HL Deb 17 January 1985 vol 458 cc1133-9

7.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)

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

I am personally very grateful for the careful consideration given to the Bill which is before us this evening. As your Lordships will have heard from me on several occasions, this is an important Bill dealing with a serious problem that goes to the very heart of our democratic process in a part of the United Kingdom where the political divisions are wide and where the probity of the electoral system is essential if these divisions are to be resolved through political dialogue and not through unconstitutional means and, indeed, violence.

During our debates in your Lordships' House and in another place we have all been united in support of the principles that underlie the Bill. It is of course widely accepted in Northern Ireland, in your Lordships' House and in another place that in recent years personation has become a substantially greater problem than in the past. The Government's objective is to protect the fundamental right of a citizen to vote by restricting so far as possible the opportunities for personation at elections in Northern Ireland.

There has been no dispute among your Lordships about the worthiness and, indeed, the necessity of this objective. Our experience in recent elections—most notably the 1983 General Election—has demonstrated clearly that the existing legislation is inadequate to deal with a problem of the scale that now confronts us. Our present electoral law was never designed to withstand the pressures to which it has been subjected recently. But we have had to bear in mind one other fundamental principle of the electoral system of the United Kingdom: that as few obstacles as possible should be put in the way of the legitimate elector who wishes to cast his vote. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, drew attention to this particular point at Committee stage and expressed his fears that this Bill might discourage more legitimate voters than it would deter personators.

However, I want to stress that we wish to encourage the legitimate voter by discouraging the vote-stealer. The legitimate voter, no less than the democratic process in general, is entitled to protection against those who are bent on abuse. The Government recognise the fears expressed by the noble Lord and others, and careful consideration is being given now to the most effective and extensive campaign of publicity which can be mounted, subject to Parliament's approval of the Bill, to ensure that every elector in Northern Ireland is made aware, first, of the requirement to produce a specified document in order to obtain a ballot paper on polling day; and, secondly, of the importance of coming out to cast their vote so that local elected institutions accurately reflect the true balance of political opinion in Northern Ireland and are distorted neither by abuse nor by abstention from the poll. I know that many in this House and in another place have expressed concern about publicity, and the Government will do all they can to get that aspect right. Of course, we shall also look to the Northern Ireland political parties to make sure that their supporters understand the new procedures and turn out properly equipped to vote on polling day.

At Second Reading, the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath and Lord Coleraine, both touched on the case for an electoral identity card with a photograph. Such an idea was also strongly advocated by some Members of another place. This is not a case that the Government dismissed lightly; but I am sure your Lordships would accept that if receipt of a ballot paper were dependent on production of such a document there would, in the judgment of the Government, be a substantial risk that the result of an election would be distorted. That is because so many people in Northern Ireland would, for a variety of reasons, refuse or otherwise fail to obtain such a document. Such a step, of course, would represent a far greater departure from the well-established voting arrangements than those provided for in the present Bill; and it is further than the Government wish to go unless it can be demonstrated that all other means of preventing abuse are ineffective.

I remain convinced that production of just one of a number of existing documents is the best approach, not least because the great majority of electors, if not all, should already have one of these documents to hand. For the slightly longer term, we are prepared, as I said at Second Reading, to look carefully at the proposal by my noble friend Lord Coleraine for a voluntary scheme of what we might call "protected voting".

This Bill is in effect a double-barrelled weapon against personators. The requirement to produce a specified document to assist the presiding officer in deciding whether there is any doubt about whether the elector is the person on the electoral register he claims to be, will make it considerably more difficult—but I stress not impossible—to practise personation. To attempt widespread, organised personation will now require an extensive commitment of resources from any organisation and it will also now expose those who seek to organise or practise personation to grave risk of arrest and subsequent prosecution under the provisions of Clause 3 which creates new offences relating to the specified documents. Taken together, these two clauses in the Bill provide a formidable weapon against those who seek to undermine the electoral system and subvert the democratic process.

I wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Donaldson, and indeed all of your Lordships who have spoken and have taken interest in this Bill at its various stages in your Lordships' House, for the firm support that we have received in this important matter, and above all for your Lordships' assistance in helping its passage through this House. Much remains to be done consequent on its passing. It will be necessary to draft new local elections rules incorporating its provisions in good time for the district council elections in May. These must be made by Order in Council subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; and the political parties must have time to consider the new rules and their implications for the conduct of the forthcoming elections. The constructive and helpful comments of noble Lords will be of great help to all of those whose goodwill is required to see that fair elections in Northern Ireland lead to good government at local and, above all, at national level.

Your Lordships have scrutinised this Bill thoroughly; the Government have been supported strongly on all sides on the need for such legislation; and there is a consensus that, given Northern Ireland's circumstances, the approach we have taken is the right one. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Lyell.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for again spelling out the reasons for the Bill. The last thing your Lordships would want is to go through the same speeches we made on Second Reading. On behalf of the Opposition I ought to make it thoroughly clear that we are completely in favour of the Bill. We regret the necessity for the Bill, but it is absolutely essential if we want to safeguard the integrity of our elections.

One important provision is that the list of documents can be varied, which will be by affirmative resolution. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, emphasised particularly the attention that will be given to publicity. This will be vital, particularly at the first elections this year. I am assuming that the Government, through the Northern Ireland Office, will be making adequate arrangements to monitor the whole process of the Bill, particularly the position of electors who may be turned away from the polling stations or not given ballot papers because they cannot produce one of the documents. One will want to know how those electors react. We do not want to find that a large number say, "To blazes with the election. They are not giving me a ballot paper, so I am not going to come back".

I have also been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to express his apologies. Another engagement prevented him from being here for the passing of this Bill.

7.24 p.m.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, let me say at the outset to set the Minister's mind at rest that I have no intention of speaking in as great detail on this occasion as I did on Second Reading. However, I think it is right once again for me to put on record some of my reservations about the Bill.

I support the Bill. I support the concern that has been expressed by the Government and by all legitimate authorities in Northern Ireland; but I do have legitimate reservations. It should be pointed out that of the 17 Members who were elected to represent Northern Ireland constituencies I would not agree with 16 of them—perhaps 17 of them. Fifteen of them voted against the Bill in the House of Commons. I think that their reservations and their concern should be taken into account. After all, they are the people who will be facing the electorate. We do not have to do that. We should listen very carefully to the reservations they have expressed.

Some of those reservations were rather frivolous; others were entirely valid. I would suggest to the Minister that many of the reservations in the speeches which I heard in the Commons, as reported in Hansard, which I read, in particular the speeches by Mr. McCusker and Mr. Ross (their constituencies have new names now) are entirely valid.

I was not present during the Committee stage of the Bill. I understand and I have read that an amendment was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Had I been here, I would perhaps not have voted for his amendment, but would have agreed with many of the observations which he then made. I say that because this is not emergency legislation. This is not the emergency provisions Bill. This is not the emergency Prevention of Terrorism Bill. This will be an Act of Parliament which we are placing on the statute book and it will be there as far we as we can see into the future.

It is necessary to bring about this legislation because of the gross abuse of the electoral system which has taken place in Northern Ireland over recent years. It is right to say that a good deal of that abuse—perhaps 90 per cent. of it—has taken place within the nationalist community by representatives of Sinn Fein. I saw it at first hand in the West Belfast constituency at the last election. It happened again in Mid-Ulster and in other nationalist areas. It is right for us to take these measures, but I think we should be conscious at all times that this is bringing about a fundamental change between one part of the United Kingdom and another part.

We have heard over recent years that the Prime Minister has said that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley. To anyone who knows the circumstances of Northern Ireland, that is so only in theory. It is not as British as Finchley. You do not have the armoured cars and the army in Finchley as we have them in Belfast. You do not have to have this type of legislation to apply to the electorate or voters of the Finchley area. So I think that, while it is necessary to adopt this legislation, every safeguard must be initiated to ensure that those people who wish to vote are not prevented from doing so because of the obstacles in this legislation.

I am somewhat heartened by the Minister's speech this evening in that he has given an indication that the Government will engage in maximum publicity in the run-up to an election to make every elector aware of the identity documents which will be necessary before he can vote.

There is another serious reservation. Both my reservations are linked, and I speak with some experience of elections. The tinted ballot paper—the pink ballot paper, as we have known it in Northern Ireland—was never of any great effect. It is there for psychological reasons to make the elector think that he has actually voted, but no election in Northern Ireland has ever been won or lost on a tinted ballot paper.

Other clauses in the Bill make provision that where an elector is refused a ballot paper because of the attitude of the presiding officer and that elector is in the right, he can have recourse to an election petition. What ordinary aggrieved elector will have recourse to the courts by way of an election petition? First, such a person would not have the expertise or the knowledge required to set about doing that. More importantly, he would not have the financial resources. I sincerely hope that such cases will not arise, and to have contained in legislation that such would be the likely outcome is way beyond the bounds of reality. It is hardly likely that any aggrieved elector would resort to an election petition.

I said when I first became a Member of this House and I say it again now, in full knowledge of the malpractice of impersonation as I saw it operate, that the Government obviously believe impersonation has reached a stage where it is necessary to implement legislation. Let the Government transfer their concern into the minds of the magistrates in Northern Ireland. I have known for many years that, although provision was made for maximum penalties in the case of a person convicted of impersonation, in practice such a person would normally be fined £5, £10 or £15—which was totally inadequate.

That was the level of fines in relatively peaceful days, before the advent of Sinn Fein, the paramilitary organisations and the almost military style of impersonation. I hope that the Minister will make it clear when he replies this evening that the courts in Northern Ireland will regard impersonation as a very serious offence. I would suggest imprisonment as the maximum penalty. The evidence will certainly indicate whether a person was being foolish or made a mistake, but persons who are guilty of deliberate impersonation in Northern Ireland will be clearly evident to the police. It will be clear who they are, on whose behalf they were operating, and how they were operating. When such persons are found guilty of impersonation, they should be sentenced to the maximum sentence.

I realise that we are to have local government elections, but before we have those elections, it is necessary to have further consultations with the elected representatives in Northern Ireland, as it is they who will stand or fall in the forthcoming elections. It is all right for me now because I no longer have a vote in Northern Ireland. I vote in Kent, and I do not believe that a great deal of impersonation goes on in that part of the United Kingdom.

Where a person has been arrested, taken to the police station, and charged with impersonation, then the RUC should hold that person until the poll closes later that day. In the 1983 elections, I saw young lads being arrested, taken to the police station, charged, and allowed out on bail—and immediately they were out on bail they went to another polling station. It was rumoured, although perhaps there was no firm proof, that one young lad who was charged and fined about £15 had voted 17 times that day. The fine was paid for him by the Noraid organisation in America. I suggest that a fine is not adequate in those circumstances and that if a person is convicted of impersonation, he or she should be sentenced to imprisonment.

With those reservations—and I am perfectly sure that the Government are well aware that this legislation is not foolproof and that mistakes can be made—I will only add that everything should be done to deter impersonators and to provide adequate facilities to ensure that those entitled to vote are permitted to do so.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and for the kind compliments he passed on from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who, we quite understand, has another engagement to meet: he was kind enough to warn me of that. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was also very kind in his comments and I should like to reciprocate them. He raised one point concerning the monitoring of the results of this Bill. I can assure him that the Government will be doing that. We could hardly fail to hear any protests and to take on board any points which arise. We believe that prevention is certainly better than cure, and that is why I reiterated at the conclusion of my opening remarks our belief that much has to be done when this Bill passes into an Act, as I hope it will, and that new regulations and rules for local elections will be required.

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for giving us the benefit of his knowledge of what has gone on. Indeed, the noble Lord has been—if one can say such a thing—a victim of many of the practices I mentioned at earlier stages of this Bill. We accept that all these malpractices are highly undesirable, and that is why we are attempting to strike them out with the use of this particular Bill. We have taken into account the reservations expressed in your Lordships' House as well as in another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned the question of penalties. If the noble Lord will consult Clause 3, which deals with offences relating to the specified documents—the Irish way of bluff—he will find in subsection (7) some fairly draconian penalties. Whether the noble Lord would regard them as adequate, I know not. But I am sure that if he will look at even the fairly large print he will find that the Government have set out various penalties which we hope will add teeth to the measures we propose in this Bill.

I believe that your Lordships would not wish me to say anything more, except to express my gratitude for the attention and hard work that has been done by all Members of your Lordships' House. I am deeply grateful. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended from 7.37 until 8 p.m.]