An Autonomous Example
By STEPHEN FAY THE Government of Northern Ireland is the one real crack in the facade of the unitary State of Great Britain. The reasons for its limited autonomy are to be found in the tortured history of Ireland, rather than any act of administrative deliberation, but it is an ex- ample thrown in the faces of their opponents by supporters of 'home rule,' no matter how restricted, for areas like Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland, they say, shows that economic development might go ahead faster in their own regions if they were able to have some degree of control over economic policy.
It is difficult to decide how valid their argu- ment is. But Ulster does offer some clues. It is the only part of Britain which can do any appreciable amount to solve its own economic problems. It is unique, certainly envied, in that it hai its cake and eats it, too. The people receive all the social benefits available to the rest of Britain. They, like some other areas of the country, take more out of the exchequer than they contribute to it. But they do have the measure of autonomy which allows them to compete 'unfairly' (with justification) for new industry against the other black spots in Britain. Of course, there is less cake to eat in Northern Ireland. Its unemployment rate is 7.1 per cent, compared with 4.4 per cent in the North-East, 3 per cent in the North-West, and 4.2 per cent in Scotland. Northern Ireland is a special case, and special measures are needed to solve its problems. The question which is now being asked in other parts of Britain is whether their own unemployment and the decline of their traditional industries make their case special enough to demand similar special measures. Whether, in fact, any greater degree of local autonomy would be of any help to them.
Asked in these terms, the question assumes that Northern Ireland is better off because of its independence. And, possibly more important, it assumes that the border between the six counties and the Republic of Ireland will remain un- altered and unsullied. This assumption is far more readily accepted in Belfast than in London. But the border exists, and for a large majority of the one and a half million people in Ulster this is not merely a fact, it is an important asset. For it means that they are part of a nation with far better social services, and a far larger market for their goods than the only alternative which presents, itself to them—the Republic.
Ulstermen are becoming less obsessed by the divisive powers of religion and varieties of Patriotism. Their' problems arise less from the legacy of mistrust, even hatred, that these things leave, than from economic problems. And Unionists in Belfast believe that they will only be solved within the political stair's quo. (The view of the Labour opposition is not much dif- ferent.) Whether the separate identity of the six counties is a good or a bad thing is a question which can only be properly answered by Ulster- men. At the moment, they think it is a good thing, and even if they do change their minds, the change is unlikely to come much before the end of this century. Sure, policemen on this side of the Irish Sea do not wear guns, there is no Special Powers Act to be invoked, and no system of work permits. (There are not so many places where a small whisky is so large either.) But these facts, which on the lips of many Englishmen become charges, are taken as read for the most part. Attention is concentrated on industry and em- ployment. Or, more particularly, on new in- dustry and unemployment.
One of the important facts to remember about Northern Ireland is that, for all its autonomy, the unemployment position is not improving. Over 170 firms have gone to Ulster since the war, and many have expanded there, but the rate of unemployment remains stubbornly high. It is a perfect example of a region running very hard to stand still.
But the supporters of limited autonomy can at any rate claim that Northern Ireland, unlike Scotland and the North of England, is at least holding its own, not slipping. Last month's em- ployment statistics, which were superficially satisfactory, showed a disturbing upward trend in unemployment in British black spots. Nation- ally, the rate fell back to the same level it stood at in September last year-2.1 per cent. In Scotland it was 4.2 per cent, compared with 3.8 per cent last year. In the North-East it was 4.4 per cent comp'ared with 3.8 per cent, in the North-West 3.0 as against 2.8. It was higher in Northern Ireland too, but only marginally so-7.1 per cent this year, 6.9 per cent last year. This might be just luck; equally it might be better economic management.
What has been happening is that the decline • of employment in traditional industries, which began to gather speed in Northern Ireland during the Fifties, is now becoming almost as rapid in Britain's own black spots. The problem is the same: simply that employment in new in dustries is not growing fast enough to absorb people thrown out of work in traditional in- dustries and the school-leavers. There now, exists the disturbing suspicion that new industries are not going to Scotland and the North-East fast enough to absorb any more than, say, 80 per cent of the surplus labour there.
So, how much would limited autonomy help these areas? It is, as usual, much easier to answer the question negatively. A brief visit to Northern Ireland points to problems of in- dustrial development very quickly: problems which no amount of autonomy can overcome. Three of these seemed especially important. They were: 1. Haphazard industrial development. The introduction of new industry is rarely a tidy process, but, at best, there is an underlying logic to it. The introduction of the motor industry to Scotland, in the hopz that component manu- facturers will be• dragged along in its wake, is an example of the best planned situation. No such asset exists for Ulster. Of the many firms that have gone there, the largest group is in textiles. 'Bur in does not predominate:. The stage at which there are enough manufacturing firms in a single group to justify the establishment of component manufacturing firms close by is a long way off. They might come, but the earliest date mentioned to me in Ulster was 1970. Until then development will remain piecemeal.
2. Labour shortages. This is one of the most insufferable paradoxes of an area like Northern Ireland. The unemployment rate is high and yet the Minister of Commerce, Mr. Brian Faulkner, told me that his department could not offer a site near Belfast to a large firm employing a high proportion of female labour.
More than that. Many of the firms going to Northern Ireland take their labour not from the unemployment rolls, but from other, estab- lished industries in a similar field. One manager of a recently opened factory near Belfast told me that 90 per cent of his labour force had come from established industry. 'We may be helping unemployment generally, but we're not taking people off the dole,' he said.
3. A suspicion of a touch of fatalism. Con- tinuing high rates of unemployment tend to create a state of mind in which people begin to believe that unemployment problems can never really be solved. It is illustrated by the statement of another manager. 'At 4-1- to 5 per cent unemployment I believe we'd have got to a stage where only an earthquake would get people to work,' he said. It arises from a genuine feeling that the attraction of industry is 'rather like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom,' as another of the new managers said. Certainly, average rates of unemployment in areas like Ulster are going to be higher than the national average, but not as high as 41 per cent. It is as well to remember here NEDC's comment that unemployment must fall below 2 per cent if Britain is to make full use of its industrial capacity.
Autonomy is not going to solve any of these problems, except possibly the last, which might vanish in a quickening of a region's temper. So what are the advantages it brings? In North- ern Ireland there is indisputably one, possibly another.
The Government's financial incentives to new industry-are more generous, and employed with much more speed and flexibility than those offered under the Local Employment Act in Britain. They are also willing to take more risks. There is no doubt that these advantages have attracted to Ulster firms that might otherwise have gone elsewhere in Britain, or even Europe.
The second, possible, advantage is much less easy to define. But it can be strongly argued that when a region feels it is doing something concrete to attack its own economic problems, instead of leaving them in the hands of White- hall politicians and civil servants, the attack is far better concentrated, and it is followed through with an élan rare in Whitehall. This is certainly so in Northern Ireland's case.
But, in fact, the special case of Northern Ireland actually proves little. It can be used with virtually equal degrees of success by both sup- porters and opponents of greater local autonomy within Britain. What it does is to offer some guide to the kind of questions that must be asked along with those stimulated by the drift of people-to the South, if this discussion is not to dissolve into futile argument and barren slogans.
Previous page
