HC Deb 15 July 1974 vol 877 cc158-74

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I do not know whether this is the first time that the Minister of State has been at the Dispatch Box, but I congratulate him on his appointment to office. I hope to meet him in Stormont Castle because I have many constituency problems for him.

The Members of the Convention will not be answerable to their constituencies because they will not be seeking further election, whereas Members of this Parliament have to resubmit themselves to their constituents who would be able to decide whether or not their Members adequately represented them. I understand that when the Convention finishes its work it ends and its membership is cancelled.

Captain Orr

In the light of the discussion we have had, and, as it is obvious that the Minister has not been in the least impressed by my comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 37, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 43 and insert: 'electors of Northern Ireland under a list system of proportional representation'. I need not detail the House long in arguing this case because I have given the details of it on a previous occasion.

I am wholly in favour of the principle of the Bill. In my last speech on this subject I said that I hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would do what he is doing; namely, set up a body in Northern Ireland with which to consult, so that the people of Northern Ireland through their representatives could give advice and ultimately decide how they wanted the Province to be run. That provision is in the Bill, and that is why I did not speak in the Second Reading debate.

I also said that I believed that the election should be under a list system of proportional representation, because that is a fair system, but that provision is not included in the Bill. Even Liberal Members privately, not publicly, are coming to realise that the single transferable vote system is not a proportional representation system. The result of the last election in the Republic proves that. The vote for Fianna Fail went up to 51 per cent. on first preference and Fianna Fail lost. That illustrates the proportionality of the system. I accept that theoretically the STV system would be proportional if all the constituencies were abolished and the system were extended to the whole of Northern Ireland, but it would still be a silly system because one ends up by supporting the man in the middle.

Since that time I have asked the leaders of all political groups in Northern Ireland, whether elected or not, for their opinion. I have not had a reply from them all, but I understand there is a substantial measure of agreement that there should be a proportional representation system of this type.

It is perhaps worth noting that the only party with a substantial representation which has written to me objecting to this system is the Alliance Party, and I have a letter from Mr. Napier to that effect. This does not surprise me, because if somebody is being under-represented in due proportion—in this case perhaps the extremist parties—somebody else must be over-represented. It is most likely to be the Alliance Party, which strongly objects to the change.

I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted every party in Northern Ireland, as I did, what were their views, and whether he found it as easy as the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said it would be to convert to proportional representation. It could be better if we had a system that represented in exact proportion to its votes every view in Northern Leland rather than the present system, which is not a proportional representation system.

Mr. Beith

We all recognise the erudition of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in the matter of proportional representation. We also sympathise with his present discomfort and hope that he will soon recover. We have all experienced over a period of time the extent to which the hon. Gentleman's purity of thought on matters of proportional representation may seem to confuse the issue. The hon. Gentleman uses the term "proportional representation" most carefully and has mentioned the list system; but he fails to recognise that proportional representation is relative in the extent to which it is provided in the various systems, and that the single transferable vote system provides a high degree of relative proportionality and combines with it a constituency link—in other words, the ability of Members to represent constituencies for each of which there is a group of Members. The constituency link is often advanced as the major feature of our own traditional system. It is about the only thing one can say in its favour, but it certainly represents an argument for a system with a high degree of proportionality which preserves an element of constituency contact for a Member. It can be argued that the Constitutional Convention has not so great a need for the constituency link as has a permanent assembly dealing with administrative matters. But in the Northern Ireland situation, this advantage, having been brought to the Assembly elections, it is now a system to which people have become accustomed. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to say how quickly Northern Ireland had accustomed itself to the STV system and how smoothly the election had proceeded.

The list system has the strong disadvantage that it tends to place power in the hands of the party organisations which draw up the lists and so limits the ability of the electors to choose between the various elements. Clearly that was a choice exercised in the election to the Assembly. In that case, the STV system enabled electors to choose certain of the Unionists before them, for example, in preference to some of the others. At those elections certain individuals lost and certain others polled very well as a result of their reputations.

The STV system in Northern Ireland has shown that it has many advantages. In the Assembly elections it represented accurately the proportions cast in the first preference votes. I find no argument for changing it at this stage.

Mr. Moyle

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was right not to go into the details of his amendment, because I had already taken the trouble to read the speech that he made on 16th April during our debates on the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill and made myself conversant with the general drift of his arguments.

There is one difference between this amendment and the one that my hon. Friend moved last year. His amendment last year was designed to give the benefits of the list system plus an opportunity to choose an individual candidate. On this occasion, he has decided to go for the list system without saying that there should be an opportunity to pick a particular candidate. In the circumstances, that might be regarded as a defect in terms of the selection that an elector may exercise, although it means greater simplicity in the electoral process.

The fundamental argument for the single transferable vote is that recently there have been changes in Northern Ireland from time to time. We selected the process of the single transferable vote for the Assembly elections. That operated for the last Assembly elections. Unless there were very powerful arguments against it, we believe that it would be wrong at this stage to remove that system and to adopt a list system, however mathematically attractive it might be.

For that reason, we wish to stick mainly to the STV. The proposal to change it might delay the opportunity to hold elections and would possibly take up some further legislative time. I do not think that we can rush into a matter like this without consultations in the Northern Ireland community generally.

For all those reasons, we prefer to stick to the single transferable vote. In saying that, I am probably not surprising my hon. Friend, but those are the arguments on which we base our attitude.

Mr. English

I do not think that the effect of my amendment is that which my hon. Friend has described. If it is, that was not my intention. By the amendment, I intended merely to direct my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—in making the various regulations which we always have to have in order to set up an electoral system—to create a list system. In trying to keep my remarks brief, it may be that I did not explain that I had not changed my views, and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

In some countries where list systems exist, they have the highly centralised system which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed took as the extreme example. But it is possible, and common in the more democratic countries, to have a list system in which the voter is allowed to vote, apart from the party, for a person on the party list, so putting the list in order and so deciding who gets elected and who does not.

Such a system cannot operate readily in very large countries. But we are not discussing a very large country. In practice, an enormous number of people in Northern Ireland are familiar with their politicians all over the Province, just as in Israel or in the Netherlands people are in close communities where that is possible. It was not my intention to deprive the voter of his choice of candidate as well as party. I hope that is clear.

10.15 p.m.

I turn now to the remainder of my hon. Friend's remarks. I made this point to the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who went far towards saying that it was not his desire that we did not have a list system. I made the point again last year, as my hon. Friend said, and I made it again a few weeks ago in the first debate on this subject in this Parliament. Contrary to the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I suggest that if he looks at the figures he will see that the real extremists in Northern Ireland would have gained one seat apiece under a truly proportional system.

Mr. Beith

With 1.8 per cent. of the votes?

Mr. English

With 1.8 per cent. of the votes and 78 seats they would clearly have gained a seat. Therefore, they would have had one person capable of expressing their view by legal means. That is the point. That is partly what is not happening. We all see the dangers of over-representing the moderates, which is what the STV system is inclined to do, and of under-representing the extremists by legal means. The dangers are obvious. People in that situation will take extralegal means if they have no legal means of expressing their view.

It is also true that in Westminster we get a false impression about who is governing Northern Ireland. That is a situation that we have only recently seen with the fall of the Executive. I will not go into detail. I merely wanted to answer that point. I regret my hon. Friend's decision.

Nevertheless, having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford (Belfast, South)

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 3, after 'instrument', insert 'but such date shall not be later than 31st December 1974'.

It is vital that Northern Ireland has the Convention brought into being as quickly as possible. The people of Northern Ireland for the past 50 years or more have had recourse to a Parliament and an Assembly, and the absence of representatives in a devolved Parliament or Assembly is a great psychological blow at this time.

I should like to expand the argument by drawing attention to two important factors. The first is the need to control and assist local government by an assembly. That assembly would be brought into being very soon if we could have our Convention quickly. The assembly is needed to control and assist local government. At present we have two Ministers of State, two Under-Secretaries and a Secretary of State who cannot possibly cope with all the work that is being brought to their attention.

I will illustrate the situation by giving one or two examples. There is a tremendous need to stimulate interest in the great housing problem in Northern Ireland and to produce some concrete results in terms of community amenities. This is absent, and we believe that the sooner there is a Convention that will lead to an assembly the sooner will local government be controlled and assisted to produce these dire needs and necessities.

The second reason for wanting the Convention to be brought into being immediately and to produce a new legislative body as quickly as possible is the need for security. The present political vacuum affords the subversives tremendous opportunities. They see this vacuum as an expression of the weakness, confusion and impotence both of this Parliament and of any proposed assembly in Northern Ireland.

The Convention will be much concerned with security problems. It must tackle immediately the great problems of policing, of the UDR and of the proposed Home Guard. All these security matters must be discussed urgently, and this can be done only if the Convention is brought into being as rapidly as possible.

Whether one likes it or not, the Convention will have to consider the dreadful problem of the bomber in Belfast and other rural towns. The absence of a Convention projects the feeling of weakness, of confusion and of impotence, and it seems to me that we must quickly dispel these misconceptions. The Convention will need to consider not only policing, the UDR and the Home Guard, but the return of capital punishment for those who are guilty of maiming or killing through the planting of bombs. Only by the Convention dealing immediately with security and by the assembly that will follow pursuing the matter can we get across to the subversives in Northern Ireland that their tactics will never pay.

I believe that the Parliament of Northern Ireland, however that Parliament expresses itself, will be impatient to come to terms with terrorism because of the social and economic problems and because of the security issues, but we must stress that social and economic stability is completely dependent upon successful security measures. These measures are needed immediately, and only the immediate setting up of the Convention will satisfy the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dalyell

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave us to understand earlier in the day that some feeling had been expressed that perhaps it would not be a good idea to hold the elections in the immediate future. A number of us believe that there is every reason for holding them as soon as possible, so that the situation should not fester. I hope to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State convincing reasons why we should not go ahead at the earliest possible moment.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Just in case the Minister of State might think that there was any slacking by the United Ulster Unionists about the call for an election, I should like to put the record straight. The elected representatives to this House, the United Ulster Unionists, are one in this matter.

It is also true that, while the right hon. Gentleman may have heard representations from some people connected with the Ulster Workers Council, the council as a body has called for an immediate General Election, and it has also said that it was the purpose of its strike to have an election as soon as possible.

The amendment leaves it until the end of the year. That is reasonable. Certain spadework has to be done. If people want to get their political organisations going, well and good, but we are saying that the election must be this year. I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it should be as soon as possible, for as soon as the people have the opportunity to send their spokesmen to the Convention, and as soon as the Convention can get under way, the vacuum will have been filled in a measure. I think that the Minister will agree that it would be better to have the talks as soon as possible.

The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland feel that there should be elections. The Minister of State would be doing a service to the country by heeding the voice of the elected representatives and giving us an assurance that the elections will be held before the end of the year. I know that there are difficulties, with an election to this House pending. Some people may say that it would be a bad thing to have an election in Northern Ireland before the election here. I am not sure about that. After an election in Northern Ireland, the parties could go to the country and say "The Northern Ireland people are down to business around the conference table at least to try to find a constitution for themselves."

The Secretary of State for Defence has said publicly that the election must probably be early in October. The Government are probably saying that if that is so the Northern Ireland elections must be later, but we are asking for them before the end of the year, which is reasonable. We would not ask the right hon. Gentleman to call them on Christmas Day.

Some of the parties whose representatives were elected to the Assembly were not invited to the Oxford conference. They would have refused anyway, but they did not have the opportunity. Representatives of a foreign country were present, a country which is now taking action against the Government here on allegations of torture, and which has as its chief witness the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). How can he reconcile that with the oath of allegiance he took when he entered the House? How can he give evidence against this Government and this Parliament on behalf of a foreign country? However. I shall not stress that matter tonight.

We need an election, and we are still calling for one, although we are not at Stormont Castle every day knocking on the door about the matter. We are knocking at the door on other matters vital to our constituents. We are still united, and I believe that we speak for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland I am sure that the Minister will pay attention to this call.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers

It will be recalled that on Second Reading I was anxious to get an undertaking from the Minister of State that the Convention, once established, would be able to report as soon as possible. It is right that I should express my view that we think that this amendment is unrealistic. In the present political climate no one knows what the position may be towards the autumn.

The months of August and September would obviously be unrealistic months in which to hold the election for the Convention, even if all the procedures could be set up in that time. It would be wrong in those circumstances to attempt to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be in the autumn. It would also be wrong to impose upon Northern Ireland what might well be two elections within six weeks or two months. For those reasons I say that it would be wrong for the discretion of the Secretary of State to be fettered in the way proposed.

Mr. Orme

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) for his kind words. He has put his finger on the crucial point. There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from holding elections before 31st December. We have not adopted this procedure so that we can say that there will not be elections for two years or some such time. As soon as elections can be held in what we consider to be unfettered conditions they will be held. We have to take into account the problems of a possible Westminster General Election and the effects of that upon the electorate in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) moved the amendment in a reasonable way but strayed on to the security situation and said that the Convention ought to be discussing that issue. I do not need to remind him that the responsibility for security in all its aspects rests with the Westminster Government. That is not the business of the Convention at this stage.

Captain Orr

If the Minister intends that the Convention should be reasonably unfettered it would surely be possible for those in the Convention, when it meets to argue that control of the police and of internal security ought to rest with whatever institution is set up in the future. In that respect internal security could reasonably be discussed.

Mr. Orme

If the hon. and gallant Members wants me to reiterate the words of my right hon. Friend, that no doubt the policing of Northern Ireland will be discussed in the Assembly, I will gladly do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The Secretary of State told us, in discussing the White Paper, that the matter of policing would certainly be discussed in the Convention.

Mr. Orme

I think the hon. Member is misinterpreting the situation. I was dealing with a question from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). My right hon. Friend said the Convention would not necessarily, by prescription, discuss these matters, but it would not be prevented from doing so. If members of the Convention wanted to discuss such matters it would be within their rights to do so.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South also raised the problem of the duties which the Government will have during temporary direct rule. He referred to the two crucial issues of housing, which will be the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and community relations, which will be the responsibility of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary.

I cannot see how the Convention affects these issues. It will not be there to discuss these matters. Rather it will discuss the political issues. It will be trying to arrive at proposals for a new form of government in Northern Ireland which will encompass these issues. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends or members of his party are elected to the Convention, they will be responsible for discussing the specific political issues for which the terms of the Convention have been drawn up. That will not prevent members of the Convention being able to operate and represent their constituents in a way which would be acceptable to this Parliament and Government.

Mr. Bradford

My point was that it was important to get the Convention under way because we cannot have the legislative body, be it a Parliament or an Assembly, until the Convention has successfully concluded. In a debate in 1973 on the then proposed constitution, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that it was vital that the Assembly in Northern Ireland should have control over local government even if it meant executive control being postponed for some time. I represent a very largely residential constituency. It contains some very palatial homes, but also many dreadful housing conditions, and I am thinking particularly about that problem. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we do not begin the Convention and successfully conclude it and bring into being a legislative assembly of some kind these deplorable problems will not be tackled as expeditiously as they ought to be?

Mr. Orme

We welcome the hon. Gentleman's pressure for speed in getting some form of legislative assembly established in which these matters can be discussed. But I assure him that if he makes representations to the appropriate Ministers who will be operating under the present Government in the intermediate period, matters raised will be looked at urgently and sympathetically. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's idea—it is also the Government's idea—that the Convention and temporary direct rule should not operate indefinitely, and that we can move forward to some form of government in Northern Ireland which is acceptable.

For the reasons I have given, I ask the Committee to accept that to stipulate a date would tie any Government down to a position that was completely unacceptable. In those circumstances I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, I shall have to ask the Committee to reject it.

Captain Orr

I understand the point about tying the hands of the Secretary of State. In normal circumstances one would not have wished to do so. I think that we would have said that the Secretary of State's intention was to have the elections to the Convention as soon as was reasonably practicable. One would have accepted that. The trouble—and the reason for the amendment—is that we have heard noises from Government sources which suggest that the election might be postponed not by questions concerning the possibility of an election to the House of Commons or for reasons of security or otherwise but because of the mistaken view that there is a large body of opinion in Ulster which would prefer the elections to be postponed.

I cannot emphasise too strongly what has been said by my hon. Friends, who, after all, are the elected representatives from Northern Ireland. We are all agreed that we represent the views of the majority of our constituents when we say that delay is not to be encouraged. I do not tie the Secretary of State to a date, but there is nothing to be gained from inordinate delay.

We have heard it suggested that members of the prorogued Assembly might retrieve their fortunes if there were delay. That is a totally mistaken hope. The Secretary of State would be gravely mistaken to believe that there will be any weakening in the views of the Ulster people about the matters on which they expressed their opinions in elections to this House and in subsequent actions, such as the constitutional stoppage. If Ministers think that in some strange way, by some strange kind of metabolism, the Ulster people will change their views, they are mistaken.

Mr. Orme

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put his views very fairly. It is only right that I should say from whom we have had representations. They have come from the Ulster Workers Council—not all of them—Mr. Brian Faulkner and the Alliance Party. Hon. Members may smile, but in a democratic society all views must be heard. I am not saying that my right hon. Friend accepts those views. The point is that the view that elections should be held almost immediately is not unanimous. In fact, we are being asked by some people to postpone the elections for so long that that request is completely unacceptable to the Government. As I have said, we should not have embarked upon this course if we were not to have elections in the forseeable future.

Captain Orr

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and for making plain what he had in mind. We do not object to his having consultations with the people he has mentioned. What we are asking is that the views of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland should prevail.

Mr. Kilfedder

Is it not obvious that when everything is in a state of flux we should have an election as quickly as possible so that the politicians do not get into a rut and do not take up a stand from which they cannot shift? Delaying elections means that politicians throughout the Province—and I am not mentioning parties—could easily take positions from which it would subsequently be difficult to move.

Captain On

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. There is every argument for having elections to the Convention as soon as possible. I understand that the Minister should consult others. Naturally, people who are associated with policies that have plainly failed—

Mr. Orme

Not all of them.

Captain Off

—perhaps not all of them—predictably will say "Give us a little longer and we shall retrieve it all". But it is a forlorn hope and it would be absolutely wrong for the Secretary of State to leave the Province without any form of top tier of local government, without any hope of a final constitutional settlement and with further uncertainty, for patience would fail, with the danger that people would take up more and more rigid attitudes. There is everything to be said in wisdom for proceeding reasonably soon with the election. I do not want desperately to tie the Secretary of State to the date proposed, but I should like some assurance before we leave the matter that it is not his intention simply to pospone the election until those people who have been associated with policies that have failed have time to regroup their forces in some kind of forlorn hope.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Orme

No date is at the moment in my right hon. Friend's mind. He will not commit himself to a date either before or after 31st December.

Captain Orr

That is an uncompromising attitude. I was endeavouring to be helpful to the Minister of State. I was trying to get him off the hook. He might have said that it was proposed to have the election as soon as reasonably possible. We do not want the Secretary of State to commit himself to a particular date, but he could have given the assurance I sought. If he will not give it I cannot advise my hon. Friends to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Orme

As always in matters of this sort my right hon. Friend will be reasonable, but he cannot be committed to a date.

Rev. Ian Paisley

We want to convert him.

Amendment negatived.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 20, at end insert: 6A. Provisions for by-elections to the convention shall be the same as would apply for the Northern Ireland Assembly". The Bill makes no provision for a by-election to the Convention. The amendment provides for a by-election on the same basis as would apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

My constituency has suffered already from under-representation in the Assembly. There was a sad calamity concerning our Assembly representative, Mr. McCarthy from the town of Ballymena. Before the Assembly met he had a fatal accident. The Government of the day made no provision by a by-election. It was scandalous that this House took no action to allow the people of Antrim, North to elect another representative. The then Secretary of State acted that way because he knew that he would not like the result of the election. He knew that the result would go against him. It is ridiculous for a Minister to take that line. Some hon. Members in this House may not like the outcome of the new elections, but that is the democratic system and we shall have to agree with it. Many are rejected at the polls, and there is nothing wrong with that. Many a good man is not elected, but he still has his principles.

The Secretary of State should make some provision in this respect. We live in a day when assassinations take place in our land. If my information is right, in the next few months there could be political assassinations. That is why some of us feel that the leaders of the parties should have proper personal security. I am alarmed at the fact that while some members of parties in Northern Ireland have been given heavy security others whose homes have been threatened and attacked have not been given adequate security. This perhaps is a matter to be dealt with on another day.

I feel that some provision should be made if because of death a seat is left vacant. Somebody should be given the opportunity to take that place so that there is somebody to speak on behalf of the people. There are forces in Northern Ireland which would like to remove certain voices from the Convention. It would be an encouragement and an incentive to those people if they knew that if they removed somebody from the seat that place would not be filled. The Secretary of State has a duty to make provision on this important matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has raised an important point. It would be idle of me to pretend that I have not given a great deal of thought to it. I am not unaware of the problem.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of security. I do not decide who receives security protection in Northern Ireland or in this part of the United Kingdom; it is a matter for the security authorities. The fact that one has to consider these matters makes one aware of what could or could not happen. Perhaps we should leave the matter there. I have discovered in my security responsibilities that the more publicity given to something the more is the chance of something happening.

Let me seek to explain why I have left the matter as it is at present. Let me make clear that I have not taken the course because I did not wish there to be by-elections. We are not dealing with an assembly with a four-year life. We are dealing with a much shorter-term body; it is a short-term Convention. Of course, the reason for somebody being elected matters, but when one person is missing the matter will not be determined on a numerical basis.

I accept that there may be problems, given the situation in Northern Ireland, if people are killed because of their political views. I take the point about the period following the Convention. I do not believe that it will all be done speedily, but if it is not done on a relatively short-term basis it will show that weaknesses have arisen in the Convention. I do not think that it will go on a long time: the people of Northern Ireland will come to terms with each other, I believe, in a short period.

The Bill deliberately excludes by-elections, and I stand by that. It will be done on the PR basis. The original Act provided for 90 days, and here we shall have six months. The Amendment could lead to the type of discussion which I would prefer to be left to a referendum if that were necessary. If there were problems as a result of death which needed the attention of the House, it would be given, and I believe that it is best left like that. This is a macabre subject. There are hon. Members with whose political views I profoundly disagree, but none of us wants it to go that way. However, those who live in Northern Ireland know that it can go that way.

If I were given this freedom of action. I would take such circumstances as have been mentioned into account, if necessary, although the body concerned was a convention. I am talking of the problems which would arise if a number of people were affected. I will look at these matters in a reasonable way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my word for that.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I thank the Secretary of State for those words. The amendment goes right to the stark reality of the Northern Ireland situation. It is as well for the Committee to know what the political climate might be. Many people would not want the Convention to succeed; they would not want the Ulster people to settle the Ulster problem.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's words in the spirit in which he uttered them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.