HC Deb 21 June 1973 vol 858 cc886-98

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Northern Ireland Assembly (Election) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 890), dated 9th May 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be anulled. I should like to make it clear straight away that we shall not be pressing this to a Division.

We are still debating the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill and will be returning to it later on. The Assembly itself—to use a phrase well known in Northern Ireland—was lifted out of the Bill and has been dealt with earlier. We asked for that because in our view it was urgent to get the necessary speed and to concentrate the minds of people politically in Northern Ireland. These elections, for the running of which this order gives the details, are important, and there are a number of points that I should like to raise.

I want to make it clear first of all that we understand why the order came in this form. Indeed, if the Government had not used the negative procedure it would have been impossible to get the order out in time. That is why we have prayed against it, and I think it is the only one we have prayed against in the period of direct rule.

Although it is late now to put these points, with the elections coming next week, I presume the Government will be putting their minds to future elections, and I shall put my mind to that later.

The first point I put to the Minister is that Rule 15 of Schedule 2 provides that if a candidate dies the election goes ahead. This was not the case in the elections to the district councils last month, and indeed, as I recall, a candidate did die in the Ards electoral area, and I think the election for that area is to be held today. I should be grateful, therefore, if we could have some explanation of the reasoning behind this change. I concede that the scale of operations is different. In the local elections there were 96 electoral areas and 526 seats involved: this time there are 12 electoral areas, the Westminster constituencies, and a far greater proportion of the total seats would be involved. However, I find this provision disturbing, especially in Northern Ireland, where death by assassination, if I may put it that way, is a much more real possibility. I should like to know the Government's thinking on this.

Rule 22 of Schedule 2 concerns provision for postal voting. I can see that it might have been administratively necessary to vote by post in the border poll or the local elections in order to qualify for a postal vote in the Assembly elections, but I have had complaints that arrangements for postal voting in these elections have been confusing. The chief criticism appears to be that there was uncertainty about the length of time that one had to apply for such a vote. I suppose nothing can be done about this now, but I hope it will be noted. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how many postal votes were, in fact, granted in respect of the border poll and the local elections, and I presume we can now have a figure for the Assembly elections since it is some weeks since the postal voting arrangements were made.

There has been some concern with regard to Article 6 of the order, which refers to the polling station scheme for the Assembly elections. It seems that, in spite of the short period of time between the local elections and the Assembly elections, the location of polling stations is to be different. It is felt that a number of people may not appreciate this and may turn up on 28th June at the polling station they used on 30th May. I can understand the change in one respect because I believe representations were made to the Chief Electoral Officer in the case of parts of Belfast where it was felt that members of one community would have to pass through a dangerous area in order to get to the polling station to vote; but is that the only reason why this has been done?

I understand also that there has been a reduction in the number of polling stations between the two elections. Certainly some members of the electorate will have much further to travel in order to vote. Can we be told the number of polling stations in the case of the local elections and the number in the case of the Assembly elections? Can it really be the case that in County Tyrone people in some rural areas will now have to travel about 20 miles to cast their vote—considerably further, I am told, than in the local elections?

Already today at Question Time there has been a question on party political broadcasts. There is nothing in this order about party political broadcasts, and I am assuming that the position will be as normally in the rest of the United Kingdom for Westminster elections. I concede that when the Representation of the People Bill went through and became an Act there was some discussion about the method of party political broadcasts, and in the run up to an election it is proper that we should put our minds to this. What is the Government's thinking about this in the context of Northern Ireland?

I read in the paper today about the particular problems of one candidate and another. Frankly, I am not very much concerned with the particular issues. What I am concerned with is the order and whether, given the particular nature of Northern Ireland, something should have been done about this. It may be that on this and a number of other matters there should be discussion between the parties. We are all hoping that the elections next week will be the last elections for four years and that all will go well. But I hope that the Government will discuss these and other points, with the parties in Northern Ireland to get their views on this order and the very many aspects involved before the election after next.

These Assembly elections and this order under the Act that we passed must be seen in the context of the White Paper. We have consistently supported the White Paper approach knowing, of course, all the way along—and this is true of both sides of the House—that it is an approach which may not succeed. We want it to succeed. We want the elections with which this order is concerned to succeed. Last week, however, we were discussing—and this is what the order is all about—the pledge that has been given to Northern Ireland. In that context it was said that one part of the bargain was the pledge and the other was the right of Westminster to legislate for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. In terms of the election I said that if the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland and their followers were prepared to make the order operate and to work the system which we have prepared that would be wonderful. If it failed through deliberate sabotage, which was the phrase used, the whole system would have failed. If that happens we shall all have to reconsider the situation. There will have to be a radical reappraisal. This election is important.

I can agree with The Times today which says that there is no soft option in Ulster. We certainly never thought that, and I do not think that the Government did. There is no short cut. In our options there does not figure another period of 18 months while we laboriously try to work out another scheme. The people of Northern Ireland will have the chance when the order comes into force next week to decide whether to work the scheme—

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

This is a most important part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. How is he to determine, if this experiment fails, that it has failed because of deliberate sabotage rather than inherent defects in the system? Will he say whether, when the Stormont Parliament was suspended a year ago, that was because of deliberate sabotage, inherent defects or the deliberate and ill-advised act of the Westminster Parliament?

Mr. Rees

I would have said that it was because of inherent defects. The eventual finish was the action of the Government. This order is almost the concluding point. We in the United Kingdom have decided on a scheme. If there is deliberate sabotage of that scheme, the people of Northern Ireland cannot pick one part of it and repect another. The Times talks of a vacuum but next week there will be new leaders. The Assembly elections place an onus on them, not just on the Secretary of State.

The elections are seven days away. They are bound to be a turning-point in the history of Northern Ireland. Our hope is that whatever the views of those who are returned they will work together. That is the only way to prevent bloodshed; it is the only hope for sanity. We have supported the Government through- out. It is still our view that this is the best approach for the people of Northern Ireland, and we seek to discuss this today only because we realise that it could not be discussed earlier. There are a number of technical points that could not be allowed to go through simply because this was a negative resolution order.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was kind enough to assure us at the beginning of his remarks—which ranged rather widely—that he would not press this debate to a Division. That will bring great relief, first, to the Government and, secondly, to the many of the candidates who have already paid their deposits. They must have been wondering what would happen if we rejected the order.

Article 6 deals with polling stations and is, in effect, an amendment to Section 65 of the principal Act. It appears to remove the democratic control and provision for consultation on the siting of polling stations. It also appears to remove the provision for holding a local inquiry about the scheme, which was provided for in the principal Act. There is no mention of a draft scheme as was provided for in Section 65(4)(b) of the principal Act. I submit that this is a matter of substance. It has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. There have been different sets of polling stations for the border poll and the local government elections and now there will be a different set for the Assembly elections. In the old days, the scheme was approved and remained in force until the submission of a fresh scheme, revised and approved for all elections.

This difference in the polling stations scheme makes for a certain amount of confusion and hampers political parties in planning their campaigns. Although we are not amending the principal Act, the practice provided for in this order may in future be regarded as a precedent. It has been the practice of returning officers in Westminister elections to accept the scheme approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs as a basis for the arrangements for elections held to return Members to this House. It will be seen that this House has a direct interest in the polling station scheme.

We would like to be assured that steps taken to facilitate the early holding of the Assembly elections in what are admittedly exceptional circumstances will not at some stage be used as a precedent particularly with regard to Westminster elections.

Article 33 in Part IV deals with election equipment. There is mention of "one marking instrument". I assume that this is an appliance for embossing the official mark on the ballot paper. It might be helpful to underline the fact that at certain polling stations the official mark was omitted from the papers and a certain number were lost. Mentioning this might keep presiding officers on their toes.

Difficulty was also encountered in the recent poll in obtaining supplies of pencils for electors to use to mark their papers. I was told that in one case after a great deal of delay these were obtained from the school storeroom. They were not the normal indelible type and this caused a certain amount of comment. This might seem a minor point but it is one of those niggling things which can cause a great deal of confusion.

Article 41 appears to have been lifted in its entirety from Section 40 of the principal Act. This section was designed for a normal system of voting whereby a voter places an X opposite the name of one candidate. The article has to be interpreted generously in view of the possible confusion experienced by elderly voters confronted by as many as 21 names, as occurred in my constituency of South Antrim.

I ask that presiding officers be advised to allow flexibility in the interpretation of article 41(3), which reads as follows: A person accompanying a voter who by reason of total or partial blindness or other physical disability requires guidance or assistance may be admitted to the polling station for the purpose of giving such guidance or assistance. Might it not be helpful to widen the scope of "other physical disability" to include elderly electors who are likely to be confused by the complicated voting system?

Article 56, which deals with the transfer of surplus votes, highlights the main defect of the single transferable vote system. The article demonstrates that the vast majority of preference votes are never transferred because they are tied up in the quotas of the candidates who are declared elected. Unfortunately, that is not understood by electors in general. It certainly was not understood at the local government elections, and that defect is one reason why the system should be changed as soon as possible.

Article 62 reads as follows: On the completion of the counting of votes the returning officer shall declare the result of the poll". Does that mean that there will be no announcement until the count is completed, or will there be, as there was at the local government elections, piecemeal leaks spread over three or four days? I should like clarification on that.

The order perpetuates a new structure of chief electoral officer and a number of deputies. Is it intended to use the same electoral machinery for Westminster elections in Northern Ireland? Even with the appropriate modifications to the Representation of the People Act, I should be reluctant to set aside the experienced officers who formerly ran the elections in the Westminster constituencies for elections to this House. The electoral officers to whom the order refers in the past and in the border poll and local elections had to resort to a fair amount of stopgap improvisation. Candidates who were not furnished with the up-to-date register from which they could complete their nomination forms suffered hair-raising experiences. Certain help and advice on some occasions had to be given to returning officers in the early stages of the operations for the Assembly elections which I am sure would cause eyebrows to lift, but politicians and officials co-operated quite remarkably and the operations got off the ground.

I have no objection to the order in general. The elections for which it provides are proceeding, and we have no wish to delay or hamper the candidates who are engaged now in the electoral battle. But the House has a duty to provide them with the necessary machinery. We have the even more important duty of giving an assurance that the House will pay due attention to the views of those who are elected on 28th June.

4.34 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell)

It might be convenient for me to wind up the debate now and to try to answer some of the questions which have been raised.

For the convenience of the House I will say a word about the background to the debate. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) expressed a desire to explore some of the points that arise on the order. The order was made under the authority of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 which establishes a Northern Ireland Assembly and authorises one election to it. The election is to be based on Westminster parliamentary constituencies, on the Stormont franchise and on what we believe to be a suitable and right adaptation of the Stormont rules. The Act specifies those persons who are to be disqualified from membership of the Assembly.

The order was made on 9th May and came into operation on 15th May. It had to come into operation then to meet the timetable—which the House wished and strongly supported—of holding the local elections, as we did, on 30th May, and the Assembly elections in a week's time, on 28th June. The order provides the detailed rules for the conduct of the election and applies part of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 to the membership of the Assembly. The Act empowers the Secretary of State to direct by order when the first meeting of the Assembly shall be held and to fix the date of the poll.

As we know, the date of the poll is 28th June, and my right hon. Friend this afternoon in answer to a Question, told the House that he intends, as soon as the election has taken place, to have discussions about fixing a first meeting for the Assembly with the leaders of the parties elected to the Assembly.

The hon. Member for Leeds, South began by asking about by-elections. He is perfectly correct in saying that there is no provision either in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 or in this order for by-elections arising from the death of a candidate. As he will recall from our discussions in Committee on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill, Clause 28 provides for by-elections and makes provision for the machinery by which there would be a by-election in the event of the death of a candidate. As soon as the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill receives the Royal Assent, Clause 28 will become operative and it will be possible to hold by-elections under that clause. Between 28th June and the date of the Royal Assent to the Bill there is no provision for by-elections. The reason for this and certain other features of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act and the order is that these measures had to be designed and brought forward to meet a tight time-scale.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned complaints about postal voting and said that there had been confusion. It is true that some people got it wrong, but we must look at this in perspective, and the figures tell a very good story. The vast majority of those who sought postal votes were able to have them and understood the machinery for getting them by the due dates. The figures also tell us that the process went extremely smoothly in the border poll and local elections. I think the House will agree that the operation of the system with its special procedures for extensive postal voting in the border poll and the local elections and for the major election less than one month after reflects immense credit on those who have made the arrangements and are organising the electoral procedures.

In the border poll 80,000 postal votes were used. In the local elections 139,000 postal votes were used. In the Assembly election 130,000 postal votes are being claimed. That is a little down on the local elections——

Mr. Merlyn Rees

The last figure obviously can be only for the number claimed. It would help for comparison to know how many were claimed in the two previous cases. I understood the hon. Gentleman to give the figures of those which were used.

Mr. Howell

Perhaps I misled the hon. Gentleman. Those three figures are comparable, in fact. The larger figures are as follows. In the case of the border poll, about 150,000 were applied for, of which 80,000 were used. In the local elections, the figure was 228,000, and the same figure applies in the Assembly election because in order to get this enormous organisational task through, the provision was that only those who had postal votes in the local elections would have them in the Assembly election.

There have been complaints and disappointments, but all in all the figures show that the vast majority of people who have sought postal votes and who have sought to use them have been satisfied with the three voting arrangements. I think that it reflects credit on those who have organised these very complicated operations.

I come to the location of polling stations about which the hon. Member for Leeds, South had a word or two to say, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). They have been different in the three events. In the border poll there were 387 polling places. In the local elections there were 595 polling places. The number there was determined in part, as in every case, by security considerations, and in part by the need to relate polling places to wards. In the Assembly election the scheme is for 495 polling places—100 fewer—and the figure is largely accounted for by the fact that in the local elections it was necessary to locate polling places very much in the various wards. In the Assembly election that need no longer prevails. Therefore, after discussions with the security forces and after examining the experience gained in both the border poll and the local elections, it has been decided that 495 is a right and sensible figure providing the facilities that people need, still bearing in mind that we have this very special and extensive postal provision.

Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)

Has the scheme been published in full yet?

Mr. Howell

The scheme for the location of polling stations has been published.

The next matter raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South was that of party political broadcasts. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter for the broadcasting authorities. It does not arise on this order. It is a matter for arrangement between the broadcasting authorities and candidates.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I am sure that that is right. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that in the case of West- minster elections it is laid down in the Representation of the People Act. If it is a matter for the broadcasting authorities in Northern Ireland, will the hon. Gentleman tell us in which legislation that provision appears?

Mr. Howell

I am not sure that it appears in any legislation. Perhaps I might check on that and let the hon. Gentleman know whether it is governed by legislation in the Northern Ireland situation. In any event, it does not arise on this order.

Those were the main points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. There remain other points about the siting of polling stations also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South. He asked about local consultations, the right to hold public inquiries and so on. He is quite correct that this is not provided for in the order. The reason is that which I gave for other features of the order, which is, again, the time factor.

The order came into force on 15th May, which gave six weeks for these matters to be settled. During the first two weeks of that period the electoral authorities were deeply involved in running the local elections. They were left with four weeks to sort out these other matters.

I know from experience that there have been discussions about the siting of certain polling stations, and the Chief Electoral Officer has been prepared to consider representations. But time did not allow us to consider putting in the order the necessary authority for full consultations on the siting of every polling station. Had it done so we should not have been able to hold the election on 28th June as we plan.

Mr. Molyneaux

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the pressure of time. However, I am concerned to see that we do not establish a precedent and that as soon as conditions permit we go back to the old system or as near to it as possible.

Mr. Howell

That is absolutely right. In the governing Act which applies only to this single Assembly that is the position. But there is provision in the Constitution Bill to extend the life of or to give further effect to the Northern Ireland Assembly Act. That would give further life to the provisions in that Act, which include the opoprtunity for the consultations which my hon. Friend thinks are right.

My hon. Friend then turned to what he called the confusion about proportional representation and the single transferable vote system. He asked whether the provision for assisting disabled people with their voting could not be extended to others who were confused.

I am not sure that there is any confusion. Many people warned the Government that the system would defeat the intelligence and imagination of the people of Northern Ireland who would not understand how to operate the system. Our experience in the local elections was vastly different from that. The number of spoiled papers was small—1.7 per cent. of the total—and would have been smaller still taking into account the fact that a number of blank papers were put in by people who did not want personation and so on. The understanding of it was very wide. It was summed up for me in a sentence by an elderly lady who needed no explanation. She said, "You put 'em in the order you like 'em."Another simple guide might be, "The longer the list you care to put numbers against, the more effectively the system is working and the more effectively you are using your vote."

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people appear to understand it fully. When I was over there recently discussing proportional representation, my impression was that the consternation was amongst the political parties about the internal difficulties and stresses that it had brought.

Mr. Howell

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that for the voters this is an easily grasped system. I do not think that there have been many difficulties. Certainly that was our experience in the local elections, and we believe that that experience will be repeated in the coming election and that we shall find that there is little confusion.

I hope that I have answered most of the points raised in this short debate. We are only a week from polling day. Preparations for the election arc up to schedule and have gone according to plan. The local government elections provided officials running the electoral machine and the security forces with what might be called a trial run during which they acquitted themselves competently. The local government elections showed that the system of proportional representations was well understood and that an election in Northern Ireland can be held in a calm atmosphere despite all the doubt and gloom of the pessimists. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I sec no reason why there should not be a similar success and achievement on 28th June. We look forward to a high poll in another essential step towards the resumption of normal life in Northern Ireland, which is and must be our objective.

I hope that I have answered the points which the hon. Member for Leeds, South wished to bring out in praying that the order be annulled. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.