| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that the differential should exist and that it should be debated on the very day that the Government have claimed that normalisation will be achieved by the implementation of the Patten report on the RUC?
Mr. Maclean: That is a rather sad coincidence.
I shall give the House an example that demonstrates the absurdity of maintaining that provision in the Bill. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I have a friend who is an officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on attachment in this country. He is a United Kingdom citizen, born and brought up in Northern Ireland, serving his country in the RUC. He has been working in this country for a few years and when he returns to Northern Ireland, if he has not maintained his place on the register, that British citizen, who pays taxes through the nose in this country, will have to live in the Province for at least three months before he can get on to the register in his own country and have a right to vote in British elections.
On the other hand, citizens from a foreign country--the Irish Republic--may pass through Great Britain and get on to the electoral register here. I am talking not about people who come here for a holiday or for the day, but people who are doing short-term work in this country. They may not be paying a penny of tax in the UK. They may not care a jot for this Parliament, this Government, this Opposition or any of our country's institutions. However, the fact that, due to an historical anomaly, we grant citizens of the Irish Republic the right to vote in British elections, those people will get on to the electoral register in Britain without having to spend three months here to gain a residency qualification
I think that I have got the facts correct: citizens of the Irish Republic passing through Great Britain get on to the register overnight, but UK citizens serving in Her Majesty's forces who return to their homes in Northern Ireland cannot get on to the register unless they have lived in the Province for three months and produced all the necessary documentation to prove that they are not frauds or foreigners.
I do not find that an absurdity; I find it an obscenity. It is outrageous that we have built-in conditions that disadvantage our citizens, particularly those who are most likely to be affected: members of Her Majesty's armed forces who come from Northern Ireland to serve in regiments outside Northern Ireland and who return to their own country to retire or on posting, and who for technical reasons may not have the right to vote. Of course, that disadvantage may affect hundreds of other civilians who are also doing worthwhile work.
If there was justification in the past, and there may have been, for the three-month Northern Ireland residency qualification, there is certainly no justification for allowing foreigners, such as citizens of the Irish Republic, to vote in British elections. However, that is another anomaly, which I shall leave undisturbed tonight. If there was justification in the past, what is the justification now when we are told that the peace process has resulted in fundamental change?
We are now to destroy the RUC itself. We are to allow two members of Sinn Fein-IRA--whom my hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist party call "unreconstructed terrorists"--to participate in the Government of Northern Ireland. Perhaps they are to have an office next to mine and £50,000 of allowances in a couple of weeks. Perhaps they are to have access to the whole of Parliament, to be called a party and to be given short money because they are now democratic. Perhaps they will be wandering in and out of the Cafeteria. If all that is to happen, it is surely a sign that we are in a radically different world from the one in which a three-month residency qualification was appropriate.
Mr. William Ross:
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the forthcoming Disqualifications Bill in his important speech. Will he inquire whether the Minister will make available to us the Government's security knowledge of the two individuals whom we shall allow into the House next week? That would make very interesting reading.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. We would be pushing it if we moved on to that particular subject.
Mr. Maclean:
Even I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, recognise that that is not a subject that you want me to pursue tonight, although the hon. Gentleman's point is valid and needs to be explored in a future debate.
I described the situation as an obscenity. It will be even worse next Tuesday when another Bill is rushed through this House, because it will not be just any citizens of the Irish Republic who are entitled to be on our electoral register and to vote. The Government intend to extend to Members of Parliament in southern Ireland the privilege of becoming serving Members in any of our parliamentary institutions--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying from the point. He knows full well that we are discussing a narrow amendment, and he is going wide of the subject.
Mr. Maclean:
I entirely accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment would delete the three-month residency qualification. I was merely trying to illustrate
I was not trying to explore the Bill that we shall debate on Monday and Tuesday; I was simply trying to illustrate how wrong the situation is for British citizens in Northern Ireland, because if the Disqualifications Bill goes through the House next week, Senators--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I say once again to the right hon. Gentleman that he has already said that. He has made that case to the House and he must move on without repeating what he has already said.
Mr. Maclean:
I have no intention of repeating my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not clear that the point had been made. I am not as capable of making lucid points as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I sometimes think that I have to put my point again in a slightly different way to make sure that it has been understood. I accept your advice that it has been understood.
What will happen in a couple of months' time when the Bill has been rushed through the House, rushed through another place, and becomes law? What happens when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the Cabinet sub-Committee and says, "More progress has been made in Northern Ireland, so we must now scrap the residency qualification"? Given the pace at which the Government have been changing the constitution of this country and the law in Northern Ireland, it is no exaggeration to say that it is likely that, at some point in the future and for various reasons about which I shall not speculate, the Government will conclude that the three-month residency qualification is an obstacle to further progress in the peace process, or offends one or another of the political parties in Northern Ireland. However, if the amendment is not made, the provision will be in primary legislation; therefore, to change it, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have to introduce another piece of legislation.
I am giving the Government an opportunity. If passed, the amendments would delete the relevant lines from clauses 4 and 6. However, if the Government believe that a residency qualification is essential for now, they can build in a regulation-making power that would enable them to make such a provision. They might be sensible to
take the chance offered in another place to change clauses 4 and 6 and take a power that enables them to make a regulation requiring, for the time being, a residency qualification in Northern Ireland. Then, in two or six months' time, when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that, in the interests of peace, the residency qualification must be dropped, the Government will be able to make the necessary changes immediately, without consultation.
Mr. Fabricant:
My right hon. Friend knows that I have the highest regard for the way in which he raises all sorts of important issues in the House. However, does he accept that many people criticise the Government's legislation for leaving too much to secondary legislation, as was the case with the Health Act 1999? Would not the acceptance of his proposals leave far too open matters that deserve, and should receive, the House's full attention, rather than being left to a decision made Upstairs?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |