§ 10 pm
§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior)I beg to move, That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.
As the House will be aware from my remarks at the beginning of the debate which has just concluded, the Government hope in the coming months to have detailed discussions with the Northern Ireland parties. Our purpose will be to see whether agreement can be reached on arrangements for enabling locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland to exercise at least some of the functions which are currently discharged by Ministers answerable to this House.
I do not underestimate the difficulty of establishing the necessary climate of trust which will enable Northern Ireland constitutional parties to reach agreement, but I have always recognised that agreement will take time. Meanwhile, it is necessary to renew the direct rule provisions which provide that legislation which could be passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly after devolution can continue to be passed at Westminster by Order in Council and that the executive responsibilities of a Northern Ireland administration should be exercised by the Secretary of State.
In commending this order to the House, the Government recognise that direct rule is not an ideal arrangement. It enjoys a good deal of acceptance throughout the community and it is generally recognised that the Northern Ireland Departments, to whose staff I pay tribute, discharge their duties effectively and impartially, but, whatever its qualities, direct rule does not provide a system of government with which the citizen can easily identify. I recognise that to be the view of the Ulster Unionists, who do not like the system any more than the rest of us.
That said, I believe that the quality of direct rule has been improved, and improved considerably, by the work and advice of the Northern Ireland Assembly over the past two years. My ministerial colleagues and I are answerable to this House, including as it does Members from Northern Ireland to whose views we devote great care. But we have also found the detailed work of the Assembly, and its Committees, to be of value in focusing attention on detailed as well as general issues and in enabling the Government to be more responsive to Northern Ireland views
Since March 1983 about 46 Assembly reports have been laid before Parliament. Each has been examined closely by the Government and we have sent detailed replies to the Assembly's proposals. In some cases, proposals for draft Orders in Council have been considerably changed to take account of Assembly views. My ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office have met the Assembly's Committees frequently. These exchanges enable Ministers to discuss detailed issues in depth and to hear the views of elected representatives at first hand on a wide range of issues. We have found this a valuable addition to our debates in this House, where decisions are taken.
108 I am naturally pleased that the Ulster Unionist party has rejoined the Assembly and I hope that one outcome of the discussions which I envisage will take place shortly will be that all the constitutional parties will participate in whatever democratic framework may be agreed. But I should make it clear that we do not take the view that devolution as envisaged in the Northern Ireland Act 1982 represents the only way forward. The bottom line for the Government is that any scheme must enjoy support across the community. If that cannot be attained, or attained in the foreseeable future, through devolution as envisaged until now, other, perhaps more modest, schemes will have to be considered. What is needed above all is the will to find a workable, demonstrably fair, system of government and I hope that all concerned will discuss the possibilities including the many documents — outlined today, but especially in the UUP's "The Way Forward"
The practical and psychological benefits across the community of a measure of agreement would be considerable, but, as I said in our earlier debate today, progress requires recognition of the realities. Rather than repeat them, I would simply appeal to the constitutional parties to build on what they have in common — in particular, their shared desire for peace and concern about the economy—and to show that their own proposals for constitutional development pose no threat to others.
We shall persist in our objective of giving the people of Northern Ireland more say and more responsibility in their own government. But meanwhile direct rule must continue if government is to function properly, and I therefore commend the order to the House.
§ 10.6 pm
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)The Opposition accept the need for this continuing legislation. I suppose that it is still true that direct rule is everybody's second favourite option, and as such it is working as well as can be expected in the circumstances. We have noted the greater degree of accountability that the questioning, especially in the Assembly, lends to the present structure, which is welcome. I know that the Secretary of State would dearly like the SDLP to participate. However, it has always been consistent and clear that it would be unrealistic, not only because of its election commitment but because of the position it holds within the minority community, if it was to do that without some recognition of an all-Ireland dimension.
I think that this is the time to reiterate yet again that if the Government choose to look with favour on the idea of some form of British-Irish council, which would give a British-Irish dimension, the Opposition would consider it sympathetically and would want to help in whatever way we could. That might help the various parties that are standing for election in the North, including the SDLP, to participate.
Without some movement towards the minority community, I cannot envisage the Assembly involving all the people of Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, the Government would have to continue with what the Secretary of State has rightly called a bottom line—which is that any legislation must have cross-community support. But such support, as measured by a British Secretary of State, is a poor substitute, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree, for the elected views 109 of the people of Northern Ireland, properly expressed by all the elected representatives in whatever forums are available to them.
I envisage that direct rule will continue for some time. Our previous debate today might mark a watershed in the affairs of Britain and Ireland. Like many other people, I dearly hope that it does. But, for the moment, direct rule must be made to work as flexibly and fairly as possible. The Opposition will do all that they can to assist in that purpose.
§ 10.8 pm
§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)The order is of practical interest and concern to all hon. Members because it requires from the House an additional process of legislation for one part of the United Kingdom, which considerably adds to the time exerted by hon. Members on legislation and, to that extent, denies us the opportunity to consider other business. This was by no means inevitable when direct rule, as it is called, was first introduced in 1972, though the present form which is being renewed is the form of 1974, and it may be of interest to hon. Members to understand why the gramophone needle is so obstinately stuck in the groove that this is the tenth year that it has been in rotation, and we are not threatened with any early cessation of that repetition.
When the Northern Ireland Parliament was suspended and then dissolved in 1972–73, little technical change was necessary to enable Northern Ireland to be legislated for and administered like any other part of the United Kingdom. Some legislative provisions would have been necessary, but it was certainly not a consequence of the dissolution of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government that we should legislate for Northern Ireland in the manner which is continued for a tenth year by this order.
The effect of the order is to substitute in the case of Northern Ireland for the legislation of this House which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom a system of legislation by ministerial Order in Council. The purpose of that was to keep in existence the possibility—which in 1974 was, no doubt, regarded as the imminent possibility—of the revival of the legislative assembly in that Province.
There is here a deeper repetition than the mere annual repetition of the renewal of these orders. The Stormont constitution itself, in its origin in the 1920 Act, represented an endeavour by the Government of the United Kingdom to create a form of government in Northern Ireland which would be amenable to eventual amalgamation with the form of government in the South of Ireland, and one need only read the Government of Ireland Act 1920 to realise that it was paving legislation towards a reuniting—as perhaps it would have been called at that time—of the North and South.
When Stormont was destroyed by this House in 1972—and I was one of those who voted against that action because it was taken by a Government who had not disclosed to the House or the country what they intended to put in the place of the previous constitution—it was not the intention in doing so to bring Northern Ireland into congruence with the rest of the United Kingdom. The object was to establish in Northern Ireland a more 110 susceptible or more manageable form of local administration which would still serve the purpose of arriving at some sort of accommodation with the Irish Republic and its desire for the amalgamation of the North of Ireland.
The first essay was the 1972 Act, with the power-sharing constitution and the Assembly which was created under it. That Assembly initially did not contain the mechanism for the all-Ireland dimension. That was supplied just before the establishment of the Executive and was the direct cause of the rejection of that Assembly and Executive by the overwhelming majority of the people of the Province. That rejection caused the incoming Labour Government in 1974 to revert to the temporary status of direct rule. Thus, direct rule is a means of keeping the way open for the establishment of a separate show in Northern Ireland, a separate show which, as we have twice heard in hints, and more than hints, from the Treasury Bench during today's debate, will be the means of creating an Anglo-Irish set up in which Northern Ireland features as a separate entity. That effort has been pursued throughout the years since 1974 to the present day and, although the Government have intimated that there are ways in which they can see normal administration of the day-to-clay affairs of Northern Ireland being conducted by selected representatives, they have always been careful to couple that with the establishment of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier, which has been foreshadowed since the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister in 1980 and 1981.
That is what direct rule is about. It is not the consequence of Northern Ireland being recognised as part of the United Kingdom, for it is the consequence of a continuing determination to apply what used to be de Valera's formula for reuniting Ireland, the combination of Ulster autonomy with the English interest. Hon. Members can take that phrase and apply it as the key to the political history of the relations between the Government in the United Kingdom and that Province of the United Kingdom from 1920 onwards. If they do so, they will find that the key fits the lock.
The immediate consequence is that the law is made for the people of Northern Ireland by a different process from that which applies for the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is put apart by the order and it is still kept apart from the rest of the kingdom after 10 years. No other part of the United Kingdom would tolerate this, and hon. Members who represent other parts would be the first to repudiate the proposition that laws should be made for their constituents by an Order in Council and passed under the affirmative procedure. Indeed, I somewhat exaggerate, for only a part of it is passed under that procedure. The vast majority is passed with no parliamentary scrutiny in the form of regulations and orders, which under the devolved constitution would be subject to the negative procedure but which are subject to no procedure and no parliamentary scrutiny, whether by Committee or the House, under the order which is being reviewed.
The order is a declaration that Northern Ireland is to be kept in isolation from the rest of the United Kingdom and that its citizens are not to enjoy the same rights vis-a-vis this legislative House as their fellow citizens enjoy in the rest of the United Kingdom. The official Unionist party has never accepted that and we do not believe that it can be maintained in the long run. We do not believe that in 111 the long run Parliament can treat one part of the United Kingdom differently in the basic constitutional respects from any other.
We told the House when we were elected 10 years ago in 1974 that sooner or later the Province of Northern Ireland would have to have full and equal representation in the House with any other part of the kingdom. That is what we told the House and we were right. The House saw the justice of our case and it was conceded in 1977. It became an accomplished fact at the general election of 1983. Following that election, we were returned in 11 out of 18 seats on a policy of which one of the principal items was that we would get rid of direct rule. We said and we say that it is something which cannot be sustained. It cannot be right that laws should be made by different processes in different parts of the United Kingdom and that they should be made in Northern Ireland by a method which denies to our constituents that participation in legislation at every stage which British citizens in the rest of the Kingdom take for granted as part of their heritage
§ Mr. SoleyWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "the long run"? He said that he wants to bring the Northern Ireland method into line with that which is adopted in the rest of the United Kingdom "in the long run"; but that has not been the position for 60 years
§ Mr. PowellThat is certainly the case, but now that the House has accepted full and exclusive responsibility for legislation for Northern Ireland as it did in 1972 for the first time after 1921, it is only right and just that the House should use the same legislative processes for Northern Ireland as it uses elsewhere. It would be doing that but for the partially disclosed intentions which lie behind the order deliberately to isolate Northern Ireland so that it might more readily be brought into some sort of conjunction with the Irish Republic. We regard that as an intolerable imposition upon those whom we represent. We were sent to the House in an overwhelming majority of Northern Ireland seats to say so.
We are sure that sooner or later the injustice of the manner in which Northern Ireland is treated for the purposes of legislation by the order will be perceived and acted upon, but until that happens it is our duty, on behalf of those who sent us here, to make our protest. We shall, therefore, oppose the order this year as we did last year, and we shall continue opposing it until justice is done to us in this respect as it already has been in others and will yet be in many more.
§ Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I do not find the system of direct rule anything close to Utopia for the people of Northern Ireland. However, one needs to bear two points in mind. The first is that after a decade of going through this ritual the least that Northern Ireland Members can say is that the system of direct rule has been improved slightly. It has been improved by the presence in Northern Ireland of an Assembly elected by the people that has functions that made the direct-rule system more accountable. They are powers of scrutiny and consideration of legislation and Government actions. Those are an advance upon what hon. Members in the House had to consider and vote upon some two or more years ago. To 112 that extent, at least, direct rule has improved, but it is not improved, and nor could it ever, to the extent necessary to make it an acceptable form of Government in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Government, and I suspect even the Opposition, recognise that to be true.
I believe that when the right hon. Member for Down, South says that he wants Northern Ireland to be treated the same as any other part of the United Kingdom, he is saying that Northern Ireland should have a form of local government similar to the rest of the United Kingdom, should be represented in the House in the same manner as the rest of the United Kingdom and that its laws should be made as are the laws for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I have no hesitation in saying that Northern Ireland is different. It is different from England just as Scotland is different from England, and Wales is different from Scotland. The statute book in Scotland is separate from that of the rest of the mainland as is the statute book for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is unique in that it is one part of the United Kingdom that has had a devolved Government and Parliament previously. It is unique because it is separated from the rest of the United Kingdom by a stretch of water, and it is remote to that extent. It is unique in one other important facet which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). He talked about the paranoia of unionists and their feeling that they were being betrayed behind their backs. It is one thing to call it a paranoia, but in Northern Ireland it is believed to be a reality.
The difference between the right hon. Member for Down, South and myself is that the people in Northern Ireland who support my party do not believe that it is in their best interests to leave their future wholly within a Parliament where they have minor representation.
I was born in a traditional unionist family. I suspect that they voted for the Unionist party. They had no alternative. The union about which I was taught at my father's knee was not the same union as exists today, and we would be fooling ourselves as unionists if we believed that it was. It is different in many respects. The union of which I was taught in my father's day was a union that was there to protect the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Sadly, I have to say that I see the sort of signs to which the Opposition spokesman referred, where the union is being used as a vehicle to manoeuvre us into the lifestyle of the Republic of Ireland so that we might be more like them and so that we might fit into their way of life. In that respect the union is no longer a safeguard; in fact, it can be a danger.
Therefore, it is important for Unionists to ensure that we have a union that protects the interests of unionists. Laying ourselves on the platter of this House is not always the safest thing to do, and I believe that that is part of the thinking of those who believe in devolution in Northern Ireland. It allows us to have an extra degree of safety.
I do not intend to go into history—enough has been said about the history of our Province in the earlier debate. I intend to look to the future. I was not able to present a document to this House, as the official Unionist party did with "The Way Forward". That is not to say that my party has not presented proposals; in fact, it has presented very detailed proposals to the Report Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not believe that there is any great advantage in putting out those proposals for publication at this time, but undoubtedly the time will come.
113 I believe that the future constitution of Northern Ireland can be discussed and decided only by the people themselves in Northern Ireland. The solution to Ulster's problems will not come from or be enforced by this House. It will not come from the New Ireland Forum or from Dublin. It will come by Ulstermen and women looking at the difficulties that have confronted them and trying to find a way out of them. If I believe that to be true, one of the important elements in the Northern Ireland Assembly is that which allows the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to put forward other propositions for the constitutional future of our country. In the Northern Ireland Assembly—represented as it is at present by only three parties—it can be done to that limited extent, and the Northern Ireland Assembly is already undertaking that task.
I cannot chide the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for not being present to hear me making these remarks; they would best be put to him directly. Indeed, I was unable to hear his contribution earlier. But perhaps, when he reads my remarks in the Official Report, he will take them into account. It seems to me strange that the hon. Member for Foyle, regarding himself as coming from the Republican or nationalist tradition, is prepared to sit down in a British House of Commons but is not prepared to sit down with Ulstermen in Northern Ireland. It seems strange that he is prepared to consider the future of Northern Ireland with politicians to whom he refers as the British—and even with those in Dublin—but is not prepared to come to the Northern Ireland Assembly and consider them with Ulstermen.
The hon. Gentleman will not arrive at a solution to our problems in London or in Dublin. Eventually he will have to come and deal with the unionist people in Northern Ireland, and I would rather he did that sooner than later. There are several advantages in his doing that within the Northern Ireland Assembly. First, the Assembly has been set up, and that is one of the tasks that has been assigned to it. It is a body of elected representatives who can speak for those who put them there. It is a body that can draw upon the expert advice upon which it is entitled to draw as an Assembly. It can use the staff of that Assembly and the support of Report Committee to assist it. It can have close contact with the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office. Most important, it provides a forum to such people in operating private as well as plenary sessions to deal with the very real problems that concern us all.
I can only put the invitation, and say that I am genuine in saying that I want to talk about the future of Northern Ireland, with other political parties. I can only say that there is no other way to get a solution than by doing that.
Having said that, it is important to remember the words of the Secretary of State when he said in his opening remarks that what is wanted is a workable and demonstrably fair system of Government. There are a multiplicity of systems that would fall within that scope. The nationalist tradition has had, unfortunately, tunnel vision and it sees only one system that could be considered namely power-sharing. There are many systems that would allow the Unionist community to enjoy the British democratic system of Government and which at the same time would ensure that the rights of individuals and of minority groups are protected and still give a meaningful role to the representatives of minority parties. Those can 114 be achieved within the many systems of Government. Indeed, the system of Government that my party has put forward to the Report Committee can do just that.
The Government would undoubtedly find that system satisfactory as a way forward. Without going into the details of the system, there are many other possibilities —I am not putting this forward as the only one—that should be considered if people have the charity, good faith and courage to look at those proposals.
All that we need to do is to face together in a spirit of sincerity the challenges that must be faced. This debate may not be like the previous debates over the decade, as this is the first occasion for many years on which we seem to be moving through one of those stages where everything seems to be in or out of a state of flux. Almost anything can happen. That can be good, and it can be dangerous.
I believe that if there is goodwill with the Northern Ireland political parties then good can surely come of that. I must say for the party that I represent that we are prepared to enter those talks in the Northern Ireland Assembly in good faith and in the understanding that we are prepared to examine the proposals put forward by any political party in Northern Ireland. We suggest that the SDLP joins those parties that are already sitting down and joins in that task.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)I have had the privilege of listening to seven hours of debate about the future of Northern Ireland. I noted in the concluding remarks of the earlier debate that the Minister was perhaps a little optimistic in his belief that a certain theme was running through the debates. There have been many of themes, although not all have been harmonious or in unision. Any Minister who faces such a diversity of views as have been expressed in this debate must have the sympathy of the House.
The House has no practical alternative but to pass the order, although I accept what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said about its being far from the acme of political wisdom or democracy as it is known in any other part of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, he does his own party less than justice with regard to its constructive recommendations in "The Way Forward". That document recognised the distinctiveness of the politics and polity of Northern Ireland. It not only recognised its difference from the rest of the United Kingdom but put forward proposals for its future government, which are different from any that prevail in any part of the United Kingdom.
Most notable was the recommendation that the Government should look with favour upon the introduction of a Bill of Rights, as part of the proposed package of devolutionary measures. I most strongly welcome that proposal from the right hon. Gentleman's party. I particularly commend the suggestion that the Government should look, as I think is implicit in the document, at how best to incorporate the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, recognising the inevitability of making reservations to take account of the special predicament of Northern Ireland at this time and the existence of emergency legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman did less than justice to the recognition in his own party's document of the different traditions and outlooks of the communities, which is clearly spelt out. The document states: 115
The time is now ripe for both communities in Northern Ireland to realise that, essentially, their problems will have to be solved in Northern Ireland by their political representatives and that any future prospect for them and their children is best provided for within the Northern Ireland context.That is very different from leaving the affairs of the right hon. Gentleman's countrymen in Northern Ireland to the mercies of a Westminster Government. As I understand it, in the document the Official Unionist party is not recommending a policy of integration of Northern Ireland with this country, nor measures for future legislation that are to be developed pari passu with those prevailing for the rest of the country. It is something of a myth in any event that there is total uniformity within these isles in Government and legislative practice. Scotland is governed and legislated for in a different fashion from the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)In this Parliament
§ Mr. MaclennanCertainly, in this Parliament. The simple point that I am making is that it is not a uniform procedure
§ Mr. J. Enoch PowellIt is.
§ Mr. MaclennanWith respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is a very different procedure. As one who participates in it regularly, I have to tell him that it is a different procedure
§ Mr. PowellThe essential point is that, though the legislation for Scotland may be different, it is legislation which is made by the House in its normal legislative processes
§ Mr. MaclennanThe right hon. Gentleman begs the question when he speaks of "normal legislative processes". They are certainly normal for Scotland, but they are not precisely the same as those that prevail for the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps he will wish to look at similar normal, but different procedures for Northern Ireland
§ Mr. PowellNot by Order in Council
§ Mr. MaclennanI conceded the right hon. Gentleman's point at the beginning of my speech, that legislation by Order in Council is highly undesirable. It must be departed from as soon as there can be agreement about an alternative.
I am wholly at one with the Government in the view that an attempt must be made to get agreement. I thought that there was great wisdom in the view of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) in the former debate that there were risks in doing something if what one did was not enough. That interesting plea for the status quo is not so difficult to understand when one bears in mind the history of the past 10 years.
The right hon. Member for Down, South offered a description of the past 10 years which would not be supported or recognised by anyone who lived through that difficult period. I do not believe that it is necessary to ascribe to successive Governments the motives that the right hon. Gentleman suggested to explain the tergiversations of policy that have marked the development of the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland over that period. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was all due 116 to the fact that successive Governments were waiting to create a new Anglo-Irish entity, to be given responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland, or that there would be some transfer of powers as a consequence of an unspoken premise.
I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman comes to be privy to such matters or whether that reflects the thinking of the present Government, but I very much doubt it. Certainly I know of no such thinking on the part of those responsible for the government of Northern Ireland in the latter part of the Labour Government. The only unanimity from Labour Members today has been their expression to a man and a woman, of the view that a united Ireland is the solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. The motivation of Ministers in the Labour Government, however, was quite different. The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), who was present earlier, was not inspired by any such objectives and I cannot think that the right hon. Member for Down, South would attribute any such motive to him.
It is not important, however, to know the motives of the Governments who presided over Northern Ireland in the past 10 years. It is sufficient to note the way in which they have oscillated from one solution to another and how unsatisfactory that has been. There was the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive, which the right hon. Member for Down, South took as his starting point, followed by the constitutional convention which strove unsuccessfully for two years to find a way forward, followed by the abortive five-part framework for partial restoration of devolution, in which the right hon. Gentleman's party did not participate, and then the somewhat more relaxed interim period under the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central. There was then the constitutional conference in 1980, the establishment of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Council in 1981 and the initiative for the new rolling devolution in 1982.
Those attempts do not form a consistent, coherent search for a way forward and I found myself regretting very much that the Secretary of State felt that he had to persist both in the earlier debate today and at the beginning of this debate in the view that the best way ahead was really more of the same—that is, in seeking to establish some form of devolved institution, which has already been tried and found wanting. I hope that, if tonight is not his valediction the right hon. Gentleman will be successful in constructing such a consensus as is plainly necessary if that is to be achieved. However, nothing that has been said in this debate has given one any cause for hope that there is such a consensus and, in the absence of such a consensus, I do not see how this House can resist the inevitability of direct rule. It therefore rests with those who wish to see some change from direct rule to seek to create that consensus.
The steps suggested today by the Official Unionist party are, in a sense, the most constructive. The proposals in the Forum document are not in any sense an agenda which has any prospect of commanding support. That is recognised by its authors. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have also recognised that the Forum document does not set out an alternative system of government. It is an open-ended agenda. It is a cry for help and a recognition that the Republic of Ireland has some stake in the stable government — the accepted stable government — of Northern Ireland. The cry for help is powerful because this is the first time in 60 years of Irish history that it has been 117 expressed, and signed, by representatives of all the political parties in the Republic. The signatures appended to the document have attracted more attention than its contents. Its contents take us very little further.
This debate will presumably—indeed, inevitably—be short. That very fact is perhaps an illustration of the outrageousness of the present system of government in Northern Ireland. It is outrageous that such massive powers as are exercised by the Secretary of State should be voted through the House almost on the nod and that some hon. Members should express irritation that any hon. Member should see fit to debate the subject at all. This matter is of high constitutional importance. If we do not remain sensitive to the need to change the system, we are not responding as we should to the importance of the issue.
The Government will enjoy my support and that of my party in passing this legislation this year, but we enter the caveat that this is not a system on which the British people should build their hopes for the long-term resolution of the difficulties of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has issued an invitation to all men of good will to contribute to the building up of a consensus about the next phase. We shall play our part in putting forward our own constructive proposals.
If it is not out of order to say so, I noted with particular interest the comments of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) about the unsuitability of international institutions. He said that, if established, they would create some pressure—more moral than otherwise—on those who might feel reluctant to be involved in an all-Ireland solution. I agree that any such international institution would not serve a useful purpose. If such an institution were designed to bring about a better dialogue between two sovereign Governments and greater understanding between two legislatures on the problems of each, that would be quite a different matter. I listened with special interest to what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about the appropriateness or otherwise of the participation in any such international institution of representatives of the Ulster Assembly. The force of what the right hon. Gentleman said was not lost on me. He made an important speech.
We shall endeavour to make constructive proposals to ensure that the House does not have to be faced with such legislation too many more times.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott)The House was interested to hear so clearly spelt out in the speeches of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) the two distinctive Unionist stances on devolved government and the treatment in this House of legislation that affect Northern Ireland.
In an important speech, the hon. Member for Belfast, East said that Northern Ireland has had devolved government, and he made clear the determination of his party to play a full part in trying to restore devolved government to the Province. The right hon. Member for Down, South, however, who believes in the deep-laid conspiracy theory, is determined rather to take the route of total integration and wishes all legislation that affects the Province to be treated in the House in what he called the normal legislative manner. The Government, of course, recognise that Northern Ireland is and will remain 118 a constituent part of the United Kingdom, but we believe that the special needs and traditions of Northern Ireland make a system of devolved government the more appropriate method of dealing with their affairs.
§ Sir John Biggs-DavisonWhen legislation is identical for the mainland and Northern Ireland, why should the time of the House be wasted by duplicating the legislative process?
§ Mr. ScottIt is important that we retain for Northern Ireland, during the period of direct rule, a separate corpus of law ready for when Northern Ireland is devolved again and has fully devolved powers. We have a temporary arrangement to deal with legislation that affects Northern Ireland. I do not believe that abandoning the search for a proper system of devolved government would contribute one whit to the stability or peace of the Province. I accept that the present arrangements are far from perfect, although I believe that they have been improved by the extremely effective work that the Assembly has done in scrutinising the Government's proposals for legislation. Nevertheless, we ultimately want devolved government that will be able to scrutinies primary and subordinate legislation in detail. For the time being, we go on with direct rule. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) advocated a Bill of Rights. I am sure that the Government do not have a closed mind on the matter, but, faced with complex decisions on whether to have one, we must bear in mind that there have recently been extensive advances in Northern Ireland for the protection of individuals and their rights. It ramains open whether the introduction of a full Bill of Rights is necessary.
§ Mr. MaclennanI am grateful to the Minister for referring to the Bill of Rights. The Secretary of State alluded to it in passing when he spoke of the existence in Northern Ireland of an advisory standing commission on human rights. He will know that it has believed for a long time that incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights is the best safeguard and would save difficult arguments about what should be included in a Bill of Rights. I hope that the Minister will listen to his own advisory body.
§ Mr. ScottThe Government have an open mind. This is a complex issue, involving questions such as whether to have such a Bill of Rights just for Northern Ireland or for the whole of the United Kingdom, and how such a Bill of Rights would be properly enforced.
I commend the order to the House.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 9.
120| Division No. 388] | [10.54 pm |
| AYES | |
| Amess, David | Brandon-Bravo, Martin |
| Ashby, David | Bright, Graham |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Brinton, Tim |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Baldry, Anthony | Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) |
| Batiste, Spencer | Bruinvels, Peter |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Buck, Sir Antony |
| Bellingham, Henry | Burt, Alistair |
| Benyon, William | Butterfill, John |
| Best, Keith | Carttiss, Michael |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Cash, William |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Channon, Rt Hon Paul |
| Bottomley, Peter | Chope, Christopher |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Cope, John | Knowles, Michael |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lang, Ian |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Dunn, Robert | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Dykes, Hugh | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Evennett, David | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Lester, Jim |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Lightbown, David |
| Fallon, Michael | Lloyd, Ian (Havant) |
| Favell, Anthony | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Forth, Eric | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Franks, Cecil | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Freeman, Roger | MacGregor, John |
| Gale, Roger | Maclean, David John |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Maclennan, Robert |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Major, John |
| Gregory, Conal | Malins, Humfrey |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Marland, Paul |
| Ground, Patrick | Marlow, Antony |
| Grylls, Michael | Mates, Michael |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Mather, Carol |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Harris, David | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Harvey, Robert | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Merchant, Piers |
| Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
| Hayward, Robert | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Hickmet, Richard | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Hirst, Michael | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Murphy, Christopher |
| Holt, Richard | Neale, Gerrard |
| Howard, Michael | Needham, Richard |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A) | Newton, Tony |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Normanton, Tom |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Norris, Steven |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Oppenheim, Philip |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Ottaway, Richard |
| Hunter, Andrew | Page, Sir John (Harrow W) |
| Jackson, Robert | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Parris, Matthew |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Kennedy, Charles | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Powley, John |
| Key, Robert | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Scott, Nicholas | Watts, John |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Wilkinson, John |
| Silvester, Fred | Wolfson, Mark |
| Sims, Roger | Yeo, Tim |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Speller, Tony | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Michael Neubert. |
| Steen, Anthony |
| NOES | |
| Beggs, Roy | Robinson, P. (Belfast E) |
| Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) | Walker, Cecil (Belfast N) |
| McCusker, Harold | |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Nicholson, J. | Mr. William Ross and Mr. Ken Maginnis. |
| Porter, Barry | |
| Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.