HC Deb 21 January 1985 vol 71 cc815-26

10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott)

I beg to move, That the draft District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved. The purpose of this draft order is to give effect, without modification, to the recommendations contained in the report by the district electoral areas commissioner, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid before Parliament on 5 December last year. The commissioner, Sir Frank Harrison, was appointed on 22 June 1984 under article 2(1) of the District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 to recommend arrangements for the grouping together of local government wards in Northern Ireland into district electoral areas. As the House knows, local government elections in the Province are held with each elector casting one transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. The constituencies used for local government purposes are called district electoral areas. The draft order also gives names to the electoral areas which would come into being, on its enactment.

Before turning to a brief explanation of the draft order, I would like to take this opportunity to pay the warmest tribute to Sir Frank Harrison's thorough and expert discharge of his important task. He brought to bear an unrivalled knowledge of the subject, gained over more than 10 years of service as the local government boundaries commissioner in Northern Ireland, together with independence of mind, impartiality and sound judgment. I am sure that the House will join me in recording our gratitude for a job well done, and in extending our thanks further to the three assistant commissioners who helped Sir Frank, and to his hard-working staff.

It may assist the House if I first describe the background of this draft order. At present, the composition of district electoral areas in Northern Ireland remains as set down in 1973, originally under the provisions of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The first stage in the process of revising the basis of electoral areas was the recent review carried out by the local government boundaries commissioner of the number, boundaries and names of local government districts in Northern Ireland and the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which each district is divided. The boundary commissioner's final recommendations were published on 18 January 1984, and given legislative effect in the Local Government (Boundaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 1984, which will be familiar to most hon. Members.

The district electoral areas commissioner was subsequently appointed to recommend the grouping of wards into electoral areas in accordance with rules determined by Parliament. These rules are to be found in schedule 3 to the District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.

The rules are, in brief, that no ward can be included partly in one electoral area and partly in another; that each electoral area must consist of five, six or seven wards; that each ward must have at least one boundary in common with another ward in the same electoral area; and that each area is to be given a name.

Within this framework, the district electoral areas commissioner was empowered to propose such groupings of wards as he saw fit, although schedule 2 to the order prescribed a number of procedural requirements in the conduct of the review.

The most important of these was the requirement placed on the commissioner to publish provisional recommendations and to invite written representations on them within one month of publication. Thereafter, he was to hold public hearings if representations were made by district councils or by more than 100 local government electors in a district. The commissioner was also given a discretionary power to hold public hearings to consider other representations.

In the introduction to his final report, the commissioner describes how he went about his task. His provisional recommendations were published on 9 July 1984 and over the next few days were made very widely available in Northern Ireland. They appeared in 44 Belfast and local newspapers, were publicly displayed in about 100 locations throughout the Province, and were sent to all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, councillors and political parties, as well as to other interested bodies. Representations in writing were invited by 24 August, and some 70 submissions were received. Between 3 September and 15 October, the commissioner and the three assistant commissioners held public inquiries in 17 of Northern Ireland's 26 local government districts, at which oral submissions were made by 71 interested bodies and individuals. In the light of those representations, the commissioner modified the provisional recommendations for 15 of the districts.

Although under no obligation to do so, the commissioner also disclosed the general considerations that weighed with him in producing the final pattern of electoral areas within the statutory rules. These were principally recognition of existing community identities, a desire to form local government constituencies in which the differing sections of each community could secure representation and a conscious effort, where possible, to avoid groupings that would create electoral areas split by natural geographical barriers. The commissioner also makes plain in his report, as he did at the public hearings, that he regarded political arguments about the composition of electoral areas as speculative, and of much less value that the identification of social and community links which were there to be seen". The Government wholly endorse the recommendations that have resulted from this exercise and that are given legislative form in the draft order before the House tonight. I shall now deal briefly with its main provisions.

Article 2 of the draft order provides that it will come into operation on 15 May 1985, which is, of course, polling day for this year's local government elections in Northern Ireland. However, for the purposes of all proceedings—preliminary or relating to an election to be held on or after that date—the order shall come into operation forthwith. That provision is to ensure that everyone involved in preparing for the local elections—the election staff, the district councils and the political parties—can do so immediately on the basis of the new electoral areas.

Article 3, in conjunction with the schedule to the order, is the core of the legislation. It provides that each local government district shall be divided into district electoral areas comprising specified wards and returning a specified number of councillors. The details appear in the schedule, which is organised alphabetically throughout by district, by named electoral area within districts and by constituent wards within electoral areas. Column 1 of the schedule lists the electoral areas and, reading across the page, the constituent wards and number of councillors for each electoral area appear in columns 2 and 3 respectively. The number of councillors in any given electoral area is 5, 6 or 7, following the rules under which the commissioner was required to make his recommendations.

Article 4 provides that article 3 of and Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, which are the provisions containing the present list of electoral areas, shall cease to have effect.

I do not have to persuade this House of the importance to Northern Ireland of fair elections producing elected local institutions that are truly representative of the communities they administer. The Government are sure that the electoral framework of district electoral areas that the commissioner has devised provides the best possible basis for such fair elections to take place. I have no doubt that these arrangements will stand the test of time as evidence of their author's integrity, expertise and willingness to listen carefully to all points of view from the communities affected.

It is essential that this draft order should come into force at the earliest opportunity so that all those engaged in the forthcoming district council elections in Northern Ireland have sufficient time to make their necessary preparations. I commend it to the House.

10.9 pm

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)

I thank the Minister for taking us through the report and the recommendations of Sir Frank Harrison and then through the order itself. I sympathise with those right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies who are anxious to speak and to make what are no doubt pertinent points about the order before us.

Those who are elected to the Chamber understand that their political lives depend upon the ballot box, but many, including myself, are bemused by the additional hazard caused by the Boundary Commission. It is not surprising that, depending upon how the new district electoral areas affect the political complexion of the district elections to be held in Northern Ireland on 15 May, a variety of points are likely to be made this evening.

Notwithstanding my trepidation about the work of boundary commissioners in general, I make no criticism of Sir Frank Harrison, QC. The Minister paid him a warm tribute with which I associate myself.

An article published in the Belfast Telegraph on Tuesday, 13 March 1984 reported that Sir Frank recognised the delicacy of his task and that every change in the boundaries must have some political consequences, however trivial. He also said that some changes might have large political consequences.

When the first set of provisional changes in the boundaries were published, Sir Frank said: The purpose of the boundary revision is to reflect the massive shifts of population which have taken place since 1972 and to group electors into districts and wards which will lay the basis for better representation of people now linked by the particular and differing geographical, social and economic circumstances which will give them group identities. Sir Frank wished to create wards which people might recognise as being coherent units, deserving of separate and distinct representation and reflecting differences in interest. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has reminded the House in the past that local government in Northern Ireland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The major pre-occupation of Her Majesty's Opposition in the past was to urge local authorities to seek to create employment. Most local authorities have set up their own development organisations which generally do a useful job. However, even when debating an order which groups the wards for the purpose of proportional representation it is as well to set down what we hope of those elected to local government districts.

The result of Sir Frank Harrison's deliberations are before us tonight. I am not aware of any boundary changes that meet with universal acclaim. That is not the fault of boundary commissioners. For the elections to be fought in Cleveland at the same time in May the boundary commissioners have reduced the number of seats by 12. I mention that in passing, but it is easy to imagine that such a dwindling in the number of elected representatives will not meet with the approval of the major political party in Cleveland, since that party will lose representation.

I have no doubt that the same argument will be used tonight, but the changes will have a less draconian consequence for the people of Northern Ireland, for representatives who face an election or those who aspire to be candidates.

A review of local government in Northern Ireland will reveal why the changes are necessary. As the House knows, the local government system was reorganised in 1973. Indeed, the order derives from section 38(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which had its origins in a similar Act passed in 1972. However, it is fair to add that the proposals for rationalisation had been under consideration for some years by the Stormont Government. In 1967, the Northern Ireland White Paper acknowledged that the system stemmed from the nineteenth century and required an in-depth reappraisal and overhaul.

The Cameron report of 1969, which dealt with the civil disturbances in Northern Ireland, found a widespread sense of injustice among Catholics about housing allocation, local government appointments and the manipulation of local government boundaries. The consequence of the report was that some administrative reforms were made, including the setting up of a central housing authority and the establishment of a review body to undertake a complete reappraisal of existing proposals for the reshaping of local government.

In passing, we hope and trust that there will be no unforeseen consequence of the present boundary arrangements in the order. We hope and pray that the divisions that existed in 1969 will not be brought about a second time by the new boundaries.

I have seen articles in some parts of the Northern Irish press putting forward the view that the new electoral districts in Belfast are set to cement sectarian divisions. Phrases such as "electoral apartheid" have been used. Life is full of unforeseen consequences. I am sure that the Government are as mindful of that as I am. The principles on which the Boundary Commission operate are laid down by statute and are devoid of political intent. The Minister took us through the statutory requirements that were binding on Sir Frank Harrison, when the Minister metioned the recommendations of the report.

The present review, which culminates in this order, began in November 1982 and has had to take into account the inevitable large movement in population that occurred in Northern Ireland during the past 10 years. During that period there was an overall rise of 20,000 in the population, yet there was a corresponding fall of 65,000 in the number of Belfast voters, with corresponding increases in North Down, Newtownabbey, Ards, Lisburn, Antrim and Londonderry.

In the end, the people of Northern Ireland will vote for the type of local government that they want, and, having voted for it, they will make it work. Local government functions are divided into two broad categories: regional or area functions, and district and local services. The regional or area functions originally dealt with such matters as education, health, personal social services and the like, and under a subsequent report, known as the Macrory report, were to be transferred from local authorities to Stormont departments or area boards. The district and local services were to be given to 26 district councils, which would also have responsibility for nominating people for the area boards and which would have a consultative role.

The Macrory report noted the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, that is, its geographical size and the high proportion of central Government expenditure on local services. The existence of the Stormont tier of government was cited to answer those critics who believed that the people of Northern Ireland were being defranchised.

As the House knows, during the process of reorganisation, Westminster imposed direct rule and introduced proportional representation in the hope that this system would ensure adequate representaton for minorities, eliminate disputes about council boundaries and facilitate cross voting between the different parties. The most noticeable consequence of that was the increase in party representation. In the pre-1973 local government system, only 65 per cent. of councillors were party representatives in the county councils, and only 39 per cent. were party representatives in the urban district councils. By 1979, however, 91 per cent. of councillors were party representatives, reflecting the fact that local government was the only opportunity for electoral activity outside Westminster. The consequence — perhaps foreseen, perhaps unforeseen—was that local elections began to be fought on issues that had little to do with local services.

However, proportional representation encouraged more candidates to stand. As a result, in 1979, almost all councillors had to submit themselves to the electoral process and there were many fewer uncontested elections. The tradition of lengthy service has been eroded with the influx of new, young councillors. Those young councillors tend to come from a fairly restricted socio-economic background, but councillors tend to spend more time on council business and the public continue to regard councillors as public representatives to be contacted about public matters. I am sure that that will continue to be the case after the May elections.

At least one hon. Member is anxious lest parties do not have enough time to prepare for the May elections. There is never enough time for preparation for or to fight local elections, but, in the words of the music hall song, it all comes right on the night, except of course if one happens to lose the election. In such circumstances, victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. I do not know whether the order will produce fathers or whether it will be an orphan, but I doubt whether any boundary commission could have done as well. Although I shall listen with care to the representations that will be made tonight, I believe that Sir Frank Harrison has done a commendable job, with his vast experience, and that his recommendations cannot be bettered.

10.21 pm
Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

The House listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I listened with some sadness, because it became apparent during his speech that his education in Northern Ireland is far from complete. Indeed, I would say that it has scarcely begun. The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that there would be no unforeseen results from the order. I hope that not only will he read the debate on 6 February 1984 but that when I have finished he will be wiser about the results of this election. I do not believe that the result will be unforeseen by the Government. When the election is over, the Government will pretend that they are shocked and surprised, but the attitude will be difficult to accept.

The order is the final legislative step in bringing the new local government district electoral areas into operation. The debate follows the debate on 6 February 1984, when we discussed the local government boundaries order, which followed approaches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who asked that there should be not more than six wards in a group. We asked for between four and six wards. In his letter of 26 January 1984 to the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend said.

We are sure you will take into consideration our view that the number of wards grouped in one electoral area should be between four and six, and only in very exceptional circumstances should the number be as high as seven. My right hon. Friend also said: It would be a pity if new electoral areas were to span Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in view of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission's recent efforts to avoid splitting local authority boundaries. Anyone who reads the debate on 6 February will discover that the Minister gave his reasons for ignoring that request. At the end of this debate, we shall see that the Government had reasons for ignoring the first request, that the figure should not, except in exceptional circumstances, be as high as seven. Wherever possible, they have accepted a recommendation for seven wards, which means that an individual can now be elected with only 12.5 per cent. of the first preference vote. But 12.5 per cent. of the final vote means that anyone with 10 per cent. of the vote in such a grouping is almost certain of election without a quota, of course. I add "without a quota" because I fear that right hon. and hon. Members of this House do not fully understand the workings of proportional representation, which is the main reason why Northern Ireland is saddled with it.

On 6 December 1983 my right hon. Friend had a reply from the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which the right hon. Gentleman said: Having looked into this, it seems that our thinking is very much along the same lines. You hoped that in general not more than 5 or 6 wards should be grouped together. This seems sensible to the Government"— it is a pity that they changed their mind— although for flexibility I expect that the draft order, which will shortly be laid before Parliament, will provide for up to 7 wards to be grouped. However, it seems likely that in practice most groupings will consist of 5 or 6 wards. In the light of what has happened, I find that an astonishing statement by the Secretary of State.

In the debate on 6 February 1984, I said that the commissioner was being put into a straitjacket with a five, six, seven, rule. I said: By accepting the view that is set out in the order, we are putting the commissioner in a straitjacket. He will be left without the room he needs to manoeuvre in drawing his boundaries around the most reasonable areas in each council district. The Minister will know that circumstances and conditions differ widely from ward to ward and county to county in Ulster. The commissioner should be allowed the maximum amount of room for manoeuvre."—[Official Report, 6 February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 704.] The plain truth is that that sound advice was not followed, and the results of not following it are already foreseen.

On page eight of his report, the district electoral commissioner, Sir Frank Harrison, sets out: To construct an electoral area which can also have a discernible community identity required, not only the grouping of the right number of wards, but also the best possible selection to create electoral areas readily identifiable by the electors within their bounds, and which would form local government constituencies in which the differing sections of each community could secure representation. It is that last phrase that really matters.

Sir Frank, in his report, goes on: I also sought to create constituencies of manageable size and which could be efficiently served by the elected representatives. I have with me a copy of the map which the commissioner kindly produced when the report was coming out. Hon. Members who are interested will find a copy in the Library. I want to refer to one or two of these manageable areas which he sought to create—the areas with which the electors readily identify themselves.

I start with my own immediate council area, Limavady, and the Benbradagh area, in which I live. It stretches from Feeny to Limavady, a distance of 15 miles, spanning part of what is now the urban area of Limavady and a very large rural hinterland.

It is a matter of regret that the commissioner apparently was not allowed to use the evidence of his own eyes when he was constructing these wards. I recall clearly having taken part in the arguments and debates with the commissioner in the first instance when the existing local government wards were drawn up. We were told then that he would keep before him the evidence of his eyes. He said that he would look at the houses under construction and so forth. He said that he might therefore be drawing the occasional small ward. On this occasion we were told that that was not possible and that he had to go strictly by the number of people we were on the register at the relevant date, which was November 1982. It means that that council area is already one seat short.

I represent also the Coleraine district. That contains a district electoral area known as Bann. It stretches south from Castlerock to Kilrea. It is only 20 miles long, but again it spans a large rural area containing many differing interests. There is very little communication between the people living at each end of the area, yet they are supposed to identity closely with each other.

In the Omagh district area, there are two areas, Mid-Tyrone and West Tyrone, which geographically are larger in area than some council areas, yet those who live in those large, sparsely populated areas are supposed to meet the criteria that the commissioner laid down on page 8 of his report.

The daftest one of all is in Fermanagh — the area known as Erne West. It stretches the full length of south Fermanagh. I do not know how long Fermanagh is, but, judging by the map, I think it must be 35 or 40 miles long. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is nodding his head, confirming what I have said. The Minister ought to drive down Erne West on a Sunday afternoon—he would need a Sunday afternoon to drive down it. How he expects councillors living in Belleek to represent those at the other end of the area is beyond the comprehension of anybody who knows that county.

On 6 February I said that I thought the commissioner was being placed in a straitjacket. I made it my business to attend one or two of the inquiries that he held into his provisional recommendations. One of the inquiries which I attended was in my own constituency, Magherafelt, where the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) lives. He was present at that inquiry and made the case from his point of view. He was a year late with it, because he talked about ward boundaries rather than district electoral areas.

I made it my business to ask the commissioner whether the five, six, seven rule caused him any problems or difficulties. He gave a very clear and wordy reply. He said that it had not so much caused him problems and difficulties as placed him in a straitjacket — the very words that I had used a few months earlier in the House. I was not only astonished but delighted that I had been proved to be an accurate prophet on that occasion at least.

The commissioner also hinted that if he had known that not only would he be landed with the job of drawing up the district electoral areas but that he would also be constricted to five, six or seven wards, the conclusions he reached relating to ward boundaries and even to council and constituency boundaries might have been very different.

It was a most interesting day. I am sorry that the Minister missed it. He should have been there. Indeed, perhaps the Minister ought to have taken more interest in the matter than he has until now. By that I mean that, apart from listening to the advice of his officials, he should have gone down to the area and looked at what is happening there, because this is not the best way to deal with the matter. Quite honestly, it is a bit of a mess, and some district electoral areas in Northern Ireland are daft.

The Minister has to accept the order. He told us on 6 February 1984 that he liked proportional representation. He said: I know that some right hon. and hon. Members do not like proportional representation, but I happen to do so. However, my speech tonight has nothing to do with that matter. Has his liking for proportional representation allowed a little beam to creep into his eyes, so that he is not able to see all that is going on?

Reading the debate on 6 February was a most interesting and illuminating process. I would recommend it to every hon. Member who is here tonight, because I think that they will enjoy it, especially in relation to what will happen after 15 May. For example, the Minister said: We considered the range of the number of wards to be grouped very carefully in preparing the draft order, and in the light of the representation received"— I assume that that refers to the correspondence between the leader of the Unionist party and himself— the debate on this draft order was deferred to allow time for further consideration. Despite the fact that I gave careful thought to the representations made to me, that consideration has confirmed our original view that for the purpose of holding local elections proportional representation, using the single transferable vote system, the rules set out in schedule 3"— applying to district electoral areas with five, six and seven seats— are most likely to optimise the effects of that system…PR should be the electoral system for local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland because use of the simple majority system in local elections gave inadequate representation to substantial minorities in the institutions of provincial and local government. I would be greatly obliged if the Minister could tell us what percentage he considers to be a "substantial" minority. Is it 5, 10, 20 or 50 per cent.? That was something on which he based his policy and his figures, and he should tell us his reasoning. A far better way than proportional representation to achieve representation of minorities of any size is to increase the number of councillors and have smaller electorates. If that is done, even relatively small groups of electors can find a party to represent them.

In that debate, the Minister, partly in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), went on to say about the principle being confirmed in Northern Ireland: The hope was the PR-STV would increase the chances that representatives of both sides of the community would have to co-operate for local government to operate effectively. We remain of the view that the method is right for these elections, given Northern Ireland's circumstances. I cannot understand how a system that is clearly designed to bring about a position where no single party is in the majority makes local government or any sort of government operate more effectively. The converse is bound to be true, and the old saying, "Too many cooks spoil the broth", would fit well in this instance, as every party is in business to achieve maximum power, and that power can be achieved only when that party has a majority in the council or whatever. Therefore, each party uses the members that it has to the best effect to achieve that result. The parties are bound to fight among each other, and keep the whole place in disorder, to do better next time. That is not the way to get an effective organisation.

In that debate, the Minister went on to say: The Government continue to attach a high priority to the principle of proportionality in Northern Ireland, as it provides the best mechanism for involving all major strands of constitutional political opinion in local government institutions. What does the Minister mean by a "major strand"? What percentage of the electorate is a "major strand"? How does he propose to ensure that only constitutional political opinion succeeds in these circumstances? That is the problem that is exercising the minds of most right hon. and hon. Members, and not least those in the Northern Ireland Office.

The Minister said: it is a question of implementing a system which maximises the effects of giving equitable representation to candidates supported by a substantial minority of the electorate. The Minister is using the terms "major strand" and "substantial minority", and we must know what sort of figure he has in mind. I am sure that it is not a figment of his imagination. There must be some figure or percentage on which he bases his argument.

The Minister argued that it was widely recognised in the theory of the STV system that that is best achieved in constituencies of five to seven seats. Restricting the grouping of wards also affords greater certainty about the size of electorates and about the degree of proportionality across the Province. The latitude in the 1972 legislation, which allowed for groups of four to eight wards, resulted in electoral areas comprising four wards being far from exceptional — as had been envisaged in the 1972 legislation"— the Government always wanted five, six or seven-ward constituencies— and accordingly the overall results of past local elections have not been as proportional as the system should have provided. That is why the terms of this order are different from those of 1972. If that is translated into modern terms, it means that there have not been enough Republican or Alliance members elected in the past.

The plain truth is that the Government have set out, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) put it, to achieve certain results.

The hon. Gentleman said: An inescapable inference to be drawn from what my hon. Friend is saying is that the Government have in mind something which they consider desirable and that the number of wards has been chosen with that in view. The Minister replied: That is right. Proportional representation is designed to give the highest possible percentage of voters the election of a candidate of their choice. The Government have set out to try to get a certain predetermined result. I did not think that that was what elections in the United Kingdom were about. I thought elections in the United Kingdom were to ensure that the majority will would prevail. However, the Minister, in reply to the debate, said: Secondly, this Government are totally and absolutely opposed to everything that Sinn Fein stands for and we shall do our best to ensure that the aims that it seeks are not brought about. We absolutely detest the advocacy and means of violence."—[Official Report, 6 February 1984;Vol. 53, c.694–714.] If my understanding of the Minister's words is correct, I am delighted that the Government are opposed to a United Ireland. If that is not what he meant on that occasion, perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us what he did mean. Perhaps the Government are merely opposed to the Sinn Fein-type Ireland that the IRA and its fellow travellers wish to create. I want to hear what the Minister has to tell us about the Government's view on that score.

If the Government are sincere and we are to take the Minister's words at face value, we can infer from that that the Government intend to ensure that Sinn Fein does not do all that well in the elections. Against that background, why have they taken the opposite approach? I assume that someone in the Northern Ireland Office has done his sums on ward groupings. I also assume that one of the items taken into account was the outcome of those elections. Although Sinn Fein has not always been all that prominent, people and parties that have the same attitude of mind have taken part in most of the elections, and have had people elected who are, in all but name, Sinn Fein and extreme Republican representatives.

I hope that the Minister will give us an undertaking to publish the headcount carried out when the sums were gone through. Was the headcount done only by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages — which I very much doubt—or how much was done by the Chief Electoral Officer? We need to know the answer. How much of the headcount on an orange/green or Protestant/ Roman Catholic basis was carried out at the behest of the Northern Ireland Office before arriving at the ward groupings? The Minister may not as yet have seen the calculations, but perhaps he will find out exactly what happened in his Department, because he may be surprised.

The order will be passed tonight because the Government have a majority, and so they may be assured—as far as anyone can be—that the commissioner and his staff have ensured the maximum Sinn Fein representation. After all, the work has been done most admirably to produce exactly that result. Few hon. Members understand proportional representation, and that puts the Minister at a great disadvantage. He is dependent on the advice that he receives. Indeed, if he took ours, he might not make so many mistakes.

On page 23 of the report there is a most interesting table that sets out the various options in each local government area. First, there are seven local government districts with 15 seats: Limavady, Moyle, Larne, Magherafelt, Strabane, Banbridge and Carriekfergus. Therefore, one can only have groups of five. That is straightforward. Then Ballymoney and Cookstown have 16 seats, so it is five and five and six. Anything else is impossible. Antrim has 19 seats, so there are two possibilities there. Belfast has many possible options, ranging from 10 electoral areas to eight.

With the exception of Belfast and Newtownabbey, the option that has the maximum number of seven seats has been chosen. There is, indeed, one other exception, and that is Londonderry. It originally had two sevens, being the same size as Newry and Mourne with 30 seats. We could have had six fives there. In the Londonderry council area there were severe objections, and as a result one of the groupings was cut to make it six. Newry and Mourne have two sevens and Londonderry has one seven and three sixes. Lisburn has four sevens, Craigavon has three sevens, and so on.

That means that in each of those ward groupings a maximum of only 12.5 per cent. of votes cast is needed for someone to be elected. In practice. it means that if someone gains 10 per cent. of the votes cast, he is almost certain to be elected.

The measure was designed to help minorities. The Government do not appear to have tumbled to the fact, but perhaps they have, that the minorities are not necessarily moderate, reasonable, useless minorities such as the alliance party. Some are violent and evil, such as Sinn Fein. The Government, the commissioner, the staff and all concerned with this miserable episode have done their best to ensure that Sinn Fein will do very well.

That is why, in referring to the speech by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, I said that the results are foreseen. Any fool in Northern Ireland can foresee the results. I do not think that the Government, Ministers or their civil servants are fools. I think that they know exactly what they are doing. Actions speak louder than words, and we have had a lot of words.

I should like to ask the Minister once more a question that I asked in February last. Why do the Government want Sinn Fein to do well? What is the reason for that? That is the only conclusion to which any reasonable man who understands the facts on the ground can come, having looked at what has been done.

If the Government really want to defeat Sinn Fein, we would not have PR at all. Every Northern Ireland Member knows that. Those who like PR are not here to speak for it. We who oppose PR in this or any other form of proportional representation are here to speak against it. Our job is to defeat Sinn Fein in the coming election. We intend to do it. We intend to defeat the purposes of Sinn Fein. We intend to defeat what is to me and to every sensible, reasonable man in Northern Ireland the purpose of the Northern Ireland Office and of the Government.

We shall beat Sinn Fein. The electoral system and local government have been changed in Northern Ireland, but at the end of the day, the Unionist people still win elections. This party will be there to defend the Unionist position. We say, "We have beaten you before, and we will beat you again."