HC Deb 23 February 1977 vol 926 cc1563-86

10.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter)

I beg to move, That the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved. The next general election to district councils in Northern Ireland will be held on 18th May this year, and the purpose of the order is to provide for these and future local elections.

Proportional representation was introduced on an experimental basis for the 1973 local general elections and the provisions of article 4 of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which provided that the single transferable vote system of proportional representation be used, applied only to the 1973 elections and to by-elections for councils elected at them.

Parliament subsequently made provision for the single transferable vote system of proportional representation to be used at Northern Ireland Assembly elections and later for elections to the Constitutional Convention. The order provides for this system to be used at future district council elections. It also gives candidates at contested elections the right to send election addresses post-free, restricts postal voting to persons likely for specified reasons to be unable to vote in person, raises the limits on candidates' expenses and provides for the filling of casual vacancies. Articles 1 and 2 of the order provide for commencement, extent and interpretation. The order applies only to Northern Ireland.

The Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972 provides that each ward shall return one member. As proportional representation is being used, it is necessary to group wards into multi-member district electoral areas, and article 3 makes such provision. These areas, which are prescribed in Schedule 1, are the same as those used at the 1973 elections.

Article 4 provides for elections to be held under the single transferable vote system of proportional representation and contains some consequential amendments of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.

Article 14 of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 extended the hours of poll for all Northern Ireland elections to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. The extended hours, however, were never used at district council elections, as the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 provided that at the 1973 district council elections the hours of poll would be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. It is considered that these hours, which apply also at local government elections in Great Britain, are sufficient, and paragraph (4) of article 4 removes the application of article 14 of the 1973 order to district council elections.

Article 5 relates to candidates. Paragraph (1) provides that a candidate will be nominated for a district electoral area and that the number of councillors to be returned for each district electoral area will be the same as the number of wards in that area. Paragraph (2) provides that a candidate will not forfeit his deposit if he obtains at any stage of the count one-quarter of the quota.

Paragraph (3) gives candidates at contested elections the right to send election addresses post-free. This concession was introduced for the 1973 elections because proportional representation greatly enlarged electoral areas and also because in some areas some candidates were precluded by the security situation from personal canvass in all parts of that area. The size of the areas has not altered, and, sadly, there are still parts of Northern Ireland where a candidate might be prevented from visiting a section of the district electoral area for which he is standing.

Paragraph (4) makes consequential amendments to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.

There was provision in the 1973 Electoral Law Order for unrestricted postal voting. The reduction in the number of polling stations in some areas because of the serious security situation made it difficult for some electors to vote in person, and, in addition, there was a fear that electors in certain areas would be intimidated into boycotting the poll. The number of polling stations has since increased sufficiently for electors in all areas to vote in person without undue difficulty, and the fear of intimidation at elections has diminished.

It is generally agreed that postal voting should not be unrestricted, and article 6 of the order limits postal voting to Service voters or to those who, because of physical disability, the nature of their work or religious convictions, are likely to be unable to vote in person. This follows the equivalent law in Great Britain.

The limitations on candidates' expenses at local elections in Northern Ireland, particularly those applying to joint candidates, are generally lower than those applicable to local government candidates in England and Wales, and representations were made by Northern Ireland parties for the Northern Ireland limits to be raised. Article 7 makes the limits the same as those applied at local elections in England and Wales.

Articles 8 and 9 deal with casual vacancies. Article 8 provides that district councillors may by unanimous decision appoint a suitably qualified person to fill a casual vacancy. Article 9 provides for an election to be held should the district councillors fail to appoint someone under article 8. This is, of course, the current procedure, and it has worked reasonably well.

As I mentioned earlier, Schedule 1 sets out the district electoral areas for each local government area. Finally, the rules under which elections will be conducted are set out in Schedule 2.

Broadly, the order re-enacts the provisions of article 4 of the 1972 Electoral Order, articles 4 and 6 of the 1973 order and regulations made under the 1972 order. The principal difference in the provisions for future elections is that unrestricted postal voting is to cease.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

I thank the Under-Secretary for his clear exposition of the draft order. As he said, the local elections due on 18th May will be the second such elections to be held according to the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. I had the good fortune to be one of the group of hon. Members from all quarters in the House at that time who toured the Province during the local elections of 1973—the last local elections and the first to be held under the STV system—in order that we could judge the working of the system or attempt to do so for ourselves. It was remarkable and creditable how efficiently the returning, presiding and polling staff concerned applied the new system —which is what one would expect of the public servants and teachers of Northern Ireland who do this sort of work. However, except in Londonderry, I think, the new system has not led to pronounced changes in the party complexion of local councils.

This was also the case when proportional representation was abandoned for Stormont elections after those of 1921 and 1925. Electoral reformers argued that the first-past-the-post system polarised politics and that in Northern Ireland it militated against moderation.

If the House will forgive me for going back in history for a few seconds, let me remind hon. Members that when the question of PR was discussed with British Cabinet Ministers at the time of the Boundary Commission by leaders in the Irish Free State, Kevin O'Higgins favoured its restoration in order to provide adequate parliamentary representation for minorities. For his part, Sir James Craig, then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, condemned PR as un-British. It is interesting that Mr. Cosgrave, the father of the present Taoiseach, said that he would like it out of the way in the Irish Free State.

I am not attempting to pronounce about this, but I wonder whether Ministers have received representations for or against STV for local council elections. In Northern Ireland easy accessability of elected persons was highly prized and its disappearance has been deeply regretted. The STV system, with multi-member electoral areas, tends to restrict the close relationship which should exist between councillor and constituent. Therefore, I wonder whether the Under-Secretary would care to say something about this matter when he replies to the debate, and whether he has received any opinions from individuals or bodies about the working of this system.

Under direct rule, as the hon. Gentleman knows, authority has become very remote, particularly because of the "Macrory gap". I hasten to say that Sir Patrick should not be blamed for that, because he reported on the assumption that the mother of Parliaments would not strangler its Ulster Daughter. But the loss of a tier of democratic representation was mentioned by my noble Friend, Lord Belstead when the draft order was considered in another place.

I should also like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the fears of intimidation have diminished, because he mentioned this in relation to the reduction in the number of polling stations and the ending of unrestricted postal voting which obtained in 1973. I was very much surprised to read the words the fears of intimidation have diminished". —[Official Report, House of Lord, 17th February 1977; Vol. 379, c. 1756.] They were uttered by Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge in the other place. I was surprised when I heard the same words from the Under-Secretary's lips just now. I wonder whether that is really true and whether it is a reasonable argument in favour of the change—which may be right. But to say that it is justified because the fears of intimidation have diminished I beg leave to question, in the present state of partial anarchy in the Province.

There is one way in which the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland differs from that on this side of the water. When we were touring Northern Ireland in 1973 I noticed that there did not seem to be much success in preventing the law being broken—perhaps the law is different—with regard to the posting of electoral propaganda on public property, such as telegraph poles and even traffic signs, which is not desirable. The matter is not covered by the order, but does the Under-Secretary expect that when the elections are held next May there will be an improvement in this respect?

Article 8 sets out a procedure which many hon. Members will find strange. I am not aware of a precedent in Great Britain for the filling of casual vacancies on councils by a unanimous decision of councillors. It would be a bit hard if a member of a smaller party, or perhaps an independent person, wished to contest a seat which had fallen vacant when there was an important local issue at stake and was prevented from standing. Is that desirable? Perhaps there is some very good reason which the Under-Secretary can give us, but on the surface it seems that article 8 would tend to reinforce the polarity of politics which the method of the single transferable vote is intended to mitigate.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

First, I thank the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for agreeing to the request from this Bench for the early publication of the draft order. The Minister will be aware, not being unaccustomed to elections himself, that it is a great benefit to those public servants who have to conduct the elections and to those unfortunates who have to submit themselves as candidates, and the perhaps even more unfortunate people who have to try to get the candidates elected. On behalf of them all, I express our appreciation.

Article 7, dealing with the limitation of election expenses, would appear not to work out quite as intended. Far from increasing the limit, it reduces it in 15 of the 98 district electoral areas. In the old legislation Belfast was treated separately, having a limit of £300, compared with £100 in other areas. I gather from what the Minister said that there is now to be a flat rate for the whole of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has received any representations on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), councillors for Belfast and a country area respectively, may like to fight this out later. Therefore, it might be unfair to involve the Minister at this stage.

With regard to the voting rights of mental patients, there is a marked difference between the law under the Representation of the People Act as it applies in Great Britain and the electoral law of Northern Ireland. Under that Act residents of mental hospitals and establishments are registered and, therefore, have the right to vote. The Minister will be aware that in the report of the Working Party on Electoral Registration of Patients in Mental Hospitals attention is drawn, in Annexe 1(2) to the special position of Northern Ireland.

As one who was formerly involved in the administration of various mental hospitals and institutions in Northern Ireland, I hope that this is an example where the law in Great Britain could be brought into line with the law in Northern Ireland and not—as all too frequently happens—the other way round. The Minister may like to look at the possibility of drawing the attention of those who are engaged in elections to this variation to that there will be no misunderstanding. The Minister knows that in a Westminster election those people would not be permitted to vote as they would be under the order that we are now discussing.

As to proportional representation, our objections in the past have been based on the fact that the system is regarded as alien and foreign to that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have never accepted that Northern Ireland should be treated differently, and we still hold that view. Nor do we feel that any particular advantage can be derived from it.

I remember that on the day after the first experiment, an hon. Member who, at that time, held considerable responsibility for affairs in Northern Ireland said to me when we met in the Tea Room, "I am afraid that we have to accept that a majority is still a majority, no matter how we fiddle the rules." He was disillusioned about the outcome of the experiment. We could have told him from our own experience that it would not make a bit of difference—except that it does make a difference in the matter that has been drawn to our attention by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison); namely, that of breaking the close contact and identification of the electorate in a ward with a specific local councillor. In both town and country areas there will be a situation where there will be perhaps half a dozen councillors milling around in a huge area and an elector will not have any idea as to which one would be most likely to see to the redress of any particular grievance.

I put in that advertisement as a warning to those who may be tempted to experiment with proportional representation on a larger scale on this side of the Channel. They would be well advised to keep clear of it.

We welcome the order in principle and we trust that the local elections for which it makes provision will proceed smoothly. We also hope that, in due course, when these worthy councillors have been elected they will be given further scope in the shape of improved powers and that that will, in turn, lead to the restoration to Northern Ireland of the missing upper tier of local government that is presently enjoyed by all other citizens of the United Kingdom.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

The Minister has said that the order is largely a replica of the existing system of electoral registration except for the fact that we are to be denied postal facilities on the scale that we had in 1973. The reason that has been given for that is that there is less risk of intimidation now in Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), I do not see that the intimidation has in any way diminished. The Provisional IRA has not yet announced that it is going political, and since the last elections in Northern Ireland the UVF has been proscribed. At the time of the last elections it was a legal organisation, but now it is illegal. I am certain that the PIRA will do in the next election as it has done in the past; it will not have the courage to put forward candidates because it knows very well that they would be rejected, and the whole philosophy would be rejected with them. Consequently it will attempt to intimidate electors and prevent them from going to the polls. This would have a serious effect on the SDLP and other parties representing the minority in Northern Ireland. It is highly unlikely that the Provisional IRA or its thugs would be able to intimidate loyalists from voting, but in the North Belfast area in which I live I have seen vicious intimidation of electors in 1973 and subsequent elections. I also remember the intimidation that I had to withstand in the two General Elections in 1974.

The Minister cannot truthfully tell us that intimidation in Northern Ireland has diminished. My party would be prepared to fight elections under whatever regulations are in force, but it would be helpful to people living in ghetto and interface areas, particularly in Belfast, if they could have postal voting as they did at the last election.

No one can take offence at the other provisions in the order. However, the hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the STV system was designed to get more moderates elected. Remembering who was elected to City Hall and to the Convention, I can only say that the hen. Gentleman could have fooled me! In many cases, STV had the reverse effect from that suggested by him.

We are having to live with the STV system, and I do not think that it has done any harm. It gave the minority an increase in its number of seats in the Convention, but that was probably because the membership of the Convention was increased from 52 to 78. I do not believe that it will change the decisions of the electorate to any great extent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Would the SDLP be happy if Northern Ireland returned to a first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Fitt

No. We should prefer to have the STV system.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

There are three aspects of the order that I wish to raise. The first deals with the problem of persons wishing to be treated as absent voters. We are told that they must fill in a form and we are told what type of form it is and how it is printed, but there is nothing about how these people are can get their hands on the forms. We need to know. Do they have to write in asking for an application form, will the forms be available from post offices, or will people have to fill in an application form for an application form? This is an important matter.

The second matter relates to the large shifts of population that have taken place in Northern Ireland over the past two years. I am one of the few hon. Members who has been elected to a body under a proportional representation system and in the Limavady Council area where I live we have one ward with 2,000 electors and another with fewer than 200 electors. Such inequity cannot be allowed to con- tinue and I do not believe that it was ever thought that such a shift of population would take place. I realise that I have probably quoted extremes, but many large shifts are taking place in many areas of Northern Ireland.

We need to know that something is to be done to bring about a more equitable distribution of wards and also a more equitable distribution of areas of electoral population within groups of wards for local government elections. The same will apply to any future election at any level that may be held in Northern Ireland under the proportional representation system.

Thirdly, I turn now to the system of election itself. As I recall it, when the STV system was first proposed for Northern Ireland, all the Press comment that I could get hold of — there was an awful lot of it—seemed to be saying that the aim was to get consensus politics in Northern Ireland, whatever that may mean. We had consensus politics in this House last night, but it did not seem to make everyone happy. I abhor the PR system not only because it was brought into being to destroy the party of which I am a member, but because of its inherent defects. It failed in the object of destroying the Unionist Party, and for that I am eternally grateful to the sensible people of Northern Ireland, who continued to elect it and who will, no doubt, continue to do so for many years.

Under this system of election it is easier to get elected. It is a refuge for minority viewpoints which have fancy but not always soundly-based policies. They can, nevertheless, put themselves forward, get a fair bit of publicity, and get elected. It is also a way out for people who want to avoid making hard decisions, because it can be used to obscure the issue before the people. Because it fudges the issue so much, it makes people seek an easy way out.

But generally in such a situation there is not an easy way out, and in the long run the system will only make matters worse. Above all, it removes responsibility from the representative of a single geographical area in which, regardless of his party, he at one time, under the old system, became a unifying force. Now the single Member has been replaced by a number of equally powerful, equally responsible—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Equally irresponsible.

Mr. Ross

My right hon. Friend has chosen the better word—equally irresponsible representatives of the people in those areas, representatives who have to compete against each other.

Publicity becomes the thing for them. Those of us who have lived with this system know that to be true. It is not as great a force at local level as in the steps above, but it is a system abominable to work in and with and one that I shall reject as long as I live. By putting different parties, different viewpoints and different personalities within the same geographical area, we do not make the divisions less; we make them ever deeper, ever more bitter and ever more vicious. That cannot be avoided under such a system.

Some people think that competition between public representatives at any level leads to better representation. It does nothing of the sort. It does not lead to better service to the electorate. It means that the representatives, even those from the same party, very often play each other off—and the electorate will do that even if the representatives do not. It means that publicity for what one has done or what one is alleged to have done becomes the thing. It means that the sensible person can often get chopped down because he is not publicity conscious—I say that with great feeling because I have seen it happen at all levels, and it is something that no political party can afford and no country can afford.

The destruction of the representative principle is dangerous for the representatives. It is dangerous for political parties as we know them in this country. It is eventually a dangerous thing for the people. Proportional representation leads to quick success. It means far too often a reduction in the general standards of behaviour of both electorate and representatives.

Finally, and above all, it tends to confuse the electorate. I believe that any political party with a solid, saleable policy will get itself elected—the present Government got themselves elected in 1974 because they had a saleable product. I believe that any party with a solid policy can get itself elected if it can sell its policy. If not, it is because that policy is inherently unacceptable to the electorate in the area.

I beg the Governmenet to think again about proportional representation before the next local government elections in Northern Ireland. We should get rid of that system, and the sooner the better.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. McCusker (Armagh)

It is a pity that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) did not update his review of proportional representation in Ireland by telling the House that only a few years ago Jack Lynch tried and failed to have it abolished in the Republic. Whether that commentary supports what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I shall not try to elaborate now.

The Minister told us that the original intention was not to have proportional representation in the local government elections in Northern Ireland. Great care and attention and a lot of time was put into devising wards so that allegations of gerrymandering could not be made. After that work had been carried out, because they wanted to introduce proportional representation, the wards were grouped together in the best possible way. Unfortunately, the best possible way is not the best way if there is to be proportional representation. I am assuming that is a fait accompli now.

Wards were grouped together to make some kind of sense, but the operation was a catastrophe for reasons which have been mentioned. For example, one of the bigger groups of wards in my constituency covers an electoral district stretching from the middle of Portadown to the middle of Lurgan and it has six representatives. Five of those representatives live within half a mile of the western boundary of that district. Therefore, four or five electoral areas do not have representatives within them. That is not due to the size of the area. It is one of the weaknesses of proportional representation.

At the last election it was suggested that an attempt would be made after the election to allocate people to particular wards. No attempt has been made to do that. Will the Minister tell us whether consideration has been given to that suggestion?

Undoubtedly, those who are elected under this system are responsible to everyone and to no one at the same time. The system creates many problems for us. After a constituent has visited all six or seven representatives in a local council area and got no satisfaction, he finishes up at our door. Of course, he omits to tell us that has has been to all these other people. It is normally left to the Minister to tell us that he has already been approached on so many occasions by other people.

The Minister has been asked to consider widening the allocation of postal votes. I suggest that would be and is dangerous with a proportional representation system. If it were a straight system, as for election to this place, I should say by all means let us have it if it is thought that the pressure on the community is such as to deter people from voting in the ordinary way.

But there are abuses in the system. If one party is collecting postal votes for one candidate, the abuse is not great because those postal votes will go to that one candidate. But we had a classic case in Armagh during the Convention election. The SDLP—I asked the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to remain, but he is not here—collected and brought all the postal votes to one central location. The candidates who were standing for the Convention then met to decide how to allocate the postal votes to each other.

Seamus Mallon, one of the candidates, managed to convince the meeting that he was in most danger of not being elected. A decision was taken that most of the postal votes would be marked up and given to him as first preference. The consequence was that poor Paddy O'Hanlon, who had represented South Armagh for many years, failed to get elected. That is because he did not get a sufficient share of the postal votes.

The account of the meeting was published in a journal in Ireland and Seamus Mallon threatened to take action. As he did not do so, I can only conclude that the account of the meeting was correct. That is one argument for not having a proportional representation system on this occasion. I hope that we shall stick to the standard procedure as is laid down.

The Minister may also remember that there was a dispute about candidates' qualifications at the last election. In the review of qualifications has any action been taken to avoid the type of dispute that occurred in Fermanagh District Council, which did not set that council off on the right footing?

The last matter that I raise is of particular regard to Northern Ireland. I refer to the situation when someone is though to be personating and he is so challenged by a polling agent. In the regulations it states that before he is arrested the polling agent who makes the oral challenge has to commit himself in writing that he is prepared to go to court and allege that the individual is personating. If the unfortunate person is caught and accused of personating and if the polling agents reneges and refuses to sign, is there any action that the aggrieved person can take against the false allegation against him? If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I hope that he will contact me later.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

In many of the draft orders that come before the House at this time of night we are bringing the law in Northern Ireland into accord with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a process that my hon. Friends and I heartily support. Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom, we never fail to proclaim that in our opinion the law that applies to those who live there should be as far as possible identical with the law that applies to those who live in Great Britain. We assert that the burden of proof is on those who say that the law in Northern Ireland should be different in any particular case.

The three orders that the House has been dealing with this evening have all been of that character. The two that we have disposed of have produced homogeneity in their respective spheres between the law in Northern Ireland, which they have altered from what it was hitherto, and the law in Great Britain. Now we come to the third order, but here we stop half way.

The order brings the law on local elections into accord, in most respects, with that prevailing in Great Britain. It brings the law for postal voting at local elections into accord with the law for postal voting in Great Britain. That, I think, is right. I think, with the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), that it is right not because of any diminution which there may or may not be of the prevalence of intimidation but because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has amusingly explained, there has been widespread and quite intolerable abuse.

In presenting myself for the first time as a candidate for a parliamentary election I was amazed by the behaviour of some of my supporters and the expectations they appeared to attach to the possibility of accumulating hundreds of postal votes. Having secured my first election to this House by the fact that my workers and I had managed to accumulate more postal votes than my opponents, and thus created the small margin by which I was first elected, I was astounded by their enthusiasm for hundreds of postal votes and the immense demand for postal ballot forms. I discovered that they had made a mistake and had assumed that the law at parliamentary elections was the same as that under which they had conducted local government elections.

This opened my eyes to the possibilities of abuse under the unrestricted postal vote system. That is sufficient to cure any but foolish people in Great Britain who argue in favour of further major extensions of the facilities for postal voting. I am sure that in parliamentary elections we have gone as far as it is wise or right to go, and I am also sure that the law for local government elections should be the same as for parliamentary elections. Therefore, I welcome the step towards uniformity brought in by this order.

But at that point the enthusiasm of the Government for producing uniformity in all parts of the United Kingdom comes to a dead halt, for they maintain in this order the difference introduced by this House for the special benefit of Northern Ireland in 1972. In Northern Ireland in 1972 the law on local government elections was made different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom in order to produce specific results which those in charge of affairs wanted to see produced in Northern Ireland. In short, they hoped that it would result in fewer Unionist and more non-Unionist candidates being elected. It was a piece of gerrymandering by the imperial Parliament and the imperial Government based on the incomprehension of the real circumstances in Northern Ireland on which the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were at that time operating.

We now all know and admit—this has been admitted from both sides of the House tonight —that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland the proportional representation system —the single transferable vote—has not altered the balance of the parties appreciably at all.

The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that it was an advantage that there had been more seats in total. Perhaps that is so—and so say we in respect of representation in this House. It would be an advantage if there were more seats in total, but we do not claim that there would be an alteration in the proportion or balance of political representation as a result. Nor has there been an alteration as a result of the gerrymandering of 1972 in the representation of the respective parties elected at local government elections. But what has happened is that a stigma has been placed on the people of Northern Ireland—namely, that they are to operate under an electoral system which the rest of the United Kingdom rejected and is not prepared to accept—and which, I opine, should there ever, by any mischance, be any direct elections to a European Parliament, will not be accepted for those direct elections.

It has had an odd effect: the stigma of deliberate differentiation without purpose. But it has also had the effect that the results have been severely to damage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) described so eloquently and vividly, popular representation and the representative principle and responsibility in local government in Northern Ireland.

The first three hours of this Supply Day, so generously placed by the official Opposition at the disposal of various minority groupings in the House, were spent by the Liberal Party peddling once gain their demand for proportional representation. It is greatly to be regretted that a cross-section of hon. Members who took part in that first debate of the day, and particularly the occupants of the Liberal Bench, did not stay on to this relatively early hour to receive the benefit of the ounce of practical experience instead of the ton of mere theory in which the Liberal Party deals. Then they would have been able to learn and hear from those who have actually experienced it what is the effect of proportional representation upon the representative principle, what abuses and what disorders it introduces into representative, democratic bodies.

I add only my own observations on the effects of it in my own constituency. I take from the district of Banbridge, in which I reside, the electoral district area B which comprises eight wards. By the way, while I am dealing with wards I draw attention to the fact that the absurdity is crystallised in the order in article 5(1), which says that there are to be as many councillors as there are wards but the candidates are to be nominated for the district electoral areas.

Another personal reminiscence: I was puzzled when I began to find my way round the electoral registers in Northern Ireland at the phenomenon of wards. I inquired what the purpose of the wards was. I discovered that they were not used for any ascertainable electoral purpose. They were not used for polling because at that time there were polling districts. They were not used for local government elections. They had no purpose except for slicing up the register into inconvenient slices.

Here is the nonsense in article 5 (1). The whole electorate is to be divided into wards, the purpose of wards being to elect representatives. Even in the City of London, which hon. Members opposite despise and want to abolish, the wards are electoral areas. We may not approve of the methods but wards have a meaning. But wards in Northern Ireland have no purpose. One creates them, one produces statistics and organises the register in terms of wards, but then one makes no use of them.

I turn to district area B of district 16 to which I was about to come. It comprises the ward of Croob and the ward of Dromore. The ward of Croob is a huge ward with relatively low population and comprises the Dromara Hills, that landmark that is visible from most parts of the eastern half of the Province and which rises to a peak in Slieve Croob where people who are so minded can visit the Army post which is sited there, mostly in mist and other unfavourable climatic conditions.

Dromore comprises not the whole but the central part of a small and highly historic cathedral town. It is totally absurd that there should be the same—I was going to say representation, but that would be under-stating the case—block of eight representatives for the inhabitants of Croob and the inhabitants of Dromore. Of course the inhabitants of Dromore ought to have a representative who would be representative of Dromore —and the people of Croob ought to have a representative of Croob.

I will say more. The representative of Dromore and the representative of Croob ought to have their different points of view when they come to the Banbridge District Council. They should be arguing for different priorities and should be representing different conditions and explaining to their fellow councillors how different are the circumstances of their respective constituencies.

That is what representative Assemblies are all about. That is what happens in this House and what happens in every elected authority in Great Britain. But it is what is prevented from happening in Northern Ireland by proportional representation.

It may happen by accident—it would only be by accident, but it is unlikely—that one representative would come from Croob. It is more likely that one would come from Dromore, and even more likely that more than one would come from Dromore.

The whole thing is an obscenity from the point of view of elective democracy. It is the most undemocratic system that could be devised. Why is it being perpetuated by a Government who have set themselves—and they have had all our support and encouragement—to the business of producing uniformity of law in this integral part of the United Kingdom —Northern Ireland—with the rest of the United Kingdom? It is because—I shall offer them, as I believe it to be, the most generous explanation—we can only crawl out gradually from under the shadow of our past follies.

The follies of 1972 were not, in the first instance, the follies of the Labour Party. The Labour Party only went along with the follies perpetrated by the Conservative majority. Nevertheless, a certain guilt by association with these follies attaches to the Labour Party. So there have been successive decompression chambers through which they have succeeded in reascending to the atmosphere after having plunged so deeply into the follies of 1972 and 1973.

I do not wish to be ungenerous. Here is one decompression chamber that has worked. We have got rid of the notion that all will be well if everybody can vote by post. We have still to get rid of the notion that all will be well—but only in Northern Ierland—if there is election by the single transferable vote. We shall have in due course an order that will produce uniformity with the rest of the United Kingdom and restore genuine elective democracy to Northern Ireland.

I give warning that my right hon. Friends and I will not cease to complain of this system, which we are unhappily perpetuating tonight, until it is removed by a further order, or by a single clause in a Bill, by which the thing can be simply done, as the best dentist can extract a rotten tooth.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Carter

I should like to preface my remarks on the observations of individual Members by relating my own experiences as the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. As hon. Members know, I have spent some considerable time going to all parts of the Province, not on fleeting visits but spending two and three days in some places as the guest of the local authorities. Although this order has generated some heat in some respects tonight, I have not discovered—and I do not say this simply to defend the order but merely to record my experience—that there has been a great deal of hostility towards the system of democracy that we have in Northern Ireland.

In defence of local authorities and those serving on them I can say that there is a tremendous amount of good will among all shades of opinion.

Mr. Powell

Of course there is.

Mr. Carter

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says "Of course there is." I find that a lot of people in Great Britain believe that people in Northern Ireland are at each others' throats all the time. I said that I would give my own experiences because this is an opportune moment to put on record the fact that there are scores of people of widely differing political persuasions on local authorities in Northern Ireland who get on extremely well together.

I have been to the Belfast City Council and talked to the assembly there. I have spoken to the Londonderry City Council. I have been to Armagh, Newry and many other councils besides. Without exception I found that people got on extremely well together in spite, as we have heard, of the controversy that surrounds some aspects of the democratic structure there.

Mr. Molyneaux

Would the Minister accept my assurance that if, in his key Department, he was to decide that he could add yet another upper tier of responsibility, he would find that there again the elected representatives would work happily and constructively for the good of the people who sent them there?

Mr. Carter

The hon. Member has had a good deal to say on that subject recently. As my right hon. Friend has repeatedly made clear, it is for the political parties in Northern Ireland and others to come together to produce something that will be acceptable to the broad mass of the people in Northern Ireland. We await such an emergence. If it emerges I have no doubt that the people will come forward to fill the places on such a body and will get on extremely well together. It is as well that the House knows this because there is a great deal of ignorance in the rest of the United Kingdom about the affairs of Northern Ireland.

I turn to the observations of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). He asked whether there had been any petition against the retention of the single transferable vote system. The simple answer is "No." We have had no criticism, in a petition form at least. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the proposed relationships between elected representatives and the people they represent might suffer as a result of STV. I can only say that from personal experience I have not found this to be so. I do not think, from my discussions with the Association of Local Authorities on a wide range of subjects, that there is any criticism of the system in that respect.

He referred to the powers of local authorities, which I suppose are bound up with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). There is the so-called Macrory gap which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. One would hope that in the not-too-distant future that gap will be bridged.

As Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment I shall do all I can to increase the ability of local authorities to participate more in the functions for which they are currently not responsible. Hon and right hon. Members will have noticed that in the recent change in housing policy, as it is now directed at Belfast, I have now involved the city council in the housing drive to rebuild and renovate Belfast. I believe that in vital matters such as housing the elected representatives have an important part to play. I sincerely hope that the city council can work fruitfully with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, myself and the Department in bringing about a transformation of Belfast.

The hon. Member referred to intimidation and asked whether it had increased. My impression is that the next round of local elections will not be accompanied by the same level of intimidation as may have existed in the past. Westminster elections have been held without a significant degree of intimidation.

The hon. Member asked about bill-posting. The law in Northern Ireland is basically the same as the law in the rest of the United Kingdom on this matter. We shall be taking all steps possible to ensure that billposting is kept to an absolute minimum.

The hon. Member concluded his remarks by asking how the casual vacancies were filled. The method employed may not be a perfect way of dealing with the matter, but, once again, it seems to have worked out pretty well in practice. There have been no objections to the method used for the lifetime of the last elections.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

What was the reason for instituting this procedure? Is the Department against by-elections?

Mr. Carter

The reason is that it simply maintains the party balance as it was at the time of the elections. It appears to have worked out extremely well. Casual vacancies have occurred and people have been nominated to fill them. There has been no criticism of the system as far as I am aware.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South questioned the changes in the expense limits. Generally, the limits have moved up, although some have moved down. Now that we have a flat rate plus a sum per elector there is a tendency to proportionality across the board. The rights of mental patients are exactly the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member questioned, as did other hon. Members, the whole philosophy of proportional representation. He said that the system was quite alien. He will not expect me to deal at length with the question of PR. I can only say that from personal experience I have not heard any great criticism of the system. I know that hon. Members who are used, in a Westminster sense, to something entirely different have different views from people who are involved in local government in Northern Ireland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) opened his remarks with a criticism of the fact that we are restricting postal voting. He was probably alone tonight in defending the past practice. There was the opportunity for a great deal of abuse, and that has been the experience. I listened with interest to the story of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). I do not know whether it is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast West was out of the Chamber at the time. Perhaps if he gets together with the hon. Member for Armagh later he will get the story.

There is no doubt the there is an opportunity for abuse with an unrestricted system, and I am pleased that hon. Members welcome the fact that this practice is to be the subject of some restrictions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West referred to the practice of intimidation. The last two sets of Westminster elections have gone off reasonably well without any significant incidence of intimidation, and I hope that this will be repeated at the local government elections in May.

The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked how a man or woman who is absent can acquire a postal ballot form. If a person is absent and does not know about the elections, he or she will not get a vote. If a person is absent and knows about the election, he or she will have to make an inquiry in order to vote. There is no obligation on the authorities to seek out people and inform them.

Mr. Wm. Ross

Where will the forms for absent voters be available, and how does a citizen go about getting one?

Mr. Carter

The electoral officer will have the forms. The hon. Member must know the practice. The citizen will have to go and get one himself or write away for one. It is a simple procedure.

Reference has been made to the fluctuating electorates in Northern Ireland, and clearly this is a problem. Given the security situation, there is nothing we can do. We hope that a maximum number of people will get their names on to the electoral register.

The hon. Member for Londonderry referred to the question of proportional representation. I know that he feels that it is alien. But if he talks to councillors in Londonderry, as I have, he will find that it works quite well. The hon. Member for Armagh spoke of the weaknesses of proportional representation. I suppose that all electoral systems have weaknesses of one kind or another. It is largely a matter of opinion, practice, and, above all, custom.

Councillors' qualifications are determined by the Local Government Act, and while I am unaware of the problem in Fermanagh which has been mentioned, there is no reason why there should be any difficulty in the next elections. The problem of personation was also raised. I am not sure about that one I will write to the hon. Member for Armagh about it.

The right hon. Member for Down South supported strongly the suggestion that we restrict postal voting. With the sole exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast West, this proposal has been received with unanimous approval tonight. The right hon. Member for Down, South concluded with a wide-ranging criticism of the PR system and suggested that we might come back at some time in the future with a Bill, presumably in another stage of the decompression procedure, bringing Northern Ireland back into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member a time, place or date for such an event, but with his persistence and that of his colleagues, perhaps such a Bill may one day come about.

However, at this moment the experiment is continuing. I hope that tonight the order and all that is in it will receive the support of the whole House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.