OTHER AMENDMENTS AS TO PROXY AND POSTAL VOTING (Hansard, 18 December 1968)

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 41, at end insert:

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
I suggest that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 22, Amendment No. 23, Amendment No. 24, and Amendment No. 43.

§ Mr. Rees
The Amendment has been tabled to try to meet the wishes of the House. In Committee on 27th November it was indicated that the Government wanted to be helpful in dealing with voting arrangements which might be made to enable electors who were unable, because of their religious beliefs, to cast their votes on certain days to vote by post.
During the debate the point was made that the problem is not confined to the question of members of the Jewish community voting at local government elections held on Saturdays. Other weekdays are sometimes observed by them as holy days and their beliefs would not permit them to vote on those days either. There are also other religious bodies, such as Seventh Day Adventists and members of enclosed religious orders, to be considered.
These Amendments make an overall approach to the problem by enabling people to apply for postal voting facilities on the ground of religious observance. Postal voting facilities are to be available to them in the same way as they are available, under Sections 12 (1) (c) and 23 (1) (c) of the 1949 Act, to the blind or physically incapacitated.
There is, however, one difference which I should explain to the House. The postal voting facilities to which I have just referred are granted for an indefinite period. Our view is that it would be wrong to provide indefinite postal voting on religious grounds. Different days of the week may be involved, some elections would not be covered by it anyway, for some religious faiths a Thursday would not be a bad day, the nature of the difficulty might depend on the time of the year, and so on. My advice, therefore, in this instance is that it would be right to give these postal voting facilities only for the particular election.
Further, we consider that postal voting facilities should not be given for unsupported or undisclosed religious beliefs, so the Amendment to Schedule 4 will enable the regulations—which will have to follow later in any event—to require an applicant for postal voting facilities to produce evidence in support of his application. Much the same applies now in relation to the production of a doctor's certificate—as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) knows—in 1442 connection with certain postal voting arrangements.
I hope that this group of Amendments meets the wish of the House.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)
I can foresee some difficulties here. I appreciate that a lot of good thought has gone in to the matter and there is a lot of good behind the idea, but I am concerned about the way the regulations would work. The hon. Gentleman has told us that there would be regulations to ensure, presumably, that people do not dream up some sort of religious objection in order to have a postal vote if they want to go on holiday, and so on. Obviously, if one wishes to confine this on grounds of religious observance, there must be some sort of rules. My worry is that I fail to see how they can be drawn so as to deal with abuse.
Who is to decide what is a religion and what is not? No one is in a position to decide that. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is a fine idea, and there will have to be regulations, without telling us how it will work. I cannot see how it can possibly work in practice.
It seems to me to open the door to anyone who wants a postal vote for almost any reason. Perhaps the Minister may like to think about that. Ought we not to open the door completely and allow people to vote by post at any time if they want to?

§ Dr. Winstanley
I warmly welcome this group of Amendments, which go a long way to meet a problem which I raised in the Chamber in the second week after my election to the House. It had been brought to my notice that there was this difficulty, though I had not been aware of it. In my constituency there is a large Jewish congregation in Gatley who, I understand, are very orthodox and who find it impossible to vote on Saturdays. The local rabbi advised them that it was impossible for them to vote in person at a local election even with the arrangements then existing. I tabled a Question at that time asking the Home Secretary to do what is now proposed, that is, to give postal votes to persons who have religious difficulties of any kind which prevent their voting in person. I am very glad that the Government are now making those arrangements, and I 1443 accept that certain checks and controls will be necessary.
I agree that this is the best method, rather than avoiding polling on a Saturday. Some hon. Members will have received a letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews saying that they would not themselves wish to campaign actively for polling in certain urban district council elections to be removed from Saturdays where there are only a few Jews involved and where it may well be that Saturday suits the convenience of other persons.
However, a further point emerges here. The holding of local elections on a Saturday keeps out of electioneering work, the driving of cars and so on, members of Jewish congregations. Therefore, while I agree that what the Government propose is the right way round the difficulty, I hope that the holding of elections on Saturdays will be avoided where reasonably possible.
There is no provision as yet for postal votes in rural district council elections. We ought to do something about that small remaining loophole. On the broad issue, however, we warmly welcome what the Government propose.

§ Mr. Sharples
We on these benches welcome the Amendments. It is likely that only a small number of people will be affected and that the main problem arises only in respect of elections on Saturdays. None the less, it is an important principle, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting the wishes of the House.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) questioned the value of the regulations. These regulations will require affirmative Resolution of the House, as will a large number of others, and they can then be discussed. I am firmly advised that it is by no means impossible to arrange matters satisfactorily. The question will be much the same as that which applies to doctors' certificates now. There may be the difficult religious organisation, but, if it be true that what we propose will open the door, my response is to ask how much more opening of the door there would have been from giving postal votes to holiday makers, an idea which was thought by hon. Members opposite to be 1444 an excellent one when we debated the matter on an earlier occasion. However, I make no narrow party point. My advice is that it would not open the door in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I am sure that the House accepts the principle as right. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) met the Board of Deputies some time ago, she agreed to look into it. It has been debated, and, in accordance with the wish expressed on both sides of the House, we have done our best to meet the religious question raised.