| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Ross: I am sorry to interrupt remarks with which I agree, but does the hon. Gentleman recall that, if there was a tie in a parliamentary election, it was decided by counting the pink ballot papers in the box?
Mr. Robinson: Yes, those are the papers given when someone has stolen his vote. That would certainly cast the whole system into considerable doubt. Another idea would be to lock the two candidates in a room and see which one came out. The Minister must have a better idea than casting lots. Imagine arriving at the forum and bumping into another delegate who stated that he was elected because he called tails. It is farcical to choose people to enter a mature forum so as to take part in serious negotiations in this way. The Government could surely have done better.
The hon. Member for South Down mentioned vertical and horizontal ballot papers. The Government have provided for something akin to a Littlewoods football coupon, on which people can choose numbers across the paper or down the paper, or across and down. I can think of nothing more likely to lead to confusion for the voter. Northern Ireland's voters have had single transferable vote elections, first-past-the-post elections and European-style elections with the whole Province involved; but they have never been faced with a ballot paper that goes across as well as down. I would not like to represent the party stuck somewhere in the middle of the paper, rather than at the top left or top right. A distinct advantage would be attached to the placing of a party on the paper if it were different from a standard ballot paper on which the parties are listed one below the other.
No matter how long the ballot paper--it could be the length of a toilet roll--Northern Ireland's voters have always been used to the names of the parties appearing one under the other; and the chief electoral officer would be greatly mistaken if he produced a different ballot paper that led to confusion and advantaged some parties at the expense of others.
I say that in the context of someone who has an alphabetical disadvantage. My surname starts with the letter R, and usually places me fairly close to the bottom of the list. I am never at the very top of the ballot paper, as some Members have the good fortune to be. I would rather be towards the bottom of the ballot paper, however, where there is one continuous list, than somewhere in the middle if names are to go across the page as well. I hope that the Minister will think twice and give advice to the chief electoral officer not to take that route.
Mr. Ancram:
With the leave of the House, I shall reply.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, East(Mr. Robinson) is upset that I was not able to make available to him an early draft of the order. I felt that it was an important courtesy to allow the party leaders to have sight of an early draft. It was an exceptional step to do that. I thought that it would help. The normal procedure would have been to wait until the order was published, which was on Monday. I am sorry that what was intended to help the parties, including the party which the hon. Member for Belfast, East represents, has caused him such distress.
For all the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, the drawing of lots is a normal procedure for both parliamentary and European elections in the context in which we are discussing the order. In my experience, it has been used. It is for the returning officer to decide on the method to be used.
Mr. William Ross:
What about the pink ballot papers? Is it not laid down in legislation that they are to be used as the determining factor?
Mr. Ancram:
I am saying that the drawing of lots is the system used in both parliamentary and European elections. In the context of the election that we are discussing, which will involve party lists, we felt that it was the best system to use. I believe that that is the position where there is a parity of votes.
Mr. Ross:
Surely the system, whatever it may be--I object to what the Minister has been saying--would apply only to the last seat and not to any of the first four.
Mr. Ancram:
The context in which it is applied is in relation to the aggregating of votes. I think that that is dealt with in paragraph 6. It applies where the aggregated votes are equal. The process will be used to decide whether they are in the top 10 and, therefore, get the two top-up seats. Lots will be drawn. It is proper that that should be done in those circumstances.
Several hon. Members have talked about party names on ballot papers. The point was raised originally by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie(Mr. Worthington). It is an important matter and I would not wish there to be any misunderstanding. The Act determines how party names appear on the ballot paper. Paragraph 7(2) of part I of the schedule prescribes that the ballot paper will show the names of the relevant
parties for each constituency. I am informed that the effect of the legislation is that the names will be as set out in part II of the schedule.
As for the consequent effect of that provision, if a list is submitted in the name of a party where the designation is different, the chief electoral officer must reject that list under rule 12(2)(c) of the election rules on page 18, which refers to the breach of requirement in paragraph 6 in part I of the schedule. He could also make a rejection under paragraph 12(2)(b) on the ground
I want to make this clear in case there are any efforts to produce different names. That is the effect of the legislation and the chief electoral officer will act accordingly. I hope, therefore, that there is no doubt about that, because it is an important point in terms of the way in which the elections are to be conducted. I would not want any party to find that its lists were rejected because of a misunderstanding on that point.
Mr. Worthington:
This is a serious point. Both the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I read that and I think anyone else reading it would not draw the inference that the Minister has drawn about the naming of parties. Does that mean, that, if the Green party, instead of putting down "Green party" puts down "The Green party", or if Independent MacCaffer puts down "Independent Ignatius MacCaffer", their names will be ruled out? The law does not state what the Minister says it states.
Mr. Ancram:
During the previous debates on the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996, I have stated its intention. I have confirmed today that I am reliably informed that that is the effect of the legislation. A constituency or regional list must state the name of the party under rule 6(2)(c), on page 18 of the order. If the party is not a party listed in part II, schedule 1 of the Act, the list must be rejected under rule 12(2)(b). I make that very clear. The hon. Gentleman recognises that this is an important and serious point and I wish there to be no misunderstanding. That is why we spent some time on the issue during the passage of the legislation.
Mr. Peter Robinson:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ancram:
I give way, but it is at the expense of being able to answer other questions.
Mr. Robinson:
The Minister and a court could not judge that the "Democratic Unionist party (DUP--Rev. Ian Paisley)" is not the same party as the one in the schedule. We are talking not about whether the party is the same, but how it will be described on the ballot paper. Nothing in the legislation would disallow the party from putting down the name that it chooses.
Mr. Ancram:
All I can say is that I have made clear what I understand to be the legislation's effect and what I am reliably informed is the effect. I hope that that is clear to all the people who will be submitting party lists for the election.
A number of other points were raised. Obviously, in the time available, I will not be able to cover them all. On broadcasting, section 93 of the Act deals with
broadcasting related to constituencies or electoral areas. In this election, as with a general election, broadcasters must ensure that their coverage of the campaign generally--national or regional--reflects their obligation for balanced and fair coverage. It is only the difficulty of distinguishing constituency coverage in this election that has led us to decide not to apply section 93. It is sensible in that context.
A number of questions were raised in relation to election expenses. Of course, normally, limits apply to candidates and not parties, but this election creates unique circumstances. We saw no reason why the principle of limits should not apply to this election too. It is fair to say that we should agree that the principle of limiting expenditure is a fundamental part of our democracy.
We wanted to retain the limits for the election, but we decided to apply them on an aggregate basis to the parties contesting the election. The current limits apply for candidates in a constituency at a parliamentary election. Those will apply to a party in a constituency and, if a party chooses to contest six constituencies, it will have six times the limit.
As I have said, we envisage that the spending will not be necessarily tied to any particular constituency, which is why we have made provision for an aggregate limit. That limit allows for more flexibility and means that there will not be parties that, because they have vast resources outside, can exceed those limits. Generally, we have come to a balanced view in terms of the legislation.
I say to the hon. Member for East Londonderry(Mr. Ross) that I realise that this is complex legislation. I noted what he said about the order, but the procedure is not unusual. The Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1986 for the European Parliamentary elections were produced in exactly the same format as the order. As I say, it is a complicated matter, but, if the hon Gentleman goes through the measure as I have done, he will find that many of the provisions suggest no modifications and that much of the existing electoral law with which the hon. Gentleman is as familiar as I am, will still apply. I hope that in practice the outcome will not be as complex as he thinks. I ask the House to approve the order.
Question put and agreed to.
"that the party is not a party listed in Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |