NEW SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION

HC Deb 19 January 2000 vol 342 cc892-912

Mr. Maclean

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, leave out lines 26 to 31.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 6, page 8, leave out lines 39 to 43.

Mr. Maclean

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke with his customary wisdom in the previous debate, I reflected briefly that it was an unfortunate custom of the House that my right hon. Friend cannot properly be referred to as my right hon. and learned Friend. Not only does that form of address have a certain ring and cachet about it, it is absolutely appropriate and correct in view of the—to borrow his own phrase—sagacity of his previous contribution. My contribution will not be nearly as sagacious and it will be brief because I wish to reserve my energy for the Second Reading debates that will follow.

The amendments relate to different clauses of the Bill. Amendment No. 13 would amend clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6, but they would both do exactly the same thing. They would delete the three-month residency qualification for Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 13 would delete lines in clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6(5) and remove the words: Where a declaration of local connection is made for the purposes of registration in Northern Ireland, the declaration must state that the declarant has been in Northern Ireland during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration. Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, but we have no such requirement for a special three-month residency qualification in any other part of the United Kingdom. No doubt it could be said that before the so-called peace settlement the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland meant that to avoid fraud—it would not be personation in this case—a three-month residency qualification was necessary. I am not sure what the justification is for that. Presumably, the aim was to check the bona fides of the applicant for electoral registration to ensure that citizens of the Irish Republic, a foreign country, were not popping up to Northern Ireland on registration day, staying in the Province overnight, and getting on to the register.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that the differential should exist and that it should be debated on the very day that the Government have claimed that normalisation will be achieved by the implementation of the Patten report on the RUC?

Mr. Maclean

That is a rather sad coincidence.

I shall give the House an example that demonstrates the absurdity of maintaining that provision in the Bill. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I have a friend who is an officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on attachment in this country. He is a United Kingdom citizen, born and brought up in Northern Ireland, serving his country in the RUC. He has been working in this country for a few years and when he returns to Northern Ireland, if he has not maintained his place on the register, that British citizen, who pays taxes through the nose in this country, will have to live in the Province for at least three months before he can get on to the register in his own country and have a right to vote in British elections.

On the other hand, citizens from a foreign country—the Irish Republic—may pass through Great Britain and get on to the electoral register here. I am talking not about people who come here for a holiday or for the day, but people who are doing short-term work in this country. They may not be paying a penny of tax in the UK. They may not care a jot for this Parliament, this Government, this Opposition or any of our country's institutions. However, the fact that, due to an historical anomaly, we grant citizens of the Irish Republic the right to vote in British elections, those people will get on to the electoral register in Britain without having to spend three months here to gain a residency qualification I think that I have got the facts correct: citizens of the Irish Republic passing through Great Britain get on to the register overnight, but UK citizens serving in Her Majesty's forces who return to their homes in Northern Ireland cannot get on to the register unless they have lived in the Province for three months and produced all the necessary documentation to prove that they are not frauds or foreigners.

I do not find that an absurdity; I find it an obscenity. It is outrageous that we have built-in conditions that disadvantage our citizens, particularly those who are most likely to be affected: members of Her Majesty's armed forces who come from Northern Ireland to serve in regiments outside Northern Ireland and who return to their own country to retire or on posting, and who for technical reasons may not have the right to vote. Of course, that disadvantage may affect hundreds of other civilians who are also doing worthwhile work.

If there was justification in the past, and there may have been, for the three-month Northern Ireland residency qualification, there is certainly no justification for allowing foreigners, such as citizens of the Irish Republic, to vote in British elections. However, that is another anomaly, which I shall leave undisturbed tonight. If there was justification in the past, what is the justification now when we are told that the peace process has resulted in fundamental change?

We are now to destroy the RUC itself. We are to allow two members of Sinn Fein-IRA—whom my hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist party call "unreconstructed terrorists"—to participate in the Government of Northern Ireland. Perhaps they are to have an office next to mine and £50,000 of allowances in a couple of weeks. Perhaps they are to have access to the whole of Parliament, to be called a party and to be given short money because they are now democratic. Perhaps they will be wandering in and out of the Cafeteria. If all that is to happen, it is surely a sign that we are in a radically different world from the one in which a three-month residency qualification was appropriate.

Mr. William Ross

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the forthcoming Disqualifications Bill in his important speech. Will he inquire whether the Minister will make available to us the Government's security knowledge of the two individuals whom we shall allow into the House next week? That would make very interesting reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We would be pushing it if we moved on to that particular subject.

Mr. Maclean

Even I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, recognise that that is not a subject that you want me to pursue tonight, although the hon. Gentleman's point is valid and needs to be explored in a future debate.

I described the situation as an obscenity. It will be even worse next Tuesday when another Bill is rushed through this House, because it will not be just any citizens of the Irish Republic who are entitled to be on our electoral register and to vote. The Government intend to extend to Members of Parliament in southern Ireland the privilege of becoming serving Members in any of our parliamentary institutions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying from the point. He knows full well that we are discussing a narrow amendment, and he is going wide of the subject.

Mr. Maclean

I entirely accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment would delete the three-month residency qualification. I was merely trying to illustrate the point that people from Northern Ireland who work in the rest of the UK and return to Northern Ireland will have to prove that they have lived in the Province for three months before they can vote. The Minister will probably say that he does not want to remove that condition and that, for various reasons, it must remain. He would say to the people of Northern Ireland, "Tough luck, ladies and gentleman. You have got to have a three-month residency qualification."

I was not trying to explore the Bill that we shall debate on Monday and Tuesday; I was simply trying to illustrate how wrong the situation is for British citizens in Northern Ireland, because if the Disqualifications Bill goes through the House next week, Senators—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I say once again to the right hon. Gentleman that he has already said that. He has made that case to the House and he must move on without repeating what he has already said.

Mr. Maclean

I have no intention of repeating my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not clear that the point had been made. I am not as capable of making lucid points as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I sometimes think that I have to put my point again in a slightly different way to make sure that it has been understood. I accept your advice that it has been understood.

I move on to the substance of my remarks. The three-month residency qualification is in clauses 4 and 6. Without touching on the previous debate—if I were to mention that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order—I can say that it was about the Government making regulations. Clause 9 is vague and gives the Government great scope to produce any regulations that they want, yet in clauses 4 and 6 there is no suggestion that the residency qualification should be dealt with by regulation.

7 pm

What will happen in a couple of months' time when the Bill has been rushed through the House, rushed through another place, and becomes law? What happens when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the Cabinet sub-Committee and says, "More progress has been made in Northern Ireland, so we must now scrap the residency qualification"? Given the pace at which the Government have been changing the constitution of this country and the law in Northern Ireland, it is no exaggeration to say that it is likely that, at some point in the future and for various reasons about which I shall not speculate, the Government will conclude that the three-month residency qualification is an obstacle to further progress in the peace process, or offends one or another of the political parties in Northern Ireland. However, if the amendment is not made, the provision will be in primary legislation; therefore, to change it, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have to introduce another piece of legislation.

I am giving the Government an opportunity. If passed, the amendments would delete the relevant lines from clauses 4 and 6. However, if the Government believe that a residency qualification is essential for now, they can build in a regulation-making power that would enable them to make such a provision. They might be sensible to take the chance offered in another place to change clauses 4 and 6 and take a power that enables them to make a regulation requiring, for the time being, a residency qualification in Northern Ireland. Then, in two or six months' time, when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that, in the interests of peace, the residency qualification must be dropped, the Government will be able to make the necessary changes immediately, without consultation.

Mr. Fabricant

My right hon. Friend knows that I have the highest regard for the way in which he raises all sorts of important issues in the House. However, does he accept that many people criticise the Government's legislation for leaving too much to secondary legislation, as was the case with the Health Act 1999? Would not the acceptance of his proposals leave far too open matters that deserve, and should receive, the House's full attention, rather than being left to a decision made Upstairs?

Mr. Maclean

I accept my hon. Friend's point that important pieces of election law should not be subject to the whim of regulation. However, we have just spent an hour or so debating a vital clause, the provisions of which are to be left entirely to regulations that we have not yet seen, which are likely to be subject to a brief consultation process before being bounced through. If the Government consider it acceptable to make a host of regulations under clause 9 and other clauses, why do they not use regulation in the narrow matter of the Northern Ireland residency provision?

The Government can easily put in the Bill a provision stating that there will be a residency qualification in Northern Ireland, renewable by regulation each year until such time as the Secretary of State concludes that it is no longer needed—it would be similar to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. There are other means by which the Government can attain their end, so why put it in the Bill? I am giving the Government an opt-out, but what I really want to hear is not that they will make that provision through regulation, but that it is not necessary at all, because it is wrong to discriminate against British citizens who live in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Forth

I rise to reinforce the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and to thank him for his generous words. He might come to regret them, but I shall try to live up to his praise.

I start by reinforcing my right hon. Friend's final argument, which is well worn but none the less important. During consideration of almost every Bill with which I have been involved during my many years as a Member of Parliament, we have, quite properly, debated the wisdom or otherwise of putting a provision in a Bill, thus giving it a sort of sanctity—fixing it. It is often argued that, if a matter is sufficiently important, there is a case for putting it in the Bill in order deliberately to make it more difficult to remove or alter. We have all heard that argument, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend's question is whether that argument makes sense in the context of this Bill.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out, it seems strange that, just a few hours after hearing an important statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the future of the RUC in the context of progress being made—Northern Ireland was changing and that we must all be prepared to make changes—we are considering a Bill that features a measure that would, by definition, be fixed or at least extremely difficult to change. I cannot understand how those two things can be squared.

Mr. Fabricant

My right hon. Friend makes a sound point. Does he agree that, as in many other circumstances, the soundbite "joined-up government" makes no sense in this instance?

Mr. Forth

That is true. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department consulted about the provision that we are debating. The Minister will agree that it appears greatly at odds with the message that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants to send—which is about the normalisation of Northern Ireland as conditions there come more into line with conditions in the United Kingdom mainland—to have in the Bill a provision that marks out Northern Ireland as being distinct and different from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Opposition are challenging that contradiction and the wisdom of the Government approach. The Government cannot have it both ways: if government were joined-up, there would be consistency between the arguments that they present and the content of their Bills.

The problem goes deeper than that. Anyone who has spent any time as a Member of Parliament knows that, as soon as something is put in a Bill, it becomes fixed to some degree—not immutable, but extremely difficult to alter, because a provision in primary legislation can be changed only by further primary legislation. Do the Government really want to fix a measure relating to Northern Ireland to that extent, given their desire to persuade us that matters in Northern Ireland are moving forward, progressing, changing and improving—that Northern Ireland is becoming more "normal", as they would describe it?

We have with us a distinguished colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I hope that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during this debate, because his contribution will be invaluable in revealing the point of view of our friends in Northern Ireland. We can only re-emphasise our commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom, our regard for Northern Ireland and our desire that it should be perceived as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the provision relating to a residency qualification is offensive, because it deliberately and gratuitously marks out Northern Ireland as requiring special treatment.

I believe that I can anticipate the Minister's argument. He will say that there is a long-standing fear that aliens from the Republic of Ireland might try to invade the body politic in Northern Ireland by inveigling their way on to the electoral register, thus gaining influence over the voting process in that part of the United Kingdom. Be that as it may—I make no judgment as to the likelihood of that happening or even as to whether it has already happened—I can only speculate about whether a three-month residency requirement would do anything to prevent that process. I doubt very much that a three-month residency qualification would deter an alien person from the Republic of Ireland who was sufficiently determined to infiltrate the political process in Northern Ireland.

Setting that aside for a moment, I hope that the Minister recognises that the provisions of the Bill, as it would be if the amendments were accepted, backed up by provisions dealing with validation and verification of the registration process that will—provided they are accepted—be inserted in the Bill by amendments to which we shall come shortly, will provide sufficient safeguards against the process of alien infiltration of which the Minister appears so afraid and which he might argue is the motivation for his putting such an ill-conceived measure in the Bill.

We therefore have a peculiar set of circumstances. I shall be interested to hear the Minister weave his way through this part of the argument. I hope that he will deal with the discussions that he may have had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this context and with whether the right hon. Gentleman is content with this part of the Bill. I would like to know whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland feels that he can square what he said in the House a few hours ago with what is in the Bill relating to Northern Ireland. I want the Minister to tell me whether he regards Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, to be treated in every way the same as the rest of the United Kingdom, and whether he believes that the provisions that we shall come to later in our deliberations might well be sufficient to provide proper safeguards in the registration process without the need for an overriding process of the sort that we now have.

Mr. Bercow

Is it conceivable that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is content with the provision and that, notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said and notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, he advocated its inclusion in the Bill?

Mr. Forth

We know none of those things. It is ironic that so often we find ourselves speculating, whereas, in an era of alleged open government, we should know for sure. Ministers should be elbowing one another aside in their eagerness to share their thoughts with us and to demonstrate the Government's integrity and the effectiveness of collective responsibility. That should be the position, but I have not seen much sign of it so far.

Mr. Fabricant

I speak directly to the clause. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a direct consequence of the fact that Cabinet meetings are no longer held in the manner in which they were previously—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking not to a clause but to an amendment. He is out of order.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you know how anxious I am to get through this business quickly and to move on to Third Reading, when I can make really expansive remarks. My remarks now are but a taste of what I want to say. I cannot wait for Third Reading. I shall deal narrowly with my hon. Friend's point while I am on my feet, but first I shall respond to the introduction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. He pointed out that we are dealing not only with the matters set out in clause 1 but with the parallel provisions to which our amendments apply in clauses 6 to 8, on page 8. We shall return to the matter when we deal with other amendments, because the Bill is closely intertwined and interwoven with declarations of local connection in the context of Northern Ireland.

I have a few doubts about such declarations as a principle, a concept and a working practice. Some of the amendments with which we shall deal later are designed to make the matter much more secure. Suffice to say that it is being suggested that, somehow, the declaration of local connection process or procedure in the Bill should be different in Northern Ireland. I do not see why that should be so. We are talking not about aliens coming from a strange foreign country, such as the Republic of Ireland, but local connection and the way in which that can be properly established.

I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. He has his work cut out tonight. He will have to work really hard to persuade us on this part of the Bill. However, I am sure that he can because he is an able man and has shown himself willing so far to do so. In this instance, he will have to take us carefully through the argument about why, in the context of local connection—we are seeking to amend the process by means of the amendment—Northern Ireland is necessarily different.

7.15 pm

I have speculated on what the Minister might say about the previous part of the argument, but I cannot even begin to imagine how he will justify singling out Northern Ireland when it comes to declarations of local connection. I have my suspicions about the entire process, and no doubt we shall examine it later in our proceedings. However, at this stage I wish to point out that, yet again, distinctions are made between circumstances in Northern Ireland and those elsewhere when the Government are at pains to try to persuade the House that distinctions exist less and less, if they have not disappeared entirely.

In conclusion—

Mr. Maclean

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth

I will give way, but I wanted to conclude my remarks.

Mr. Maclean

My right hon. Friend is dealing with local connection and I wished to intervene before he departed from it. I draw attention to lines 39 to 44 in clause 6 on page 8. Does he not find it incongruous that, about 15 lines beforehand, the clause states that a person can be on the register, having made a declaration of local connection, if he is a citizen of the Irish Republic? Will he contrast that with the fact that a citizen of Northern Ireland who lives there cannot get on the register for three months?

Mr. Forth

As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The more we examine the Bill, the more we are forced to believe that it is ill-directed, poorly drafted and contains the seeds of some real dangers for our electoral processes. That is bad enough for the mainland; how much worse could it be in relation to Northern Ireland, with the difficulties that it has? The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned earlier in an intervention that he is all too well aware of the dangers.

I hope that I have said enough to persuade the House that having these provisions in the Bill is utter folly. The position would be bad enough anyway, but having in the Bill such provisions referring to Northern Ireland will not do. I hope that the Minister will accept that. Either he will deploy the most powerful and detailed arguments to persuade us that what I have said is groundless, or he must accept the amendments to put right this part of the Bill.

Mr. William Ross

Given that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I agree on so many points that come before the House, they will understand how deep is my pain that I must disagree with them on this occasion. I understand from the expression of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that he is quite horrified. I hope that he will understand that my pain is exactly the same as that felt by every member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary this evening, and that of every widow of an RUC officer who was murdered by the IRA. I hope that he will understand how angry those people are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better. He knows that he must speak to the amendment.

Mr. Ross

That is the point. I was explaining how deeply pained I am that I must disagree with right hon. and hon. Members on this occasion. They will be aware that, if the amendment were accepted, it would run across existing legislation in Northern Ireland. The legislation provides that there must be residence of three months before 15 September, which is the qualifying date for electoral registration in Northern Ireland. It was provided as a safeguard. It meant that an individual had to come to live in Northern Ireland for three months. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has dealt with the danger that people would move from the Irish Republic into sensitive areas where 100 or 50 votes could make an enormous difference. Individuals had to be resident for three months before 15 September. They then had literally to stay there for another three months until the electoral list became the electoral register, which would be towards Christmas. In other words, all the hearings in the local electoral courts had to be completed and all the rest of it. Instead of having to stay for three months, they had to stay for six. That is why the legislation exists in regard to Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Gentlemen know, in normal circumstances I am most willing that legislation should be exactly the same for the whole of the United Kingdom.

May I suggest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that rather than removing the provision for Northern Ireland, it should apply to the entire United Kingdom? That would be a much better solution to the problem. I can tell my right hon. Friends that there are always an enormous number of people floating backwards and forwards between the Irish Republic and Great Britain, who have voting rights in this country.

Mr. Greenway

The hon. Gentleman will see that amendment No. 30, which we shall discuss later, would have precisely that effect in respect of declarations of local connection. Its purpose is to avoid abuse at by-elections.

Mr. Ross

I am gratified that Conservative Members have spotted the loophole—the danger for the electoral process in Great Britain—and are trying to take steps to close it. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say one thing for Northern Ireland and reject the amendment, and then reject the next amendment, which protects the position in regard to Great Britain.

I am delighted that right hon. and hon. Members with much greater expertise and resources than I have spotted the loophole, or rather, the barn door, and have proposed precautions to close the door. I hope that they are successful.

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentlemen considered the crazy paragraph just after the words that amendment No. 17 would remove, which states: No declaration of local connection shall be specially made by a person for the purposes of local government elections". When I raised the matter in Committee, the Minister said that he would consider the point and write to me. He has not done so yet, so perhaps he has not had enough time to consider it.

The proposals hang together as a piece. We need to know the purpose of the provision. If it deals with individuals coming into Northern Ireland and the requirement for them to be there for three months, how can it specify that those people cannot come in and register for the sole purpose of taking part in a local government election? The date of local government elections is known years ahead. I do not understand what the words mean. The Minister is listening, and I know that by this time he will have considered the matter, so he will be able to give us a clear answer.

Mr. Maclean

I have been listening carefully and with great respect to my hon. Friend's point. Is it his firm view that there is still a genuine threat in Northern Ireland of the electoral register being flooded with aliens from another country and distortions occurring in the electoral process, which make the three-month provision vital?

Mr. Ross

That is indeed my view. I believe that there are certain circumstances and certain areas—perhaps very small—where that could be a factor. Whenever the outcome of council elections especially, and perhaps constituency elections, hangs on a handful of votes, 20 or 30 people moving into each ward or 50 people in a critical ward could make an enormous difference.

I fear that that is true not only in Northern Ireland, but in Wales, perhaps in Scotland and in certain parts of England. If the Government want to retain the words in the Bill, they cannot refuse to insert the words that Conservative Members will seek to insert in later amendments.

It pains me to tell the right hon. Gentlemen that I cannot support their amendment, but my pain has been considerably diminished by the discovery that they have spotted the barn door that exists with regard to Great Britain and that they propose a way of dealing with it. I hope that the Government will not wait for the amendment to be moved, but that the Minister will rise to say that it is so wise, so reasonable and so much in keeping with the provisions of clause 6 that the Government will instantly accept the amendment, and that they will make certain that the same rules apply throughout the United Kingdom.

I should not like the Minister to lose his seat, in case a large number of Unionists moved over and settled in his constituency. After the performance of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today, he would not have a snowball's chance of getting an ex-Unionist vote. In the past, many people voted for the Labour party in Northern Ireland. By their actions today, the Government have destroyed any possibility of those people, should they emigrate to Great Britain, ever casting a vote for that party.

The destruction being wreaked on the police force in Northern Ireland—I dare not stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you would instantly call me to order. Destroying the RUC and leaving so many people open to future attack by terrorists bites deeply and is greatly resented. That resentment will not quickly fade. The Minister will be long gone from the House before it will fade or be forgotten.

Mr. Wilshire

It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) —my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to call him that, because that is indeed what he is. It may help him to know that not only have events earlier in the day caused great hurt and offence to the widows of RUC officers—a matter which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you rightly say we should not discuss—but that the parts of the Bill with which amendments Nos. 13 and 17 deal will also cause hurt and offence to the widows of RUC officers and others who have served so bravely in that part of the United Kingdom.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry that I have always wondered what the Irish air, the Ulster-East Londonderry mist, does to the mind. I was deeply touched to hear ascribed to the Minister a great sense of charity and reasonableness, which I hope will lead the hon. Gentleman later to agree, if not with the Opposition, then with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.

If that is what the mists of East Londonderry do, perhaps we should all move there, if necessary for the three months, and have ourselves registered to vote in my hon. Friend's constituency. If by any chance today's events have not guaranteed his re-election for life, I for one would be delighted to go there and support him, should he ever need my vote.

I am an Englishman and proud of it, but I have always done my level best to try to see things through the eyes of those who live in Northern Ireland. Therefore I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the special provisions. He will see from the list of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friends that amendment No. 3 would have provided an alternative way of dealing with the problem that he rightly identifies. Sadly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not select it.

Had we gone down the route proposed in amendment No. 3, the present debate would not have been necessary. Amendment No. 3 would have removed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Amendment No. 3 has not been selected, so the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it. He can discuss only the two amendments before us.

Mr. Wilshire

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that. I am sure that it will be possible to raise the same issue as a matter that arises from amendment No. 13.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry—that the rule should apply to the entire United Kingdom—appeals to me. I might have enthusiastically supported such an amendment, had he tabled it.

7.30 pm

Every week, nearly 500,000 people land at Heathrow airport on the borders of my constituency. The thought of their being able to rush into Spelthorne council offices and register to vote before they move on appals me.

Mr. William Ross

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and also apologise for not spotting the issue that he raised. If I had spotted the problem, I would have tabled an amendment on it. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill builds brick after brick on previous legislation. We have reached a point where we need consolidation. Before tabling an amendment, we need a week to plough through all the legislation.

Mr. Wilshire

That is the problem with trying to rush a Bill through unnecessarily. Calmer, more reflective consideration would undoubtedly have made a bad Bill slightly less bad.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend speaks of rushing the measure through. The Government's interest is reflected by the presence of only two Labour Members while the Opposition Benches are packed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Hon. Members must concentrate on the amendments.

Mr. Wilshire

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) makes the fair point that many Opposition Members are deeply worried about the clause. It is significant that many of my hon. Friends are here to debate amendments Nos. 13 and 17 while Labour Members do not seem interested in them. Even if we cannot discuss the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, we can consider those who are interested and those who show no interest in the amendments. But you rightly urge me to speak about the substance of the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Amendment No. 13 would delete subsection (2). It is important to understand the exact aim of the amendment. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 4(1) set out ways in which people can register. Amendment No. 13 is necessary because of subsection (1)(c), which provides that citizens of the Republic of Ireland can, of right, get on to a United Kingdom register. But for that provision, amendment No. 13 would be unnecessary. I believe that it would have been better to face the problem of our giving foreigners a vote in the United Kingdom. If we did not do that, the amendment would have been unnecessary. I have never understood the reason for giving foreigners votes on the internal affairs of the United Kingdom.

People claim that we have reciprocal arrangements, but, with the greatest respect, I do not want to vote in the Irish Republic. If I wanted to vote in that alien, foreign country, I would become an Irish citizen. I do not want to do that, so I do not understand why right my hon. Friends should have had to table amendment No. 13. We should not have to tackle such a problem. The fact remains that the problem exists, and I therefore support my right hon. Friends' approach.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

In earlier discussions, many hon. Members, especially Labour Members, commented on the ability of United Kingdom citizens to vote in this country when they were not resident for a period of time. There is inconsistency in their attitude towards the ability of our citizens and those of the Irish Republic to vote in UK elections.

Mr. Wilshire

It has become obvious in the past year or two that there are no depths to which the Government will not sink in trying to appease the Republic of Ireland. The provision is yet another example of the appeasement that takes place when the Government are faced with people pointing guns at them. If they believe that such appeasement will work, I have news for them: it will not.

Mr. Bercow

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking not only about the Government's insatiable appetite for appeasement but about their determination at all costs and wherever possible to gerrymander?

Mr. Wilshire

The Government are keen on anything that gives the Labour party an advantage in electioneering.

I assume that the Minister judged subsection (2) necessary through fear of thousands of foreigners jumping into coaches for an away-day or a weekend break and charging across the border into the United Kingdom for just long enough to try to gerrymander. However, my understanding of Northern Ireland politics, of which I try to be a student, shows that it does not take people on away-days from the Republic to cause a problem; people who are legitimately entitled to be on the register vote sufficiently often to do their own gerrymandering without involving those from a foreign country to add to the confusion. The Government would be advised to tackle the "vote early, vote often" problem rather than concentrating on people being bussed in from Dublin.

Mr. Maclean

The question for the Minister is one that I wish I had asked my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but it has just occurred to me. If the provision is vital to prevent citizens of a foreign country from swamping Northern Ireland on 10 October, or whatever the date for registration, and they thus cannot be trusted, why should they be entitled to a vote in the United Kingdom or for the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Mr. Wilshire

My right hon. Friend had no choice but to ask me the question because I gave way to him, but I am the last person to give him a sensible answer. I do not have an answer, and I suspect that the Government do not either. I shall leave it to the Minister to try to defend the indefensible.

I am worried about the way in which the Bill disfranchises many British citizens. That cannot be right. It is wrong for the House to pass measures that take the vote away from British citizens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border gave one example, but there are others that we need to consider. Not only people who serve the Crown in our armed forces and leave Northern Ireland, but any British subject normally resident in Northern Ireland who for some reason has to spend time in Great Britain in the prescribed three-month period, will be caught by the problem. Such people will automatically be left off the register. People who return to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, perhaps to nurse or take care of members of their families who are ill, during the specified three-month period will no longer qualify for a vote in their own country. People who are normally resident in Northern Ireland and have jobs that take them to Great Britain for periods of time would also be struck off the register. That cannot be right.

We should consider another group of people: those who have been residents in Great Britain, perhaps for decades, who choose to move to that other part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland. Perhaps a promotion in their jobs means that they move to Belfast, or perhaps they move to be with their families. Perhaps, for the air or mists of Londonderry, people choose to retire in that beautiful part of our country. If such people do so within three months of the compilation of a register, they will lose their vote for the following year. That cannot be right.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government and encouraging investment in Northern Ireland. That is to be applauded. Does my hon. Friend think that there may be individuals in the rest of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland and Wales—who may be deterred from taking one of the new jobs that have been created in Northern Ireland because they would lose their voting rights as a consequence of the measure?

Mr. Wilshire

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I must confess I had not got round to. I am most grateful to him for drawing it to my attention and I hope that the whole House will see that as yet another reason why the Bill should not pass tonight without amendment. I find the matter at the heart of amendment No. 13 as deeply offensive as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. If we do not amend the Bill, it will create two classes of British elector: the first-class electors, who will mainly be in Great Britain, and the second-class electors, who will mainly be in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. Up to now, there have been no lengths to which they would not go, but are they seriously telling us that they are content with a Bill that will create two classes of British elector? If so, they should be deeply ashamed.

Amendment No. 17, on the face of it, appears to do exactly the same thing, but it has its arguments the other way round. As I understand it, the provision with which it seeks to deal addresses those people who, for whatever reason, are at the moment in a mental hospital or institution. They will be given the right to identify a place where they have a local connection. Throughout Great Britain, such people will only have to indicate an address for the provisions to apply. But if someone identifies an address in Northern Ireland, an additional test will be applied—the connection will have had to exist for a longer period.

On this occasion, the test of a longer period could sensibly be applied to Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland because we are dealing with a specialist, sensitive and difficult issue. To have a period of time attached to the address would be in everybody's interest, because it would help to ensure that a sensible, lasting judgment was made. I support the amendment for that reason, but the Minister could get himself out of difficulty by saying that he will reintroduce it in another place, applying it not only to Northern Ireland but to Great Britain as well.

I believe that it is deeply offensive to the British citizens who live in Northern Ireland to be told that, yet again, they are to be treated separately and in a second-class way. I will be charitable to the Minister and accept that he genuinely does not intend to cause that hurt and offence to the widows of those Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have been killed over the years in the tragedy that has been Northern Ireland. In that spirit, I plead with him either to accept the amendments or to listen to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and solve the problem in the alternative way.

Mr. Fabricant

I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made some powerful arguments. He mentioned the Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have died, and we should remember that 301 serving officers have died in the cause of freedom, liberty and equity over the past few years in the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about the RUC. Important as it is, it does not fall within the confines of the amendment, to which he must speak.

Mr. Fabricant

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

7.45 pm

Mr. Maclean

I am afraid that my point might not be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should point out that those officers did not die—they were murdered.

Mr. Fabricant

My right hon. Friend might be out of order, but nevertheless I hope that Hansard will note his comment, with which I wholly agree.

I support the amendment because, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have so ably pointed out, there is an inconsistency. In November, I suffered a personal tragedy: after 10 years, I had to surrender my dark blue passport and obtain my little flexible red European Union passport, which still has on its face—this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the words, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", an integrated whole.

The Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government in trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is therefore ironic that, today of all days, we should be debating a measure that creates an inconsistency— a difference—between one part of the United Kingdom and another. I truly believe that that is wrong on two counts: first, on principle and, secondly, because it sends out all the wrong signals. Today we have heard a statement about the future of the RUC and the hopes of the Government—and, indeed, of the whole House—for the future of Northern Ireland and its normalisation, but only a few hours later we are, I suspect, about to hear the Minister argue against this reasonable amendment, which says that we should take an holistic approach to the Representation of the People Bill in particular and the law in general in respect of England, Scotland and Wales and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brady

My hon. Friend may agree that an aspect of the statement on the Patten report is germane to the amendment. Several thousand RUC officers will be removed from service and given a substantial payment. They will probably become a mobile element of the population of Northern Ireland. They may move to other constituencies in Northern Ireland or come to other parts of the United Kingdom for a time. In that context, they are very much affected by the amendment.

Mr. Fabricant

That point had not occurred to me, but is germane. If such officers attempt to seek work in other parts of the Province, they will meet the residency requirement for Northern Ireland, but the Minister must explain whether under the Bill they would have to be resident in a new constituency for three months to have a vote there. I hope that he will make that clear, one way or another.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has highlighted an extremely pertinent point. In reflecting on it, will my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield concede that the greater likelihood is that the problem will be not that an individual will perambulate around Northern Ireland or move to another part of it while looking for new employment but that he will move to another part of the kingdom altogether? If he is absent for several months, he may have great difficulties. Does not that point need to be entertained by Ministers?

Mr. Fabricant

As ever, my hon. Friend raises a fascinating and powerful point, which demonstrates the inconsistency of the provision. That ex-RUC police officer would have to demonstrate not that he had been in England, Scotland or Wales for three months—merely that he was resident on 10 October or whatever the night might be. I might add that such an officer would have great difficulty in finding employment in a police constabulary in England, Scotland or Wales, given that in Staffordshire, for example, there has been a reduction in the number of police officers. I suspect that the poor ex-RUC officer would end up getting a job as a security guard or something else.

I understand why the clause was drafted in the first place. I suspect that it was to prevent people from the Republic of Ireland from moving to Northern Ireland in order to vote. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is so. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out, that provision would be no deterrent. Many people living in the Republic have relatives and friends in Northern Ireland, so it would present no difficulty for them to claim that they have been resident in Northern Ireland for the specified three months.

I would simply argue that, first, the clause is no deterrent; secondly, that it is inconsistent with the holistic approach that the Government are attempting to take, despite the fact that there is no joined-up government in Cabinet meetings; and thirdly, that there is no holistic approach to the idea that the United Kingdom is an integrated whole. I am pleased to see Ministers taking copious notes and listening carefully. I expect the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), whose constituency almost abuts mine, to respond fully to the points that and my hon. Friends and I have made.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)

I do not wish to detain the House long.

I have listened with great care and interest to the arguments, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). My hon. Friend made some extremely valid points about the risk that is posed to people who are citizens of Ulster, Northern Ireland, who have to be away from their residences for three months for family or business reasons. Such practical considerations will put those people at a disadvantage in comparison with other citizens of this country.

Mr. Maclean

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his remarks, but I think that he is making an error that I have made. The test for qualification is not whether such people are away for the entire three months, but whether their residency of three months is interrupted for any short period. Therefore, somebody intending to live in Northern Ireland for a few months on attachment who returns to Great Britain for a week's course will lose the residency qualification. The provision is even more iniquitous than I thought.

Mr. Howarth

My right hon. Friend makes a forceful point, which the Government must answer. The Minister is a reasonable man and will want to deal comprehensively with it.

The economy of Northern Ireland has been doing well for some time and it is not fair that the people there should be penalised simply because the Government want to ensure some modicum of protection against citizens of the Republic of Ireland flooding across the border, swamping the register and bringing about undesirable changes out of expediency.

It is extraordinary that, when we are trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland people should continue to have to bear such a burden and be handicapped unlike any other part of the United Kingdom. There is some force to the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that they are second-class citizens.

Mr. Bercow

One of the difficulties with this debate is that the longer that we discuss the salient matters, the more potential objections to the Government's proposals seem to emerge. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that, under the clause as it stands, there is no distinction between, on the one hand, an interruption of the three-month period that could reasonably have been expected to be anticipated, and on the other, an interruption that could not be so anticipated?

Mr. Howarth

The wording is clear: there is no distinction. A person must be resident in Northern Ireland for the entire three months, ending on the relevant date, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said. If an elector is away for any part of that three-month period, he will suffer disfranchisement, which all of us in the House obviously regard extremely seriously.

I also have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I have felt for many years that it is simply not right that citizens of a country that is not part of the Commonwealth, does not acknowledge Her Majesty the Queen as head of state and owes no allegiance to this country should nevertheless enjoy the privilege—for indeed it is a privilege—of voting in our local and parliamentary elections.

We are faced with a predicament precisely because we have for years without any foundation allowed people in the Republic of Ireland to enjoy such a privilege. The clause was drafted to afford some protection from gerrymandering that could bring about a sharp change in policy or, heaven forbid, the constitution of Northern Ireland.

Both options before the House are unattractive. It is unattractive to have special arrangements for our fellow citizens, who are equally loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and that they should suffer such a handicap, but it is right and proper that we should protect our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland from a sudden influx of people from the Republic who have moved to Northern Ireland for the express purpose of robbing it of its constitution and bringing about change that would not be acceptable to its residents.

8 pm

We are faced with two options: to continue with the present arrangements, which handicap our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland but provide them with the protection that I have outlined; or to sweep away that protection but ensure that people do not lose their franchise in Northern Ireland if they interrupt their three-month residency requirement. On balance, sadly, I would not support the amendment, not because I do not agree with the principle—I agree with almost everything that my right hon. Friends have said tonight—but because the consequences would be a greater disadvantage to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.

Ministers must tell the people why we continue to perpetuate the right of citizens of the Republic of Ireland to vote in this country when they owe no allegiance to it or to Her Majesty the Queen and are not even entitled to the protection afforded to all of us who hold a British passport. The situation is anomalous and, I believe, wrong. I do not intend to support my right hon. Friends on the amendment, so I hope that Ministers will do me the courtesy of offering me some reassurance that they will try to engineer a state of affairs whereby we do not have to handicap our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland in order to provide them with protection against a concerted political assault from citizens of the Republic.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I understand the arguments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and his desire that the electoral registration system should be as free of inconsistencies across the United Kingdom as is reasonable in the circumstances, but the fact is that special circumstances apply in Northern Ireland, and the three-month residency requirement reflects that. It serves a useful purpose in ensuring that only bona fide registrations are made.

More important, it is well worth pointing out that none of the Northern Ireland parties have asked for the requirement to be removed, even though the Bill would have provided an excellent opportunity to do that. The comments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) reflected that. The working party on electoral procedures had the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, Pat Bradley, as one of its members, and he did not recommend removing the requirement. As those most concerned seem happy with the existing position, I see no reason to change it.

Mr. Maclean

Does the Minister share the view of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that there is a real risk of the register being flooded with people who are not normally resident in Northern Ireland if we do not have the three-month qualification?

Mr. O'Brien

I am not sure that anyone is arguing that there is a risk of floods of voters coming in, but there is sensitivity to voting issues in Northern Ireland, and the provisions have been law since 1949. The right hon. Gentleman described the rules relating to who can vote and I remind him that in national elections British people, Irish people and people from the Commonwealth can vote, and in local and European elections British-registered voters and Commonwealth, Irish and European Union people can vote.

The right hon. Gentleman described the way in which certain people from the Irish Republic can vote in British elections as an obscenity and an outrage. That obscenity and outrage existed during 18 years of Conservative government and there was not a peep out of him during that whole period. That says enough about the approach that he has taken. I appreciate what is happening today, but perhaps he should not engender more indignation than he can conveniently contain.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) also suggested that the rules take away certain people's right to vote. He, too, did not seem to be concerned about the matter when his party was in government. The position has existed since 1949.

Mr. Wilshire

rose—

Mr. O'Brien

Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me for a moment?

Given the situation in Northern Ireland, we need to proceed with some care.

Mr. Wilshire

rose—

Mr. O'Brien

I will give way, if the hon. Gentleman will please bear with me for a moment.

We would be best advised to proceed with care, and that is the approach that we intend to take.

Mr. Wilshire

I wanted to intervene only because of the comments that the Minister made about me and my position over the past 18 years. If he can find a moment in a busy day to check the record, he will find that I have been a public and vociferous critic of the way in which Northern Ireland has been treated by all Governments since I have been a Member of Parliament. I did indeed make the same criticisms when my party was in government.

Mr. O'Brien

If the hon. Gentleman tells me that he has done that, I will certainly accept his word.

Various comments have been made and I do not want to go through them all. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of them bordered on being out of order. I am sure that you would have dealt with them had they been out of order. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and others made various comments about Irish voters in Britain and I am sure that the large number of people of Irish heritage who vote in the UK will be well acquainted with his views.

The best contribution was from the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who said that he was a little bit worried that floods of Unionists might come to North Warwickshire to deal with me during the election. I look forward to that, and I will think long and hard about his suggestions as a result of that comment.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Maclean

I am placed in a difficult position, because I had intended to follow my instinct and press the amendment to a vote, and I am not persuaded by the Minister, but I have to pay close attention to the earnest concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross).

I want to clarify one point that the Minister mentioned. I think it an awful anomaly that citizens of the Irish Republic should be able to vote in our elections, but the obscenity is not that mere fact but the fact that citizens of the United Kingdom, born and brought up in the United Kingdom, who have perhaps served in the police, the RUC or the armed forces, or as teachers or nurses in Belfast, can lose their franchise if they come to this country for a week's course, for cancer treatment or on attachment for two or three weeks.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for drawing my attention to the point that, if those people fail to be resident for the whole of the period, they lose their right to be on the register and are disenfranchised, while someone passing through from the Republic of Ireland has the vote. Putting those two together is the juxtaposition: not the fact that aliens have the right to vote, but that British citizens will lose it through no fault of their own. Putting those two together is the obscenity.

I was greatly interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry had to say, which is why I asked the Minister to clarify whether he agreed with him that there is the real risk that, unless we have the three-month qualification, some people from the Republic may—perhaps flood was the wrong word—register falsely and have a vote to which they are not entitled. The Minister was using a good Home Office brief, with the points to take and some that were to be used only if pressed. He picked his words carefully. He did not say, "Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Lots of Irish Republican citizens will be flooding the register." He did not use those words but, by the substance of the careful and sensitive words that he used in the present sensitive situation, he was agreeing that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry was right.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

indicated dissent.

Mr. Maclean

The Government must be agreeing. There must be the risk. That is the only reason why they are maintaining it. Yes, the Government can hide behind the fact that all the parties in Northern Ireland still want the provision. The Government clearly share the view that there is a risk.

I am faced with an awful dilemma. Here we have an injustice—it is an injustice that people in Northern Ireland have to have the residency qualification when the rest of us and aliens from another state do not. However, because the political parties in Northern Ireland see an even greater injustice in the register being flooded by those aliens who may influence their vote, they wish to keep it. Surely the only way to remedy the problem in future is to impose similar conditions on the rest of us in the United Kingdom, so that we can equalise that injustice to Northern Ireland citizens.

I have listened carefully to the Minister, who replied carefully. I would not find his arguments on their own convincing or persuasive—

Mr. O'Brien

Let the record show that the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my comments is not necessarily one that I precisely share. Let my comments speak for themselves in Hansard.

Mr. Maclean

The Minister's comments will speak for themselves, but I can see the headlines when The Times, The Telegraph and Peterborough write up the essence of the Minister's remarks tomorrow. It will be, "Minister says danger of southern Irish citizens flooding register in north." That is what he said in essence, although he picked his words carefully.

In view of the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for East Londonderry that an even greater injustice would be caused to citizens in northern Ireland if the amendment were agreed, I will reluctantly withdraw it, but I urge the Government to remove that injustice by another means.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.