|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th April be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order provides for a referendum to be held in Northern Ireland on the outcome of the multi-party talks. Peace in Northern Ireland has to be founded on a new political settlement. That settlement was achieved at the comprehensive political agreement reached in Belfast on Good Friday this year.
This Government believe that the agreement represents a successful conclusion to the multi-party talks. We believe that it offers real hope for the people of Northern Ireland to move beyond the past into a new political landscape where gains for one side do not need to be achieved at the expense of the other.
What is most important about the agreement is that it was reached by the parties freely because they recognised it was both in their individual interests and in the interests of Northern Ireland generally.
At the very beginning of the talks process, both we and the previous government made clear our commitment to the principle of consent. No agreement can hope to succeed unless it reflects the will of the people of Northern Ireland. This consent needs to be achieved through the so-called "triple lock". This means, first, the support of the Northern Ireland parties; secondly, the support of the people of Northern Ireland voting through a referendum; and, thirdly, the support of Parliament.
It is through this triple lock that we can be sure that the agreement represents the future that everyone wants--that it is a way forward for the government of Northern Ireland that commands cross-community support.
The agreement, if ratified by the people, will mean that Northern Ireland will have its own unique form of government, one which will give the people of Northern Ireland a greater say in the running of its affairs, just as devolution will mean that the people of Wales and Scotland will have a greater say in issues which directly affect them. Every home in Northern Ireland has been sent a copy of the agreement. Everyone will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. The referendum order allows us to put this vital question to the people. Without it, the people of Northern Ireland could not make their voice heard on what was achieved by their representatives at Castle Buildings.
The vires for this order were provided by Section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996. The legislation determining how and when the referendum will be held--that is, this order--is straightforward and clear. Indeed, most of it is standard material.
Article 3 of the order provides that a referendum shall be held on Friday 22nd May between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Article 4 sets out who is entitled to vote in the election; they will be those who have been entered on the electoral register of parliamentary
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already expressed her gratitude to all those who made the agreement possible. This includes many people abroad, including many of Northern Irish origin.
In reaching a decision on this key issue, however, we believe that the most straightforward and fair method of determining the will of the people of Northern Ireland is for the vote to be given to those with an immediate stake in Northern Ireland; that is, those currently living there.
Article 6, with Schedules 2 and 3, provides for the application and modification of various parts of electoral legislation dealing with voting offences, secrecy, postal and proxy votes, and so on. All are essential for the running of any election. Schedule 1 shows the form of the ballot paper and the question that will be asked in the referendum itself. Command paper 3883 refers to the agreement as published.
In the past the Government have benefited from cross-party support on Northern Ireland issues. I hope that noble Lords will also feel able to support the order. It is the people of Northern Ireland who must decide their future and this order will enable them to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, on behalf of my party, and no doubt many others, I support the principle of consent. It is right that the referendum should take place, and the 22nd May appears to be as good a date as any other. I have one serious question and one small point on the order. The question is the one that I asked on Monday when the House dealt with the Statement. I pointed out that there were in existence various letters, for example between the Prime Minister and Mr. Trimble, which explained and expanded upon various matters in the agreement. Those letters have received some publicity in the newspapers and I believe that they should be formally and properly published in an official document.
On Monday the Minister spoke about placing that correspondence in the Libraries of both Houses, which is helpful to Members. However, that is of no use to electors who are not Peers or MPs. This important decision is for electors, not Parliament. That is the point of it. Therefore, the electors must know what the agreement means and the spin that has been put upon it (to use a modern phrase) by the Prime Minister. The Minister promised that he would look sympathetically at the request. Can he report on that matter this evening?
The small point that I seek to make is different. Nevertheless, it may be of interest to your Lordships' House. The agreement provides among other things for a British-Irish council consisting of representatives of executive bodies from the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The larger Channel Islands have elected parliaments and executives within them. However, the executive in the Island of Sark is headed by an hereditary seigneur. I think that the Labour Government is to be applauded for creating by this legislation a hereditary right for the Seigneur to sit on the British-Irish council in perpetuity. I congratulate the Labour Party on this move and hope that it indicates a change of heart on other matters.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the order. To pick up the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, it is perhaps a shame that this right is not to be vested in the Dame rather than the Seigneur of Sark. That would at least be a gesture towards political correctness on the part of the Government. There is nothing like a dame.
From these Benches I am glad to record our pleasure at an agreement on which the people of Northern Ireland, including Peers, can express their views. I am glad that it is to happen on 22nd May. Time is of the essence. There is a tide in the affairs of men which means that this is better dealt with sooner than later. The noble Lord may recall that the other day I defined the situation as a state of precarious momentum. It is important to keep the momentum going. We on these Benches are glad to facilitate the passage of the order.
However, there is one rather curious feature of the order that I should like to explore briefly. The Government appear to believe that fundamentally a referendum is a party issue when it comes to the question of publicity. In this country, and I believe abroad, referendums have not in the past been party matters. Your Lordships will recall that the European referendum and the first and second Scottish and Welsh referendums have all been characterised by cross-party coalitions for and against the question posed in the particular referendum. I should say in parenthesis that I believe the question to be the right one. But in referendums people from various parties have always come together in combinations for and against. That is probably how it should be in a democracy. One cannot confine large issues like referendums within the narrow confines of party.
As we approach this referendum in Northern Ireland it appears that some of the leading figures in the Ulster Unionist Party are to campaign against a "yes" vote. They were much in force in another place this afternoon. In Northern Ireland we still do not know what members of Sinn Fein will do. I believe that more than one view will be expressed by leaders of that party during the course of the referendum.
The main communication that electors will receive is 10 pieces of paper. I should like to ask some questions about that. I have already identified that the parties may not be agreed, but let us assume that, as with the Ulster Unionists, the majority of the party make the decision for the party. That still does not answer a number of questions. First, does a given party in terms of the postal communication have to recommend a "yes" or "no" vote or can it chose to devote the whole of it to justifying its inability to make up its mind?
Further, can a party conscious of the assembly elections which follow very shortly after the referendum devote the whole of its leaflet to extolling its virtues and not even mention the referendum if it chooses not to do so? If so, why is the Post Office giving free delivery? As a practical question, will voters not become fed up if they receive 10 leaflets on the same subject from the various parties in Northern Ireland?
That raises a very curious anomaly in this measure. What allocation of television and radio time of a public service nature will be made for the "yes" and "no" campaigners to make their case in Northern Ireland? If there is to be any such allocation will it be made on a party basis, in which case the same kinds of questions that I have just raised in relation to postal communications will apply?
How do the Government envisage broadcasters will carry out their statutory duties of balance and fairness in the context of the referendum? Does the Northern Ireland Office have plans to distribute any other publicity material over and above the distribution of the agreement to which the Minister referred? Finally, will anyone anywhere, if this is a party occasion--I deplore that fact because I believe that it is a cross-party occasion--be required to account for his expenditure on publicity in the referendum? I may appear to be making an issue of this, but I believe that the Government should think the matter through a little further.
I warmly commend a paper entitled The Conduct of Referendums produced before the last election by the Constitution Unit under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Nairn. When he was at the Home Office at the time of the European referendum, he made a rather better fist of
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I had asked permission to speak in the gap, but the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has asked the questions that I wanted to ask. All the same, I should like to ask whether it is likely to be easy to conduct a referendum when the people voting in it will be voting on only,
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, for various reasons I was unable to speak on the Statement on Monday. I should like to say how much I applaud all the work that has been done on the agreement and the result of it. The point has already been made that what matters is the general agreement of the people who live in Northern Ireland, and who are therefore entitled to vote, before we can go forward. It is the only agreement that we have. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, momentum is of the essence. That said, it is right that there should be the opportunity for those people who want to promote opposition to do just that. That is healthy for democracy as a whole.
Lastly, I am delighted that we are unlikely to have a situation such as pertained in the referendum on Wales where it will be known--I hope that the Minister can confirm this--that various electoral areas voted in a particular way. As I understand the order, there will be a global figure for yes and for no. As I said, I hope for the sake of all the people in Northern Ireland that it will be yes.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I believe that I can say, without much contradiction, that scarcely can an order have come before your Lordships' House which has been so long in the making, as it were, which is of greater moment and which is of less controversy. In many ways its preparation goes back to July of 1987 when the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, and Dr Ian Paisley went to the then Secretary of State, Tom King, and requested him to consider the possibility of an alternative to and a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which at that stage was almost two years old.
During subsequent years there were extensive talks about talks. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will recall in March 1991 an agreement being reached on a three-stranded process of negotiation. However, in good Presbyterian ceremonial fashion not only were there three strands to the negotiations--some of us who have been at this for most of the time now dream in three strands--there were three components to the lock, as the Minister has said: first, the parties would have to agree--there was much speculation about what might be done if the parties did not agree; secondly, the people would have to agree; and then of course Parliament would have to pass all the necessary measures.
Even three or four weeks before last Good Friday, when the BBC did an opinion poll in Northern Ireland, 87 per cent. of the people said that they did not believe that the politicians would reach an agreement. Such is the low esteem in which politicians in Northern Ireland are held by their people that they did not believe, with all the effort that had been put in, with all the political capital that had been expended, that there would be an agreement. In some sense hanging my head in personal shame and in shame for my colleagues, I have to say that our people were justified in having so little faith, because we had, for more than a generation, failed repeatedly to reach the agreement that I believe our people wanted us to reach.
They said, "Put them to the table. Make them talk the matter out", but they did not believe that agreement would be reached. There were times--even 10 or 15 minutes before the end of that process--when one could not have been certain that agreement was for sure going to be reached; but it has been reached. What has been striking is that once people got over their astonishment that an agreement had been reached--some of them are still getting over that astonishment--and people began to study the agreement, they began to say, "It is much the best that could be achieved". It is not perfect. No agreement is. There are difficulties about it. But it is not only the only thing that is on offer, it is the best that could reasonably have been achieved.
So, when we come to the question of a referendum, we come to something of great importance. If there was a weakness in the noble attempt that was made in 1973 at Sunningdale to reach an agreement, it was that the people were not directly consulted at the time on the question. There have been times when people have pointed out the weaknesses of the 1985 agreement--the weakness that the parties in Northern Ireland were not involved in reaching it; the weakness that the parties and the politicians in Northern Ireland were not involved in its implementation; but there is no doubt that the greatest weakness of all was that it never became an agreement which was welcomed by the majority of people across the community.
This agreement has the capacity to be different because the people will have their say. I want briefly, but earnestly and sincerely, to pay tribute to all those who have been involved in achieving it. Its strength and its success lie in the fact that it is not the prerogative of any one government; of any one party; of any one Prime
This is a process bigger than party, people, or government; it is a process of great strength and opportunity. Coming as it does so close to the Millennium, its meaning is not lost on the people of Northern Ireland: we can start not just this decade or this century, but in the truly historic fashion of the length of our problem, start a new millennium in a different way from the way we have conducted much of the past millennium.
Perhaps I may make one other remark. It is to beg something which I know is in the traditions of your Lordships' House. Because this is a complex agreement, and because we are trying to ensure that it comes into operation as soon as possible, there will be not just the two orders that are before your Lordships tonight: a number of other pieces of legislation will be coming forward. Some of them will be substantial, as will be the Bill to put a new assembly and all its accoutrements in place; some of them needing to move through fairly quickly. For example, if we are to have elections on 25th June--I am assuming, and I think that I am right to assume, that the referendum will be passed solidly--to a new assembly, and to have it done before the marching season--I do not need to tell noble Lords how reasonable a thing that is to do--an enabling Bill will have to come before your Lordships' House presently.
I make just one appeal. Your Lordships have a hugely important scrutiny role. Since I have been privileged to come to your Lordships' House I have come to appreciate deeply the valuable role in that that your Lordships' House plays. These are unusual pieces of legislation, because they come out of inter-party and inter-governmental agreement, reached over a long time around the table in Northern Ireland. I appeal for the indulgence of your Lordships' House, that these matters may be scrutinised properly, but that they may not be obstructed any more than is appropriate or necessary. I say that not because I believe that there will be tedium in this House, but because I unfortunately know that there are likely to be those who will use the opportunities proffered by another place to create difficulties, even difficulties for their own parties.
I am sure that I can depend upon the good nature and constructiveness of your Lordships' House to ensure that matters will proceed thoroughly and properly, but speedily, so that the agreement may come into place. Perhaps the result will be that your Lordships' House will increasingly be relieved of Northern Ireland business as Northern Ireland people undertake it in a new assembly and in new relations between North and South and East and West and among all the people of these islands. I heartily support the order. I congratulate the Government and we look forward to its fulfilment.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page