EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

HC Deb 14 March 1979 vol 964 cc583-624

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Is it the wish of the House that the two sets of regulations on the Representation of the People be taken together? That is agreed.

Before these regulations are moved. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that they make detailed provision for the conduct of elections to the European Assembly. They do not deal with the principle of European Assembly elections or with the voting system to be used. Those subjects were dealt with in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. They also do not deal with the date of the election, 7 June. That is the subject of the European Assembly Elections (Day of Election) Order 1979. Accordingly, these three matters fall outside the scope of tonight's debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the regulations being debated together or separately?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Before I gave the ruling I asked whether it was the wish of the House that the regulations should be taken together. That was agreed without dissension. I hope that the hon. Member accepts that.

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the Representation of the People regulations that we are discussing this evening were superseded by a new draft that was published or agreed on 6 March. However, the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which decided that the regulations had to be reprinted, are not available in the Vote Office. How on earth can we go ahead with the debate when we do not know why it was decided that they had to be reprinted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am advised that had the Committee found that there were any objections, there would have been a rubric published to that effect. I understand that the details are basically the same and that the Committee found no fault with this substituted instrument.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note what you have just told the House. Nevertheless, is it not unusual and undesirable that the House should take an instrument that has been the subject of consideration by a Committee when the report of that Committee is not available to Members? Of course we accept your assurance that the Committee has not reported adversely, but would it not be better for hon. Members to be able to satisfy themselves that such is the case by seeing the report in the Vote Office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that the adverse report relates to the previous instrument This is a matter for debate, not for order. The right hon. Member will find that this matter is in order, and therefore it is debatable now.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

On a different point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that there was no essential differences between the two sets of regulations on the Order Paper tonight. I believe that there is a great deal of difference. One is for the first-past-the-post system of election and the other for the proportional representation system. The Government went out of their way to ensure a different type of election in Northern Ireland; therefore it is very confusion to debate the two systems of election together.

Sir Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not correct. You put the point about the two sets of regulations being taken together and the House agreed to that suggestion without any dissent. The matter was then raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and you pointed out, quite rightly, that the House had accepted that the two should be taken together. Therefore, surely the point of the hon. Member for Belfast, West cannot be allowed.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand from the exchanges so far that there is some doubt whether the document before us is the operative document that we are discussing tonight. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was no reason to believe there was any difference between the two documents, but surely we should not be asked to discuss a document merely on the assumption that it is the correct one. Surely we should have the opportunity to satisfy ourselves by examining the two documents to see whether they are identical and whether we are debating the documents that we should be debating. Therefore, is it not desirable to allow time for Members to satisfy themselves on this point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is not one for the Chair.

Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is most important to ensure that we have the proper documentation before us. I recall that when I served the Government as a Whip many objections were put forward—quite correctly—by the Opposition, who did their duty in seeing that nothing got through the House unless they knew what they were voting about. It seems that we should follow precedent. I remember precedents when the Leader of the House, who is a most reasonable and understanding man and a great democrat, who always wishes to ensure that the House discusses and votes on matters in a proper manner, with all the correct information, agreed to withdraw business from the Floor of the House so that Members could have the correct documentation properly printed. He thus ensured that we knew exactly what we were doing. This, in turn, meant good and plausible legislation.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not one way of resolving the problem be for you to be supplied with copies of the two documents, so that you would be able to read them out one after the other? We would then be able to compare them to find out whether there is a difference. It is not satisfactory to have an element of doubt. Even in relation to the slovenly standards that we normally apply to so-called European legislation, we cannot allow this slipshod way of conducting Government business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The only way in which the House can deal with the matter is during the course of the debate. If the House does not approve of the regulations, it can take the appropriate action.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The two draft instruments before us have printed at the top: Supersedes draft published on 31 January 1979 ". From what you said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that the drafts published on 31 January have gone before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and that the Committee found no need to draw the attention of the House to any specific feature. Therefore, the four documents now in the Vote Office—including the two new ones—with the supersession printed at the top have not been before the Committee. Therefore, the Committee has not had the opportunity to examine any changes that there might have been. In view of the fact that there has been a second edition, there must have been some change.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If we pursue this any further, the matter will become more complicated. I understand that the documents have been before the Committee. If they had not, that fact would have been printed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be in order for the Home Secretary to explain the position? If the debate gets under way and there are snags or differences, he can explain them to us. Surely it is better to proceed with the debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the two documents are to be taken together, does that mean that there will be one and a half hours only for the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is so. However, there could be two votes if the House so desired—one on each instrument.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it from your ruling that there will be one and a half hours only of debate for both sets of regulations. That means that the regulations for Northern Ireland, which deal with a system of election different from that for the rest of the United Kingdom, will not be properly debated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I pointed out this matter to the House at the beginning. The House agreed with no dissenting voice that the two sets of regulations should be taken together. I repeat that at the end of the debate, at half-past eleven, it is in order and correct that there should be two votes, one on each instrument.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about the confusion that has arisen, certainly in my mind. You will recall that the motion on the recent debate about increased representation at Westminster for Northern Ireland was put down in the name of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Home Secretary appeared during that debate.

One of the documents before the House is in the name of the Home Secretary and the other is in the name of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If we are to take them together, may I ask where the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is? Who is to deal with the Northern Ireland regulations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time. He knows that that was not a point of order and was certainly not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Stoddart

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members are confused about this matter and the points of order have not clarified the position as I would wish. Is there a possibility that we could send for the Lord President to come to the House to explain the situation to us? How can we resolve the position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

About 12 or 13 minutes of the precious time allowed for the debate have already been wasted on points of order. I suggest that we should now proceed.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Is this the same point of order? I must warn the House that we are spending a lot of

Division No. 95]	AYES	[10.5 p.m.
Bell, Ronald	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	Mr. John Lee and
Paisley, Rev Ian	Mr. David Stoddart.

time on points of order and we have only one and a half hours after 10 o'clock for the debate.

Mr. Kilfedder

I came into the Chamber only seconds after you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had put to the House that the two documents should be taken together. I came in on the assumption that they were to be taken separately, with one and a half hours for each.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very good at assuming, but on this occasion his assumption came too late.

Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that we have been considering these matters for nearly 15 minutes. It is self-evident that there is considerable uncertainty and unhappiness about the availability of papers and much uncertainty about what consideration has been given to the matters that are the subject of the orders. A request has been made for the Lord President to come here to give hon. Members clarification. My right hon. Friend will clearly not get here in time to be able to give that information to hon. Members. In view of the uncertainty, would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be prepared to accept a motion for the Adjournment of the House so that we may proceed with this business on another day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is unhappiness. I hope that he does not want to make the Chair unhappy. I think that we should get on with the debate.

Mr. Ron Thomas (Bristol, North West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you—

Mr. Fitt

I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that Strangers were present, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 3, Noes 254.

NOES
Adley. Robert	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Newens, Stanley
Alison, Michael	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Noble, Mike
Allaun, Frank	Fookes, Miss Janet	Oakes, Gordon
Anderson, Donald	Ford, Ben	Ogden, Eric
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Forrester, John	O'Halloran, Michael
Armstrong, Ernest	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Arnold, Tom	George, Bruce	Page, John (Harrow West)
Ashton, Joe	Goodhart, Philip	Park, George
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Gould, Bryan	Parkinson, Cecil
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Parry, Robert
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Pattie, Geoffrey
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Grant, John (Islington C)	Penhaligon, David
Banks, Robert	Gray, Hamish	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Bates, Alf	Hardy, Peter	Price, William (Rugby)
Beith, A. J.	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Bendall, Vivian	Haselhurst, Alan	Rathbone, Tim
Berry, Hon Anthony	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Bidwell, Sydney	Home Robertson, John	Reid, George
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward	Horam, John	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Boardman, H.	Howell, David (Guildford)	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Body, Richard	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham Sm H)	Rhodes James, R.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Richardson, Miss Jo
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Bradford, Rev Robert	Hunter, Adam	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Hurd, Douglas	Robinson, Geoffrey
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Brittan, Leon	James, David	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Janner, Greville	Rooker, J. W.
Brotherton, Michael	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Roper, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Royle, Sir Anthony
Buchan, Norman	John, Brynmor	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Buchanan, Richard	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Sandelson, Neville
Buck, Antony	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Sedgemore, Brian
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Selby, Harry
Cant, R. B.	Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Sever, John
Carlisle, Mark	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Shepherd, Colin
Carter, Ray	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Shersby, Michael
Cartwright, John	Judd, Frank	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Kerr, Russell	Skeet, T. H. H.
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Kilfedder, James	Skinner, Dennis
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Kimball, Marcus	Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Clemitson, Ivor	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Snape, Peter
Cockcroft, John	Knight, Mrs Jill	Spriggs, Leslie
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Knox, David	Stallard, A. W.
Cohen, Stanley	Lamborn, Harry	Stanbrook, Ivor
Concannon, Rt Hon John	Lamond, James	Steel, Rt Hon David
Conlan, Bernard	Lamont, Norman	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Cormack, Patrick	Lawrence, Ivan	Stradling Thomas, J.
Cowans, Harry	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Strang, Gavin
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)	Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Crawford, Douglas	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Cronin, John	McCartney, Hugh	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Cryer, Bob	McCusker, H.	Tierney, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Tinn, James
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Tomlinson, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Maclennan, Robert	Torney, Tom
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.
Dempsey, James	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Dewar, Donald	McNamara, Kevin	Waddington, David
Dormand, J. D.	Madden, Max	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Magee, Bryan	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Marks, Kenneth	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Wall, Patrick
Dunnett, Jack	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Ward, Michael
Durant, Tony	Maynard, Miss Joan	Watkins, David
Dykes, Hugh	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Watkinson, John
Eadie, Alex	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wells, John
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Mikardo, Ian	White, Frank R. (Bury)
English, Michael	Mills, Peter	Whitehead, Phillip
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Whitlock, William
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Moate, Roger	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Evans, John (Newton)	Molyneaux, James	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Eyre, Reginald	Morgan, Geraint	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Fairgrieve, Russell	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Farr, John	Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Faulds, Andrew	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	Woodall, Alec
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Woof, Robert
Flannery, Martin	Neave, Airey	Wrigglesworth, Ian

Young, David (Bolton E)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)	Mr. Ted Graham and
Younger, Hon George	Mr. Donald Colman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ron Thomas

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we had that important vote there was a good deal of confusion in the House concerning these documents. You said that you hoped that the debate itself would inject some clarity into the situation. We now have less than one hour in which to bring about clarity. In any case, I do not think that there is any precedent in"Erskine May"where debates in this place produce that kind of clarity. I therefore appeal to you Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be indefensible if we cast our votes this evening on the basis of documents that do not seem to apply to the debate, or which we have not even seen.

I ask you, at the very least, to ask the Leader of the House to make a statement. In the meantime, as has happened on a couple of occasions recently, we could adjourn the House until the Leader of the House is available to make that statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is an old and familiar point, which is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the documents, he must vote against them.

Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthorpe)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not raised a point of order so far on what happened before the Division. I seek to raise a different point of order. Two hon. Gentleman have already raised points of order on the question whether the documents were taken together or separately. I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite correctly informed the House, and the House so agreed that they were too late. They had not realised that I agree, but we now have a restricted time for debate—one and a half hours—and the moments are ticking by. I did not raise the point of order before the Division, but there are some hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak in favour of this—although I do not understand why they wish to do so—and they will be restricted during this one and a half hours.

I think that we should adjourn the House so that we can clarify both points that have been raised, whether they are true in substance or not. Nobody can restore the time that has been taken in the Division. The result is that the debate has been curtailed. I think that we should consider having the debate on another occasion, when we can discuss the matter for the whole one and a half hours, so that hon. Members who have missed the boat will have another chance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has himself said firmly and clearly that time is moving on. I endorse that.

10.18 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

I beg to move, That the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 6 March, be approved. I hope that the House will also approve the Northern Ireland Regulations.

The two sets of regulations which are before this House this evening provide for the detailed conduct of the first elections of United Kingdom representatives to the European Assembly. The regulations relating to Great Britain provide for the election by the simple majority, or first-past-the-post system, of 78 representatives from England, Wales and Scotland. The Northern Ireland regulations provide for the conduct of the election of three representatives by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation in the one constituency of Northern Ireland.

The decision to adopt these methods of election was taken by this House during debate and discussion on the European Assembly Elections Act, which received Royal Assent in May last year. Schedule 1(2) to the Act gave the Secretary of State power to draw up regulations for the detailed conduct of the elections based on the existing statutes governing parliamentary elections. Following discussion in Committee the Government agreed that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament, and that for the purposes of consultation drafts of the regulations should be published in White Papers. They were duly published in August last year—one by myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the other by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Copies of the White Papers were sent to all those concerned with the organisation of elections, including the representatives of returning officers, the local authority associations, the broadcasting organisations, and the political parties. The Government are grateful for the full and informed response that resulted. Although we have not been persuaded to depart from some of the most substantive proposals—on the level of the deposit, for example—a number of improvements to both sets of regulations have been made We are grateful to all those who participated in the consultations.

Following consideration of all the comments and technical suggestions the Government laid fresh drafts before the House in January this year. As is usual, the drafts were considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which brought to our attention an omission from both sets of regulations regarding the declaration of secrecy to be made by the officers charged with verifying the total of ballot papers at the close of poll on Thursday before they are sealed again for the count some days later. In the light of their comments we withdrew the first sets of regulations and laid new drafts on 6 March. The Joint Committee, acting with speed, has approved the new drafts. We are indebted to it.

Before I outline to the House some of the detail of the regulations I should like to review briefly the other necessary preliminaries to the holding of the elections on 7 June.

The Parliamentary Boundary Commissions made the final reports at the end of 1978 on the composition of the constituencies in Great Britain. Northern Ireland forms a single constituency. The Orders in Council to give effect to the Great Britain constituency boundaries were laid before Parliament in draft in December and were approved. The political parties are now far advanced with their procedure for the selection of candidates for the constituencies.

I have also made an order, as I am required to do by the European Assembly Elections Act, fixing 7 June, the first day of the period determined by the European Council, as the date of the election of the representatives from the United Kingdom. I have also made an order appointing returning officers for the constituencies from those who conduct parliamentary elections in England and Wales. In making the latter order I took careful note of all the representations that were made to me. A similar order has been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Thus, we are now at the final stage of preparations for these first direct elections.

Mr. Madden

In view of the speculation in some quarters about the effect of a general election coinciding with elections to the European Assembly, what legislation will be needed to secure such a joint election? What representations has my right hon. Friend received from the relevant authorities about the difficulties which such an event would create?

Mr. Rees

I shall deal with that matter shortly. I have received no representations on this matter.

It is the job of the House to make the final decision and to complete the parliamentary procedure necessary before the people can elect their representatives.

I turn to the content of the regulations. The Government made clear in our White Paper on direct elections, published in 1977, that, whatever system or systems of election was chosen by Parliament, the actual conduct of the election should be closely related to the conduct of a parliamentary election. Thus the regulations are set out in a form which shows how the existing parliamentary statutes have been adapted. This was the practice followed in the orders regulating the conduct of the EEC referendum in 1975 and of the recent referendum on devolution.

This is also consistent with the general approach that the House adopted to the principal features of the election when considering the European Assembly Elections Act. As the House will recall, the Act provides that the qualification for holding the office of a representative to the Assembly will be broadly similar to that of being a member of this House. The Act also provides that the franchise is broadly the same. In these regulations we follow through this approach.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that stemming from the EEC referendum and the Act there is much ill feeling among many British citizens who are working not in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in the EEC who have been deprived of a vote? Between now and the next EEC election in a few years' time, will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues within the EEC get together to ascertain whether some satisfactory solution may be found to enable those people to vote in a European election?

Mr. Rees

The House took the decision to use United Kingdom registers. The registers will include those who are in residence in September, the register becoming available the following February. It is for the Speaker's Conference, or some other such body, to make a change to enable those not living in the United Kingdom to have the right to vote. It was the decision of the House to use United Kingdom registers. In my view there would have to be a Speaker's Conference before we could make a profound change in the way that we have carried out elections since the reforming measure of 1832.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the question aked by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) casts an untrue reflection on the institutions of the Community? The hon. Gentleman complains that there are British people living abroad who do not have the right to vote. That is nothing to do with the Community's organisation but is entirely to do with the Government's organisation.

Mr. Rees

The decision was taken not by the Government but by Parliament. All those who played a part in the debates in this place will recall the decision being taken.

For the elector the regulations for the conduct of the elections in Great Britain provide that voting for the elections will follow a pattern precisely similar to that of a parliamentary election. The elector will receive official notification of the election on a poll card, which will be almost identical to the cards used at parliamentary or local government elections. The elector will generally vote in the same polling station as for parliamentary elections. The procedure in the polling station will be the same, and he or she will mark the same type of ballot paper.

The elector in Northern Ireland will follow the procedure of the single transferable vote election with which he is familiar in local elections.

I now deal with the query of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), who asked whether there could be a general election and elections to the European Assembly on the same day. I say nothing about the desirability of such a decision, as that is not for me. I confine myself to answering my hon. Friend and dealing with the problems that would arise and the legal position if such a decision were taken.

There is nothing in the present law that says that one cannot hold an election to one body on the same day as an election to another. Rightly, the law is specific about election procedures. All the procedures have to be gone through if the election is to be valid. Thus, under the present law two elections could be held on the same day, simultaneously but separately. There would be two polling stations, possibly in the same room if it were big enough to accommodate them. There would be two sets of staff, two sets of ballot boxes and ballot papers, and separate election expenses returns. However, there is enough equipment only for the 50,000 polling stations that are used to handle one election at a time. Therefore, there would be practical difficulties in making such arrangements.

Mr. Lee

rose—

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose—

Mr. Rees

I ask my hon. Friends to allow me to finsh. This matter is like the Schleswig-Holstein question; only two people understand it—two people in the office—and myself. All the others who have commented on it are wrong.

The alternative would be to streamline the procedure so that the same ballot box at each polling station could be used for both elections. I am assured that in most polling stations there is plenty of spare capacity in the ballot boxes that are used. I am assured that the same staff could be used to handle both elections and that the same official stamping instruments and other equipment could be used. It is not a radical proposal. We already have combined parish and district elections. In those elections different coloured ballot papers are often used and the ballot papers are sorted before they are counted. There is general agreement that that procedure works smoothly.

As I have said, we would not be able to use a streamlined procedure under the present electoral laws. A short Bill would have to be brought before the House at the appropriate moment. There would be no problem if the Prime Minister decided not to go to October or November. However, that is not a matter for me.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Will the Minister indicate to which hon. Member he is giving way?

Mr. Rees

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

Mr. Rooker

I want to ask my right hon. Friend about something which concerns some of us in some parts of the country where, because of tradition, political poll cards are issued at elections, with the polling stations on them. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that some of these political poll cards have already been printed, with the polling stations on them. Will he take cognisance of the fact that any changing of polling stations would cause chaos for both the Labour Party and the Tory Party, as in Birmingham it is traditional for the Labour Party and the Tory Party to issue political poll cards?

Mr. Rees

What people have decided to do in those areas is not a matter for me. I am only responsible for the official poll cards. It is not for me to decide whether unofficial poll cards are legal.

Mr. Alan Clark (Plymouth, Sutton)

The question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the Home Secretary's answer confirm the analogy with the Schleswig-Holstein question. The Home Secretary did not point out that the answer given by the Foreign Secretary at the time was: There are only three men who have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead, the second was a German professor, who became mad, and I am the third, and I have forgotten all about it.

Mr. Rees

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I remember it, and whether the hon. Gentleman is mad or dead is a matter on which he must make up his own mind.

Mr. Ron Thomas

Will my right hon. Friend consider very carefully the advice that he has been given in terms of what he described as capacity? It is one thing to talk about the voting throughout the day. It is another thing to bear in mind what happens between 8 pm and 9 pm, or between 9 pm and 10 pm. In my experience, polling booths have been absolutely packed at those times. If we had to issue two voting slips, and people were voting twice, this would cause even more delay. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the only reason why this idea is being pushed is the knowledge that if the British people are asked to vote on 7 June simply in the direct elections there will be a derisory turn-out—and I shall be glad if that is so.

Mr. Rees

I can assure my hon. Friend—it is my job to be ready for whatever might happen—that I do not think that there will be a problem on that, either. But we are just guessing here about the future.

Mr. Kilfedder

Will the Home Secretary accept from me that the people of Northern Ireland would object most strongly to the holding of the EEC election and the Westminster election on the same day? There would be total confusion, because in Northern Ireland there would be proportional representation for one election and the first-past-the-post system for the other election. People would not know which way they should vote.

Mr. Rees

When I was in Northern Ireland I noticed that there was a very high turnout in very complicated elections, because the Northern Irish people feel very strongly about their politics. We shall have to wait and see. This is purely guesswork as to what might happen.

Mr. Russell Johnston

If the Government intend to have these two elections on the same day, what length of notice would they regard as appropriate?

Mr. Rees

The Government have made no such decision at all. In my diary I am talking about 5 November, but I do not decide when it should happen.

Mr. Fitt

My right hon. Friend has already said that it would be possible to use one ballot box for the two ballot papers. One of those ballot papers would be marked"X ", on the first-past-the-post system and the other would be marked on the PR system. On page 33 of the Draft European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1979 there are candidates called Harry Lime, Peter Plum, Sterling Silver and Gentian Violet. Does my right hon. Friend not believe that that in itself would cause considerable confusion in Northern Ireland? Where in the name of God would one get a man called Peter Plum in Enniskillen?

Mr. Rees

These are hypothetical questions that my hon Friend is asking.

The returning officers in Great Britain have been chosen from those responsible for parliamentary elections. The returning officer's duties will be undertaken by an acting returning officer, normally the chief executive or other official of one of the large authorities within the constituency. The returning officer will depend on the staff from areas in the other constituencies.

The returning officer and his staff will have similar responsibilities and they will, as they say,"umpire"the election, using much the same rules as apply in parliamentary elections. Broadly speaking, there will be the same offences and the same punishments.

Mr. Lee

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Before the hon. Gentleman interrupts, may I tell the House that all these interruptions will mean that someone who could have been called will not be called?

Mr. Lee

Will my right hon. Friend deal with the question of expenses? There has often been a problem of determining when an election begins—as he knows from paragraph 710 of the fifteenth volume of Halsbury. Bearing in mind that the election date has already been determined, it is my submission that all expenses incidental to elections are accountable, as it were, from now on.

Mr. Rees

All I can say to my hon. Friend is that he should try that in the courts and then no doubt he would not be here in the evenings to ask me the question.

For the candidates and the political parties, there will be the same entitlements as regards free postage and the use of meeting halls as available under the legislation governing parliamentary elections. There are, however, a number of differences between the conduct of these elections and the conduct of parliamentary elections and I shall draw the attention of the House to a number of these.

The first set of differences relates to the size of the constituencies. We know that there are 81 seats for this country. There was considerable debates as to how 81 seats should be allocated, but what it means is that the European constituencies are a good deal larger than those that we in this House normally represent. [Interruption]. I put that in because I thought that there were some people who, by the noise they are making, did not know it.

Therefore, we needed to fix a higher overall maximum for election expenses. The regulations provide that each candidate should be able to spend the basic sum of £5,000, plus a variable figure of 2p per elector. At parliamentary elections the related figures are a basic of £1,750, plus 2p per election in a county constituency and 1½p per elector in a borough constituency.

This means that the average amount per elector for European Assembly candidates will be slightly less than the level fixed for parliamentary candidates in the Representation of the People Act last year. In my view this is justifiable and realistic, given the economies of scale.

With regard to deposits, we recognise that the larger constituency, and thus a larger electorate and greater access to free postage facilities, necessitate a higher level of deposit from each candidate. There has been a great deal of discussion about this. There has been a related debate about the level of parliamentary deposit which has been fixed at £150 since 1918, as everyone knows.

These matters are clearly related and our aim was to find a level for the European Assembly election which was not so high that it appeared to prejudice an increase in the level of parliamentary deposit. There is no consensus of view on this and I think that we are right to abide by the figure of £600 in our draft, which is a reasonable compromise between the extremes that have been pressed upon us.

In the election in Great Britain the deposit will be returnable on a candidate achieving 12½ per cent. of the valid votes cast, and in Northern Ireland it will be returnable on a candidate achieving one quarter of the electoral quota at any stage in the count.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee)? It is not good enough to shrug it aside by saying it can be tried in the courts. Is a meeting held over the next month or so, addressed by someone announced as a candidate for the European Parliament, accountable as an election address?

Mr. Rees

No doubt my hon. Friend has been chosen as a candidate for a Westminster—

Mr. Whitehead

That is not the point.

Mr. Rees

If meetings are held, and are addressed by European candidates, in my view—but it would have to be checked—it would count as election expenses. Certainly, as has happened to me during the past nine elections, once the Writ has been moved it changes a person from being a"prospective candidate"into a"candidate ".

A number of views—

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

This is a complicated matter, and I am sorry that we have so little time to deal with it. The Home Secretary quickly slid past the question of the free post. I ask him to reflect on that. There will be 500,000 electors on average in each constituency. Is it seriously suggested that the only system that we can use is addressing individual envelopes, as required under the existing Post Office regulations for parliamentary elections? Could we not simplify the process by allowing the Post Office to distribute the election literature, as it does the commercial literature and as was done in the European referendum?

Mr. Rees

That has obviously been considered. But it would need a change in the law. My view on behalf of the Government is that in this respect we should stick to the rules that we use in this country for the Westminster elections. If there is to be any change, it is the sort of thing that would have to be considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Stallard

rose—

Mr. Rees

I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed. Returning officers and others look to the House for guidance, and at this pitch we shall not get the information on the record

Mr. Stallard

I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend, but it is an important point. It is not good enough to equate the European elections with the situation as it applies in the Parliamentary elections. One big difference is that we already know the date for the European elections. Many of us would say that as from now the European election campaign has started. Therefore, this is a different game. Most candidates for the general election have, as yet, not been chosen, and we do not know the date. Therefore, there is a different set of circumstances that cannot be brushed aside in far too hurried a debate tonight.

Mr. Rees

It would be a matter for the courts—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]—Of course, it would, as it has been in Westminster elections over the years. If a man or woman declares himself or herself a candidate, and runs meetings in furtherance of that, in my view he or she stands every chance of having those expenses counted as election expenses.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The total electorate in Northern Ireland at this election is almost 1 million. Surely the statement made by the Leader of the Liberal Party is one that is worthy of consideration especially when election literature has to go to 1 million voters. Surely some arrangement should be made whereby these envelopes should not have to be personally addressed by the individual candidates.

Mr. Rees

The decision that we took was to use the system that we use for the Westminster elections. Any change would be a profound one, and we would have to consider whether it would wash over on to Westminster elections. Putting a leaflet through the door is a much easier exercise than is party workers looking at a register, which all of us know is vital to an election. At some time, the House will have to make up its mind on that. But, for the moment, I am sticking to the rules that we in this House have followed over the years.

There were varying views about the number of signatures. I understand that the Liberal Party favoured a nomination form of 500 electors instead of a monetary deposit. The Conservative Party favoured a requirement for a number of supporters from every parliamentary constituency in the Euro-constituency. We considered these—

Mr. Ron Thomas

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? It seems to me that prospective candidates standing in the European elections from all parties are, from now, threatened with the possibility of legal action, because they do not know when they can begin making proper disbursements of the amounts of money that they have been allocated. I think that this is a serious matter, which demands a thorough debate. It cannot be left in the ambivalent way that the Secretary of State has left it.

Mr. Rees

We could have had half an hour at the beginning of the debate to discuss this most important issue. If a man is a prospective candidate, in my view there is no problem. If he is a candidate, has declared himself as such, and is soliciting votes, he has declared himself in a way that the expenditure counts against the election.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The reason why so many questions and points of order are being raised is that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the confusion here and of the quite insufficient time allocated to a discussion of this very important topic. It seems to me that this debate ought to be adjourned and that we should be given an opportunity to discuss the matter fully on another occasion. It is much too important to try to do it all now.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Before I take any other point of order, I must remind the House that the Home Secretary is nearing the end of his speech. The debate has continued.

Mr. Madden

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. This debate should have started at 9.48 pm. As you know, before you took the Chair there were a number of points of order. The Home Secretary has drawn attention to very serious matters, and I think that it would be only fair to him to have the opportunity to return to the House after seeking guidance on these most important matters. Are you prepared to accept a motion from me to report Progress and so enable these matters to be discussed more fully at a later date?

Mr. Speaker

I am not accepting such a motion. The debate is under way.

Mr. Rees

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. These draft regulations have been about for three months. They have been discussed by all the political parties. I am extremely familiar with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby is quite entitled to play games, but he is not entitled to say that we do not understand the regulations. They are quite clear to all the political parties.

Mr. Stoddart

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret very much that the Home Secretary should accuse hon. Members who have been raising legitimate points of order of"playing games ". I hope that he will reconsider that.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport)

He has not got the answers.

Mr. Stoddart

My point of order is, in my view, a very important one. We need to have clarification of it because of the treatment of certain of our citizens, namely, people who have agreed to be named as candidates for the European Assembly. The Home Secretary has made certain statements that will cause confusion. In the first place—

Mr. Speaker

Will the hon. Member give me a point of order on which I can rule? The fact that he disagrees with the Home Secretary is not one on which I can rule.

Mr. Stoddart

Is it in order for the Home Secretary to give information that may be misleading to candidates for the European Assembly elections and that may cause them difficulty, expense, and perhaps even imprisonment?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Home Secretary takes responsibility for his own statements.

Mr. Rees

It is exactly the same for someone who is a candidate for the Westminster Parliament.

The other important set of differences concerns the counting of votes. Article 9(2) of the decision of the European Communities on direct elections provides that the counting shall not begin in each member State until the close of poll in the last member State to vote during the period 7–10 June determined by the European Council. That means that while we shall be closing our polls at 10 pm on Thursday evening 7 June, we shall not be in a position to begin the count proper until the following Sunday evening. The exact timing of this has yet to be determined in most areas of the United Kingdom. I understand, however, that a definite decision has been reached in Northern Ireland not to start the count until Monday.

In other areas the first results from constituencies should be known late on Sunday evening. In order to ensure that there is no risk of malpractice when there is such an interval between the close of poll and the count, there will be a separate verification stage taking place in all constituencies on the evening of the poll. At that stage the number of ballot papers will be checked against the ballot paper accounts. They will then be sent for counting to the constituency returning officer.

To summarise, I believe that with the exception of the special arrangements which I have just outlined these regulations are well precedented. They apply to the novel constitutional feature of direct elections to the European Assembly systems of election which are well tried and well known. They complete the long and often difficult parliamentary procedure preparatory to the election. It is now for the House to decide, and to give the final approval necessary for the administrative machinery and organisation to be set fully in motion. I believe that both these sets of regulations fully deserve the support of this House.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford)

The House will be grateful to the Home Secretary for setting out the details of these regulations amongst a certain amount of interruption. We should also be grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for pointing out the need for declaration of secrecy for the verifying officers. That alone emphasises that we are on unfamiliar electoral ground.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear all along that we want the election to take place on 7 June, so we are bound to urge the House to agree to these regulations. But we do not agree with everything in the regulations, and, as we have made clear in the past, we do not agree with the different procedures that have been adopted for Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has made clear on many occasions, that is unsatisfactory.

In consultations with the political parties we raised certain matters that have not been covered in the regulations. First, there is the deposit. Our anxiety is to deter frivolous candidates. That must be the concern of all who want to see the elections conducted in an orderly way. We cannot understand why the existing deposit was not simply multiplied by the minimum number of Westminster constituencies in any one of these Euro-constituencies. That would have come to £900. In October my right hon. Friend the chairman of the Conservative Party put forward that suggestion. We heard nothing more, and the Government have thrown up £600, which seems to have been plucked out of the air. The logical approach, pending a longer-term review under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, would be to multiply £150 by six.

The other deterrent to frivolous candidates that we hoped to see related to the question of signatories on nomination papers. The regulations require 30 signatories from anywhere in the Euro-constituency. We think that there should be 10 signatories from each Westminster seat, as this would be a more serious obstacle. There is a considerable sum of free postage available to every candidate—more than £35,000 in total—and we need to make sure that frivolity among people seeking to put themselves forward as candidates is deterred. I am not sure that the regulations entirely meet our fears on this point.

Mr. Russell Johnston

Why do the Conservatives believe that it is better to raise objections to frivolous candidates on a monetary basis, rather than a signatory basis?

Mr. Rooker

Because they have a philosophy of money.

Mr. Howell

The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will have heard me rest it on both bases. Either way we want to try to ensure that these regulations provide for orderly elections. The two measures we proposed—which regrettably have not been accepted—would have helped in that respect.

I particularly wish to draw the attention of the House to the timetable that is set out in the draft regulations for England and Wales and Scotland on page 15, where there is a long column of explanations for the dates for the publication of notice of election, delivery of nomination papers, and so on. Since we know that the date of the election is 7 June, would it not be easier for the Home Secretary to publish papers giving the specific dates when all these things are supposed to happen? I believe that an undertaking to do that was given in another place. This would be very helpful, so that we would know the last dates by which all these things must happen. That might help to simplify the problem that the Home Secretary had a few minutes ago on the question of the point at which a prospective candidate becomes a candidate and is liable to incur election expenses which must be counted against his total.

On accounting arrangements, the Home Secretary explained that we have this unusual situation in which the votes must all be verified and then locked away until Sunday night when the polls close throughout the rest of the EEC. I presume that that will be at 10 o'clock, but because the clocks are different, it will be 10 o'clock our time in some places and 11 o'clock our time in others. In the three intervening days there will be quite a considerable security problem. We need an assurance that the security procedures will be given special attention because there is scope for problems here.

The Home Secretary said that the parties are now choosing their candidates. We are doing so, and I believe that the Liberal and Labour parties are, as well. I have seen reports in the press that Labour party candidates elected will be required to hand over to the research department at Transport House some of the expenses that they draw for carrying out constituency duties. If that is so it is a most improper development. I hope that we will have a clear denial from the Home Secretary on this matter.

I turn to the question of other elections on the same day. We cannot leave this matter where it was left in our earlier rather distraught and disorganised discussion. As the law stands now there is nothing in the regulations to prevent another election from being held—say, to Westminster—on 7 June, provided that there are separate polling facilities. In other words, there would need to be a complete duplication of staff, polling stations, and their facilities.

When the Home Secretary said that the matter was rather like the Schleswig Holstein situation I felt that whoever undertook the drafting in the Home Office may also have forgotten some of the complexities of the problem. The Home Secretary and his noble Friend in another place said that the European Assembly vote would be held in the same polling stations as were the parliamentary elections. Therefore, on present trends, it would be impossible for the elections to be held simultaneously with separate polling facilities and in the same polling stations. The Home Secretary has—in his own words—ruled out the possibility, under present law, of elections being held both for Westminster and the European Assembly on the same day. Is it correct that primary legislation would be required, so that the two elections could be held on 7 June?

Mr. Merlyn Rees

If the elections were separate and, for example, in a school classroom, with a replica in the adjoining classroom, there would be no problem. However, if the same room were used, without the duplication of equipment—stamps, boxes, screens—it would require a small Bill.

Mr. Howell

The Home Secretary said earlier that it would be in the same polling station, as did his noble Friend in the other place. Some confusion remains about the matter.

Mr. Rees

There is no confusion about the matter. It is possible to use, for example, a separate part of a school. These rules would apply, and not the Westminster rules, but the duplication of equipment would be required. It could be done in the same room, but it would require a small amount of primary legislation.

Mr. Howell

Presumably the primary legislation is required only if the same room in the polling station is used and if the same returning officers are involved. The Home Secretary and his noble Friend in another place have said that they intend to use returning officers from the parliamentary election for the European election. I believe that there would be difficulties.

Mr. Rees

I see no reason why the normal returning officer in a parliamentary election—the town clerk or chief executive—could not handle two elections. If there were two elections in the same school there would be no reason why the returning officer could not keep his eye on both.

Mr. Rooker

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that there remain only 16 minutes of the debate, and that at present a dialogue is running, can Progress be moved upon the matter, so that we can have time to re-examine it and debate it on another day?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot accept the motion at the moment.

Mr. Howell

I am trying to get along as fast as I can. However, this is an important point and I am far from reassured about the matter. I am less reassured when I think of the point raised by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that there will be two systems of election running simultaneously on the same day. There would be electoral chaos.

I ask the Home Secretary to recognise that it would seriously jeopardise the good conduct of orderly elections, either to Europe or Westminster, if an attempt were made to run them on the same day. Whether one is for or against Europe, or for or against the elections, it must be in the best interests of democracy to have orderly and efficiently run elections. Nothing has been said tonight to reassure us that electoral chaos would not ensue if an attempt was made to run both elections at once.

We have strayed slightly from the main purpose of the regulations. Our view is that the House should support them, even though we do not agree with all the details, and that we should go forward to orderly elections on 7 June.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

I regret that we have only a few more minutes in which to discuss the regulations. They are of paramount importance to the whole of the United Kingdom and I fail to understand the reasoning of the Government and those who control the business of the House in bringing forward such regulations at this time of night and allowing only a short period for us to debate them.

The problems in Great Britain will be doubled, trebled and quadrupled in Northern Ireland because two systems of election will be used there. Many of my hon. Friends intervened during the Home Secretary's speech to ask in what circumstances it will be right for a person to incur expenses on the ground of his candidacy for the European elections. I understand that the problem may become even more involved, because arrangements are being made by European sources for the payment of moneys—expenses and otherwise—from Europe to some bona fide candidates for the 7 June elections.

Another problem is uppermost in the minds of those in Northern Ireland. Mr. Oliver Napier, of the Alliance Party, has been nominated for the Belfast, East constituency in elections to the House, but he has also been nominated as a European candidate. His party says that if both elections are held on the same day he will go for only one of the seats, but until 7 June Mr. Napier will legitimately be incurring expenditure on the grounds of his European candidacy and some form of expenditure on the ground that he is a candidate for the Belfast, East constituency in elections to Westminster.

Is Oliver Napier breaking the law? No doubt the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will also want to clarify his position. I doubt whether he will have much difficulty in being re-nominated for the Westminster elections, but he has also been adopted this week as a European candidate. When will it be right for him to campaign and to incur expenditure?

A number of my hon. Friends have rightly referred to the confusion that exists over the regulations. Although some Conservative Members will not admit it, they are also confused. It is disgraceful that the House should be asked to approve the regulations at this hour of night. Page after page of the regulations contains references to sections of the 1949, 1969 and 1978 Acts. Do the Government really believe that hon. Members have had time to go through all those Acts to find out what they contain? It may be that some Tory Members, who are not as assiduous as other hon. Members in looking after their constituency interests, have had time to burn the midnight oil and pore over the Acts. I have no hesitation in saying that I would find it impossible to read up on this matter. If I were doing so, I would not be looking after the interests of my constituents. Let me ask the House—

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) rose—

Mr. Fitt

Let me ask any Member of the House—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Fitt

Can any hon. Member of the House tell me the maximum penalty for the offence of personation? If any hon. Member can tell me what section 47 of the 1949 Act says, I am prepared to give way. Nobody knows what is the maximum fine. Hon. Members have not been reading the regulations. They do not know. They are chancing their arm. Can anyone tell me the minimum penalty for the offence of personation? No. They cannot.

Mr. Dykes

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, as we are dealing with an Irish question, on what legal date the official European campaign starts?

Mr. Fitt

I do not believe that I have the authority to answer to such questions. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend. I would like the Home Secretary to tell me. If he does not know, I would like the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to tell me. He would know more about the regulations that I am discussing and could perhaps inform me on what date the campaign starts in Northern Ireland.

Serious issues are involved in this election. The election is the most unique in the whole history of the United Kingdom. It is an election that is unparalleled and—

Mr. Jay

Unnecessary.

Mr. Fitt

—and unnecessary. The results will have a decisive effect on the whole future of the United Kingdom. I am not certain how debates were brought about in other parts of the EEC. I am certain, however, that the regulations attached to the election were not conducted within the short period of an hour and a half.

I have already indicated that most hon. Members of this House do not know what is the maximum penalty for personation. Perhaps it does not happen in this part of the United Kingdom. But it certainly happens in Northern Ireland, as my right hon. Friend will be well aware. Has he considered what will be the attitude of the Government? I do not want him to say that this will be decided by the courts. That is an easy get-out. I would not like to think that the election result in any Northern Ireland constituency had been decided by votes cast illegally. That has happened in the past. It has not happened on too many occasions, but it has occurred. This is not a sniggering or giggling matter. It is very serious.

Local government elections were taking place in May 1977. One of the candidates for the Republican Clubs called at my home on the eve of the poll. He told me that the Provisional IRA or the Provisional Sinn Fein were not contesting the election and that they would not be voting, because they did not believe in associating in any way with elections under the auspices of the British Parliament. He then proceeded to tell me that he had a list of Provisional Sinn Fein or Provisional IRA supporters who were not going to vote, and would it be all right with me if he and his supporters voted on their behalf? I told him that I could not associate myself with that suggestion. I would have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe)

If I may assist the hon. Gentleman, it would appear to me that the penalties for personation would be the same in a European as in a parliamentary election. The regulations make that clear. That may confuse English Members, but it is obvious that Irish Members have a great deal of expertise on the subject of personation. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will let us know the maximum penalty that his friend was running the risk of incurring in the election that he was describing.

Mr. Fitt

The hon. Gentleman should be very careful when talking about friends. That man was a political opponent, not a friend. By the way, I believe that the Under-Secretary of State is very friendly with that person—alderman Seamus Lynch. He then proceeded to show me a list of the names—

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are nearing the end of the debate and there has not been adequate discussion. Are there any procedural motions under which, according to our Standing Orders, you have the right not to put the question? I draw attention to Standing Order No. 3: Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting. I submit that this situation is not unprecedented. This is a very important debate. We have Standing Orders so that, in a situation such as this, you, Mr. Speaker, can use your discretion to enable the House properly to consider matters of this kind. I do not think that any hon. Member, whatever his feelings about the regulations, believes that adequate consideration has been given to them.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am well aware of all that has taken place this evening. I intend to put the question at 11.30 pm. That is the judgment that I have reached. I know that the House lost 20 minutes through spying strangers. I know exactly what happened tonight, and I intend to put the question at 11.30.

Mr. Fitt

I want to be as helpful as possible, especially to my hon. Friends, who are deeply concerned about these regulations, but even if I were to sit down now there would be too little time for hon. Members on either side of the House to express their opinion. [Hon. Members:"Sit down."] I have no intention of sitting down. Provided that I can stay within the bounds of order—I have no doubt that I can—I shall be standing here at half-past 11. So, if hon. Members are not interested in what I have to say, the sooner they go the better.

Mr. Dykes

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that is grossly unfair to the House? There has been a grotesque amount of filibustering by the hon. Gentleman and others who do not care about democratic debate, even in an hour and a half, and who have done that for their own narrow purposes. Indeed, it was the hon. Gentleman himself who moved that strangers should withdraw.

Mr. Fitt

If there is anyone in this House who is being grossly unfair it is the Government. They should have made many hours available for a discussion. I have no intention of accommodating a Government who have been so unsure of themselves that they did not want to have a prolonged debate with all the expressions of opposition that might have been heard in the House.

Let me return to the problem of personation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. Gentleman has already taken up 34 minutes of the 90 minutes available for this debate, it is not clear that he is deliberately setting out to prevent the House debating the matter?

Mr. Speaker

We must let the hon. Gentleman proceed.

Mr. Fitt

I was referring to section 47—

Mr. Speaker

Had the hon. Gentleman given way to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

The hon. Gentleman has so far taken 10 minutes in asking one point about personation, the answer to which is as plain as a pikestaff to anybody who has read the regulations. Is he seriously trying to conduct a debate or is he trying to waste the time of the House, thus preventing anybody from talking about the serious content of the regulations?

Mr. Fitt

I am asking a serious question about personation. I am asking about section 47 of the Act of 1949 and the maximum and minimum penalties that can be invoked. I have referred to a Republican Clubs candidate in the local government elections in 1977. On the eve of the poll he came to my house and told me that those who supported Provisional Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA were not going to cast their votes and that he was going to use his organisation to personate those votes on behalf of himself.

I do not support the Provisional IRA or the Provisional Sinn Fein, or any other terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that it is right and just that people who support them should have their votes stolen from them in the way that was done on that occasion. That candidate give me a list that contained 700 names—I have the list here—and the next day, during the election perhaps not all, but the majority of the 700 were personated on behalf of that candidate.

My agents were trying to do what they could to prevent personation and I was responsible for having three people engaged in the illegal activity of personation apprehended by the police. They were brought before the courts and fined the magnificent sum of £15. I regard that penalty as being absolutely derisory and in no way calculated to stop people engaging in the practice of personation.

The European elections are going to change the course of the history of these islands, and those who are elected would, I hope, be elected, because the electorate has gone out, of its own free will, and cast either an X, or, in the case of Northern Ireland, the figure 1 before their names. I am fearful that some of the candidates in Northern Ireland will engage in all sorts of para-military activity. It will be restricted not to the Loyalist side but to the so-called Re- publican side, to ensure that its candidates are elected.

I ask my right hon. Friends to state before the closure of this debate, that anyone found guilty of the offence of personation in the European elections—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

What about other elections?

Mr. Fitt

Any elections. But we are discussing European elections. I would ask that the criteria apply to local government elections, elections to any assembly, to Stormont, and to the Westminster elections. But we are discussing the elections to the European Assembly.

Mr. Russell Johnston

Given the fact that nobody other than the hon. Gentleman is likely to speak on this point, does he not agree that it is ridiculous that many old ladies will be sitting addressing envelopes when the sensible thing would be to take advantage of the Post Office system already operating to distribute views.

Mr. Fitt

I agree. That is a constructive suggestion. Few suggestions have been made, because of the time. If the debate had been longer many hon. Members on both sides could have given of their wisdom and experience.

I know that the Home Secretary will say that these are matters for the courts. I urge him to say that anyone who is found guilty of the offence of personation at the European elections in Northern Ireland will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

Mr. Stallard

In Brussels.

Mr. Fitt

These elections are so important that every possible safeguard must be built in to the system. The Home Secretary has said that two polling stations could be housed under one roof. He will be aware that in Northern Ireland the electoral areas are based to a large extent on sectarian divisions. People are afraid to cross from one part of Belfast to another because they fear that they will be accosted on the way to the poll.

That is understandable in elections to this House. The returning officers have tried to draw boundaries that ensure the safety of electors when they cast their votes. But will the same boundaries apply for the European elections?

A million people will be voting in Northern Ireland in one constituency which is twice the size of the average constituency. I am certain that Northern Ireland people voting in a European election will be called upon to cross the sectarian divisions and will have to vote in areas which are hostile to their political beliefs.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you replaced Mr. Speaker in the Chair a point of order was raised asking for advice about how a vote could be avoided because of the lack of adequate debate. Mr. Speaker said that he intended to call the vote at 11.30 p.m. He also said that a vote had to be taken on the withdrawal of strangers.

I am anxious to speak in the debate. I have made no interjection. Only one

Division No. 96]	AYES	[11.30 p.m.
Adley. Robert	English, Michael	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Anderson, Donald	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Neave, Airey
Armstrong, Ernest	Fairgrieve, Russell	Ogden, Eric
Arnold, Tom	Ford, Ben	Price, William (Rugby)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Rathbone, Tim
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Goodhart, Philip	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Grant, John (Islington C)	Reid, George
Bates, Alt	Hardy, Peter	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward	Haselhurst, Alan	Roper, John
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Sandelson, Neville
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hicks, Robert	Sever, John
Brittan, Leon	Home Robertson, John	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Horam, John	Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Brotherton, Michael	Howell, David (Guildford)	Snape, Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Hunter, Adam	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Hurd, Douglas	Stradling Thomas, J.
Buchanan, Richard	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Strang, Gavin
Buck, Antony	John, Brynmor	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Campbell, Ian	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Tinn, James
Cant, R. B.	Judd, Frank	Tomlinson, John
Carter, Ray	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.
Channon, Paul	Kerr, Russell	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Knox, David	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Cohen, Stanley	Luard, Evan	Ward, Michael
Coleman, Donald	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Welsh, Andrew
Concannon, Rt Hon John	McCartney, Hugh	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Cowans, Harry	McElhone, Frank	White, James (Pollok)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Whitehead, Phillip
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Maclennan, Robert	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Magee, Bryan	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Dewar, Donald	Marks, Kenneth	Young, David (Bolton E)
Dormand, J. D.	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Younger, Hon George
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Duffy, A. E. P.	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Durant, Tony	Mills, Peter	Mr. James Hamilton and
Dykes, Hugh	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred	Mr. Ted Graham.
Eadie. Alex	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Back Bench Member has been called to speak, and he is the hon. Member who called for the Division about which Mr. Speaker complained. About 20 minutes was taken from the scant time available, because of the action of the only Back Bencher whom Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, called. The conduct of the debate has been unfair to those hon. Members who have genuinely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Order. Mr. Speaker ruled on what he intended should take place at 11.30 p.m. The House conducts its own affairs as it wishes. The debates are being taken together, and now I must put the Question.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3(Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 73.

NOES
Allaun, Frank	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Penhaligon, David
Beith, A. J.	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Bidwell, Sydney	Kerr, Russell	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Body, Richard	Kilfedder, James	Richardson, Miss Jo
Bradford, Rev Robert	Kinnock, Nell	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Carson, John	Lambie, David	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Lamond, James	Rooker, J. W.
Clemitson, Ivor	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Lee, John	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Litterick, Tom	Sedgemore, Brian
Cryer, Bob	McCusker, H.	Skinner, Dennis
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Spearing, Nigel
Farr, John	Madden, Max	Spriggs, Leslie
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Marten, Nell	Stallard, A. W.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	Maynard, Miss Joan	Steel, Rt Hon David
Flannery, Martin	Mikardo, Ian	Stoddart, David
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Forrester, John	Moate, Roger	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
George, Bruce	Molloy, William	Winterton, Nicholas
Gould, Bryan	Molyneaux, James	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Newens, Stanley	Woof, Robert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	O'Halloran, Michael
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Ovenden, John	TELLERS FOR THE NO:
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Paisley, Rev Ian	Mr. John Ellis and Mr. Kevin McNamara
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Parry, Robert
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Pavitt, Laurie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.

Division No. 97]	AYES	[11.41 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Ogden, Eric
Anderson, Donald	George, Bruce	Penhaligon, David
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Graham, Ted	Price, William (Rugby)
Armstrong, Ernest	Grant, John (Islington C)	Rathbone, Tim
Arnold, Tom	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Hardy, Peter	Reid, George
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Beith, A. J.	Haselhurst, Alan	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward	Hicks, Robert	Roper, John
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Home Robertson, John	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Horam, John	Sandelson, Neville
Brooke, Hon Peter	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Sever, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Hunter, Adam	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Buck, Antony	John, Brynmor	Snape, Peter
Campbell, Ian	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Cant, R. B.	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Carter, Ray	Judd, Frank	Strang, Gavin
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Knox, David	Tinn, James
Cohen, Stanley	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Tomlinson, John
Coleman, Donald	Luard, Evan	Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.
Concannon, Rt Hon John	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Cowans, Harry	McCartney, Hugh	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	McElhone, Frank	Ward, Michael
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Maclennan, Robert	White, James (Pollok)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Magee, Bryan	Whitehead, Phillip
Dewar, Donald	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Dormand, J. D.	Marks, Kenneth	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Durant, Tony	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Dykes, Hugh	Mills, Peter
Eadie, Alex	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred	TELLERS FOR THE AYE
English, Michael	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Mr. Alf Bates and
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Mr. Thomas Cox
Fairgrieve, Russell
NOES
Allaun, Frank	Bradford, Rev Robert	Clemitson, Ivor
Bidwell, Sydney	Carson, John	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Body, Richard	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Motion made, and Question put.

That the draft European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Tinn.]

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 64.

Cryer, Bob	Lee, John	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Litterick, Tom	Richardson, Miss Jo
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	McCusker, H.	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Farr, John	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Rooker, J. W.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	McNamara, Kevin	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Flannery, Martin	Marten, Neil	Sedgemore, Brian
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Maynard, Miss Joan	Skinner, Dennis
Forrester, John	Mikardo, Ian	Spearing, Nigel
Gould, Bryan	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Spriggs, Leslie
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Moate, Roger	Stallard, A. W.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Molloy, William	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Molyneaux, James	Winterton, Nicholas
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Newens, Stanley	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Kerr, Russell	O'Halloran, Michael	Woof, Robert
Kilfedder, James	Ovenden, John
Kinnock, Neil	Paisley, Rev Ian	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Lambie, David	Parry, Robert	Mr. Max Madden and
Lamond, James	Pavitt, Laurie	Mr. David Stoddart
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate that we have had considerable difficulties in the debate that has just concluded. Nevertheless, the issue that we have debated is of the greatest constitutional importance. Since the Government did not obtain 40 per cent. of the vote, could you advise the House whether this matter is binding upon this Parliament and people?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That magic figure of 40 per cent. does not concern the Chair. The only time that the number 40 concerns the Chair is when fewer than 40 hon. Members take part in a Division, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the quorum.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the points of order at the beginning of the last debate I raised a matter that may inadvertently have cast some aspersion on others. Can you confirm that the original regulations that were published on 31 January, which the House has just approved, were reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 20 February—House of Commons 33/XVI—where, in seven paragraphs, the Committee drew attention to matters relating to the unexpected use of powers?

Can you also confirm that the Twelfth Report of the Joint Committee—House of Commons 33/XVIII—reported that the Committee did not wish to draw the attention of the House to revised draft orders that were laid before the Committee on 6 March? If that is what you can agree to as correct, I think that it disposes of one of the matters that took some time in the first part of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member. It relieves the mind of the occupant of the Chair to have the hon. Gentleman's support in this matter. I agree with what he said

Mr. Wm. Ross

On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the point of order that I raised earlier did not refer to either of the two published reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It drew attention to the fact that the minutes of evidence that were to appear as House of Commons Paper 33/XVII had not as yet been printed and were not available to the House.