HL Deb 12 July 1991 vol 530 cc1654-61

3.1 p.m.

Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two sets of regulations and the draft order relate to three categories of election in Northern Ireland: parliamentary, European and local. The three instruments have elements in common, and I believe it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if they are taken together. The Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Variation of Specified Documents and Amendment) Regulations relate to conduct of parliamentary and, in one very small respect, to local elections in the Province. Regulations 4 and 8 introduce a new "specified document" to parliamentary elections. Specified documents were introduced by the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985. Any elector who goes to a polling station in Northern Ireland to cast his vote must produce one of a range of personal documents before the polling clerk can give him or her a ballot paper. The aim of that change was to reduce the risk of personation of electors, and the Government believe that it has had a significant impact.

Nevertheless, the Government are concerned to ensure that the requirement does not deprive any elector of the legitimate right to vote, and keep the list under review. The original list of specified documents consisted of a full driving licence, a passport, pension and benefit books, and so forth. We propose to add the plastic National Insurance number card—a relatively new version of the old manilla card—which has been issued routinely to young people entering the labour market since the mid-1980s. It is not thought to be susceptible to forgery. Adding it to the list will give young voters a wider choice of documents, and will, we hope, encourage them to vote.

Regulations 5 and 6 also make a minor, and somewhat technical, change concerning the availability to candidates at local elections of computerised data and address labels derived from the electoral register. They lay down that those candidates are entitled to data and labels for the district electoral area in which they are standing. Their entitlement was somewhat ambiguous before.

Regulation 7 results from a change made to the law on absent voting by the Representation of the People Act, 1990. The 1990 Act, which has not yet been applied to Northern Ireland, provides that people who move house there from one electoral ward to another need make just one application to get an absent vote for all elections until they appear on the electoral register at their new address. The same problem in Great Britain has been addressed by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1991, approved by your Lordships' House on 10 May. The application of this sensible reform to Northern Ireland has been delayed only by the need for consultation on whether applications in Northern Ireland should be attested by a third person. In the light of the consultations, we decided that on balance attestation should not be introduced. But if we see evidence that measures against abuse are necessary we will consider amending these regulations. On these two matters of postal voting, we are now bringing Northern Ireland entirely into line with Great Britain.

The European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulation, 1991 the second set of regulations, concerns the application to European elections in Northern Ireland of the specified documents and absent voting provisions which I have just described.

Finally, the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order, 1991, the third of the documents covers much the same ground in respect of local elections. Article 4 amends the local election rules to take account of the new specified document and to bring the rules in respect of some of the other specified documents into line with those which apply at other elections. Articles 5 and 6 concern absent voting.

Articles 2 and 3 concern a quite different topic, the expenses of candidates at local elections. The maximum limits of expenses for candidates at local elections in England, Wales and Scotland were increased from 9th April this year by the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates Expenses) Order 1991. Article 3 of this order replicates that increase for Northern Ireland. The increase proposed is around 14 per cent., which is about the increase in the retail prices index since 1989, when the limits were last set. Article 2 revokes the 1989 order by which that was done.

I beg to move the first of the three measures to which I have spoken.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)

3.7 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, we welcome the three orders before the House because we are anxious to encourage electors to vote. I am particularly pleased to hear from the Minister that a form of attestation will not be required where an application is made for an absent vote for an indefinite period. That could be a troublesome point so we are pleased that attestation will not be necessary.

We are also glad to note that three additional documents can be produced by an elector at a polling station in order to obtain a ballot paper. Can the Minister confirm whether the plastic card issued by the DSS is available to every elector? Also, is it available free of charge?

Perhaps he can tell the House whether impersonation is still a serious problem in the Province. I ask that because there is no specific reference to the offence in the table of notifiable offences attached to the 1990 report of the chief constable, unless I have missed it.

I have one question to ask the Minister about the first order, the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1991. I was and still am in difficulty with Article 5. I wonder whether there is a technical flaw in the drafting. Article 5 purports to insert an amendment to paragraph (a) of subparagraph (2) of paragraph I of the schedule. I read paragraph 1 not just once but twice and I was unable to find paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (2). It appeared to me that perhaps the amendment should be inserted after paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of the main paragraph 2. I do not wish to confuse the House; the Minister may well say that I have got it wrong.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, we on these Benches support these orders as we believe they represent a useful closing of loopholes. I hope, however, I may detain your Lordships for a few moments by extending the discussion to the matter of representation generally in Northern Ireland. It is noteworthy that both European and local elections in Northern Ireland are conducted by means of proportional representation whereas that is not the case in Northern Ireland as regards Westminster elections. Proportional representation is considered to be a useful cement in Belgium as regards cross-communal representation between Francophones and Flemings.

The Government must be increasingly on the defensive as regards this anomaly in that the people in Northern Ireland who cheerfully vote by proportional representation are denied a fair system of voting for Westminster elections. I readily acknowledge that this is a wider issue and the Minister may not wish to respond in detail to it today. However, I believe this anomaly has now become a standing reproach to the Government and has been given additional significance by the fact that the Plant Report—two noble Lords on the Labour Benches contributed to that report—has revealed Labour's interest in proportional representation for various elections within the United Kingdom. This matter is now on the agenda and I believe that the Government will have to respond to it fully at some stage.

Reference has been made by noble Lords on both sides of the House to today's date. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, have referred to the overnight violence that has occurred in Northern Ireland. I wish to refer to some rather better news in that a GALLUP poll that took place in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom has shown that over 70 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland want the Northern Ireland talks to be resumed. That is the Government's wish also and they are supported in that desire by the people of Northern Ireland and also by people in Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

The poll also revealed that 61 per cent. of people in the Republic of Ireland say that they are prepared to see Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution amended if that would help to establish a new constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland. Even at this time of great partisanship, which we recognise will continue over the coming weeks, there is a sense in which public opinion in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic is running ahead of the politicians and the parties. I hope that as we consider this matter of elections we shall not forget the wider picture of representation or the prospects for peace in the Province.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, the three measures that we are addressing indicate the fallacy of believing that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley as was said by a famous ex-Prime Minister. Northern Ireland is not and never will be Finchley. The very fact that we are discussing electoral practices and laws today is an indication of that position. In no other part of the United Kingdom are there orders and regulations such as these to counteract impersonation or the stealing of other people's votes.

While that practice may take place in Scotland, England or Wales, it is not a great problem. In those countries people do not tend to steal other people's votes. However, that practice occurred on a large scale in Ireland long before partition. I have stood in local government and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland and I know what happens at elections.

Public, or rather parliamentary opinion began to be focused on this practice just after I lost my seat in West Belfast and was succeeded by the Sinn Fein candidate. Most of the Northern Ireland supporters of Sinn Fein are young people. They are not frightened by authority. They are not frightened by the presence of the police or the security forces. They will walk into polling stations and do their damnedest to steal other people's votes.

In my young days as a politician, people who would have voted for me but who were inclined to be absent or were incapacitated in one way or another would send their relatives to my Tally rooms, as they were known in those days, to hand in their cards. I did not, allegedly, know that at the time, but my supporters would arrange for those votes to be cast. It was illegal in the purely legal sense. However, had those people not been incapacitated or unable to vote for some other reason they would have voted for me. Therefore, I was not taking any votes away from my opponents.

That is not the position now. The position now is that some of the less reputable candidates will instruct their supporters, and perhaps finance their supporters, to take votes—to personate votes—which would otherwise be cast for another candidate. That is totally undemocratic. It is an abuse of the democratic system.

Personation takes place among all the political parties in Northern Ireland. Everyone is involved in it, particularly with the postal vote. The postal vote represents an abuse of the democratic system of elections as we know it in the United Kingdom. People will fill in phoney certificates. They will get doctors who are their own supporters to issue phoney medical certificates. It is understandable. It is a practice which differentiates Northern Ireland from England, Scotland and Wales where that problem does not exist.

We may be running into a little difficulty. Two of the orders relate to local government and to the Representation of the People Act. I am not sure how electoral law applies in other parts of the European Community. However, I notice that in relation to European elections there is no mention of the plastic card. It will become legitimate in relation to local elections in Northern Ireland and parliamentary elections. However, I am not sure whether that concept can be pursued in relation to European elections because I do not know whether in the other 11 countries of the Common Market it is obligatory to have a plastic card showing your social insurance number. Knowing Northern Ireland as I do, if it is not obligatory in the other 11 countries of the EC there will be some smart-ass lawyer in Northern Ireland, who will probably be a supporter of the Republican movement, who will immediately take the case to some European court or other.

If we are to have the card for local government elections and for elections to Westminster and not have it for European elections, under the PR system we could run into difficulties in relation to our EC membership. I am sure that our ex-Prime Minister and others would say that that proves their case that the European ideal will, to some extent, be taking away the sovereignty of our people in relation to our ability to decide how we conduct our elections.

I lived in Northern Ireland and fought many elections, both under the first-past-the-post system and, in the latter end of my political career, since 1973, under the PR system. I have never been very sure, either then or today, whether or not PR was the best electoral system.

PR in Northern Ireland has brought some good people into the Alliance Party at a very late count. Most of the Alliance people who have been elected have come in at a late count with the transfer of votes. However, it has also brought into politics some of the worst political and sectarian bigots. So, although the system brought some good people into the Alliance Party, it also brought into politics some of the worst sectarian bigots that I have ever seen in politics in Northern Ireland. That may apply only to Northern Ireland. It may be that the United Kingdom does not have sectarian bigots.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, if you look hard enough you will find them.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I shall take my noble friend's word on that point.

It is possible that we could bring in some disruptive forces. This is not the time to discuss the merits or the demerits of the system. When I was a Member of Parliament I supported PR for elections in Northern Ireland, but I had to tell the majority of my Labour colleagues in another place that, if I were an Englishman representing an English constituency I would not support PR. However, I supported PR in Northern Ireland at that time, given the circumstances that existed there. I wish to God that it had brought in more good people, but it brought in as many bigots as it did good people.

These three measures are all about democracy and elections. They are about giving the people an opportunity to vote for candidates who will determine their lifestyle in the future. With my knowledge of Northern Ireland, I wish to make one point. I have no intention of causing offence or of creating animosity, particularly as regards the Minister. The orders will not bring back democracy to Northern Ireland. I say that as an anti-Unionist and as one who has never supported the Unionist Party. Since 1985, elections have become a non sequitur in Northern Ireland.

The Catholic community in Northern Ireland, of which I was a part and with which I would still have close contacts, takes the view that, now we have the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we do not need to have elections in Northern Ireland. In an ideal situation we would have a coalition government of Catholics, Protestants, Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland. That will never happen in my lifetime and I hope that I live until I am 90 years of age. The Catholic population says that it is doing very well under direct rule and that it is the least objectionable option. The direction of affairs in Northern Ireland from Westminster has not been disadvantageous to the Catholic population. If it thinks that things are going wrong and it is not getting a fair crack of the whip, it refers its objections to the Government of the Republic who, under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, can make representations on its behalf. It is an international agreement between two countries—the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The Catholic population is therefore quite happy with the status quo.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, does Mr. Hume agree with my noble friend that this is the most satisfactory way of running affairs?

Lord Fitt

My Lords, Mr. Hume might not want to say that out loud, but I have known him for many years and I know the Catholic population in Northern Ireland as well. The Catholic population in Northern Ireland would like to think that there would be a restoration of the Stormont assembly at which people could vote on the three measures that we are debating this afternoon. It would like to think that there would be a resurrection of the Sunningdale talks with a cross-community government in which the Catholics would participate at a high level. They will not have that. They know that they will not have it. I do not say that they are quite happy, but they find the present form of government under direct rule from Westminster to be the least objectionable arrangement. If they feel that they are being pushed into a secondary position and that their objections are not listened to, they can always send Mr. Hume and his cohorts to talk to the Irish Government. Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 the Irish Government will then be able to make valid representations through the British Government, which will listen to them and take whatever action is necessary.

In conclusion, I repeat that, although we have these measures which make provision for people to participate in an electoral system which they hope will bring a democratic solution for their particular ideals, that will not in fact happen. I do not object to the measures. I think them right in terms of the United Kingdom and the democratic system, though I told the Minister that I expect trouble from the European Community on the matter of plastic identity cards. But I say to the noble Lord who will reply to the debate—certainly I do not want to elicit any hostility—that while the Anglo-Irish Agreement is in existence there will be no question under these or any other measures of bringing about a devolved government in Northern Ireland.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, interesting though his remarks were, will not expect me to follow him down the road that he pursued. I do not share his fears about the appropriateness for the European elections of the introduction of this additional specified document, the national insurance card. Some European countries use identity cards, but we have always taken the view in this country that we did not believe that to be right. There is a difference of practice. So it is a fear which I do not think we need hold.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me two specific questions about the specified documents. First, he asked whether all electors could obtain the Department of Social Security national insurance number card, which is one of the new introductions in the order. The answer is that the cards are issued automatically to all persons when they reach the age of 16 years and to those aged 18 to 23 years. Consequently anyone in those age brackets should already possess one. It is not proposed to make a blanket issue of the cards to other age groups but replacement cards can be applied for through local DHSS offices in Northern Ireland if existing old style cards have been lost or misplaced. No charge is made for the issue of a replacement. But we should not forget that there are several other specified documents which are held by different people.

The noble Lord asked about the incidence of personation. He made the point that it is an offence which is not to be found in the chief constable's annual reports. The noble Lord has an eagle eye and is quite right. The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, in his last published annual report, drew attention to attempts made at the last local elections in Northern Ireland to use forged medical cards, but he could not quantify the extent to which their use might have been successful. Where an offence is suspected, I understand that the chief electoral officer brings his information to the attention of the prosecuting authorities. The offence, which is an indictable one, is not separately shown in the chief constable's annual reports, as the noble Lord said. However, I understand that prosecutions are rare and come under the category of "other notifiable offences" in the appendices to the chief constable's report.

Finally, the noble Lord felt that there was a drafting error in the order. We have looked carefully at the point, because once again the noble Lord gave me notice of his question. My advice is that the whole of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 was replaced by Article 5(5) of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1987. As a consequence the legislation may be a little confusing but the point has been checked and I am satisfied that the amendment is correct, even though the noble Lord gave me cause for thought.

Finally, I refer to a matter which did not come as a total surprise to me. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, raised the subject of proportional representation. If the noble Lord will forgive me I echo what he said. It is a wider question which no doubt will be discussed in this House or in another place on another occasion. The system of the single transferable vote has not been adopted for the Westminster elections in Northern Ireland primarily because it is considered inappropriate to have some Members of Parliament elected on a different basis from others in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord was trenchant in his remarks. I believe that there are different considerations which apply in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain. But I shall not take the argument further today if the noble Lord will forgive me. I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.