---

Mr. McGrady: That is the very point that I am making. The proposal is to establish sub-committees to deal with a variety of matters concerning all aspects of life in Northern Ireland: that has been suggested time and again today.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGrady: Not now.

We fear that the amendments will distract people from the kernel of the legislation, which is the need to give the negotiators the best possible opportunity of bringing about a successful outcome. We should all strive to do that, rather than create obstacles that might enable a competing body--perhaps in the same building and during the same week, or even the same day--to prevent the negotiating team from engaging in proper debate. That may suggest that we do not want people's views to be heard, but nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said, it would surely be better for representations to be made directly to the negotiators than to be conveyed through the conduit of public debate in a forum.

Our other fear in regard to the forum is the possibility of "majoritarian" decisions. If we have learnt anything in Northern Ireland, it is that nothing can be achieved without consensus. The definition of consensus is fairly well illustrated in paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232, which was quoted earlier. It refers not to majoritarian decisions, but to a consensus among the representatives of the main traditions or communities. That is what consensus means in Northern Ireland, and that is what we must strive for, no matter how difficult it may be.

All the amendments that we have discussed have focused on a strengthening and broadening of the forum's functions and the creation of a non-executive assembly. That is the political objective of the Ulster Unionists, who long ago abandoned the idea of an executive assembly. They are now integrationists rather than devolutionists, and one of their prime aims has been achieved before the negotiations have even begun. We have grave concerns

22 Apr 1996 : Column 109

about the remit of the forum, and the extension of that remit even beyond what is contained in paragraph 3, which we oppose in general terms.

Mr. Canavan: I should like to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 102, 90 and 91 which stand in my name.

When the Government first mentioned a proposal to hold elections as their response to the report of the Mitchell commission, there was widespread concern, particularly among the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, although not confined to it, that those elections might lead to the resurrection of some kind of Stormont Parliament. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) say that that was not the intention of the Unionist proposal for elections. It is certainly not provided for in the Bill, but I think that the hon. Gentleman insinuated that perhaps it was a stepping stone that could lead to some form of Parliament with legislative powers.

The Committee is aware of the detestation of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland for the Stormont Parliament and majority rule under which the winner took all and the minority was discriminated against for decades. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that the clock must never be turned back to that. The fears that were expressed about the resurrection of some kind of Stormont Parliament were understandable, bearing in mind that the idea for the elections was a response to the Mitchell commission report. But the elections were not Mitchell's idea: it was a Unionist idea that was adopted by the Government and did not have consensus--broad support among the communities in Northern Ireland. Apparently it had support from within only one community.

The Government eventually got the message about nationalist fears and came up with these proposals, through which they seem to be trying to emphasise the few, if any, powers that the elected body will have. Instead of calling it a Parliament, an assembly or even a convention, they are calling it a forum.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the view that this forum should have no legislative or administrative powers had nothing to do with the Government? From day one of the proposals, the view of the pro-Union parties was that such a forum should have no administrative or legislative powers. Not just the Government but the pro-Union parties, my own included, advocated that long before there were any such Government proposals. It is not a creature of their imagination but of the pro-Union people.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that it has nothing to do with the Government. They have drafted the Bill, which explicitly states that the forum will have no legislative, economic or administrative functions. In statements, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have emphasised that the forum is completely separate from the negotiating body. Clause 3(2) states:

"The functions of the forum shall be deliberative only."

22 Apr 1996 : Column 110

That is fair enough. Subsection 3 states:

"Accordingly the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, or any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned in section 1."

Subsection (3), however, is qualified by subsection (4), which says:

"But if, in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, the participants in the negotiations refer any matter to the forum, subsection (3) shall not be taken to prevent the forum from considering that matter."

There is no need for subsection (4). When replying to the debate, will the Secretary of State say why the Government considered it essential to include that subsection?

Amendment No. 102, which I tabled, proposes the deletion of subsection (4) because it seems to give some qualification to the absence of legislative, executive or administrative functions and of powers to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned earlier in the clause. What is the need for such qualification? There is no need and therefore I propose that the subsection be deleted.

If that is not acceptable to the Government, will they consider my alternative: amendments Nos. 90 and 91? Instead of the negotiating body being able to refer any matter to the forum, if there is to be any relationship between that body and the forum, it should be purely consultative rather than involve reference. If one body refers something to another body, I take it that that means that the other body can take decisions on the matter. If I refer something to the Secretary of State, that is more or less passing the decision to him, but if I consult him, that is a different matter. My choice of words--namely, consultation rather than reference--would be preferable if the Secretary of State wants to emphasise the fact that the forum will not have executive decision-making powers.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of a constitutional package, as it were, being referred to the forum and to the forum being allowed to express a view on such a package before it goes to the people by way of a referendum. That would not be a good idea. It is almost certain that there will be an in-built Unionist majority in the forum. The White Paper says that it will be necessary or at least desirable to have agreement to proposals in both communities. Ultimately, what is important is not whether a new constitutional package has the agreement of this strange body that has been elected by the most bizarre electoral system to come before the House and by probably one of the most bizarre electoral systems in the world. What is far more important than any approval or disapproval by such a body is that any new constitutional package is tested directly by the people by way of referendum both north and south of the border.

No doubt we will come to the wording and timing of referendums, but, at this stage, the Secretary of State should make it clear that the forum will have no veto on any new constitutional proposal, that it will not have any authoritative say on the matter and that, ultimately, if we are true democrats, we should be saying, "Let the people of Ireland decide."

Mr. Maginnis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to pursue the issue that I endeavoured to raise earlier. It relates to the impression that we gain from listening to the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and

22 Apr 1996 : Column 111

for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that there is something wrong which needs to be remedied about the fact that a substantial majority of the people of Northern Ireland happen to be Unionists.

We are hearing that anything that gives that section of our society which is Unionist the opportunity to deliberate--

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Maginnis: Mr. Morris, I shall not dare ask what time we stop for breakfast.

I was about to say that if we ask the people of Northern Ireland to elect a forum--the Government are imposing on us a forum comprising 20 more than we expected--if we elect 110 people, it must surely be proper and a matter of courtesy and respect to the people of Northern Ireland who elect that forum to ensure that it has a job to do.

---