§ Again considered in Committee.
§
Question again proposed,
That the order in which proceedings in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill are to be taken shall be Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 6, Schedule 2, Clause 7, New Clauses, New Schedules and Schedule 3.
§ Mr. BudgenEarlier, I explained how much I regretted the fact that I was unable to agree with the explanation given to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I made several serious allegations that arose from three reports by reputable journalists that would—if raised at that stage—have given my right hon. Friend the opportunity to deny them completely. If he had done so, and said, for the sake of argument, that there was no proposal orginally in the White Paper for any Anglo-Irish Council and that there was no suggestion that he was prepared to negotiate with the Labour Party about some form of Anglo-Irish Council, he would have reassured, at an early stage, many of the Government's supporters.
The matter is serious, because many of those who take an active part in politics do not consider the detail of every piece of legislation. I make no complaint about that, but it was particularly noticeable, for example, during consideration of the two Bills on devolution for Scotland and Wales. Many saw the Bills with a fresh eye on seeing the problems that emerged in debate. I dare say that many Tory Members have not yet adequately considered the Bill. No doubt they have rightly said to themselves that the matter has been approved by the Cabinet, that they trust the Secretary of State and that they will agree, in very broad terms, to whatever he may propose. However, if the Secretary of State was in favour of paving the way to a united Ireland before the Bill came before the House, some of my hon. Friends might look very carefully at the proposals——
§ The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are still discussing the order of consideration motion and not the merits of the Bill.
§ Mr. BudgenSome of us want to discuss new clause 4 because we are concerned about the reports that have gone undenied. Because of our concern, we want to reach the crucial point immediately.
However, if all the reports are untrue and if an Anglo-Irish Council was never in my right hon. Friend's mind and the matter was not negotiable, we would trust the Secretary of State and say no more about it. However, he had the opportunity to tell us. In many important instances, the Tory Party exists not so much as a political but as a social organisation. We trust the chaps and we trust their broad approach. However, if the Secretary of 1136 State was trying to pave the way to a united Ireland because he wanted the Labour Party's support, he should say so in a manly way or deny it. We should then all know where we are. We should then all fulfil our proper constitutional role and consider the Bill carefully.
I regret the Secretary of State's evasion. He had a wonderful opportunity to explain that he, with us and with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) was, in his roots, a Unionist and that in his very being he had no wish to dispose of Ulster. There was no necessity for him to do it by a long exposition. A sentence would have sufficed but he has denied the Committee that sentence and he must surely as a result place a real question mark in the minds of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
§ Mr. BodyI listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with great care. I appreciate all that he did in trying to reassure us on some of the issues. I do not want to detract from what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has said. Of course new clause 4 is of enormous importance. It is significant that the author and architect of it has remained silent in these proceedings and on behalf of the official Opposition has not expressed any opinion about the procedural motion, let alone about the suspicions we have raised. I would have thought it was important for Northern Ireland, and for the Committee, that the anxieties should have been put right.
I raised earlier with my right hon. Friend a substantial matter and I am a little disappointed that he has not dealt with it. At some stage in our deliberations we must examine what has been called the West Lothian question. Any Bill dealing with devolution has to cover that. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend seemed to understate the difficulties that he may find himself in at some stage in these deliberations. My hon. Friends and I are trying to be helpful by making sure that we deal with this matter in a way which will make sense in the Bill.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) intervened on Second Reading and put to my right hon. Friend the West Lothian question, if I may call it that. My right hon. Friend replied that it would be resolved
In the same manner as happened in the 50 years of previously devolved Govemment."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 477.]He was speaking of the Government that existed at Stormont. Some of us would argue that the matters covered at Stormont were not of the same kind that we may be dealing with as a result of this Bill because all of us now think that the Bill is being put on the statute book with the object of getting the Irish dimension certified. I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend has not dealt with the matter. I express my disappointment.
§ Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)I want to say just a brief word in support of what the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said. I agree that in the ordinary way this would be the proper order of having these matters set out, but two major constitutional issues arise. It is rightly said that those ought to be considered first. One of them is new clause 4 which deals with the possibility of setting up an Anglo-Irish Council which cuts across the whole purpose of the Bill. The other is the question of a referendum. Referendums are appropriate only to purely constitutional matters. This is a constitutional matter. For that reason, those matters ought to be disposed of first. I therefore support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has said and also the general excellent approach which the hon. Member for Antrim, South made to the matter.
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyI listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He admitted that this matter was of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. He is well aware—I do not need to remind him—that there are things in this Bill that are totally repugnant to the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. Already they have been slapped in the face and told that, unless there is a 70 per cent. majority, they cannot have any form of devolved government. They are also told that if they are prepared to agree with republicans, they can have devolved government. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the previous experience of this House and the disaster that occurred over the old Act that we are trying now to change. The disaster came when the very quick of the Unionist people was touched. They were told that they would have to start along the road of a united Ireland. That is what brought down the Executive very quickly.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to say tonight that it is his desire to have this most important matter debated first so that hon. Members know where the Government stand on the issue, he is courting disaster and will raise unlimited opposition against himself from the total Unionist population. It is not for me to say that no hon. Member should move the new clause. Let the clause be moved. Let us hear the arguments for and against it. Let the Minister give his opinion. Let this House make its decision. I am not asking that it should be wiped out and not called. In fact, I would greatly regret it if it was not called. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland should know where the Labour Party stands on this issue. When the matter is discussed, we can also hear where the Government stand. After that, the House can come to a decision. I am not arguing that we should forget about it. I am arguing that it should come first. If it comes first, we shall be able to make our decisions about other parts of the Bill.
§ Mr. PriorI wish to intervene only briefly to say that I think it would be wrong if we took this new clause on its own first. It would be much better to allow it to come at the right stage of the Bill if it is selected. I can only say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that I am as aware as he is of the need to try to deal sensibly with a number of problems of Northern Ireland that are extremely sensitive issues. I am aware, too, of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen has said. I urge and beg my hon. Friend not 1138 to try to put words into my mouth that I have never uttered. I have been involved in no collusion or consultation with the Opposition on this clause.
The only thing put into the draft of the White Paper was an account of the document that was issued at the end of the talks between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Dr. FitzGerald. I can assure my hon. Friend that he has no right or cause for concern about my position as he sought to make out. I hope the House will realise, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North says, that what we say here is reported in Northern Ireland. It is very important that we do not raise fears or suspicions here that are totally unjustified. That is why it would be right in many ways to continue with this procedural motion, to get it out of the way and so enable us to get on with the Bill and to deal with it in a sensible way.
Time and again, new clauses and amendments are put down, not necessarily to permit a decision to be reached upon them but to enable hon. Members to have a purposeful debate. I believe that many of the new clauses put down are for that purpose. I should be prepared to give a full answer at the right time. I believe that that is the way that we should proceed and I urge my hon. Friends to adopt it.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 22.
1139| Division No. 175] | [10.30 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Mills, Iain(Meriden) |
| Arnold, Tom | Moate, Roger |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) | Needham, Richard |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Newton, Tony |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Onslow, Cranley |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Page, Richard (SW Herts) |
| Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Bright, Graham | Pollock, Alexander |
| Brotherton, Michael | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A. | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| Butcher, John | RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Chapman, Sydney | Sandelson, Neville |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Cope, John | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Silvester, Fred |
| Dover, Denshore | Sims, Roger |
| Dunn, Robert(Dartford) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Speed, Keith |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Stainton, Keith |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Steen, Anthony |
| Gow, Ian | Stevens, Martin |
| Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN) | StradlingThomas, J. |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Taylor, Teddy (S'endE) |
| Gummer, JohnSelwyn | Thompson, Donald |
| Hamilton, Hon A. | Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth) |
| Hawksley, Warren | Trippier, David |
| Henderson, Barry | Waddington, David |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Waller, Gary |
| Hunt, John(Ravensbourne) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Watson, John |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Wheeler, John |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Wickenden, Keith |
| Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Lyell, Nicholas | |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| MacGregor, John | Mr. Peter Brooke and |
| Marlow, Antony | Mr. Ian Lang |
| NOES | |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Budgen, Nick |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Farr, John |
| Blackburn, John | Gardiner, George(Reigate) |
| Body, Richard | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n) | Gorst, John |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Robinson, P. (Belfast E) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S) |
| McCusker, H. | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Molyneaux, James | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Murphy, Christopher | |
| Paisley, Rev Ian | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (SDown) | Mr. William Ross and |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Mr. K. Harvey Proctor. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Ordered,
That the order in which proceedings in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill are to be taken shall be Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 6, Schedule 2, Clause 7, New Clauses, New Schedules and Schedule 3.
Mr. J. Enoch PowellOn a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It would be normal at this stage in proceedings on any ordinary occasion when the official Opposition is functioning as an Opposition for the right hon. Gentleman leading for the Opposition to put the time honoured question—especially since we have the presence of the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House—and inquire about the Government's intentions.—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are making progress."] We have not made progress in the technical sense of that term.
Care must be taken in finding the motion appropriate to achieve the desires of the Government or the House. Nevertheless, it would be convenient to the House generally, as well as of help to the conduct of business, to know the Government's intentions before we engage on the amendments.
§ Mr. PriorI should like to answer briefly that point of order. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, technically we may not have made progress, and therefore we must be careful. In my view, it would be right to try to make some progress. I am sure that it would not be the desire. of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and myself to go on for too long, but we should seek to make some progress and perhaps after a reasonable time it would be right to seek to report progress.
§ Mr. AmeryFurther to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I sympathise with the Secretary of State's view, but, as the Government cannot muster enough votes, even for a closure, would the Secretary of State seriously consider postponing the debate until after the recess?
§ Sir John Biggs-DavisonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). We do not want to talk in terms of closures in matters like this, not only because we are debating a constitutional measure of high importance but because there has been no undue protection of proceedings. There has been a reasonably full debate on the procedural question. That has been brought to a conclusion. Now we are ready to make progress for the first time. Progress has not yet been made. So we should not talk in terms of closures. We want to talk about the full and proper debating of this constitutional Bill.
Mr. J. Enoch PowellFurther to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I thank the Secretary of State for the indication that he gave the House, which I think was most helpful, and, if I may say so, reasonable. As the first group of amendments that have been selected raises major matters which go to the root of the Bill, it may be 1140 convenient for the Committee to address itself to them, before progress is reported and before coming to a conclusion on them. If that is what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind and would be consistent with it, I personally think that it would help progress.
§ Mr. PriorNo, that was not what was in my mind. These two amendments do not raise fundamental issues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We should discuss the amendments and perhaps reach a conclusion on them.
§ The ChairmanThe first group of amendments falling for discussion——
§ Mr. BudgenOn a point of order, Mr. Weatherill.
§ The ChairmanI do not think that a point of order arises.
§ Mr. BudgenPerhaps we could have a short debate on a point of order. One of my right hon. Friends raised the matter of the closure.
§ The ChairmanOrder. There is no debate on a point of order.
§ Mr. BudgenI am sorry that I put it inelegantly, Mr. Weatherill. I hoped that I might be allowed to make an observation—a different way of looking at the same point of order. Perhaps I might make a couple of observations. It seemed to me most regrettable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to the matter of the closure. One of the advantages of the closure procedure is that it forces the Government of the day to have about 100 hon. Members in the House, and we want 100 hon. Members in the Committee because we believe that many hon. Members have not considered this Bill adequately or——
§ The ChairmanOrder. Whether there are 100 hon. Members in the Committee is not a matter for the Chair.
The first group of amendments falling for discussion——
Mr. J. Enoch PowellOn a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. This is an entirely different point of order. I wish to submit it to you, without any question of querying in any way or challenging the selection of amendments of which you have been good enough to notify the Committee. Nevertheless, there is the point that I believe that you or a predecessor of yours has been willing to take into account and answer on previous occasions.
Unless you decide otherwise, Mr. Weatherill, there will eventually be a debate upon the question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. It is within your discretion to decide that the matters covered by the clause have been sufficiently debated, if in your view they have, in the debates on amendments that have taken place.
The point that I wish to submit to you is that a number of the amendments which, entirely within your discretion, you have decided not to select raise matters of interpretation. I will not say that they are drafting amendments, but they are amendments designed to elucidate and to elicit explanation. I hope that at the appropriate time you will permit that to be taken into account before you come to your decision as to the question whether clause 1 should stand part without further debate. I believe that there is precedent, if you are willing to do so, for your giving such an indication.
§ The ChairmanIt is a little early to say that at the moment. At the appropriate moment I shall certainly take that into consideration.
§ Mr. ProctorOn an entirely different point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It concerns the progress that the Committee might make. I made a helpful suggestion earlier this evening, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should make available to members of the Committee the briefing notes provided by civil servants for Ministers. On other Bills in other Committees, that helps progress. I specified the example of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill Committee, which is making excellent progress, helped by the decision of the Ministers to release the briefing notes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State——
§ The ChairmanOrder. That is a matter for the Secretary of State, not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. Proctorrose——
§ The ChairmanOrder. That is a matter for the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
§ Mr. PriorFurther to that point of order, if it was one, Mr. Weatherill. In the interests of progress and because I should like the Committee to be as well informed as possible, if hon. Members request that the notes be made available to them, I am prepared, on application, to see that they are made available.
§ Mr. ProctorFurther to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I thank my right hon. Friend very much. That will be a most helpful gesture.
§ Mr. BudgenFurther to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill.
§ The ChairmanOrder. That point of order has already been dealt with. Hon. Members have heard what the Secretary of State had to say.
§ Mr. BudgenI should like to raise a detail that I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like to hear. May I suggest through you, Mr. Weatherill, that the notes be deposited in the Vote Office and that each hon. Member who collects them signs for them? We should then know how many hon. Members are taking an interest in the Bill.
§ The ChairmanThat is a spurious point of order.
§ The ChairmanIs this a genuine point of order?
§ Mr. GorstIn response to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, in view of the fact that he will make available that material to us, would it not be more sensible if we awaited the arrival of the material and discontinued any further consideration until then?
§ The ChairmanThat is not a matter for me.
- Clause 1
- PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL OR PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE 7,877 words
-
cc1142-55