Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Constitution Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 24 May 1973.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Stanley McMaster Mr Stanley McMaster , Belfast East 12:00, 24 May 1973

Hon. Members have commented that a mere 10 Members are in the House to discuss this most important constitutional measure. I much regret that a mere half dozen or so backbenchers on the Government side of the House and only the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) on the back benches opposite have thought it worth while to stay throughout the debate on a proposal which might form a prototype for other devolved institutions for Wales and Scotland. Other Members of the House of Commons would do well to follow more closely the debate on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill.

In the past three years when debates have taken place on Northern Ireland the benches have been crowded and a great deal of destructive criticism has been levelled against the Government for the way they have handled Northern Ireland affairs. It is seen tonight how much easier it is to be destructive than to be constructive.

I welcome the Bill because it provides for steps to be taken to set up new representative institutions in Northern Ireland, but I share the apprehension of my colleagues, particularly of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) whose amendment, to which I had added my name, was not selected.

The people of Northern Ireland are worried about many details in the Bill and the White Paper. I remind the House, as I did in the debate on the White Paper, of the recital at the beginning of that White Paper which repeated the statement contained in the preliminary paper published in October called "The Future of Northern Ireland: A Paper for Discussion".

Paragraph 2(c) of the White Paper reads as follows: Any division of powers and responsibilities between the national and the regional authorities must be logical, open and clearly understood. Ambiguity in the relationship is a prescription for confusion and misunderstanding. Any necessary checks, balances or controls must be apparent on the face of a new constitutional scheme. Paragraph 2(d) reads: The two primary purposes of any new institutions must be first to seek a much wider consensus than has hitherto existed; and second to be such as will work efficiently and will be capable of providing the concrete results of good government. I invite hon. Members to consider carefully whether the Bill satisfies that requirement set out in the initial paper for discussion and repeated in the White Paper which decries ambiguity and requires that the new institutions must be capable of working efficiently.

How does one interpret the provisions of Clause 2(1)(b)? Is it clear, or is it full of ambiguity? The paragraph provides that if it appears to the Secretary of State: that a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community. he shall do certain things. It is for the Secretary of State to determine whether the Executive fulfils this requirement. No Act ever passed by the House could be more woolly, imprecise and vague in its terms. How is the Secretary of State to decide that an Executive can be formed having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based? Surely, if the election has been held regularly and properly, by definition the Executive must have the support of the electorate.

How can the Secretary of State determine whether the Executive is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community? Have the Government moved completely away from the ordinary principles of democratic government in setting up the Assembly? Does the House feel that the provisions relating to power-sharing can provide effective government? What are the requisites of an effective and responsible Government or Executive and a responsible Parliament?

If it is desired to establish ordinary democratic machinery in Northern Ireland, as I believe it is, the first requisite is to have a Government and an Opposition. But the Bill provides for a form of Government to which no opposition can exist. If the power and the Government of the country are to be shared by both sides, how can there be an Opposition? Who is to fight an election and oppose what the Government are doing? What sort of manifesto could be drafted by an Opposition? If the Government fail in their task in the eyes of the electorate, what remedy lies with the electorate? Whom are they to vote for—or are they to return to fighting in the streets?