HL Deb 03 May 1973 vol 342 cc189-218

3.32 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, this Bill has a strictly limited objective and an urgent one. Its purpose is to enable elections to be held for a new Assembly in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Since our debate on the White Paper my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has announced in another place, as some noble Lords may be aware, that the date for these elections will be June 28. The establishment of this Assembly is the first step in the process of building new and representative political institutions in Ulster on the basis of the policies contained in the White Paper on the Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals which your Lordships approved on March 28.

In that debate there was wide agreement about the urgency of holding elections to the new Assembly without delay. What the Government are now doing, in response to this general sentiment, which I may say coincides with our own judgment, is to hive off from the constitutional Bill those parts of it which concern the election. This Bill does no more than authorise the setting up of an Assembly and the method of election to it. It goes no further than that. More detailed provisions will be contained in the main constitutional Bill, which should have made substantial progress through Parliament by the time the new Assembly is elected.

The Bill now before your Lordships provides, first, that the Assembly shall consist of 78 Members, and that they shall be returned for the Westminster constituencies in Northern Ireland. There are 12 of these, and the boundaries which were revised as a result of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in 1970 will be used, as in the Border poll. The election will be held on the basis of the single transferable vote, which is provided for in Clause 2(3). This means, of course, that there will be several Members for each constituency, and the allocation of the 78 seats between the 12 constituencies is set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The Government do not pretend that there is any great magic about the figure of 78, or in the precise distribution of seats which is proposed. Other solutions could have been adopted. But taking everything into consideration, 78 seats, which is the equivalent of the former Stormont House of Commons and the Senate added together, seemed to us to be the most reasonable basis.

A number of factors had to be judged. First, it is desirable to have as narrow variation as possible in the average number of electors per seat in the various constituencies. The arrangements contained in this Bill offer a spread of between about 11,900 (for West Belfast) and about 14,400 (for South Antrim). This compares favourably with the position in the single seat Westminster constituencies, even on the revised boundaries (that is the 1970 boundaries), where the spread is between 70,000 and 115,000. The average number of voters per elected representative over the whole Province will be 13,200. Secondly, the system of the single transferable vote itself suggests certain limitations. It is generally held that the number of seats in any constituency ought to be at least four, in order to get the benefits of multiple representation, but not more than eight, because a larger figure would produce an unwieldy number of candidates on the ballot paper. These limits, four to eight, will also operate in the local government elections, which, as your Lordships will be aware, are to be held on May 30. Thus the range of seats for the Assembly elections will be within those limits—from five seats in the case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone to eight seats in the case of South Antrim.

The Bill provides in Clause 2(2) that the franchise to be used at the election to the Assembly shall be the same as for a General Election to the Northern Ireland Parliament—that is, what is known as the Stormont franchise, which also applies to the local government elections. The Bill deals in Clause 3 with qualifications for membership. These generally follow the Westminster practice, with the necessary modifications which govern membership of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Your Lordships might be interested to know that one of these modifications is that a person will not be disqualified from being a Member of the Assembly simply because he is a Peer.

Certain matters will be determined by order under the Bill, if it is approved. First, there is the date of the election. This should not cause any difficulty because, as I said earlier, the date has already been announced, June 28, and has been generally welcomed. Then there is the date of the first meeting of the Assembly. Noble Lords may be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made the point in another place that it would be inappropriate, in his view, for the Assembly to meet while the Northern Ireland Parliament was still in existence, even though standing prorogued. The first meeting of the new Assembly therefore is not likely to take place until after the Northern Ireland Parliament has been dissolved, which of course can only follow the passing into law of the main constitutional Bill.

The rules for the election will also be contained in an Order which, among other things, will establish the hours of polling, which are intended to be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., as for the Border poll and also for local government elections. Extensive arrangements are again envisaged for postal voting, following closely the practice in the two earlier elections to which I have referred. The responsibility for the conduct of the election will lie with the chief electoral officer.

Before leaving the conduct of the election, I ought perhaps to say to your Lordships what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said in another place; namely, that a major effort is now being made in Northern Ireland to explain the system of single transferable vote. Every household will receive a booklet, and a more detailed booklet will be available on request in public places—post offices, Government offices and so on—and the Government are enlisting the aid of newspapers, television and radio to explain the system to the voter. There is no reason why the new system should not easily be understood. So far as the voter is concerned, all he or she has to do is to number the candidates in order of preference—as many candidates, or as few, as the voter wishes. The process of counting the votes is complicated but we have been training staff for the count and this training will be completed in good time. Many other matters, including the procedure of the Assembly and its duration, will follow in the main constitutional Bill. Therefore, all that the measure before your Lordships to-day seeks to do is to meet the general concern that elections to the new Assembly in Northern Ireland should be held with the least possible delay. It also honours a commitment given by the Government in another place with the support of all Parties. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.—(Lord Windlesham.)

3.41 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, we from this side of the House certainly welcome this Bill. It has been introduced in this rapid way because of the urgency felt by a number of Members both of your Lordships' House and of another place with regard to the date of Election. Therefore, even if there are defects or Amendments which might be made to the Bill, I think it is right for the Bill to pass all through its stages to-day, unamended, bearing in mind that it concerns a matter of the very greatest urgency. The Bill was debated very fully in another place and contributions to the discussion were made by a number of Members who are representative of Northern Ireland. Although we have some knowledge and some representation from Northern Ireland, we are not ourselves nearly so fully qualified to discuss details of the Election arrangements. Furthermore, as the noble Lord has said, there are a number of aspects concerning the democratic machinery in Northern Ireland which will have to be dealt with by subsequent legislation. There are, however, a few points I should like to make, and my noble friend Lady White will be winding up later on this side. It would be helpful if the Government were able to throw some further light on cerain matters. Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the Bill is the introduction of proportional representation of the kind represented by a single transferable vote. This is a procedure of which we as a country have little knowledge or familiarity, though we know that the Liberal Party, for reasons which do not commend themselves to the Conservative and Labour Parties, have nevertheless given a good deal of consideration to it.

On the last occasion when we debated the possibility of the application of proportional representation in Northern Ireland, I said I had a preference for the list system. I accept that in all the circumstances the Government were probably right at this stage to go for the single transferable vote. Indeed, when I advocated the list system on the last occasion, the Proportional Representation Society wrote to me a most convincing letter, which at that time I thought gave the victory hands down to the single transferable vote. The fact remains that in other countries the list system has been regarded as preferable and the Northern Ireland Labour Party, for reasons which seemed to me to be cogent, certainly at one time favoured this. I do not suggest that we should seek to alter what appears in the Bill, but I should like to say there is a danger that this will be regarded as an experiment which will prove itself on a single occasion. I believe there is something to be said for recognising that the full value of proportional representation with the single transferable vote system will only be felt over a number of years, especially (as we all hope will happen) as sectarian voting is gradually broken down. This Bill provides for proportional representation only in this particular Election and there is no guarantee that it will continue in the future or indeed that we should stick to the constituencies that are proposed.

On the one hand, I think it is important for us to conclude that it will need more than one Election to judge the value of proportional representation in Northern Ireland. Secondly, I believe we must be prepared, because the Bill does not go beyond a single Election, to consider that there may be better constitutional arrangements which might be made. We know there has been criticism of the arrangements, but again I think that the Government were right in the circumstances to adopt the Westminster constituencies. Therefore, I hope that a very careful study will be made of the results on this occasion and that we shall certainly continue with this in Northern Ireland—assuming the Government policy is successful, as we all pray it will be—and certainly not exclude the possibility of other forms of proportional representation. As I say, I accept that in the circumstances the single transferable vote is the best system. It may be in fact the best in all circumstances, but I am not sufficiently expert to do other than note that there are other systems—indeed, it has been suggested there are many hundreds of systems of proportional representation.

The next point I should like to deal with concerns the powers of the Minister under the Bill. In another place the Opposition moved an Amendment but, if my recollection is right, they did not divide the House on it. The Amendment sought to make the powers of the Minister to make Orders subject to the Affirmative procedure. The Government replied that in the circumstances, and considering the difficulties of the time scale involved, this was not possible. Again, I would not press the Government to alter their decision. If we had more time I think we might in fact have chosen one of the many forms of Affirmative procedure which would have met the Government's requirements. But the Minister in another place said that he was prepared to have discussions with Members of Parliament in the course of the drafting of the Orders; and it would be very helpful if the noble Lord could repeat that assurance to your Lordships to-day. If we are likely to have an Order of this kind at short notice, it would be helpful if those of us who have consistently taken an interest in Northern Ireland could at least be informed of what is happening even though consultation might not always be possible. So any amplification that the noble Lord can give of the undertaking given in another place would be welcome.

There is also another question on which we are not clear. It relates to new vacancies and abstentions. Again, we appreciate that this Bill is, so to speak, a "one-off" Bill. In another place we were told that the issue of vacancies would be dealt with under the constitutional Bill, I find it a little difficult to see how that should be, but again one must accept what the Government say. I assume, however, that it is possible to raise this issue now, and all I would ask is that the Government, in considering how this matter shall be dealt with, should not proceed by a simple election to fill one vacancy but might well adopt the system, which I believe applies in Malta, by which it is possible to go back to the original voting that took place, apply the principle of proportional representation and take the next person on the list. Within a P.R. set-up, this is acceptable in a way that in a single vote arrangement it would not be. I believe that this was proposed in regard to the Republic of Ireland by Garrat Fitzgerald.

My Lords, one could discuss at some length the urgency and the need for this election to the Assembly to be a success. We have had many debates on Northern Ireland and I think there is a quite exceptional degree of unanimity in your Lordships' House in regard to the importance of the Government's policy in this matter being given a fair and determined chance of support by the people of Northern Ireland. It is therefore disturbing to hear of proposals and suggestions of opposition, and indeed of boycotting of the elections. We do not even know what is going to happen in the local government elections which are coming soon. The only further message that can go out from your Lordships' House is the hope that both those on the Republican side and those on the ultra Loyalist side will do their utmost to make the Government's proposals work and to seek change under the democratic machinery that is here proposed. It is disturbing to hear of the falling away of support for Mr. Faulkner, even though this may perhaps give further opportunities to the Centre Party. My Lords, we shall be taking the Committee stage to-day, and it may be that there will be a few points to raise here and there on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, but certainly from the Opposition point of view we do not intend to move any Amendments or in any way to impede the progress of a Bill of such importance.

3.54 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS

My Lords, my only reason for speaking at this stage is to explain very shortly the absence of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury from the House this afternoon. As a number of your Lordships may be aware, he is in Northern Ireland this week and is fulfilling a very heavy list of engagements. Had he been present he would most certainly have welcomed this Bill and the further constructive move by Her Majesty's Government to give to Northern Ireland a greater degree of self-government than is given to any other part of the United Kingdom. No doubt he would have underlined also the two great prerequisites for any real settlement: an end to violence and the provision under the Constitution for just treatment of the minority. All I wish to say is that this Bill is undoubtedly a constructive move. No one imagines that a new constitutional structure in itself and by itself will bring peace, but I think it will provide for men of good will in Northern Ireland a new framework for peace and a new incentive to work for peace which, in the end, will build strong enough to stand up to and to overcome the ruthlessness of those bent and brought up under terror.

3.55 p.m.

LORD MONSON

My Lords, I happened to be in Malta at the time of the June 1971 Malta General Election which was held under the single transferable vote system and I was impressed by how closely the popular vote reflected the final allocation of seats between the Parties. It is almost certainly the case that a single transferable vote system which provides for at least five Members per constituency very closely reflects the wishes of the electorate as a whole, always provided that the ratio of Members to electors in each seat is as consistent as possible. In this respect there is a lot to be said for the system. In cases where there are as few as four Members per constituency distortions can occur, so that in the Republic of Ireland, for instance, at least two Governments have been elected on minority votes, but of course as the number of Members to be returned per seat in Northern Ireland ranges from five to eight, this particular problem is not likely to arise. However, it would be wrong to think that the system is a perfect one, still less a panacea for all the ills of Ulster. First of all, it is highly complex and, despite the efforts being made by the Government, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—the radio and television and Press advertising, and the booklets being sent to every household—I cannot help but feel that quite a few voters—by the nature of things the elderly and perhaps the less educated ones—will get things wrong, putting X's instead of numbers or else numbering their preferences in the reverse order to what they intend.

More important is the weakening of the link between a Member and his constituents. In Britain, and for the most part in Northern Ireland too, a constituent who violently opposes his M.P.'s political beliefs can none the less approach him confident in the knowledge that his particular problem will be dealt with as efficiently and expeditiously as possible irrespective of the constituent's political beliefs. There is a two-way benefit here too: the M.P.'s investigations into his constituent's particular problems may well broaden his own political outlook. One need only think of a certain well known Northern Ireland political figure, noted in times gone by for his violently expressed antipathy to the Pope, who upon his election has become by all accounts an excellent constituency M.P., much respected by his Roman Catholic constituents for the efforts he has made on their behalf; and the benefit has been a mutual one in that by general consensus he has become a more calm, moderate and statesmanlike figure. Now in a constituency returning seven or eight Members a constituent who wants some grievance remedied will naturally tend to seek out the Member approximating most closely to his sectarian affiliations and political beliefs. Thus the mental segregation which tends to characterise Nor- them Ireland will tend to become accentuated (if only in a small way) rather than diminished, and in this respect at least the single transferable vote system is regressive rather than beneficial.

I mentioned just now that the merits of the system depended on the ratio of Members to electors in each seat being as consistent as possible. I am bound to say I am not entirely confident that this has been achieved under the proposed allocation of seats as between constituencies. I entirely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that there is less unfairness in the proposed allocation of seats than in the present single Member constituencies where the electorate in the largest constituency is approximately 64 per cent. greater than that in the smallest. Under the proposed arrangements the discrepancy will be reduced to about 21 per cent. But I believe that had the number of seats been altered from 78 to 81 or 82 the discrepancy could have been lessened. I am not alone in this view; I notice that the Labour Party in another place abstained on an Amendment to increase the number of seats from 78 to 81. It seems very peculiar, for instance, that while the electorate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is almost exactly the same as that in West Belfast, the number of Members in the former constituency will be only five instead of six. Similarly, both North Antrim and South Antrim are somewhat under-represented. I read carefully the remarks of the Secretary of State in another place when on April 16 he explained that it was difficult to have nine Members for a constituency as this would make a ballot paper unduly long. But the disadvantages of having an eight-Member constituency in this case outweigh the advantages. In the past there has been criticism, rightly or wrongly, of unfair drawing of constituency boundaries in Northern Ireland. In such a sensitive situation it seems a pity that this Government lay themselves open to charges, however minor—and I accept they are minor—of unfairness.

Then there is the question of the electoral register. As I understand it, because of a grave error made by a computer, the names of up to 10,000 voters have been mistakenly omitted from the register, including those of many people who had previously been on it and had been voting in every election for up to 50 years. Whole streets in Belfast have apparently been omitted. Can the noble Lord, in his reply, tell us what decision has been taken regarding a supplementary register to deal with these unfortunate cases?

My Lords, I should like to conclude by echoing a plea made from all quarters of another place just over two weeks ago; namely, that very serious consideration should be given to the possibility of extending the hours for which the polling booths remain open on June 28. Members who went over as observers of the Northern Ireland Border Poll reported seeing long queues at polling stations when the booths closed—and this was an occasion when only a simple "Yes" or "No" vote was required. And of course voting for the new Assembly is going to be a very much more lengthy and time-consuming affair.

Reverting to the example of Malta, polling there is spread over three days. This is partly to enable people who live and are registered in Gozo for electoral purposes but are working in Malta, or vice versa, to travel back to their place of registration—and in rough weather the ferries are not always reliable. But it is also because it is thought right, given the complexities of the single transferable vote system, to give voters adequate time to complete their preferences and avoid congestion at the polling stations. This practice has the additional merit, incidentally, of ensuring a very high turnout—a most commendable 91 per cent. at the 1971 election.

I do not for a moment suggest that three or even two days are needed in Northern Ireland, but I do believe that electors generally need more than 12 hours—perhaps ten or eleven of which are spent at work and getting to and from work—to operate effectively this complex system of balloting. Additionally, special factors apply in Northern Ireland. Consider, for instance, families living in remote farms in areas suffering from terrorist activity, who may, for one reason or another, be ineligible for postal vote. For reasons of security they may not wish to leave their house or farm unoccupied, or to leave aged or infirm relatives alone. Therefore various members of a one-car family may need to make repeated journeys to a fairly distant polling station.

While I entirely appreciate the importance of security considerations, according to my rough calculations sunrise in Belfast on June 28 will occur at approximately 5.20 a.m., British Summer Time, while sunset is not until 10.5 p.m. This factor should ease the security problem considerably. Would the noble Lord therefore consider the possibility of either extending the hours of polling by half an hour at each end of the day, or, alternatively, by tacking on one hour at the end of the day so that the polls close at 9 p.m. rather than 8 p.m.?

4.6 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, I cannot help feeling that it is slightly regrettable that on this occasion, when we are enacting a Bill dealing with proportional representation, there should be no voice from the Liberal Benches. But the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has explained to me that unfortunately he is not able to remain with us to-day and therefore we are deprived of this historic pleasure.

I was deeply impressed by the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Monson (whom we congratulate on his birthday, do we not?), and I was especially interested in it because I too was recently in Malta and made some inquiries there as to the way in which a comparable system works. I recognise that this is a Bill for one election only and therefore it is not appropriate or possible for us to go into it in such detail as we would certainly wish to do were we undertaking more permanent legislation. But there are one or two points one should emphasise. I have no sympathy with those in another place who suggest that there should be 100 Members for the new Assembly; but I am disposed to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it would have been happier had one had perhaps 81 Members, or conceivably 82, for the reasons which he gave. One realises that the Government thought of the figure of 78, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, by adding together the number of Members of the present House (it is still nominally in existence) and the Senate. But it leads to certain inequities. It appeared to me on reading the debate in another place that there was a strong case to be made for an additional Member for Fermanagh, Tyrone and for North and South Antrim. I appreciate that we shall have to accept the present situation for this Bill and await the further revisions which I assume will take place, as a result of the Boundary Commission recommendations, in any future Election.

I am not clear what the situation is regarding the Boundary Commission's work in Northern Ireland; possibly the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, could enlighten us on that. I am not sure whether they are conditioned as they are in England and Wales as to the time limits in which they can make further revisions of the boundaries. I assume that, as we are doing this through a completely new Assembly, they will be entirely free to start at once with revising boundaries subsequent to the Election which is due to take place on June 28. I am afraid that I do not go all the way with the noble Lord my noble Leader in his preference for the list system. I have watched it in Continental countries and it appeared to me to give the Party machines far too much power. For that theoretical reason, apart from any other consideration, I much prefer the single transferable vote.

As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, says, it is entirely true that as soon as you depart from single Member constituencies to some degree you weaken the link between a Member who has sole responsibility in a Parliamentary sense for his constituency and the people whom he represents. On the other hand, if we wish to have the benefits of proportional representation we have to accept some of the disadvantages; and I should have thought that the single transferable vote with constituencies numbering no fewer than about four nor more than eight or nine—that is the absolute maximum the electorate can digest—gives considerable other advantages in the representation of minorities. Therefore, one has to accept the disadvantage of weakening the personal responsibility which a Member feels when he or she represents one constituency. I hope that this will not prove to be too great a disadvantage in practice. We can only wish the Government well in their educative process.

I am sure there will be problems in regard to these Elections, especially where one has as many as eight votes for a candidate dealt with in order of preference, and I should have thought there was a strong case for extending the poll time. I appreciate that this means possibly having extra personnel to man the polls and this may be a difficulty, but it is going to take longer for most people to complete their papers and it means that very special care will have to be given to the physical conditions in the polling stations: that there shall be sufficient polling booths; that they will be able to take quite a large number of people at any one moment of time, because it really is essential in such an Important Election that one should not have a situation in which people are left standing outside the polling stations at the end of the day, not being able to get in. I have had that happen even in an Election in my own constituency, and it is something which must be looked at with quite particular care when one is embarking on a relatively new system. This system has been tried before but not within the experience of most of those who will be voting on this occasion. Therefore, I hope that we may have the most firm assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that every possible care is being taken, and I hope that further thought may yet be given to extending the polling hours. It is not uncommon in this country to have polling for a longer period than 12 hours, and I should like to have reassurances on that.

There was also the point in regard to the allegations that were made in another place about defects in the existing register and the large number of persons who had been left off it. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, indicating dissent when this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but I think we might have from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, a clear statement of the position. As it was stated in another place it was certainly disquieting.

Finally, I should be glad if we could have one word on a matter which was raised several times when we were debating the White Paper and that is the position of those who might wish to stand who belong to Sinn Fein or some other organisation which is not approved of under the law in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the Bill which is at present before us does nothing to prevent such a person from standing for election if he or she so wishes, but that he or she might be caught by other legislation. As this is a matter of some political consequence, I think it is only right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to explain to us precisely what the position is. I believe there are one or two other points of detail which we might wish to raise, and which could be raised on the Committee stage.

4.14 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate for the points they have raised and for the constructive tone in which the debate has been conducted. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned that initially he had been attracted to the list system of proportional representation, but that he had been partly converted in favour of the single transferable vote by a study of some further information which had reached him. The noble Baroness, Lady White, put her finger on one of the two reasons why S.T.V. is preferable, which is that it does not give such great power to the Party organisation. In Northern Ireland that is especially important because the Parties tend to be somewhat shifting and inchoate. Political Parties come up and go down again rapidly. The second reason is that S.T.V. is the system which has been used in three Elections in the past in Northern Ireland. It has not been used in England but. It was used in Northern Ireland in the 1920s. It is also the system which is used in the Republic of Ireland.

The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition also touched on a point which many noble Lords will instinctively have been sympathetic towards, when he asked why the Election rules are only to be subject to annulment in the Bill, and not to one of the various forms of Affirmative Resolution procedure which are open to your Lordships. I should like to be frank about this. It is a consequence of the very tight timetable to which we are committed. I believe most people are in favour—and certainly everyone who has spoken in the debate was in favour—of having elections as early as possible; namely, June 28. This is important. It may seem rather early by our standards, but we must remember that with the build up to July 12, and with the holiday season in Northern Ireland, unless it is possible to hold an Election by the end of June it is difficult to see how it could be held before September. So there is a real reason for pressing on fast in order to maintain this timetable, which we should now, with the consent of Parliament, be able to do.

To give some idea of the tightness of the timetable the Order will authorise the final date of May 17 for the receipt of applications for postal votes. This date has already been quoted in the public advertisements as subject to the approval of Parliament. Formal notice of Election must be given not later than May 22, when nomination forms for candidates must he available. Nominations must be received by June 5, and by about the same date over one million poll cards must be issued to the electorate. I can assure your Lordships that we have looked very carefully at this timetable with the chief electoral officer, and we calculate that the Order must operate from not later than May 15, so that such arrangements can be made in time. Even this date gives the political Parties very little time in which to become familiar with the rules which will apply. We must remember that this is the first Election, on the basis of a new electoral system of proportional representation, for a brand new Assembly. So the Parties are operating on ground with which they are not familiar. The Order will necessarily be a lengthy and technical document. If Affirmative Resolution procedures had been adopted these would, for example, have involved submission to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In these circumstances I am afraid it would not have been possible to guarantee that the Order could operate from May 15. The Election would then not have been possible on June 28. These are practical considerations, and I hope your Lordships will accept them as such.

With regard to the filling of casual vacancies, this is one of the problems of proportional representation. Proportional representation can only function effectively on the S.T.V. system where there is more than one elected representative. Therefore when, through death or resignation, a casual vacancy occurs there is the alternative of either having a straightforward election to fill the single vacancy which I believe, subject to correction, is what happens in the Republic of Ireland, or it is possible to go back to the original results. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition preferred the latter of these two alternatives. As he correctly said, this will be a matter for the Constitutional Bill. We shall certainly want to take account of what he said, and this is something we can debate again when the later Bill comes to us.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells told us that he was deputising for the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is in Northern Ireland this week. It has been a great encouragement to many people in Northern Ireland to have the Archbishop visiting the Province. As it happens, I know that he has been to the Corr-ymeela Community in the course of his tour, which I had the opportunity and privilege of visiting just a couple of weeks ago. I am sure the Archbishop will have found it as interesting and as elevating an experience as I did.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked a number of detailed questions, very pertinent questions if I may say so, several of which were taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady White, in her summing up. His first comment was that S.T.V. is a more difficult system to understand than the straightforward "X" system. I think it is to a certain extent, but I also think it is important not to exaggerate its complexity to the voter. Most of the complexity lies in the counting of the votes and the calculation of the result of the election, which undoubtedly is complicated. We might look back at what I believe to be a useful indicator, the 1920 Elections, and at the number of spoiled votes. One must remember that literacy then was much less than it is now. Yet the number of spoiled votes was not noticeably different on the S.T.V. elections in the 1920s from what it was in the later elections in Northern Ireland on the straightforward "X" system.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that supposing there is a situation with eight places to be filled, there would be considerably more than eight candidates, and the physical time taken to study the list and to make eight numbers in order of pre- ference is bound to be much longer than to make a single cross which one has to do in a single Member constituency election.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, the noble Baroness has moved on to the question of polling hours. I was dealing with the first of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about difficulties in understanding the system. It is more complex, but as I have said, there is no reason to believe that it is too complicated for the elector to comprehend and to operate in a proper and democratic manner.

The noble Lord also put his finger on another of the disadvantages of proportional representation when he referred to the lessening of direct links between the elected representative and the voter. That is a fact. There is less of a direct link than under the straightforward "X" system as we know it. But on balance, these were the sort of considerations, the classic arguments, against proportional representation, that we had to bear in mind, and weigh against the possibility that perhaps a new system of voting in Northern Ireland might produce a rather less polarised situation than has been the case in the past. That is not to dismiss the arguments against S.T.V., because I believe that the two points which the noble Lord raised are relevant points and are ones which should be in our minds as we discuss the Bill to-day.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, felt that it would have been better if there had been 80, 81, or even 82 seats rather than 78. But this is a far more involved subject than it looks. It is not a question of just adding another representative in one constituency or another. What would have to be done is to divide the total electorate of 1,030,084 by either 78, which gives 13,200 voters per elected representative, or by the higher number. If you have a higher number of seats you have a slightly smaller quota. But the only way to judge the fairness of the system is to look at how far the actual representation in each constituency is plus or minus the quota. With 78 seats the tolerances are very close. If you just add on one more seat, for example, in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, instead of being only 717 above the quota, the result would be several thousand less than the quota in that constituency. The proposals contained in the Bill have been subject to much arithmetical calculation and although inevitably certain interests argue that their own particular area, whichever it may be, is under-represented, my own impression is that in Northern Ireland the Parties most directly concerned have generally accepted that 78 seats and the system of S.T.V. based on the twelve Westminster constituencies, is a reasonably fair one for this particular election.

The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, both asked about longer hours of polling. We gave a good deal of consideration to this matter, and the factors that led us to the conclusion that voting should be limited to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. were as follows. First, staff recruiting difficulties would have arisen with longer hours. Duties do not end with the close of the poll and the staff at polling stations in Northern Ireland are understandably anxious to reach home in reasonable time and in the daylight hours. Secondly, there will be more polling places in the election for the Assembly (at least 100 more) than there were for the Border poll. Thirdly, the burden on the security forces would be increased by an extension of hours of polling. The security forces advised against any extension beyond twelve hours. We must remember that security has also to be provided at the twelve counting centres the day after polling day. These security considerations apply very much to the possibility of holding the election on two days. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned that in Malta elections have been held over a period of three days. In a stable and peaceful society there is much to be said for having a period of two or even three days. But unfortunately in Northern Ireland at the Border poll every single polling station had, and needed to have, both police and Army protection. It was a mammoth operation. So it would not be right to disregard advice from the security forces.

LORD MONSON

My Lords, would it not be possible, given that sunrise is at 5.20 a.m., for the polling station to be opened half an hour earlier? I appreciate the noble Lord's point about people wanting to get back home after polling finishes, but if polling were to start at 7.30 a.m., instead of 8 a.m., people whose work began at 8 a.m. would be able to vote on their way to work.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, there has been less pressure for earlier opening than for later closing. We have already had one election with these hours of polling so there is something to go on. One must remember, in addition, that in order to open a polling station to the electors at 8 o'clock the staff have to be there considerably earlier in order to prepare for the voters when they arrive.

Another consideration is that postal voting facilities will be available on a much wider scale than has ever applied in Northern Ireland before. For these three elections—the Border poll, the local government elections and the elections to the Assembly—postal votes will be available to registered voters virtually on demand. Then the final consideration, and one that is worth keeping in mind, is the fact that there are three elections within a four-month period. It seemed sensible that the polling hours should be consistent, that they should be the same for all the elections, 12 hours, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., with full security provided at the polling stations. If people do not want to go and vote in person then they have the opportunity of obtaining a postal vote.

As to defects in the electoral register, there were allegations that there had been an exceptionally large number of errors in the register for the Border poll. The Secretary of State asked the chief electoral officer to look into this matter to see whether there was any case for a supplementary register. But he was advised, and he accepted the advice, that there was not an abnormal level of errors in the register. That is not to say that electoral registers are always completely accurate, because they are not. What had to be looked at was to see whether there were more errors on the register under which the Border poll was conducted, which is the same register for the Assembly Election, than was normally the case. The conclusion we came to was that this was not so. We have not claimed that the electoral register is absolutely accurate, but we do not believe that it was substantially more inaccurate this time than it has been on previous occasions.

My Lords, I do not want to delay the House too long on this Bill. The noble Baroness finally asked about the important question, which has been in our mind as it has been in hers, of the participation of candidates standing for proscribed organisations at the elections. She stated the position quite accurately; that there is nothing in electoral law which says that a member of any organisation is prevented for that reason from standing for election. But, of course, the fact that he stands as a candidate in an election gives him no special immunity from the criminal law. What would be incitement or libel or sedition at any other time remains such at election time. It has never been the practice to exempt any person from the general obligations of the law simply because he is pursuing a political candidacy. The Secretary of State, when this matter was raised in another place, said that he regarded it as one of some significance; that he was aware of the arguments both ways; but that he did not think it right in a Bill dealing entirely with electoral machinery to try to make any change concerning the proscription of an organisation which may have been banned for other reasons. We must remember that whatever Act of Parliament made a change of this sort would apply generally, and not just at elections. This issue will come up again in any event when the Diplock Bill is debated. The proscribed organisations are contained in the Special Powers legislation which will he repealed and replaced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. I have no doubt that this matter is something we shall be discussing on that occasion.

On Question, Bill read 2a;.

Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of April 18):

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

On Question, Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.

(The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [The election.]:

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SHACKLETON

We thought it inappropriate to put down Amendments which might have focused the particular points we wished to raise. None the less, since there will be further legislation of this kind, it seemed to me worth while to deal with one or two points. On Clause 2, I am bound to say I am not entirely convinced by the reply that the noble Lord gave with regard to the Negative and the Affirmative procedures. I am prepared not to press the Government on this matter, but the Government are still, in a sense, at risk on their Orders, in so far as they are subject to the threat of annulment. It might have been possible to establish an Affirmative procedure of a fairly rapid kind. We might even have overcome the difficulty that we, though not another place, insist that Orders under both the Affirmative and the Negative Resolution procedures (we used not to have Orders under the Negative Resolution procedure go before our Special Orders Committee, if my recollection is correct, but they all go to the Joint Scrutiny Committee) are not considered unless they have been before the Committee. I am speaking, I must confess, without having checked facts, but my point really is that I have not been entirely convinced.

I am not going to press the noble Lord, because in the Northern Ireland situation we have to remember that, simply because we are not convinced by an argument, we do not wish to weaken the ability of Ministers to put into effect what in their best judgment they feel needs to be done. None the less, perhaps the noble Lord will give some further consideration to these arguments, even if he does not wish to do it to-day. It may be that he will be able to convince me on another occasion that his argument is right.

The second point I want to make is this—this seems to be the most convenient method, short of putting down an Amendment. It concerns the hours in which polling takes place, on which matter both my noble friend Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Monson (may I also wish him many happy returns of the day?) have spoken with great force. Will the noble Lord once again consider this subject, because, if I understand it rightly, it is under this clause that the necessary Order will be made. I am just asking whether I understand rightly that the polling hours will be determined, and for all I know may already have been determined, by Order. If not, I am not quite clear how else they will be fixed. Perhaps they do not need to be fixed by Order, but if they do the matter needs further consideration, it would seem to me, because the powers of the Secretary of State are so enormous in this regard. He is able … to make any provision concerning the election under this Act, or any matter relating to the election, and in particular …". The Bill is not restrictive. It just emphasises certain things, but he can really do what he likes in regard to the election. It may well be that on further consideration, even if he has not had representations in regard to earlier opening (the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is well informed of the movement of the sun) he will consider it worth while to open the poll earlier. All I am asking in regard to Clause 2 is whether it is under this clause that the Minister has power to fix the hours. It may be that this is the sort of clause which could give rise to a large number of points, but I have deliberately confined mine to two matters.

LORD WINDLESHAM

What the noble Lord said in regard to the second point is quite correct. This is the clause—Clause 2(5) and Clause 2(6)—under which the Secretary of State will make regulations which will determine the conduct of the election for the new Assembly. I explained in some detail a few minutes ago what the requirements of the timetable were, and there is no need to go through it all again. I think most people in your Lordships' House, and in another place, would accept that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State over this last year has been particularly anxious to consult Parliament and to make sure that Parliament has a full opportunity to express views on policies in Northern Ireland, and he has been keen to respond as sympathetically as possible. As we saw it, the need to hold the election on June 28 was paramount, and it is the demands set by the timetable that have made necessary the procedure contained in the Bill.

I explained the reason why we believed it would be difficult to alter the twelve-hour period of polling from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. when I spoke in reply to the debate on Second Reading. Had I known the point would arise again, I should perhaps have done better to shorten my reply and to have said what I did in Committee. In brief, there are substantial staffing considerations, security considerations, and reasons of consistency for having the same hours of polling for the three elections, of which this will be the third. As I mentioned, this is in the context of extensive postal voting. Therefore people who, for one reason or another, do not feel that it would be convenient to vote or safe for them to go to the polling place in person, will have an opportunity to obtain a form and to cast their vote by post.

LORD SHACKLETON

It is precisely because we are in the Committee stage that we can probe the Minister on this matter. He gave very powerful arguments, but it seems to me that the matter ought to be reconsidered in the light of the arguments which have been put forward in this House. It seems to me that his argument about postal voting weakens his argument for an extension of hours—and I accept that there is a problem with the officers who man the polling stations—because those individuals who are frightened to go to the polling station late at night will be able to take advantage of it. I have not examined the postal voting arrangements, but what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked was whether the polling stations could open half-an-hour earlier. The fact that people will have this opportunity of postal voting will not alter the difficulties which will arise if the polling stations close with people still wanting to vote.

My noble friend gave the example of a misfortune which happened to her, and those of us who have undergone election procedures which have produced very narrow majorities—and I speak as somebody who was once elected with a majority of 16—know that this can be a very sensitive matter. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who was also a Member of another place, maybe with a larger majority, will realise how anxious candidates always are to get in every single vote they can. Although I accept the arguments, I am bound to make the strongest request for this matter to be reconsidered. If, at the end of the day, the Government come to the view that they cannot alter the closing hour, then I shall accept that. I admit that we on these Benches are slightly prejudiced, because we always reckon that our votes come out in the evening or very early in the morning, and here we are not thinking quite so much in terms of the normal Party political pattern. All I am saying to the noble Lord—and I am not asking him necessarily to answer our points; he has given his arguments and I fully accept that they are important—is that if under this clause he has powers to fix the hours, he will reconsider the matter even at this late stage. It is not his further arguments that I want; it is for him to consider the arguments which noble Lords have put forward. He has always been very helpful and I am not attacking him personally. I am only asking him to think further on this matter.

LORD WINDLESHAM

As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sometimes says when he is with us, it is for those proposing Amendments to make out a case for changing what is in a Bill, rather than the other way round. The Committee has to balance the strength of the case for making a change with the strength of the case for adhering to what is proposed. The regulations under the Order will be the authority for issuing instructions to presiding officers. I believe that is the procedure.

Representations have also been made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about this question of polling hours and whether or not an extra half-hour might be added at the end of the day. I know he is giving careful consideration to whether, in the light of those representations, he should alter the period of polling from 8 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Noble Lords will understand that I am not in a position to give an absolute undertaking at the point, but I can say that I shall pass on to my right honourable friend the strong feelings expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and others in this House. I am sure that he will want to take them into account in reaching a final decision.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am not sure whether his quotation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was very relevant, especially when we are all being so co-operative, are not putting down Amendments and are not seeking to divide the Committee on this matter. But the noble Lord, as always, has listened, and all we have asked is that he should consider the arguments. We believe that quite a powerful case has been made, but we shall be content with whatever he and his colleagues decide.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Disqualification for membership of Assembly]:

4.44 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

BARONESS WHITE

I wonder whether the noble Lord can clarify a point which was raised in another place but which, so far as I know, was not answered? Am I correct in supposing that this disqualification provision would not preclude a citizen of the Republic of Ireland from standing as a candidate, if he were nominated?

LORD WINDLESHAM

Subject to correction, I believe that is the position.

LORD SHACKLETON

Looking at the list of disqualifications—and I am not sure whether my noble friend referred to Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957—it is an enormous one. I could take up some time on it, but I shall not do so, pointing out some rather inappropriate disqualifications in regard to what I understand is not a full Parliamentary Assembly. Obviously, the Government had to move quickly and the simplest course was to have a list and take powers to amend it; for example, so far as I know, Northern Irish schoolteachers are not allowed to stand for the House of Commons, either. But it is a curious and complicated situation, which one would have liked to explore more fully. All I would ask of the noble Lord is an assurance that these disqualifications are being looked at, because it would be very annoying to find some quite absurd anomaly. For example, as I understand it, a member of the University Grants Committee would not be eligible to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I think he might be eligible to be a member of a county council. Clearly, this is not an area where I am very expert, and all I am asking is whether there is a review going on in regard to the disqualifications.

LORD WINDLESHAM

It was necessary to adopt some yardstick for deciding which categories of person should be qualified to stand for election to the Assembly, and which should be disqualified. It seemed that the most sensible course was to apply to this Bill the categories contained in Parts II and III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957. I am pleased to see noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have come armed with their copy of this Statute. There are three categories: incapacity by reason of physical or mental disability; incapacity by reason of circumstances, character or conduct; and incapacity by reason of holding certain offices or positions. It is those disqualifications, which apply to elections to the Westminster House of Commons, which will apply to the elections to the Assembly in Northern Ireland. We have a constitutional Bill to come, and this Bill determines only the elections to this particular Assembly in this particular year. If, in the light of experience, it seems necessary to make some changes we shall certainly be ready to do so.

BARONESS WHITE

With great respect, I think we ought to press the noble Lord a little further, not perhaps in regard to this particular Bill, because we understand the position about that, but in regard to the future. After all, what is the point of having these disqualifications in relation to office? It surely is because of the exercise of patronage and the fear that that will have some disadvantageous effect upon the Legislature, if it were possible to remain a Member of the Legislature and also to enjoy the patronage dispensed by the Government of the day. We can all see the reason for having disqualifications on those grounds—disqualification from membership of the Legislature in which the Government of the day have a majority. But this will not apply to the great majority of offices which are listed in the Schedules to the 1957 Act. It therefore appears to me that the Assembly in Northern Ireland ought to be looked at from a slightly different point of view. We are told that it is not a full Parliament; and it is a peculiar body, of course. But ought not this aspect really to be looked at? Ought we not to have some assurance that it will be looked at in relation to the actual body which is being established?

LORD WINDLESHAM

Does the noble Baroness really think that certain individuals who are disqualified by reason of holding certain offices or positions—fortunately I have a list of them here—should be eligible to be Members of the Assembly in Northern Ireland? For instance, certain judges? Does the noble Baroness feel that judges should be Members of an elected Assembly? Or civil servants; or members of the Regular Armed Forces; or members of the police force; or Members of Legislatures of countries or territories outside the Commonwealth? It seems to me entirely reasonable that these categories should not be eligible for membership of the new Assembly.

LORD SHACKLETON

If I may say so, this is an example of the dangers of instant legislation, and it is on our own heads that we are not able to go into this. In the Schedule to the Bill—and I may say that I had not come prepared; it is merely because there are Statutes conveniently available in the House—there is a fantastically long list of people who are disqualified under Parts II and III of the first Schedule to the 1957 Act. The noble Lord has read out a number who quite clearly ought not to be eligible, but there are a number of others. For instance, there is something called a "substituted officer of the Royal Air Force". I always wondered whether I was a substituted officer; I do not quite know. Why is it that a Northern Ireland teacher in, I think it is, a direct grant school is not eligible, but in England, curiously enough, I think a teacher is? There may be good reasons for that.

Since we do not yet know—and this is the only defence the Government may have in this matter—precisely what the Assembly is going to do, or what powers it is going to have, it may be arguable that the disqualifications should be as wide as in the case of the House of Commons. But, none the less, it is not going to be a full-time operation. These disabilities do not apply to Members of the House of Lords. There are particular reasons in regard to another place; and this all springs from offices of profit, not necessarily fitness to participate and contribute. It is perfectly open for a teacher to be a Member of your Lordships' House. It is apparently open for somebody who is hired as a public relations officer to speak in a debate in your Lordships' House. If I may say so to the noble Lord, we are merely asking him whether he is giving consideration to the powers that he is seeking to take in this Bill to remove disqualifications. From what he has said it appears that in fact no such consideration is taking place. It may be that this is only a small matter and that it will be put right at another time, but I am bound to put on record some dissatisfaction with the noble Lord's answer.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

4.57 p.m.

Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution),

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a;.—(Lord Windlesham.)

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, I do not think we should let this Bill pass from us without expressing just one word of hope that the new Assembly that is to be elected under the provisions of this Bill will be such that it will contribute to the peaceful settlement of affairs in Northern Ireland. Those of us who supported the White Paper a short time ago and who felt that the provisions made in this Bill, as part of it, deserved the support of men of good will, hope very much indeed that what we have been dealing with this afternoon will be one step in the direction of more peaceful community life and cooperation in this very troubled Province. Of course, it is not for us to make comments on the political situation in Northern Ireland at the present time beyond saying, I think—I hope fairly— that those who appear not to understand the true import of the White Paper are mistaken, and we hope that they will try to operate it, and this Bill, in the spirit in which it was put forward by the Government and which we on this side of the House, at any rate, warmly support.

VISCOUNT AMORY

My Lords, if I may I should merely like from these Benches to support cordially what the noble Baroness has just said. To some extent this is an act of faith, and nobody can tell how it will work out in practice. But I think we can all feel greatly encouraged by the calm and reasonable reception that the White Paper has had, and that therefore we can proceed in a spirit of great hope. I am sure every Member of your Lordships' House will cordially echo the good wishes that the noble Baroness has so courteously expressed.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, have said. I find it most appropriate to end the proceedings on this Bill with sentiments of this kind, and I certainly very much appreciate them. We must all hope that this Assembly, which is the first of the new political institutions which are being established in Northern Ireland, will result in a more peaceful and more stable form of Government and will help to heal the wounds of the past.

On Question, Bill read 3a;, and passed.