HC Deb 22 June 1990 vol 174 cc1302-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

2.34 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

I wish to discuss electoral registration in the United Kingdom. I shall outline the matters that I intend to cover in case I do not have time to deal with all of them adequately. First, I wish to talk about the poll tax and the impact that it has had on the electoral register. It was clear that the poll tax would have an impact in principle, because it would upset the electoral register, and it has also had an impact in practice. I shall give some details to show how the universal franchise has been undermined.

The second area that I intend to cover is the legislation on expatriate votes which is entirely undemocratic in principle and wide open to fraud and manipulation in practice. The third area is expenditure on encouraging and ensuring full electoral registration. Such expenditure is inadequate and insignificant in the United Kingdom. It is a disgrace in a country which claims to be a democracy.

Fourthly, I shall talk about the wide shortcomings and frauds in the electoral system and their impact on general and local elections and on boundary reviews. Finally, I shall mention courses of action which must be taken to tackle the serious problems.

I have raised this matter on many occasions. I have raised this aspect of the poll tax legislation many times since the Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill on 16 and 17 December 1987. On many other occasions I have raised the matter with the Government, the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the Home Office. I have raised it within the Labour party and the parliamentary Labour party. Yesterday I had a half-hour meeting with the Leader of the Opposition about this serious issue.

Much of my campaigning activity and my writings in opposition to the poll tax were associated with the effect on electoral registration. In today's Morning Star there is an article entitled "Franchise Farce" which explains some of the points that I shall make.

From the Government's much-vaunted principle—which they claim is a democratic principle—of accountability arises a great problem with the poll tax legislation. The principle of accountability means that almost identical criteria are used in compiling the poll tax register as in compiling the electoral register. The two are interlinked. The poll tax in particular has an adverse impact on electoral registration and leads to the loss of many people from the register. Anyone could see that that would happen.

Those exempted from appearing on either the electoral or the poll tax register are visiting members of overseas forces, diplomats, prisoners, tramps and vagrants, and the severely mentally handicapped. However, the exemption of severely mentally handicapped people from poll tax registration has nothing to do with financial problems. The severely physically handicapped are not excluded from paying the tax, as they qualify for inclusion on the electoral register. There are some areas of division between the two registers, but they are small in comparison with the considerable overlaps.

Some of the categories excluded from the poll tax register were a result of amendments during later stages of discussion on the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Monks and nuns were granted exemption at some stage, on the grounds that they have taken vows of poverty. That would seem to be a good argument for saying that people who have had poverty thrust upon them by the Government should also he excluded. But, that is not an argument that the Government accept. Some extra categories of mentally handicapped people who may appear on the electoral register have been exempted from the poll tax, although the definition of that category is not yet clear.

The only people who are excluded from paying the poll tax but appear on the electoral register are those who are in full-time education up to the age of 20 who attend colleges, reside at home and are not students in receipt of a grant and also retired people who live in hostels or similar groups. Otherwise, there is more than a 90 per cent. overlap between the two registers.

People who in desperation seek to avoid paying the poll tax may not register for it, and may avoid inclusion in the electoral register. Whatever is done about the poll tax, that will remain true. If the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) gets his way and we have graduated poll tax payments, the same principle will operate. What might occur is that people who pay high poll tax will get out of that by selling their enfranchisement rights, as happened in the 14th century when a new type of poll tax was introduced after the introduction of a flat-rate tax. The people who did not pay then were the people at the top, not people at the bottom.

The problem is serious in principle and in practice. What happens in practice? The computer links between the poll tax and the electoral registers—and with other registers—are checked out. If a poll tax registrar—who is often also the electoral registrar for an area—does not interlink on the two registers, the district auditor will pressurise him to do so. Otherwise the registrar is not considered to be taking sufficient action to raise funds through the operation of the poll tax.

It is not merely the general principle that convinces us that there is a problem with the registers. Statistical evidence. too, points in that direction.

I shall quote some selected instances, and then talk more generally. In Glasgow in 1988, 1989 and 1990 35,000 people were lost from the electoral register—about 6 per cent. That has happened in other Scottish cities. Of course, other factors could be at work—there could be some movement out of the cities—but the figure seems to be too high to be accounted for by such factors.

In Liverpool, 35,000 people disappeared off the electoral register in 1989. The numbers have recovered slightly in the past year and 10,000 people have been replaced on the register because, if they can be found for poll tax purposes, they can be put on the electoral register. However, over a period of two years that is a shortfall of 7.5 per cent.

In Finchley in 1989–90, about 8.5 per cent. of people have disappeared off the electoral register. I sent a letter to the Prime Minister, inviting her to attend the debate, as I am mentioning her constituency. I am interested to know who or what is fiddling the franchise in Finchley, so I extended the normal parliamentary courtesy, but the right hon. Lady has not managed to arrive yet. But we live in hope.

The specific instances that I have quoted could be argued with. One can always find selective instances to back up a particular case. However, general arguments begin to be of much more significance, and some of them have been set out in early-day motion 892, which 11 tabled. Statistics from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that 600,000 people, or more, are missing from the electoral registers in Scotland, England and Wales. The only reasonable assumption can be that the bulk of that loss is caused by poll tax factors. The electoral register in Northern Ireland is in a healthy state; there has been none of the decline that we have seen in England, Wales and Scotland. The difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is that there is no poll tax in Northern Ireland.

Until 1987, the franchise in England was always closely related to the estimated number of people over 18 in the relevant year. If people are doing their jobs correctly in compiling census information and supplying information for the electoral register, we should expect a rough-and-ready fit; in fact, the electoral register was always linked to 99.9 per cent. or more of the appropriate population. However, there has been a decline of 1.5 per cent. between 1987 and 1990, and that involves a significant number of people.

If we examine the list of attainers—those who have come on to the electoral register for the first tirne—we discover that since 1986 there has been a 3.3 per cent. fall. There is a fear that in some families the person who is missing from the electoral register is the person who was not on the previous register. That person has been excluded in a desperate attempt to save money in the household. In Wales, the drop has not been so dramatic—probably because poll tax in Wales is lower than it is in England—but the figure is 1 per cent. less since 1986. In the previous period, the figure was always above 100.1 per cent. of the relevant population. The number of attainers has fallen by 5 per cent.

In Scotland, the figure is more serious: the drop overall is 1.7 per cent. and the drop in the number of attainers is 5 per cent. During the same period in Northern Ireland, there has been a 0.6 per cent. increase in the franchise, although it is not easy for Northern Ireland to maintain its population, as people move from depressed areas to find work elsewhere. The number of attainers has increased by 18 per cent.

The statistics show a worrying position. It seems that about 600,000 people are missing from the electoral register. Before the poll tax, elections were guaranteed to be free, and operated on a universal franchise. A 1275 Statute of Westminster guaranteed free elections; the Representation of the People Act 1985 drew together previous representation legislation, and was based on a list of guarantees to extend the franchise—first to all men, and then to all women—that had been fought for since 1832. Now, certain practices have undermined the operation of those laws. It may even be that the Representation of the People Act 1985 has been altered and amended within the law, because an Act cannot bind later legislation. Even if nothing is mentioned in the schedules or the amendments about changing earlier legislation, the courts may interpret that it has been changed. That is why I am not paying my poll tax, and why I am keen to challenge the matter in the courts. I would like the opportunity to find out whether the law has been changed and the Act has been undermined. That would be most serious.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), fought vigorously in the House to oppose the Representation of the Peoples Act 1989. That is an unprincipled piece of legislation: it is an open attack on the franchise, whereas the poll tax is a hidden attack. It gives the franchise to people overseas who left this country up to 20 years ago, who are not part of our society, are not concerned with services and provisions here and who do not pay any poll tax—or indeed any other taxes—in this country. They operate on entirely different principles. Furthermore, it is a voluntary franchise in addition to what is supposed to be a compulsory franchise, but the compulsory franchise has been undermined. That does not make sense. That is why I made three speeches against that legislation and voted against it six times. On five occasions I acted as teller, stepping down only for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who had tabled a specific amendment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on his sustained efforts, not only in regard to the fall-off in electoral registration, which he and I believe is due almost entirely to the introduction of the poll tax. I also want to thank him for raising the scandalous business of the Government introducing a Bill that allows people who have been away from the country for 20 years and who have gone to South Africa or any other part of the world to vote in Britain without paying taxes, and that allows young lads and lasses who left the country at four or five years of age to choose almost willy-nilly the constituency in which they vote. It is a serious indictment of the Government that they have legislated to allow people who have emigrated to South Africa and elsewhere to vote in marginal constituencies because they were not on an electoral register when they left the country. My hon. Friend is on to a serious matter and the Home Office must give an assurance that every single overseas voter is registered to vote in the constituency where his family originally resided, otherwise we shall be challenging the results in some marginal constituencies. Once again I thank my hon. Friend for the wonderful job that he has done.

Mr. Barnes

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He has illustrated further problems associated with that legislation.

The legislation is not the only cause for concern. Another issue should bother everyone, whether they supported or opposed the original legislation. It arises in comments that have been made in several newspapers, initially in the Morning Star and then in The Independent.

On 10 June Stephen Castle, the political correspondent of The Independent, wrote: Tory expatriates have been encouraged to break British election regulations by registering in marginal constituencies where they have no right to vote. Guests at a lunch in Nice last month were told by Patrick Middleton, an unpaid adviser to the local branch of Conservatives Abroad, that they could bypass regulations without detection. Conservatives Abroad is co-ordinating efforts to register Tory sympathisers". The article continues: One of those present at the lunch … was John Priestman, a retired diplomat and former private secretary to Sir Anthony Eden, who described the speech as, 'an open invitation to cheat'.". That issue was also mentioned in Private Eye. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) wrote to Private Eye under the name Sir James Spencer attacking Backbiter, who wrote the original article, and stating: His suggestion that there is a fraudulent plan to register all expatriate voters in marginal seats is not only ludicrous, it is impossible. Electoral Registration Officers have to carry out meticulous steps to satisfy themselves that the overseas applicants have lived in their constituencies within the previous 20 years. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Dorset, West was incorrect because meticulous steps do not have to be taken, according to a Home Office circular LXN/89 1/89/4 sent out to electoral registration officers. The circular sets out the conditions in which the registration of overseas electors should operate and suggests that the British Library should be contacted to find electoral registers. It states: In some cases copies of old registers may not be available locally and the only available source may be the Electoral Registers Room at the British Library. They would prefer to receive enquiries in writing and will normally reply in the same way … Old registers are not held on site. It is not easy to obtain information. The circular continues: You will appreciate that the British Library can handle only a certain number of inquiries without becoming swamped. The clear impression that is given is: do not put pressure on the British Library and accept what is taking place.

The circular gets worse. "'Young' applicants"—those who were not 18 when they left Britain and who were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover— are required to send with their first application a photocopy of their full birth certificate. Under what other legislation on immigration or anything else is a photocopy of a birth certificate adequate? A photocopy can be fiddled.

The circular deals with people who have guardians of a different name: The relationship with a guardian is difficult to establish conclusively … The form gives as an example of a reason the statement 'the person named above adopted me and became my guardian in (year)'. In many cases such a statement could, in theory, be checked but we do not suggest that you should do so; we suggest rather, that the statement that a named person is a named guardian might be taken at face value. If time permitted, I could give other examples of things being taken at face value rather than a check being made. The circular is disgraceful and is not in line with the legislation. The Home Office should carefully consider that.

My next point is about expenditure on encouraging people to enfranchise. In 1988–89, £322,000 was spent on that, 0.3 per cent. of the total Government publicity budget. It is peanuts. They are spending £760,000—twice as much—to inform people overseas of their right to vote in Britain. In addition, unlimited amounts can be spent by the Tory party and its friends overseas on encouraging people overseas to vote.

In 1989, Abbey National held a ballot on it becoming a public limited company. To make people aware of their rights to vote, it spent £6 million—20 times as much as the Government spent on electoral registration.

Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barnes

I apologise, but I do not have time.

The consequences are serious for future election results. The legislation manipulates future election results and has serious effects on boundaries. The poll tax has caused some people to remove their names from the electoral roll in some areas, but expatriates have been fiddled on to——

Mr. Evans

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman allow the Minister to apply?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

It is usual, in an Adjournment debate when an hon. Member raises issues and asks questions, for the Minister to have an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Barnes

I am sorry to have taken so long, but it is a wide issue. The fewer interruptions I have—not your interruptions, Madam Deputy Speaker—the sooner I shall finish.

First, the poll tax and the electoral register should be separated. If the Government wish to know how to do so, they should read my Re-enfranchisement of the People Bill. Secondly, they should withdraw the Home Office circular on expatriate votes and produce a tougher measure. Thirdly, they should provide funds to the British Library so that it can do a proper job. Fourthly, they should set up an electoral fraud squad to ensure that the Tory party overseas is not involved in this massive manipulation. Fifthly, they should switch advertising expenditure from privatisation and other useless activities to electoral registration. Sixthly, they should set up an independent commission to consider the state of the franchise in this country. Above all, they should repeal the poll tax and the expatriate vote legislation and substitute democratic legislation. As a first step towards achieving that goal—this might be the only point on which the Minister has an opportunity to speak—I suggest that we should have a full debate in the House, rather than a debate at the dog end of the week, when few hon. Members are here.

2.59 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on securing this debate. He took up a large section of it. He has had a long interest in this subject. We have exchanged correspondence with him and I have taken down a mass of notes and points. I shall not be able to deal with them all. If the Opposition would like to use an Opposition Day to debate these matters, I should be delighted to respond more fully then.

The first concerns of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East were with the community charge.

Mr. Skinner

Deal with fraud first.

Mr. Lloyd

For once, I shall take the hon. Gentleman's advice. Absolutely no fraud is involved. The Representation of the People Act 1989 properly extended to British citizens living overseas who were last resident in the United Kingdom within a period of 20 years the right to vote in our elections, bringing us into line with most other modern democratic countries.

Mr. Skinner

They do not pay tax.

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman shouts, "They do not pay tax." Much of the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East was based on his belief—which was wrong—that the right to vote in elections was dependent on paying the community charge. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) objects to voters abroad who do not pay tax being able to vote, why on earth should the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East object to voters in this country being required to pay tax? They are not required to pay tax because they are voters; they are required to do so because they are citizens in receipt of services from their local authorities.

Community charge officers look at the electoral register to ensure that their registers are as fully up to date as possible. By exactly the same token, electoral registration officers can look—we encourage them to do se—at the community charge register, which is likely to be far more up to date, to see whether there are people who have not been registered for voting and they follow that up. That is the guidance that we give local authorities. The existence of the community charge and the community charge register will ensure in the long run that the electoral registers are more, not less, up to date. I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East will express some satisfaction at the advice that we give electoral registration officers to use community charge registers. His prime concern may be that people who are elegible to vote should be on the electoral register. Our advice will help to achieve that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and noted that the electorate had decreased. There are various reasons why the numbers on an electoral register may change. They include the techniques that the local electoral registration officer uses to build up the register. Many carry the names on one year's register on to the next. In Barnet, the electoral register officer has ceased that practice. One would expect that that would produce a substantial change, and it appears to have done so in that constituency. The names of those who were not entitled to be on the register were removed. As Barnet has more than an average number of elderly electors, there are likely to be on the register the names of people who have moved or died.

Mr. Harry Barnes

indicated dissent.

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. How can he explain the increase in the size of the electoral registers in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my constituency? According to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, the numbers should have decreased, but they have not.

The hon. Gentleman referred to advertising. Like him, we are concerned that those who are eligible to be on the register——

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes past Three o'clock.