---

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): The Secretary of State is in the process of confessing that the only reason why we have this regional list system is to give certain paramilitary parties representation. When he devised the system--which provided representation for the top 10 parties--there were only a dozen or so parties on his list. However, his list has now been expanded to 33--soon to be 34. Is he equally confident that the paramilitary parties, which are the sole object of his attention, will succeed in getting into the top 10? Does he feel it necessary to extend the list of the number of parties who will get guaranteed seats to bring in the parties that he is favouring?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is a fair point. There are now more small parties than was the case when the Government published the first list. So be it; let us see what happens. The purpose is to secure that those who will not get a large vote, by reason of small but significant support, will not be excluded from participation in the all-party negotiations.

It would have been possible to legislate in a way that focused this provision only on small parties, but it seemed appropriate and less likely to attract criticisms of unfairness, to allow the representation on a Northern Ireland-wide basis to extend to those who came within the top 10 of the aggregated votes.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Prime Minister's observations. However, I think that he unwittingly gave a misleading account of the Government's original document, which preceded the Prime Minister's statement of 21 March. He said that that document--the consultation document of 8 March--stated that only two systems of election had attracted support, but if he finds the appropriate place he will confirm that that document said that two main systems had attracted support. It was not accurate to say that that those were the only two systems that had attracted support. The two main realistic options appeared to be single transferable vote and the party list.

4.30 pm

On 21 March 1996, the Prime Minister told the House:

"Whatever the merits of each of the three main systems, it is clear that none, on its own, meets that criterion of broad acceptability.

We have therefore considered how to proceed. We have decided to propose a new system".

He described it. He said in the following paragraph:

"I believe that this is a fair and valid system that will produce a representative outcome. The Province-wide element should help to achieve the widely shared objective of making the negotiating process as inclusive as possible through representation of the smaller parties."--[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 497-8.]

23 Apr 1996 : Column 212

Paragraph 8 of the written statement, the paper that was published the same day, contains the following statement of the five factors that the Government have taken into account, in the absence of widespread agreement:

"its overriding obligation is to ensure the start of all-party negotiations on 10 June;

the negotiations should be conducted on as inclusive a basis as is compatible with democratic principles;

it would be wrong to conduct the election, intended to bring all parties together in negotiations, on the basis of any system that was in flat contradiction to the expressed views of one or other of the main communities;

none of the systems identified by the parties meets this test and accordingly none is acceptable;

a fair and balanced system must therefore be identified which should secure broad acceptance across the community."

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Secretary of State appreciates that the basic principle of democracy is that people or representatives should be elected on the mandate of the people. Is he aware that some of the representatives of the parties he hopes to include by means of this electoral Caliban, have said that their mandate is the silence of their guns?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am not aware of the particular quotation that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but if that has been said by someone who may benefit from the process, who is standing, if the hon. and learned Gentleman makes that known, no doubt the electorate will take that into consideration in weighing their claims. One must accept that a great many things have been said in the past by a great many people which are regrettable but which should not necessarily exclude them from all further participation in any democratic process.

I acknowledge that this is not a system of which everyone would say, "This is perfection," but I claim that, by reference to the criteria I mentioned, which the Government have espoused, and by reference to what the Prime Minister has said motivates the Government, the system merits very serious consideration and, in the Government's view, support. I hope that the Committee will take that view if the hon. Member for Belfast, East is not disposed to withdraw the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course, in a second.

I wonder, Mr. Morris, whether I might have your guidance as to whether I should conveniently proceed with some observations on the remaining matters that are covered by grouped amendments, as we are allowed one speech only.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): The answer is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should continue.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I refer the Secretary of State to the amendment that gives at least a little democracy to the regional list. Those parties that obtain a large proportion of the vote should have more candidates on the regional list than those that obtain only a tiny percentage. The Secretary of State should inject some democracy into the process.

23 Apr 1996 : Column 213

I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) needs to go into the constituencies to tell people about the comments of certain men. The loyalist districts--which I represent in another place also--are absolutely disgusted when such men come forward and say, "Our mandate is the silence of our guns." I am reminded of the remarks of the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is in the Chamber. He said that guns should not be on the negotiating table or outside the door: we should get to that table only by the votes of the community.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall come to that point. However, I shall address initially the purpose of amendment No. 47, which is in this grouping.

The amendment would deny parties the ability to submit a regional list unless they have submitted at least three constituency lists. At present, the Bill allows the submission of only one list before a regional list can be handed in.

I can deal with the issue quite quickly, as the Government have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It does not seem unreasonable that those who wish to try to secure delegates via the regional list system should be asked to demonstrate their appeal beyond their traditional areas of strength. I think that it is important that those who seek to secure representatives in that way should be asked to put their case to a wider electorate. Accordingly, the Government are prepared to accept amendment No. 47.

I turn now to the tapering amendment No. 12, which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned. The amendment attempts to skew the forum in favour of those parties that have already received a substantial vote--and, in all likelihood, a large number of seats. The purpose of providing for regional delegates is to seek to reward those parties that have obtained a reasonable share of the vote either across a small number of constituencies or across Northern Ireland as a whole, but which have secured either minimal representation or no representation at all at constituency level.

We feel strongly that the voices of those who have supported such parties should be rewarded also. Those parties that secure a large vote in the constituencies will be rewarded in the constituencies, and will receive regional delegates as well. We believe that that is fair. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the Committee accepts amendment No. 12.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): I shall present the Opposition's view on the amendments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is correct: there is a lack of logic and, if one wanted to be purist, one could pursue the same route as the hon. Gentleman. He described the electoral system for Northern Ireland as the most absurd democracy in the world--I can only reply that he has not travelled very far. A short stroll down the corridor might reveal a slight democratic flaw in the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Ancram: Shame.

Mr. Worthington: I shall listen with interest to the future comments of the right hon. Gentleman--who, of

23 Apr 1996 : Column 214

course, has a vested interest in describing it as a democracy. We support the Government in their assertion that there are small, influential parties that have been immensely important in the past 25 years in bringing about and sustaining a ceasefire.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South): The difference between the other place and the forum is that the House of Lords, by and large, works. It is difficult to see how a body of 76 people, with disparate and apparently irreconcilable views, can work.

---