| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Fabricant: I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made some powerful arguments. He mentioned the Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have died, and we should remember that 301 serving officers have died in the cause of freedom, liberty and equity over the past few years in the--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about the RUC. Important as it is, it does not fall within the confines of the amendment, to which he must speak.
Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
7.45 pm
Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that my point might not be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should point out that those officers did not die--they were murdered.
Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend might be out of order, but nevertheless I hope that Hansard will note his comment, with which I wholly agree.
I support the amendment because, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have so ably pointed out, there is an inconsistency. In November, I suffered a personal tragedy: after 10 years, I had to surrender my dark blue passport and obtain my little flexible red European Union passport, which still has on its face--this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker--the words, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", an integrated whole.
The Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government in trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is therefore ironic that, today of all days, we should be debating a measure that creates an inconsistency--
a difference--between one part of the United Kingdom and another. I truly believe that that is wrong on two counts: first, on principle and, secondly, because it sends out all the wrong signals. Today we have heard a statement about the future of the RUC and the hopes of the Government--and, indeed, of the whole House--for the future of Northern Ireland and its normalisation, but only a few hours later we are, I suspect, about to hear the Minister argue against this reasonable amendment, which says that we should take an holistic approach to the Representation of the People Bill in particular and the law in general in respect of England, Scotland and Wales and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Brady:
My hon. Friend may agree that an aspect of the statement on the Patten report is germane to the amendment. Several thousand RUC officers will be removed from service and given a substantial payment. They will probably become a mobile element of the population of Northern Ireland. They may move to other constituencies in Northern Ireland or come to other parts of the United Kingdom for a time. In that context, they are very much affected by the amendment.
Mr. Fabricant:
That point had not occurred to me, but is germane. If such officers attempt to seek work in other parts of the Province, they will meet the residency requirement for Northern Ireland, but the Minister must explain whether under the Bill they would have to be resident in a new constituency for three months to have a vote there. I hope that he will make that clear, one way or another.
Mr. Bercow:
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has highlighted an extremely pertinent point. In reflecting on it, will my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield concede that the greater likelihood is that the problem will be not that an individual will perambulate around Northern Ireland or move to another part of it while looking for new employment but that he will move to another part of the kingdom altogether? If he is absent for several months, he may have great difficulties. Does not that point need to be entertained by Ministers?
Mr. Fabricant:
As ever, my hon. Friend raises a fascinating and powerful point, which demonstrates the inconsistency of the provision. That ex-RUC police officer would have to demonstrate not that he had been in England, Scotland or Wales for three months--merely that he was resident on 10 October or whatever the night might be. I might add that such an officer would have great difficulty in finding employment in a police constabulary in England, Scotland or Wales, given that in Staffordshire, for example, there has been a reduction in the number of police officers. I suspect that the poor ex-RUC officer would end up getting a job as a security guard or something else.
I understand why the clause was drafted in the first place. I suspect that it was to prevent people from the Republic of Ireland from moving to Northern Ireland in order to vote. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is so. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out, that provision would be no deterrent. Many people living in the Republic have relatives and friends in Northern
Ireland, so it would present no difficulty for them to claim that they have been resident in Northern Ireland for the specified three months.
I would simply argue that, first, the clause is no deterrent; secondly, that it is inconsistent with the holistic approach that the Government are attempting to take, despite the fact that there is no joined-up government in Cabinet meetings; and thirdly, that there is no holistic approach to the idea that the United Kingdom is an integrated whole. I am pleased to see Ministers taking copious notes and listening carefully. I expect the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), whose constituency almost abuts mine, to respond fully to the points that and my hon. Friends and I have made.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
I do not wish to detain the House long.
I have listened with great care and interest to the arguments, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). My hon. Friend made some extremely valid points about the risk that is posed to people who are citizens of Ulster, Northern Ireland, who have to be away from their residences for three months for family or business reasons. Such practical considerations will put those people at a disadvantage in comparison with other citizens of this country.
Mr. Maclean:
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his remarks, but I think that he is making an error that I have made. The test for qualification is not whether such people are away for the entire three months, but whether their residency of three months is interrupted for any short period. Therefore, somebody intending to live in Northern Ireland for a few months on attachment who returns to Great Britain for a week's course will lose the residency qualification. The provision is even more iniquitous than I thought.
Mr. Howarth:
My right hon. Friend makes a forceful point, which the Government must answer. The Minister is a reasonable man and will want to deal comprehensively with it.
The economy of Northern Ireland has been doing well for some time and it is not fair that the people there should be penalised simply because the Government want to ensure some modicum of protection against citizens of the Republic of Ireland flooding across the border, swamping the register and bringing about undesirable changes out of expediency.
It is extraordinary that, when we are trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland people should continue to have to bear such a burden and be handicapped unlike any other part of the United Kingdom. There is some force to the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that they are second-class citizens.
Mr. Bercow:
One of the difficulties with this debate is that the longer that we discuss the salient matters, the more potential objections to the Government's proposals seem to emerge. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that, under the clause as it stands, there is no distinction
Mr. Howarth:
The wording is clear: there is no distinction. A person must be resident in Northern Ireland for the entire three months, ending on the relevant date, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said. If an elector is away for any part of that three-month period, he will suffer disfranchisement, which all of us in the House obviously regard extremely seriously.
I also have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I have felt for many years that it is simply not right that citizens of a country that is not part of the Commonwealth, does not acknowledge Her Majesty the Queen as head of state and owes no allegiance to this country should nevertheless enjoy the privilege--for indeed it is a privilege--of voting in our local and parliamentary elections.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |