HC Deb 13 December 1979 vol 975 cc1694-702 10.56 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan)

I beg to move, That the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved. I hope that it will be convenient for us to consider with this the Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 November. One set of regulations deals with England and Wales, the other with Scotland.

In essence, of course, the regulations contain the same provisions and indeed follow, in all but one particular, the regulations that the House approved earlier this week relating to Northern Ireland. All three sets of regulations were approved last week by the House of Lords.

Both sets of regulations before the House have three effects. First, they amend existing regulations so as to remove the requirement that the names of Service voters and merchant seamen should be marked on the register respectively with the letters S and M. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have, over the years, received representations about these special markings from Service men and their families. There has been a fear that they lead to unwanted attention as a result of the identification that is possible from those markings.

I recognise that, conversely, it can, on occasion, be useful to party canvassers and others, especially at election time, to know who are Service voters and merchant seamen, but that consideration is outweighed by the fact that the special markings undoubtedly act as an impediment to electoral registration. That view was supported in the wide-ranging consultations that we had in the summer with the political parties, the local authority associations, the Services and the trade unions and staff associations representing merchant seamen on various aspects of the Service voting arrangements.

The second effect of the two sets of regulations is that parish and community councils are added to those who are entitled to receive free copies of relevant extracts from the electoral register. At present hon. Members and prospective parliamentary candidates and their agents may receive free copies of the whole register and, in respect of their particular areas, local councillors and local election candidates or agents may receive extracts.

The National Association of Local Councils, which represents the interests of parish and community councils at national level, has represented for some time that such free copies should also be made available to parish and community councils. The Government are fully conscious of the value and importance of the work of local councils and have therefore incorporated that proposal in the regulations.

The third effect of these regulations is to increase the fee for copies of the register to persons who do not qualify for free or discounted copies—that is, commercial bodies such as market research organisations or mail order firms. At present, if supplies of the register are available after those statutorily required are supplied, copies may be sold at a rate of 50p per 1,000 or part of 1,000 names. These regulations increase the fee to £1 per 1,000 or part of 1,000 names. This is partly to take account of inflation since February 1978, but also it more nearly reflects the true cost of production of the register. I do not see why those who seek to use the register for commercial purposes should not pay a commercial rate for doing so.

Ideally we would favour a discretion to each local authority to fix its own fees, as the cost of production of the register seems to vary quite widely from area to area, but that would require substantive legislation for which there is no prospect in the present Session. In the meantime, therefore, the present increase will enable local authorities to receive a more realistic reimbursement of a proportion of their costs.

I should emphasise that the discounted fee for extra copies supplied to those entitled to a limited number of free copies remains unchanged by these regulations.

For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the House.

11.1 pm

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

The Opposition support all three minor changes provided for in these regulations. I do not want to say much about them because they have been covered in discussions and debates on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on this subject.

The Minister talked about the possibility of allowing local authorities to charge a different fee according to the cost that they thought fell upon them as a result of producing the register. I hope that he will not go down that road. He said that he would not do so tonight, but I hope that he will not go down it at all. It is an old-established habit to provide copies of things like this for a fixed fee. At one time in my life I had a great deal to do with the practice of making available not just lists of electors but lists of electors and the way they voted before the Ballot Act. When legislation was first passed in 1708 or thereabouts to entitle any member of the public to obtain a list of those who had voted and the way in which they had voted, even then the fee was laid down by Parliament from the centre.

We shall only get into great difficulties if local authorities are allowed to charge a sum of their own choosing for this service. In future, because of the computerisation of registers, and so on, the cost of producing them will harmonise, and therefore we do not need to open up problems that would arise if a local authority decided to charge a really excessive fee.

I wish to raise a point on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), who is unable to be here tonight. It arises in part in the context of these regulations. In some parts of the country, although not in mine, complaints have arisen from political parties and the like about the late availability of the lists of postal and proxy voters. If those lists are not available in good time for an election, political parties and other campaigners have a problem in distributing their relevant literature.

If there is a problem of that kind in some parts of the country, I hope that the Home Office, in the guidance that it issues to returning officers, will indicate that those lists should be made available as soon as possible. It is an essential part of the democratic process that those who are standing for election and those who are supporting them should be able to get their literature and views across to those who are voting as quickly as possible. If there are parts of the country where that is being impeded by excessive delays in getting the lists out to those concerned, I hope that the Minister will do everything that he can to change the situation. If, in the light of my remarks, the Minister can give an assurance in writing either to me or to my hon. Friend, we shall be most grateful.

We commend the passage of both sets of regulations to the House.

11.5 pm

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

Since the Representation of the People Act 1977, two things have upset the wives of Service personnel. One is the fact that they have to register in a special way for Service voting. That has now been rectified by the Private Member's Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). I am delighted to see him in the Chamber this evening.

The other thing which has disturbed the wives of Service personnel is the fact that they have the distinguishing mark S against their names in the electoral register. This may seem, to those with no direct experience of the point, to be a rather unimportant matter. To the wives in question, it is a matter of fundamental importance, and they were outraged that they were treated as goods and chattels of their husbands. I had hundreds of letters on this subject from people in my constituency reflecting the outrage—no other word will suffice—of the wives in question.

The effect is that in my constituency of Gosport 15,000 Service personnel and wives of Service personnel should have been eligible to vote, yet in early 1978 it was estimated by the electoral registration staff in Gosport—to whom I pay tribute for the care they have taken in the matter—that only 5,000 of those 15,000 had registered. In one area alone, Rowner—where a considerable amount of building is taking place and a larger number of people would be expected to be registered year by year on the electoral register—the number of people registered fell between 1976 and 1978 from 8,700 to 7,100.

It is obviously the duty of all of us in this House to try to ensure that as many people as possible exercise their right to vote. On behalf of the wives of Service personnel, I welcome the measure. There are more than twice as many Service personnel in the constituency of Gosport as in any other constituency in the United Kingdom; therefore, I can speak with some special authority on the subject.

I should like to pay tribute, from my own knowledge, to the Minister of State, who, I know, has devoted personal interest and attention to the matter. His interest and attention have ensured that this wrong has been righted quickly.

11.7 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

My friend Bill Lawson, who is known to some Government Front Bench Members as the extremely competent assessor of the Central region, has pointed out that the differences between the costs of printing registers in various parts of the country are not simply marginal—one could understand that—but very substantial. The Minister of State referred to this.

Are there any reasonably readily available figures—I do not ask for them tonight—about the difference in printing costs of registers from one area to another? There would appear to be some staggering differences.

Having been through three elections this year, one is struck by the variation in the competence of the register from place to place. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr.Rifkind) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) may remember, there were during the devolution referendum a great many complaints—followed up, no doubt, in the general election—of whole areas where those whose job it is to ascertain who lives in what house had done their job in a pretty sloppy fashion. I hasten to add in the same breath that in other areas the register was rather well compiled.

I suppose that during a general election we all concentrate on our own neck of the woods and our own patch. I have to speak for West Lothian, where I think the job is fairly competently done, but having seen the position rather more widely in Scotland—I do not seek to intrude into the position in England, where things may be more efficiently done in this respect—it was obvious that there is no room for complacency.

I ask the Minister of State to say whether there is any way of making sure that the job is properly done. I am not suggesting that pay should be deducted, but there is a widespread feeling that many people who have been paid a lot of money to do the job of registration have taken a number of short cuts in so doing.

11.10 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I speak briefly for one main purpose, and that is to express my thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Miniser of State and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for their co-operation and help in passing into law—as I hope that it soon will be—the main part of the legislation, of which this measure is, to some extent, a side wind.

We are discussing regulations to remove the S and M registrations, which it is accepted are no longer necessary. It is desirable that they should be removed. I have not had a chance in the House to place on record my personal thanks to both my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Gentleman for the great help that they gave me in getting my Representation of the People Bill through on the nod. It would be wrong if the "nod" procedures were so to be observed that the thanks that are due to both my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Gentleman were not placed formally on record. I gladly and willingly do that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has said, we have in this evening's business, and in the Private Member's Bill, done much to reverse a genuine and heartfelt grievance on the part of many electors. It must always he our objective, as elected Members of the House, to protect the right to the franchise of all those who otherwise might be prevented from exercising it, to extend it wherever we can and to protect it as a sacred right. I am correspondingly grateful and glad to have had this opportunity to place that on record.

11.12 pm
Mr. Brittan

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I appreciate the kind remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and Woking (Mr. Onslow). The House owes a great debt of gratitude to them for raising these issues. I am pleased that one of the earliest things that I have been able to do in my present position has been to assist in making the changes, of which these regulations represent a part.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking is right to relate the regulations to the Bill that he sponsored because they are a package. Together, they will restore the franchise to those who have not been able, or have not felt able, to exercise it. I do not think that that is an exaggeration.

Let me deal with the specific matters raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in expressing the view that he has about the desirability of charging different fees in different places and the 1708 precedent. I must confess that I had not realised that he was able to pray in aid a precedent quite as ancient. It is nice to see the Labour Party regarding a precedent going back to 1708 as something that should not be touched without great care and certainty. The hon. Gentleman has put up a marker, and I—

Mr. Dalyell

I do not think that anything after 1707 suits my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Brittan

Touching on that particular sensitivity, we are all in the same boat.

Mr. John Home Robertson (Berwick and East Lothian)

Oh, no.

Mr. Brittan

With the exception of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Robertson), most Members in the Chamber tonight are in the same boat. I see the difficulties. We shall not embark on that lightly, and I shall consider the point which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made.

The hon. Gentleman raised on behalf of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) the question of the late availability of the postal and proxy registers. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that does not arise directly from these regulations. I make no complaint of that as it is convenient that he should bring the matter to my attention in that way. I merely say that it does not arise so that he understands why I am not able to give an explanation or answer in the debate. However, I say through him to the hon. Member for Goole that, if he has any substantial evidence, it will be helpful if he gives me details so that I may examine them to ascertain whether something has gone wrong and, if so, what can be done about it. When that happens, the matter will receive my personal attention.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about the huge differences in costs. That is so, but I am not sure that it is so remarkable as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply. I accept that there are different conditions in different constituencies. I think of the various constituencies with which I have been involved. The problem in inner urban constituencies is to ascertain who lives in multi-occupied accommodation. In rural constituencies sheer distances present problems. A nicely compact suburban constituency is, no doubt, quite easy to deal with. I do not necessarily accept that the differences in costs are in any sense sinister.

I turn to the accuracy of the register. The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to confine his remarks to registers north of the border. I do not claim that registers south of the border are notably more accurate than those north of the border. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. George Cunningham

It always comes as a surprise to me to discover the number of electoral areas where it is not the practice to make use of form A but to rely on the door-to-door canvass. One trouble about the door-to-door canvass is that, if people are not in when the canvasser calls the first time, they are often not in on the second and third occasions. That will be more and more the case as more and more wives are working.

It is a matter for consideration—I put it no higher than that—whether the sending out of form A should be an obligatory part of the registration officer's duty. I am not sure what view I would finally take upon that, but I think it is time we reconsidered the point.

Mr. Brittan

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are reconsidering all these matters. The accuracy of the register and the various ways of producing it to make it more accurate are under consideration. I take aboard the point that he has made.

I think that I have dealt with the issues raised in the debate. I am glad that the regulations appear to command the support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved

Resolved,

That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]