HC Deb 14 February 1985 vol 73 cc585-98

'(1) A person shall not be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for more than one constituency in any one year. (2) In the case of a person who, but for subsection (1) above, would by virtue of his having more than one qualifying address be entitled to be included in the register of parliamentary electors for more than one constituency in any one year, the register in which he shall be entitled to be included shall be the register for the constituency or part of the constituency in which is situated the place at which he has his main qualifying address on the qualifying date. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person's main qualifying address is that one of the addresses referred to in that subsection where he has been personally present for the most time in aggregate during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the qualifying date.'.—[Mr. Beith.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Beith

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean)

With this it will be convenient to take the following—new clause 20—Multiple registration to be an offence— '(1) It shall be an offence to apply to register as a parliamentary elector for more than one constituency in any one year. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982) or to both.'. New clause 21—Voting by persons registered at a place of higher or further education— 'A. person registered at a place of higher or further education shall be eligible to vote only in the division which includes the qualifying address from which he qualifies for a local authority grant; and for that purpose shall be eligible to vote by post or by proxy; and section 19 of the principal Act (voting at Parliamentary elections) shall be amended by the addition at the end of subsection (1) of the following— (i) those registered at place of higher or further education other than in the constituency of their qualifying place of residence".'.

Mr. Beith

The issue of multiple registration arose incidentally at an earlier stage of our proceedings when the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir. J. Farr) somewhat oddly suggested that, in raising the issue at all, I was breaking some happy consensus that had developed over the Bill. The hon. Gentleman had not read the background properly. It was he, and indeed the Government, who broke the consensus which, strangely, had broken out on the subject of multiple registration. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs considered the matter, it received evidence from my party, the Labour party and the Conservative party and—wonder of wonders—all the parties agreed that, for parliamentary elections, the practice of multiple registration should not be continued. Persuaded by the overwhelming weight of evidence, the Select Committee advised that multiple registration should not be continued.

In arguing that multiple registration is wrong in respect of parliamentary elections, I base my case — as, no doubt, the Conservative and Labour parties did, too—on the view that the vote should be of equal value wherever in the country it is found. A voter who has the opportunity to choose at will between several different places in which to cast his vote has an advantage not conferred on other electors. That advantage tends to relate to circumstances, particularly in the case of people who own, or are tenants of, property in several places.

It is feasible to have a system under which multiple registration occurs so that people can register their reasonable claim—[Interruption.]—to take part in local government in various parts of the country. Does the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) wish to intervene?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

I am trying to urge your leader to stop talking to his colleagues and listen to you.

Mr. Beith

The occupant of the Chair has no leader while occupying the Chair. The hon. Lady must remember her parliamentary procedures. It is reasonable that someone should be registered in more than one place for local government purposes, if we accept the argument that to own property confers the right to participate in local affairs and the responsibility to pay rates. The issue at stake is whether people should be able to transfer votes at will between constituencies.

The law has changed by way of drift. There was a time when residence was more clearly understood to involve nominating one place as a principal residence. The opportunity to be registered in several places has grown as the interpretation of residence has widened. The Minister has several times quoted as a definition of residence a degree of permanence. It is therefore clearly open to people to claim residence in several places. The Minister's definition seems to be somewhat slanted against students because it is much harder to suggest permanence in regard to a university hall of residence in which most students are able to stay only one or two years.

11 pm

The elector is under no obligation to choose a principal residence, and new clause 2 ensures that there is some test of the elector's principal residence. That is not the only means of solving the problem. I am not averse to the elector being given the opportunity to choose, when he registers, which he regards as his principal residence. However, for the elector to be registered in several places and then to be able to say, even during an election campaign, "I think that I shall vote in this constituency rather than that one, considering how things are going" is quite wrong.

If there are by-elections in two constituencies and an elector has residences in both, he can vote in both. That is not reasonable or sensible. At one level, the problem might seem to be one of broad principle concerning a matter that seems undesirable but does not have much practical effect. That is not the case, as multiple registration tends to be concentrated in areas where there are many second homes or halls of residence. There is often annoyance and anxiety in such communities that the number of registered electors who live there for only a small part of the year greatly outnumber the normal resident population. In my part of the world, the Lake District and north Wales, it is easy to find communities in which, because of changes that I find unattractive, as they have been rather damaging to some villages, there are more people with second homes than permanent residents.

Tensions are exacerbated when local people think that they are outnumbered on the voting register as well. It is not a proper part of our electoral system to give one class of voters a choice of where they can make their vote most effective. The parties are well aware of that effect of multiple registration, so woo the second home voters deliberately. The Bill makes it easier for non-residents to cast votes and, by widening the postal vote arrangements, we have made it a great deal easier for people with a holiday home which they use for only a couple of weeks a year to vote there, although they are normally resident hundreds of miles away. We should address ourselves to the basic problem of why we should give this right to choose to one class of voters. The present arrangements are wrong and should be changed.

Mr. Gregory

I am grateful at this comparatively early hour to speak to new clauses 20 and 21, and to support the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). My two new clauses 20 and 21 go further than new clause 2 and deal specifically with the problems encountered by a student in further or higher education.

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that students may be in residence at the time of a general election, possibly once during their studies, and in many cases not at all. Students are present in college for at most 30 weeks a year—I am not talking about postgraduates but undergraduates and those in further education. It is important that they do not distort the parliamentary election process and the European elections for the regular electors. The simple solution appears to be to establish the basis on which they can legally vote, that is, in person, by proxy or by post at their main place of residence. That is the place where they may be registered for income tax purposes. I would have preferred new clause 2 to have stated that, as it seems to be the right place to track students down. Furthermore, it is the place to which they apply for their education grant. On that basis I have set out new clauses 20 and 21.

About 241 constituencies are probably affected. That is a considerable number. To start in alphabetical order they include Bath, Birmingham, Erdington, Birmingham, Hodge hill and so on. A considerable number are directly affected by students who live in them for a short time. Students at present can choose to vote in either parliamentary constituency. In 1983 a number of students broke the electoral law and double voted. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an electoral registration officer to prove that a student has voted twice, unless he opens the ballot boxes.

It is comparatively easy for an electoral registration officer to stop that if we enact these clauses because then he will not accept on the register young men and women who are living temporarily in halls of residence or in flats provided by university authorities. It would be comparatively easy to isolate them on the register.

In the unlikely event of a student getting on the register, there is a simple solution. Questions are asked on the forms issued to householders, such as whether an elector is a merchant seaman or liable for jury service. In the same way, it should be asked whether the elector has already registered or intends to register elsewhere for a parliamentary election, and whether the elector is a bona fide registered student. If those questions were asked and a student contravened the law, we could under the new clause take appropriate proceedings against that person.

At present the system is open to abuse. A considerable number of students are unaware that they are breaking the law. This measure gives us the opportunity to take on board those proposals. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the spirit in which I move the new clauses, and accept the new clauses.

Mr. Wigley

I support new clause 2 with all the passion at my command, because I think that it remedies one weakness to which the Government have failed to address themselves in a Bill in which they have made considerable concessions to achieve all-party consensus.

The Government are aware of the feelings in Wales on this matter. They are not limited to Wales. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the problem that arises in his area. We know that it arises in the Lake District, parts of Scotland, south-west England and many other areas where there are a great many second homes.

In Gwynedd, on the latest estimates, there are some 15,000 second homes. There are four parliamentary constituencies. If there is an average of 2.2 people to each household — there is a tendency to be a higher than average figure in holiday homes — and they all registered, there could be 33,000 voters from those holiday homes. That is an average of 8,000 to each constituency.

A controversy arose in the constituency of Ynys Mon, Anglesey, during the last election. A large body of opinion believed that even in the circumstances that then obtained the election was influenced by people from second homes. The majority was some 1,600, if I remember rightly. That is a majority of 1,600 in a constituency which may have had some 8,000 second home voters. The Minister will realise the strong feelings that may arise at the idea that the outcome of an election was determined by second-home owners.

Some of those people may have voted more than once. It is next to impossible to discover whether people have voted in two constituencies. I accept that they would be breaking the law if they did so, but it is almost impossible to enforce that law. The argument has been advanced that it is difficult to restrict registration to one household only. That is no more difficult to enforce than enforcing voting in one constituency only. On balance, to ensure the wellbeing of the electoral system, the pressure should be to ensure that people can register in one location only.

The problem was bad enough in the last election. I and my party have deliberately not played on the point that those voters swayed the outcome of the election. It can give rise to feeling that we have seen going over the top into extremism. The House is well aware of the problem that has arisen in Wales over second homes.

If we extend postal voting and allow people to vote by post at will, strong feelings will be aroused at the next election. It will be possible to see the number of voters who have voted from addresses outside their constituencies. Those addresses will in all probability identify people as being second-home owners. In numerous constituencies, that may make a difference to the outcome of the election. That will give rise to strong feelings.

With the passage of the Bill in Committee and in another place, the time is right to take steps to avoid that problem. The problem will arise because of the change in the postal voting system that we are introducing in the Bill. Side by side with that change we should take steps to avoid the type of abuse that could arise. That is not an academic point. It is a matter of great anxiety in many areas, and to Members of all parties in the House. That can be seen by the new clauses that have been tabled, possibly for different reasons in different areas.

Accepting all that, and given the feelings that the Minister has expressed—we all welcome the way that he has responded to representations—and the feelings that have been expressed to the Select Committee, I urge the Minister to consider whether it is possible, in another place if not tonight, to table an amendment that will take on board the points that have been made and avoid a problem that will become serious if it is allowed to continue.

11.15 pm
Mr. Campbell-Savours

The patronage secretary of the Liberal party—if I may be permitted to use that term—has moved an important new clause. I wish to comment briefly on its implications for the county of Cumbria and in particular the Lake District.

Within the Lake District there is a major problem of people buying second homes. By careful use of the tax system and mortgage relief they are able to raise money to purchase second homes simply by increasing the mortgage on their first homes, thereby claiming greater tax relief. Therefore, their second home purchases are being funded to some extent by an Exchequer subsidy.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)

What the hon. Member is describing is strictly illegal under income tax law. While I bow to his knowledge as to the fact that it goes on, I hope that he will not give the Committee the impression that he is encouraging an illegal practice.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

As a participant in the Finance Bill debates when his patronage secretary gives him permission to intervene, the hon. Gentleman will know that I would not in any way wish to promote that principle. Equally, he will know that the practice goes on. People are purchasing second homes within the Lake District and the national park by playing with the tax system, through mortgage relief.

In acquiring those second homes the people equally acquire the right to multiple registration. Surely that is wrong. Under the new clause that right would be removed or people would be required to declare their second homes as their principal residence and then comply with the criterion laid down in subsection (3) of the new clause.

Within the county of Cumbria this is of significant importance, because there are several marginal constituencies. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that political parties were endeavouring to woo these voters. The Liberal and Conservative parties may be trying to woo them, but the Labour party is not. The Liberal and Conservative parties have a particular interest because there is a crucial constituency in the county of Cumbria. That constituency, Penrith and The Border, which is highly marginal, is held today by the Conservatives with a majority of only 700, with the Liberals in second place. That constituency has one of the highest percentages of second homes in the whole of the United Kingdom. In parts of that constituency and of my constituency of Workington, which takes in five lakes in the Lake District, there are villages and hamlets where the number of second homes is as high as 30 per cent. The existence of that number of second homes will have a marked effect on electoral results.

I must point the Committee back to a famous by-election in 1976, when Labour lost the Workington constituency. I am not saying that that result was wholly dependent on the existence of second home multiple registration occupiers, but to some extent they will have had an influence on the result. It is known that people choose to exercise their vote in the most marginal seat where they are registered.

Mr. Beith

Is it not also the case that by exercising their vote in a crucial by-election they do not even lose the opportunity to vote in any subsequent election in the constituency where their main home is?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

That only compounds the injustice for those who feel that they have lost because of the existence of the multi-registration right.

I hope that in winding up the debate the Government will take note of the considerable feeling particularly in marginal constituencies and marginal electoral wards, where people have that right and where others believe that in having that right they are grossly and unfairly interfering with an electoral system which should at the least produce a reasonable result.

Mr. Penhaligon

I believe that most fair-minded Members of the House, if they consider this matter in isolation and ignore any political opinions which they have for or against the new clause, will recognise that there is potential for enormous abuse. Many people can use a vote in a constituency which is not their main home, and where they spend little of their time. Just because they happen to own that property, and just because they believe that that vote can be more effective in that constituency than another, they use that vote. That is not the basis of our whole electoral process.

That is an issue in my county. In parishes in Cornwall, way over one third of the properties are second homes or summer lets, and the problem arises with both of them. I recall from my personal experience of running for Parliament in Cornwall that I surprised a few by getting elected in October 1974 with a majority of just 464. It is extremely lucky for me that the Conservatives never realised how near I was to removing them, because I am sure that had they realised it they would have organised the holiday vote in my constituency, which was worth more than 464. Come the next election, the vote was certainly organised. In some of the villages a house has not been built this century. Between 1974 and 1979 the electorate suddenly increased by 50 per cent. What is more amazing is that, now my majority has increased to several thousands, those people have all gone again.

That is an abuse. I suspect that the Minister, who, I recognise, has been a fair man, knows that it is an abuse. The system is within the law. I do not complain about that. The system is the system, and one fights elections on the system. However, going beyond that, I am sure the Minister will recognise that there is an abuse and that the system is unfair. Fairness is important in any electoral system. It must at least be seen to be fair. I am sure the Minister recognises that we do not have the correct procedure.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised an interesting problem. I welcome the extension of postal votes to those on holiday. In my part of the world, if an election falls when the holiday industry is on holiday, that seriously affects many who rightly want to exercise their franchise. I do not criticise that. However, there is a real prospect of the situation in marginal seats being abused, especially in Cornwall. It may have happened once already in Cornwall. The abuse might even affect an election result. I do not believe that that is what the Government or the Minister want. The new clause would solve the problem. However, if the Minister would like a slight variation on it, there are other processes.

People feel very angry about the abuse. The anger is not felt, known or read by London. It is a long way away. Such anger is often difficult to register, as people do not understand, do not want to listen and do not want to know. If the people of north Wales, Cornwall and Berwickshire can have their parliamentary representation changed just because some slick organisers use the abuse and the postal vote change to their advantage, that is appalling. Much outrage will be caused among those who live in the area.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

I do not defend the present situation in any way, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal organisation in Cornwall has not marshalled the holiday vote in any constituency in that county?

Mr. Penhaligon

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that when it comes to who owns those houses, "My party don't do too good." It is true that before now we have encouraged people who have holiday lets in Cornwall, who are Liberals, to register their vote, to try to reduce the advantage that the hon. Gentleman's party has. I am not saying that anybody has broken the law. I am not criticising anyone. It is legal. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, his party could gather 3,000 or 4,000 of those votes if it wanted to, and he could save himself on the swing about which we are now hearing. What I am saying is that there is an abuse, people are outraged, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows it. We have it in our power today to stop that abuse, and the Minister has the power to give the House that assurance now.

Mr. Mellor

It is with a feeling of tremendous power and authority that I rise to respond to the debate. I appreciate that several hon. Members feel strongly about this matter and that that feeling is not confined to any one party. I understand the position of those who represent constituencies in which there are second homes who feel that people who are inimical to their interests are daring to cast a vote in those constituencies. I also understand that those who have universities in their constituencies, including some of my hon. Friends, feel troubled, and no doubt some of their constituents feel troubled, that people who are only passing through the area can sometimes have a major impact on the political complexion of that area.

However, there are problems and points that have not been made particularly clearly so far that need to be made. First, as we explained in the White Paper—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will know that we have had several discussions about this on the Floor of the House and elsewhere and extensive correspondence — it is difficult to make fundamental changes such as the abolition of multiple registration without changing the whole basis on which the register is compiled in Britain. That is not an easy thing, nor is it necessarily desirable.

In the end we must take the argument down to detail because we are dealing with a severely practical matter. We have had much discussion about second home owners, who seem to be a much persecuted minority group so far as one can judge from the way in which they have been spoken of, although I dare say that some of them are decent enough citizens when it comes down to it. One must look at the detail and ask how helpful are the kind of concepts embraced in the new clause—for example, that of the main qualifying address. What does that mean in the context of a man who lives four days a week in London, three days a week in the country and then spends most of his holidays at his country address? Are we to have a court of law counting up faithfully the days of the year that he spends in each of those places?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Let him choose.

Mr. Mellor

That choice may not be acceptable. Some may feel that he will choose the most disadvantageous area.

Ingenious though the new clause is, as I said yesterday when a peripheral spin-off issue of multiple registration was being debated, it is perfectly reasonable for people to hold the view, as many in the House have, and Committees have reported in favour of abolishing multiple registration, when it comes to the detail it is extremely difficult to do it.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I have availed myself of the present law twice, never because of a second home but once because my father was moving with his business when I exercised my vote in north Wales in a constituency where there was a majority of 1,000 instead of in a constituency with a majority of 20,000 and once when I went to college. There need only be a warning on the form that says that only one form a year can be completed before an offence is committed and then no one would offend. There is no practical problem. I hope that it is not a practical disadvantage.

Mr. Mellor

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining about second homes on the Bermondsey riviera. Many of the complaints that have been advanced this evening should really be directed to the electoral registration officer. It appears to be suggested that owning a second home in an area is what entitles a person to vote, but it is not. One has to be resident there and the courts have determined that to be resident one's residence has to have a substantial degree of permanence". So, if an electoral registration officer is prepared, on the basis of a few weeks' residence a year, to register somebody as being resident in that constituency, the ERO has got it wrong. I am glad that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who knows a great deal about these matters, and others agree with me that it is then for the parties to challenge, and there are ways in which that challenge can be mounted. But it is not the fault of the Government if EROs are putting people on the register when they should not.

11.30 pm
Mr. Gregory

My hon. Friend has raised a point about the qualifying address. I suggested earlier that this could be the Inland Revenue address. I would like him to address his mind to the clauses dealing with the educational point, because a considerable number of students in the constituency of Putney, which might interest him, and certainly in my constituency of York and elsewhere in this country, amounting to just under 300 constituencies, who are materially affected by this. My clause provides from which he qualified for a local authority grant". If my hon. Friend is suggesting that the onus should be on the electoral returning officer, what guidance will he give and what staffing will he give? At present, in most parliamentary constituencies there is one clerk who works throughout the year on this, ably supported at the time of a parliamentary election or European election. To put the onus on the parliamentary candidate to suggest that somebody is acting illegally is quite unreasonable. If we are to be reasonable, I should hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept the spirit of this, because the number of illegalities is clearly on the increase.

Mr. Mellor

I am all for being reasonable, but whatever way we look at it, and whatever arrangements are entered into, people will be required to make difficult judgments. We can print all the forms in the world and give people all the options we like, but if someone is determined to make an assertion that is not the case it is extremely difficult in a practical sense to change the arrangements.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

My hon. Friend may not even be aware that it is not the case. Take the example of the universities, where it is the bursar who does the registration. However many warning signs are put on the register, he cannot possibly know that the students will not register elsewhere.

Mr. Mellor

I am beset by the anti-holiday-home people on the one hand and the anti-student faction on the other.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

No, I am not anti at all; I am making a realistic point.

Mr. Mellor

I was not suggesting that my hon. Friend was not being realistic, but I was saying that, if one's motivation in advancing these points is that one objects to a particular category being on the register, it does not make it easy when drafting rules to give total satisfaction on the point that is being made. I just think that in the end we have a clear set of rules. They could not be clearer. It may be that the way in which the rules are being applied by EROs throughout the country has somewhat muddied the pond, but it is perfectly clear to say that someone is entitled to register at an address at which his or her residence has a substantial degree of permanence and to recognise that in the reality of the community as it now exists—and it is not outlandish to suggest that some people should have more than one address — it is possible to have a substantial degree of permanence at more than one address.

It is getting late and I have to say—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

rose—

Mr. Mellor

No, I shall not give way and it is no good the hon. Gentleman jeering at me that I am on weak ground. We have been over this ground a great deal. I very much regret, being in the business of giving satisfaction wherever that is humanly possible, that it is not possible for the Government to do so here. We have made it clear in the White Paper, in the debate on the White Paper, in the debate on Second Reading, in previous debates in this Committee and in correspondence that it is our considered view that, whatever the rights and wrongs of multiple registration, it is not possible to reach workable and practicable arrangements that do not make the situation more complicated than it already is.

I am sorry, but I have to advise my hon. Friends to resist the new clauses.

Mr. Dubs

I had not intended to intervene, but I think that we should press the Minister further on this. Throughout the long day, until we reached these proposals, the Minister had been on fairly good form, perhaps because he felt that right was on his side. His last speech, however, was disappointing and well below the standards that he had set himself earlier in the day. I believe that that was because his heart was not in it.

The point of principle here is that when people vote in a constituency they should do so because they have been exposed to the campaign in that constituency, because they know who the candidates are, the candidates have been able to reach them with publicity and canvassing and therefore the electors take a full part in political life there. When people take no part in political life and have no opportunity to do so, there is a weakness in the democratic process. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) shouting at me from a sedentary position.

Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East)

You are my Member of Parliament.

Mr. Dubs

That is no thanks to anything that the hon. Gentleman has done for me.

There is a point of principle involved and it is no use trying to be jocular about it. We are dealing with the democratic process and the Minister has not addressed himself to the point. Incidentally—this may be just a quirk — I understand that if by-elections were held on the same day in Berwick-upon-Tweed and in Putney people registered in both constituencies could vote in both by-elections.

Mr. Mates

That is illegal.

Mr. Dubs

I wish the hon. Gentleman would stand up and speak or just keep quiet rather than constantly shouting from a seated position. Even if he is my constituent, there is no need for me to be nice to him if he behaves like that.

It is indeed illegal to vote in two constituencies in a general election, but lawyers tell me that it is not illegal if by-elections happen to take place on the some day in two constituencies in which an individual has a residence and a holiday residence. But that is just a quirk and the main point of principle is not attached to it.

I believe that the Minister has not been helpful on this simply because the problem is difficult to solve. Because we do not have centralised control of the electoral register for the whole country by putting all the information on a computer or whatever, the necessary legal means of enforcement will not be perfect. Because it will not be perfect and the problem is a difficult one, the Minister wants to leave things alone and not bother.

Mr. Wigley

Knowing the Minister, hon. Members may accept that his problem may be the administrative difficulty involved, but people outside will believe that the motive is party political advantage. I do not wish the reaction in my part of Gwynedd to worsen any more than it is bound to worsen as a result of postal voting. We have a reasonably good Bill, but the Minister's failure to respond on this will be a wart on the face of the legislation. I very much hope that he will think again.

Mr. Dubs

I take that point and I hope that the Minister will come back with a more convincing argument. If town hall officials dealing with registration are acting as they should, it is theoretically possible that they could eliminate some holiday voters from the electoral registers. In practice, however, that is difficult to achieve as the law stands. It is a grey area for them and they are under great pressure keeping the registers up to date at all, so unless we change the law in this way it is unlikely that electoral registration officers will take note of the hint given to them by the Minister.

Time-sharing raises another problem, especially in the Lake District and certain other areas. A number of different families could register at the same address and it would be difficult for the electoral registration officer to prevent that from happening. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, by being progressive and giving people the holiday vote we are opening the door to the possibility of abuse. That possibility exists when an individual can be at two addresses at the same time. By giving the holiday vote, we have a responsibility to ensure that it is not abused, and there is a clear danger that it might be.

I urge the Minister to think again. I ask him to reexamine the Government's proposals and to endeavour to return on Report with a provision that will satisfy the views which have been expressed on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I accept that I have not been present for the entire debate, but the Minister's arguments have been weak. The argument does not rest with holiday homes, and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) is concerned with university, polytechnic or college vote is substantial. There are many ways in which the present system can be exploited, and they could be adequately and properly dealt with, but I do not accept that the Government should act as a perfect policeman. The onus, as in many other spheres, must be on the citizen. If the individual knows that he is breaking the law, he must accept that he is at risk of being penalised. He must accept the implications of committing an offence.

If an individual of 18 or 19 years of age is a student at a college or university, it is probable that he will spend 24, 25 or 26 weeks of the year away from the home which he has left. I am speaking of the normal parental home. Having attended college or university, he might well decide that he will not return to the parental home. He might go into temporary accommodation locally in the summer or elsewhere before moving on or back to his original accommodation. If that happens, it is not an abuse if the student decides that the appropriate place of registration is York, if that is his university. He may spend the larger proportion of the year in York.

I recollect that when I was at college I was spending only two or three weeks at my parents' address each year. That was the family home. I was spending by far the largest proportion of the year at the place where I was at college and during the incidental parts of the year I was elsewhere. The obvious place of registration was my university residence. I retained registration at my parental home because that was the base to which I would presumably return after my university days. That was the only "home" to which I had a right, but it was not the place where I was principally resident.

In many instances, individuals move during the course of a year. My first opportunity to vote was in the constituency of Merioneth, and during the year in question my family moved. Registration had taken place in the October of the previous year at what was the family home. However, my father followed his job to where the company sent him and my family moved to another property, which is where we were on the 10th, 12th or 14th of the month—I confess that I forget the date. It was proper to say that that was the residence at that time. It was the family residence and it was proper for the family so to register. That meant that there was the right to choose when it came to the 1970 general election. I remember making the decision to drive with my father 150 miles from the place where we had gone to live back to the place where we were registered because the percentage relevance of my vote was considerably higher. I am afraid that it did not swing the result—but it moved it far more than it would have done in Pontypridd, which had a majority of about 20,000. There are many examples of where people, for perfectly proper reasons have a choice.

11.45 pm

The Minister's concern is either the expressed concern that the proposal is technically difficult, or the unexpressed concern—a suspicion voiced by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) — that it is vested interest. If the proposal is technically difficult, why should it be the responsibility of the Government to deal with it in every respect? It is a rule of our electoral system that if someone is a citizen of other than Great Britain, Northern Ireland or certain Commonwealth countries with the right to vote here, he is precluded from voting.

As the Minister will know, because people do not read forms carefully there are some who register and exercise a vote even though they are not eligible to do so. They may be Italians, Cypriots or Greeks who have been living here for a long time. The result is that there is a defect in the system, policeable only if the electoral registration officer has a suspicion. People who abuse the system can be dealt with properly. The Minister should be concerned, not with catching every offender, but with ensuring that the system puts the onus on the voter to decide, following a clearly laid out test, where he qualifies to vote, in the knowledge of the penalties that he may face if he abuses the system.

In view of the all-party support that the recommendation has received, the technical arguments are not sufficient to counterweight the arguments of substance. Even though it may be said that in places like York it is not obvious that the Conservative party will be the beneficiary—in some places it indeed has the majority of the student vote, although that always amazes me—nevertheless it must be perceived as being the beneficiary. That appears to be the case in holiday home areas, and it is presumed to be the case in student towns.

Unless the Minister can adequately respond to the arguments that have been advanced on the technical and electoral bases, this great opportunity for dealing with a major potential for abuse will have been lost, which will be a great failing in the work of this Committee and the Government on what is, in many respects—although we have our criticisms—a good Bill.

Mr. Barron

I had some sympathy with the Minister when he tried to defend the indefensible—the question of multiple registration in parliamentary elections. He defended the Government's position by falling back on such phrases as "substantial degree of permanence", when he knows that that could be used by people to register in more than one and up to six or more areas. The Minister should agree to reconsider the matter and come forward on Report with something that will provide a fairer way to approach the issue.

There are no holiday homes in the Rother Valley, although some parts of it are quite beautiful. I have no vested interest, in that I might never be in the position to own a home in Cumbria, south Wales, Devon of Cornwall. Nor does my constituency have a university. Multiple registration is wrong. No hon. Member can say that it has not been abused in the past. It is even more likely to be abused in future, because of other elements in the Bill. The Government should close the loopholes that allow some people to have a wider franchise than others.

I turn to new clause 2. I think that subsection (2) and (3) somewhat cloud the issue. New clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and some other Conservative Members, is probably nearer the mark. It says: It shall be an offence to apply to register as a parliamentary elector for more than one constituency in any one year. The Government should return to the Committee at a later stage and say exactly that. It should be an offence to register in more than one parliamentary constituency in any one year. People should make their choices before they fill in the forms. To talk about substantial degrees of permanency is ridiculous when we all know that someone could pick up the form that drops through the door and never go near that place of residence—whether or not it is in his name—for another two or three months. In those circumstances, multiple registration should be stopped.

Mr. Beith

No one, even among the Minister's more enthusiastic supporters, could say that he has won the argument on this issue. Genuine concern has been expressed from hon. Members in all parts of the Committee about what is widely seen as a loophole. The law is not clear—or, if it is, it is clear in a particularly unhelpful way. If electoral registration officers were able scrupulously and effectively to enforce the test of a substantial degree of permanence with regard to all the applications—and we all know how divorced from the real world such a supposition is—it would not solve the problem that most hon. Members have described.

For example, the classic second home owner has a substantial degree of permanency in his second home. He may go there only for two weeks in the year, but he may have owned it for five or 10 years. There is another category, too, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I refer to time sharing. There is certainly a degree of permanence about that, because when someone becomes involved in a time-share contract to purchase occupation, use and residence at a particular property, he does so in perpetuity. He buys a week per year in a property. That is a substantial degree of permanence.

Various amendments have been tabled. Some try to assess what the principal residence is, while others place an obligation on the elector to choose. I should be satisfied if the elector had to decide, when he went on the register, what his principal residence was. That would be sufficient. It would remove the problem of electors choosing at will. There is so much dissatisfaction about this issue, and the Minister has so much misjudged the Committee, that I feel that the Committee should return to it at a later stage. The consensus that existed in the Select Committee, when all the parties agreed that something should be done about multiple registration, has been seen again tonight.

We cannot leave the matter here. In view of the Minister's technical criticisms of some of the amendments, and the movement of opinion, perhaps towards an amendment based on the elector choosing which register to be on, I think that the Committee should return to the issue on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to