I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 13, leave out '108' and insert '90'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in page 1, line 13, leave out '108' and insert '54'.

No. 25, in page 1, leave out line 18 and insert—

'(5) Northern Ireland shall be divided into nine constituencies created by amalgamating two joining parliamentary constituencies and each of these nine constituencies shall return six members.'.

No. 4, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'six' and insert `five'.

The amendments bring to the attention of the Committee the number of Members that should comprise the assembly. The amendments fall into two groups and I hope that it will be understood that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 go together, as do Nos. 24 and 25. I hope, Mr. Lord, that you will permit two separate Divisions when we come to the end of the debate on the amendments. They set out alternative ways of creating what I think would be more reasonable numbers for the Northern Ireland assembly.

Amendment No. 3 would reduce to 90 the total number of Members, and the means of doing that is set out in amendment No. 4, which provides that instead of having six Members per parliamentary constituency we should have only five, which would give a total of 90.

Over many years—since the single transferable vote system of elections was introduced in Northern Ireland—five has been about the representation in every constituency. It is argued that if representation is less than five, we do not have a fair spread. If there is very much more than five, we end up with such a wide variety of representatives that folk with less than one seventh of the vote will be elected. The elected body could find itself at the mercy of a tiny minority of people who were elected late in the counts in the proportional STV system. Four or five have therefore been the preferred numbers for each constituency.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is able to catch your eye, Mr. Lord, he will detail the consequences of my analysis in the context of Scotland and Wales. It is obvious that representation in Northern Ireland is far higher per head of population than it is in Scotland or Wales. Given that Scotland has a full-blown legislative majority rule system, if it can handle that system with a relatively small number of Members, there is no good reason—the same goes for Wales—for having 108 Members in Northern Ireland.

I have grave concerns about having 90 Members. For an efficient and sensible assembly in Northern Ireland, 90 Members is far too many.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would reduce representation from 108 to 54. To achieve a fairer spread across the community, the amendments would tie each two adjoining parliamentary constituencies together, thereby creating nine electoral areas with six Members per area, giving a total of 54. I would be happy with only five per area, but others have said that there should be six. That would be closer to the number of Members who sat in the old Stormont parliamentary system. 1 think that 52 Members were elected to Stormont. They were able to operate in a perfectly satisfactory fashion, given the powers that they had, which were much more extensive than those that the new assembly will ever have.

No one has told us what sort of salaries and allowances will be paid to the proposed 108 Members. I see no good reason for expending moneys on 108 when we could have half that number being paid more than would be paid to 108, with better back-up and secretarial allowances so that they could operate properly within the Northern Ireland context.

I have set out the reasoning behind the two sets of amendments. If the Minister says that the Government will be happy with 90 Members, I shall be reasonably content. If the Minister says that 54 would be a much better number, I shall be very happy. I think that 54 Members would be reasonable representation. Wales, with a much larger electorate, has 60 Members. Scotland, with a vastly larger electorate, has 129. Why should Northern Ireland have so many Members? There is no good reason for it.

I have great pleasure in proposing the amendments. I express the sincere hope that the Government will accept reason on this issue, if on no other, so that we might arrive at a far more sensible and better arrangement for the government of Northern Ireland and for the operation of the elected body within it.

I fear that I must recommend that the Committee reject the amendments.

I understand what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is saying about Wales and Scotland—Wales with 60 Members and Scotland with 129 although they both have larger populations. The Government did not decide that there should be 108 Members. It was the agreement that resulted in that number. During the strand 1 negotiations and talks, which I had the privilege of chairing, and which continued for many months, numbers was a matter of considerable concern. Other parties in the talks wanted a different system of election altogether. Some wanted the additional member system while others wanted a list system. In the end, the talks came to the conclusion that the best system to use was the single transferable vote, because it had been tried and tested in Northern Ireland.

In addition, the participants in the talks believed that by having six instead of five Members there was an opportunity for greater inclusivity in the assembly when it was elected. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the leader of his party, with the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and other parties in the talks, were in agreement with that. For that reason, I fear that I must ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

I understand the Minister's point but I share the views of our friend the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) when he spoke earlier about federalism. I happen to believe in federalism and I have argued for it for a good many years.

This is one of the opportunities that we have as a Parliament to come to a decision. Surely one of the duties of Parliament is to vote supply, which involves the public purse.

I have listened to the arguments. I understand why people had to accept some provisions in the agreement, but something is out of kilter. If we go for 108 Members, there would be one for every 10,900 of the electorate. In Scotland, the ratio is one to 30,613 and in Wales it is one to 36,717. Until the English regions start to develop, England has, on average, one hon. Member for every 69,000 people. In the early days, we debated what would be necessary for committee responsibility and proper coverage throughout the Province, and it was decided that 90 would be sufficient.

I understand the reasoning for 54 Members. 1 was involved in many discussions over the years that resulted in our going for a unicameral system rather than for one with a Commons and a Senate. If my memory is correct, the old Northern Ireland Parliament had 52 Members in the Commons and 26 in the Senate. To deal with the changing political pattern it was decided to go for a membership of 90, but I am not convinced that broadening the scope will help good governance. It will certainly add pressure to public finances, so in future I do not want to hear any hon. Member complaining about subventions to Northern Ireland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the large figure of 108 Members is giving rise in local government in Northern Ireland to the feeling that meaningful powers may not be transferred to it?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. I picked up some vibrations from not being invited to the assembly or to engage in the forum talks, but, being the party's Chief Whip and representing its interests here. I remained in touch with what was going on. The Minister was correct when he said that discussions were taking place. To the best of my knowledge, most of the later discussions resulted in a compromise from 118 to 108 Members. There is some speculation about whether that is to keep people happy or whether a journalist is producing figures to entice other journalists to stand. Media reports suggest that each Member of the Assembly will receive a salary of £32,000 to £38,000. We have not had official figures. If those figures are correct, councils will think that the Government's commitment to giving powers to them will be set aside.

Before I call the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I should point out that it is not normal for one hon. Member to move two amendments that are entirely different. I propose to put the Question on amendment No. 3 and it will be up to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether he wants to press it to a vote.

It was remiss of me not to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to move the second group of amendments. 1 am greatly attracted to a provision for 54 Members because that would add to their status. My hon. Friend gave some figures. If there were 90 Members, each one would represent an average of just over 13,000 people. If there were 54, the average would be 21,814, which is still well below the averages for Scotland and Wales. Any rational, logical examination shows no good reason for that vast disparity.

If we applied the Scottish figures there would be 38 Members of the Assembly; application of the Welsh figures would result in 32 Members. Those figures are probably too low, but 50, 54 or 55 seem sensible and reasonable. The Government are not prepared to accept that, but I cannot accept the Minister's explanation. The law is not made by an elected body in Belfast. This country's law is supposed to be made in this Chamber, which is where it should be made.

I see no good reason to go well over the top with such a huge number of people. It is quite unrealistic, unless of course it is for some other reason. On Second Reading, I gave what I thought was the real reason; I said that the only possible reason for going down this road is to ensure the election of representatives of murder and terror organisations. That is unacceptable to any decent man or woman.

For me, the issue contains not only the question of reasonableness but the questions of principle, honour and decency for ordinary men and women. We should not bend the rules to get murderers or representatives of terrorism elected. It is clear that the threat is, "If you do not provide a system that will allow us to get elected, we will go back to the gun and the bullet and the things that we do best." If the Minister wants to live with the immorality, or perhaps the amorality, of the Government's proposals, on his head be it. I certainly cannot go along with them.

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 25, leave out 'local' and insert 'Parliamentary'.

This is a probing amendment. I am curious to know why the Government want to use the local rather than the parliamentary electoral roll for this purpose. I am sure that there is a good reason, but it is not immediately apparent to me. I assume that some people are on one register but not on the other. What is the precise reason for using the register of local electors rather than the electoral register used for parliamentary elections? Will the Minister elucidate that point?

The first reason is that the franchise reflects that which will be used for the Scottish Parliament. The second reason is that nine members of the House of Lords will be able to vote and we should not deny them that opportunity in Northern Ireland. The third reason is that it gives European Union citizens the right to vote in these elections. But the main reason is that it puts us on a level playing field with the Scottish Parliament.

I fully accept what my hon. Friend says, but he or the electoral officer needs to emphasise a note of caution throughout Northern Ireland. Some people on the electoral roll will have votes in a number of places, as indeed some hon. Members have: they have votes in Westminster and in their residential constituencies. We must avoid people—through not malice, but ignorance of the law—foolishly and wrongly exercising their vote on two occasions on the one day. That should be taken on board. Will that not be facilitated by this measure?

I take into account the point that my hon. Friend has made.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16.

No. 8, in page 2, leave out line 17.

No. 9, in page 2, line 17, at end insert

'which for the initial election shall be £500.00.'.

These are, to some extent, probing amendments. Amendment No. 9 tries to introduce a £500 deposit. The Government may wish to introduce a deposit level in regulations rather than in the Bill. If so, I would be perfectly content with that, but perhaps we could be told what sort of sum the Government are thinking about.

On amendment No. 22, the Bill states:

"(5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision about the election or any matter relating to it.

(6) In particular, an order may—

(a) provide for an alteration made after a specified date in a register of local electors to be disregarded;

(b) make provision about deposits",

which I have already covered. I am concerned about subsections (5) and (6)(a).

I want to know exactly what the Government are thinking of in writing subsection (5) into the Bill. I am sure that there must be some good reason for it. The Government seem to be taking fairly wide powers to themselves in this matter. They are talking about making provision about not only the election but

"any matter relating to it."

Is that the point at which the Government will examine identification of electors, given the absolute scandal of the election fraud which may have caused the loss of one seat to the Democratic Unionist party at the last general election? This is a serious issue.

If the Government are thinking of making some provision in regard to electoral fraud and to people voting more than once, which troubles the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the Minister should tell the Committee exactly what is being done to combat electoral fraud and to ensure that the electoral process is honest, because IRA-Sinn Fein are not in the slightest worried about complying with UK electoral law; they are out to break it in every way they can. That being so, we should be told whether the Government are thinking of other means of identification for both the assembly and the referendum.

We have not yet been told anything about how people will be identified in either of the electoral turnouts. We need to know, because the parties will want to have a clear idea of what they will be expected to do in the run-up to the assembly elections and, indeed, to the referendum. Therefore, as the Government are taking this very wide power to make provision about the election and

"any matter relating to it"—

it is not just some matters—perhaps we can be told exactly what is intended.

Subsection (6)(a) says that an order may

"provide for an alteration made after a specified date in a register of local electors to be disregarded".

There is a cut-off date whereby a name can be placed on the electoral register. I am one of those folk who have always taken a fairly black-and-white view of the electoral register. As the Minister and the Committee will know, the register is compiled using electors' place of residence on 15 September in Northern Ireland and 10 October in Great Britain. That extra month in Northern Ireland gives the parties, the chief electoral officer and his deputies an opportunity to investigate those claiming the right to cast their ballot in elections in Northern Ireland. I welcome that.

I would be happy if the date of 15 September applied to Great Britain as well as to Northern Ireland. A date of 10 October creates a huge problem on this side of the Irish sea, as students return to university and are registered both at home and at university. A 15 September date would probably mean that 90 per cent. of those students would be at home and registered at home. A whole series of problems would then disappear overnight. I have made that point a number of times to the Home Office, but so far—

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a continuous registration process for a number of years, which allows people to enter their names on the register after 15 September. I assume that that still applies. Does that materially affect the hon. Gentleman's argument?

That procedure merely helps those who have been left off the register, perhaps because they did not get the household form. Someone who moves from one district to another cannot be registered in the new district. People are always registered at the address they were at on 15 September. 1 have a nagging worry about the continuous registration process, but it is the law and I suppose that I can live with it.

The hon. Gentleman and his party will know from personal experience that not many people avail themselves of the process, because not that many people check the register to see whether they are registered. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they have been checking over the past fortnight. A number of my constituents have telephoned me to complain bitterly that they cannot get through to the chief electoral officer, who is handling the postal ballots rather than having them handled at local level. That is wrong. The people at local level are perfectly capable of handling applications for postal or proxy votes.

My constituents have tried to ring Belfast, but the place is snowed under. Indeed, it has been snowed under for days. There is no point in the chief electoral officer saying, "We have taken X number of phone calls." He does not know how many hundreds of other people have tried to get through, without success, because the lines have been jammed solid. It would have been a much easier process if it had been done at local level. However, that matter does not arise under the amendment; I am merely answering the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Even with the continuous registration system, people have to submit their applications at least two months before the date of an election. I cannot remember the exact time scale, but it is quite long. The number of people who are able to vote, who otherwise would not have been able to do so, is tiny as a proportion of the whole. Whenever an election is due, there is a huge rush of people who suddenly discover that they are not on the register, but they want to vote. They scream at the parties and at the electoral officer, but it is too late. Therefore, it is far easier to defend a date of 15 September. In Northern Ireland—as, I am sure, is the case in Great Britain—each year people have an opportunity to correct the register. It might make the parties and the electoral officer do something if there were obviously a number of empty houses from which cards had not been returned. That problem needs to be addressed.

I hope that we can be given a clear explanation of the reason for the inclusion of subsection (6)(a)and why the Secretary of State is being empowered to

"make provision about the election or any matter relating to it."

We also want to know the position on deposits. I have suggested a figure of £500, but some people may argue for £750 and others for £1,000. I am fairly easy about this, but I want to know the Government's thinking.

I shall deal with one issue touched on by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—the allocation and processing of proxy or postal votes by the chief electoral officer.

The chief electoral officer does not seem to have much faith in human nature. The problem with his approach is that it blocks not the people who are abusing the proxy or postal vote system but the genuine applicants. The hon. Member for East Londonderry outlined how one requests a postal vote from the chief electoral officer. The problem has existed for many years. The chief electoral officer is answerable to no one. Election after election, year after year, we have faced an absurd situation. The deputy electoral officers, who in my experience are men of great ability and integrity, have not been allowed to process this important part of the electoral system.

I concur with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. At one time, the deputy electoral officers handled such applications. Because they were closer to the ground, they did a much better job than is done now that the system is centralised. If the experience of the previous general election is anything to go by, centralisation has not been a startling success, to put it mildly.

I agree. It is a matter of common sense, a virtue which not everyone in the chief electoral officer's offices shares. I know that there is great concern about the issue in the various offices. Who knows the local areas better than the local deputy electoral officers? Who knows a scam when they see one better than they? Who can recognise a fiddle better than those operating in the relevant area?

I would welcome a modicum of common sense being instilled in the way in which the chief electoral officer deals not only with his staff but with the population at large and the political parties. We could end up spending thousands of pounds in an effort to get people to exercise their right to vote in the referendum and the election that will follow, while the chief electoral officer's nonsensical approach could in effect disfranchise people making genuine applications.

I shall conclude my remarks by relating an anecdote. Some years ago, when the postal votes were being vetted by the chief electoral officer, the late Harold McCusker, who then represented Upper Bann, and I heard that the officer had turned down an application from a 104-year-old woman on the ground that the application did not specify physical disability. We both knew the lady concerned—she would have been voting for Mr. McCusker, so the application was of no benefit to me. We argued that, irrespective of how the form had been filled in, she should get a postal vote. However, that old lady was not allowed to vote because of the nonsensical system.

I shall attempt to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Bill refers to the Secretary of State's power to provide for an election by order. That order will be introduced soon and will make provision for matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, including electoral fraud, a list of absent voters, payment to the returning officer, a candidate's right to send free mail, the secrecy of the ballot and deposits.

The specific provisions in subsection (6) are entirely standard and reflect practice in all electoral legislation. As the hon. Gentleman and others will know, in Northern Ireland an extensive exercise is carried out every year to establish the electoral register. It includes house-to-house canvassing and regular publicised hearings at various points throughout the year at which people who are not on the register can seek to be included on it. They are reasonable provisions and have been in force for some time. Of course when an election is called, a line has to be drawn. The chief electoral officer and his staff cannot be expected to deal with all the work surrounding an election and, at the same time, consider appeals from people who want to be included on the register at the last minute.

I take the points that the hon. Gentleman and others made about electoral fraud. It is particularly important for us to address it in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, the Select Committee and the committee of the forum have reported on it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider various proposals in those reports, some of which might be included in the order, depending on their practicality. In respect of deposits, if hon. Members wish to write to me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with their views on what the level of the deposit should be, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend takes their suggestions into account when she presents the order to the House later in the parliamentary year.

Although the Minister did not answer all the points that I raised, in the light of what he has said and as it is standard procedure, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'by' to end of line 23 and insert

'the appointment of a substitute chosen by the party to whom the previous occupant of that vacant seat belonged, or was elected as a representative of that party, and where the former representative was an independent the seat shall remain vacant until the following assembly elections.'.

No. 1, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'by-elections or'.

Before I advance my arguments for adopting the amendment, which I consider to be superior to what is in the Bill, I should like to make one point that is germane to our detailed examination of legislation. I voted with some reluctance for the guillotine, so I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to explain why the Bill will not be considered by the House of Lords until Monday or Tuesday week. I find that quite breathtaking and worrying. We were told that there is a degree of urgency in our consideration of the legislation in Committee, so we need a good explanation on why it is not moving expeditiously to another place.

Having scuppered my chances of a job in the next reshuffle—I hope—let me explain why the structure of clause 3 is so important. We need to address the way in which vacancies in the assembly are filled, as that matter needs to be handled delicately.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) gave us a good illustration which referred to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). Had the hon. Member for Foyle been elected President of the Irish Republic, as was contemplated at one time, he would have had to vacate his seat in the European Parliament. There would have been a by-election, but it would have been impossible for the SDLP to replace him. Clearly, he would have been replaced by someone of the Unionist persuasion. That problem is writ large if by-elections to the new assembly are held under the proposed electoral system. Whichever tradition commands a majority in a particular constituency would be bound to win, regardless of whether the vacant seat had been held by the Alliance, Sinn Fein, the SDLP, or the DUP. In all probability, the official Unionists would win the seat.

As there will be multi-Member constituencies, I believe that that would be undemocratic. It could also knock the fragile balance of committee seats in the assembly and the distribution of portfolios or number of seats on the Executive; that would be a source of great frustration.

After the assembly has been elected—I shall not take all hon. Members with me on this point—there will, unhappily, be a time of fragility in which it has to build up its procedures and form an Executive. As it prepares to move in that incubation period from being a shadow body to a fully functioning assembly, a by-election could be wholly disruptive.

9 pm

I invite hon. Members to consider a scenario in which the Executive has been set up and—as is in the nature of politics—there are bad times. There could be extreme and, I hope, extraordinary terrorist activity, or some natural disaster, for example. Some people would exploit the opportunity offered by a by-election to create difficulties.

I use as an analogy the Westminster general election of February 1974, which destabilised, and contributed to the demise of, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, which at that stage had had only a few months' life. If the election had not occurred, the Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly might have had a longer run, and the problems that arose—the Ulster workers' strike and so on—might have been avoided. Lord Merlyn-Rees and others who were involved, including the late Brian Faulkner, said that the election came at a bad time, and I believe that by-elections to the New Northern Ireland Assembly could give rise to similarly great problems.

Unlike the Bill, amendment No. 2 would make it clear that there was a presumption that, when a vacancy arose, it would be filled by a member of the political party that previously held the seat. That would help the Secretary of State by removing any ambiguity, so that those people who wanted the political opportunity to fight a by-election for their own selfish reasons would not have any grounds for complaint against her or any future Secretary of State.

The amendment is similar to one tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), in that it would cover cases in which independents, who might have no natural successor, lost their seat or their seat was declared void. It would then allow the Secretary of State—in the nature of things, this would be rare—to call a by-election or to hold the seat vacant.

I do not like the latter option, but, like the hon. Member for Belfast, South, I recognise that a vacancy could occur relating to a seat hitherto held by an independent and we must explore that possibility. The seat could also be held in abeyance until a Westminster general election or a Northern Ireland local government election, for example—those options should also be explored. However, the overwhelming majority of vacancies that will occur will relate to people who were elected on a party ticket—the provisions that deal with other circumstances are highly unlikely to be used.

In the past 24 hours, I have been referring to my library of Hansards—1 was also studying the Hansard reports of the 1973 Northern Ireland Assembly. They should be compulsory reading, as they buttress the argument—I say this in parenthesis—that Standing Orders should be handed down by the Secretary of State rather than formulated by the assembly. The former assembly wasted much time on that.

Tragically, on the eve of the first sitting of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a Unionist Member, Mr. McCarthy, was killed in a car crash and the by-election was never held because, as far as I can ascertain, it was such a short-lived assembly.

The seat, my own constituency of North Antrim, was filled; a DUP man won it.

Indeed.

I do not want to press the amendment to a vote. There could be subsequent reshuffles, and I do not want to scupper anything! In the gap between now and the matter being considered in another place, there should be some reflection on this question, on the matter of the Presiding Officer and on one or two other matters. I cannot see why it should not be possible, by agreement—there is agreement—for amendments to be made in another place that could go through on the nod when they come back to the House.

There is a mood in the Chamber for tidying up this measure. It would help the Secretary of State to have an improved Act on the statute book.

I have much sympathy with the amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister's view on it, but it could run contrary to the whole reason for the proportional system, which is to create a proportional representation within a constituency in an election, and 1 am strongly in favour of that. A by-election under proportional representation becomes a majority vote election, especially in the Northern Irish context, and the amendment would defeat that purpose.

The amendment also runs contrary to the d'Hondt system in relation to appointments within the assembly. Under that system, if a Minister dies, becomes President of Ireland or is no longer a Minister for some other reason, the post returns to his party. The amendment would create a contradiction with that element of inclusivity.

The proportionality according to which appointments are originally made, be they in cabinets or committees or in the assembly itself, could be changed by the by-election process envisaged in the amendment. To take an extreme example, if a party was on the borderline of having enough of a mandate to have one of its members appointed a Minister under the d'Hondt system, and a member of the party subsequently died or left, it might then have too few members for that ministerial post. Does the party lose its claim to the post because the element of proportionality has changed?

I know that that is an extreme case, that in normal practice it would not happen and that those who would push it to happen would be very churlish indeed. That points to the contradiction that exists. The problem as regards independence is obvious, but we have to remember that there is no such thing as independence in Northern Irish political life. Some people with strong opinions might label themselves as independents—during the forum elections one of the local newspapers carried a marvellous headline, calling on all independent candidates to unite so that they could present a united voice in the forum. I should have thought that it would have been much easier to join a political party and have done with it, but that points up the difficulties.

Like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) who moved the amendment, I do not think that it should be pressed to a vote, but I would be interested to find out what the Minister has to say and to hear the reaction to it. He knows that on 2 February the matter was discussed at length in the talks. In fairness, the minute tells us that the discussion was inconclusive.

With his experience as a member of the Senate of the Dail Eireann, can the hon. Gentleman assist us about the position there when there is a by-election, as happened recently in a seat in north Dublin and another in Limerick? The proportional representation system of single transferable vote is, I understand, the same. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what happened on those occasions and whether a similar system to that suggested in the Bill is applicable there?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well the answer to that question. In Dail Eireann there are by-elections. We are dealing with a different system. In Dail Eireann, members of the Government are appointed by the leader of the largest party, which forms the Government, so there is not the proportionality factor either in committees or ministerial positions and that is the essential difference. I take the point, as having a by-election looks more democratic, but, in essence, it runs counter to all the other arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that that is the essential difference. It is that in Dail Eireann, if the Government lose their majority they go to the country. Perhaps I am wrong, but, as I understand it, we are talking about a fixed-term body. That is the essential difference between the Dail and this House, and what is being proposed in the Bill.

Again, the Government need not necessarily go to the country. One of the most successful Governments in the Republic of Ireland—that led by Sean Lemass—was a minority Government from the day they began until the day they ended, and lasted for the full term. That does not answer the hon. Gentleman's question, however.

The issue was discussed in the talks process and, according to the minutes, was inconclusive, but there is a substantive case for the Government to reconsider the matter, measure it in accordance with the proportional representation system for election and with the d'Hondt system of appointment to committees and Cabinet positions. Having studied it, they might move, hopefully, towards the amendment.

I support the general thrust of the debate. We have considered the matter and recognise some of the issues. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) used the illustration of someone becoming President of Ireland, which, with proportionality, might result in a Sinn Fein candidate moving up. It could be the other way round and involve a Sinn Fein man becoming President of Ireland and an SDLP person going to the assembly.

The question to face is the principles and patterns that have been accepted for the assembly. It was in the light of proportionality that we tabled our amendment. We recognise that if we are to go down that road, there must be some consistency. It was said earlier that the Unionists would be most likely to win, which would be wonderful. The amendment shows that we are not seeking to hog any assembly. The reality is shown by a recent Omagh council by-election. The council swung because, following the death of a Unionist, a Sinn Fein councillor was elected. It could be said that that is democracy at work. In councils, the Dail Eireann or a Parliament such as this, it is possible to wheel and deal so that a party can retain its governmental role, assisted by others. However, in the assembly it is proportionality right through, and I believe that it is incumbent on the Government, especially in the week before the Bill goes to the other place, to think again and make some amendment.

The matter is important for another reason. The amendment would clear the position and leave no ambiguity. If it is left open for a vacancy to be filled by some method chosen by the Secretary of State, whoever that might be, there could be controversy about whether that person had acted judiciously or with bias. If the Bill is clear about how vacancies should be filled, there is no room for further argument.

Despite my respect and affection for my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I have some reservations about the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock offered no comparative evidence about where the system that he envisages operates. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh was asked about recent by-elections in the Republic, in Limerick and Dublin. As I said earlier, both were won by representatives of the Irish Labour party. I recall another by-election in Dublin where Mr. Joe Higgins almost pulled off a dramatic victory over the issue of water rates. What of the interests of the electors in such a system?

I readily acknowledge the need to take account of the special needs of Northern Ireland and the important question of proportionality. Nowhere are such considerations more evident than in the Knesset. The system there is a disaster, but it is still democratic. All I am saying is that electors in a constituency must have the right to voice their view at a by-election about the conduct of the previous Member, whether he is dead, in prison or whatever, and about the conduct of the party concerned. Labour has suffered some remarkable reverses in Scotland. My Scottish friends on the Government Front Bench will recall the Govan by-election, which we lost.

That is one.

There has been more than one; I am talking about our most recent defeat, when we lost to the SNP despite the massive majority Bruce Millan had enjoyed. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but we must give serious consideration to the interests of the electors.

My hon. Friend has challenged me to cite an example of such an arrangement. I am open to correction by my hon. Friend, but I have to remind him that we, in this place, in this parliamentary Session, have passed clauses in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill that mean that there will not be any by-elections. So he and I voted for precisely this formula. I assume that he voted for it—if not, he should not have a chance of a Cabinet job either. We all voted for it. That is something that we have taken on board in this parliamentary Session.

If I had done some research, I suppose that I could trot out half a dozen examples. The Australian Senate, which is elected, has a system—by convention admittedly—in which when a vacancy occurs the premier of the state from which the Senator comes nominates someone from the party that held the seat. Even if the premier is a member of the Country party, if the Senate seat was held by the Australian Labour party, he nominates an Australian Labour Senator, no doubt recommended by the leader of the party.

There are plenty of precedents, but the most important is that my hon. Friend and I voted for such arrangements—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making an intervention.

It was an interesting intervention. I do not know where to start replying to it, Mr. Lord. My hon. Friend offered to give me half a dozen examples in an intervention that could hardly be called brief. He gave the Australian Senate as an example. That convention developed over a number of years, as my hon. Friend will acknowledge. It was not introduced in 1901.

What about the European Parliamentary Elections Bill?

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am sorry for interrupting him from a sedentary position, but the most relevant point that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made was about the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. We would like the hon. Gentleman to deal with that example.

I cannot recall offhand, but I may well have voted for such a system in that Bill. A degree of inconsistency does no one any harm and I have never had any aspirations to higher office. I have answered three of my hon. Friend's questions from his less than brief intervention. He gives us the Australian Senate, where convention was developed over many years. The European Parliament is an entirely different assembly. It has no legislative powers. It cannot be compared sensibly with what we are discussing this evening, which is, a Northern Ireland assembly that may prove to have some characteristics in common with our Scottish Parliament. I would not want to see the type of measure that my hon. Friend advocates introduced into the Scottish Parliament.

My hon. Friend does not have to go outside Northern Ireland to find an example that supports the argument for replacement by party connotation. In local government in Northern Ireland, by agreement within the chamber, vacancies are not filled by proceeding to an election. People are co-opted by party designation. That happens in the vast majority of councils in Northern Ireland.

I do not regret getting up to speak, but I am losing friends by the minute here. I am not too happy with the local government example. I should like to see many more powers given to local government in Northern Ireland. I suspect that councillors might have a different view if they had the powers that local authorities in Scotland and elsewhere have.

To address the amendment directly, I have to say that, despite the remarkably fine characteristics of my democratic socialist Friend the Member for Thurrock, it does not address the concerns of the electorate during the lifetime of a Parliament. Despite the problems facing my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland on a daily basis—I am only an occasional visitor to the Six Counties—my view is that we must take account of the interests, aspirations and concerns of the electors. With sincere respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I do not think that his amendment addresses the problem, which is the democratic rights of the electors themselves.

The amendment deals with one of the Bill's many provisions that demonstrate the degree to which the assembly is to be the puppet of the Secretary of State. Throughout this short piece of legislation, it is abundantly clear that the Secretary of State has the assembly on a choke chain: if it moves in one direction, she hauls it back; if it moves in the other, she hauls it back; if it goes too far forward, she hauls it back; if it does not move fast enough, she kicks it forward. The Secretary of State can refer to the assembly even those matters that are outside the scope of the assembly's authority.

The Secretary of State has the power to make provision for the elections and she effectively has the power to decide who comes in on the foot of any vacancy. There is no provision in the Bill that suggests that the Secretary of State is required to do the same thing in one case as in another. In one case, she might find it politic to hold a by-election—perhaps in that way one of her supporters might get elected. In another case, it might be preferable to allow the vacancy to be filled by a member of the same party as the person who is deceased or has retired. In yet another case, she might find some other method—it is entirely up to her—of filling that vacancy. That is not remotely a democratic way of dealing with a vacancy, therefore, the amendment fails to address the problem.

Because of the electoral system, there are automatic difficulties and I can well understand the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). There is bound to be a feeling of injustice if a party manages to get the appropriate quota that allows it one seat out of six, but the person either dies or retires, a vacancy occurs and the party does not get its seat in that area, it is not represented and its voice is not heard.

I ought to intervene on the hon. Gentleman because I think that he has misunderstood the clause. Clause 3 refers to the Secretary of State, by order, laying down the method by which vacancies are to be filled. That would be a general order, which referred to the general principle of how vacancies are to be filled and not to individual vacancies as they occurred. His speech suggests that he is under the impression that the Secretary of State could pick and choose between methods—by-election on one occasion and substitution on another—but that is not the case. When I reply to this debate, I shall explain in more detail what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in mind on that issue, but I should say now that the clause refers to vacancies in general and to general principles, not to individual cases.

I quite understand that the provision is that the Secretary of State will make an order—but the Secretary of State could make another order. There is nothing in the Bill that suggests that the Secretary of State is not capable of making one order after another, or varying the conditions from one occasion to the next. If it were not so, why does she not put that up front right now? Let her put it on the face of the Bill. The obvious approach would be for her to tell us how a vacancy will be dealt with. I would far rather know right now what the method is to be, even if it was not the method I most preferred, because I would at least know that it would apply in all sets of circumstances.

I can understand the genuine concern that the proportionality in an area will no longer be intact after a vacancy occurs. In the Republic of Ireland, that is dealt with by recognising the fact that opinions can change in a constituency, and that, unless one allows a by-election, in effect one freezes one's electoral body. In this case, one would freeze not only the electoral body, but the form of government within that body. It could never change while the assembly existed. We should remember that the legislation has an indefinite lifespan: it could remain for ever and a day. With the Bill as it stands, Members of the Assembly will be elected without knowing how long their term of office will be; it is not stated.

I believe that it could cause many problems to freeze matters for all time in Northern Ireland by saying that any vacancy should be filled by a member of the party to which the ex-member belonged. Although I believe that the best way of dealing with the problem is by holding a by-election—inadequate though that may be—even if the Government did not go in that direction, I should much prefer that they stated in the Bill how we shall proceed if a vacancy arises.

We have had an interesting little debate on this issue. My hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 11 partly because this issue is not new in Northern Ireland; it has been around since the proportional representation-single transferable vote system was introduced for council elections and for the Northern Ireland body. In some cases, considerable changes in council strengths were made as a result of one or two deaths in a district electoral area, or even in adjoining ones.

The problem has not been resolved. Although Ministers may be unaware of the fact, it is not the first time that I have drawn attention to the problem of by-elections and the replacement of persons who have died or retired under the PR-STV system.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde—

Greenock and Inverclyde.

The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said that, without holding a by-election, one did not address the concerns of the electorate between elections. However, the difficulty is that, between elections, it would be a first-past-the-post election—or rather, on the exhaustive vote system—whereas the general election, to whatever body, is conducted under the single transferable vote system. For a by-election to be fair, the five or six remaining Members must stand down, and the election must be held for the whole constituency.

People do not take kindly to that, either, but that is the only fair way to find out what the electorate of the area think between general elections. We have to say, "Sorry guys; someone's killed, someone's resigned. The whole body of representation in the constituency is wiped out, so you have to have an election."

Let us be clear in our minds about another thing. One does not know when some poor soul in a sensitive area in Northern Ireland will become a target for a killer. Given the passions that have flowed round that place for years, I sometimes wonder how people—perhaps the only representative of the political view that they hold—have managed to survive. The constant danger is that, sooner or later, someone with gunmen will get round to looking at the politics. I strongly believe that we need to consider that issue with great care.

Whatever system is chosen, loose ends will be left untied. There is no perfect system anywhere. I am simply saying that I believe that, in principle, whatever the system, vacancies should be filled by way of by-elections.

In general terms, I have no problem with that philosophy. I am saying only that it should be "fair do's" all round—that we should compare like with like, in the by-election as in the general election.

I have a certain attachment to by-elections; had it not been for one, in rather unique circumstances, I should not be here. However, in the last forum election, in the constituency of Newry and Armagh, the Ulster Unionist party won one seat. That was a distortion, because the electoral system was a distorted one, but it was still under proportional representation. Let us assume that—as, thankfully, did not happen—that person had become the President of the Republic of Ireland, which would have been very unlikely. It would have meant that the constituency of Newry and Armagh had no Unionist representative. In the event of a by-election, we would win the seat and the Ulster Unionist party would be totally disfranchised in that constituency.

It would be more accurate to say that the Ulster Unionist electorate rather than the Ulster Unionist party would be disfranchised. The Minister will understand by now that there are concerns about this issue that are not tied to this assembly alone. I believe that our problems in this area go beyond the assembly to the entire range of bodies elected by proportional representation. For that reason, I hope that the Government will take on board the points raised in this discussion, and perhaps return on Report or in another place with proposals that might meet with more general approval. I do not deny the arguments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who raised concerns that are different from those represented by other hon. Members who have participated in the discussion.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) appeared to argue that the Secretary of State could, by a series of orders, select a variety of means of filling vacancies. I understood the Minister to say that an order would be made stating the general principle upon which each consecutive vacancy would be dealt with thereafter. Is there any reason why the present Bill should not contain words to the effect that the Secretary of State will make an order setting out the consistent principle upon which all vacancies will be filled? That would preserve the Secretary of State's right to fill the vacancy according to a principle that would apply to each and every vacancy. It would also permit the Bill to pass, leaving the detail of the particular method to be selected later, and it would lay to rest fears that there may be a degree of unjust variety in the modes of filling possible vacancies.

This has been a very interesting discussion. It stems from the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who referred to the fact that this is unfinished business so far as the talks were concerned. I chaired the meeting when we dealt with the matter. We did not reach a conclusion, and because of that and because it is a particularly important issue—I acknowledge that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has raised it before—it is a concern.

There are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. The traditional way of filling parliamentary vacancies in this country is through by-elections. However, in the light of the nature of the electoral system in Northern Ireland and the system that already operates for European parliamentary elections in the Republic of Ireland—it will be introduced in this country as well—we know that we must consider the method of alternates by substitute in order to preserve proportionality.

The Government wish to consult on the matter. The Secretary of State will, by order—it will be a statutory instrument resulting from the Bill—put before the House of Commons the general principles, to which the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred, of how we shall fill assembly vacancies. Those principles will be before us very soon. In the meantime, I urge hon. Members—as I urged them regarding the other matter—to write or talk to me or the Secretary of State about their concerns. Parliament will then have the opportunity to address the matter in the context of dealing with orders.

Does the Minister agree that to avoid all the confusion that might arise and to ensure that the balances and adequate distribution of positions are maintained, right from the beginning, the parties or the independents who are elected should make known the substitute to be appointed in the event of a vacancy arising?

There are complications, even in a system of alternates. An alternate at the beginning of a Session of a Parliament or an assembly might, in the course of the Session, not want to serve any more. What happens then? There are practical difficulties.

There are practical difficulties in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), with the reference to "party". That implies the definition of party. We would have to examine that further because of the complications surrounding those matters.

The debate has been a good one and all the points have been made. The debate that will accompany the order to be laid before the House will benefit from the arguments that we have heard this evening. I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments, as we shall deal with the matter in the not too distant future.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that that meets the mood of the Committee. We still stand a sporting chance.

I beg to move a manuscript amendment, No. 26, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—

With this, it will be convenient to discuss manuscript amendment No. 29, in schedule, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

I have often moved amendments, with little expectation that they would be accepted by the Government or supported by the House. On no occasion could I be more certain that an amendment would not succeed than on this one. The certainty comes from the fact, which seems to have been missed by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, that the agreement is a multi-party agreement, and a single party cannot change a multi-party agreement. That is the core of the agreement that has been reached.

The essential element of the agreement is that there is to be a buy-off of terrorists. The agreement was set up in order to buy the silence of the IRA's gunners. For that purpose, they were brought into the talks process, throwing aside the rules that were set up. The rules that decommissioning would be required disappeared. The rules that exclusively democratic and peaceful means must be adopted by the parties were tossed aside. The purpose was to engage the Provisional IRA in negotiations and to find out what price it would be willing to accept in return for the silence of its guns and bombs. No price that would entail the IRA being excluded from government would buy the silence of its guns and bombs.

The essential element of the assembly is membership for the Provisional IRA and other terrorist organisations at the very highest level, including Government. The Bill ensures places for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in the Government of Northern Ireland. Have hon. Members stopped for a moment to think how repulsive that is to the people of Northern Ireland?

I entered politics because a friend of mine was killed in a bomb explosion in the Northern Ireland Electricity headquarters. The person who was in charge of the Provisional IRA who sent the bombers out who killed my friend was Gerald Adams.

I am an alderman in the borough of Castlereagh, where a dozen people were butchered by the Provisional IRA. The man who sent out those responsible for the bombing was Gerald Adams. I could go through atrocity after atrocity in Northern Ireland while Gerald Adams was the commander of the Provisional IRA in Belfast. Now he climbs over the bodies of victims to get into the Government of Northern Ireland. He is supported, sadly, not only by the Government but by the Tory Opposition He is even supported by some Unionists.

9.45 pm

The people of Northern Ireland, who have suffered the terrorism of these past decades and who refused to give in, no matter what the IRA would do against them, now find that the Government and others are prepared to offer places in government to the Provisional IRA. Not only that, but the Government are prepared to open the gates of the prisons to allow murderers out on to the streets. Is not that a buy-off to the men of violence?

The amendment sets out clearly that there can be no place in government and in the assembly for those who do not accept exclusively peaceful and democratic means of change. The Provisional IRA has not called a permanent cessation of violence. It is still carrying out its punishment beatings, as they are called. It is still shooting and bombing. It is still killing in Northern Ireland. Although it may use the name of convenience of some other organisation, there is still the hand of the Provisional IRA and there is still its stockpile of weapons.

I challenge the Government. If there is not an agreement behind which there is a determination to buy off the Provisional IRA, let the Government accept the amendment. Show us that the Government do not want to give in to terrorists. Show us that only those who are exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means will get into the assembly and into government. If the Government fail to do that, it will be abundantly clear that they will have men of violence in the assembly and in government. Once they are in government, there is no provision that requires decommissioning to take place in order for those people to remain in government. They can hold on to their weapons and their Ministers can still be in government.

There is even no requirement that the organisation itself should stop its violence. It is the individual who has to be caught with the smoking gun in his hand before that person can be removed from government. If there was any whiff of democracy in this system, it would not allow those who are associated with terrorists to be involved in the government of Northern Ireland or in an assembly for Northern Ireland.

I ask the Committee to support an amendment, if the Government are not prepared to do so, that is common sense. President Clinton tells us that we should accept what he describes as a great step forward, which is the progress of the agreement. Will he open the prison to allow the Oklahoma bomber to get out? Will he find a place in his Administration for him? He would not even dream of it. However, he expects us to do it in the context of Northern Ireland. That is the nonsensical nature of the proposal. It is proposed that those who have carried out acts as atrocious and heinous as any in the whole of this creation should be given places in government as of right. I oppose the proposal and so, I hope, will the Committee.

The amendment contains nothing that is different from the Mitchell principles, to which the men of violence said that they adhered. If we are now saying that we cannot make the Mitchell principles stick as regards those who join the assembly, what are we going to do? Are we to have someone in the assembly, or standing for membership and then getting elected to it, who is not prepared to accept the Mitchell principles? The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), said that he wanted the provision strengthened. The amendment gives the Opposition an opportunity to put their feet in the Lobby. They say, "We agree with you and on another issue we shall vote with you." Now is the time to say, "You cannot get into the assembly unless you declare for the Mitchell principles and are abiding by them." That applies to people on both sides of the fence.

A wall on the road that I go down every day has the inscription, "Paisley wants you to give up your guns." That is how I am treated for telling loyalist people that they should give up their guns. I had to take part in talks with the representatives of people who had signed up to the Mitchell principles but were not abiding by them. The people of Northern Ireland want to know whether Parliament wants such men to continue to hold their guns and use them as a threat.

There will shortly be a band parade in Antrim town. Members of the Progressive Unionist party have gone to the band members and threatened them. They have been told that if they put their band on the road, they will never walk again. That threat has been issued by people who signed up to the Mitchell principles, and the only guilt of the band members is that they want to say no to the agreement. In a referendum, voters are entitled to say no. People may try to persuade them to say yes, and that is their business. If I want to persuade people to say no, that is my business. It is quite wrong to threaten people.

We have visits from members of the security forces that the Minister controls. They come to our houses and tell us, "There is a terrible threat on your life. You will have to mind yourself." Day after day, people in public office are being warned that they might be attacked. How can the people who make such threats be allowed to stand for the assembly and take part in it? There is an amendment about their taking office, but we must first deal with membership: that is all we ask. The Tory party should be honest about its policy.

I support the amendment. It is said that a week is a long time in politics. I think that paragraph 10—I speak from memory—of the Downing street declaration was the origin of much of the process that we are debating. It declared specifically that only those who had permanently eschewed violence as a means of obtaining political objectives should be permitted into dialogue with democratic parties and with the two Governments.

There was some debate about exactly what that meant, and the day after the Downing street declaration, the then Foreign Secretary of the Republic, Mr. Spring, said in Dail Eireann that it meant that there had to be a permanent cessation of violence and the giving up of arms. He specifically stated that Sinn Fein-IRA would not be permitted to enter the democratic process, look around to see what it had to offer, and then, if it did not meet their requirements, go back to what is described as doing what they do best.

Mr. John Bruton, then leader of the main opposition party Fine Gael and subsequently Taoiseach in what was described as the rainbow coalition, made a submission on behalf of his party in which he said that the effect of the Downing street declaration was that arms had to be given up now. "Now" is a very short word: it means immediately, at once, forthwith, without delay.

The British Government stated clearly that there had to be a permanent cessation of violence. Three months after the start of the first ceasefire of 31 August 1994, they assumed it to be permanent. The Irish Government were much more optimistic. Albert Reynolds, the then Taoiseach, said that there was no doubt that that ceasefire was permanent. Indeed, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) berated a television interviewer for having the temerity to suggest that "complete" was not synonymous with "permanent", and that violence could start up all over again after a complete ceasefire.

On 29 August 1995, after reports of a meeting in the west of Ireland attended by the hon. Member for Foyle and representatives of Sinn Fein and the Irish Government, during which it was proposed that there should be no requirement to hand over any amount of arms, the British Government responded by declaring that to admit Sinn Fein into democratic discourse would be undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Paragraph 34 of the Mitchell report produced in January 1996 stated that Sinn Fein and other paramilitaries were required merely to consider the decommissioning of arms in tandem with political progress. The Conservative Government resiled from every position that they had taken on decommissioning, and the present Administration rapidly followed suit. When the talks commenced, the air was alive with declarations and similes about twin tracks, parallel tracks and trains starting at the same time. There were references to decommissioning occurring at the same time as the political talks progressed.

When it was suggested in the House that Sinn Fein would be admitted to the talks, I pointed out that, once in the talks, it would say, "We are a political party with an electoral mandate. We are not Provisional IRA, we have no arms or weapons, and we have nothing to decommission." I argued that Sinn Fein would go from the beginning to the end of the negotiations and obtain the best agreement it could get, without a single ounce of Semtex or a single revolver or other weapon being handed over. One did not need to be a clairvoyant to make such a prophecy, and that is what happened.

During the negotiations, the real issue was pushed aside. The participants were fobbed off with proposals for highly expensive commissions staffed by expert people who, in due course, would do wonderful things about the administration of decommissioning. It was all a complete farce. The dogs in the street knew that there was not the slightest prospect of a single weapon or a single explosive ever being handed over until Sinn Fein's ultimate objectives were achieved.

What do we have under this agreement? It provides that Sinn Fein members can be elected under this proposed assembly, can hold Executive office on the basis of proportionality and can front a paramilitary grouping that has been responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 people. That is the reality.

10 pm

It is suggested that Sinn Fein has come in like a spy from the cold and embraced the principles of democracy, much as members of the Weimar Republic and General Schleicher thought in 1933 that they could persuade fascists to assume the mantle of democracy. That is exactly what is happening here.

That is a stupid argument.

There may be remarks that what I am saying is stupid from the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—

rose—

I am sorry. I do not respond to insult from a sedentary position.

That assumption is not made by me. Every Minister in the Conservative Government—from the then Prime Minister downwards—who had anything whatever to do with the alleged peace process that the Conservative Administration sponsored, have said repeatedly that the connection between Sinn Fein and the IRA is overwhelmingly strong and overwhelmingly positive. They have been described as two faces on the same coin, as two wings on the same bird. It has been established that almost everyone in a position of authority in Sinn Fein has served their terrorist apprenticeship within the ranks of Sinn Fein-IRA.

As someone who did not insult the hon. and learned Gentleman from a sedentary position, I am grateful to him for giving way. He is a democratically elected Member of the British Parliament and he makes his points on the Floor of the ancient House of Commons, which he has every right to do. I told him in a private conversation that I was disappointed with him. He is a formidable advocate and he makes his points clearly. Why did he not make all those points in the talks? Why did he absent himself from the talks and stand on the sidelines, instead of making the points that he makes now?

If the point were a good one, it would have been well made. I was in the talks for 14 months. During that period, I can say with modesty that I probably had the best attendance record of any party leader. I certainly attended every plenary session; I think that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), despite our differences, will bear me out.

I am not in a position to confirm in terms of statistics what the attendance record of anyone was, but I will confirm that, when the hon. and learned Gentleman was there, he did give his point of view at great length—at very great length—and with great ingenuity.

I thank the hon. Gentleman—

Order. Hon. Members should dwell not on attendance records, but on the amendment before us.

I take your point, Mr. Martin. I was responding to an intervention from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who suggested that I had not played any part in the talks.

rose—

No, I want to continue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Let us hear the hon. Gentleman, then.

As I said on Monday, the history of Ulster is selective, and people remember history selectively. I seem to recall that the last person that the hon. and learned Gentleman described as a fascist was the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Order. No hon. Member would describe another hon. Member as a fascist. I am determined that we will get back to the amendment. It would be nice to hear about the amendment.

The agreement would permit those who have been directly involved in violence—who are still associated with paramilitary organisations that have retained their weaponry, which have never accepted the principle of consent and which have not endorsed the agreement—to be in power, in the Executive, on the basis of an electoral mandate.

If we all feel that Sinn Fein elected Members are worthy participants in the democratic process, would it be wrong to suggest that they be disqualified if they are attached to or represent a proscribed organisation that is listed in schedule 2 to the emergency provisions Act? Does that seem unreasonable to any democrat? Should we not expect those people to declare that they are honouring a permanent and total cessation of violence? After all, that is what is required by paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration. Are we going back on that declaration? Should they not surrender their illegal weaponry? That is another requirement of the Downing street declaration. Should they not make an unequivocal declaration of their acceptance of the six principles contained in the Mitchell report, to establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful means and to abide by the democratic process?

Could anyone in this House honestly say that a real democrat, who has eschewed violence and is not associated with or representing a paramilitary grouping with retained weaponry, would be averse to this amendment? That is what the debate is about. If hon. Members believe in democracy, if they believe that violence should not be rewarded, I urge them to support the amendment.

I shall be brief, not because there is not much to be said about the amendment—there is—but because most of it has already been said. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who tabled it and those who have spoken in favour of it. It may come as a surprise to them that many of the rest of us feel the same way. Many of us are not happy with the situation.

When I look at some of the people in the talks process and realise what they have done, I find it difficult to maintain my equilibrium. However, politics is not about rectitude; solving problems is not about rectitude—it is about finding a way to tackle something that has lasted for almost 30 years, with almost 4,000 lives lost and many lives ruined.

The reality is that this House tried to tackle the situation in many ways. It tried internment without trial, which failed abysmally. It tried to tackle it with the heaviest saturation of Army and police personnel anywhere in the civilised world. That, too, failed. It tried using the prisons, but the hunger strikes are engraved in the memory of everyone in my community. That did not work, either.

It is not a matter of rectitude and how one feels, but of how we can silence the guns and turn rampant terrorism in another direction. The proposals may succeed, and the poachers may become gamekeepers—it has happened elsewhere in the world and in this jurisdiction throughout history, and it is nothing new that it should. Let us put it to the test.

The amendments are aimed not at my party or at the Government but at the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the leadership of the main Opposition party. They should not be unnerved. Yes, everyone shares the feelings that have been expressed. Yes, people realise the difficulty that many on the Unionist Benches and our Benches would have—the feelings of revulsion and dislike. But what is more important—our own feelings, and a confirmation of our political views, or the well-being of the vast majority of the people living in the north of Ireland?

What we have to consider is not our personal likes or dislikes but how best we can deal with the violence and ensure that, if it is not eliminated, it is at least greatly reduced. It is not a terribly idealistic but a reasonable political assessment that those who have responsibility should try to save lives and create a new future.

We shall all have to bite our lips, and none more so than the members of our party. When we see some of the television interviews, listen to the pontification and recognise the sham, we shall have to bite our lips, because it is more important that we create a context in which violence might end for ever.

It appeared that the hon. Gentleman was belittling rectitude—wrongly. Surely the rectitude that unites him and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is that which led them to eschew violence at a time when people were killing each other.

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he accept that the difficulty for those who eschewed violence, despite the provocation of those who were perpetrating it, is that the inclusiveness of the proposals that will be put before the House, although not properly in the Bill, will require the inclusion of men who have so far not shown their full credentials in giving up violence? That is the fear which animates the amendments.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I am not sure how to reply, as I come from that stock. I come from a tradition and a family who had to bury guns. I do not know where they buried them. In Ireland, that tradition goes back a very long time. This year we are celebrating the bicentenary of 1798. The real history of the past 25 years will resemble that of 1798. It will become distorted and almost patched up.

People from our tradition know in their hearts that the IRA will never surrender its illegal weapons. The amendment has more to do with politics across the Floor of the House than with solving the problems of decommissioning, but I do not question the motives or the rectitude of those who support it.

Let me refer to the last speech in the House on the issue by Sir Patrick Mayhew, now Lord Mayhew. I cannot quote the exact column or date, but it is ingrained in my memory. He said that decommissioning will take place on a voluntary basis or not at all. That is the reality.

I want every possible pressure to be put on those who hold arms to make sure that decommissioning takes place. I want both Governments to use all their skill to achieve that. I do not expect them to send letters to my party or any other party, because I know that they can work in different ways, but I expect both Governments to weigh up the safety and the greater good of people living in the north of Ireland and the prospect for the future in terms of the creation of lasting peace—although that is a long way off. That is what we expect, and I believe that it will be achieved by the agreement.

It would be absolutely wrong to have another Washington 3, as it took two years for the then Government to move away from it. When an absolute decision is taken, it becomes difficult. It would be dangerous tactically and politically for a Government, a main Opposition party or any other party to be pushed into a position in which preconditions are created post-agreement. If it happened, it is easy to guess who would gain.

If the agreement is adopted, Sinn Fein will get its mandate in the election. Its representatives will arrive at the gates of whatever building it will be—hon. Members know where I do not want it to be, although the Minister certainly does—with the cameras of the world upon them. [Interruption.] I note that other people recently had trouble getting in. If Sinn Fein representatives arrive with a mandate and with the cameras of the world upon them and are not allowed to take their seats, who will win?

If Sinn Fein gets in with sufficient numbers under the system agreed by all the parties, in the House and in the talks, but is not allowed to take its places in the Administration, who will win? What will happen every day on the floor of the assembly? What will happen to public perception? There is an old saying about people outside the tent, which I shall not repeat in this august company.

I want those who hijacked and debased the republicanism that I hold—who put it in the gutter through violence—to be tested on the only anvil that will test them: their participation in the normal democratic process. I want them tested not only on the television and in the media, but where it counts—at every level in government, in the assembly and in committees. When they are tested there, decommissioning will begin in a way that could never be achieved through the amendment.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He states, by implication, that he believes that the Prime Minister's letter of assurance to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has no value, and that, once Sinn Fein is admitted, it will never be expelled for failing to commence and carry through a process of decommissioning.

I did not receive a letter from the Prime Minister, and, to be honest, I am not greatly impressed by letters from Prime Ministers—not that I have much experience of them. Moreover, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) does not show me the letters that he receives from Prime Ministers.

Like Sir Patrick Mayhew, I believe that decommissioning will happen, and that it will happen voluntarily or not at all. It will happen not through exclusion, but through inclusion. It will come about as a result of the political process at every level working on those involved and on the entire community.

We must face the fact that the community we represent is unique—it has suffered very deeply. It will arrive at a point at which it will not tolerate the holding of arms, not through exclusivity or because people are made into martyrs, but through the proper working of the political process.

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not seen the letter that was sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Would he mind if I read it to him, so that he could give his view? It said:

"Dear David"—

Order. I would certainly object to the hon. Gentleman reading the letter.

I shall consult the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) after the debate, and read the letter then. I shall not be surprised if I do not totally understand it, but I shall be surprised if the hon. Gentleman does. I shall be very surprised if the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who might understand it, can explain it to those who do not, because I can imagine the way in which it is drafted. I do not say that in a pejorative sense.

I say about the agreement in its totality: let us tell it as it is, not put a spin on it and sell it as a great Unionist or nationalist victory, because it is no such thing. Let us not sell it as a means of getting decommissioning before the assembly is set up, because that will not happen.

There is something wider, deeper and more fundamental at stake: something that takes us right down into the next century. Anyone with a feel for Irish history—Unionist or nationalist—knows that the terms of the amendment would never solve the problem. I ask hon. Members to repeat to the Government and to the Opposition: do not be conned or forced into another Washington 3, because that could undo all the work that has been done, without getting anywhere near solving the problem of decommissioning.

Is the hon. Gentleman confirming by his observations that all the references to decommissioning and the Mitchell principles, which gave hope to all the wishful thinkers who are being induced to support the agreement, were a con to bring us to this stage, and that there was never really any intention to insist on decommissioning?

I cannot speak for Senator Mitchell or for the people in the international commission. I give my own view, which is that decommissioning will not be achieved through an approach such as that embodied in the amendment. I believe that it will happen when there are certain convergences of different factors.

I am talking not about a united Ireland, but about a time long before that happens. I hope that I am right in prejudging that it will happen. The convergence of certain factors and sets of circumstances can lead to decommissioning, but any other approach will prevent it. Not only will the argument be lost; the gains that could come out of the agreement will be lost with it.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) uncharacteristically and, I trust, inadvertently, slightly misled the House. I want to put the record straight and to reconfirm what the Prime Minister said at Question Time and what I said on Second Reading.

We have asked the Minister to consider the fact that when the major constitutional Bill to set up the assembly—as opposed to the current Bill, which provides for the shadow assembly and the elections—comes before the House, we will want a clause that says that no Members of the Assembly can be appointed Ministers if the paramilitaries that they are associated with have not substantially decommissioned or have resorted to violence in any shape or form.

That is very different from what is in the amendment. I want to put the record absolutely straight so there is no possible misunderstanding.

I support the amendment. As far as I can detect from what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, he agrees with the amendment in principle—indeed, he might agree with it in substance—but, because he feels that it would not be carried out in practice, he will not support it. If one believes something in principle, one should carry it out. If the SDLP uses that type of reasoning and argument, it will find that another party will swallow it up because it will tell the electorate that it is the party that gets results. Members of the SDLP should be careful in going down that road.

10.30 pm

I, too, am sceptical about whether the Government will accept the amendment. They may talk piously of giving up arms, decommissioning and all the rest, but, as far as I can discover, they cannot accept the amendment because it would mean that Sinn Fein would not get into the assembly and that is the deal that has been made to get Sinn Fein in. All the high-falutin principle and the rest about decommissioning and using peaceful means is merely rhetoric and means nothing.

Surely we have learnt that of the six Mitchell principles, which were followed more in the breach than in their observance. Even while those who had accepted the principles were in the talks, the organisations that they were associated with were carrying out beatings and murders. Only when they were caught were the representatives excluded. The idea that the Mitchell principles—even though they had been signed up to—were in any way effective is nonsense.

The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who spoke for the Opposition, does not, as far as I can see, yet understand the nature of the new assembly. While the Bill deals with the assembly in its first stage, the conditions and rules will also apply when it becomes active. The idea that we will have a new constitutional Bill that will change everything that we have here is not real. It will not then be possible to table and make amendments on decommissioning, so this amendment is right and proper.

Surely those who enter the democratic system must eschew violence. They must forget about it, give it up and agree to abide only by democratic means. If they are not prepared to agree to that obligation, they should not be allowed to enter the assembly. I support the amendment.

The amendment is entirely consistent with the position that the Conservative Government adopted. The Downing street declaration, which launched the process, was an urge for inclusive dialogue, but it was conditional on two points: first, the acceptance of the principle of consent and, secondly, an unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful means—the renunciation of violence. Over the past five years, that position was somewhat re-presented through the Mitchell paper and the Mitchell principles but the Conservative Government remained committed to decommissioning in parallel with the dialogue. That has not materialised. The position that we defended in government is consistent with the amendment. The Bill could allow participation in the assembly at executive level of people who have not unequivocally rejected violence.

This has been an interesting debate. No hon. Member supports violence or disagrees that the Mitchell principles, which lay at the base of the talks that have taken place during the past two years, are the proper foundation for a democratic society in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, but there has been little reference, except by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), to why we are here this evening. We are here because of the agreement.

The Bill is based on an agreement. The agreement was made on Good Friday, but it had been in preparation for many months—indeed, years. Of course it is important that decommissioning is an indispensable part of the process. It would be a travesty if there were a return to violence and those responsible for it were Ministers in an administration. Everyone accepts that, but how do we ensure that those matters are addressed by the assembly? Today, we are dealing with the assembly, how it will discipline itself, and how its Ministers, if they went back to violence, would be dealt with.

Page 10 of the agreement deals with the pledge of office. For example, Ministers would have to pledge their

"commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".

Page 7 states:

"An individual may be removed from office following a decision of the Assembly taken on a cross-community basis, if (s)he loses the confidence of the Assembly".

Does the Minister agree that there is nothing in the agreement that refers to parties? It refers only to individual Ministers. The undertakings and pledges are personal. As the hon. Member for Derry said—[Laughter.] As Gilbert and Sullivan said, it is innocent merriment. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, nothing in the agreement requires anything other than an individual to give the pledge or be removed. Unless a Minister has been apprehended, or involved in some act of violence, or has personally commissioned or authorised some act of violence, he cannot be removed. The Minister agreed that the talks would be parallel with decommissioning and that when agreement was achieved there would be some practical demonstration of the commencement of decommissioning. That has not occurred.

Yes, and my experience of politicians in Northern Ireland tells me that when the assembly is set up and when the code of conduct is debated during the months of preparation for when the assembly takes over the functions of the Northern Ireland Departments, there will be much debate in that chamber about the nature of the pledge of office, the code of conduct that Ministers must sign, and the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. For that matter, during the past few months—once here in London and once in Dublin—individuals and parties were expelled from the talks on the basis of what occurred.

I repeat that the agreement that was reached by the Governments and the parties in the talks refers to the issues that have been raised in the debate today. Of course it does; they are important matters. If the assembly is to mean anything, it must have control over how it conducts itself when it takes over the full functions that it is entitled to take over under the agreement and under the major constitutional Bill that we shall consider later this spring and in the summer.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went into some detail this afternoon in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition. For example, he has said that if during the first six months of the shadow assembly or the assembly the provisions have been shown to be ineffective, the Government will support changes to those provisions to enable them to be made properly effective. I am happy to repeat that commitment tonight.

It seems to me that that is more than straightforward and satisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we will support such changes, but, at the end of the day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said, the establishment of trust and confidence among parties in the assembly after the election is the only way in which peace will come to Northern Ireland and political stability can be achieved. There is no other way, and we have to ensure that it is within the assembly that the changes occur. However, we will watch it with great interest as the weeks go by.

The Minister has just repeated yet again the very careful language in the letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), which says that the Government will support changes to the provisions. Supporting changes is not making changes to the provisions. The support will not be effective because all the other parties involved in the agreement will have to go along with the change, and they will not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was talking about reshuffles earlier. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to disagree with the Prime Minister this evening. The issue is pretty clear. With your permission, Mr. Martin, I shall read the hon. Gentleman a passage from the agreement. The assembly that we are setting up tonight in shadow form and the later assembly that will be established in the major Bill later

"will meet first for the purpose of organisation, without legislative or executive powers, to resolve its standing orders … In this transitional period, those members of the Assembly serving as shadow Ministers shall affirm their commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and the opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose; to work in good faith to bring the new arrangements into being; and to observe the spirit of the Pledge of Office applying to appointed Ministers."

That applies to shadow Ministers and Ministers when they take office. It cannot be clearer than that.

Why will the Government not say that they will make rather than support changes? Does that not confirm our view that in this agreement the British Government have conceded to a large extent their absolute sovereignty over that part of the United Kingdom?

In the agreement that has been forged and the debate this evening, it is not a question of the British, Irish or any other Government imposing anything on the people of Northern Ireland. The purpose of the agreement is in the nature of the word—it is an agreement made between Governments and parties. That is why we are discussing these matters. Obviously, we have a concern, because we are the Government in Northern Ireland, but the whole purpose of tonight is to ensure that the government of Northern Ireland is in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. I have confidence that they will be able to manage the process.

This has been a useful debate. It has been illuminating in many ways. The Minister has shot himself in the foot—indeed, with his most recent remarks, he has shot himself in the kneecap.

The Minister made two vital errors. The first was to say that the expulsion of the UDP and Sinn Fein from the talks process compares with what would happen under the agreement. The forum legislationx2014;the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996—makes it abundantly clear that it is the parties that have to keep the Mitchell principles and that if they do not do that, the members of the party are to be put out. That provision tied the behaviour of the organisation itself and those with whom it associated, but on this occasion the parties and their organisations are not included; only the individual is tied. That is the smoking-gun scenario: a Minister must be caught with a smoking gun in his hand to be put out of the Government or out of the assembly. The condition applies not to the party but only to the individual. There is no requirement to decommission; nor is there a requirement for the party to be in ceasefire mode. That is the reality and it was the Minister's first error.

10.45 pm

The second error was to say that this is an agreement and therefore that it is not up to the Minister to give the assurances that have been asked for. That is precisely our point: there are little pieces of paper floating around with the Prime Minister's signature on them, but although the Prime Minister is a mighty man in the House of Commons, he is only one party to a multi-party agreement and is therefore not capable of changing the agreement unilaterally—he simply cannot do it. Even if there were some meaning to the piece of paper—there is not—it can be read in at least three ways. Even if there were some meaning to it, it simply would not affect the agreement.

As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, he never got a copy of the letter, so he is not bound by it; nor are any of the other parties, because they have not even seen it. They did not need to see it, because it does not affect the agreement that was reached. On 22 May, people will not be asked to say yes to the agreement plus a couple of letters from the Prime Minister and an assurance from the Minister who is on the Front Bench tonight. They are being asked to say yes or no to this agreement alone. Those are the two vital issues with which Minister has helped us this evening.

I cannot understand the position of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). He says that the Conservative position differs greatly from that expressed in the amendments. I do not know whether he has read amendment No. 29, which seems to me to be identical to the Conservatives' position. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who obviously has read amendment No. 29, recognises that it is precisely what the hon. Member for Bracknell was asking for earlier: conditions have to apply before anybody from the assembly will be entitled to be in government.

I would not for one minute question the desire of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for full decommissioning—he has said nothing that is inconsistent with that desire—but I hope that he notices the counsel of despair that has brought him to the position he takes. He says that the Government have tried security measures, that they have tried punishment, that they have tried this and that they have tried that and that, because none has worked, we have to try another way, which is to reward terrorists. Because we have been unable to deal with terrorism using security measures or by imprisoning terrorists, we must allow them entry into government and open the prisons—all those rewards must be given to buy them over.

If there were any sense in that proposal, it could only be on the basis that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said—that there had been a sea change in attitude on the terrorists' part; that they had been prepared to renounce violence permanently; that they had been prepared to commit themselves exclusively to peaceful and democratic means; and that they had been prepared to make a new start. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman might have at least an academic argument, but the terrorists have done none of those things.

Let us consider what has happened on decommissioning. The Conservative Government said that for the IRA to be involved in talks it must decommission. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, that requirement was watered down at Washington 3. It was then said that the IRA had to make a start on decommissioning to show that it was on board—that it was serious about the proposal.

That requirement was wiped away. An international commission was set up. It said, "Some people want decommissioning at the start, but it will not happen. Others want it at the end. The only reasonable balance is to have some decommissioning during the talks process." On that basis, the Ulster Unionist party was prepared to sit down at the negotiating table.

It did not happen. Not one gun, not one ounce of Semtex, not one bullet, and not one detonator was decommissioned throughout the process, although it had been set up on the strict understanding that parallel decommissioning would take place—the international commission had set that condition—and now the IRA will get into government without decommissioning. We are told that voluntary decommissioning may take place, but there is no requirement for it to take place. Members of the IRA walk through a talks process without handing over any guns; they walk into Government without handing over any guns; and there is no requirement for decommissioning to occur.

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. A major part of the Mitchell principles, which were launched with a fanfare of trumpets, was decommissioning. Why, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, has decommissioning been placed on the back burner when constructive talks leading to meaningful progress can be implemented and carried forward successfully only if terrorists of all political persuasions do not continue to be in possession of huge quantities of explosive, bullets and weapons? My question is, why have Her Majesty's Opposition and the Government not insisted on decommissioning?

Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.

I believe that the answer is simple. Decommissioning has been put on the back burner because the Government and the Opposition know that the terrorists will not give up their guns. Why do terrorists not give up their guns? Because they want to leave open the option that, if things do not go precisely as they have choreographed them, they will use those guns again.

There is a second reason why guns remain in terrorists' possession. The threat that brought the Government to their knees and caused them to sign this sordid agreement still hangs above their head. Those are the reasons that the terrorists hold on to their guns. That is why the Government were faced with that adamant refusal to hand them over and caved in to the terrorists.

It is a sad reality that the Government have been prepared to allow Sinn Fein through the process without making one concession.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he answer this single question? What does he believe is more important: that the paramilitary groups decommission their weapons or that peace as we know it now continues? What is more important to him?

I do not believe that there will ever be peace while the terrorists hold on to their weapons. That is not an option. The terrorists are holding on to their weapons and are using them even now. When they do not want to be seen to be using them, they give them to someone else who pulls the trigger for them. That is the reality of the situation.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh should not ask people to choose between two evils. [Interruption.] I think that holding on to guns is pretty evil—perhaps some of you do not think so. When you are prepared to put terrorists in the Government of Northern Ireland and when you are prepared to open prisons and you think that it is peace—

Order. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) knows the rules of the House: he should not use the word you.

I apologise, Mr. Martin. I do not wish to associate you with any of the suggestions that I am making to Labour Members. They describe what they have bought into as a peace process, but they will not get peace—it does not come by way of a peace process. No peace will result from this agreement. The IRA is pocketing the concessions and, as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness made clear at the weekend, this phase is over and a new phase begins. The IRA's goal is the same: it does not intend to change its methods. It will return to doing what Francie Molloy described as what it does best—and we all know exactly what that happens to be.

I see no peace in this peace process. I see plenty of process, and I know where that leads: to a united Ireland.

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 35 and 36.

The amendment would simply remove the two lines of clause 4(3)(b) which state:

"that he is a member of the Seanad Eireann (Senate of the Republic of Ireland)."

Any person who sits in a legislature owes it a duty of service and loyalty, and I do not know how one can sit in the legislatures of two different nations, both of which claim the same piece of territory, and say that one owes loyalty to both. Therefore, the amendment is perfectly sensible and reasonable.

Perhaps the Government's policy is to cede authority over parts of the United Kingdom. If so, the Bill as printed is perfectly in keeping with that view. It is not my view, and I hope that the Government will show that they are serving Her Majesty properly by protecting the realm and all parts of it. I do not think that any anyone in this Parliament or in the New Northern Ireland Assembly, presumably with loyalty to the existence of Northern Ireland, can sit in another legislature that claims to remove part of the United Kingdom from the United Kingdom. We cannot serve two masters: we must serve one or the other. I have great pleasure in recommending the amendment.

As I said earlier, I have more than a passing interest in the change of legislation. In 1982, I was a member of Seanad Eireann and, for my sins, I was disqualified from the then Northern Ireland Assembly and had to pay substantial costs. It was the only time to date that I found myself in the dock. I admit that I took some pleasure from it, because one of the matters—