| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 pm
Mr. Trimble: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is very happy to define his own party by the name of one person, but he should realise that it is not so easy for a party such as ours, which is a broad church.
Mr. Robinson: There are many different definitions that one can use for division, and "broad church" is undoubtedly one of them. I understand that all the members of the hon. Gentleman's party may not be as delighted as he to see his name on the ballot paper. I do not want to go into that or take a vote among those around him on the name on the ballot paper that defines his party. I do not want to provide the Ulster Unionist party with difficulties in determining that, but it does not have to define itself by the name of its leader. It can define itself in such a way that it is clear to electors which party they are voting for.
It would be altogether wrong if we were to disallow the hon. Member for North Down to present himself and his party on the ballot paper in the way in which he chooses. Equally, it would not be right to exclude the British Ulster Unionist party. Equally, the SDLP is entitled to place itself on the ballot paper as its amendment proposes. The party is known as the SDLP, so it would clearly be an advantage to have that name on the ballot paper, to remove confusion among the electorate.
The basic principle is that parties should be entitled to present themselves on the ballot paper in the way in which they choose. The Government might want to set down criteria for appeals against a political party stealing the clothes--even the name--of another political party. That would allow the Ulster Unionist party the right to appeal and be heard if it felt that someone was getting too close to its name. I trust that the Minister will accept that there has to be a principle--rather than simply a mechanism by which the Minister chooses and decides how parties should be defined on the list. That would be an altogether bad way in which to approach the issue.
Mr. McGrady:
As many hon. Members have said, amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are an attempt to tidy up the somewhat lengthy and difficult list of parties that have been born recently and not so recently in Northern Ireland.
I am not sure whether I can claim total proprietorship of amendment No. 49, since I see that the name of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party tops it, even though I did not invite his signature to it. Perhaps it is some printing error. I should like to assure the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) that there is not a gang of parties to remove his Christian name and surname from the list. The two amendments, and amendment No. 40, which has not been selected, aim to remove the anomaly of independents listed in lines 13 to 18 of part II of schedule 1. Their purpose is simply to clarify matters and to provide an even playing field for the parties in the electoral contest.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, clearly described the difference between the proposed election and the normal type of election. That difference was brought about by his request and that of his party that there be a test of party strengths in Northern Ireland, not of the strengths of individual candidates, which would in total amount to the strength of a party. The proposed system is because of the request of parties that thought that the electorate should be given a chance to show their support for the party rather than for the individuals who may or may not participate in negotiations.
Perhaps a proposed system could have dealt with that situation most efficiently. Certainly, nothing could be more mathematically accurate than having the entire
Northern Ireland electorate voting for a party of their choice, which would not be influenced either by local personalities or local difficult members of parties, but would be a genuine assessment of the support across Northern Ireland for individual parties.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) generously said, amendment No. 48 simply identifies my own party by that which it is commonly known: the SDLP. The Committee will appreciate that the Social Democratic and Labour party is quite a mouthful and would not fit into a soundbite on television or elsewhere.
Although we are not allowed to debate amendment No. 40, which would remove the independents, I should like to refer to it because the independents do not represent parties. I understood from listening to the comments on the radio by, for instance, independent Kerr and independent McMullan--I am subject to correction--that they did not want to be listed as parties for the purposes of the election. They simply wrote to the Northern Ireland Office asking questions about the election and what would happen.
The independent Kerr went so far as to say on radio that he had not made up his mind whether he would participate in the election, but that now he had been given the opportunity, he might consider it. In making that decision, he might be under the shadow of his former party membership, but that is a problem for him, not me.
That shows that, by public proclamation by independents Kerr and McMullan, two parties on the list do not exist. How can we legislate to include parties that do not exist?
Mr. William Ross:
Will the hon. Gentleman assist me?
Mr. McGrady:
I do not know until I hear the question.
Mr. Ross:
Are any of the other parties listed also figments of the imagination of the Northern Ireland Office?
Mr. McGrady:
I am not able to advise the hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for his intervention.
I did not contact anyone, I merely listened to radio reports on which the two independent party representatives spoke. There seems to be a No Going Back party. I wish we had a party that was going forward rather than backwards.
Mr. Peter Robinson:
There is--the DUP.
Will the Minister tell us whether, if it is proper to do so, the nomenclature in the schedule is statutorily bound to be on the ballot paper, or whether the list is an indication of parties that may describe themselves on the ballot paper as they so wish, as is normal, although the descriptions should be one-liners, without a plethora of names attached to them.
On the basis of simply tidying up, I recommend amendments Nos. 48 and 49. I apologise to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party for the fact that his name has been unwittingly, and perhaps unwillingly, associated with the SDLP in connection with amendment No. 49.
Mr. Robert McCartney:
I shall respond to amendment No. 49, as my name has been bandied about. By my presence, I physically demonstrate that I am not a figment of anyone's imagination; as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is aware, I really do exist. As for the nomenclature to be assigned to the individual parties, I simply submitted to the powers that be a name: "UK Unionist Party--Robert McCartney". Until what I have described as an electoral Caliban was thrust upon me through the medium of the Bill, it had not been my intention to stand as a party at all--[Interruption.] No, I had no intention, despite the aspirations of the hon. Member for South Down. If he wants to intervene now, I will give way to him.
I simply submitted the party name under which I wished to contest the election, and the Secretary of State included it in that form in the list in part II of schedule 1. It seems somewhat surprising that using one's own name as part of the basis on which one seeks to be elected should be the subject of even a mild degree of odium from the two largest established parties. It is rather surprising to find the Social Democratic and Labour party in some sort of association with the Ulster Unionist party, saying that it wants a level playing field. Premier league giants are battling with someone who in terms of electoral support is a fourth division minnow. I can conclude only that the fear--
Mr. William Ross:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney:
Not at the moment.
I can conclude only that those giants of the electoral circus must think that they have something to fear. However, being a true and proper democrat, I wish to make an offer to them, and to make it clear that I have no objection whatever to their being afforded any indulgence that the Secretary of State may unwittingly or otherwise have afforded me.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |