Crispin Blunt

Conservative Party | Reigate

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) bill

The House of Commons today considered amendments to this Bill after the Billhad been heard in the House of Lords.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th July 2001:Consideration of Lords Amendments

Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

Subsequent stages

The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

I expect the official Opposition to oppose the motion, as they do all programme motions, as a matter of principle. Due to the circumstances of the Bill, it is incumbent on me to give the House a brief explanation as to why the Government think the motion appropriate. First, the business has been given this allocation of time because the Lords amendments will deliver changes called for by the Northern Ireland parties and the Opposition. Secondly, by my calculation, the whole debate in the other place—Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading—took two hours and 59 minutes, which is short of the time that we have given the House to consider the amendments this afternoon.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): I apologise for intervening, but will my hon. Friend, immediately or during the debate, clarify a point relating to the Bill and the matters that are the subject of the first group of amendments? I understand and have no difficulty with the fact that the Bill rightly requires greater evidence of who people are, their qualifications and where they reside than is the case for the rest of the United Kingdom, but there is a difference between that and having different criteria for who can vote.

I want clarification. The amendments would require people to indicate where else they might be registered in the United Kingdom for electoral purposes, which is perfectly understandable and correct. That will not in any way alter the law, which I understand spans the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whereby people such as the Minister and colleagues from Northern Ireland may be registered to vote in London borough elections. No doubt they are tempted to vote Labour on 2 May. How will the Bill affect those with dual residence and dual rights to vote in municipal elections—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the programme motion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his question when we debate the Bill itself.

Mr. Browne: As you rightly point out, Mr. Speaker, the issue that my hon. Friend raises is germane to the amendments—indeed, it occupied our time in Committee more than once—and I am sure that it will be debated at length. If he catches your eye, he will be able to contribute on that relevant issue.

I speak only to the programme motion, and I was making my second and last point. The whole debate in the other place accounted for less time than the Government are allowing for the consideration of these amendments in this House.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): The Government do some extraordinary things, and they sometimes make colossal fools of themselves. I am afraid that they are making colossal fools of themselves by moving this timetable motion on these Lords amendments. If someone is to be made a fool of, it is important that it is the Government who make fools of themselves and do not succeed in making a fool of Parliament, because it is the Government's fault and not Parliament's. I want to dwell for a couple of minutes on the background to the motion.

There are two reasons why it is extraordinary to introduce a programme motion on these amendments. First, there is no longer any controversy over the subjects dealt with in the Lords amendments between the Government and the Opposition, or between the Government and any hon. Member. As everyone knows, the Government belatedly, but nevertheless effectively, accepted the views put to them by every other party in the House—the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, and every Northern Ireland party including the Social Democratic and Labour party. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). In my experience in the House, on 99 occasions out of 100 the SDLP vote with the Labour party, in government or in opposition. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us that it is 98.2 per cent. of the time, I am perfectly prepared to give way to him and have the facts corrected.

It is most extraordinary to introduce a programme motion in those circumstances. The House will recall that it was in the Irish context that the system of programme motions was introduced in the 1880s, when the honourable predecessors of the hon. Member for South Down, the Irish parliamentary party under Parnell's brilliant leadership, succeeded in extracting important concessions from the Governments of the day, both Liberal and Conservative, by the use of aggressive filibustering. As Parliament virtually came to a halt at that time, for the first occasion in its then 600-year history some element of timetabling was introduced into its procedures.

From that time forth, including when most of us arrived in the House, until the new Labour Government appeared in 1997, the programme motion was regarded as exceptional, undesirable and something that we would accept only reluctantly to meet the danger of an abuse by people filibustering and holding up business unreasonably. Anyone who came to the House with a programme motion had to make an exceptional case. The onus was always on the Government to make an exceptional case, and to make it clear that the circumstances were such as to justify what by consensus of the whole House—that was true in my first two Parliaments—was regarded as an inherently obnoxious and undesirable procedure.

Part of the Government's devastating and obnoxious constitutional legacy will have been to introduce what has always been regarded in the House as an undesirable constraint on the freedom of Parliament and on its ability to do its essential job, which is to take its own time according to its own judgment to debate and consider the legislative proposals of the Government of the day. That tradition has been crudely set aside by the Government, who have benefited from their vast majority. They believe that they can do anything and get away with it.

For a long time, programme motions were seen as an exceptional measure, but they have now become a regular procedure. The Government's use of such a motion this afternoon shows that there is no rhyme or reason to it. There may be one explanation, which I shall put to the Minister and he can tell me whether it is correct. I have searched my mind to discover what possible function a programme motion could have, given that the whole House is in agreement, as the Government have reluctantly accepted the substance of the Lords amendments.

Lady Hermon (North Down): May I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that, although I think that we agree that the Lords amendments about national insurance numbers are most welcome, they have thrown up inconsistencies with the rest of the Bill? There is also a question mark over whether those amendments are compatible with our EU obligations, on which we might debate for a considerable period today.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady may have the basis of a speech, which she will deliver to the House when we get on to the substance of the Bill. This timetable motion, however, is being introduced when it is known in advance that there is no substantive disagreement between the Government and the other parties in the House. I understand that that goes for the hon. Lady's party as well, and that she has no intention whatever of voting against the Lords amendments; indeed, she has indicated from a sedentary position that my assumption is correct. In those circumstances, it is extraordinary to introduce a timetable motion. It makes no sense at all, because, far from confronting the threat or the slightest hint of a filibuster, the Government know that they are going to have a very easy afternoon.

The only possible explanation that I can imagine for wanting to curtail debate in Parliament in such circumstances is that the Government are embarrassed that they have had to admit that their judgment is flawed and that they must finally concede that the judgment of the other parties in the House was correct. They feel humiliated by that—for a very arrogant Government, it is a humiliating situation—so they are anxious to restrict to a minimum the time available for Members of Parliament to comment on that and to rub salt in the Government's wounds. After thinking through any rational purpose for trying artificially to constrain and constrict parliamentary discussion of this matter this afternoon, that is the only hypothesis that I could form.

If one sets aside the hypothesis of mere perversity or a mindless ideological belief that timetables should always be imposed on Parliament in principle, there is perhaps a desire on the part of the new Labour Government, with their vast majority, to show everybody that they are the master, and that the legislature can be kicked in whichever part of its anatomy the Government choose, at any time, and that it is a good idea to remind it of its subservience. Therefore, the Government will impose a timetable whether or not it makes sense. However, if one excludes explanations that do not have any logical or functional rationale attached to them, the only one that I can think of that makes logical sense is that the Government did not want us to have the opportunity to dwell on what is a turnaround—I shall not say U-turn, as that may seem gratuitously offensive—and an acceptance that the judgment of others was, on this occasion, superior to theirs.

It is ironic that the Government should attempt to limit Parliament's time, even though their operating principle, throughout the range of our legislative activities, is to constrain Parliament artificially in this way. In this case, however, it is clear that, if a time discipline should be imposed on anyone, it should be imposed on the Government. I remind the Under-Secretary that it is four years and a month since the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs made its recommendations in relation to electoral fraud, which, more or less, have been encapsulated in the Lords amendments. If anybody, therefore, needs to have a timetable motion imposed on them, the Government do. Were you to give us leave to table an exceptional motion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we should impose a timetable motion on the Government to make sure that they deal with Select Committee reports in a more business-like and timely fashion in future than they have done on this occasion. We might therefore speed up the Government's bureaucratic procedures, focus their minds, and impose on them some of the constraints that they are trying to impose on the legislature. They are abusing the vast majority that the new Labour party has—temporarily, I hope—in the House. Timetabling is the last thing that the Government should be talking about in Parliament. The dialogue should be going in the other direction.

I do not want to end my remarks without acknowledging positively—the Minister knows that I always try to see the best in everything, including the best in even the new Labour Government—that the Government's change of heart is very welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was assiduous in Committee and I heard him arguing eloquently. Every other party represented on the Committee also made the arguments that are now represented in the Lord's amendments before us. The Government would not listen in Committee, because they were in their arrogant mood and thought, "We have a vast majority and we don't care what you think. We'll do what we like. Get lost." That sums up the attitude of the Government, and not just in the Northern Ireland Office but right across the board.

I am glad to say that wiser counsels have now prevailed. After the issue has been discussed at great length in this House and in the other place, the Government have come forward with extremely important proposals. Electoral fraud has been a major problem in Northern Ireland for a long time and it is wrong to suggest that only the Unionist parties suffer from it. The SDLP has suffered just as much, if not more, from electoral fraud. All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland suffer. By definition, they have scruples and are genuinely committed to the democratic process. They are not prepared to go in for cheating or for electoral fraud.

Therefore, they can easily suffer in an environment and a culture in which extremist parties do not have the same inhibitions.

We have discussed the problem and particularly the use of national insurance numbers. Like all brilliant ideas, their use seems obvious in retrospect, but it has been agonising trying to persuade the Government that national insurance numbers should be used in Northern Ireland. The Government have now accepted one of our ideas—and not quite for the first time. I draw attention to the fact that, before Easter, the Government made a small gesture in amending provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill in relation to the display of the royal coat of arms on the outside of courthouses. I acknowledge and appreciate that gesture.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is straying into consideration of another Bill. We are debating the programme motion.

Mr. Davies: You are absolutely right to remind me of that, Mr. Speaker. I was glad to be able to touch on the other concession that the Government have made, but I recognise that it is not strictly germane to the timetable motion.

Although the Government have taken a long time and although they—and not the legislature—should have been subject to a timetable or guillotine motion, it is clear from the Lord's amendments that the opposition of my hon. Friends and the Northern Ireland parties—the SDLP and the two Unionist parties—has proven to be correct. Indeed, we have received support—we much appreciate it—from the Liberal Democrats, so there has been complete unanimity. We have been right, and the Government have been wrong. I do not want to be churlish because, on an occasion that is all too rare, we must acknowledge that the Government have made a magnanimous gesture.

It is a pity that this entirely gratuitous, unnecessary and unjustified timetable motion should destroy the good will that the Government might otherwise have created. It is not justified by anything that the Minister said or by anything else that anyone can conceive of.

Andrew Mackinlay: From time to time, we need to interrupt the cosy consensus between those on the two Front Benches. The real truth behind the timetable motion is the nonsense of parliamentary choreography, which means that Government Back Benchers will be here dead on the button at 7 o'clock, so that they can deal with a matter that was the subject of a point of order earlier. That is the real truth. The hon. Gentleman knows it; the Minister knows it; and, more important, so do the Whips.

When people read our proceedings and the hon. Gentleman's remarks, they probably think that they are very interesting. The truth is that proceedings have been choreographed so that we arrive at the next business at 7 o'clock when the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill will be discussed. That is the reason for this charade. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that.

Mr. Davies: I agree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I have done so for many years; we have stood on the same side of the barrier on the importance of Parliament and the danger of over-mighty and arrogant Governments taking Parliament for granted or abusing their majority to change the procedures of the House so as to make the legislature less effective. When that happens, they do a very bad day's work not merely for democracy and open government, but for good and effective legislation.

The hon. Gentleman and I sing from the same hymn sheet on that subject—we have done so in the past and we will do so again—but it is pretty extraordinary that he should characterise my remarks on the Government, which the Minister did not think particularly friendly, as exemplifying a consensus between myself and the Government on this matter. I am conscious that I am speaking from the Front Bench and that colleagues on the Front Bench will listen to this part of my remarks with particular attention, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the official Opposition wanted a timetable motion on the Lords amendments or that we have colluded on this or any other occasion to impose on Parliament such a timetable motion.

I do not pretend to have a better understanding of parliamentary procedure than the hon. Gentleman—he is a well known and distinguished parliamentarian—but, frankly, I do not believe that even his technical, practical explanation holds water. In no way is it helpful to keep hon. Members here until seven o'clock, supposing that it had occurred to anyone on either side of the House who thought it desirable to keep hon. Members here until seven o'clock that introducing a timetable motion would help to do so. I can think of other things that might help in that way, but not a timetable motion on the Lords amendments to the Bill. For once, the hon. Gentleman has been carried away into a conspiracy theory and proceeded to build castles literally in the air—there is not a grain of sand on which that allegation can possibly be built. I hope that he will accept that assurance.

No doubt, my party and I will be accused of many things, but no one who looks at the constitutional record of the two latest Parliaments can ever maintain for one second the allegation that we have been complacent in this abuse of our parliamentary procedure, which is exemplified by this Government in introducing timetable motions even when they are self-evidently utterly unnecessary in the exigencies of getting Government business through the House.

To view the rest of this debate, including Crispin Blunt's contributions, please click here.