Clause 5

HL Deb 25 April 1996 vol 571 cc1312-25

5 Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("time") to second ("the") in line 33 and insert ("has been notified by the party to be")

The noble Lord said: The result of agreeing Amendment No. 5 would be that Clause 5(1) would read, "In this Act 'nominating representative' in relation to a party means the person who at any time has been notified by the party to be the most appropriate person to act on behalf of the party for the purposes of this Act".

During its passage through the other place the Secretary of State advised the House of Commons that the reason for the use of the words "nominating representative" was to accommodate the fact that some parties may have a leader who would be the natural person to be the nominating representative, while other parties may not and may wish to ensure that somebody else was in the category of a nominating representative. The other provision that appears in the original Clause 5(1) is that the Secretary of State has to choose who he thinks the leader of the party is, or otherwise.

The amendment seeks to make it a decision for the parties to determine who would be the nominating representative rather than for the Secretary of State to decide. At the same time, it would ensure that the nominating representative was not considered to be the leader of the party, although he could be. The amendment therefore effectively enshrines two factors. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

I find myself supporting the amendment. It seems to me that subsection (1) of Clause 5 as drafted gives extraordinary powers to the Secretary of State. It is a little exaggeration to say that the formula as drafted is more evocative of the powers wielded by a 19th century colonial governor than one would expect to find in a democracy at the tail end of the 20th century. There may be a good reason for that and perhaps I have misinterpreted the position. No doubt the noble Baroness will explain why the formula is as it is.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

We have not seen any controversy in this element. We are not intending that that choice should be made entirely by the Northern Ireland Office or Her Majesty's Government. We shall be guided in identifying nominating representatives by the wishes of the party. We have already consulted on the question in the consultation paper of 1st April. A list of those we propose to identify appears in the Notes on Clauses which is available in the Printed Paper Office. If the parties wish to propose different names, they are welcome to do so.

I fear that the amendment is defective because it lacks certainty and may well lead to delay in the preparation of lists and nominations of teams. It may not readily be possible to pinpoint the legal entity corresponding to a party nor a person to speak with authority on its behalf. That is why the Secretary of State is involved: to permit the quick and unambiguous identification of such a person.

As we are acting in maximum consultation with the parties, we do not see that the problems that are feared will arise. I must therefore reject the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it. As I explained, consultation has already taken place and the parties involved are not unhappy.

Lord Monkswell

The Minister gives a certain amount of reassurance. But the main reason for my not pushing the amendment is again the time factor and the fact that these matters must be up and running fairly quickly.

There is a risk of letters getting lost in the post and being passed from one party member to another until they finally arrive on somebody's desk and are replied to. I suspect that initially the Secretary of State must pick the person he contacts and writes to. However, that raises a problem in the sense that, historically, we have not tended to recognise parties in legislative form or registration form. Parties may be constituted in various different ways.

Bearing in mind that this is the first electoral process that has occurred in this country that requires the election of parties rather than individuals, it may be something that the powers that be need to consider for the future. There may be a need for some mechanism for identifying parties and their structures and the responsible person to deal with them. However, that is a bit of a digression, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [The elections]:

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 7:

7 Page 5, line 4, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 9 because they both bear on the same problem. I am sorry to come crashing in to the otherwise unbroken sequence of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I shall try to be brief and return to his sequence as soon as possible.

The object of the amendment is very simple. At present, the Bill requires the regional list to contain between two and 10 names with at least two not on a constituency list. Of course, this creates problems for those parties, the larger parties on that long and improbable list which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, read out at Second Reading. It creates problems for the larger parties who hope to gain significant constituency representation, especially, if I may say so, those parties which have democratic procedures for selecting their candidates. Here, I want to draw particular attention to the plight of the Alliance Party, which, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, has played a notable role so far and will do so in the future, because all the five largest parties will hope to obtain 10 or more constituency delegates. How then are they to determine which to include on the regional list but not on the constituency list? The two overlap. All the parties will want to field their best candidates in a constituency in order to maximise their vote. I fear there is a danger of two second-rate candidates on the regional list, which is not what any of us want.

These amendments taken together allow the nominated representative—which, of course, we all know, means the party leader, as recognised by the Secretary of State—to put forward a larger but still restricted list of names at nomination time and then to decide which to appoint after seeing who is directly elected.

This is not in any way meant—and I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate this—to be a partisan amendment. I know it is a point, if not the amendment, on which there is some sympathy in the Northern Ireland office. I do hope she will able to respond to it in that spirit. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

I have no comments to make about Amendment No. 7 but I should just like to say something about Amendment No. 9.

On the face of it, it would seem to give too much power to the party bosses at the expense of the freedom of choice of the individual voter. I fully concede that I am absolutely no expert on PR but, as I understand it, one of the advantages of the list system is that the voter can pick and choose between individuals, and, if you are a Conservative, you can opt for a Eurosceptic or a Euroenthusiast candidate if you feel so inclined. If you are a Liberal Democrat, you can choose between Liberal Democrat candidates and so on and so forth. If Amendment No. 9 were to be accepted that choice could not be exercised.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I would, first of all, endorse the noble Lord, Lord Holme's, view that the Alliance Party has played a very significant role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and I am sure will continue to do so.

I have some nervousness in accepting his view that there might not be sufficiently talented and good people in the party for it to be able to nominate names not on the election list. I believe that there are times and opportunities when people who would not wish to participate in elections but have value to bring to the process would come forward.

I am not sure how leaving out 10 and adding a possible further 10 names to a regional list works on this matter. We have to ensure that all material is displayed at the polling station. I know that this has been looked at carefully on previous occasions and I understand in part the reasons for which it is advocated. But we do believe that the matters are well aired. I hope the noble Lord will accept that assurance and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his intervention. If he will bear with me, the next amendment speaks very precisely to his anxiety to create the maximum voter choice. I thank the noble Baroness for her assurances and for her kind words about the Alliance Party. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 8: 8 Page 5, line 10, leave out from ("cast") to end of line 43 and insert ("preferentially among the candidates named on the party list to produce five delegates per constituency. (2) Counting shall be conducted by the single transferable vote system to produce five delegates for each constituency.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to use the single transferable vote instead of the list system in the 18 five-member constituencies that have been drawn up in the schedule to the Bill. I think the affection of these Benches for the single transferable vote system is so widely known that I need not embarrass the Committee by rehearsing it all over again.

I should like to give three very straightforward reasons why this would have been a very much better system for the Government to have chosen. The first is, as was said earlier in the Second Reading debate, that the single transferable vote system is now the normative system for voting in Northern Ireland. It is only Westminster elections that are not conducted by the single transferable vote. Local elections, European elections are conducted in this way and, when there was the assembly, that was the way in which the elections were conducted. It is extremely familiar to the people of Northern Ireland. They can see the connection between their vote preferentially cast and the outcome. It gives a greater degree of ownership and participation. I think the onus is on the Government to show why they want to deviate from that well-established and practical norm.

Secondly, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, talked about a highest common factor choice of electoral system. I wonder whether we have not ended up with a lowest common denominator system rather than an HCF, because, as I understand it, the mere fact that Northern Ireland has been divided into 18 five-member constituencies for the basic election is because it was originally intended to have the single transferable vote. Five members is the right number for an STV system, whereas a list system can have a very much larger constituency.

I think I am right in saying that it was relatively late in the process, as part of the horse-trading between the parties, that the decision was made to abandon the normal STV system for this list system. The reason it was abandoned was because it was thought that it would be more favoured by the SDLP. I personally find that extremely curious, because the electoral system of the Republic of Ireland, to which the SDLP is anxious, with all possible speed, to affiliate itself, is STV and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the SDLP, which wants to be part of the Irish Republic, where for many years people have voted by STV, would be the party that did not want to have STV for these elections. And, in the event, of course, the production of this compromise electoral system, which has been fairly generally condemned, did not meet with any enthusiasm from the SDLP.

Much as I admire what the Government have done in terms of persistence, I defy the noble Baroness to tell me that the reason the SDLP has now decided to join in the elections is that it got its favourite electoral system, so in fact the Government, if they had stuck to their guns, could have had STV all along.

The third reason why it would have been better—I put it in the past tense because we all know the Government are not going to change now—to have STV is the very reason so eloquently given by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Fitt, at Second Reading.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, put it extremely well. STV allows the voters to take control—a point the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just made. The voters can look down the list within the constituency and say, "That person is an obdurate, obstinate hawk who is never going to contribute to the peace process, and therefore I do not choose to vote for such a person. I choose to vote for a member of the same party who is actually going to move the peace process forward". You get the connection between the voting and the movement forward of the peace process. As it is, it is a donkey vote. You have to vote for the party and the party itself is more likely to be guided by like-minded people than it is to put forward a balanced ticket of hawks and doves in order to give the electorate a choice. I say with all respect to the noble Baroness that the Government have missed an opportunity to ensure greater levels of voter participation and a greater push forward for the peace process. I beg to move.

Lord McConnell

I support the amendment. I do not intend to go into detail, but it is much more satisfactory to vote for people and not just for lists. It is a much more human thing to do. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Viscount Brookeborough

I would favour this system more as it is much more voter-friendly. The voter himself or herself feels that he or she will achieve something.

Lord Monkswell

I rise to suggest a different interpretation of what might happen from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The individuals selected might be the strongest hawks and be elected on a ticket of, "I shall defend your particular community". The risk of that is that one might end up with negotiating teams that would be completely intransigent. The only advantage of having the party elected rather than electing individuals is that it enables the parties to be flexible after the election. We recognise from our knowledge of history in Northern Ireland that individuals tend to be very inflexible when it comes to negotiations. However, if the negotiating body is the party rather than the individual, it is possible for some flexibility to come into the situation.

Lord Hylton

I wish to support the amendment and to indicate my personal preference for a strong connection between voting and the names of individual candidates.

Baroness Seear

The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that he favoured the list system, but he gave as his reason for favouring it that it would apply to STV. If he meant the list system, would he care to correct it because it was so nice to have his support?

Viscount Brookeborough

If we were to be given the option, which we are not, I would perhaps have favoured a transferable vote.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on the eloquence with which he put his case. I would suggest that he has had many years of practice. Under more normal circumstances, Northern Ireland must be a joy to him and to his party.

I can assure the noble Lord that it is not the Government's intention to stick to their guns in any circumstances whatever. I can assure Members of the Committee that there was immense consideration of the options and that options such as the single transferable vote were not rejected lightly. That was taken very seriously as an option and the views of the parties were listened to. I hope that the noble Lord is not seriously looking for me to express the reasons for the SDLP's feelings in this area. After the comprehensive consultation process with parties, in which we were looking to build consensus, we had to establish an election process which we believed would allow matters to be move forward. There was no consensus. In the absence of that, Her Majesty's Government devised an electoral system that took into account the representations made by some parties for a new type of election based on party lists while retaining elements of constituency politics as requested by others whom we consulted.

I can assure the noble Lord that the method was chosen to try to ensure that the forum represents the views of a broad spectrum of the electorate. I understand his feelings. I appreciate the way it was put, but I wish to assure him that for the voter it is important that the election is simple.

I hope the noble Lord appreciates that in this instance the Government had a very difficult task. We hope we have a process which will at least allow things to move forward. I cannot invite the Committee to support the amendment.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I thank the noble Baroness for her warm sympathy, which I very much appreciate, and I thank those noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Hylton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough—who supported the amendment. The noble Baroness will have found herself slightly lonely in the company of the noble Lord. Lord Monkswell, who seemed not to like the amendment on the rather curious grounds that it would give individuals all too much power and that they were rather unreliable. There we are; that's democracy, isn't it? I thank the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 10: 10 Page 6, line 15, leave out ("(however formulated)")

The noble Lord said: Rested from the fray, I come back. Paragraph 17(b) of the schedule refers to disqualifications. The Bill suggests that a person may be disqualified if, he is authorised to be detained on the ground (however formulated) that he is suffering from mental illness".

My amendment seeks to delete the words "however formulated". It struck me that it is a very wide definition. I am fairly confident that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is a mechanism for enabling disqualification for mental illness to be derived from a number of different health Acts or representation of the people Acts which may have different definitions and different criteria. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

I have nothing to say on this amendment except that it seems to be quite a reasonable one. I rise because my Amendment No. 11 has been grouped with Amendment No. 10. I am not happy about that and I wish to indicate that I want to decouple my amendment from Amendment No. 10.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for clarifying that point, but I had assumed that that would be the case.

I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that he has the answer to his amendment. It is a drafting point. We intend the disqualification to catch all those who may in various ways possibly be detained on grounds of mental illness. It covers a whole range because the question can cover many legislative processes. We think that the alternative formulation may lead to uncertainties which we so very much wish to avoid. The provision is drafted in this way because of the range of legislation which the schedule needs to cover. I hope that clarifies that the noble Lord was right in the first place.

Lord Monkswell

I thank the Minister for that very reassuring answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8 p.m.

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 11: 11 Page 6, line 22, leave out from ("person") to end of line 23

The noble Lord said: A few moments ago I opposed Amendment No. 9 moved from the Liberal Democrat Benches because I had interpreted it as giving too much power to party bosses at the expense of the individual voter. It seems that I misinterpreted the purposes of the amendment and for that I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Holme. However, the words that this amendment seeks to delete decidedly give too much power to party bosses at the expense not of individual voters but this time at the expense of individual delegates. Apart from anything else, it may well have undemocratic consequences.

Perhaps I may explain. I must tread carefully, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has re-entered the Chamber, and I am very glad that he has done so. I am not in full possession of the facts, but I was told only yesterday—I have not had a chance to go into the matter in great depth—that at the time of the Hume-Adams negotiations rather more than three years ago, the—how shall I put it?—less green members of the SDLP, Dr. Joe Hendron and Mr. Seamus Mallon, had reached a surprising degree of agreement with the moderate unionists. But that agreement was vetoed by the SDLP leader, Mr. John Hume, even though it is possible—and one cannot be certain—that the views of Mr. Mallon and Dr. Hendron at that time represented the views of the majority of the SDLP members.

Another way of looking at it is this: if elections to the Westminster Parliament were governed by the same rules as this Bill provides, neither the honourable Member for Stratford-Upon-Avon, Mr. Alan Howarth nor the honourable Member for West Devon, Emma Nicholson, would still be in the House of Commons. There could be no by-elections to fill their places and both would have had to resign. That shows up the rather extreme nature of the way in which this part of the Bill is drafted. I beg to move.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for explaining the purpose of his amendment and for the example he gave to prove, in his view, that this is not the right way to proceed. I remind the noble Lord that this is an election of parties and not of individuals. The rules that he associates with individuals do not necessarily apply in this instance. It does not seem unreasonable that someone who has sought to be elected under a party banner should be aware of the consequences of acting in a manner which is perceived to threaten party discipline. When electing a party voters should have the right to expect the views for which they voted to be represented on their behalf. If a candidate from a party list decided unilaterally that he or she would not, after all, follow the views of the people who elected him or her, it seems only right and proper that the nominating representative should retain the ability to remove that individual from the party's list of delegates.

I am sure that your Lordships would have some sympathy for the party leaders who found, to their dismay, that the candidates they chose decided unilaterally to adopt a point of view at odds with the rest of the party. It is not a view that can be unknown in many places. We do not envisage that there will ever be a need for nominating representatives to exercise this right, but we believe it is right that it should be there in the Bill. I hope that, with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Monson

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the reasoning behind the rather unique formula contained in the Bill. I am partly convinced, but not wholly so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 12: 12 Page 6, leave out lines 37 and 38

The noble Lord said: This is my final probing amendment. It is to remove paragraph 20 from Schedule 1. That states, Where a party ceases to exist, any persons on its lists who are delegates or members of a team nominated under section 2(2) or (4) shall cease to be so".

That sounds fairly logical except when one asks how to define, "party ceases to exist". One of the difficulties of this sort of ad hoc legislative situation is that we are basing a whole edifice on parties, elections to parties, taking negotiating teams from parties and all the rest of it. But we have no basis of definitions or structures nor the legal framework as to how a party starts or what its entity is during its lifetime. We do not know how its members are related to each other. How does one define when a party dies? It is one of those curious anomalies. I do not know whether the Minister has an answer or whether the parliamentary draftsman threw this in as a sort of longstop in case it was needed. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

I once again find myself in some sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He may be interested to know that this amendment is identical to one tabled in another place by the honourable Member for North Down, Robert McCartney. I am sure he will agree that he finds himself in good company. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

This is a unique system. There were many amendments in another place and there are quite a few here. I doubt whether the noble Lord's amendment is compatible with the concept of the party list system of election. That is what we have brought forward and what the Bill is about. The voters will have made a choice for a party. If it ceases to exist I believe it is wholly appropriate that those elected as its delegates cease to play a part in the negotiations and the forum. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Monkswell

I find that response not entirely satisfactory. My own understanding and the explanations given during the Second Reading debate by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and my noble friend Lord Fitt about how the previous assemblies worked, give me some confidence that perhaps the Government have got it right, but I am not sure. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, can contribute?

Lord Fitt

I feel compelled to support the noble Lord on this matter. It goes back again to my questioning of the list system. I am only taking what I say from Hansard and what the Secretary of State said and what the noble Baroness has said here. The Secretary of State called for parties to fight the election for the forum. He received letters and representations were made by certain parties saying "We are a political party". Many of them no one had ever heard of. I am certain that the noble Baroness did not refer to it in her Second Reading speech, but I have serious doubts about the Women's Co-Operation Party, or something like that. That would certainly cause problems in Northern Ireland.

On what basis did the Secretary of State and his officials in the Northern Ireland Office accept the bona fides that these were actually parties? If we knew that then we would know what criteria were used to accept them and what criteria were going to be used to reject them.

There was the case in Northern Ireland of the now deceased Jim Kilfedder who was the MP for North Down for many years. He had his disagreements with the Official Unionist Party. He then left that party and for about three or four weeks he called himself the Progressive Unionist Party in North Down, which he represented. Then someone said, "There is already a Progressive Unionist Party on the Shankill Road". So there was a quick turnabout and he then called himself the Popular Unionist Party in North Down. So it became known as the Popular Unionist Party in North Down. Subsequently, local elections took place and two of Jim Kilfedder's friends fought the election on a Popular Unionist Party ticket. They were elected. When Jim Kilfedder died he took his party with him. However, there are still two Popular Unionist Party members sitting on Bangor or Newtonards Borough Council. How can the Secretary of State say that that party no longer exists when there are two members of the Popular Unionist Party nominated by Jim Kilfedder? I believe that some kind of understandable criterion should be used.

I know that the noble Baroness cannot answer all the questions that are posed here today. However, how did the Secretary of State accept all those parties in the first place? If somebody can say how he accepted them, we may know how to reject them.

Lord Monkswell

The contribution of my noble friend Lord Fitt is revealing. It raises some of the difficulties that the Secretary of State will no doubt face, on the basis that some people may be elected against one of the parties listed in the Bill, turn up, but make virtually no contribution to any discussion or negotiations. They will simply take advantage of the allowances, the free telephones that have been mentioned and various other matters. It is quite reasonable that the Secretary of State should have power to say to such a person that he believes that the party has ceased to exist and therefore he will not receive his allowances, and so forth. On the basis of that understanding as to the way it may work, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

Lord McConnell moved Amendment No. 13: 13 Page 6, leave out line 42

The noble Lord said: I can best illustrate the purpose of the amendment by referring to an experience suffered by the Liberal Democratic Party. In an election a candidate called himself a literal democrat and succeeded in splitting the vote. In the list of parties a new creature called the British Ulster Unionist Party has sprung up. That is second on the list. The normal Ulster Unionist Party is near the bottom of the list. The purpose of the amendment is to omit reference to "British Ulster Unionist Party". I submit that it is just put in as a method of splitting the proper Unionist vote. It copies Mr. Literal Democrat, who did the same thing to our friends in the other place. I beg to move.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

As a member of the Front Bench of a party that has one less MEP than it should have, I feel bound to support the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Monson

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has made out a powerful case for some alteration. The trouble is that if his amendment is accepted as it stands it would mean that the individuals who wish to stand as British Ulster Unionists would be disfranchised. As I understand the rather peculiar rules that govern all the stages of a Bill being taken on the same day, theoretically the noble Lord is entitled to table a manuscript amendment at Report stage. If that is so, I suggest that a possible remedy for the almost certain deception which he fears is that the word "Independent" should be inserted either before or after the word "British". That would get round all of the problems, while not disfranchising individuals who wished to stand under this party banner.

Lord Fitt

It is quite possible that on nomination day all of the names that I have read out this afternoon will disappear. They will probably have sobered up in the meantime and will not be putting in nomination papers. Referring to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, if nobody turns up to put in a nomination paper under the heading British Ulster Unionist party it will perhaps avoid that particular difficulty. It would then become the Ulster Unionist Party. One would simply be doing away with the British Ulster Unionist Party, which does not exist now and will hardly exist on nomination day. It is almost certain that on nomination day half or perhaps three-quarters of those parties mentioned today will no longer exist.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for explaining the reason for moving this amendment. It seeks to remove from the schedule of participating parties one of those parties which seeks inclusion in the elective process.

There may be a perception among noble Lords that people who wish to join the political process and who have not participated in the political process before, or who have participated in earlier days and have been away from it for some time, may now wish to return. I believe it is wrong to assume that some of those people do not have a serious wish to take part in shaping the future of Northern Ireland. We have always sought an inclusive process in this election. The party concerned responded to the consultation paper sent out by my right honourable friend on 1st April within the timescale set out in that paper. Therefore, there are no grounds to seek the removal of that party's name from the schedule. I believe that it would be contrary to our desire for an inclusive process to do so. Should no one materialise on the day, obviously it would be impossible—even in Northern Ireland—to vote for no one. But I believe that, if new people wish to participate in the political process of shaping the future, that is something the Government wish to see. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment having heard the reason why it is not possible for the Government to accept it.

Lord Monson

I have no idea what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, wishes to do. I ask the noble Baroness whether it is theoretically possible to table a manuscript amendment at the next stage, should the noble Lord wish to do so. If so, is it possible to insert the word "Independent" without the consent of the leaders, such as they are, of the party concerned? That may not be possible, in which case there is no point in trying to table such an amendment.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

It is possible to table a manuscript amendment at Report stage. The party is nominated with its title, and that is the title of the party. I should have to consult on whether or not that was possible. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, would receive advice as to that.

Lord McConnell

If I were to do that, would the Minister accept an amendment to the effect that the word "Independent" should be included?

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

As the Member on the Front Bench on this occasion, if an amendment brought forward at Report stage were acceptable from the point of view of drafting—

Baroness Seear

Surely, the only way to deal with this matter is to move that the whole name of the party should be removed. We cannot interfere with the name that the party has given itself. We can move that that party be eliminated from the list, but we cannot play around with the name that the party has chosen to have.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

The noble Baroness who has just spoken is right; otherwise, it is possible for me to put down a manuscript amendment in respect of any of these parties that inserts the word "obnoxious" or indeed "admirable". It simply is not suitable.

Lord Monkswell

Curiously, we can do this.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

No.

Lord Monkswell

We are referring here to a list of names which has at the top the heading "The Parties". We have before us a public Bill. We in Parliament can change any of the words of that Bill however we like. We do not have any prior legislation that defines a party and the legitimacy of a party name being sacrosanct. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is entirely in order. It is possible for us to do it. That should be the logical reason why the Government should resist the amendment. We must accept that, were we to do such a thing, it would be in order.

I wonder whether I might ask the Minister a technical question about the consultation process relating to the advice of the Secretary of State with regard to parties within Northern Ireland. Would I be right in thinking that only one signature was required on the response? Presumably there was a standard form: "This is the name of the party. This is the address of the party. I am a responsible officer of the party", and then a signature. Or was more than one signature required, or no signature at all? If we had that information, we might be able to move forward more quickly.

Obviously, if two or three signatures were required, that would suggest that the party was bona fide even though it might be small. If only one signature was required, that would suggest that an individual could have described himself as a party, filled in the form and sent it back. That would alter the Committee's view about the legislation, and its integrity or otherwise.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

We seem to be dealing with difficulties which are more perceived than real. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The party about which we are talking has its own name which it is not for this place to amend. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, to bring forward a manuscript amendment on Report. However, I suggest, as I did earlier, that he take advice on the formulation of an amendment which will achieve what he wishes. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that the party has a serious intention of participating in the Northern Ireland political scene. The Government accept that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McConnell

In view of the speed with which these proceedings are going through this place, there is little time for me or anyone else to seek advice before the next stage which will be in a few minutes' time. I am left with no alternative but to withdraw the amendment, particularly at this late hour.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule I agreed to.

Schedule 2 [The forum]:

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 14: