STATUS OF NORTHERN IRELAND

HC Deb 22 July 1998 vol 316 cc1188-223 7.58 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No. 60, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert— '(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 without the Assembly giving its consent by a cross—community vote as defined in section 4(5).'. As hon. Members and those who have been following the debate will be aware, the Bill strikes at the very heart of the Union. The Union rests on the sovereignty of this Parliament. When the Government of Ireland Act 1920 came into effect and the southern and northern parts each got a Parliament, a declaration was made in the Act that this Parliament was sovereign and controlled the jurisdiction of all of Ireland at that time. When the south of Ireland changed, having violated the treaty that it entered into, and became, first, the Irish Free State and then the Irish Republic, amendments were made to the Act. However, the Government of Ireland Act continued to declare the authority of this House as supreme and sovereign over Northern Ireland. That is done away with in clause 2, which repeals the Act.

Clause 2 states: this Act shall have effect notwithstanding any other previous enactment. That goes back to the 1800 Act of Union and before that. I should be delighted if the Minister stood up and gave the lie to Bertie Ahern's statement in the Dail, when he said that the British were now out of the equation because they had been content to do away with the 1920 Act and would introduce a Bill—this Bill—that would make all the other Acts subservient to it. An axe has been taken to the root of the Union. No amount of argument can take away that fact, which is on the face of the Bill.

All that stands between us and a united Ireland is not legislation in this House but a vote in a poll that will take place when the Secretary of State decides. No elected person in Northern Ireland will have any say about that. The Secretary of State can say, on a whim, "I shall have a poll, which will be a one-way street. You can vote either to become part of a united Ireland or to remain within the United Kingdom." No other option will be given.

There must be a safeguard, which is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled the amendment. We have heard the Minister of State praising the Assembly. He has been saying how great it is that the Bill will give responsibility to the elected people of Northern Ireland and that there is a democratic deficit that the Government are tackling. Why not therefore trust the Assembly on the great issue of the Union? Why should not the Assembly have the opportunity not only to advise the Secretary of State on that issue but to do so on the same basis—the consensus principle—that has been devised to make a majority a minority in the Assembly and a minority a majority?

As the Minister knows well, the votes in the Assembly must be a majority of the Unionist-registered Members and a majority of the nationalist-registered Members. Now, all that will be needed to change everything that the Bill is setting up and everything else in Northern Ireland is a simple majority of one. If there is a majority of one in the referendum, Northern Ireland will immediately go down the line to a united Ireland. We do not know what preservation there will be for the Unionists in Northern Ireland. There are no safeguards or recommendations. We shall simply have a united Ireland.

We are arguing that a safeguard should exist for the people of Northern Ireland. The nationalists will be represented. The second Minister, or as the Bill tells us, the nationalist Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—will be in the Assembly. He makes many recommendations. He will give us a new House of Lords—all the members of the new civic forum will be picked by two men. That is better than the House of Lords, as at least there will be even odds about who will be a member. All that will be in the charge of two men. On that issue, not even the First Minister, the Prime Minister of the Unionists, or the second Minister, the Prime Minister of the nationalists, will have any say.

This Committee should say tonight, "We think that the Assembly should be consulted on such a vital issue. If consensus, or the basis of consensus, cannot be reached in that Assembly, how can there be majority support in the country?"

There may be repetition of such referendums, but even the first time that such a vote takes place—I know that there is a condition that another cannot take place for 10 years—it will have a destabilising effect on the whole Province. The Province will suddenly be plunged into a referendum after all the commotion that we have had on this Bill. The Committee should be wise and say, "Yes, the Assembly should have the opportunity to vote on a referendum and, if the vote is in favour, then by all means that referendum should be held."

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). It deals with the issue that is most critical and central to politics in Northern Ireland—whether Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom or whether it is to become part of a united Ireland.

My hon. Friend has already said that there is a limitation on the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland—they can move only in one direction. They cannot, for example, choose a form of dominion status, which is the kind of constitutional future that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) once advocated. I still have the documentation on that. Other options for an independent Ulster could still be open to the people of Northern Ireland, but not under the Bill.

Under the Bill, the people of Northern Ireland are allowed only to go into a united Ireland or remain in the United Kingdom. They can remain in the United Kingdom not like other citizens, but in a transitional form as they move gently out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland ascribed for them in clause 1. Only one option is offered to them in the clause because the whole purpose of the Bill is to lead towards that very option. The Bill's purpose is to take the people of Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland. The provision of clause 1 is to make that come about at the appropriate time. Nowhere in the Bill does it state how the Secretary of State is to determine when the moment has come to call a poll for that purpose.

The Secretary of State will be able to look at the election results and say, fairly clearly, how many Unionists there are and what votes Unionists and nationalists have. Therefore, we have to take ourselves forward to that moment in time when the Secretary of State tots up the votes for Unionists and the votes for nationalists and discovers that half a dozen more nationalists have voted than Unionists. No doubt, at that moment in time, the pressure will come from nationalists for the Secretary of State to call a poll under what will then be the Act. If the Secretary of State were to give in to that pressure, he would end up with a narrow result one way or the other.

Does anyone really believe that, if the Secretary of State is required by the Bill, on the basis of a handful of votes of a majority, to put Northern Ireland into a united Ireland, that will provide a peaceful future for the people of Northern Ireland? It is a preposterous thought, but it is what the Bill requires the Secretary of State to do at that moment in time.

The amendment puts a more sensible proposal before the Committee. It acknowledges that, on every other issue, the Government recognise in the Bill that there is a division in Northern Ireland that requires more than a simple majority for decisions to be taken. Why should the majority outlined in the Bill to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom be a majority of a simple variety? If it is right within the Assembly to have a consensus vote on some planning, health or agricultural matter, why is it not required for the crucial issue of the future of the Union itself? If the amendment were accepted, we would have reached the stage where a significant majority had supported the concept of a united Ireland, so we could move towards that knowing that there would not be the deep divisions that would otherwise occur.

Clearly, the statistics are such that it may never occur. This is my 20th year in the House and, in each of those years, I have been told that a united Ireland is just around the corner. If it is simply to be left to the arithmetic in Northern Ireland, it is no closer today than it was 20 years ago.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Presumably, the hon. Gentleman refers to those on the Government Benches when he says that he has been told that a united Ireland is just around the corner. I wonder who put forward that view. I have always taken the view that, if there is to be a united Ireland, it will be long in the future. I have never for one moment believed that there would be a majority in Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future for the kind of state to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am surprised. Can the hon. Gentleman name any Labour Member who has said otherwise?

Mr. Robinson

I shall answer that question, Mr. Haselhurst, in so far as you will allow me to go outside the terms of the amendment. The reality is that the Government's policy is based on the premise of the inevitability of a united Ireland. They would not follow the policy that they have at present if they did not believe that that was the direction in which the Province was heading. I do not simply blame the Labour Government for that. They were not the first ones to push down that road. That was the policy being pursued by their predecessors in government.

The principle behind the amendment is that it should take more than a simple majority for Northern Ireland to be put out of the United Kingdom, and for a poll which can be divisive in itself, to be held, there clearly is an advantage in having a weighted majority—if one can put it that way—within the Assembly suggesting to the Secretary of State that it is now time for her, or for him as the case may be, to call a vote.

The amendment should commend itself to the Committee, particularly as there are those, like the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who feel that a united Ireland is not something which will happen quickly and that one should take a moderate line on the position. Here is the opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to support us by voting for the amendment.

Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Without entering into a debate on the merits of the amendment, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the amendment contains a reference to a cross-community vote as defined in clause 4(5), when that clearly can be defined only by reference to the designation of nationalists or Unionists in terms of the Assembly and when the vote that is envisaged in clause 1 would be a vote by the voters of Northern Ireland who would not all be members of the Assembly nor designated?

Mr. Robinson

The amendment says that a motion in the Assembly would have to be passed by a cross-community vote under clause 4(5) to advise the Secretary of State that the appropriate time had come for her to call the poll of the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will see another amendment in my name which recommends, much on the basis of the Scottish and Welsh referendums in the past, that a majority of the electorate is required, as opposed to a simple majority, when the referendum is held.

8.15 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)

The hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) say that they cannot see a majority favouring a united Ireland. Nevertheless, they still want belt and braces to protect their position. That is slightly illogical. They advocate a dictatorship by a minority. Under the amendment, an overwhelming majority of at least 60 per cent. for a united Ireland would be blocked if a majority in one of the cross-community bodies did not want to be part of a united Ireland. That is the purpose of the amendment and that is completely undemocratic.

There is a great deal of difference between the nature of the Assembly and the nature of the decisions that the Assembly will be taking on a cross-community basis and those affecting the future of the Union. If such an amendment were agreed, it would be dangerous because it would result in a dictatorship by a minority within the community as a whole. The hon. Gentlemen might be happy to think in such terms, but that is what they would achieve.

Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)

The hon. Gentleman is right, but does he accept that almost every decision in the Assembly will be taken under such a system and, therefore, the whole Assembly is undemocratic?

Mr. McNamara

No, I do not accept that because we are talking about a devolved government with a special set of arrangements. The amendment affects the status of Northern Ireland. The Bill provides that, when a majority of the people in Northern Ireland seek the change, it should take place. The amendment suggests that a minority can prevent the wishes of 60 or 70 per cent. of the population being carried forwards.

Yes, that does go to the question of the Union, but the agreement and the legislation have established that the strength of the Union depends not upon the opinions eventually of hon. Members, or indeed of this island, but upon the strength of the opinions of the people in Northern Ireland, whose wishes have been accepted by the people in the Republic of Ireland. Under the agreement, the Union is maintained not by our wishes, but by the wishes of the people of the Republic of Ireland. That is the truth of the agreement. If the hon. Member for North Antrim and his hon. Friends want to maintain such support as they have in Ireland, and if they want to maintain the Union, they must be straight and not fiddle the system, which is what the amendment would do.

Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)

The Committee should address some of the fundamental principles of democracy, as they are inherent in the application of the amendment, which I support. It has been suggested—I think that it is accepted in principle—that democracy means majority rule, but not unbridled majority rule. Principles for the protection of minorities are encapsulated in all modern constitutions, particularly written constitutions.

It has been decided that, in Northern Ireland—this is the essence of the agreement and the Assembly that it sets up—there can be no majority decision making or majority democracy, even with built-in protections; there must be equality of treatment. That is why we have a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, who are elected jointly and who will fall jointly; it is why every important decision requires consensus in both communities, even though, numerically and electorally, one of the communities is significantly smaller than the other. An accommodation based on consensus has been accepted as the price that has to be paid for agreement.

On the most fundamental issue of all—whether Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom or departs into a united Ireland—the ordinary principles of democracy and majority decision making are imposed. In other words, we may not have a majority decision about anything Unionist, but a final and unalterable decision that may be made at any time by a nationalist majority—to abandon for all time the British link and the Union and become part of a united Ireland—may be decided on a single vote. That is a dramatic reversal.

As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out, a simple majority of one vote on a border poll that is called as and when the Secretary of State wants is enough to transform Northern Ireland, removing it from the United Kingdom and making it part of a united Ireland. The Bill may indeed advocate that, but the reality is that such a course of action would be a recipe for absolute disaster. As the date for the vote approached, the whole population would be on their starting blocks, ready to take whatever action—perhaps violent—that they thought necessary.

The amendment would not give the Secretary of State such unbridled power. It would allow her to test, through the elected Assembly, whether there was a real consensus for a border poll to be called. It conforms to the consensus principle that many people are prepared to accept and which applies to every other issue. If such a consensus could be obtained in the Assembly, it is likely that the border poll would be carried by a majority that was large enough to have what could be described as political efficacy.

Mr. McNamara

As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's position, he is against the Bill and against the agreement. However, under legislation that applied before the agreement, border polls could be carried by a majority of one. If he votes for the amendment, he will be voting for principles that are contained in existing legislation and in clause 1—there would be no alteration of the status quo.

Mr. McCartney

I am dealing with the amendment and the current position. I had nothing to do with the constitutional legislation that provided for the 1972 border poll, but if it had been decided then, by one vote or a tiny majority, that Northern Ireland should remain in the United Kingdom, that would have been as unworkable as the current proposals. The fact that the principle was bad in the past is no justification for continuing with it, as it is equally unworkable now.

Mr. McNamara

The hon. and learned Gentleman did not argue that then.

Mr. McCartney

The suggestion is that I never argued that. I was never called on to argue it; I am simply stating what my view is here and now. If one really wants the principle of consensus to work, one should test it in the Assembly; if there is no consensus among the elected members—on the basis of clause 4(5)—it is unlikely that there will be a majority in the country large enough to have any political efficacy.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

If such a poll was carried out, and delivered the verdict that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted to stay in the United Kingdom, what would the hon. and learned Gentleman say to the majority of the designated nationalists who said that they disagreed? I imagine that he would tell them to get lost, and would he not be right to do so?

Mr. McCartney

With respect, exactly the same principles would apply. The amendment would require, on the same fundamental principles that are contained in the Bill, a nationalist consensus. If nationalists said that a border poll should not be called, the poll would not be called.

The amendment would work both ways; as elsewhere in the Bill, it would require a consensus on both sides. It would prevent the Secretary of State from making the silly, politically ineffective and dangerous decision of calling a border poll in which there was likely to be a majority of 1 or 2 per cent. either way, which would be unworkable. Northern Ireland is not Wales. Something that may work in Wales on the basis of a fractional majority above 50 per cent. of those voting would certainly not work in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). He may take it as good news that I do not believe that there will be a referendum on the subject for many years to come, if ever. When he talks about the fundamental principles of democracy and majorities and minorities, I respectfully remind him—I do not say this malignly—that one of the main historical arguments, as he knows better than I do, concerns who is the majority and who is the minority. That is why we have to do the best we can in establishing special arrangements for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The hon. and learned Gentleman does not address another aspect of fundamental democracy—the Union that he wants to hang on to, that he will hang on to and that we want him to hang on to. That is democracy at the level of the United Kingdom, which is about responsibility to the House of Commons. The amendment focuses on Northern Ireland, but the clause deals with the United Kingdom—it deals with the Secretary of State, the House of Commons and Parliament.

Mr. Robert McCartney

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both the previous Prime Minister and the current one emphasised that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to make the decision? That is the basis on which I support the amendment.

8.30 pm

Mr. Temple-Morris

That is precisely what it is about. If the Secretary of State, who is answerable to this House, decides that there should be such a referendum—I do not think that I shall see that day—it will be answerable to this House, and it will be a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland.

My next point deals directly with the comments by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). There is great repetition of the claim, and some great belief, that the whole purpose of the legislation is to deliver a united Ireland. There seems to be an underlying fear that everyone south of the border is itching to have the hon. and learned Member for North Down in the Dail rather than here.

I assure the hon and learned Gentleman that there is, in fact, a considerable feeling of relief that he is our responsibility, not theirs. All they want is to deliver peace to their island, which is also the island of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The legislation is not about delivering a united Ireland, but about delivering peace to the island of Ireland. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and others to try to see it from that perspective, because nobody, but nobody, is going to take Northern Ireland away from them.

We are told that, the moment there is a population change in favour of the nationalists, there will immediately be enormous pressure on Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Republic of Ireland. That would be most unwise, and I greatly doubt whether, if there was some minor population change, which would take years to happen in any case, the nationalist community in Northern Ireland would risk reopening the sort of conflict which, by that time, would have been over for many years.

The clause is a good one. The matter is one for the United Kingdom Government of the day to deal with. As a United Kingdom matter, it will be dealt with by the Secretary of State. If we ever get to that stage, although I do not see us reaching it, the Assembly will clearly have a vested interest, because the matter will have left its Members to come up to the level of this place; but it must be dealt with by this House, and by the Government answerable to it.

Mr. Thompson

The amendment deals with one of the fundamental issues about which we as Unionists are greatly concerned. We believe that there are a terrible lot of people who want to put Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) seemed to be saying that that is not true, but perhaps he should speak to his hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and see whether he believes that. I think that the hon. Member for South Down is keen to see a united Ireland; certainly, over the years, he has done his best politically to get a united Ireland.

The idea that nobody wants a united Ireland is nonsense. The reality is that there is a movement to put Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. Those of us who oppose the agreement are persuaded that the rationale behind the agreement is to get rid of us—perhaps not overnight, but gradually, over time, to try to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to join the people of the Republic of Ireland.

As I understand the current arrangements, there could be a border poll, to be decided by a simple majority; but that poll would not be a determinant or definite poll. In other words, the result would have to come here to the House of Commons—to this sovereign Parliament—and it would be for this Parliament to decide what to do about that poll. Clearly, if a majority of the people, or even of the electorate of Northern Ireland, voted to leave the United Kingdom, it would still be for this Parliament to decide what should happen. In other words, the poll would not be a definite decision.

However, under the Bill, when the poll is called the Secretary of State will be under an obligation to carry out the wishes expressed in that poll. That appears to me to be a significant constitutional change, and a weakening of the constitution governing Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that we need an amendment to clarify that position.

We have heard a lot of talk about referendums. Referendums are dangerous things, and a democracy cannot operate under referendums. The question that is asked and the propaganda that is promoted can often influence the result, as we saw during the recent referendum in Northern Ireland. We live in a parliamentary democracy, so it is up to Parliament, or other democratically elected institutions, to decide issues. We should not have issues decided by referendum.

I believe that to have the Assembly vote on the issue would give a far more representative result than a referendum. That the Secretary of State should exercise the option given in the amendment and put such questions to the Assembly is but an instance of democracy. Therefore, I believe that the Committee should support the amendment.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

We have heard from the supporters of the amendment a novel set of presentations, convoluted in their interpretation of democracy and of figures. It is the first time that I have heard the Unionist family, if I may call them that, indicate that 51 per cent. in support of the Union is not acceptable to them. That assertion has come from several hon. Members who have already clearly indicated that 71 per cent. of a referendum vote by the people of Northern Ireland is not acceptable by turning their faces against that verdict of the people of Northern Ireland and against the implementation of the Belfast agreement. That belies the integrity of the argument about the numbers game. If the time came, and we were foolish enough to accept this amendment, the argument regarding 51 per cent. would be offered for 61 per cent.

The, I hope, devolved Northern Ireland Assembly will deal with subjects that are transferred from this place. Reserve powers will be retained by the Secretary of State and, through her, this place will maintain sovereignty. In that context, there is a great differential between those two concepts. As we are talking about mathematics, we should recognise that cross-community or parallel consensus requires a majority of Unionists and a majority of nationalists, and others, who constitute the whole. A majority of the parts is obviously a majority of the whole, which comprises those parts. The mathematics of the matter erode the substance of the argument advanced by the last few speakers.

I return to the basics. The acceptance of the will of the people of Northern Ireland by Unionists on any matter is always subject to party politics. The will and the wish of the people is seldom the end product that is addressed. That is illustrated clearly by the fact that the anti-agreement Unionist family have rejected totally the 71 per cent. figure—they argue that it was the result of a propaganda machine, deceit, misrepresentation and so on. I have witnessed politics in Northern Ireland for the past several decades, and political life is driven by propaganda. So what is new now? If Unionist Members are insinuating that the people of Northern Ireland are stupid and do not know what they voted for, it is a deep insult to them.

Mr. Robert McCartney

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if a simple majority of 51 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted to move into a united Ireland, that would make for social or political peace in Northern Ireland? Is that his argument?

Mr. McGrady

No, it is not. A result of 51 per cent. would indicate what it indicates: 51 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland—the majority—would like to be associated with the rest of Ireland. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) implied that there was something wrong with people aspiring to a united Ireland achieved through peaceful and democratic means. I see nothing wrong with that. I have lived with that idea and worked towards it all my life through purely democratic, argumentative and persuasive means. Hon. Members may rest assured that I shall continue to do so—even to the point of trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman that that is the most advantageous way for Ireland to advance politically, socially and economically. My party puts on record its opposition to the amendment before the Committee this evening.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy)

This has been a most interesting debate at the beginning of the Committee's consideration of the Bill. I do not intend to stray into the next batch of amendments, which deal with the question of a majority, but we cannot treat this amendment or those that accompany it in a vacuum.

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend and many other right hon. and hon. Members said that the Bill is based upon the agreement for which a majority of people in Northern Ireland voted. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was correct to refer to democracy. However, we must have at the back of our minds what constitutes democracy when it comes to these matters. In this case, democracy means that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted for the agreement. Clause 1, which we are considering and which the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues wish to amend, is part of the agreement—word for word. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to page 3 of the agreement, the top two paragraphs of which are reproduced in subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1. Given that the House of Commons is enacting the agreement, it would not be right for it to change it as suggested.

I do not say that the arguments that have been put forward do not have merit in their own right, but that is overridden by the fact that the political parties in Northern Ireland, and, above all, the people of Northern Ireland, signified their assent to those paragraphs, which are now in the Bill.

8.45 pm

Mr. Robert McCartney

The Minister implies that the terms of the agreement were put before the people of Northern Ireland and asserts that the arguments being advanced today are valid in their own right. When the Government sought the people's endorsement, did they put those valid arguments to them?

Mr. Murphy

I said that, for debating purposes, the arguments are valid—of course they are. However, they are consistent with neither the Bill, the agreement nor the spirit of the agreement. The spirit of the agreement is that the Secretary of State should, when she or he thinks fit—this is reproduced in schedule 1—hold a border poll. The gap between the border polls would be no less than seven years. However, no Secretary of State would hold such a poll unless he or she thought that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted a change to be effected. The Secretary of State would then have to come to this House and put that point.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Where in the Bill is the Secretary of State required to come to this House to ask it to hold a border poll? It requires that she ask the House to give effect to what happens as a result of a border poll. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said that the Secretary of State came to this House because she had to. She does not have to; she does so of her own volition.

Mr. Murphy

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am saying that the result of the poll is then relayed to the House, as it was in the case of the referendums for Wales and for Scotland.

The underlying issue is that of consent. The purpose of discussing whether this provision will take us down the road to a United Ireland is overridden by the fact that the spirit of the agreement and the Bill is based squarely on the consent of the majority of people who live in Northern Ireland. There is nothing more and nothing less than that in it.

Mr. Winnick

Over the past quarter of a century or more, especially when the United States has attempted to give the impression that we are using Northern Ireland as a colony, we have argued that we are respecting the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. Would not the amendment undermine the essence of that argument?

Mr. Murphy

Indeed. We accept that argument in other contexts, too. I do not want an independent Wales or an independent Scotland, but I would accept the wish of the majority of those people if they voted accordingly.

The Bill is clear: the Secretary of State may hold a poll at any time, and she must hold a poll if she thinks that a majority would be likely to vote in favour of a united Ireland. She would hold such a poll only if she thought precisely that, and it would have to be based on a proper assessment of the political circumstances at the time.

Mr. Peter Robinson

The kernel of the Minister's argument is that the agreement has been given the support of the people of Northern Ireland and it must therefore be given legislative effect in its entirety. Yet the notes on clauses say that there are clauses in the Bill that have no relevance to the agreement, because the agreement was silent on many of the issues contained in the Bill. The agreement does not say that the mechanism for putting it into effect cannot be what the amendment proposes. The amendment is not inconsistent with the agreement; it is simply a mechanism that will be brought into play.

Mr. Murphy

The agreement is clear, not only in terms of the clauses that the hon. Gentleman wants to amend, but in respect of schedule 1 to the Bill, which is schedule 1 to the agreement. It states: The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll". It is quite right that the ability to hold such a poll should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is the Government's chief representative in Northern Ireland, but the essence of the argument is that the agreement tells us that that should be the case. The parties that met in Belfast said that that should be the case, and the people agreed it. Of course parts of the Bill clarify the agreement, but there is no need to clarify this part: it is crystal clear that the Secretary of State is the person who should have the ability to hold such a poll, and that it should be held on the basis of the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland who vote in it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

My hon. Friend mentioned the principle of consent. Despite what has been said from across the way, the Bill is entirely compatible with the objectives of the Welsh and the Scottish legislation.

Mr. Murphy

I understand that. The Bill is based on what the Government are doing throughout the United Kingdom, whether in London, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—we are holding referendums to ask the people what they think.

Mr. Thompson

What would happen if 51 per cent. of those who voted in a referendum voted to go into a united Ireland, and a majority in the Assembly had voted to stay within the United Kingdom? What would the Government do then?

Mr. Murphy

There would be a big disagreement, but there is no doubt that the will of the people must prevail.

Mr. Thompson

Does that mean that the view of an elected Assembly in Northern Ireland in which a majority wanted to stay in the United Kingdom would be rejected, and the view expressed in a referendum would not?

Mr. Murphy

We are getting into awful hypothetical situations. We will discuss the percentage when we come to the next group of amendments. The chief reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment is because it goes against the agreement. As a consequence of that, I ask hon. Members to reject them.

Rev. Ian Paisley

What I want to say to the Minister is simple: nothing in the agreement forbids him to accept the amendment. It substantiates the fact that the Secretary of State will have the right to hold a poll, but it also provides that she should consult the Assembly. Surely that does not go against the spirit of the agreement.

I am glad that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has been converted to majority rule—it has come as a tremendous revelation on this vital issue. Labour Members should look to the history of their party. Where did this all come from? It came from Mr. Herbert Morrison and from a distinguished Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Clement Attlee, who took on the Dublin Government, because he was not a bit afraid of them. He decided that the Parliament of Northern Ireland would decide on remaining within the Union.

When the Parliament of Northern Ireland was prorogued, I moved in the House that the issue should come back to the people and should be decided by the majority. Other amendments deal with who are the majority of the people. I remind Labour Members that I sat in the House through intense debates about devolution for Scotland. I remember their saying that they would not accept a majority vote at all, and that a majority of the people of Scotland must vote for devolution. If that was good enough for Scotland on devolution—not on going out of the United Kingdom—surely it is good enough for us to say what we are saying without being hammered down as if we are bigots of some sort.

We must consider this realistically. The Minister referred to Wales and Scotland voting in a referendum on independence. Is he telling me that he would stand at the Dispatch Box and say to the Scottish people that Scotland would have to leave the United Kingdom immediately if one person provided a majority? Would he come to the House and recommend, as a Minister, that Scotland should get out of the United Kingdom? Would he do the same for his own country? Certainly not—and he knows that. We are presenting an argument that we have a right to present.

Then there is the question of voting in the Assembly. I have heard a good deal about people rejecting the referendum. People rejected the Tory party; does that mean that, having been rejected by the people, the Tory party should not continue to be represented in the House of Commons? The Labour party has been rejected at times; does that mean that the Tories should take its place? We are all democrats. We come back, and we fight in defence of our principles. It is suggested that the line should be "You need not bother to fight, because the people have decided the issue once and for all, and it can never be changed." But politics is about change, and the House should be prepared to listen to people who are democrats.

I could say many things about the referendum. I will say that I do not think it right for a Prime Minister to make promises to the people, and to tell them that those promises will be included in legislation—and I cannot find those promises anywhere in the Bill. I do not think it right to say, in such circumstances, that the result of the referendum should stand.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) says that there may never be a referendum. In that case, why is he voting for one tonight? I asked the former Prime Minister—in the presence of the two other party leaders, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the then right hon. Member for Lagan Valley—to give us a border poll. Such polls were to take place over 10 years; in fact, we had only one. The then Prime Minister said no. When I asked why not, he said, "We know the result, so it is not necessary." When I asked the same question of the present Prime Minister, he said the same. I said, "Why not take the matter to the people? After the people had spoken, you could put the matter aside and get on with the nitty-gritty of politics in Northern Ireland." The Prime Minister said no.

Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why no one is willing to organise a border poll nowadays is the fact that the question in the schedule in the earlier border poll was so clear and unambiguous that it was not possible for the Government to mislead people by any amount of propaganda? It was a case of a simple yes or no. Is that not why every Government has avoided asking the question ever since?

Rev. Ian Paisley

I agree. The Prime Minister said that there would be no more border polls on that basis. This is a new border poll, and we do not even know what question will be asked. The original question was Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom? The issue is simple. Does the Secretary of State make up her own mind, without consulting the House, about the terms involved in a border poll? None of us knows what question will be asked at this point. People are bragging about the Assembly, saying how important it is and what important people have been elected. Do hon. Members not wonder why 71 per cent. voted for a referendum, and why, although the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has 28 votes in the House, those who oppose what he stands for also have 28? Where did that 71 per cent. go to? According to that, some of us should have been here with half a dozen members.

The House should take a fair view. I welcome the fact that the Minister has already admitted that the Secretary of State need not come to the House until a border poll has taken place.

All my life, I have read that the number of Roman Catholic people is increasing, and that we will be voted out. When I was a boy of 10, I was told that when I was 25 there would be a united Ireland. The other day, the Belfast Telegraph had a huge article, which said that 30 years after the millennium we will be part of the Irish Republic.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going beyond his amendment, and he is bringing in matters that have nothing to do with the amendment.

9 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley

What is the use of having an amendment when the facts fly in the face of the evidence? I shall leave the matter there. This has been a useful debate, and I was interested in some of the comments made. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down. After being convicted of his sins of the past, he now believes in a majority vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 285.

Division No. 345]	[9 pm
AYES
Beggs, Roy	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Donaldson, Jeffrey	Trimble, Rt Hon David
Forsythe, Clifford	Wilkinson, John
McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)	Rev. Ian Paisley and
Ross, William (E Lond'y)	Mr. William Thompson.
NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Blackman, Liz
Allan, Richard	Blears, Ms Hazel
Allen, Graham	Blizzard, Bob
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Boateng, Paul
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Bradshaw, Ben
Ashton, Joe	Brinton, Mrs Helen
Atherton, Ms Candy	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Atkins, Charlotte	Browne, Desmond
Austin, John	Buck, Ms Karen
Battle, John	Burnett, John
Bayley, Hugh	Butler, Mrs Christine
Beard, Nigel	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Begg, Miss Anne	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Canavan, Dennis
Bennett, Andrew F	Cann, Jamie
Benton, Joe	Casale, Roger
Bermingham, Gerald	Caton, Martin
Berry, Roger	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Betts, Clive	Clapham, Michael

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hoey, Kate
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hood, Jimmy
	Hoon, Geoffrey
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hopkins, Kelvin
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Clelland, David	Howells, Dr Kim
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cohen, Harry	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Colman, Tony	Hurst, Alan
Connarty, Michael	Hutton, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Cooper, Yvette	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Corbett, Robin	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Corston, Ms Jean	Jamieson, David
Cox, Tom	Jenkins, Brian
Crausby, David	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Darvill, Keith	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Davidson, Ian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jowell, Ms Tessa
Dawson, Hilton	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Denham, John	Keeble, Ms Sally
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dobbin, Jim	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Kemp, Fraser
Doran, Frank	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Dowd, Jim	Khabra, Piara S
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Kidney, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Edwards, Huw	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Efford, Clive	Kingham, Ms Tess
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ennis, Jeff	Laxton, Bob
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Lepper, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Levitt, Tom
Fisher, Mark	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Fitzsimons, Lorna	Livingstone, Ken
Flint, Caroline	Livsey, Richard
Follett, Barbara	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Lock, David
Fyfe, Maria	Love, Andrew
Gapes, Mike	McAvoy, Thomas
Gardiner, Barry	McCabe, Steve
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Gerrard, Neil	McDonagh, Siobhain
Gibson, Dr Ian	Macdonald, Calum
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	McDonnell, John
Godman, Dr Norman A	McGrady, Eddie
Godsiff, Roger	McIsaac, Shona
Goggins, Paul	McNamara, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin	McNulty, Tony
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	MacShane, Denis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McWilliam, John
Grocott, Bruce	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Gunnell, John	Mallaber, Judy
Hain, Peter	Marek, Dr John
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hancock, Mike	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Harris, Dr Evan	Martlew, Eric
Healey, John	Maxton, John
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Meale, Alan
Hepburn, Stephen	Merron, Gillian
Hesford, Stephen	Michael, Alun
Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hill, Keith	Milburn, Alan
Hinchliffe, David	Miller, Andrew
Hodge, Ms Margaret	Mitchell, Austin

Moran, Ms Margaret	Singh, Marsha
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)	Skinner, Dennis
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Mullin, Chris
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)	Soley, Clive
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Steinberg, Gerry
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Stevenson, George
O'Hara, Eddie	Stinchcombe, Paul
Olner, Bill	Stoate, Dr Howard
O'Neill, Martin	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Öpik, Lembit	Stringer, Graham
Organ, Mrs Diana	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Palmer, Dr Nick	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pendry, Tom
Perham, Ms Linda	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Pickthall, Colin	Temple-Morris, Peter
Pike, Peter L	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Plaskitt, James	Tipping, Paddy
Pope, Greg	Touhig, Don
Powell, Sir Raymond	Trickett, Jon
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Purchase, Ken	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Quin, Ms Joyce	Vis, Dr Rudi
Quinn, Lawrie	Ward, Ms Claire
Radice, Giles	Wareing, Robert N
Rapson, Syd	Watts, David
Raynsford, Nick	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)	Wicks, Malcolm
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)	Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Rogers, Allan
Rooker, Jeff	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Rooney, Terry	Winnick, David
Rowlands, Ted	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Ruane, Chris	Wise, Audrey
Ruddock, Ms Joan	Woolas, Phil
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Worthington, Tony
Ryan, Ms Joan	Wray, James
Sanders, Adrian	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Savidge, Malcolm	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Sawford, Phil
Sedgemore, Brian	Tellers for the Noes:
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Mr. Robert Ainsworth and
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after `But', insert 'subject to subsection (3) below'.

The First Deputy Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 106, in page 1, line 15, at end add— '(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, "majority" means a majority of 60 per cent. of those voting in such a poll.'.

Mr. Trimble

The issues touched on in amendments Nos. 104 and 106 are similar to those raised in the previous debate, so I shall try to be as brief as possible. Too much time has already been taken.

The point has been made, and I want to underline it, that there is a contradiction between the terms of the agreement, which at so many points put an emphasis on consensus—in particular, building into the operation of the new institutions in Northern Ireland the weighted majorities and consent within both the nationalists and the Unionists—and a simple majority provision for a border poll on more important issues. It is right to draw attention to those matters.

As was said in the previous debate, that has been the position for some time. The concept of a border poll has existed since 1972, and prior to that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland rested on the consent of the elected representatives. As was pointed out, that extended back to the Ireland Act 1949. Indeed, it goes back to the 1922 Irish Free State (Agreement) Act. To that extent, the Act of Union (Ireland) was modified in 1922, and since then we have been living with the possibility of fundamental constitutional change if the people of Northern Ireland, either through their elected representatives or in a poll, should so desire.

While it has been the position since 1972–73 that the status could change if there were a vote, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made the apt point that up until now all those border polls have been non-binding. Indeed, until now, all the referendums that have been held in the United Kingdom have not been binding.

Clause 1(2) will introduce an obligation on the Secretary of State to make proposals to Parliament to give effect to the results of a referendum. As the clause will place an obligation on the Secretary of State, and therefore make the referendum binding, I thought that it would be appropriate to examine the matter more closely.

There is another reason for focusing on clause 1(2). On my reading of clause 1 and of schedule 1, polls held for the purpose of schedule 1 clearly would not be confined—as some Committee members have suggested—to the question whether Northern Ireland should be transferred to the Republic of Ireland. It is quite clear that—provided that the issue of leaving the United Kingdom is raised—any number of questions could be asked in a poll. Schedule 1 is quite clear on that point. An obligation would be placed on the Secretary of State only when the question arises of going into an all-Ireland state. I therefore thought that it would be appropriate to examine more closely the matter of "a majority".

9.15 pm

In the Assembly's operation, under the concept of cross-community support, we will use a weighted majority of 60 per cent. It is therefore appropriate also to raise the issue of such a majority in a poll. The effect of the amendments is such that only if there is a majority of 60 per cent. in favour of going into an all-Ireland state would there be an obligation on the Secretary of State to introduce proposals. If there were a majority of between 50 and 60 per cent., deciding what to do would be a matter of judgment and of the Government's and the Secretary of State's discretion. They might still wish to give effect to it; they might not.

The provision deals only with the matter of being under an obligation to come to the House and to effect the terms of border polls. In terms of British constitutional development, it is an unprecedented step. In clause 1(2), the Government are taking a further significant step in the development of the United Kingdom constitution, by making the results of a referendum binding on the Government.

It is therefore appropriate to examine more closely the concept of majority, and to operate, by analogy with the agreement's other provisions, a 60 per cent. weighted majority.

Mr. Peter Robinson

My amendment No. 140 would have a similar impact to those tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I have worked out mathematically how, in the referendum—which was a poll of about 81 per cent. of the electorate—a simple majority under his amendments would have been about the same as under my amendment. There is therefore not a great mathematical difference in the outcome of our amendments.

The amendments tabled by me and by the right hon. Gentleman would further draw to the House's attention the issue that we debated when dealing with the previous group of amendments—that deciding a poll to go into a united Ireland on the basis of a simple majority would be a recipe for violence and disaster. Every member of the Committee can visualise and knows that that would be the outcome, yet the Bill contains provisions that—if such a majority were to be achieved at some stage in the future—would bring about that disaster.

My amendment would be better in two ways than those tabled by the right hon. Gentleman. First, my amendment is more consistent with the wording of the agreement, which states: Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland". My amendment is very clear. It refers to a majority of those who are on the electoral register and not simply a majority of those who come out to vote. Indeed, one can visualise circumstances in which a majority in a referendum called for the purposes of making a determination on the issue could represent a significant minority of the people of Northern Ireland. In the circumstances that I outlined earlier, in which a simple majority would cause chaos and disaster, clearly a minority voting for a united Ireland—perhaps a majority of those who came out to vote, but a minority of the people of Northern Ireland—would clearly cause considerable violence in our community and would not produce a peaceful way forward.

The second reason why I believe that my amendment is better is that it is consistent with precedent. There is the precedent of the referendums in Scotland and Wales in which the Government recognised that it was not sufficient to have a simple majority deciding an important constitutional issue, so a majority of the electorate of Scotland and Wales was required to effect such a change.

Mr. Öpik

The hon. Gentleman is aware that, on this occasion, the Welsh referendum made no such stipulation and a decision was made by a simple majority of those who voted.

Mr. Robinson

Earlier today, we saw something of the outcome of that. However, in previous referendums in Scotland and Wales the proposition that I am putting forward was the position.

Dr. Godman

When the hon. Gentleman refers to Scotland, is he talking about the referendum in 1979, with its weighted majority provision? May I point out to him that that decision, because of the weighted majority, left great disaffection and resentment throughout Scotland? The last referendum on 11 September 1997 was an entirely different affair.

Mr. Robinson

The hon. Gentleman will accept that the result was entirely different, too. If a majority of those voting in Northern Ireland voted for a united Ireland, but they represented a minority of the electorate and the people of Northern Ireland, there would certainly be very bitter resentment.

Under the wording of the agreement, it is not inconsistent for the Government to accept my amendment. It refers to the majority of the people of Northern Ireland". As that is not defined in the terms of the agreement, it is open to the Government to define it. My amendment states: For the avoidance of doubt, in subsection (1)…'the majority of the people of Northern Ireland' means an absolute majority of all those people who, on the date on which a poll is held under this section, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local election in a district electoral area in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara

I was in the House at the time of the vote on a weighted majority in the Scottish referendum. It was a Labour amendment to a Government Bill and was carried with the support of the Unionist Tory party. It was a decision of the House that the Government of the day, who no longer had a majority, had to accept. However, it would be quite wrong to suggest that the present Labour Government—or even the Labour Government at the time—had embraced the Cunningham amendment and forced it on the people of Scotland in the way that has been suggested. It was accepted only in order to give the people of Scotland at least an opportunity to voice their opinion.

Anyone who was in the House at the time will remember the bitterness that the amendment engendered, not only in Scotland but generally, about English Members seeking to impose certain conditions on the people of Scotland.

Dr. Godman

rose—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. We seem to be discussing the situation in Scotland too much. It is all right to mention it in passing, but we should keep within the terms of the amendment, which are narrower than that. Does the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) want to intervene?

Dr. Godman

I merely wanted to remind my hon. Friend that weighted majorities have unintended consequences, as we discovered in Scotland. The people of Northern Ireland would find the same.

Mr. McNamara

I bear in mind what you have said, Mr. Martin, but you will recall that the burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) drew in aid the previous experience in Scotland, so I thought that the record should be put straight for those who were not fortunate enough to be here on those great and stirring occasions.

The agreement was accepted by many parties. When my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party accepted the agreement, they did not accept the interpretation put forward by the Democratic Unionist party and others. There are many parties to the agreement. It would be wrong to suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could rewrite the agreement without recourse, sense, feeling or discussions with all the other parties.

Under the heading "Constitutional Issues", the agreement says: The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

1. (i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;
2. (ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".

There is no mention of a weighted majority or the number of people entitled to vote. People understand and accept that that means a simple majority.

I am sure that none of the Unionist Members would insist that they had to have the support of 50 per cent. plus one of all those entitled to vote in their constituency to be able to sit in the House. Many of them are not in that position. If they won an election by one vote, they would not say, "Oh dear me! I cannot go along to the House of Commons and take my seat because I have got a majority of only one vote." We have never decided that a Government should cease to be the Government because they have a majority of only one. That is a foolish argument.

The aim of the amendments is to undermine the agreement. Those who support them want to achieve what they could not achieve by negotiation or by other means: they want to change the agreement as it was written and accepted in the referendum in Northern Ireland. I urge the Committee not to accept the amendments.

9.30 pm

Mr. Robert McCartney

I shall first deal with the lack of logic of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). To suggest that a constitutional change involving the political and national identity of, perhaps, upwards of 1 million people, in a highly charged and emotional situation, is in any way comparable with winning a parliamentary or other election by a small majority—whether it is one, two or 20 votes—indicates the wisdom of the aphorism that logic makes a very good servant but a very indifferent master. There is absolutely no common sense in such a comparison.

The main reason behind the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is to recognise the important constitutional significance of a poll that would change fundamentally and basically that which most people consider to be of vital importance: their national and political identity. I can think of nothing worse than being a stateless person. To have such a sense of identity is fundamental to all of us; it is where we belong. Changing that sense of identity is so grave and significant that it ought not to be done on the basis of any analogy of winning an election by one vote.

I draw to the attention of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who may have been present at the time—it would have been of much greater importance had the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), the joint Minister designate in the Assembly, been present—that, during the first 14 months of negotiations which gave rise to the agreement, it was recognised by all present that the understanding was that Any overall package for agreement had to receive not a simple majority on both sides but a majority that would afford political efficacy to such an agreement. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Upper Bann can confirm that those words were recorded by representatives of the two Governments in the talks. In practical terms, amendment No. 106 reflects that requirement.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that, although a majority of less than 60 per cent. would not represent an absolute ban on action, the matter would still be one for the Secretary of State's discretion. Unless such a majority is achieved, such a decision should not be taken lightly. If the majority is under 60 per cent., the decision to go ahead might be precatory, but, if it is over 60 per cent., the decision to act would be mandatory. To suggest that any Government would blithely, on the most simple of majorities, remove the national political status of 1 million of their citizens is beyond belief. No constitutional and democratic Government should be entertaining that if they intend to bring about what Harold Laski might have described as "social peace" of a substantial section of the community.

In effect, the hon. Member for Belfast, East has suggested an alternative: that the majority should be of those on the electoral roll. Again, comparisons can be odious, but in Wales barely more than 50 per cent. of those on the electoral roll actually voted, and a fraction more than 25 per cent. of those on the electoral roll took the decision, as it turned out, to have devolution for Wales.

As it happened, because of the nature of things in Wales, that was not crucial—but can we imagine a border poll taking place with only 51 per cent. of the electorate turning out to vote, and just over 25 per cent. of the entire population, who none the less form a simple majority of those actually voting, determining to remove the political and national identity of nearly 1 million people?

No one who seriously considered that prospect, and who had in mind the good government and social peace of those who would be affected by the decision, could, in my humble submission to the Committee, conceivably refuse to entertain one or other of the amendments.

The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) cited the section on "Constitutional Issues" in the agreement, but clause 1(i), which he quoted, refers to recognising the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland". It does not say a simple majority, a majority of 60 per cent., or a majority of those on the electoral roll. It says: a majority of the people". What is more, it was recognised by everyone—I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Hull, North to accept this—that all the parties present, and both Governments, in the negotiations leading up to the agreement, recognised and recorded the fact that the agreement reflecting the overall package had to be supported by more than a simple majority. The majority had to be of such a substantial kind as would lend not only political efficacy but political reality to what is being committed to law. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Dr. Godman

I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and I think he said that a poll determining the future of 1 million people at an emotionally charged moment in the history of those people was not in any way analogous to a contest such as a parliamentary election.

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has a point there, but such a poll is comparable with a referendum in another country of some 5.5 million people. All that I can say, with reference to Scotland, is that our experience of weighted majorities in a referendum prompts me to argue against the amendment.

I can see that the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) is ready to jump to his feet, but in no way do I accept the contention that he offered us; that a referendum is a dangerous thing. In my view, Governments should hold referendums from time to time, as we did in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Robert McCartney

rose—

Mr. Thompson

rose—

Dr. Godman

In a moment.

In terms of the comparative evidence in Scotland, there was a substantial majority for what even the hon. and learned Member for North Down would, I think, acknowledge will be radical constitutional change. That is what is in the Bill before us—radical constitutional change.

I understand some of the fears that have been voiced in connection with the amendments, but my view is that those people should be urged to engage in debate with constitutional nationalists about what has been said over the past few minutes, just as we engage in debate with our peaceable democratic secessionists. There are useful comparisons to be drawn, although I shall not argue for or against the hon. and learned Gentleman's analogy.

Mr. Thompson

I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman. If the Parliament in Scotland decided to have a referendum on whether to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom, would he be prepared to accept a simple majority, even if a majority in the Parliament was opposed to the proposal?

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The debate is going wide of the amendments before the Committee. Hon. Members must remember that amendments are narrow and that they should keep their arguments within the confines of those amendments.

Dr. Godman

I expected your intervention, Mr. Martin. I did not intend to answer that question.

The consent of the people in a mature parliamentary democracy must override the views of parliamentary representatives. For change to be given legitimacy, it must meet the expectations and concerns of the people whose lives will, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for North Down, be changed. In that sense, referendums have more legitimacy than some of the divisions that take place in our Parliaments and Assemblies.

Mr. Peter Robinson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman

I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind your strictures, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Robinson

Will the hon. Gentleman define the term used in the Bill— the majority of the people of Northern Ireland"? What is a majority of the people of Northern Ireland as opposed to a majority of those voting?

Dr. Godman

That is a good question. In the custom and practice of referendums, we speak of those who have the right to vote in elections. The hon. Gentleman may say that he does not like that definition of a majority in Northern Ireland, but I do not understand how otherwise one can define a majority. That must be a simple majority, not a weighted one, because George Cunningham and his supporters did us no favours 19 or 20 years ago.

I have some understanding of the concerns of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but he must continue engaging, as he has done so admirably up to now, in honourable debate with hon. Members such as constitutional nationalists who sit on this side of the Committee. The amendments are wrong in principle and they would be disastrous in practice.

Mr. Öpik

I have been examining the Belfast agreement. I assume that many of us accept that it is the starting point and that if we ever need help with interpretation we should return to the agreement to find out what it says.

There is a potential contradiction on pages 2 and 3 of the agreement that requires clarification. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has already pointed out, on page 2, under "Constitutional Issues", the agreement states that the participants will, recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status". On page 3, paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states: Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. There is potential confusion there. On one page, the agreement seems to refer to 50 per cent. or more of those who are eligible to vote; on another, it seems to refer to 50 per cent. or more of those who choose to vote.

Mr. Robinson

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are two stages in the process? Even in the annexe, the first stage is referred to as requiring a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has to determine when the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to leave the United Kingdom. In that sense, the Secretary of State should be making such a determination based on the wish of a majority of the people, as opposed to a majority of the electorate or a majority of those who will be voting, but when the Secretary of State then calls a poll, under the annexe it will be based on a majority of those voting.

Mr. Öpik

As the hon. Gentleman demonstrates, the point needs to be clarified. That is exactly my concern. Given the seriousness of what will take place if such a referendum is held, it is important that we determine now exactly what we are looking for and what we would expect in this context. At least twice in those two pages there is a reference to a majority of those entitled to vote, and I seek clarification on that.

I should also like the Minister to explain what he sees as the role of the House of Commons before a referendum is held. Would it have a debate? What other role would it have before the Secretary of State initiated a referendum?

9.45 pm

Mr. Temple-Morris

I have been listening carefully and I hope that I am not alone in thinking that a certain unease is beginning to creep into the debate about the language used, not only in the amendments but in the various documents. During the debate on amendment No. 60, I disagreed very much with the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). This time I pay him the compliment of saying that I listened to his speech carefully.

The constitutional significance of the Bill and the amendments, and of any referendum that might result, is enormous, so we must get this right. I do not like weighted majorities any more than anybody else, but we are dealing here—surely to goodness we all know it and that is why we are here—with a unique situation in our islands. That uniqueness may even go beyond our islands.

We must get this matter right. The language does not hang together. If the lawyer in some of us comes out, it does not appear to be quite right. The Bill is clear. Clause 1(1) refers to the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll". Clause 1(2) contains the words expressed by a majority in such a poll". Therefore, the Bill is clear enough.

I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the language of his amendment goes to the heart of the discrepancies more than the amendment so moderately moved by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned the Belfast agreement, but paragraph 1(v) of the agreement between the two Governments contains the words by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland". That is a straight bland comment.

In the constitutional section at the beginning of her statement to the House, the Secretary of State referred to the principle of consent and said: Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and will stay that way for as long as that is the wish of a majority of people who live there".—[Official Report, 20 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 479.] That is another interpretation of it.

I make no plea, simply a statement to hon. Members from Northern Ireland that having another Division at this stage with the result that could emerge would belie the seriousness of the issue. We must hear the Front-Bench spokesmen, but, whatever we end up voting for, I hope that the language and the discrepancies will be worked out. I repeat that I do not like weighted majorities, but the seriousness of the situation deserves a symmetry of language.

Mr. McNamara

The Bill simply incorporates the draft clauses and schedules as contained in annexe A of the agreement, to which I refer my hon. Friend. That is what was agreed, and to depart from that would be to depart from the agreement.

Mr. Temple-Morris

My hon. Friend is the last person with whom I would want to disagree on that, but what he says does not alter the fact that, in other material documents and in agreements solemnly entered into by the two Governments, the language is at odds with the language of the Bill. The seriousness of the issue—a referendum and the constitutional results that would flow from it—merits a symmetry of language. I hope that the Minister will think about that both now and as consideration of the Bill progresses. If, afterwards, the Bill is the same, we shall no doubt vote on it in due course.

Mrs. Fyfe

I urge Unionist Members to think carefully about pressing the amendment to the vote, as some hon. Members have had bad experiences of such measures. The Bill must mean what it says when it specifies a majority of the people…voting in a poll". How can the views of people who do not vote be taken into account? People can vote by postal ballot or by proxy, so anyone who is not totally brain dead may vote if he or she cares enough about the issue. If people do not vote, we must presume that they do not care much one way or the other. Only the views of those who vote in any ballot anywhere can be taken into account.

Such a poll will not fall from the skies; there will be one only if it is obvious that a clear current of opinion is running one way or the other. Who in their right mind would hold such a poll if they thought that the outcome was on a such knife edge that it could go 1 per cent. either way?

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)

The hon. Lady is talking about the wrong matter. There is no question that the views of those who have not voted will be taken into account. The clause specifically refers to a majority of the people in Northern Ireland voting in a poll". As there are 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland, the clause must mean that 800,000 plus one must vote for any change in the constitution.

Mrs. Fyfe

My point is precisely that a majority of one is enough in any sensible voting system. However, it is hardly likely that anyone would want to call a poll if he or she thought that it could be so close. To maintain peace and decency in civil society, one would want to ensure that the outcome was pretty clear one way or the other.

Throughout the debate, some Unionist Members have argued that people were deceived into voting 71 per cent. in favour of the agreement. If the people of Northern Ireland do not yet understand the consequences of voting one way or the other, they must be brain dead, as Northern Ireland has for a long time been one of the most thoroughly debated aspects of politics in these islands.

I earnestly warn people not to set up any fancy franchise. Such a franchise in 1979 did great harm to relations between Scotland and England; it led Scottish people to distrust people in England and was constantly held up as a reason not to vote Labour. If hon. Members are held responsible for a fancy franchise, they will risk incurring the resentment of people who are unhappy with the outcome for years to come.

Mr. McGrady

I draw the attention of the Committee to the agreement, which is absolutely clear about what is intended and, therefore, about what has been agreed.

On page 2 of the agreement, under the heading "Constitutional Issues" there are several paragraphs that comment generally on the subject matter and use the same terminology, stating that the status of Northern Ireland will be maintained save with the consent of a majority of its people". That is the general interpretation of that expression. On the next page, we see that the parties and the two Governments making the agreement have specifically laid down the legislative terminology to which they would agree in terms of amendments to be made. Under the heading "Annex A: Draft Clauses/Schedules for Incorporation in British Legislation", the agreed form of words is: It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

Mr. John D. Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGrady

Let me make my second point. Paragraph 1(2) under that heading states: But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll". That refers to the previous paragraph, which refers to those voting in a poll held". Therefore I would argue and submit to the Committee that that is precisely what is intended by the agreeing parties and the two Governments to be included in British legislation. There is no ambiguity whatsoever about what was agreed.

Mr. Taylor

I put to the hon. Gentleman the same point that I raised earlier. He has quoted annexe A paragraph 1 quite correctly. It states: without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll". If there are 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland, what would be a simple majority?

Mr. McGrady

A simple majority in any interpretation of the English language is more than 50 per cent.

Mr. Taylor

So, 800,000 plus one.

Mr. McGrady

I am not here to define what the number will be under the electoral roll several years hence. I have no idea what it will be. I am saying simply that the agreement reached between the two Governments and the eight other parties referred to a majority voting in a poll. That is the precise terminology that we are dealing with in the Bill and there can be no variation from it if the agreement is to be upheld, as I sincerely hope that the Committee will do.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The Governments who have been handling this situation have always told the people of Northern Ireland that there is no change. They refer us to the Sunningdale agreement, which they have trotted out over and over again, and which states: the present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom. If, in the future, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a United Ireland, the British Government would support that wish. Then we turn to the Anglo-Irish agreement, because we are told that the Belfast agreement is a development of that. The Anglo-Irish agreement states: the two governments—Affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland". That has been repeated over and over again by the Governments, but now we are not getting the majority of the people of Northern Ireland; we are getting the majority of those who take part in a poll, which is entirely different.

Mr. McNamara

Nonsense.

Rev. Ian Paisley

It is entirely different. The hon. Gentleman appears not to know the difference between the majority of people living in England and the majority of people who vote in an election or a referendum.

Mr. McGrady

Surely the hon. Gentleman is making the assumption that those who do not vote are, by not voting, expressing their views one way or the other. That is an impossible situation. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that a vote can be interpreted only according to those saying yes and those saying no when voting on a particular for-or-against issue?

Rev. Ian Paisley

It is interesting to hear that comment now from the hon. Gentleman. When it came to the Sunningdale agreement, he told us, "You Unionists needn't worry; it rests with the majority." In the first referendum in Scotland—one hon. Member opposed it completely and said that he did not like what happened—a majority of people in the entire electorate were required to vote for devolution. That is what is in our amendment. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. There is so much background noise that I cannot hear what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is saying.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I was beginning to think that you would not profit if you could hear what I was saying, Mr. Martin.

This point has been laboured tonight, but it is an important issue. The Government must tell the people of Northern Ireland what they are saying now. They now claim that, in a poll—elected representatives will have no say about when it should be held—a simple majority of one could put us into a United Ireland, with no mention of safeguards for anyone. That is the real issue.

10 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy

It has been another interesting debate. Hon. Members who argue the case for the amendments—as they did for the last group—suggest that, if a bare majority of people voted in a referendum to become part of a united Ireland, it would plunge Northern Ireland into chaos and anarchy. Of course there are safeguards. To clarify an issue that raised its head in the previous debate, according to clause 1, the Secretary of State must come to the House after such a poll is held. I have now discovered something else lurking in clause 77(3) and schedule 1. In order for the mechanics of that poll to be agreed by Parliament, there would be an opportunity—I apologise to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) if I misinterpreted his remarks—for both Houses to review the Secretary of State's decision if it were judged rash and ill-defined and if it was believed that a border poll was being held without basis in reason or common sense. I have not the slightest doubt that hon. Members in this and the other place would point that out during such a debate.

Why do we resist the amendments? In the first instance, it is because they contradict what is in the agreement. The agreement is clear: we are talking about a majority of those who vote. The word "majority" is used in other contexts, but it is defined in clause 1: it is a majority of those who vote. I cannot see any other way of doing it.

During the talks, there was barely a mention of a weighted majority. Many hon. Members present in the Chamber tonight would not be here if they had to rely on weighted majorities; many hon. Members would love to have a majority of 50 per cent. plus one. Several hon. Members have referred to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which refers to a majority of people voting in a border poll. Border polls have been held before, but there was no mention in the 1973 Act of a weighted majority of 60 or 70 per cent. It refers only to a majority of people in Northern Ireland, and many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Antrim, supported that idea.

Hon. Members have mentioned the 1978 experience, which placed into Acts of Parliament reference to a majority of those on the electoral register. I remember the occasion very well. My predecessor in my constituency was instrumental, with Mr. Cunningham, in drawing up the amendments that the House of Commons had to agree in order to pass the devolution package. In my inexperienced days when I was in my 20s, I supported such a move—I was not a Member of Parliament—although, in hindsight, I was wrong. It left in Scotland a legacy of bitterness that has lasted until this day because people felt that they had been cheated out of the result. How else could we have determined, in the recent referendums in Wales, Scotland and London, whether people wanted change other than by how the majority of those who came out to vote, voted? We do not know how those who stayed at home would have voted. We can only make assumptions, but we cannot go by assumptions. We can make judgments only from the majority vote of those who vote in the polls.

Mr. Robert McCartney

Is the Minister suggesting that any poll result in Northern Ireland, like that which occurred in Wales, would be anything but utterly disastrous for social or political peace in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy

In Wales, we had a small majority—6,000 out of a population of 3.5 million. It could not have been much smaller. Obviously, I accept that there is a difference between Wales and Northern Ireland. There was much speculation about the referendum on the agreement. People asked what would happen if the majority was 50 or 55 per cent.; some said that, to be acceptable, the majority would have to be 80 per cent., while others said that it would have to be 70 per cent. Naturally, the more people who vote in a referendum the better, and those of us who supported the agreement were delighted that some 72 per cent. voted in favour of it.

Where does this argument begin and end? We can only say that a majority is a majority, which is why, essentially, we cannot change it. The agreement, printed word for word in the Bill, says that, when a matter is put to the test, it is tested on a majority of people in Northern Ireland who want to vote on it. Because the matter is so crucial to the people of Northern Ireland, I have not the slightest doubt that, were such a poll to be held, a very high percentage of people would vote and we could rely on the result.

Mr. Grieve

Does the Minister agree that one can say with certainty of those who do not vote in elections that they do not consider the matter serious enough to go out and cast a vote? That is what it boils down to, whether we are talking about elections or referendums.

Mr. Murphy

I entirely agree with that point.

However, these are hypothetical matters and we do not know when those border polls would be held. All we can say is that the agreement is clear. Consent is the most important principle and consent can be tested only by the majority vote of those who take the trouble to vote.

Mr. Trimble

I apologise to those hon. Members present for the fact that we have spent far too long discussing this issue in view of all the other matters to be considered, so I shall try to keep my closing comments brief.

The Minister gave an effective reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but at no time did he touch on my amendment, because it would not change the majority for the efficacy of the vote, and neither does it purport to do so. It relates purely to the binding character of the vote. Clause 1(2) places an obligation on the Secretary of State, and the effect of the amendment would be that, if the vote were less than 60 per cent., the Secretary of State would not be under an obligation, but would have to consider what to do. She would not be bound by the vote and would thus be in the same position as the Government are at present with regard to every referendum that has been held in the United Kingdom. None of the referendums held in the United Kingdom has been binding; all have been purely advisory. The amendment would preserve that position.

I was greatly struck by the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) about the unintended consequences of weighted majorities. However, everything has unintended consequences, and we must bear that in mind when framing legislation. We may be unable to predict the precise circumstances that will arise at a future date, so it is important to preserve discretion. That is what my amendment would do. However, we have debated the matter and have registered views. In view of the hour, and the fact that we have many more important things to consider, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Trimble

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 1, line 15, after 'of', insert 'the Republic of'.

The First Deputy Chairman

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 162, in clause 67, page 31, line 37, after 'of', insert 'the Republic of'.

Mr. Trimble

Amendment No. 105 is simple. It merely complies with existing legislation by calling the Republic of Ireland by its correct name in British constitutional law. From 1949 until now, the entity previously known as the Irish Free State, and properly known under its own constitution as Eire, has been referred to within the United Kingdom as the Republic of Ireland. There has been no legislation to change that.

The Government will rely on the fact that the Ireland Act 1949 used the word "may", but that has to be interpreted in the context of the time and the circumstances. It was regarded then, and has been until now, as fixing for the purpose of our legislation the name of the entity in the other part of the island of Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. If the Government want to change things, let them table an amendment to the 1949 Act, but let them not assume that they can change legislation by the exercise of prerogative.

Mr. Peter Robinson

There are at least two instances in the Bill where reference is made to "the Government of Ireland", at clauses 1 and 67. I tabled amendments to both. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had tabled an amendment to clause 1 in the same terms, because the sloppy and slovenly drafting of the agreement probably caused the problem. The right hon. Gentleman accepted that terminology when he accepted the agreement, because those are precisely the words contained in the agreement. I am glad that he now realises that it is proper to correct the work that he did not properly do at an earlier drafting stage.

I can think of no past legislation referring to "the Government of Ireland". Ireland is an island; it has on it two states. It is clear from the terminology used in legislation that reference to those whom we describe as the Dublin Government is reference to the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Reference to "the Government of Ireland" suggests that Ireland as a whole has one Government. Quite clearly, that is the tendency in the Bill, which intends to advance such a notion.

I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he will follow the proper terminology, which has been used consistently in legislation, and I note that reference was made in the recent decommissioning scheme to the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I hope that he will correct what has happened, although he cannot say that the Government had not noticed the terminology and that it was an accident. When his legal team went through the consultative process with my colleagues and me, it was pointed out to them on several occasions that the term "Ireland" had been used. It was also used in the discarded clause 26, in terms of authorities in Ireland.

I trust that the slovenly work of those who drafted the agreement has simply been carried through and that the Minister is about to correct it.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I drew the Government's attention to this matter when they published the agreement. I was told that it was a printer's error which would be changed. All the agreements that went out in Northern Ireland used the words for Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and for the Government of Ireland". They said that that was a mistake and that they would correct it. The official document, which is issued by the Table Office, also uses the words For the Government of Ireland". In Europe, the Government of Ireland started to behave in the same way. They began to dilute the name of the Government here—the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will remember that we went to the authorities in Europe and had the correction made. This was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic was officially called the Republic of Ireland. I think that the House should at least be the custodian of its own bailiwick, and should call the Government of the Republic what it is, according to its own standing.

10.15 pm

Mr. McNamara

I do not intend to delay the Committee for long, but I must repeat that making the proposed change would substantially alter the content of the agreement and the draft clauses in annexe A, which speak of the Government of Ireland.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) speak of two states on the island of Ireland. I thought that there was one state, and part of a state. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a declaration of unilateral independence, that is up to him, but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara

No, with great respect.

There is much more in this than is immediately apparent—

Mr. John D. Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara

No, not for a moment or two.

It is not for me to go into all the history, and the phraseology, of what has or has not been the name of the state in the southern bit of the northern part of the island of Ireland. That has been the subject of controversy on many occasions, in different contexts. The agreement contains draft clauses; the draft clauses are, in effect, in the Bill. That is the agreement. Let us not nitpick; let us leave it as it is.

Mr. John D. Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara

I am willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought that the Committee wanted to make progress.

Mr. John D. Taylor

I am interested by the hon. Gentleman's argument that using the term "Republic of Ireland"—which is, of course, the correct constitutional name for the country concerned—in some way changes the agreement, because the agreement refers to the Government of Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as his argument suggests, that, as "Northern Ireland" is the description of my part of the United Kingdom that is used in the agreement, those who now refer to it simply as "the north of Ireland" are changing the terms of the agreement?

Mr. McNamara

If it is referred to as Northern Ireland in the agreement, it should be referred to as Northern Ireland in the Bill.

Mr. Paul Murphy

I apologise to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I was carried away in the last debate, but I shall undoubtedly talk to him about the matters that he raised.

When I first took up my Northern Ireland post, I was struck by the importance of terminology. I think that terminology is more important in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I remember going to Derry city council, in the town of Londonderry, and hoping not to use any name during a two-hour meeting, because it is difficult to please everyone.

In this instance, we cannot accept the amendments. Let me explain why. The most important reason is this. During the talks that led to the agreement, there was an understanding between the two Governments that this Government would refer to "the Government of Ireland"—which they can do: as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said, under the 1949 Act that is permissible, although not mandatory. Significantly, however, we referred to "the Government of Ireland" because that is how the Irish Government described themselves. Even more significantly, the Irish Government, for the first time ever, described our Government as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As a result, that is contained in the declaratory aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

Is the declaration in the agreement and that terminology in the legislation that went before the Dail in Dublin?

Mr. Murphy

I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman with an answer to that. The legislation before the Dail is different from this Bill.

During the talks that led to the agreement, the Irish Government, for the first time ever, referred to our Government as I have just described.

Mr. John D. Taylor

Clause 1(2) does not refer to the "Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", as the Minister has just implied. It refers to the "Government of the United Kingdom."

Mr. Murphy

During the talks and in the agreement, the Irish Government used that terminology for the first time ever. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that terminology was used during the negotiations.

Mr. Thompson

Do not the facts that the Minister has revealed to the House give credence to the view held by many people in Northern Ireland that the Government want to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, and that that is why they agreed to this change? Rather than refer to the Republic of Ireland, the Bill refers to Ireland. Surely that revelation will show to the people of Northern Ireland that the real basis of the agreement and this legislation is eventually to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Murphy

That is a load of nonsense. That is not the case. The debate has centred on the principle of consent. It is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they wish to remain within the United Kingdom or to become part of a united Ireland.

Mr. Thompson

The Minister says that it is up to the people of Northern Ireland, but the Government wish that the people of Northern Ireland would leave the United Kingdom.

Mr. Murphy

We have not said anything of the sort. It is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide their destiny and their future. If the majority of the people want to be British citizens, so be it. That is the purpose of the agreement.

The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) made a valid point about the clause. I draw his attention to the fact that clause 1 is a straight word-for-word transfer from the agreement into the Bill. The British-Irish agreement, which is at the back of the Belfast agreement, states:

"AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND".

That is the international aspect of the agreement.

Mr. Peter Robinson

The Minister's remarks will cause great consternation in Northern Ireland. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have accepted, in some secret understanding with the Dublin Government, that that Government will be called the Government of Ireland. In all legislation from now on and in all official documentation, the Dublin Government will be referred to as the Government of Ireland. That is totally unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. Would the Minister like to tell us about any other secret deals?

Mr. Murphy

That was not secret, because a copy of the agreement went to every house in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it did not go to the hon. Gentleman's house. It says in big letters:

"AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND".

It is as clear as crystal, and is in the international agreement attached to the Belfast agreement, a copy of which went through every letter box in every house in the Province of Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor

The Minister is breaching the agreement. He has quoted the agreement correctly, but the legislation does not refer to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: it merely refers to the Government of the United Kingdom, so the Minister is breaching the agreement.

Mr. Murphy

Clause 1 is a transfer word for word from the agreement. The international agreement that is attached to the Belfast agreement refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland".

Rev. Ian Paisley

Will the Minister bring to the Dispatch Box the southern Ireland version of the agreement and read out what is in it? He has read out what is in his: tell us what is in the other version.

Mr. Murphy

I am quite convinced that it is the same, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

Whatever the geographical misunderstanding—there may be a misunderstanding about what is meant by the term "Ireland"—in the rest of the legislation we shall refer to the Republic of Ireland to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. That is clear. As I have said, the words in clause 1 are straight from the agreement, word for word. I hope that hon. Members understand the significance of the fact that the Irish Government have at last recognised that the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland. That was a significant attachment. [Interruption.] There are no secret deals or secret this or that in any of this.

Mr. Grieve

I completely understand the Minister's point and the reasons for the use of the term Government of Ireland. He has satisfied me on that. It is right, is it not, that, in the preliminary part of the Bill, it would be perfectly possible to define the United Kingdom as being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without in any way impinging upon the wording of the agreement? It may be argued that that is an exercise in semantics, but if it provided reassurance it could properly be done at a later stage of the Bill's progress.

Mr. Murphy

We shall check on some of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). We believe that, under the Interpretation Act 1978, any reference in legislation to the United Kingdom means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we are checking on that.

Mrs. Fyfe

Does my hon. Friend agree that at international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Council of Europe, a placard in front of our delegation simply stating "United Kingdom" is understood to mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy

I am not sure that everybody understands that. I returned from Belfast some weeks ago by air—I shall not say by which company—and on arrival in Heathrow we saw a sign stating "Welcome to the United Kingdom". I am sure we all regard that as quite improper.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I understand the Minister's difficulties. Many people think that the United Kingdom is England. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) may recall that at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Ottawa, delegates from the Republic of Ireland moved that in the IPU the title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be changed to the United Kingdom. That was adopted by a majority vote, against the wishes of the British delegates and others. As the Minister said, we must be careful. When we use titles, we should use them correctly.

Mr. Murphy

I certainly agree that United Kingdom does not mean England: there are other places as well.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked about the Irish version of the agreement. I have checked. The Irish version is exactly the same. It refers to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, of course, that is a key change because in previous practice all agreements had two versions—one Irish and one British. The Irish version certainly refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The point has been well made in the debate that we must take great care.

My main concern in this matter is that we do not alter clause 1 because it is part of the agreement. We are conscious of the nature of the comments made by hon. Members and the sensitivities surrounding the issue. However, I believe that we have sufficient safeguards in the Interpretation Act and other measures and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

10.30 pm

Mr. Trimble

I am sorry to disagree with the Minister again, but he misinterpreted what I said about the Ireland Act 1949. I did not say that its terms were permissive; I was merely anticipating that he would say that. I was pointing out to him that it was intended to fix, for United Kingdom use, the term that would be used to describe what hitherto had been known as the Irish Free State. From then until now, it has been consistent practice to use the term "Republic of Ireland".

If a change is to be made, it should be made properly through the legislation. There is a strong argument that the Minister is currently acting contrary to the 1949 Act and is not really putting the matter on a proper footing.

Some of the points of concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) about subsection (2) stem from its rather convoluted—perhaps the word is "curious"—language. It states: as may be agreed between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland. I wonder why the phrase, "in the United Kingdom" was used. There was no need for it—it could simply have said, "between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of'. Perhaps the Minister would explain the thinking behind that.

We have made the point that the Government have made a mistake in the agreement into which they have entered—

Mr. Peter Robinson

You signed it.

Mr. Trimble

I am referring to the treaty between the two Governments. I have not signed anything; the hon. Gentleman knows better than that.

The Government have made a mistake that will lead to confusion. However, so that we can move on and discuss some other amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon, had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68 (Debate on clause standing part), That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

Question agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.