Differences over H-Blocks, SDLP and institutions frame key meeting

BRITISH-IRISH DIVISIONS: THE GULF between the British and Irish governments over the failure to create powersharing institutions…

BRITISH-IRISH DIVISIONS:THE GULF between the British and Irish governments over the failure to create powersharing institutions in the North, the difficulties of the SDLP and the mounting crisis in the H-Blocks dominated a meeting in London in February 1979 between the British secretary of state, Roy Mason, and the minister for foreign affairs in the Lynch government, Michael O'Kennedy.

In a background note for the summit, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) noted a recent speech by O’Kennedy at a Thurles Fianna Fáil meeting calling for talks on a united Ireland and for a “speedy and humanitarian solution” to the dirty protest at the Maze prison.

In a briefing note for Mason, an official outlined the line to be taken by the tough Yorkshire ex- miner with his Irish counterpart.

“We have to deal with the unionists and have shown good faith in counter-punching them. They now realise that they will not get a return to majority rule.”

READ MORE

The secretary of state, he wrote, should rule out “creeping integration” and should reassure the Irish side that Labour was not neglecting the SDLP’s interest.

“It was [British] government support which got PR [proportional representation] in Northern Ireland for European elections. We have just announced a new housing development at Poleglass to ease the position of Catholics in west Belfast . . .”

As for the Irish government, the official urged Mason to “recognise that the Irish have an interest in hearing from us about the situation in Northern Ireland and giving us their views.

“But the constitutional responsibility is solely ours”.

Opening the meeting, Mason said that the aim of the UK government was to introduce devolution in Northern Ireland on the basis of his “five-point plan” for rolling devolution. He ruled out a new level of local government that “would be unionist-ruled and could not pass the test of acceptability. Nor did the government have any intention of taking steps towards integration”.

Mason said that during his first year as secretary of state he had spent a great deal of time pressing the Official Unionists (OUP) to move away from the convention report, which advocated a return to majority rule. The OUP had moved and this ought to be recognised.

He said he had never described the SDLP as extremists. However, the party must be encouraged to concentrate on the short-term means for devolution while keeping alive their aspiration towards Irish unity in the long term.

“Too much talk of Irish unity in the short term made it difficult for the unionists to compromise over devolution.”

Mason recognised that there had been concern among the minority about the seats Bill, increasing the North’s representation at Westminster. But apart from the argument of equity, he believed that there could be four or five anti-unionist seats out of 17, including three SDLP seats. The SDLP should grasp this opportunity.

O’Kennedy welcomed the reaffirmation of opposition to a new tier of local government dominated by unionists. But it had to be faced that Mason’s five-point plan had failed on its own terms. The OUP and SDLP had shown a marked lack of enthusiasm.

Direct rule had been more acceptable to the majority than to the minority and while it had not been administered unfairly, the seats Bill and the recent queen’s visit had boosted the morale of the unionist community.