O'Neill cabinet dismissed claims of discrimination

THE dogged resistance of the O'Neill government of 966 to pressure for reforms from the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the…

THE dogged resistance of the O'Neill government of 966 to pressure for reforms from the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Northern Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is revealed in this year's cabinet releases in Belfast.

In September 1966 the NILP and ICTU presented a joint memorandum to the Unionist government demanding "one man, one vote" and fair boundaries in local elections, measures to end discrimination in housing and employment, fair representation for the minority on public boards and the appointment of an ombudsman.

Writing to the Northern Prime Minister on September 13th, 1966, on behalf of the two organisations, Mr T.W. Boyd, a former Belfast Labour MP, warned Captain Terence O'Neill: "All these bodies are gravely concerned at the increasing disparities which now exist between the rights enjoyed by British citizens in other parts of, the UK and those enjoyed in Northern Ireland."

The joint memorandum urged that the parity with Britain in social services should hold good also in the field of citizens' rights. "It is the strongly held view of the trade union and Labour movement in Northern Ireland ... that the disparities in this field which now exist spring from the failure of the Northern Ireland Government to introduce reforms accepted as just and democratic by all parties in Britain ... and are unwarrantable and placed the citizens of Northern Ireland in the position of second class citizens of the UK. In the view of the trade union and Labour movement, the time has now come - indeed, the time is overdue - for the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to give an earnest of his liberalism and enlightenment by the acceptance of the basic principle that equal citizenship should confer equal civic rights in every part of the UK."

READ MORE

The memo pointed out "unjustified discrepancies" between British electoral law and that in Northern Ireland and demanded major electoral reform and the abolition of property qualifications and the business vote. On the question of minority representation it stressed that "minority groups are grossly under represented on public bodies" and concluded that "it is within the power of the Prime Minister and Government of Northern Ireland to remedy these grievances swiftly".

The memo urged the Prime Minister to enact legislation outlawing discriminatory practices in both public and private sector employment and to deal with recalcitrant local authorities.

At a cabinet meeting on October 19th, 1966, Capt O'Neill favoured meeting the Labour/ICTU delegation. When the Minister of Health, Mr William Morgan, asked whether pressure could be expected from Westminster, the Prime Minister did not rule out the raising of specific grievances when he next met Mr Harold Wilson.

THE joint memorandum was fully discussed at a further cabinet meeting on November 10th, 1966.

The Minister of Home Affairs, Mr William Craig, admitted that it was difficult to defend the retention of the business vote and the cabinet endorsed his recommendation to abolish it. However, the ministers were swift in their rejection of the main Labour proposals. The minutes record: "Ministers agreed that there was no substance in the allegations of unfairness in making appointments to public bodies."

As for allegations of discrimination in employment, the ministers "agreed that the government's own standards in this matter could stand up to any examination and that there was no case for interference in the employment practices of outside employers".

On the issue of housing discrimination "it was agreed that allegations of unfairness in this field were often grossly exaggerated".

In a strongly worded memo circulated to the cabinet on the NILP/ICTU proposals, dated October 28th, 1966, the Attorney General, Mr E.W. Jones, warned against any concessions which could result in the North's "destruction as a political entity".

He went on: "It must be remembered that the Nationalist opposition contends for a united Ireland - the very thing that the 1920 compromise was designed to avoid. The Nationalist view remains unaltered and so the government must be entitled to retain the safeguards which were conferred on it. That being so, what equity is there for a government which represents the majority in Northern Ireland to be subjected to influence to alter laws which suit the province?"