| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: I accept my hon. Friend's point that important pieces of election law should not be subject to the whim of regulation. However, we have just spent an hour or so debating a vital clause, the provisions of which are to be left entirely to regulations that we have not yet seen, which are likely to be subject to a brief consultation process before being bounced through. If the Government consider it acceptable to make a host of regulations under clause 9 and other clauses, why do they not use regulation in the narrow matter of the Northern Ireland residency provision?
The Government can easily put in the Bill a provision stating that there will be a residency qualification in Northern Ireland, renewable by regulation each year until such time as the Secretary of State concludes that it is no longer needed--it would be similar to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. There are other means by which the Government can attain their end, so why put it in the Bill? I am giving the Government an opt-out, but what I really want to hear is not that they will make that provision through regulation, but that it is not necessary at all, because it is wrong to discriminate against British citizens who live in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Forth:
I rise to reinforce the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and to thank him for his generous words. He might come to regret them, but I shall try to live up to his praise.
I start by reinforcing my right hon. Friend's final argument, which is well worn but none the less important. During consideration of almost every Bill with which I have been involved during my many years as a Member of Parliament, we have, quite properly, debated the wisdom or otherwise of putting a provision in a Bill, thus giving it a sort of sanctity--fixing it. It is often argued that, if a matter is sufficiently important, there is a case for putting it in the Bill in order deliberately to make it more difficult to remove or alter. We have all heard that argument, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend's question is whether that argument makes sense in the context of this Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out, it seems strange that, just a few hours after hearing an important statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the future
of the RUC in the context of progress being made--the Secretary of State was at pains to emphasise that the environment in Northern Ireland was changing and that we must all be prepared to make changes--we are considering a Bill that features a measure that would, by definition, be fixed or at least extremely difficult to change. I cannot understand how those two things can be squared.
Mr. Fabricant:
My right hon. Friend makes a sound point. Does he agree that, as in many other circumstances, the soundbite "joined-up government" makes no sense in this instance?
Mr. Forth:
That is true. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department consulted about the provision that we are debating. The Minister will agree that it appears greatly at odds with the message that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants to send--which is about the normalisation of Northern Ireland as conditions there come more into line with conditions in the United Kingdom mainland--to have in the Bill a provision that marks out Northern Ireland as being distinct and different from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Opposition are challenging that contradiction and the wisdom of the Government approach. The Government cannot have it both ways: if government were joined-up, there would be consistency between the arguments that they present and the content of their Bills.
The problem goes deeper than that. Anyone who has spent any time as a Member of Parliament knows that, as soon as something is put in a Bill, it becomes fixed to some degree--not immutable, but extremely difficult to alter, because a provision in primary legislation can be changed only by further primary legislation. Do the Government really want to fix a measure relating to Northern Ireland to that extent, given their desire to persuade us that matters in Northern Ireland are moving forward, progressing, changing and improving--that Northern Ireland is becoming more "normal", as they would describe it?
We have with us a distinguished colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I hope that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during this debate, because his contribution will be invaluable in revealing the point of view of our friends in Northern Ireland. We can only re-emphasise our commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom, our regard for Northern Ireland and our desire that it should be perceived as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the provision relating to a residency qualification is offensive, because it deliberately and gratuitously marks out Northern Ireland as requiring special treatment.
I believe that I can anticipate the Minister's argument. He will say that there is a long-standing fear that aliens from the Republic of Ireland might try to invade the body politic in Northern Ireland by inveigling their way on to the electoral register, thus gaining influence over the voting process in that part of the United Kingdom. Be that as it may--I make no judgment as to the likelihood of that happening or even as to whether it has already
happened--I can only speculate about whether a three-month residency requirement would do anything to prevent that process. I doubt very much that a three-month residency qualification would deter an alien person from the Republic of Ireland who was sufficiently determined to infiltrate the political process in Northern Ireland.
Setting that aside for a moment, I hope that the Minister recognises that the provisions of the Bill, as it would be if the amendments were accepted, backed up by provisions dealing with validation and verification of the registration process that will--provided they are accepted--be inserted in the Bill by amendments to which we shall come shortly, will provide sufficient safeguards against the process of alien infiltration of which the Minister appears so afraid and which he might argue is the motivation for his putting such an ill-conceived measure in the Bill.
We therefore have a peculiar set of circumstances. I shall be interested to hear the Minister weave his way through this part of the argument. I hope that he will deal with the discussions that he may have had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this context and with whether the right hon. Gentleman is content with this part of the Bill. I would like to know whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland feels that he can square what he said in the House a few hours ago with what is in the Bill relating to Northern Ireland. I want the Minister to tell me whether he regards Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, to be treated in every way the same as the rest of the United Kingdom, and whether he believes that the provisions that we shall come to later in our deliberations might well be sufficient to provide proper safeguards in the registration process without the need for an overriding process of the sort that we now have.
Mr. Bercow:
Is it conceivable that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is content with the provision and that, notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said and notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, he advocated its inclusion in the Bill?
Mr. Forth:
We know none of those things. It is ironic that so often we find ourselves speculating, whereas, in an era of alleged open government, we should know for sure. Ministers should be elbowing one another aside in their eagerness to share their thoughts with us and to demonstrate the Government's integrity and the effectiveness of collective responsibility. That should be the position, but I have not seen much sign of it so far.
Mr. Fabricant:
I speak directly to the clause. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a direct consequence of the fact that Cabinet meetings are no longer held in the manner in which they were previously--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking not to a clause but to an amendment. He is out of order.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you know how anxious I am to get through this business quickly and to move on to Third Reading, when I can make really expansive remarks. My remarks now are but a taste of what I want to say. I cannot wait for Third
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |