| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand what has led the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and
others to table the amendment. Let me make it clear that the Government intend the elections to take place on 30 May, so that all-party negotiations can begin on 10 June. There are, however, technical reasons for not including the date in the Bill. Doing so would leave no room for manoeuvre in the event of delay caused by, for example, an election petition. We would be obliged to include a saving provision in the Bill to allow an election court to set another poll date, and that would be very troublesome. For that technical reason alone, I am unable to accept the amendment. In the light of the assurance that I gave the hon. Gentleman earlier, I hope that he will feel that moving the amendment has served its purpose and that he will agree to withdraw it.
Mr. Illsley: In view of the Secretary of State's reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
'All parties may participate in the elections.'
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 74, in page 4, line 37, leave out from 'those' to end of line 38 and insert
'that can produce the written assent of not less than 500 electors'.
No. 14, in page 4, line 38, at end insert
No. 67, in page 7, leave out lines 1 to 33.
No. 42, in page 7, leave out line 5.
Government amendment No. 142.
No. 11, in page 7, line 9, leave out '--DUP' and insert '(DUP)--Ian Paisley'.
No. 48, in page 7, line 26, after 'Party', insert '(SDLP)'.
No. 49, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'Robert McCartney'.
Mr. Canavan:
Amendment No. 67 has been tabledin the names of the hon. Member for Spelthorne(Mr. Wilshire), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and me. What a team! The amendment has a broad church of supporters. Amendment No. 67 is consequential on amendment No. 94, because if all parties are allowed to contest the elections there will obviously be no need for the list of 30 parties in schedule 1.
It is surely a basic principle of democracy that any party, however large or small, should be allowed to contest elections. That has certainly been part of the tradition of British democracy. I do not know of a precedent in UK elections--I doubt that there is one--for a Government drawing up a list of approved parties which can contest an election and, by implication, saying that there are other parties or organisations which cannot.
Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will give a reason for the inclusion in schedule 1 of the list of parties, and will also explain how that list was arrived at. I have heard it said, although I do not know whether there
is any truth in it, that the Government thought that it was necessary to draw up a list of parties to contest the election because some of the larger Unionist parties were apparently thinking aloud about the possibility of subdividing themselves into various groupings, regional or otherwise, to try to maximise their representation at the negotiating table. If that is true, it would be more reasonable to look at the electoral system that is proposed in the Bill to see whether it could be amended to prevent such abuse--if indeed there was a risk of such abuse. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
In our debates on earlier amendments, suspicion and concern were expressed that, under the Government's proposed scheme, people who are or were associated with paramilitary organisations might get to the negotiating table. In some people's eyes, I suppose that the list in the Bill contains several examples of parties that in the past have been--some people might say, still are--associated with the paramilitaries on both sides of the conflict.
Over the past quarter of a century, many senseless, violent deeds have been perpetrated by paramilitaries on both sides, some of them in the names of the communities that the paramilitaries purport to represent. Like all hon. Members, I absolutely condemn those atrocities. We particularly condemn the murderous acts that have led to the loss of so many lives and to the injury of so many innocent people over the past 25 years or more.
We could adopt a purist approach by saying that none of the paramilitaries or former paramilitaries or their representatives should get to the negotiating table, or we could adopt a more realistic approach and say that if there is to be a lasting peace it is important to bring those people on board, especially if they have an electoral mandate. In that way, they would, we hope, learn to have more faith in the democratic process instead of resorting to violence or to the threat of violence that has been used all too often in the past.
He who is not without sin should not cast the first stone. Not long ago, some politicians crossed the border into the Republic of Ireland to engage in some kind of unlawful sectarian activity. Not long ago, another Unionist politician organised a mass demonstration of people holding gun licences to emphasise the power of the gun. But that is water under the bridge and it is important to look ahead. I hope that those politicians have learnt the error of their ways and that they will come to the negotiating table in the spirit of peace and reconciliation. I hope that they will try to encourage other politicians and people who were, perhaps, formerly engaged with paramilitary organisations to see the error of their ways, and will try to teach them the importance of using exclusively peaceful means to achieve their political objectives.
Any party, large or small, should be allowed to contest the elections. I hope that the negotiating body that will result from the elections will be sufficiently broadly based to ensure a peaceful and lasting solution.
Mr. Wilshire:
I should like to speak to amendment No. 74, which stands in my name, and to amendment No. 67 which, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West(Mr. Canavan) said, is in my name as well as his and that of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Provided that neither he nor his hon. Friend do what happened last night and mention Stalin in support of their
Amendment No. 67 is purely consequential in that if one removes the concept of an approved list, the list is no longer necessary. The amendment would simply remove the list of approved parties.
My amendment No. 74 proposes that any party that can gain the support of 500 electors should be able to stand. I freely accept that the mechanism of 500 signatures may not be the best way of curbing nonsense parties, and I would be happy to contemplate a different mechanism. The group of amendments on deposits is clearly an alternative way and that may be more popular with the House than my mechanism.
Mr. Peter Robinson:
Just as a matter of clarification so that I can more easily follow the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, when he asks for 500 assentors, does he mean in each of the eight constituencies or in Northern Ireland as a whole? I am not sure whether that is entirely clear.
Mr. Wilshire:
Clearly, as the Government will press ahead with two lists and two mechanisms, it would be 500 in both cases, but, again, I freely admit that 500 might not be the right figure. The main point that I wish to make, however, is that, although the mechanism and the number of electors could differ, I am wedded to the principle that it is wrong for any Secretary of State to take power to decide which parties may stand in an election and which parties may not.
In simple terms, it is undemocratic to seek to do that. It is also bound to lead to gratuitous and unnecessary grief for a Secretary of State who sets out to decide which parties he approves of. As I said in the debate last night, the Secretary of State has enough trouble that he cannot avoid. Therefore, it is silly for him to seek to take more trouble unto himself in that way, which he can avoid.
At the heart of this matter is my strongly held view that it is dangerous for democracy if a Government license political parties, which is, in effect, what the proposal amounts to.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North):
Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether the provision might be contrary to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which states that a Government shall not discriminate, and therefore subject to judicial review?
Mr. Wilshire:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Any mention of judicial review tempts me down a great avenue that I would rapidly find was unacceptable to you, Mr. Morris. My views on judicial review do not bear printing in Hansard at the moment, so perhaps I may just note the point. Others might want to pursue it. I would be interested to hear what the courts might say, and, if they also hold the provision to be undemocratic, on this occasion I say, "Power to the courts."
At the heart of the matter is the concept that it is dangerous for democracy to go down this route. Governments should never forget that they, too, are political parties and that a Government hold power--any power--because of their success as a political party. It follows, therefore, that, whatever a Government may say about their neutrality on these occasions, their input into such talks is the input of a political party as well as of a Government.
That may seem a fairly abstract point, but I suspect that it is not as abstract as it may seem to the Government. It probably starts to explain why the Government, knowing that they are also a political party, are making such heavy weather of handling its members in Northern Ireland. The "A Government is a political party" dilemma might explain why they are nervous about their representatives in Northern Ireland speaking, in effect, on behalf of the same party.
Whatever it might be, it is wrong for the party of Government to decide which parties they will recognise and which parties they will not. The only people who are entitled to decide which parties should be recognised are the electors. That is the essence of democracy: it is the people, not the ruling class, who should take that decision. That is why, therefore, the Bill's provision is fundamentally flawed.
The Government may decide that, when the people make their choice, it will be impossible for the allies of unreformed and unapologetic terrorists to be included in talks, but the correct way to deal with that is not to license political parties, but, as we said at length yesterday, to decide the terms for admission to the talks. Deciding which parties will be recognised and which will not is not the right way.
'and those which subsequently register in accordance with arrangements prescribed by an order under paragraph 1'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |