HC Deb 21 June 1973 vol 858 cc970-83
Mr. Biggs-Davison

I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 34, line 30, leave out from 'will' to end of line 35 and insert: 'serve Her Majesty the Queen in the conscious discharge of my duties under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. On Second Reading I described the oath proposed in Schedule 4 as miserable and emasculate. I do not withdraw that epithet tonight. Better impose no oath than an oath in such terms; better drop it and rely on the Official Secrets Act.

The oath of allegiance, which is taken willingly and, for the most part, proudly at that Table, and formerly at Stormont, has proved no impediment to the seating of an elected Member who may seek, despite the memory of Cromwell, the eventual replacement of the monarchy by a republic. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) has been with us for a while today, and her hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) has also been known to be present here.

The oath to which I have referred is taken by a Member in taking his seat in a new Parliament. He takes it, whether or no he has sworn or affirmed in an earlier House of Commons, I presume, as binding in that period and for the purposes of his parliamentary service. I imagine that it was in that spirit that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster took the oath.

Therefore, it is not only offensive to my hon. Friends and myself but unnecessary to remove the Head of State from the oath to be taken by the Executive of a Province which, under Clause 1—which we have added to the Bill—remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom.

I am not wedded to the form of oath that I have tabled in the amendment. Nevertheless, I chose my words with some care, and I will read the form which would be in the schedule if, as I hope, we can amend it: I swear by Almightly God [or affirm] that will serve Her Majesty the Queen in the conscientious discharge of my duties under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Those words indicate that the profession of loyalty made by members of the Executive would relate to the discharge of their duties as members of the Executive, and what is wrong with that?

What is meant by the laws of Northern Ireland in the schedule as drafted? Does the term "laws" extend in this context to the monarchy? If so, why pander to mental reservations through ambiguity? If not, why not let us be faithful to our allegiance and true to ourselves?

Mr. Maginnis

I support the amendment, but I should like to go even further and scrap all that appears in Schedule 4 and insert in its place the oath that we take at the Table when we take our seats in this House of Commons. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the words of the oath: I … swear that I will he faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors". It seems to me that if someone is appointed to the Executive of Northern Ireland he should, as a matter of principle, be expected to carry out his duties on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. As the legislation to be passed in future by the Assembly will have the force of law and will be ratified by the Queen in Council, it seems odd that the Bill should ask members selected to be on the Executive of the Assembly to take this watered-down oath.

Members of the Assembly do not take any oath at all—I am not worried about that because it is not a Parliament—but those who are selected to the Executive bear a heavy responsibility for the day-to-day running of the affairs of Northern Ireland, and the legislation enacted by that Assembly will have the force of law and will receive the Royal Assent.

The loyal citizens of Northern Ireland look upon an oath with great respect. I remember when I was a young constable prosecuting in a court of law a person who was asked to go into the witness box. He seemed rather dilatory about taking the oath, and he was asked whether he understood the meaning of it. To me, the oath is like entering into the state of matrimony; it is not to be entered into lightly or wantonly.

I think that my hon. Friend hit the nail on the head. The previous oath did not prevent anyone from taking his seat in the former Stormont, and it has not prevented anyone from entering this Parliament. The oath now to be taken by members of the Executive is a real slap in the teeth for those in Northern Ireland who have been battered by IRA atrocities and, latterly, by political batons. This is the end of the road, because most people will see this oath as depriving them of their true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, having lost the Governor as well.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider this. If he is not prepared to go as far as I have suggested, he should at least meet the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).

Mr. Powell

I find myself very much in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who said "better no oath at all than anything of this sort". Indeed, it seems derogatory to this House to prescribe an oath so meaningless and devoid of purpose as that which at present stands in the schedule.

To expect the people who are forming part of an Executive to swear to be conscientious is ludicrous. It has no compelling or binding power of any sort. It is in no way enforceable. No one could say that a man had broken his oath because he had been less than conscientious in one respect or another.

The oath goes on to say not merely that members of the Executive will fulfill their duties—and there is a pretty obvious sanction on any member of the Executive who does not—but that they must do so in the interests of Northern Ireland. Does that mean that there is a sort of mental reservation which anyone who takes even this oath can enter that he will fulfill his duties conscientiously only if and in so far as he considers them to be in the interests of Northern Ireland? This imports a whole range of doubts which would not exist but for the oath itself.

9.0 p.m.

The oath does not even end there, with the interests of Northern Ireland. It refers to … the interests of Northern Ireland and its people. So it invites the person who takes this oath, binding himself by it, to draw a distinction between the interests of Northern Ireland—whatever that may mean—and the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Consider what that means—to interpret his duties in the light of those interests which he has defined for himself, then decide what he has to be conscientious about in the fulfillment of those duties. In the end that is what he has to do to fulfill his oath.

All of this started with an oath of allegiance. I will not query the policy—it is a separate issue from the wording of this oath—of prescribing an oath of allegiance, either for membership of the Assembly or for official positions in Northern Ireland. Once an oath is divested of its historic and even its sacramental character, once it has ceased to be an affirmation of a corporate belonging, which I think is as near as I can define the reality of the oath which we take at the beginning of every Parliament, then it is nothing. To attempt to find a form of words which will be inoffensive and which will give no ground for the most scrupulous and carping examination will result only in something meaningless and flatulent.

I hope that when my right hon. Friend considers that—I know he considers everything which is said in these debates, and we have been assured that there will be a Report stage—he will go through again the question of the oath and decide afresh whether it is necessary to insult both Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland with a formula of this kind.

Captain Orr

I will not delay the Committee too long. I agree with the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), about oaths. The taking of an oath of allegiance survives from mediaeval times. My right hon. Friend was right to describe it as sacramental in nature. Whether taking an oath of this kind has any relevance in the modern world is debatable. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)—better no oath at all than something which does not carry an historic significance.

The taking of the oath of allegiance has a peculiar and particular symbolism in Northern Ireland. The symbolism is that, when one's citizenship is under threat, when one feels that the thing that one clings to above all is Her Majesty the Queen, in the sacramental sense, and that people are seeking to detach one from one's allegiance, one finds the ancient sacramental method of reaffirming it of some importance. This is why I think that people in Ulster are inclined to set high store upon the ancient survival of the oath of allegiance. The reason for it is deep within the people because of attempts in the past to detach them from their allegiance.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that the oath in the schedule seems absolutely meaningless. I will not compete with him in pointing out its ludicrousness. There might be disagreements about the form of the oath suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell. Perhaps if he felt able to withdraw his amendment, we might express our anxieties about and dissatisfaction with this position by voting against the schedule itself.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

There are two strands of argument among hon. Members opposite. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was very careful to distinguish between the oath proposed in the Bill and the reasons for the change. We would not be doing justice to this situation if we imagined that a Conservative Government had gone to the lengths of dropping the oath of allegiance simply because they thought that a fresh form of words would be more suitable. The reason it has been dropped is that in the past the oath has been abused and used to help to divide that society which so many of us want to see reunited.

Schoolteachers and even local authority road sweepers had to take the oath of allegiance. It was used to single out the Republicans from the Unionists and Loyalists. The oath had been brought into disrepute. It had become a political weapon, quite different from the oath that hon. Members take in this House in an easy way, irrespective of their point of view. It had become a political weapon: otherwise a Conservative Government would not have gone to these lengths.

In consequence, the Government and the Opposition see this change—I agree that there are incongruities in parts of the wording—as an attempt to allow all shades of opinion to participate in the Executive and to ensure that no insurmountable barriers are erected. I know that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I disagree on whether that divided society can operate, but the road has been cleared in the sense that no barrier can be erected from inside. It cannot be said that the system will not be able to work because the oath will stand in the way.

Therefore, the Opposition support this change, which they see as practical and necessary. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and his hon. Friends have rightly and with some feeling expressed their strong opposition to this change. One understands their views in an historical context, but I hope that we are looking not backward but forward to that new Assembly and the Executive which will be asked to take this new form of oath. On that basis, we support the schedule.

Mr. McMaster

I have followed with interest the argument of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), which I do not accept. If his argument were correct it would be like saying that because people have burned themselves in a fire we should have no fires. I ask the same question that the hon. Member asked. Why have we changed the form of oath in Northern Ireland? The only reason for dropping the oath completely from the new Assembly and substituting this peculiar form of oath or affirmation for Members of the Executive under Clause 8 is to enable Republicans to serve on the Executive.

How far are we going in order to pander to the extreme minority in Northern Ireland? Does not the very fact that the schedule is included in the Bill make complete nonsense of Clause 1, which firmly states that It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom. Is it not a simple duty of every citizen of the United Kingdom to owe allegiance to the Queen? Are we to say that people who do not owe a simple allegiance to the Queen are to be invited to play a part in the Executive? It seems that that is what we are saying.

How far has this Parliament lost its will to defend the United Kingdom? In the north of Ireland, we, as part of the United Kingdom, are under attack. An attack upon Northern Ireland is an attack on not just a part but the whole of the United Kingdom. This attack is being pursued with extreme savagery and viciousness. The death roll is quite appalling. It is continuing at this very moment. In those circumstances, is it right to give in?

What is the definition of treason in this country? What constitutes sedition? If anyone contemplates the downfall of the Government or of Her Majesty or any of her family, that is treason. We are altering matters in order to allow people who harbour treasonable ideas to form part of the Executive. We are being asked to do nothing less.

This is a very serious matter. I would rather see no oath than the peculiar form set out in the schedule. I would go further than that. We are going too far in our efforts to placate those who, in the last three years, have proved to be totally implacable. We are weakening the whole fibre of the British constitution by doing this. Let us make no mistake about it; to give concessions such as these to terrorism sets an awful example for the rest of the United Kingdom. The troubles that we have had in Northern Ireland and the pressures that have been exerted may well occur elsewhere. If the way in which we reply to such trouble and pressure is to make concessions such as this vital and fundamental concession, others in the community will be prepared to exert similar power and force in other parts of the United Kingdom, buoyed up by the example, in Northern Ireland, of the weakness of Her Majesty's Government and the Government's lack of determination to protect themselves and some of the most fundamental ideas in our constitution.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) went through the schedule paragraph by paragraph examining it and ridiculing it. He omitted to read the initial part which says: I swear by almighty God … that I will uphold the laws of Northern Ireland". To me those words are significant. They cannot be overlooked. Someone who swears to uphold the laws of Northern Ireland swears to uphold the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill because it is part of the laws of Northern Ireland. Someone who swears to uphold those laws swears to uphold Clause 1, and that provides for Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom as long as it is the wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

I do not imagine that what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) calls the extreme Republican element will be able to argue about that. Only a person who believes in change by consent in Northern Ireland will be able to accept that oath. Therefore, while I entirely accept that there are enormous problems in getting a satisfactory oath, I think that we should not overlook the considerable importance of the part of the Bill that refers to upholding the laws of Northern Ireland and the considerable consequences flowing from those words.

Mr. David Howell

As the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has pointed out, this short debate has produced two distinct strands of thought. There are those of my hon. Friends who dislike this form of words and those who say that if this is what we must have, better no oath at all.

But we must accept that these declarations are deeply serious and important matters. They have a useful part to play in reminding holders of public office of the solemn nature of their responsibilities. Of course, they are not everything. In any constitution the chief guarantee of the proper and impartial performance of official duties must lie elsewhere. It must involve a sense of integrity and duty which animates those men and women called upon to perform public duties. But these important declarations should not be downgraded, and I am sure that my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland do not need to be told of the immense symbolic importance attached to such acts as the giving of oaths. I hope that they do not need to be told how strong are the feelings on both sides.

Northern Ireland is, alas, a community divided by many things, not least by ultimate constitutional aspirations. This point has been made repeatedly by some of my hon. and right hon. Friends. They have told the Government and the Committee that these ultimate constitutional aspirations are irreconcilable, and have gone on to say that, therefore, in the foreground of events lying nearer than the ultimate, irreconcilable conflicts will develop making all power sharing impossible.

The last few years have in some senses confirmed that the future of Northern Ireland must be dark unless people are prepared to seek some common ground in areas which are short of their ultimate aspirations, where that common ground can be found, rather than for them to go off into wrangles on questions in which there is no hope of an acceptable compromise. If every matter is taken as far as their ultimate aspirations the logical truth is that there is no progress to he made. If we recognise that there is ground upon which people who do not share ultimate constitutional aspirations can come together for the good of Northern Ireland and to govern the Province, there is hope for the future. The people and the parties of Northern Ireland have a choice, as my right hon. Friend has repeatedly made clear. They can preoccupy themselves totally with constitutional aspirations and place that as the focus of all political conflict—and we all know the pattern of events for the future if that choice is followed—or they can accept that, whatever their ultimate aspirations are they do not have to be current and immediate everyday preoccupations and depend for the future on their own efforts to operate the government of Northern Ireland based on the principle of consent established in Clause 1. That is the choice. There is endless room for meeting deeply felt emotional matters with lighter comment. That is always possible in these serious matters. It is always a good game, but it is a tragic and dangerous game, particularly in the context of Ireland.

Ireland has a history of trouble caused by oaths. The present oath may not be liked but it is intended, as are other aspects of the Bill which put forward the idea of power-sharing, to be acceptable to a broad band of Protestant opinion and minority parties. Those who do not believe in power-sharing can easily say "We will have none of it. Power-sharing will not work. Therefore, it is an absurd time to bring up the question of an oath acceptable to either side."

Mr. Maginnis

Is the lion. Gentleman saying that the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen would wreck the concept of power-sharing in the new Assembly?

Mr. Howell

I was not saying any such thing. If there is to be an oath—and my right hon. Friends and I believe that there should be an oath for the Northern Ireland Executive and all those nominated under Clause 8 by the Secretary of State—it is this oath which will be acceptable for the two sides without immediately leading the conflict back to the irreconcilable issues of the different ultimate constitutional aspirations. Those who wish to change it must justify their amended wording against Irish history.

I can only ask my hon. Friends who wish to change the oath: Is the amended oath likely to be acceptable to both sides, or will it just become an immediate rallying point and cause for a further round of sectarian dispute and conflict? This is the question we must put to those seeking to amend the oath.

Those who say that there should be no oath are wrong, and those who say that we should go back to the earlier oath do not take account of the need implicit in the Bill for the sharing of power on the lines outlined by my right hon. Friend.

For those reasons I must ask the Committee to accept that the amendment is not suitable, and ask my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) if he will consider withdrawing it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend the Minister of State when I say that I am not only disappointed but shocked by his reply.

The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the oath of allegiance was abused in Northern Ireland. He mentioned schoolteachers and road sweepers compelled to take the oath to secure employment. That matter has already been dealt with in the Bill. What we are debating is an oath to be taken primarily by the Executive of Northern Ireland.

Is it really true that an oath which mentions the Head of State will make difficulties for members of the Executive when it made no difficulties in the past? Is made no difficulties at Stormont for Monarchists and Republicans, for Unionists and Nationalists—for people of very different ultimate aspirations, to use my hon. Friend's words.

I hope that my hon. Friend will think again, and will at least agree to reexamine what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) described as the meaningless words of the oath proposed.

My hon. Friend said that Irish history had been bedevilled by oaths. If he is unwilling to alter his form of words, perhaps he will consider the possibility of abandoning it and avoid bedevilling another chapter of Irish history with the question of an oath.

I am not wedded to my form of words. I do not awfully like it, but I put it forward partly to meet the views of others who do not agree with me and to try to find some common ground—to quote the hon. Member for Salford, West—between different sets of people who may be called upon to form the Executive.

I do not insist on my amendment at all. But if the Government will not even agree to think again about this important matter, if they insist on the schedule embodying this unacceptable formula, we have no other course than to resist it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment, without prejudice to any action we may take on the Question,

That this schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill.

Captain Orr

In the light of what I said earlier, and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply that we received on the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), I suggest that the schedule should not stand part.

I emphasise that we are not talking about an oath that elected representatives are obliged to take, an oath for the Assembly. It is an oath for the people upon whom the exercise of power in the name of Her Majesty will be devolved, as a Government of Northern Ireland, as it were. To say that it is even thinkable that people should be invited to join that Executive who are not willing to affirm their allegiance to Her Majesty shows the appalling nature of what may be in the Government's mind.

To register the fact that we think that this is highly unsatisfactory, I advise my hon. Friends to vote against the schedule.

Question put, That this schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 93, Noes 7.

Division No. 171.] AYES [9.29 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Hamling, William Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Atkinson, Norman Harper, Joseph Monro, Hector
Benyon, W. Hawkins, Paul Morrison, Charles
Biffen, John Hayhoe, Barney Murton, Oscar
Blaker, Peter Higgins, Terence L. Nott, John
Body, Richard Hornby, Richard Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.) Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Orme, Stanley
Brinton, Sir Tatton Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Howell, David (Guildford) Palmer, Arthur
Carlisle, Mark Hunter, Adam Perry Ernest G.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Raison, Timothy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Jopling, Michael Redmond, Robert
Concannon, J. D. Judd, Frank Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Kaufman, Gerald Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Dean, Paul Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Knox, David Russell, Sir Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lawson, George St. John-Stevas, Norman
Eyre, Reginald Longden, Sir Gilbert Scott-Hopkins, James
Faulds, Andrew McAliskey, Mrs. Bernadette Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Mackie, John Shersby, Michael
Fidler, Michael McNair-Wilson, Michael Simeons, Charles
Fookes, Miss Janet McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Skeet, T. H. H.
Fowler, Norman Madel, David Skinner, Dennis
Green, Alan Mather, Carol Stallard, A. W
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Mawby, Ray Stanbrook, Ivor
Grylls, Michael Meyer, Sir Anthony Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Torney, Tom
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin White, Roger (Gravesend) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ward, Dame Irene Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William Mr. Tim Fortescue and Mr. Marcus Fox.
Wells, John (Maidstone) Younger, Hn. George
NOES
Bell, Ronald Orr, Capt. L. P. S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McMaster, Stanley Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Mr. John Biggs-Davison and Mr. John E. Maginnis.
Molyneaux, James Soref, Harold

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Forward to