| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ancram: I understand that no legislation is required, but I shall check that.
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that information is normally provided in the polling booth: the information on the ballot paper, which allows a choice. The hon. Member for Upper Bann and I differ only on whether that information should be on the ballot paper, or should be available in the polling booth. I strongly believe--given the need to avoid confusion, and the possibility that up to 150 names could be on the ballot paper--that I am proposing the right course. I hope that, on that basis, the amendment will be withdrawn.
Mr. Canavan:
Voters have normally made up their minds by the time they reach the polling booth. Would it not be more practicable and desirable to circulate the names as widely as possible among the Northern Ireland electorate?
Clause 5 obliges the Secretary of State to publish an initial list of the nominating representatives of each party in The Belfast Gazette. I do not think that The Belfast Gazette goes to every home in Northern Ireland. Would it not be better to make statutory provision for the list of candidates for each party also to be published in The Belfast Gazette in the first instance, thus giving the rest of the media the opportunity--or, indeed, obliging the Secretary of State--to publish the parties' list of candidates throughout Northern Ireland, rather than just leaving it to people to turn up in the polling booths to check the information?
Mr. Ancram:
As I said earlier, we intend to ensure that the lists are published and fully available. I presume, and have been given every indication, that if there is a date on which the lists are made available, the parties taking part in the political process will take advantage of that, to try to ensure that they receive the maximum publicity for the names that they are putting forward. That is a normal part of the electoral process.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
Surely everyone who goes to the polling booth need not keep all those lists in mind. It is a simple matter for people to put a cross by the name of the party that they favour. No one will have to keep 150 names in mind, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) suggested. People will be voting for a party, and they will simply put a cross by the name of the party that they want. That is a good deal easier than picking names on an alphabetical basis.
Mr. Ancram:
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says, that the election is about putting a cross against a party. As part of the process of informing the electorate about which party to support, it is obviously relevant to know the names on the local list.
On that basis, the issue between us is one of presentation, and I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Kirkwood:
I hope that the Minister agrees that this has been a useful debate. As a result of the comments in the early part of the debate on the amendments, I have become more and more worried that the system is so complex that it would have been better to use a proportional representation system with the single transferable vote. In his explanation of why he did not move in that direction, the Minister suggested that, for some theological reason which was not clear to me, one of the parties would have vetoed such a system.
The Minister is much closer to the matter than I am and the Committee will have to trust his judgment. Some of us are worried that in future we may have to warn him that we told him so. He will obviously get the system that he is going for. I will not stand in his way and I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right at other times and in other places to continue the discussion on the value and advantages of a single transferable vote system. Having regard to the details that have been produced as a result of the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 142, in page 7, line 5, at end insert '--Communist Party of Ireland'.--[Mr. Ancram.]
No. 48, in page 7, line 26, after 'Party', insert '(SDLP)'.--[Mr. McGrady.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. McGrady:
I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 7, line 38, leave out 'elected by the members' and insert
The Second Deputy Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 7, line 38, leave out 'election' and insert 'appointment'.
No. 174, in page 7, line 39, leave out 'member' and insert 'High Court Judge'.
No. 72, in page 7, line 39, at end insert
No. 57, in page 8, line 19, leave out 'election' and insert 'appointment'.
Mr. McGrady:
Amendment No. 60 is a necessary corollary to amendment No. 61. I shall also speak to amendment No. 57.
The amendment is simple and clear and relates to how the first chairman of the forum should be appointed. As the appointment will be the first exercise by the forum, we should like to think that it will be a matter for consultation and consensus and that the elective process of a majority decision, whether weighted or not, would not be a good inaugural activity for the forum. The procedure which we suggest has been used in other quarters, and we simply ask that the forum should be able to appoint rather than elect the chairman.
Furthermore, the amendment states that the chairperson shall be
We want the forum to illustrate some consensus in its first activity. The amendment contains nothing more significant or hidden than the simple desire and wish that the parties attending the forum, by consensus, give the chairmanship to the person--man or woman--whom they feel will best serve their purposes with equity and justice.
Consequential to that is amendment No. 57, which refers to procedures under paragraph 4, where the word "election" appears. Simply to be consistent, we ask that the word "appointment" be substituted for "election".
The proposals are straightforward and simple. My party and I hope that they will show the good will and consensus that we sincerely hope will exist in the forum during its first activity. If that is accomplished and successful, it will augur well for the forum's subsequent proceedings.
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
Amendment No. 61 concerns the election of the forum's chairman. I concur with what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has said about the desirability of achieving consensus in the forum's affairs. The amendments in the name of his leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), would amend paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 so that, in place of the reference to the chairman of the forum being elected by its members, the Bill would speak of him or her being appointed by members from within their own number and in accordance with the rules of procedure. We have little difficulty with most of the thinking underlying the amendments. As we have said, we envisage the forum operating on the basis of broad consensus and we would welcome it if it were possible to arrive at a decision about the choice of a chairman by that means, without a vote.
It is clear from the drafting of paragraph 3(1) of the schedule that, in all it does, the forum will need to conduct itself in accordance with the rules of procedure. Those rules have not yet been considered and the definitive set is, of course, for the forum to determine, again by weighted majority and with the Secretary of State's agreement. As to the chairman coming from among the members of the forum, we have always envisaged that he would.
I hope therefore that I have been able to give some assurance to the hon. Member for South Down and his colleagues. I cannot accept the amendment and the others related to it as the substitution of "appointment" for "election" of the chairman is potentially troublesome because of its ambiguity. Courts might strive to discover a meaning that might be some distance away from what the hon. Gentleman intends.
The Bill provides election by the 75 per cent. criterion, which is an efficient way to choose the chairman and, we hope, a procedure that will encourage parties to work together to look for consensus. That concludes what I need to say on the group of amendments.
Mr. William Ross:
Surely it does not, because amendment No. 174 seems to take care of all the difficulties at which we might be looking. Surely a High Court judge would be a reasonable person to be appointed to run the show until a chairman was elected. In similar situations in councils, on occasion the procedure is for the clerk of the council to take the chair until such time as the members nominate and elect a chairman or mayor.
'appointed by the members from within their own number in accordance with the Rules of Procedure'.
'from amongst the delegates of the party with the most delegates.'.
"appointed by the members from within their own number in accordance with the Rules of Procedure".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |