Representation of the People Bill (Hansard, 9 March 1990)

§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is an unusual occurrence for me because, for the first time in six years, instead of being among my constituents in Birmingham, I have the honour of being here in the House of Commons on a Friday afternoon. It is even more of a shock to my system that I am proposing a Bill that has all-party support, including my own. Still more of a shock to my system is the fact that the Whips have asked me to speak to the Bill. That will not happen very often, any more than will my presence in the House on a Friday.
This simple Bill, which is proposed by me as a complex person, is also laudable and straightforward. Instead of those who are registered to vote having to apply for a vote whenever they move—whether it be for a local election, a by-election or a general election—they would be so registered. The Bill has no implications for public expenditure. The present arrangements have been criticised by all parties equally, by the electoral registration officers and—much more importantly—by the electors themselves because at the moment people cannot vote if they move except by using a cumbersome and unnecessary procedure.
Therefore, I urge the House to adopt this sensible Bill, which will reduce the potential work load on the registration officers, who do an excellent job on behalf of all Members of Parliament. It will also remove a bureaucratic burden from the electorate and—amazingly enough for a Bill of mine—its provisions have been widely welcomed and not criticised by anyone. I shall hang on to that.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
I wish to support the Bill, and shall speak only briefly because I do not wish to delay our proceedings, and other hon. Members also wish to speak. Any Bill that is entitled "Representation of the People Bill" and that affects the franchise also has an impact on the poll tax. The electoral register and the poll tax are interlinked and overlap. If someone lives in Lambeth and moves to Wandsworth, or vice versa, the Bill would allow that person to exercise his or her franchise rights in local government elections in the area from which they have moved. That is contrary to the provisions of the poll tax legislation. Although that poll tax legislation is based on principles with which I disagree, those principles state that accountablility should operate and that a citizen should pay his or her poll tax money in one specific area and vote within that area. Although I favour this Bill, it cuts across that specific principle.
The electoral register is compiled from the registrations that take place in October. It is then published in February and the rate payments or poll tax payments begin to be payable from the April of that year. Therefore, by February someone could have moved after registering in October. In that entire period, that person could then be entitled to vote in local government elections in another area. That is what the Bill proposes. Indeed, the Bill makes that easier for people and it is, of course, a right to which 1168 they should be entitled. Nevertheless, the provisions fall foul of the Government's silly principle about the nature of accountability. They say that under their notion of accountability one is entitled to vote by paying the tax. It should be the other way round. We should have the right to vote as residents living in an area and we should collectively decide our tax arrangements after that.
I could say much more about the inequities of the electoral representation provisions that are hit by this Bill, but other hon. Members wish to speak.

§ Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)
I shall be extremely brief. Opposition Members support the Second Reading of the Bill because of the anomalies that crept into the Representation of the People Act 1985. I refer especially to the provisions about absent voters, which affect people who have moved house. It is absurd that the 1985 Act did not simplify the absent voting procedure, especially bearing in mind that those automatic rights existed in the 1983 legislation.
The Opposition regard the Bill as attempting to correct the anomaly of the 1985 Act, the operation of which relies on the discretion of registration and returning officers in deciding whether a person can get to a polling station easily or whether they should have an absent vote.
We support the Bill for two two main reasons. First, we want not only to remove inconvenience for electors but to reduce bureaucracy for returning officers and those who conduct elections. There is nothing partisan about the Bill. The House is merely correcting an error of misjudgment, or perhaps a case of the House of Commons, not doing its job properly. We are attempting to enhance our democracy and the representation of the people of Britain. For that reason, we shall give the Bill as much support as possible to ensure that it receives a Second Reading.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten)
It is clear that the whole Chamber welcomes the measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). Selly Oak's loss this Friday is the House of Commons' gain and the gain of the electors whose lives will be made easier by the important measure that my hon. Friend has introduced. It has been a most remarkable day for me. I never thought that I would see the day when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) would publicly support my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. I am glad to have witnessed that remarkable occasion. I shall tell my children and grandchildren about it, but they will probably not believe the tale. I am glad to have been here when the Bill was introduced.
It is a rare pleasure for me as a Minister to have the opportunity to speak on a Bill that is entirely uncontroversial, and which has the full support of all of the major political parties. It is also unusual that its provisions have been welcomed by the various local authority associations representing those who deal with electoral matters. Electors who wish to exercise their democratic rights will be most suited by my hon. Friend's important Bill. Characteristically, his eagle eye has lit on something that the Government and the House had failed to spot—an error which we allowed to creep through in 1985. That is entirely typical of my hon. Friend.
1169 The problem that the Bill addresses is simple. It arises from the way in which the electoral register is prepared each year by reference to a single qualifying date. It is important that people understand the arrangements.
The register comes into force on 16 February following the qualifying date and remains in force for one year. The problem is that a person who has qualified for inclusion on the register by virtue of residence in one electoral area on 10 October, and who subsequently moves house to another electoral area, must wait until the subsequent register comes into force before he or she can vote at elections in the new district or constituency. It is therefore necessary for such people to apply for an absent vote—either a postal vote, or a vote by proxy if they want to continue to vote in their old electoral area.
The problem arises because under the Representation of the People Act 1985 any elector whose circumstance on polling day is or is likely to be such that he or she cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the allotted station is entitled to an absent vote at that election. At the time we thought that a person who had moved house and was therefore no longer close to the polling station allotted to him on the basis of his qualifying address, would be able conveniently to apply as and when necessary under that provision. But I am afraid to say that an error crept in, which my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak has spotted some five years later.
Unfortunately, under the existing legislation, the elector has to make an application on every occasion on which there is an election. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said, previously one application covered all elections during the remaining life of the register. Understandably, the new arrangement was unpopular with the electors. The difficulty was brought into sharper focus at the 1987 general election. We had a local government election and a general election close to each other. People who had applied for an absent vote at one election thought that that application was extant for both elections. Unfortunately, it was not. People did not have the chance to vote for the party of their choice on that occasion.
The Government, with the agreement of other political parties, looked at this issue and decided to seek all-party support and support from the local authority associations for this change. The Bill will overcome those problems because it provides for people who have moved house during the currency of the register, in future to be able to make a single application for an absent vote at all elections until the new register is in place. It also provides that an application made under the provisions of the Bill will apply not only to parliamentary and European parliamentary elections, but to local government elections. One application will cover local and national franchises, and international franchises within the European Parliament. That seems sensible and we believe that it will be extremely popular with the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said, applications made under the Bill will gain assent from an electoral registration officer provided that the applicant produces evidence of present residence. Applications made 1170 under the Bill will not need to be attested and perhaps I should bring that to the attention of the House. Such a requirement would be onerous to the applicant and burdensome to the electoral registration officer. Attestation would serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, it would be unnecessary, as it will be self-evident from an applicant's address whether or not he qualifies.
If an electoral registration officer has any doubts about the bona fides of an application, it can always be checked. It would be illogical to have abandoned attestation for most domestic absent voting applicants, but to retain if for this category of house movers. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it would add nothing to have an attestation requirement in the Bill. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have not sought to introduce any amendments to insert such a requirement. It is important that electoral registration officers and others know that that is why we have not sought to introduce an amendment on attestation. It would add nothing to the provisions of the 1985 Act.
The whole House should be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. If his Bill passes through the House—let us hope that it will pass swiftly—it will simplify the system and reduce the bureaucratic burden on the large number of electors who move house each year. For that reason it will be warmly welcomed by the House and the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend and want him to know that on this occasion the Government fully support him.

Division No, 111]	[2.14 pm
AYES
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Nicholls, Patrick
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Patnick, Irvine
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Patten, Rt Hon John
Bowis, John	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Bright, Graham	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Sims, Roger
Carrington, Matthew	Stanbrook, Ivor
Dykes, Hugh	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Favell, Tony	Wheeler, Sir John
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Widdecombe, Ann
Goodlad, Alastair	Wilkinson, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Hunter, Andrew	Tellers for the Ayes:
Janman, Tim	Mr. Kenneth Hind and Mr. Ian Taylor.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Maples, John
NOES
Ruddock, Joan	Tellers for the Noes:
Skinner, Dennis	Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. John Hughes.