| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but we believe that other parties would object strongly to some of the other amendments that have been tabled.
Mr. Ancram: I give way to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
Mr. Hume: Are you telling me, Minister, that we cannot call ourselves the SDLP on the ballot paper? Is that what you are telling me? You are asking me to believe that this is a serious election. Given that the Democratic Unionist party is DUP, the Progressive Unionist party is PUP, the Ulster Unionist party is UUP and the Ulster Democratic party is UDP, I am sure that none of the other parties would object to us calling ourselves the SDLP. That is the amendment that we have tabled--amendment No. 48. Is there some other reason that you will not allow us to call ourselves what we are known as?
Mr. Ancram: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will accept it, that we were trying by this consultation to avoid a specific situation. I have to say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)--[Interruption.] I have to say to the--
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ancram: I will in a second.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Foyle--and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, now that he has returned to his seat--that we adopted that procedure to avoid the tabling of competing amendments in the House of Commons. Ultimately, the House of Commons must and can decide, but we chose that procedure to avoid the need to take invidious decisions, which might lead to accusations of preference or favour. If hon. Members are telling me that they believe that all or some of the amendments are acceptable and no one opposes them, I should be very interested to hear it.
Mr. Ancram:
I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
Mr. Robinson:
I support the view expressed by the SDLP that it should be entitled to define itself as it wishes. The Minister's argument against the SDLP is that it did not respond to his communication requiring an answer by 10 April by saying that it wanted to be described as the SDLP. My party did respond, however, and the communication that I have before me from my party--[Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order.
Mr. Robinson:
The communication that I have before me asked for the Democratic Unionist party to be described in terms as it is in the amendment, with the party leader's name on it.
Mr. Ancram:
I shall hear the other hon. Gentleman before replying.
Mr. Robert McCartney:
When I received the correspondence to which the Minister referred, I understood it on the same basis as the Minister now suggests, and for that reason responded positively. Nevertheless, I believe now that, if there is unanimity in the House among the major parties concerned that they wish to be described in a specific way that they are now prepared to specify, it would be the wish of all those parties, including myself, that they should be permitted to do so. If amendment No. 49 is withdrawn, we are all of one mind that people and parties should be able to describe themselves as they wish.
Mr. McGrady:
Sir Geoffrey, I propose to assist the Committee at this juncture by indicating that my party is prepared to withdraw amendment No. 49.
The First Deputy Chairman:
I shall take note of that. I do not know whether it is intended to move that amendment.
Mr. Ancram:
It may be helpful to hear from the Opposition at this point.
Mr. Worthington:
There is much agreement, but the situation remains a bit of a mess, and we will not sort out the problem with competing amendments. Perhaps the major parties could get together before Report stage and agree to a formula that would command general approval.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. The Minister must be allowed to respond.
7 pm
Mr. Ancram: I want to make a little progress. I said at the outset that we had heard about a number of broad churches during the debate--I think that another broad church is beginning to operate here. I think it is important
to take into account the feeling of the Committee. We have witnessed an interesting exchange, and the general view appears to be that the SDLP nomenclature was left out inadvertently.
As the SDLP is one of the parties that did not respond to my consultation paper about the issue, I am prepared to accept--but it must be on the basis that it is an exception; otherwise we shall get into all sorts of problems--amendment No. 48 tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his colleagues, which would allow them to insert the initials "SDLP" in the Bill. I do so in recognition of the fact that that is the name under which that party is usually known. I think that that distinguishes the amendment from the others that we are considering at present.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
The right hon. Gentleman must come clean about the issue. I have said nothing in the debate so far. I attended the Minister's first meeting, when we made strong representations to him that the name of a person--specifically, that of the party leader--should appear with the party name. The right hon. Gentleman knew that that is what we wanted, and he told us that there was no difficulty: he said that parties could describe themselves as they wanted, but that the Government were not of a mind to include any names of party leaders on the ballot paper.
We were then asked to respond to the consultation document in writing, which we did. We pointed out that it was essential that the name of the party leader be included with the party name on the ballot paper, and we asked that that be done. The Minister has just said that he complied with the wishes of the parties who responded to the consultation document.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) led a deputation to the Minister, and he was astonished to see that the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was on the document, but that mine was not. The Minister said that there was no reason why the problem could not be resolved. However, when the Bill was published, we were amazed to see that the Minister had not done as he promised. He must be fair to all of the parties in this place.
I support the SDLP's argument: people will be looking for the initials "SDLP" on the ballot paper. The Minister knows that my party faces an enormous difficulty as another political party--the Ulster Democratic party, UDP--has adopted a name whose initials are as close to those of my party as they can get. Therefore, we must distinguish ourselves. There is also the Independent Democratic Unionist party--though the Lord only knows who they are.
The Minister has said that he will allow the SDLP's amendment. I have proof that we wrote to the Minister about the matter, and that we did everything he asked of us. He is now saying that he will make a concession to the SDLP, but not to us. He must be fair.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. The last thing I want to do is stifle debate, but the interventions are becoming increasingly lengthy--they are almost mini-speeches.
Mr. Ancram:
I accept that, in a letter written by the party secretary, the DUP made representations that party
Mr. Peter Robinson:
Read the letter.
Mr. Ancram:
I shall not begin reading out letters that I receive. The DUP accepted the designation of "Democratic Unionists--DUP". We have accepted that, like the other parties on the list, the initials of the SDLP should appear after the party name.
We decided that it would not be appropriate to include party leaders' names on lists of that sort. We took that decision not only for our own reasons, but because other parties made strong representations to us that they did not wish that to happen. We must try to draw the debate to a conclusion. I shall give way again to the hon. Member for North Antrim, as he has a right to be heard.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
My party did everything that was asked of it. As the Minister knows, we said that other party leaders could do whatever they like--their names do not have to appear. However, we believe that it is vital to distinguish the DUP in that way. We made that point clear to the Minister. Why did he say at the next meeting that it was not a problem? As the name of the hon. Member for North Down appears on the list, the Minister said that he did not see why my name should not appear also. It is an important point: the Minister cannot make fish of one and flesh of the other.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |