HL Deb 21 February 1984 vol 448 cc697-705

7.44 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield)

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Assembly Elections (Nothern Ireland) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.

These regulations provide for the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland to the European Assembly. They reflect various changes in electoral law since 1979, but in most respects do not differ in substance from the 1979 regulations which they replace. They apply, with approprite modifications, provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (which, as noble Lords will recall, was a consolidation measure) and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1983. The House recently approved similar regulations providing for the conduct of European Assembly elections in England, Wales and Scotland.

I will not detain your Lordships with a lengthy description of the draft regulations. A number of the changes since 1979 are common to the Northern Ireland and the Great Britain regulations, and noble Lords have already considered them when they approved the Great Britain regulations last month.

Very briefly, the principal changes are: the exclusion of Saturdays from the computation of time for the purposes of the election timetable, with a consequent extension of the timetable; the entitlement of voluntary mental patients to be registered for European Assembly elections as well as for parliamentary elections; the disqualification of convicted prisoners serving sentences of more than 12 months from standing for the election; and increases in the limits on certain expenses such as candidates' permitted election expenses.

There are, however, some differences between the Northern Ireland and the Great Britain regulations, and it may be helpful to the House if I spend a few moments referring to the more important of these. First, whereas the simple majority system of voting will be used in Great Britain for the election in June this year, in Northern Ireland the method of election will be the single transferable vote, as in 1979. The European Assembly Elections Act 1978 provided for the use of STV (as it is called) in Northern Ireland, with the whole Province forming a single constituency returning three representatives. The Government believe it right that, given the nature of Northern Ireland society and its political system, the 1979 arrangements should be retained for this year's election. The draft regulations therefore differ from the Great Britain regulations in the provisions dealing with the procedures for voting and for the count.

Secondly, the grounds for entitlement to an absent vote are narrower in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain because of the widespread concern in Northern Ireland about electoral abuse, including postal voting abuse. We have taken the opportunity in these regulations to reduce opportunities for malpractice by not allowing an elector to obtain an absent vote on the grounds of no longer residing at his or her qualifying address. The regulations will also require more precise certification of postal voting applications made on grounds of blindness or other physical incapacity. As regards personation, which we believe occurs in Northern Ireland to a significant degree, we cannot take any steps requiring primary legislation before the June election, but we will be seeking to ensure that existing procedures are applied with maximum effectiveness.

These regulations are necessary for the conduct in Northern Ireland of the elections which will be held throughout the United Kingdom on 14th June this year. They have been examined by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd January be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for explaining the regulations. As the noble Earl has said, in the main they cover similar ground to the regulations which we discussed just a fortnight ago dealing with the rest of the United Kingdom. There may be a temptation by some noble Lords to argue about why there should be a different voting system. I have never accepted that the single transferable vote is proportional representation. But the fact is that it was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1972 and, as the noble Earl has said, it operated for the Assembly elections in 1979. Moreover, when first introduced in Northern Ireland in 1972 it was generally accepted by all the political parties that it would not be any excuse for discussing the question of PR elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I do not think one need repeat tonight what happened in another place and have a long discussion on the merits of single transferable voting.

When the regulations for England, Scotland and Wales were before the House, I raised the question of the exclusion of Saturdays and suggested that it might have been advisable at that stage to have altered the election timetable, because it means that we now have an election timetable covering a period of six weeks instead of five weeks. Nothing can be done about it at this stage, because we cannot amend regulations. But I should like the Minister and the Home Office to consider this matter before the situation arises again, because six weeks is far too long for a local election campaign or for an Assembly election campaign; and perhaps we can deal with the matter at a later date.

Certainly we ought to have a situation where postal voting or absent voting conditions are the same throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. But, as has been repeatedly stressed—not just from these Benches but from all parts of the House—whatever noble Lords may argue, Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the United Kingdom. We all know what has happened as regards abuses in respect of absent voting. Therefore, regrettably, we accept the need in the regulations for changes in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. But we hope it may be possible in the not too distant future to revert to a situation where, if people do move from their registered address or from their qualifying address, they will be able to have the advantage of absent voting.

The only other point I want to make is that I accept that the increase in the permitted maximum of election expenses is in line with inflation. But the new limit must obviously give an advantage to the better-off political parties because Northern Ireland is the only place in the United Kingdom where more than one Member has to be elected in a common European constituency. Hence, with about 1 million electors, we have maximum permitted election expenses of about £45,000. I know that nothing can be done about amending this, but I draw attention to this fact, because it means that any party or body which or who wishes to contest Northern Ireland elections to the European Assembly has the permitted maximum against him of around £45.000. With those points, we accept the regulations.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for introducing these regulations. I see nothing to object to in either the increase in expense allowances for candidates or in the fact that Saturdays are no longer to be included in the computation of time in election timetables. I should, however, be grateful for answers to the following questions about the use of proportional representation in these elections, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just said. First, why is it accepted in Northern Ireland but not in Britain that the use of the single transferable vote is fairer to minorities? Secondly, why are the Government so certain that for these elections in Britain we should use a different non-proportional system from that used by all our European partners? If the Minister does not wish to take up the time of the House now, perhaps it would be possible for him to clarify the position for me by letter.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, it is on an occasion such as this that I regret not being a Member of another place, because as I read the Hansard reports of the debates that took place on these orders in another place, I wished that either I had been there or that some of those Unionists who spoke had been here. What I have read and what I know of Northern Ireland is completely contrary to the case which was put forward by the Unionist Members in another place.

In the last Parliament I vividly remember putting forward the case for proportional representation in Northern Ireland. Many Members on both sides of the House then were not in any way enamoured with the idea of the introduction of proportional representation in Northern Ireland. I took the view that Northern Ireland was different. There can be no gainsaying that fact. That is shown in its history—the history of its political parties, the history of its political and religious divisions; and, in particular, the history of the creation of the Northern Ireland state. The Northern Ireland state was created on a religious head count. It was deliberately created to give a Unionist Protestant majority control of Northern Ireland. It had a 65 per cent. Protestant Loyalist majority and a 35 per cent. Catholic Republican minority.

In that situation, the first-past-the-post system did not have any effect. It did not have the right effect, because we could be assured that, given the history of the boundary that was created at every election which took place, we would finish up with a Unionist Government. The minority would always be in the position of a minority both in the country and in the representative seats in Parliament and on the local authorities.

I saw it at first hand because I was a Member of the Stormont Parliament and I was also a Member of the British Parliament. In another place I could look across at the Dispatch Box and say, "When the next election comes, the positions could be reversed. The person who is standing as Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box could be speaking as the Leader of the Opposition after the next election." That was democracy as I thought, and I am a great upholder of the British democratic system. However, in Northern Ireland it did not happen like that. Because of the system of elections which we had, one could be assured at election after election from 1920 until 1972 that those who were in opposition would remain in opposition and those who were in government would remain in government. That was one of the reasons why the system of first-past-the-post did not have any significance whatever in Northern Ireland.

I remember very well an election in 1953 in Northern Ireland. Fifty-two Members were returned to the House of Commons on the first-past-the-post system in elections in Northern Ireland. Before a single vote was cast there were so many unopposed returns that the Unionist Government were elected without a single vote being cast. This meant that the whole system of elections in Northern Ireland was a farce. That is why I supported and fought for a different system; and, in particular, I had the support of members of the Labour Government in that Parliament. That is the system of proportional representation in Northern Ireland. I remember that I had an awful job trying to convince some of my closest colleagues in the Labour Party to support me in asking for the abolition of the first-past-the-post system and the institution of PR in Northern Ireland.

I know that I will not be making too many friends when I say with all honesty and without in any way trying to gain political points, that I am not a supporter of the proportional representation system in Great Britain—in England, Scotland or Wales. I believe that the conditions that prevail in Great Britain—in England, Scotland and Wales—are totally and absolutely different from those which we have in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland we had an artificial state, an artificial majority and an artificial minority. All those factors combined made it imperative that the system should be changed.

Indeed, it was the Unionist Government which departed from the proportional representation system because they wanted the first-past-the-post system which would guarantee their domination of the political arena in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I support the system of proportional representation as contained in these regulations. As I say, one of my regrets is that there are no Unionist Members here this evening, because they so abused the first-past-the-post system (and indeed would attempt to abuse this particular system) that their case would need to be answered.

However, I am taking part in this debate because of another issue altogether. The whole democratic system under which we are governed in these islands depends on the ballot box. I know that the IRA and its political spokesmen—Sinn Fein—believe that it also depends upon the Armalites. I completely reject and oppose that philosophy. In the last Westminster elections which we have just had in Northern Ireland we have seen a gross abuse of the ballot box system of election as we know it. In its first major campaign in elections in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein so abused the ballot box system—particularly in the three constituencies of West Belfast, Mid-Ulster, and Fermanagh and South Tyrone—that the vote which was recorded as having been attributed to Sinn Fein candidates was totally untrue.

I have spoken to many observers from the Northern Ireland Office and to others who were present at the polling stations that day, and their estimate is that in West Belfast alone 20 per cent, of the votes cast for the Sinn Fein candidate—that would mean 4,000 votes— were taken illegally. They were impersonations. I know that the whole history of Irish elections has been recorded in very funny stories and people laugh at the amount of impersonation that allegedly took place. There was a saying that at election time candidates called on their supporters to vote early and vote often! All very funny, and to some extent it was funny in those days, but it is no longer funny.

It used to be the case that impersonation in Northern Ireland could be regarded as maximising a vote a candidate would have got, anyway. For example, if persons supported a man because he was the Catholic candidate, then they were going to vote for that Catholic candidate; and likewise with the Orange candidates. If for some reason or other they could not get to the polling stations, one of their relations would come down to the election headquarters of a particular candidate and say, "My mother"—or father, or brother, or sister—"cannot vote this afternoon so would someone else vote?" Technically it was an offence. It was breaking the law, but it was understandable that people would say, "Well, a member of my family, if they were here, would vote for you". Means were taken by various candidates to have that vote cast in their favour. It was breaking the law, but it was understandable.

But what is happening now is totally different. As I saw myself in the last West Belfast election, Sinn Fein are marshalling young men and women to go in increasing numbers to various polling stations, to be transported from one polling station to another by car and to keep casting votes for people who would not under any circumstances be voting for their candidate. They are in fact stealing votes. When the legitimate voter does go to the polling station, he finds his vote has been taken and he is given something which is called a pink ballot paper, a tendered ballot paper, which really does not mean anything.

So the whole democratic process is being abused by vote stealing. There is no way that this can be prevented unless the Government take very stringent action. I heard the noble Lord the Minister say that the Government cannot take steps now to prevent these abuses. I say to him, why not? The Government could take steps. They have been aware of these abuses since the election of last June. If the Government were so minded they could take effective action to prevent this gross abuse of the democratic process.

I remember very well in 1972 when the British Government very quickly took emergency action to legitimise the actions of the British Army in relation to some of its activities in Northern Ireland, when it was found in the particular circumstances then prevailing that the British Army might have been found to be acting illegally. The next thing was that we had a Business Statement from the Leader of the House who told us that the next day's Business would be changed and we would have a Bill brought in and its First Reading, Second Reading, Third Reading, Committee stage, Report stage—the whole lot—would go through in a few hours in the House of Commons to legitimise the action of the British Army in these particular circumstances. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Government were so minded they could quite easily arrange for Parliament to deal with this business. They have a massive majority in the House of Commons; they could brook no opposition. I suggest this to the Minister.

In the last election in Northern Ireland I saw a young man arrested for impersonating, for illegally voting. He was taken to the police station, charged with illegally voting and released from the police station. He immediately went back to Sinn Fein headquarters and started again to vote. He voted illegally again and was arrested by the police, taken to the police station, charged again and released. He did it a third time, and on the third occasion as he was coming out of the polling station a policeman said to him, "Don't you think you are overdoing it?" He said, "I don't care. Noraid is paying my fine". Noraid is an American organisation which gives great financial support to Sinn Fein. Between 70 and 80 people were charged with impersonating in what was then my old constituency of West Belfast. There has been massive impersonation going on in West Belfast, in Mid-Ulster and in Fermanagh South Tyrone. A derisory fine of £10, £15 or £25 is not going to stop impersonation.

I am saying to the noble Lord the Minister that he should take this matter seriously in all elections in Northern Ireland. What he should do, and what the Government should do, is to lay down a mandatory prison sentence for anyone found impersonating. A mandatory prison sentence should be written into the electoral law or into the electoral regulations; anyone found vote stealing or impersonating should receive a mandatory prison sentence. Nobody votes wrongly by mistake. They are well aware of their own Christian name and surname, and if they are holding on to another name they are well aware they are breaking the law. If the Government are not prepared to lay down a mandatory prison sentence, then they could make it a very heavy fine—not £10 or £15 or £20, but a very heavy fine, something like £500 or £1,000, and in the event of that not being paid a prison sentence should follow.

I say this as one who has fought many elections in Northern Ireland. I realise the seriousness of the abuse that is now taking place at the ballot box because if one political party finds that it can get away with impersonation, with vote stealing, then another political party will feel it has to do the same thing. Then the whole democratic system of the ballot box is being abused.

My Lords, these are the few observations I wanted to make to the noble Earl the Minister, and they are made in all seriousness. The noble Lord has said that we cannot change the system in the House. I believe the Government could change the system if they had the will to do so, and I appeal to them to do so before the European election.

8.10 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this order. There are perhaps one or two matters which call for a reply. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, complained mildly about the timetable. I am afraid there is nothing that can be done about that. So far as absent voting and the rules appertaining to expenses are concerned, it would be nice if all rules which relate to the conducting of elections in every part of the United Kingdom could be exactly the same, but unfortunately in some cases—though not in the case of expenses where the same rules apply—they cannot be and that perhaps is the best explanation I can give the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, read out two questions and I wondered when the proportional representation point was going to be made and who was going to make it. In fact, if he will forgive my saying so, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has shot my fox, in fact shot a brace of them, because he answered both questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, quite as well as I could ever do.

The system of proportional representation, the single transferable vote, which has now been in operation in Northern Ireland for quite a long time, seems to be a form of election which suits that troubled spot—may I put it in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, illustrated all too graphically the kind of unsatisfactory result one gets in a community which is as divided as Northern Ireland, and in the proportions in which it is so divided. Therefore, I reject unequivocally any criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, may make of having proportional repressentation in these particular circumstances in Northern Ireland.

Then says the noble Lord, turning the argument on its head, "Why not have the same thing in Great Britain?" But, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, totally different considerations apply. We have a quite different outlook on our political affairs. There are important differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and indeed between Great Britain and the rest of Europe.

It is worth saying that at the time when we had our first direct elections to the European Parliament all of us thought that a common, uniform European system would be in operation by the second elections which are due to take place later this year. Unfortunately that has not proved possible, and it is to be hoped that the Council of Ministers will resolve the matter speedily, and certainly in time for the next, third direct elections to the European Parliament when they take place.

I come now to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who obviously feels sore—and who shall blame him?—because of apparent electoral malpractices which took place at the last general election, as a result of which he now addresses your Lordships rather than those along at the blunt end of the Palace of Westminster in the other place. I am not really sure why he should complain at the change, but I see his point. The noble Lord says that if the Government only had the will all could be put right in time for the elections to the European Assembly in June.

I want to say to him that it is one thing to have the will but quite another to devise a scheme which is going to put an end to these forms of malpractice; which will do so effectively and yet in a way which will not detract from the civil rights of those who wish to take part in elections. I have to say from my own acquaintanceship with Northern Ireland that if one did anything which affected the rights of the citizens, on whatever side of the sectarian divide they may be, one would bring down on one's head coals of fire. What I can say to the noble Lord is that the Government are giving urgent and careful consideration to what further steps, including primary legislation, can be taken to deal with this question of personation, but it will not be possible to have primary legislation before June.

Goodness me, the noble Lord was in the other place long enough to know how long it takes to get a Bill from the stage at which a Government decide to do something rather complicated to the time when it reaches the statute book. Therefore, what we have done so far as absent voting is concerned—

Lord Fitt

My Lords, would the noble Earl give way for a moment? I have mentioned an occasion in the House of Commons when the House of Commons met to legitimise in one day the actions of the British Army which were causing concern at the time. That legislation went through in one day. One of the most draconian Acts of Parliament ever passed in the House of Commons, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, went through all its stages in one day. Emergency provisions went through all their stages in one day; and there were many more.

The Government would not be interfering with the civil rights of the citizen. I am all for them. There was no one more involved in the civil rights demonstrations than I was in 1968. It is not a civil right to steal votes or to personate, or to abuse the electoral system. The Government would not be affecting the civil rights of those who were abiding by the law, but they would be taking action against those who were breaking the law.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I rather resent being interrupted by the noble Lord at inordinate length to tell me, in precisely the same terms, what he has already told the House. It is one thing to pass legislation, particularly on a retroactive basis, to legitimate what has happened before; it is quite another to devise methods which will be effective, and at the same time scientifically and legally possible, to stop this form of malpractice. It is difficult to do this, whatever the motivation of those concerned. The Government are looking at the matter urgently, and I hope that these efforts will bear fruit. But, as I have said, not before June.

The last point I want to take up with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—and it is almost a debating point—is that he asks, why cannot we have a mandatory prison sentence for those who are convicted of this particular offence? Any student of English law—and I say "student" with a small "s"—will know the abhorrence with which all practitioners in the law regard mandatory sentences. They are from time to time suggested for offences which revolt the general public—one can think of some sexual offences, and so on. But the law has been—and I think it is a good law—that it should be in the discretion of judges to award a just penalty in the circumstances, and that their discretion should not be fettered by rules of conduct which may well prevent them from doing what is right and just in the circumstances. I hope that I have replied sufficiently to this debate, and I commend these regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.