The article headed 'How the Labour Party's statement inaccuracies and untruths. order that everyone clearly stands how the statement was prepared, little background information is essential.
Early year the Labour Party's national executive committee agreca to ser up a stuay group with the task of prolICW. comprehensve and detailed Northern policy Dro gusals All members of the NEC were invited to serve; and the Parliamentary Labour Party's Northern and ne Shadow Cabinet wel also asked to nominate LICIOCIS The final membership study group was then a matter for the NEC itself. Officials of the parGoint-secretary including Dick Barry study group, who is incorrectly described in the article as a member), thus had no sav in its composition As far as the personal views of the members are concerned, would be true to say that the great majority favoured Irish therefore, that the study was 'heavily weighted in favour of proLoyalists', and that Dick Barry 'organised and was able to control how it operated' is quite ludicrous.
It is an insult to the experies e and intelligence reeks of Fleet Street gutter journalism and is a sad inaication or ine aepins to which Mr Bell is prepared to sink.
The article appears to TOUCHALES LU Ireland the study group acLually most influential Lucil. Democratic Alex Kitson Unionist Party. Does the should haveignored theme author suggest that then complains that it did Peoples Democracy, or the Irish Republican Socialist Party, both of which, it says, 'have elected Belfast coun cillors' When the visits were made to in June and July 1980, neither PD nor the IRSP had any elected councillors Belfast or anywhere else for that matter. But there was no conscious decision to these organisations and, what is MOTe neither these organisations asked to see Us. We did, incidentally, arrange a meeting with, to use LIe aulios label, the anti-unionist Irish Independence Party; but this was cancelled at the last minute due circumstances completely beyond our control.
"he article also states. correctly that the study group did not meet Sinı The New Ulster Political Research Group — a front oraanisation for the Ulster Defence Association Fein. But it was our clear intention to Irv to meet Sinn Fein, if this could be arranged.
The study group thus wrote to Sinn Fein sugin meet in Dublin as there preferred were difficulties over the attendance in Belfast of its president. Equally, however, the Irish Labour Party were unhappy at the of meeting Sinn Fein in Dublin We therefore attempted agree to meet in Belfast. In to persuade Hell spite and telephone calls between ourselves and Sinn Fein it was possible to get their agreement.
Altogether the study group met organisations in Ireland, including such anti-unionist bodies as the SDLP, Republican Clubs, and the Northern Civil Rights Association in the North, and Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, and the Labour Party and the Irish Transport «eneral Workers Union in the Republic. The list of organisations was agreed by the study group and every member she so were determined to listen to as wide a cross section of opinion as pensible.
evidence received from constituency Labour Parties, oran.
and individual members in Great Britain. plus that which was sub. mitted by any interested organisation or individual in Ireland, was considered great interest and sympathy. The views contained in it were reported accurately and concisely to the study group.
They were not cansored or rigged in any way. But study whether on Northern Ireland or anything else, should be completely bound by the evidence it receives. It ought to be free to decide whether to accept or reject all or parts of any evidence.
The vast majority of the members of the study group had considerable experience and knowledge of Northern and therefore, quite capable of making these «casions, l can assurc you they were not made lightly.
The article also makes a serious allegation concerning myself. It alleges that I 'threatened to resigr from the study group if it Callic Oul strongly favour of Irish unity'. This is completely untrue, and is a slur on my character.
As chairperson of the I sought to basis of agreement and consensu within the group; and Generately refused hard and fast position on any issues before us. However, it is true that I was strong!) opposed to the NEC mak ing major declarations of policy, whilst the group was trying to complete its work. And, incidentally, I agree fully with the proposals outlinthe statement presented by me to conference.
The article as a whole represents an attack not only on the study group vnich preparea Ine INc thern relan statement for the national executive committee, but on the national executive committer which finally proved the statement defore submission to the annual conference.
To the best of my knowledge the author of the article did not consult any of those named in the article for clarification, or indeed for any information, before it was written. It makes no attempt to understand the very difficult decisions which had to be made by the study group; nor does acknowledge the enormous amount of work that went into producing the salemen.
This perhaps understandable, bearing in mind Mr Bell's clear opinion that he is the only the right answer, but an attempt to justify his point by stoop ing to to tal ter Jounailsit and misrepresentation of the facts makes one wonder if the wider labour movement can take Socialist Challenge seriously in the future.
The author implies that there simple, straightforward solution to a problem which is centuries old, and that the study group and the NEC callously ignored this. The fact remains, however, that there are no such simple solutions. and lne nex Labour government will thus have to take account of the harsh reality of the problem in implementing programme future. 1) The membership of the study group. Of those on the study group the following has a record until the Onionist ariorit in the North of decide otherwise, and of opposing drawal: Roy Mason, Don Concannon, Merlyn Rees and Brynmor John.
To that list I would add Stan Orme, whose period minister in the North of Ireland suggested from his previous anti-Unionist position.
MPs on the study group who were generally hostile to such views were Martir Flannerv JOUr Maynard, Jo Richardson, Jock Stallard and stan Thorne Of other members of the group, Tony Saunois of the LPYS has often ex pressed the view that the rish national question i irrelevant, and that what i needed IS CISS WEnt North of Ireland state.
At the Labour Committee on Ireland fringe meetine al ference both Joan Maynard and Kevin McNamara labelled this opinion as pro-partitionist ideology. McNamara described it as 'the first barricade of Unionism'.
Of the trade union on the Alex Kitson (TGWU), Alan Hadden (Boilermakers) and Neville Hough (GMWU), were all members of unions whose North of Ireland branches gave evidence to the group was generally hostile to Irish unity and British withdrawal.
This does necessarily mean the leaders of these unions would endorse such views, fluence on their thinking.
Such was the thinking on which 1 based my judgement, not an exact one admittedly, that study group had an eightto-five majority generally hostile to the anti-partition pro-British withdrawal view 2) Dick Barry. Contrary to what Alex Kitson says Dick Barry is listed as part f the 'membership' of ti rous in the NEC report t the 1981 party conference Dick Barry did also, on occasions play more significant part in the work of the group than the title joint-secretary suggests. For example on 26 March he, and he alone, on behalf of the study group visited Bobby Sands, then on hunger strike.
Socialist Challenge 3) Those study accept Alex son's assurance that the study group were unable to meet either Sinn Fein or the Irish Independence Party for technical However, this was rather unfortunate considering the group met, not so much the DUP, but the para-military Ulster Defence Association through its front organisa Political Researen Group. Ulste The point remains of the 35 groups and organisations ine stay group met the overwhelming majority were pro partitionist. This did not reflect Irish opinion as a whole or the views of Irish trade unionists as a whole 4) Alex Kitson's 'resignation'. accepi that Alex Kitson at no time threatened to resign However, , at one meeting of the group Alex Kitson and Dick Barry protested al the decision previous meeting group against the Labour Party the North of Treland were their protests that they demandWUll. revote.
Although the final repor recomme in the or recommended to establish Labour Party, it is also the case that of the 79 submissions made, in writing to the study group, only jour supported such a call 5) 'Simple solution' Alex Kitson's major point is a political one I maintain my view that the study group, as expressed in was, politically, pro-Unionist.
note that McNamara in a speech on June called the con. sultative paper the group 'an Orange I would also point out that the NEC watered down the find renort of the study group when it re jected a recommendation that any constitutional change in reland should be sanctioned by a referendum in the North.
I do not claim to be the only person with a 'solu tion' to the Irish question. Rather I would, in general, align myse! with the majority of constituency parties who voted for the motion supporting withdrawal at the recent party conference. 12 November 1981 Page 7
La standing ovation.
areas.
photo: GM COOKSON (Socialist Challenge) the weak-kneed Gormley, WE ARE reproducing an edited version of a speech by Arthur Scargill at Sherwood Miners Welfare in Mansfield. At the end of the meeting, which was attended by over 300 of the 800 miners at Sherwood Colliery, Scargill was given Meetings like this are taking place up and down the country in the run up to the National Union of Mineworkers' presidential elections. Branch nominations are running strongly in favour of Scargill even in traditionally 'moderate' leadership the looking for a change and a leadership that can take on the Tories.
Joe retiring president, are dustrial decimated being destroyed. queue.
civilised coal industry Even dependent ment. wanted stepped. to develop imported £33 per ton. There is little doubt that today face the most economic crisis in our history. The very foundation of our infuture our machine cars and textile industries are Decades of accumulated skill and human investment are being discarded thought as three and a half million people are condemned to the obscenity How the hell can we sav we are a society voung people up to the age of lo and then turn around and say that there is no useful work for them, no responsi ble task for them to perform? The cannot be exempt stand apart from the systematic attack on jobs and living standards.
In the '60s the philosophy of the leadership of the union was to accept pit closures and job losses. We saw the loss ot 600 pits in 12 years, the loss of half a million jobs. became industrial tom area lo area, trom pillo pil today there prepared to sell jobs for redundancy or transter morev position here and now: no man has the right to sell his job, no one has the right to sell their children's or grandchildren's jobs in exchange for permanent unemployment During the on imported wasn't the policy The job losses closures were the result of the policies of a Labour government.
that the government will learn one thing from the Tories. I hope they will show the same loyalty to their class that the Tories have shown to theirs.
Earlier this year the National Coal Board published a list of 50 pits it Close forced the withdrawal of the closure Bed. Since the beginning of this ace me become the NCB has closed seven pits and they intend to continue with pit This year 6,000 jobs have been lost. The Board's policy is clear; they intend to continue with cutbacks on labour. It is the height of stupidity not the coal industry union must demand, as a priority, no closures except on the grounds of exhaustion and a ban on imports.
Five million tons of coal are being lIlO Britain. result of the distribution of the world market. The West German British coal has a production cost of serious steel tools, systematically without of the dole educate OI The miners are those • 1 want to state my '60s Britain became oil. That ' of a Tory governand the pit Labour Our simply as a coal in. Joe Gormley: We We get a miser per ton compared sidies given by th Germany, Americ could be proved th producea lot less ferent matter. Bu question of defen obscenity of dist The first step m ports. Impon conl an immediate redu ana probably ine pearance in the ne cost of oil is nou than that of coal one manouse l oil while closing d imports of oil and an unprecedented This meeting place at negollatons on li on. I think they m hoare necolator. pinstripe suit, onions in their po eyes wile Board can't afford Arthur 'you can look at don't believe me. me looking at the "I didn't cook 'em You know that told us in '72 and ' their stories, we w
----- pull-quotes -----
one most is ential ing
a Sine meetin fein,