislating in the UK to create a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep users safe from harm. And this will be backed up an independent regulator with the power to enforce its decisions.

    We are the first country to put forward such a comprehensive approach, but it isn’t enough to act alone.

    So building on The Christchurch Call to Action Summit, the UK will continue to help drive the broadest possible global action against online harms, including at the G20 in Japan later this week.

    In the discussion on external relations the Council expressed its concern over Russia’s issuing of passports in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions – and reiterated its call for Russia to release the Ukrainian sailors and vessels captured in the Kerch Strait in November last year.

    Russia has consistently failed to deliver its commitments under the Minsk agreements and continues its destabilising activity.

    So with the UK’s full support, the Council agreed a six month roll-over of Tier III sanctions, which include restrictions on Russia’s access to EU capital markets, an arms embargo, and restricting co-operation with Russia’s energy sector.

    In marking the fifth anniversary of the downing of flight MH17, we also welcomed the announcement from the Netherlands that criminal charges are being brought against four individuals – and offered our continued support in bringing those responsible to justice.

    The Council also expressed serious concerns over Turkey’s drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean.

    The UK has made it clear to Turkey that drilling in this area must stop. And our priority must be to see the situation de-escalated.

    In the margins of the Council I also raised the issue of Iran. We are calling on Iran to urgently de-escalate tensions, and our priority remains finding a diplomatic solution to the current situation in the region.

    Mr Speaker, a substantial part of the Council focused on what are known as the EU’s “Top Jobs” – namely the appointments of the next Presidents of the EU’s institutions and the EU’s High Representative.

    This is, of course, primarily a matter for the 27 remaining EU Member States.

    So I have been clear that the UK will engage constructively and will not stand in the way of a consensus among the other Member States.

    But it is also in our national interest that those appointed are constructive partners for the UK, as well as successful leaders of the EU’s institutions.

    The UK supports President Tusk’s approach to create a package of candidates across the top jobs which reflect the diversity of the European Union.

    As there was no consensus on candidates at this meeting, the Council agreed to meet again after the G20 this coming Sunday – as well as holding further discussions with the European Parliament.

    So Mr Speaker, while I had originally anticipated that this would be my final European Council as Prime Minister, I will in fact have one more.

    Finally Mr Speaker, President Tusk and President Juncker updated the remaining 27 Member States on Brexit.

    This scheduled update was part of the agreement I reached in April to extend the Article 50 deadline for our departure from the EU to 31st October.

    The Council repeated its desire to avoid a disorderly Brexit and committed to work constructively with my successor as Prime Minister.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech at Diabetes Charities Reception

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Downing Street, London on 24 June 2019.

    Welcome everyone.

    As Prime Minister – I host a great many receptions here at Downing Street, but of course today, this time, it’s particularly personal.

    So it really does give me great pleasure to see you all here – and for me to be able to say a wholehearted thank you for everything you do to support and help people with diabetes.

    I also particularly want to mention the children we have here with us – and who I know have achieved some extraordinary things – in sport, in raising awareness, and through their invaluable contribution to our understanding about how we can better help and treat people with diabetes.

    You show tremendous courage, every day, in the things that you do.

    You don’t let diabetes hold you back.

    You show what is possible.

    And you are a source of great inspiration, so please everyone, let’s give these amazing young people a round of applause.

    I will never forget the shock I felt when I was first told I was diabetic.

    I imagine it must be the same for many people.

    It was not something I ever expected. And to be honest, I didn’t know you could get Type 1 diabetes at my age.

    But I will be forever grateful to all those who taught me how to manage my condition – and reduce the impact it has on my life.

    People like those of you here in this room today.

    The one thing I told myself when I found out – was that I was not going to let diabetes stop me from getting on with my life, and getting on with my job.

    But it is only thanks to the advice and support I received that I have been able to keep that promise to myself – the help from my GP, the consultants – but also most memorably the clinical nurse specialists from my local hospital.

    Today we know that the rate of diabetes is rising dramatically – with 3 million people in England registered as living with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes with a GP – although the true number is likely to be higher with up to a million more people yet to be diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.

    And behind those statistics – as everyone here is well aware – are the devastating consequences for people’s health – people of all ages, young and old.

    So this really is one of the great health challenges of our time.

    And I am very pleased that we have here people who are leading the charge in the way that we deal with diabetes.

    I know only too well the difference simple advances can make – because, as some of you may know, I wear a FreeStyle Libre – which makes all the difference to me in being able to monitor my glucose levels.

    And we are taking great strides forward in other areas.

    From the new apps that help people monitor their condition.

    From continuous Glucose Monitoring for all pregnant Type 1 diabetics which will be available on the NHS by 2020/21.

    To the doubling of funds for the NHS’s Type 2 diabetes prevention programme through the Long-Term Plan for the NHS.

    But for today, this really is a chance for me to say a very personal thank you:

    To those of you working to raise awareness and funding for research.

    To those working on innovations, treatments and exploring possible cures.

    And to those of you who care for people living with diabetes and provide the support so that they can live the best possible lives.

    I want to end with a quote by Olympic Gold medal winner Steve Redgrave – whose advice I took to heart when I was first diagnosed.

    It’s one I’ve quoted before – but it’s a good one – so I think it bears repeating.

    “Diabetes must learn to live with me rather than me live with diabetes.”

    It’s a sentiment I have always found gave me incredible inspiration. And I hope it provides inspiration for the many who are determined not to let diabetes get in the way of living their lives to the fullest.

  • Jim Prior – 1985 Speech on the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Prior, the then Conservative MP for Waveney, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1985.

    Taking part in this debate is bound to be a painful business for anyone who has served in Northern Ireland, as one is bound to have mixed emotions. Over a period, in Northern Ireland and among one’s unionist friends on the Back Benches, one develops a great affection and respect for their views. I have come to respect the views of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and of other unionist Members.

    I did not share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) three years ago when I tried to set up the Assembly, but recognise that my hon. Friend has always held very strong views in favour of the unionists. I have always considered my hon. Friend to be a romantic unionist. I do not believe that his idea for a regional council, included in the 1979 Tory party manifesto, was a runner in Northern Ireland, but I am sure that I speak for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when I say that if it had been a runner it would have been by far the easiest course to take. I do not believe, however, that at that time or at any time since the proposal would have commanded the support of the people of Northern Ireland.

    The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) was applauded by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, but I must tell him that there was no great peace in his day. He will accept that terrorism continued and stability was lacking. It is a myth to believe that there has been peace or stability in Northern Ireland in the last 14 or 15 years, because there has not.

    More hon. Members are dominated by a feeling that if one is in politics and trying to make a contribution one must take some risks, because the risk of doing nothing does not necessarily solve the problem. Had the Government accepted the option of simply continuing without change, there would be no progress towards peace and stability and the agony of terrorism, the murders and the funerals would continue. Accusations that the Government and the defence forces are not sincere in trying to contain and destroy terrorism would also continue. I came to the conclusion that the risks of doing nothing were greater than the risks of trying to make ​ changes, given that any change in Northern Ireland would be bound to be resisted by one side or the other. We have seen some examples of that today.

    We have heard, too, that the rundown of the economy, rising unemployment and the sheer weight of public expenditure are far greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and it is a very bad thing for any economy to be so dependent on public expenditure. All those things lead one to believe that efforts must be made to bring the community together so that terrorism can be isolated and perhaps in the long term greater peace and security provided. I use the phrase “in the long term” advisedly, because we know that in the next few weeks wicked people will seek to raise the temperature by murdering people to ensure that no settlement takes place.

    We all know that such people are to be found in the IRA. Therefore, things may well get worse before they get better.

    Sir Humphrey Atkins (Spelthorne)

    They may not get better.

    Mr. Prior

    That may be so—who can tell?—but it does not and should not stop us making a great effort to see what we can do.

    The unionists are proud people with a great tradition and they have suffered enormously. The whole House should recognise that. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has said that the silent unionist majority are not understood. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and most people in the House understand that silent majority and the worries expressed by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley today. We know that the agreement offends their view of the constitution. We must also accept that, although it makes no difference to the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, in the eyes of the unionists it changes that status in Northern Ireland itself. Frankly, if it did not do so to some extent, there would be no chance of getting the minority community to accept it. We must accept that and understand why it raises problems for the unionists. We do them less than justice if we do not appreciate that.

    I believe that, despite the fears of the unionists, there are great advantages for them. First, there is the reaffirmation of the binding international treaty.

    Secondly, the signing of the agreement on extradition for political offences is also important. Thirdly, if they can do a deal on devolution, the effect of the Intergovernmental Conference will be reduced. Fourthly, they should now press for more local government powers, to which they are entitled under these arrangements.

    I hope that the nationalists, too, will do a deal on devolution, because it is also to their advantage to have government within Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland with less influence from the Republic and perhaps from the Government and Parliament in London. Secondly, the nationalists should now co-operate much more fully on security. We know that the vast majority of them abhor violence, but in the past they have not done enough to convince all the people, and especially the unionists, that they are really serious about security matters. I hope that names will now go forward to the police authority and to the other institutions in Northern Ireland engaged in security matters.

    The nationalists should also convince the Government of the Republic that, as the agreement has been well ​ received in the Republic, it is time for the Republic to go a step further and renounce article 2 of its constitution. The Government of the Republic may have been surprised at the welcome given to the agreement, so they are now in a stronger position to take action in that respect.

    I am sure that the British Government understand the mood of the unionists, and it is important that they should do so. Hard things will be said and done. Hard things are often said in Ulster because that is the way in which people express themselves, although only the more adventurous spirits do so while the others simply keep quiet.

    I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown enormous courage. I do not know whether my support is a help or an embarrassment to her, but I assure her that I have nothing but praise for the part that she has played in these negotiations. She has made a very difficult decision. If she has taken some time to make up her mind about it, that is the more to her credit and shows her desire that the unionists should in no circumstances be excluded from the United Kingdom.

    A genuine effort has been made to try to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. We cannot go on as we are. Neither the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley nor my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has put forward any convincing alternative. There is no other way but to take some chances in the interests of peace in Northern Ireland as a whole. All who have been working for reconciliation will wish to know that there is much greater understanding of the position of the unionists in Northern Ireland than they may have thought in the past, but at the same time we look to them to try to come to terms with people whom that have disliked—I put it no higher than that—for so long.

    I believe that the unionists should trust my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the House. I beg unionist Members to reconsider their proposal to resign their seats. I believe that by trusting the House and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is a unionist, they will be able to achieve a more peaceful and prosperous life for their constituents and that the whole of Northern Ireland will benefit. Those of us who have lived in Northern Ireland but are English make no bones about the difficulty of understanding all the workings of the Irish mind. I know that the Irish do not trust us and that they object to much of what we do, but perhaps for once they will recognise that there is genuine respect for their point of view and a determination to try to make some slight progress in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom. If they can approach this issue in that way, the courage of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—which is echoed a thousand times over by the courage of unionists and others in Northern Ireland—will have some reward.

    Some of my hon. Friends may have doubted my motives over the years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), for instance, may not always have thought that I was pursuing policies designed to achieve reconciliation or that I fully understood the views of the unionists. I believe that we should all unite under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at this difficult time, because, if we show unity and understanding here, that may have at least some effect on the people of Northern Ireland.

  • James Molyneaux – 1985 Speech on the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Molyneaux, the then Leader of the Ulster Unionists, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1985.

    It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), not only because he has articulated, in a way that I could never attempt, the views of the rank and file citizens of Northern Ireland—unionists, nationalists, Protestants and Roman Catholics—but because he was a promising Minister who sacrificed a promising career because of his integrity. The fact that the hon. Member was intently listened to, even by those who disagree with him, proves that he is respected and admired for that integrity.

    The House will have gathered that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be voting against the motion. However, I fully recognise that I have a duty and responsibility to explain plainly and sincerely why we shall take that course. We opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement because it will destroy any possibility of achieving peace, stability and reconciliation—three words that have found themselves by accident in the agreement’s preamble. Those words have been repeated—I do not say this in a disrespectful way—rather aimlessly in the debate so far.

    During my six years as leader of the Ulster Unionist party, my objective has been to achieve for all the people of Northern Ireland those prizes of peace, stability and reconciliation. As leader of the largest party in Northern Ireland I feel, as I have always felt, that I have a duty to lead. For any party leader, that means some political risk. I accepted those risks, because I had to consider—today I still have to consider—the young people to whom the Prime Minister referred when she spoke at Hillsborough on the day of the signing. The fact that I am nearer the finishing post than are those young people, makes that consideration all the more compelling.

    With all that in mind, in April 1984 I endorsed the policy paper “The Way Forward”. The main thrust of that paper was equal British rights for all British citizens. I shall read what I believe, and what the Prime Minister conceded in the aftermath of her statement a week ago, to be the key paragraph:

    “The time is now ripe for both communities in Northern Ireland to realise that, essentially, their problems will have to be solved in Northern Ireland by their political representatives and that any future prospect for them and their children is best provided for within the Northern Ireland context. This will require a mutual recognition of each other’s hopes and fears. Only rights can be guaranteed, not aspirations”.

    The next phrase is probably the most telling for an Ulster Unionist leader to use:

    “but it is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs.”

    When a leader gives a positive lead, there is always criticism. All party leaders, great and small—I do not mean in stature but in the numbers of their Back-Bench Members—are criticised, and this case was no ​ exception. After much criticism, discussion and persuasion, the entire document was endorsed as party policy. However, although there was widespread interest from within the ranks of the minority, as well as the majority, there was little response from the elected representatives of the minority, except one good friend of mine who said, “You really terrified us with that phrase about convincing our people that the Province is also theirs. That would not suit us.” The Leader of the Opposition said that it was a tragedy that we did not carry forward our thinking on that occasion more than 18 months ago. He said that it was a tragedy that there was not fuller debate on that document and on the considerable shift in principles set out in the document. To my great regret, those proposals for achieving peace, stability and reconciliation within the bounds of Northern Ireland have been snuffed out by the Anglo-Irish agreement, and that document must be regarded as so much waste paper.

    I owe it to the House to explain why the agreement will bring not peace, but the sword. On the day when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) announced his decision to abolish Stormont, he justified his decision—he could be forgiven for putting forward that justification at such an early stage—on the grounds that it would end violence. However, as the IRA had demanded Stormont’s removal, it naturally regarded the decision as the first payment of the Danegeld. The right hon. Gentleman did not intend it in that way, but I hope that he will accept my word for it that that was how it looked to the so-called army council of the IRA.

    The Prime Minister, like many of us in humbler positions, is tempted, especially in times of stress, to use phrases produced by her advisers—to give them their polite title—and such may have been the origin of a sentence uttered by the Prime Minister in her address to journalists at the signing ceremony. The sentence made my blood run cold. To quote from the transcript, she said:

    “I was not prepared to tolerate the situation of continuing violence.”

    That fatal sentence—I fear that it will literally be fatal for many—will convince the so-called army council of the IRA that, reinforced by the sweeping one-way concessions in the agreement, continued violence will extract the third and final payment of the Danegeld in the shape of an Ireland designed to their specifications, not the specifications of Dr. FitzGerald or even Mr. Haughey.

    Indeed, the IRA claimed credit for the concessions two weeks before the signing. At the Sinn Fein conference, the IRA spokesman, Martin McGuinness, declared that any concessions to violence in the coming agreement would be welcomed by the IRA as a surrender to the armed struggle.

    Far from the prospect of peace, I fear that we must brace ourselves for a renewed onslaught from a terrorist movement convinced of victory. That movement is in no way worried about the possible weaning away of Catholic support, which will not reduce its capacity for murder. As General Grivas said, there is a handicap in having too many supporters. He reckoned—he knew what he was talking about—that the maximum number of murderers he needed at any time was about 150. The IRA cares nothing for the predicted drop in support for Sinn Fein in terms of the ballot box, which it regards as ancillary to what it calls its “cutting edge” of terror.

    The second casualty of the agreement is stability, because stability depends on a known way. But how can there be a known way when there is no consent? During ​ the past 15 years, the only period of stability was that achieved by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). He achieved that stability by making it clear in the honest, forthright terms for which he is noted, what was not going to happen, and by making it equally clear, in words and in deeds, that he would stand no nonsense from any quarter. I must say—this may pain Conservative Members—that, ironically, Conservative Central Office accurately forecast the end of what I call Mason stability, in the daily notes to candidates dated 11 April 1979. It stated:

    “The next government will come under considerable pressure to launch a new high-powered initiative on Northern Ireland with the object of establishing another power-sharing government in the province which would pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic.”

    We need not await the verdict of history to judge the accuracy of that forecast. For the past six years, we have seen a constant stream of foolish, failed initiatives, confusion and instability.

    The third casualty of the agreement is reconciliation. Progress in that area is possible only if those who must be reconciled believe themselves to be secure. If Roman Catholics are meant to be assured by the agreement, why do so many of them say that they share my view? Why do so many of them tell me that they have conveyed their reservations to the Northern Ireland Office? I am in no position to confirm that; I depend upon their word. The answer is that they have never accepted—nor do they want—Dublin’s protecting power stance. Far more significantly, they have made it clear that they do not wish to live in a cold war atmosphere created by this proposed regime for which the necessary consent simply does not exist.

    Tallying with the impressive quotations by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the nightmare of Roman Catholics was expressed to me last Saturday by three young Roman Catholic constituents as they left the so-called loyalist rally—in reality a pro-union rally—at the city hall. They begged me to persuade the Prime Minister to think again and, as one of them put it, to

    “beg her not to condemn us to spending the rest of our lives in an atmosphere of distrust and tension with our Protestant neighbours.”

    That was a very moving occasion for me.

    That grim prospect has been publicly recognised by church representatives, authoritative newspaper editors, moderate organisations and individuals, and, most of all, by those who have worked so hard for reconciliation in Northern Ireland and are now depressed because all that they have achieved has been obliterated at a stroke.

    I notice that newspapers such as The Sunday Times and The Observer criticised the Government’s failure to reassure unionists. I understand—this was hinted at by the Leader of the Opposition—that the Northern Ireland Office is contemplating, at the expense of the taxpayer, providing copies of the agreement to every household. But the Secretary of State, who is observant, will know that the main newspapers in Northern Ireland have twice set out the full text of the agreement, unabridged and without journalistic comment. The people have read it for themselves, and the Government’s difficulty is that the people understand what they have read. Perhaps the Government intend to circulate a publication placing a gloss on the agreement. Dublin will do likewise, but they will conflict. The statements are already conflicting. I fear that the second state will he worse than the first.

    The Government have a credibility problem, created not by them but for them by the Dublin Government, who leaked the agreement four days before the signing and who circulated copies of it two days before the signing to foreign embassies and other institutions. That breach of good faith with Her Majesty’s Government, not by the Government, placed Her Majesty’s Ministers in a position where they had no alternative but to mislead. That is no accusation; I am trying to defend Ministers. In good faith, they had agreed with Dublin to maintain as late as the Thursday afternoon before the signing on the Friday that agreement had not yet been reached. It is not in a spirit of accusation but out of sympathy with Her Majesty’s Ministers that I say that three Ministers of the utmost integrity were placed in such a position—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during Northern Ireland Question Time, the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time and the Leader of the House at Business Question Time. All were forced to use the phrase, “if an agreement is reached”, when, thanks to the Dublin double-cross, the whole world knew that agreement had already been reached.

    I should like to address a personal word to the Prime Minister. Millions of our fellow British citizens throughout this nation feel that the Prime Minister has a lasting contribution to make to the destiny of the nation, but if she is to fulfil their expectations she must retain her standing and authority. I am sure that the Prime Minister knows that she owes it to those people not to damage those assets by lending her name to statements which have no validity or veracity.

    One of the Prime Minister’s statements asserted that the status of Northern Ireland is unchanged. I accept that the territory is not to be transferred—or not yet at any rate—and technically it could be claimed that the final approval of legislation will rest with Parliament and the Crown. In reality, however, as all hon. Members know and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne clearly stated, the legislation will be formulated and agreed, because the agreement states:

    “determined efforts shall be made through the Conference to resolve any differences.”

    In reality, therefore, Parliament and the Queen will give rubber stamp approval to legislation designed by a form of coalition with a foreign sovereign state.

    As I said earlier in my comments about the Prime Minister’s commanding position in the nation, my plea to the Prime Minister is not to allow anyone to continue to say in her name that the status of Northern Ireland is unchanged. I trust that she has already rebuked the subordinates who led her to claim that the agreement contains, to quote her own words,

    “the most formal commitment to the principle of consent made by any Irish Government.”—[Official Report, 18 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 19.]

    The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup pointed out that the same commitment was given by a previous Irish Government in the Sunningdale agreement of 1973—which was also registered as an international agreement at the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman will also confirm that an even earlier commitment was entered into by the Irish Government in 1925 and that that agreement was lodged at the League of Nations.

    In the course of what I hope will be a constructive and well ordered debate—I am not casting any reflection ​ upon the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the responsibility lies with hon. Members—the House is entitled to ask what is new about that commitment or in Irish attitudes since 1925 and 1973.

    The Prime Minister will not mind my saying that, over the years, she has sought my assessment of attitudes and feelings in Northern Ireland. In what may be my last contribution in the House, I am sure she will not object if I report to her in the presence of right hon. and hon. Members. I have to say honestly and truthfully that in 40 years in public life I have never known what I can only describe as a universal cold fury, which some of us have thus far managed to contain. I beg the Prime Minister not to misjudge the situation but to examine and assess the damage which will be done to the aims of peace, stability and reconciliation. Perhaps the leader of the Labour party and the leaders of the other opposition parties will not mind me saying to the Prime Minister that she will lose nothing in the eyes of the House or of the country if she decides to steer a safer course.

  • Ian Gow – 1985 Speech on the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Gow, the then Conservative MP for Eastbourne, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1985.

    Since my departure from the Government 10 days ago I have made no public statement or comment. I wanted first to explain to the House the reasons for that departure.

    My first encounter with Northern Ireland took place nearly 30 years ago. As a young subaltern I was stationed at Omagh in county Tyrone. It has been my good fortune to return to Ulster on many occasions since then, first as a soldier and then as a Member of this place. I have been proud to count unionist Members of this House as my friends.

    It is nearly seven years since I spoke in a debate on Northern Ireland, from the Opposition Front Bench, with Airey Neave at my side. I speak today to show that it is not necessary to have a big mouth or a loud voice to care deeply about Ulster. I speak, too, as one who condemns violence in all its forms. I speak as a unionist who repudiates today and who will repudiate tomorrow, every kind—I repeat, every kind—of unlawful or unconstitutional action. Unlike others I do not impugn the motives of Her Majesty’s Government. In particular, I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity and the sense of honour of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    Those who fashioned the Anglo-Irish agreement, principally my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, said to themselves, “We are faced with a continuing tragedy in Northern Ireland.” I say in passing that I regret that no Foreign Office Minister is taking part in the debate. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary also said to themselves, “Lives are being lost, innocent people are being maimed and injured, property is being destroyed, unemployment is higher and investment lower in Ulster than in any part of the kingdom. We must try to abate those evils. Things cannot go on as they are. We must make a new initiative. We must do something about Ulster.”

    For years, successive Governments and successive Secretaries of State have told the House that a particular initiative could not be pursued in Northern Ireland because it would be unacceptable to the minority. Note that in this part of the United Kingdom the Government take pride, in my view rightly, in pursuing policies that they believe have the support of the majority despite the objections of a minority.

    However, I will be told that Northern Ireland is different from England. I will be told that in Northern Ireland one cannot proceed save with the broad assent of the minority. I do not necessarily subscribe to that argument but if it is valid, how is it possible to proceed now with a policy that may be broadly acceptable to a minority but that is totally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority, among whom is a significant number of Catholic unionists?

    The Government believe that the majority ought to be well satisfied with the agreement and profess some surprise that it is not. Conor Cruise O’Brien puts it well in The Times today. He writes:

    “But the political impact will not be determined by … theories about how people ought to feel, but by how people actually do feel. And the feeling, on both sides … is that the Catholics have won a significant step in the direction of a united Ireland.”

    In round figures, as the House knows, there are 1 million Protestants and half a million Roman Catholics in Ulster, but it is a grave over-simplification to equate religion with political allegiance. I do not ask the House to accept my word for that. It is not only my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) who is testimony to that truth. In the past few days I have received letters from Roman Catholic unionists who endorse that view. I have been authorised to quote from one. A doctor now working in Liverpool writes:

    “As an Ulsterman—and incidentally a Catholic—who has always voted Conservative (and Ulster Unionist before I came to England) I can only say that I am absolutely appalled by the terms and implications of the Anglo-Irish agreement which gives a ​ foreign Government a say in the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom. There is not a shadow of doubt that the status of Northern Ireland has been changed without the consent of the majority of its people”.

    Nor is it only the so-called Protestant bigots—and there are Protestant bigots in Northern Ireland—who oppose the agreement. Again, with the authority of the writer of the letter, I wish to quote. I do so not because I need to rely on others to support the views that I hold, but because the views of decent people from Northern Ireland are tragically misunderstood or simply unknown in the House. This is the letter that I have been authorised to read:

    “I am now living quietly in a bungalow with my two sisters … We are the ordinary ‘silent’ Unionists of Northern Ireland. Our days are filled with caring for our families and homes, and we do not have the time, or the inclination, to demonstrate at protest marches, or wave banners, or gather at meetings of hate. But we are British. And we are also bewildered, and hurt, and angry. How do we, the silent majority, effectively express our hurt and fear and protest at what is being done to us? Our politicians hurl abuse and anger, but I do not think that they gain sympathy that way. The ordinary quiet-living British people of Northern Ireland are totally united in their opposition to the Hillsborough agreement, and in their desire to remain British without condition, but can you tell me, please, if there is any possible way we can convey our wishes to those who are in Government over us and at the same time to gain understanding and support from the other citizens of the United Kingdom? I feel that the lack of understanding from those who do not live here, together with the feeling of helplessness at not knowing how to gain that understanding, is the hardest part to bear.”

    I have done as my correspondent asked. I have brought her fears to the attention of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. However, I want to repeat her crucial words:

    “the lack of understanding from those who do not live here … is the hardest part to bear.”

    For many Members of the House, Northern Ireland is a faraway country of which we know little. Indeed, it may be that more Members of the House have visited the Republic than have visited Ulster. I hope that in the coming months more hon. Members will be able to visit the Province, not just to listen to soldiers and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, heroic though they are, but to listen to the views of ordinary people who often are equally heroic.

    Following the signing of the agreement at Hillsborough on 15 November, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that she was a unionist and a loyalist. I shall never question her sincerity, but I have to say to my right hon. Friend that those words were received with incredulity by unionists in Northern Ireland.

    The Anglo-Irish agreement has been signed without understanding of the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It has been signed against a background that gives wholly disproportionate consideration to the views of the minority. Under the agreement, the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on political, security and legal matters, including the administration of justice. The Government who will put forward their views and proposals relating to Northern Ireland are the same Government from whose territory murderous assaults have been made on the innocent in the Province and to whose territory the guilty have returned and found too often a safe haven.

    Article 2 of the constitution of the Irish Republic lays claim to the territory of the whole of the island of Ireland. One might have thought at least that if the Republic’s Government were to be allowed—and in the most ​ solemn terms of an international treaty—to put forward proposals relating to political, security and legal matters, they would have agreed to remove article 2 from their constitution. The British Government claim that it is a major step forward for the Government of the Republic to have given formal acceptance of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. If that is so, why was article 2 not removed?

    We are told that the agreement will mean more effective co-operation on security matters between the Republic and the United Kingdom. Is it really suggested that without the agreement such co-operation would have been less effective? All civilised Governments, with or without a formal agreement, should commit themselves unreservedly to the elimination of terrorism. If the Government of the Republic have been unable hitherto to be as effective in combating terrorism as we were entitled to expect, why are we so confident that they will be able to deliver now?

    The Intergovernmental Conference will be composed of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and a Republic Minister, who, in effect, will be the Minister for Northern Ireland affairs. The two Ministers will be the joint chairmen. The Republic Minister, even though he has only a consultative role, will be perceived to be the representative of the minority community. Thus, for the first time, a Minister from a foreign country will be representing at official level citizens of this kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the arrangement in her speech. That arrangement leaves unionists with no comparable status. That arrangement will be damaging, and incalculably damaging, for those who are asserting the principle that unionists and nationalists are fellow citizens. Instead of reconciliation there will be further division.

    Our fellow countrymen from Northern Ireland will perceive—and will not be wrong in perceiving—that the agreement would never have been signed unless there had been a prolonged campaign of violence. The agreement will be perceived as having been won as a result of violence. The Irish National Liberation Army and the Irish Republican Army will believe that their violence is succeeding. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment will perceive that they have been betrayed.

    The new agreement is being trumpeted in Dublin mainly because the Irish Government will be able, in the most solemn terms, to

    “put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland”.

    When those views and proposals are submitted to the United Kingdom Government, they will be made known in Dublin. When those views and proposals are accepted by Her Majesty’s Government, Ulster will feel that the views of a foreign power are being given greater weight than the views of the majority in Northern Ireland. The Intergovernmental Conference will not be able to receive the views of the majority. The views of the minority will be expressed, not by the minority itself, but by the Government of a foreign power.

    No Member of the House should criticise the agreement without putting forward an alternative policy. I remember the words of our manifesto at the 1979 general election. They were words in which I had a hand. The manifesto said: ​

    “In the absence of devolved government we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of powers over local services.”

    Alas, following the assassination of Airey Neave, that policy was never implemented. It may be that he was assassinated because that was his policy. Successive Secretaries of State have abandoned that policy. Six years on, although there is still an absence of devolved government, there is still no

    “one or more elected regional councils”.

    I approved of the policy set out in the 1979 manifesto.

    I approved, too, of the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at a meeting organised by the Ulster Unionist Council in Belfast on 19 June 1978, when she said of the Conservative and Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party:

    “Our two parties share one overriding common purpose: the maintenance and strengthening of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. we shall not consider any plans for the political future of this part of the United Kingdom which could result in the weakening of the union.”

    To my deep regret, the Anglo-Irish agreement is inconsistent with those words.

    The Government assert, and continue to assert,

    “that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”

    I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to understand that, with this agreement, the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that there has been a change in status. I must tell the House that frankly, so do I.

    We should implement the policy laid down in the 1979 manifesto. We should assert that those in Northern Ireland who aspire to a united Ireland will be respected. We should assert that Ulster Unionists are ready to acknowledge the place in Ulster of the Roman Catholic, whether unionist of republican, as in any other part of the kingdom, and that all men and women should be entitled to express their views, opinions and identities under a rule of law which would safeguard their rights. We should assert that the policy of the Government is to maintain and to strengthen the union.

    Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster) rose—

    Mr. Gow

    I shall not give way. The House has been patient and I have almost done.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in her place. I do not recommend resignation. It is every bit as painful as I had expected. No doubt the Prime Minister would face the departure of some of her colleagues with greater equanimity than that of others. I do not know into which category I fall.

    However, Ministers of State are of no importance. They come and go, and when they go their room is soon filled. Life goes on for the Department very much as before—although, following the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), to whom we send our congratulations and good wishes, no doubt very much better than before.

    As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House know, for the departed Minister, tomorrow is very different from today. Only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and possibly not even she, understands how deep is my regret at my departure. But I have one consolation that is denied to all others the memory of the four years of the previous Parliament, when it was my privilege to ​ have tried to be of some help to the finest chief, the most resolute leader and the kindest friend that any Member of this House could hope to serve.

    I disagree profoundly with the new policy on which the Government have embarked. I fear that this change of policy will prolong and not diminish Ulster’s agony. With all my heart—it is quite a big heart—I pray that I am wrong.