§ Amendments made: No. 89, in page 45, leave out line 48.
No. 90, in page 46, line 52, leave out '191(a)' and insert '191(1)(a)'.
No. 91, in page 46, line 8, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 136, in subsection (3), the words "not exceeding five days after the presentation of the petition", in subsection (4) the words from "not" to "notice", subsection (5)(b) and in subsection (7) the words not exceeding five days".'.
No. 92, in page 47, leave out lines 14 and 15.—[Mr. Mellor.]
Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent signified.]
9.47 pm§ Mr. BrittanI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When we introduced the Bill we had four main objectives: first, an extension of the franchise to British citizens resident abroad; secondly, changes in absent voting arrangements to enfranchise those away on holiday on polling day; thirdly, an increase in the deposit to discourage the frivolous candidate, with a reduction in the threshold to protect the interests of the smaller parties; finally, to take the opportunity of making all the necessary but less spectacular changes in the electoral machinery which have been on the stocks since the last major Representation of the People Bill in 1969.
The Bill establishes the principle that British citizens outside the public sector should not be disfranchised, any more than those within it, because they are resident abroad on the qualifying date. Many of my hon. Friends believe that the five-year period, the maximum length of a Parliament, during which the Bill allows British citizens to qualify as overseas electors is not long enough. I have great sympathy for that view. The Government originally proposed a longer period, but I thought that in introducing a new principle of this kind it was right that we should proceed at a deliberate pace in accordance with the maximum degree of acquiescence, if not approval. I believe that with the passage of time the anxieties raised on these provisions will prove unfounded, and I very much hope that it will not be long before it will be possible to extend the five-year limit. We shall have to see how the changes that we are introducing this year fare in practice.
Our debates on absent voting have concentrated on the special position of Northern Ireland. The Government are happy to have moved amendments putting Northern Ireland absent voters on the same footing as those in Great Britain, with the reserve power that can be exercised should the need arise. Of course, we all hope that the need will not arise. The main achievement is to have replaced the indefensible provisions which were previously on the statute book, which had the effect of imposing a major civic disability on those who committed no greater sin than to be away on holiday on polling day. In today's circumstances, with increasing numbers going on holiday, and with a tendency for elections to take place during the 431 summer rather more frequently than was once the case, it would have been indefensible to leave the anomaly on the statute book.
Having considered these matters over the years, and most recently prior to the present occasion when I was Minister of State, Home Office, it is a matter of great pleasure and pride to be able to put forward and see entering shortly, I hope, the statute book a provision which enables those who are on holiday to vote, notwithstanding their absence from their normal residence on polling day.
On the question of the deposit, we are glad to have found in £500 a figure which seems to command general support. In my view, the figure is very much on the low side, and that of course was the view of the Select Committee. It should not be regarded as a final figure. It would be wrong for us to allow a long period of time to elapse before a change is made.
Any change that is made should be made deliberately, and it will have to be made by fresh legislation, but, in general, the principle which the Government will support is that the deposit should rise in line with decreases in the value of money—I hope that those will be gradual. It is wrong that we should wait for so many years, as we have since 1918, before looking at this important matter again. The figure of £500 is reasonable for today, but it is not a matter to pass unnoticed again for so long.
The main changes to which I have referred — important as they are—take up less than half the pages of the Bill. The fact that so many of the smaller changes have gone unopposed is a tribute to those who took part in the consultations on behalf of the political parties and the local authority associations. We leave the detailed provisions of the Representation of the People Acts, the raw material from which our democracy is constructed, in a better state than we found them.
It has been most useful for all involved, in the House and outside, to go through the Bill's provisions and try to bring them up to date and to deal with a number of matters which are individually of little importance but collectively put democracy into better shape than it was before. Some of the provisions are of considerable importance to individuals, such as the one that we have been discussing this evening about the attempt to ensure that wherever possible disabled people can vote in person, not just by post.
I should like to thank all those who have helped to make these debates a success and to secure an outcome which does not give anyone everything that he wants, but which gives a substantial boost to our democracy by modernising the process of democracy.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has shouldered most of the burden on the Government side, and we owe him a great debt for the care with which he has handled the Bill, for the courtesy with which he has handled the amendments and for his readiness to respond constructively to points put to the Government, from whatever quarter they have come. He can take great pride in and credit for that achievement.
My hon. Friend will join me in thanking the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his hon. Friends for helping to make the debates for the most part useful and constructive and for securing a high degree of consensus, although I recognise, and would not wish to put words into his mouth, that in some cases he feels that he is making the best of a bad job rather than securing the objective that he would have wished.
432 The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has, I fear, but not to his surprise, failed to persuade us on this occasion of the merits of proportional representation, but he has raised a number of valuable detailed points. I hope he feels that we have gone as far as we can to meet them.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has intervened in our debates with his usual perspicacity. I am grateful to him for articulating not just the interests of Northern Ireland but many more broader and important questions that we have needed to consider.
I should like to thank those of my hon. Friends who have intervened. Their interventions have been most welcome and have assisted us greatly.
It is with those words that I wish the Bill godspeed in its passage to another place. We look forward to its early return from there and entry on to the statute book.
§ Mr. KaufmanWhen the Bill was introduced last autumn, the Opposition had serious reservations about it. Our principal misgivings related to four issues. The first was the introduction of expatriate voting, and the introduction of that regrettable innovation for a period of seven years not only for former voters, but also for minors who never had a vote and for people who did not necessarily intend to return to this country. Secondly, we were concerned about the proposed increase of the election deposit to £1,000, even though with a 5 per cent. threshold for retention. Thirdly, we were worried about the reduction of polling time in parliamentary elections by one hour with the proposal that polls should close at 9 pm instead of at 10 pm. Fourthly, we were concerned about restrictions on absent voting in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain.
It was because of these four major issues that we 'voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and warned the Government that they would have all-out opposition to the Bill if they insisted that it go through with its contents as introduced at that time. The Government then, belatedly but sensibly, decided that they would negotiate with us. The outcome has been major changes to the Bill made directly through those negotiations.
On expatriate voting, the duration has been reduced from seven to five years. Under-18s will now not obtain this franchise on reaching the age of 18. Those applying for this franchise will have to commit themselves to not remaining outside the country permanently. The deposit will still go up, and we regret that, but to £500 instead of to £1,000, and the new threshold will be 5 per cent. The closing time for polling in parliamentary elections will remain at 10 pm. Northern Ireland absent votes in all essential respects will be granted on the same basis as in Great Britain, and—an added gain in our view—absent votes for those temporarily out of the country will be exercised by proxy rather than by post, thus reducing the chances of tampering with the ballot.
In addition to those changes that we have achieved on the four major issue that concerned us, we have secured changes, or firm Government commitment to change, on a number of subsidiary but important issues. Provisions for counter-signature for absent voters are to be simplified and clarified, and the right of wardens of old people's homes and sheltered accommodation to be counter-signatories is to be considered favourably by the Government. Absent votes are to be available for electors taken ill or otherwise 433 becoming physically incapacitated after the final date for claiming a postal vote. There is to be a sensible extention of the list of dies non in the election timetable, and there is to be a reduction of the proposed new amounts required as security for costs for court actions in relation to elections. There is no doubt that these changes improve the Bill considerably.
I should like to thank my hon. Friends who have taken an especially active part in the Bill's progress. They have participated actively, constructively and by general consultation within our party in order to put forward our amendments. It is satisfactory to us that the Government have responded so much to our amendments. I join the Secretary of State in the tribute that he has paid to the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has responded to our amendments.
The efforts of my hon. Friends and myself have resulted in important and beneficial changes in what are the most fundamental laws in any democracy, the laws governing the conduct of elections.—[Interruption.] It is very nice to see the Liberal party here in quite remarkable strength. I advise you, Mr. Speaker, to take this unrivalled opportunity of memorising their faces.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Major.]Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
§ Mr. KaufmanIt is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, which may not easily arise again for the remainder of this Parliament.
§ Mr. Simon HughesIt will arise all too often.
§ Mr. KaufmanToo often, certainly; however often, too often.
The efforts of my hon. Friends, as I have already said, have resulted in important and beneficial changes in the most fundamental laws in any democracy — the laws governing the conduct of elections. We on the Labour Benches still profoundly regret that the Bill includes any provision for expatriate voting, and that there is any increase in the deposit. But we have done our best during the debate to speak for democracy, regardless of party advantage, and I believe that we have won victories for democracy. It is in that spirit that we now send the Bill on its way.
§ 10.1 pm
Mr. J. Enoch PowellIn the few sentences with which I shall detain the House I deliberately leave out of account the matter of disagreement which was dealt with by Division earlier in today's sitting—a matter which my hon. Friends and I still hope to see resolved in some way before the Bill reaches the statute book.
It fell to me in 1979 to pronounce the last words for my hon. Friends in this House upon the last major preceding act of justice to Northern Ireland, which enabled the electors of Northern Ireland to be represented in this House by the same number of seats as if they were resident in Great Britain. That event is linked with the events of this Bill by an important fact. Both those decisions were taken virtually unanimously by the House. They were taken in 434 co-operation between the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition and virtually with no dissent in any part of the Chamber. That is how, as long as the position of Northern Ireland in the Union is not wholly secure, every advance needs to be made in the government of that Province. It needs to be the united and unanimous act of this House of Parliament, and therefore of the people of this country.
I hope to live to see the day when constituencies in Northern Ireland will return Members for two or more of the political parties which carry on the political debate in the United Kingdom, for then and then alone will Northern Ireland have entered into the full inheritance of her membership of the United Kingdom. But until that happens it is necessary that progress towards full justice and full recognition of the status of Northern Ireland and its people should be made by evident consent—and it is the evident consent which has accompanied the justice done to Northern Ireland in this Bill which, in the eyes of the people of that Province, is its greatest glory.
§ 10.3 pm
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) inevitably provokes me by some of his remarks. I am bound to say that he would not have detained the House unduly long had he listed those of his hon. Friends who contributed so helpfully to the proceedings on the Bill. They are a gallant few. They are almost outnumbered by the number of my hon. Friends who assisted me in the course of the proceedings on the Bill, and to whom I express my thanks.
Had I not been firmly committed to the belief that such Bills should be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House and not upstairs, a great many of our proceedings on the Bill would have been upstairs—and that with the consent of one of the other parties in this House.
§ Mr. KaufmanIt was our motion, which suggested that the Bill be considered on the Floor of the House, that was carried by the House. The hon. Gentleman has a short memory.
§ Mr. BeithI remember very well the discussions that preceded that motion. How much longer our proceedings would have been if the Government had not come at a slightly late stage to realise that consensus has its merits. Consensus is not a fashionable doctrine in Government circles at the moment, but the Home Secretary wisely grasped it. Although hon. Members have not got everything that they wanted, the Bill is much improved. I applaud the Home Secretary's grasping the consensus. It has shortened proceedings on the Bill immeasurably. We might have been here in August if such a decision had not been taken.
The Bill represents improvements in several important respects. Like the Home Secretary, I believe that the provision of postal votes for people who are on holiday during elections is long overdue. It is quite wrong that citizens should have been prevented from exercising their vote because of long-standing holiday plans. That was especially true for the 1983 general election.
Unlike the Labour party, I believe that it is right to provide people who live overseas, who are citizens of the United Kingdom and who have an interest in its affairs with the opportunity to cast a vote. Many are serving Britain in capacities other than those of civil servants and as members of the Armed Forces, who had the vote 435 previously. We warmly welcome their right to cast a vote, but it is severely restricted and there will be much disappointment among those who thought that they would have a vote for some time but who will be lucky to have a vote at one general election.
§ Mr. BrittanIt is a start.
§ Mr. BeithThe Home Secretary believes that it is the thin end of the wedge. If it is, we shall help him drive the wedge a little further.
Other useful provisions ensure that the government of Britain can be carried on in circumstances that we do not want to dwell on. There are significant improvements in the Bill as compared with that which was originally presented to us. Perhaps the most obvious concerns deposits. The Government originally proposed that the deposit should be £1,000. That proposal was supported by Labour Members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. However, the Government overlooked the strength of our opposition and the sudden conversion of the Labour party, which was perhaps influenced by experience. The Labour party lost 119 deposits at the 1983 election. I must assure the House that, as amended, the Bill saves the Labour party £56,000 on the basis of the 1983 election results.
A financial deposit is not a sensible test of whether a candidate is legitimate or serious. That is why we have argued for the provision of more signatures than are at present required. Some Conservative Members share that view. The reduction of the deposit from £1,000 to £500 is a welcome improvement, as is the reduction of the threshold. We ought not to discourage people from standing at elections. However unattractive or repugnant we might find the views of some extreme organisations and parties, people should be encouraged to stand as candidates and not be given the excuse that they cannot put their views to the electorate. Even the Bill in its present form might restrict the ability of some groups to field candidates. I do not believe that it will in any way restrict frivolous or commercially minded candidates, who will find the money anyway.
There have been detailed improvements, and the Under-Secretary of State has made several concessions. I welcome the accommodation and helpfulness that he has shown on many detailed matters. We have also resisted some things that might have been included. A section of the Labour party wanted to introduce compulsory voting and would have required every elector to furnish a suitable excuse to the returning officer if he failed to turn up at the polling station. We have successfully resisted the vision of the south Yorkshire Socialist republic writ large, in which electors have to explain themselves to public officials. That has been successfully resisted, so it is not part of the Bill to which we shall give a Third Reading.
However, the Bill retains drawbacks, which are mainly omissions, of which I shall mention two. One is the issue on which the widest consensus—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am reluctant to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but he should discuss on Third Reading only what is in the Bill.
§ Mr. BeithI shall seek to comply with your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
We have sought throughout the Bill to work on the basis of consensus, and I commend the Home Secretary for his 436 grasping of that doctrine. However, had he grasped the consensus between all parties that something should be done about multiple registration, the Bill would have been better. We shall have to wait for a better Bill to ensure that people are properly represented—a Bill that ensures that they are represented under a fair electoral system. I look forward to supporting that Bill from the Government Benches.
§ Mr. BerminghamWhen the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) comes to draft amendments he can sometimes educate Ministers, and I congratulate him on that. However, when it comes to political intention and ability, he seems to be short on experience. Listening to the will of the people, particularly with regard to the question of how we elect candidates, is not a bad idea. The system that we have had for a number of years, that of single Member constituencies, is one that the people at large feel we should follow. Perhaps this nonsense that we get periodically, which is sometimes called the "We was robbed nonsense" will cease with the passage of the Bill to another place.
Although the Bill goes to the other place, it goes with a number of reservations. I wish to put on record the fact that I hope that the other place will look with some care at the issue of the deposit. I know that the House eventually reached a consensus, but some of us believe in the right of small parties and individuals to stand, and the imposition of a £500 deposit is an unnecessary impediment. After all, in a democracy, any man should be able to stand in his own right. He should not necessarily be debarred by the payment of cash.
Similarly, on a much more human note, although there have been welcome amendments to the Bill regarding the disabled, it still does not get over the basic problem raised by an amendment that dealt with the handicapped. I said when we debated that amendment that I could not see that it was beyond the wit of man to find a solution so that the severely handicapped could vote at the physically nearest polling station, although that might on occasions be in another ward or constituency.
If we are able to make provision for those who serve on polling day, either as polling officials or police officers so that they can vote away from their normal polling station, it is amazing that we cannot find a solution to enable the severely handicapped to vote in a similar way. If we are a humane and tolerant society, and I should like to believe that we still are, we should be able to find a solution to that problem. I hope that the other place will look at this and perhaps the Ministers who serve there will continue to search for a solution to the problem. It concerns only a small number of people; perhaps only a few thousand, but if we are a true democracy we should find a solution to the problem of those few thousand, because it is worth it. It shows that we wish every person to have the right to vote personally.
I hope that the other place will consider with care not only this matter but the point that I made on an earlier amendment which I withdrew, which is that we should continue to search for a solution to prevent the slur upon our democracy which sometimes occurs at these closed "public meetings" when small factions seek to use such occasions to spread the concept of racism, anti-semitism 437 an the other aims that are pursued by the National Front. That kind of evil in our society needs to be stamped out, so that our society may remain open and democratic.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.