NOTIONAL RESIDENCE: DECLARATIONS OF LOCAL CONNECTION (Hansard, 12 January 2000)

§ Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 23, at end insert and shall be accompanied by at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant is a living person and at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant has resided at the required address, provided that this requirement shall be satisfied by the production of a single item of documentary evidence only, if that item demonstrates both that the declarant is a living person and that he has resided at the required address. (3A) The items of documentary evidence required for the purposes of subsection (3) shall be any of

(a) a valid United Kingdom passport;

(b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;

(c) a printed statement from a bank or building society authorised to do business in the United Kingdom and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration;

(d) a copy of any of the foregoing certified by a commissioner for oaths;

(e) a letter from an officer of a registered charity active within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address;

(f) a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address,

344 or such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3). (3B) If a person makes a declaration of local connection supported by items of documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3A) and one or more items of that documentary evidence are false, he is guilty of an offence. (3C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3B) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale. (3D) The declaration of any person convicted of an offence under subsection (3B) of this section shall be rendered void upon his conviction.".

§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 113, in page 8, line 23, at end insert and shall be accompanied by at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant is a living person and at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant has resided at the required address, provided that this requirement shall be satisfied by the production of a single item of documentary evidence only, if that item demonstrates both that the declarant is a living person and that he has resided at the required address. (3A) The items of documentary evidence required for the purposes of subsection (3) shall be any of—

(a) a valid United Kingdom passport;

(b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;

(c) a current passport issued by the Government of a member state of the European Community;

(d) a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by a United Kingdom Government department;

(e) a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency or the Great Britain equivalent;

(f) a card made of plastic issued by the Department of Health and Social Security with a name and national insurance number embossed on it;

(g).in the case of a woman married within two years prior to polling day, a certified copy of extract of any entry of marriage issued by the Register General in the United Kingdom;

(h) an United Kingdom identity card bearing a recent photograph of the elector;

(i) a printed statement from a bank or building society authorised to do business in the United Kingdom and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of declaration;

(j) a copy of any of the foregoing certified by a commissioner for oaths;

(k) a letter from an officer of a registered charity active within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address;

(l) a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address, or such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3).

(3B) If a person makes a declaration of local connection supported by items of documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3A) and one or more items of that documentary evidence are false, he is guilty of an offence. 345 (3C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3B) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale. (3D) The declaration of any person convicted of an offence under subsection (3B) of this section shall be rendered void upon his conviction.".

§ Mr. Evans
I hope that the consensus that we witnessed on clauses 4 and 5 will also be evidenced on clause 6.
One of the more depressing aspects of the Bill is the admission that there is in our society a small group of people who for various reasons are denied what most of us would regard as a basic necessity of life in a civilised society: a roof over their heads. I appreciate the fact that the term "homeless" is divided between rough sleepers and those who are between homes, perhaps in temporary hostel accommodation or living with relatives while awaiting rehousing, but I am concerned with those in the first category.
The Bill brings the situation into the 21st century and admits the fact that we have a group of people in our society who are genuinely homeless. The position varies in different parts of the country. The Minister will know of the problems in his constituency, as I know of those in mine. I have the good fortune to represent a rural constituency, and when I asked one of the local government officers there today what impact she thought the Bill would have when it was enacted, she said that she thought it would have none whatever, because nobody in Ribble Valley was sleeping rough and therefore unable to be on the register.
I spoke to the returning officer in Ceredigion today and he, too, said that there was very little problem there, but we know that in urban areas there are enormous problems. Many of us walk up Victoria street at night on the way home. It is one of the most depressing journeys that we can make. The problem has existed for many years, so I will not try to apportion blame. In the shop doorways there are people sleeping rough, with blankets over them, in a sleeping bag or, even more depressingly, with nothing more than a cardboard box.
Near McDonald's and the Army and Navy store in Victoria street, there are at least 20 individuals sleeping rough—I walk past them every evening on the way back to my flat. Shelter estimates that between 1,500 and 2,000 people sleep rough, but no one can say with certainty how many do so. It is a dreadful shame that those people are denied the opportunity to vote that is given to everyone else. They suffer the indignity of living how they do and they should not suffer the further indignity of not being allowed to participate in the democratic process. Indeed, some people may argue that the homeless should have more of a say in what happens because of the conditions in which they live.
We approach this issue with a determination equal to that of the Government. People should not be excluded from voting, but we wish to ensure that that is achieved as sensibly as possible. Our concerns were raised by Paul Gribble, who was the Conservative nominee on the working group, which said of the definition of locality: We recognise that this could be thought to open the system to abuse if a candidate or political party sought to use such declarations to falsely register supporters in the electoral area immediately before an election. 346 In a letter to the shadow Home Secretary dated 20 September 1999, the Home Secretary said about the possibility of fraud: I think that it is important to recognise that the declaration of locality route would be a last resort. The homeless would be encouraged to register wherever possible in respect of an address with which they could establish a link, such as a hostel or day centre which they used regularly. He added I do not believe that Mr. Gribble's fears are well grounded; but I would of course be happy to discuss this point further to see whether we could modify the proposal in some way so as to meet your party's concerns. That is what we are trying to do this evening and in that spirit we have tabled amendment No. 13, which is similar to amendment No. 113.
Amendment No. 13 would require some documentary evidence of a person's link to a locality, such as a valid passport or UK driving licence. We appreciate that production of such items may not always be possible so we have also included other items, such as: a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address". We have made six suggestions and I am sure that the Minister and his officials have considered other forms of documentary proof that would not block people's right to vote but would also ensure that the right is not abused.
We seek to ensure that some proof is given that a person is eligible to be registered in a particular area. The amendment would also make it an offence to make a false declaration, and of course any such declaration would be null and void. It is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Government will consider our proposals so that we can extend the franchise without opening up any opportunities for fraud in the registration procedure.

§ Mr. William Ross
Amendment No. 13 attracted my attention when I read the list of amendments and the House will see that amendment No. 113 is a repeat, except that it adds a few more documents. The documents that I have added to the list are those that are required in Northern Ireland before a ballot paper is issued. I would have thought that that would be a good starting point for considering the need to require some sort of documentary evidence of identity or association with an area.
The Minister will also be aware that the Conservatives have tabled amendments to clause 10. They concern voting taking place on more than one day and would require similar forms of identification. The Conservatives are following through on the issue of identification, which has been necessary in Northern Ireland for many years.
I tabled amendment No. 113 to try to ensure that whatever documentation is needed in London is also needed in Londonderry, Edinburgh, Belfast or wherever. We should have a common means of identification throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will consider the issue and come up with a common set of documents encompassing those already required in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, the legislation in Northern Ireland talks about full and provisional driving licences, but the term "valid" covers the point.
I have also included in the amendment the possibility of using a United Kingdom identity card bearing a recent photograph of the elector. I am well aware of all the 347 arguments, because I have listened to them for the past 25 years in this House, about the possible intrusion into the privacy of individuals that identity cards would cause. However, I do not share those concerns. So much information is held on computers in every bank, building society and sales point in the country that no one should be worried about identity cards. Such a document would give great protection against fraud, including electoral fraud, and the Minister will be aware from his experience in Northern Ireland of our concerns on that issue. I do not believe that most people would have a problem with an identity card, and the warnings about invasion of privacy are nonsense and should not be given much weight.
I speak in support of amendment No. 113 in the same spirit as the official Opposition moved amendment No. 13. I wish to ensure that common identification is required throughout the UK and to make a further plea for the Government to reconsider the issue of having a proper identity card that could be used for this and other purposes.

§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)
Clause 6 is interesting, as are the amendments, and there are some basic merits to both. I welcome the intention to extend the franchise to people who have been left out, and I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that that is a timely amendment of our constitutional arrangements.
I admire the care that the parliamentary draftsmen and Ministers have put into the drafting of the clause, even to the extent of enfranchising homeless peers. I have no idea whether they comprise a growing sector of the community, although recent events may have increased their numbers.
8 pm
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley is right to say that there is a potential problem of personation. We should all be worried about whether personation is encouraged by any provision in the Bill. However, I do not think that the remedy suggested by the hon. Gentleman is right. His proposed list of qualifying documentary evidence would sit poorly with the circumstances faced by many homeless people. Few of them will have a driving licence, or carry with them a UK passport; even fewer will have a bank account or the regular statements that such an account produces. There is a sense of unreality about some of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.
Some elements of the proposed documentary evidence, such as accreditation from a hostel, appear more relevant to homeless people. However, many homeless people never see the inside of a hostel. In the metropolis such places are oversubscribed, and they do not exist in rural areas, so a person could not gain the necessary accreditation within the qualifying period.

§ Mr. Evans
I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says, which is why we have tried to broaden the documentation that might be applicable. Indeed, the amendment refers to such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3). 348 Local police officers and charity workers often find people sleeping rough. Under that provision, they would be able to provide a note stating that they know that a person sleeps in a certain place on a regular basis. The effect of the amendment could be quite broad.

§ Mr. Heath
That intervention helps the discussion, as it is now clear that there is no secret agenda to limit the improvements to the franchise that the clause is trying to introduce.
In addition, I applaud the approach adopted by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who has also proposed a widening of the documentary evidence that could be deemed acceptable. However, he identified the other difficulty that I have with the amendment. The same level of documentary evidence required to avoid personation should also be required of every elector on the register. There is no obvious reason why people qualified to vote through declarations of local connection should face a more onerous test to prove that they are who they purport to be than any other electors in the United Kingdom. Different tests apply in Northern Ireland, so the same difficulties do not arise there.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Identification is important. The tragedy is that presiding officers consider that a document is not valid if it is even one day past its expiry date. In Northern Ireland, driving licences contain a picture of the person to whom it applies. We must be careful that we do not prevent people from voting by the use of over-precise legal language. Rather than yielding to the arguments of civil libertarians, would it not be better to adopt a common identity document, with a picture, for everyone?

§ Mr. Heath
The hon. Gentleman has assisted the debate. The difficulty that he has described may apply when we attempt to identify what is appropriate documentary evidence. However, my point is that the same considerations should apply to all voters, regardless of how they are registered.
The situation in this country at present is extraordinary. A person can roll up to a polling station and claim to be someone on the register, but no check is made to confirm that person's identity.

§ Mr. Grieve
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but are we not concentrating too much on how people get registered? One of the problems with personation is that people turn up at polling stations and impersonate others who have been registered previously. The anxiety about those who are of a peripatetic disposition derives not from the fear that they will impersonate other people when they register, but that they will take advantage of other people's absence from an area to impersonate them and take advantage of those people's votes at an election.

§ Mr. Heath
I understand that concern, but it applies to every registered elector. That is precisely the point that I am making.
The hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for East Londonderry have identified a real problem. I am not convinced that their proposed solutions are the right way to deal with that problem. In fact, I am rather convinced 349 that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is not the right answer, as it will discourage homeless people from registering.
However, the Government must consider the matter carefully. At the very least, when and if the Bill is enacted, they must review the practical effects of the new arrangements over their first few years in place. If there is any evidence that the opportunities for personation have been extended and that people are abusing the system, the question of appropriate documentation will have to be examined again. That documentation must be sufficient to identify voters when they register and when they vote. I do not think that we have got there yet, but I look forward to the Minister's response.

§ The Chairman
I call Mr. Michael Fabricant.

§ Mr. Fabricant
Thank you, Mr. Haselhurst.

§ The Chairman
Order. If the hon. Gentleman continues to address me in that way, I shall begin to think that he knows something that I do not.

§ Mr. Fabricant
I argued, Sir Alan, at some length against the proposal of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to reduce the franchise, so it would be churlish of me to argue against this clause, which would extend it to homeless people. However, the possible difficulties of the provision have already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The potential for personation and multiple voting is very great, and I welcome what the hon. Member for Somerset and Frome—

§ Mr. David Heath
Somerton.

§ Mr. Fabricant
I am not doing very well, Sir Alan, with proper names or constituencies: perhaps I should just sit down. However, I shall not ask hon. Members for a judgment on that, as I suspect that I know what the answer might be.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is absolutely right to say that the political effects of extending the franchise to the homeless would have to be monitored—there are difficulties in identifying people who turn up to vote and ensuring either that they are not voting in multiple locations or that other people are not voting for them in other parts of the country simultaneously.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
A homeless tramp registered to vote in the constituencies of, for example, St. Helens, South, St. Helens, North and Makerfield would have to rush around on polling day to vote for all the Labour candidates in those areas. On his income, how could he afford to do it? That is a rather farcical example, but is not the reality that the homeless do not register or vote because they are homeless?

§ Mr. Fabricant
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about the practicality of voting. I shall give him an example of what might happen in practice. 350 Many homeless people have moved to the area of Brighton and Hove in recent years, and many residents of that area feel that their town has been taken advantage of. It is very easy to walk through three constituencies— Hove, Brighton, Pavilion and Brighton, Kemptown—in 15 minutes. It is possible for someone to be able to vote in three constituencies—it does not require money to do so. I emphasise that I am not suggesting that people will do this, but it is possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield gave an example of someone who did not have voting rights who could pick up a slip of paper, walk into a constituency and vote. That would be personation.
We agree with the clause in general, but it will be important to monitor its practical effects.

§ Mr. Bermingham
I am thinking back over my practical experience, and declaring an interest as a practising lawyer. I can remember only one case of double voting and repeat voting in the past 30-odd years. I have asked many of my colleagues if they can remember any, and they cannot. Repeat voting does not seem to be an English habit.

§ Mr. Fabricant
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but it surprises me, given that he is a very experienced lawyer. He will be aware of the difference between a crime being detected and a crime being committed. Multiple voting and personation were discussed when we debated this issue last year, and we just do not know how much it happens. I suspect that it is not material; I suspect that Governments have not fallen as a result of such practices. But for heaven's sake, when we introduce legislation, we try to ensure that crimes are not committed.
I welcome an extension of the franchise, but we must be sure that it will not be abused. Just because the hon. Gentleman cannot remember such a crime being committed, it does not mean that it does not happen. It can be argued that the influx into hostels of people who have the franchise has changed local election voting patterns slightly. We cannot be so sure that these practices might not occur. I am simply asking that the legislation is good legislation and that it is regularly reviewed. Will the Minister give an assurance that the practical effects of the legislation be monitored and reported to Parliament from time to time, as is applicable, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome requested?
I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on identity cards. Although it would not be appropriate to discuss the benefits or otherwise of identity cards now, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the majority of people in the country would not object to the issue of identity cards. The only objection, perhaps, should be to the compulsory carrying of identity cards at all times. All Members of Parliament have identity cards, but if we carried out a straw poll in the Chamber tonight on how many of us were carrying them, I suspect that the result would not be 100 per cent.
With those reservations, I support not only the amendment but the clause.

§ Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster)
I oppose the amendment. I understand what Conservative Members have been saying, but their proposals would upset the balance.
351 Clause 6 is to be welcomed; it is an innovation, and will extend the franchise. However, the amendments would create hurdles that those making a declaration would find difficult to overcome. Homeless people wishing to take advantage of the extension might not have any of the documents listed in the amendment in their possession. If I could be convinced, however, that using either information technology or some other form of identification would be simple and would not prevent those wishing to make a declaration from doing so, I might be more in favour of the amendments. Otherwise, I urge the Committee not to accept them.

§ Mr. Grieve
I have a number of brief points to make. First, I welcome the thrust of the Bill. It is very desirable that the franchise should be extended to all those who are entitled to it and that they should be able to avail themselves of it easily. It is clear, therefore, that homeless people are a category that should be addressed.
As was said earlier, there is anxiety about the growth of personation at elections. I spent a lot of time in an inner-city constituency, where that anxiety centred on the tendency to encourage those leading a more transient existence, particularly in hostels, to register and the problem of what happened to the polling cards on polling day when those people had moved to other addresses. Personation can in general be detected only if the person being impersonated turns up to vote. If they do not, there is an opportunity under the existing identification rules for that person to be impersonated and for someone else to exercise, quite wrongfully, their right to vote.
My anxiety about the extension of registration rights is not about the peripatetic tramp. I have every confidence that if he decides to be registered, he will exercise his right to vote properly if he chooses to do so. I am concerned that someone, taking advantage of the fact that such a person is unlikely to exercise his right to vote, will impersonate him.

§ Mr. Bermingham
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's experience is the same as mine in that, by and large, year in, year out, at both local and national elections, polling stations are manned by the same polling clerks, who get to know the voters. I know all the clerks in my area, and they get to know the electors. Polling clerks are our best defence against the wandering multiple voter. That is why I said earlier that if anyone had evidence of such a practice, would they please give it to me.

§ Mr. Grieve
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about that. In an urban environment, such as the one in which I was a councillor, I do not think that polling station staff are in a position to carry out that kind of detective work.
So how do we address this problem? I accept that this may not be the best place to do it. We need to consider the problem in the round. It might also be unfortunate to do it precisely when we are concentrating on trying to encourage certain categories of people to register and to vote. However, the point requires attention.
I have never been in favour of identity cards, so I accept that there is a catch-22 surrounding my argument in deciding how to deal with this thorny problem.
352 I cannot say for certain whether the problem is growing.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I support the proposition of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) against that of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). In more than 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I know of various occasions in my constituency when people have turned up to vote to find that someone has voted in their place. I have a 25 per cent. turnover of electors a year, and the electoral staff, who are very competent, do not even begin to think that they can monitor electors, even if they work in the same polling station from one year to the next, which is rare. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it is a question of finding a way to deal with the problem.

§ Mr. Grieve
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was drawing to a close, but shall give way once more.

§ Mr. William Ross
Two points have been raised. First, it is not the role of electoral staff to identify electors. That role has always been taken in Northern Ireland by party representatives who can challenge those who try to personate. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is dealing with an amateurish personation. It is a very different ball game in West Belfast.

§ Mr. Grieve
I do not feel qualified to comment on circumstances in Northern Ireland, although I know from anecdotal evidence and otherwise that there appears to have been a particular problem of personation there. That is why separate rules have been devised. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The amendment has been tabled in good faith to ensure that the issue is discussed. The point will not go away, and I believe that we shall have to reconsider it later.

§ Mr. George Howarth
I entirely accept that the Opposition's motive in tabling the amendment is honourable and reasonable. They are trying to achieve the laudable objective of preventing electoral fraud. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out that I chaired the working party that considered the proposals when I was a Home Office Minister. It was one of our rules that every proposal should be treated with care so that no suggestion that we made would compromise the integrity of the ballot in any way. Although there are problems in some parts of the United Kingdom, to which I shall refer later, our electoral system is, if not entirely free of fraud, well respected, and it has a lot of integrity.

§ Mr. Fabricant
Following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)— no longer in his place—how can the Minister be sure that there is not much fraud? What research does the Home Office do? If fraud had been committed by personation and had not been detected, surely the Home Office would not know of it.

§ Mr. Howarth
I do not want to be drawn into examples arising from the general election or any other recent election. The Home Office can conduct a review after every general election. If there is any evidence, it is generally, for obvious reasons, political parties that uncover it before passing it on to the Home Office. I do not suggest that the system is wholly free of fraud. 353 There have been cases, and some, I think, are under investigation by the police in certain parts of the country at present. However, a pattern to fraud would tend to be noticed by presiding officers or the political parties. In one or two recent cases, a political party has complained about the activities of another, throwing some light on what has been happening. We cannot be absolutely certain that there is no fraud, and we must be vigilant. We must consider all proposals, but must also examine whether they would compromise the integrity of the ballot.
It is a fundamental principle that everyone has an equal right to vote. Since the adoption of universal suffrage, everyone, irrespective of wealth or status, has been concerned to know that that principle is being upheld. I fear that the amendment might send the wrong message to a section of the community. I know that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) does not want that to happen. If we agree that the right to vote applies to everyone, we must also agree that everyone must have the same right to register. We cannot have one without the other. We must be careful, therefore, before erecting any obstacle that would affect one section of the electorate and not another.
That, inadvertently, is what the amendment would do. Registration would become harder for those who wish to register by means of a local connection than it would be for other electors. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who tried to take a balanced view, referred to that danger in his short speech. It would be inappropriate to ask homeless people or mental patients to produce bank statements or passports. Meanwhile, a head of a household who registers in the normal way may, when filling in the annual form, add a new name that was not on the form in the previous year. The registration officer would accept that without any requirement for documentary evidence establishing that the new person was alive and resident at the address in question. It would be taken on trust.

§ Mr. William Ross
Am I mistaken, or is it the case in Great Britain and Northern Ireland that any elector can challenge a name on the electoral register?

§ Mr. Howarth
The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. Normally, a head of household fills in a form. There is no reason why the same rule should not apply to those who register by means of a declaration of local connection. Anyone who doubts the validity of a person registered in that way will be able to object to registration, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. One of the Bill's purposes, however, is to make it easier for people to register, particularly those people disadvantaged by existing rules. To impose an additional and difficult burden that other electors would not have to face would run totally counter to that principle.

§ Mr. Evans
Will the Minister concede that someone who knowingly filled in a registration form incorrectly and falsely would be committing an offence and could be fined?

§ Mr. Howarth
As I understand it, that is the case.

§ Mr. Ross
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Howarth
I was about to deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I am more than happy to accept his intervention.

§ Mr. Ross
The measure introduces the principle of rolling registration, thus the time scale before an election might make it impossible for someone to object to a name on the register. Could the Minister deal with that point?

§ Mr. Howarth
Certainly. The register would be more up to date and people would have a longer time in which to register, so the difficulty described by the hon. Gentleman could arise. However, we have to judge whether inserting an obstacle for certain groups is justified by giving other groups longer in which to object to a particular entry. We should all want to be convinced that the problem was important enough to be catered for in that way before we took that course.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
Like me and other Members, the Minister probably receives a regular update of the electoral register. I receive one every month from my electoral services department. That gives one a means of checking and assimilating information. What is the plan for providing information about the rolling register to parties, councillors and Members of Parliament? Without such a plan, throughout the country, the problem of spotting someone who is registered at two addresses will grow rather than diminish.

§ Mr. Howarth
I must be honest. The hon. Gentleman and other Members will be aware that I am on a no fee loan to the Home Office for the purposes of the Bill. That came about because I chaired the working party, although no one felt it necessary to explain to me why my presence was required. I am thus not wholly up to date with developments in the Home Office. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman needs to be dealt with and I shall ensure that the appropriate Minister responds to him.
The list of documents in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry is slightly wider than those listed in amendment No. 13, for reasons that the Committee may understand. However, the amendment would have an impact on homeless people. Furthermore, it would place on such people a burden that would not apply to other voters who would not have to satisfy those conditions. In that sense, it would be unfair to homeless people.
As the hon. Gentleman's set of concerns is more particular to Northern Ireland than it is common in Great Britain, it might be helpful if, in his capacity as a Member of Parliament for a Northern Ireland constituency and in my capacity as a Northern Ireland Office Minister, we were to hold further discussions on the matter. If necessary, I shall make representations to the Home Office subsequently. I hope that he will accept my invitation to hold those discussions.
However, I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance. Mr. Pat Bradley, who will be known to him and is well respected as the electoral officer for Northern Ireland, was a member of the working party. Mr. Bradley's views were listened to with great attention, and when there were concerns about the situation in Northern Ireland, we listened even more carefully. 355 We benefited from his experience, which we took very seriously indeed. I shall, of course, listen to the hon. Gentleman's concerns and make any representations that I consider to be necessary.
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in the context of clause 6 and his amendment, I do not enter into a debate on identity cards. Vexed issues arise from that matter, and the Government have taken the view that there are no plans on it at present. I cannot rule that out for ever, but I shall not promote a debate on that vexatious subject this evening. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. His experience in Northern Ireland means that he has special reasons for the position that he takes on the matter.
The hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) took a reasonable approach— and I do not exclude the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) from that statement. Indeed, during his contribution, I was pondering the fact that if anyone tried to impersonate him at the ballot box, they would quickly be rumbled. That would certainly not be a problem for him.
However, his hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley and for Beaconsfield suggested that their enthusiasm for the amendment was not such that they would necessarily push it to a vote. I believe that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was looking for an assurance that the issues raised during the debate would be considered further. He is well aware that, on these issues, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary listens very carefully to the views of the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I will ensure that the issues that have been raised in the debate are drawn to his attention, and I am certain that he will give them proper consideration. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would be possible to—

§ Mr. Fabricant
rose—

§ Mr. Howarth
The hon. Member for Lichfield seeks to intervene.

§ Mr. Fabricant
I am glad that the Minister recognised me. Will he give the assurance, asked for by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and re-emphasised by myself, that the Government will regularly review the effectiveness of the clause to ensure that there is no increase in personation or multiple voting?

§ Mr. Howarth
Yes. I believe that I said earlier that the Home Office regularly reviews elections. It receives representations from political parties and elsewhere, and it will, as a matter of course, keep the effect of the clause and other parts of the Bill under review.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
rose—

§ Mr. Howarth
I give way for the last time.

§ Mr. Hughes
I appreciate that the Minister has the Committee's support. Will he add to the list of requests the question—to which there must be an answer—whether there is any spot-check process? If people knew that the 356 form, as submitted, might be subject to a check, the form might be submitted more honestly. Spot checks are carried out in the case of almost everything else in life, and would not be inappropriate in this case.

§ Mr. Howarth
As the hon. Gentleman knows, returning officers have a wide discretion. I am sure that, where there are grounds for suspicion, they will devise whatever checks are necessary. I am sure that any emerging pattern would be checked. However, obviously, the matter needs, and will continue to receive, attention.
I hope that, on the basis of the assurances that have been given, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel it appropriate to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Evans
The debate has been useful.
I have said how depressing it is to walk along Victoria street at night and see the rough sleepers, especially given the weather this winter. We talk about the flu epidemic. It must be acutely depressing to sleep in a shop doorway in London in the present conditions—a dreadful existence.
I heard what the Prime Minister said before Christmas about continuing the excellent work that was started under the Conservative Government with the rough sleepers initiative; I support that wholly and fully. I am not saying that, even if we could double the amount of money spent, no one would sleep rough, but I believe that we must do more to help those who are sleeping rough. If that entails a multi-agency approach—as I believe that it does—that would be welcomed by every Member of the House.

§ Mr. Fabricant
My hon. Friend did not want to make a party political point. I disagree with him. Is he aware that Shelter says not only that 2,000 people are sleeping rough in central London, but that, sadly, that figure is now increasing?

§ Mr. Evans
I shall not make a party political point because I want to emphasise what we are trying to do to help rough sleepers. I am not saying that, even if the amount spent were doubled, there would not still be a problem, especially in London.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke to amendment No. 113. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) also spoke.
The hon. Member for Upminster said that he needed to be convinced that we were not placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of homeless people who wanted to register to vote. I hope that the addition of the two lines below paragraph (f) of amendment No. 13, which allow other documentation to be accepted as sufficient evidence, will give him and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome confidence that we are not seeking to set up obstacles that would obstruct people from registering. That is not what the Bill or the amendment are about. We are trying to prevent personation and fraud.
We accept that personation goes on at election times even though we do not know the extent to which it occurs. If we give people the opportunity to register more than once, those that personate may try to do so. We want to close a loophole before it comes into being. We want to 357 make it easier for people to vote, but we do not want to make it easier for them to register fraudulently so that they can vote more than once.
Even if this provision allows 1,500 to 2,000 people to register, I do not know what percentage of them would use their ability to make a declaration of locality. It is not sufficient just to have that option available. We must ensure that people are able to use it. That means that social services, the Churches, which do a lot of good work, those who run soup kitchens and others who talk on a nightly basis with the homeless could become involved in the education process to encourage people to register and to tell them where to vote. Shelter and several other charities could also be used. Legislating so that the homeless are able to vote does not necessarily mean that one extra person will turn up at a local authority to register. People must encourage and educate them about what we are doing.
The charities, the police and the vicars and priests who regularly talk to homeless people would be able to provide the documentary evidence that someone sleeps in a part of London, be that outside McDonald's or round the back of the Army and Navy. For the first time, the Bill will allow people to use such places as an address if it is the only address that they have.
I hope that the amendment will reassure the Minister that we are not introducing any obstacles into the Bill. He talked about the integrity of the ballot box being important and that is right. The dignity of the homeless in being able to vote is also important. What we are trying to do would enable us to bring both aims together and to enfranchise those people who are currently unable to vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Evans
I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 38, at end insert— provided that, in determining this, no account shall be taken of time which he spends in any place in the course of employment or of the provision of services for pecuniary reward". The amendment would ensure that where an elector is registered is based on where that person lives as opposed to where that person works. I do not believe that the Government intend the Bill to allow people to try to register where they work instead of where they live, but that point is not made clear. The amendment would clarify any confusion.
We tabled the amendment because some people work in different parts of the country at different times of the year. For example, transient and holiday workers regularly go fruit picking or hop picking for a short period of the year, but that could be just before a general election takes place. The Minister must say whether it is the Bill's intention that those who go fruit picking in different parts of the country could use the Bill so that they do not need to provide the address at which they live, but the address at which they stay for two or three months. The amendment would stop that happening.
There are many seasonal workers in the north-west, which is where my constituency is. Many people work seasonally in the tourist industry in Ribble Valley. Blackpool is not too far away. The Minister will have visited it for the Labour party conference. Speaking as a 358 north-west Member of Parliament, I hope that it will not be too long before the Labour party returns to Blackpool. He will know from visiting Blackpool and other resorts that many people work seasonally in what passes for summer in our country, so they work in a resort for only a short period.

§ Mr. Bermingham
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he, like me, falls into that trap? No doubt he has a home in his constituency; he may have a home in another part of the country, and he will have a home in London. Which one should he register at and vote from? Does he register for local government purposes in all three places, as one can, and vote occasionally or by postal vote, and choose one place to vote in general elections? That needs to be clarified.

§ Mr. Evans
Obviously, Members of Parliament come into that category. Students do too, because their parents may include them on the registration form at home, while the students may register themselves at university. Someone in a hall of residence may register all the students there.
To give another example, when I was a student I lived in Swansea but I came to London for short periods to work for Manpower, an agency. I could have considered that the constituency in London was more marginal and decided to register there.
My point is that the Bill will make it easier to register to vote. In the main, Members of Parliament have a home here and in their constituency, but seasonal workers may well live in a hostel or hotel accommodation. I simply lived with my brother in London when I worked here. Surely it is not the Bill's intention that people working in London for a few days a week over a short period should be able to register at home and in London. The Bill will make that easier. Is that what the Minister wants? I want him to clarify the position.
We have to recognise that we have a changing work force who are far more mobile. People can work all over the country for short periods. They seek work wherever they can find it. I hope that the Minister will consider our amendment carefully. There is nothing malicious in it. We are sincere about it, but we hope that he can assure us that there is no intention that people should be able to pick and choose where they vote and take advantage of the opportunity to register in a marginal constituency rather than where they live most of the time.

§ Mr. Bermingham
I shall be brief because my voice is not at its best tonight. I rather liked amendment No. 14, which was tabled by the Opposition, and I am sad that it was not called because it would have tidied up an anomaly in the current voting system.
I have a flat in London and I can register to vote there, and I have a home in Birmingham and I can register there, but the returning officer in London would not know that I was registered in Birmingham. I can register in my constituency. Where do I vote in an election? Do I vote for myself in my constituency or do I use my postal vote in—

§ The Chairman
Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him, but for his clarification 359 and that of other hon. Members, I point out that amendment No. 14 was selected and debated in a group headed by amendment No. 30 on 15 December.

§ Mr. Bermingham
I accept that. I was aware that the amendment had been debated, but I rather liked it. As always I hope that I pick my words with great care and accuracy. If my memory serves me correctly, the amendment was not put to the vote on 15 December.
Now that I finally have the Minister's ear, I emphasise that were he, in thinking of the overall breadth of the Bill, to think back to 15 December—I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for aiding me in reminding him—he would see the wisdom of amendment No. 14 when coupled with amendment No. 15. Effectively, they would require people to state on their annual return at the beginning of October where else they had registered. Returning officers would then know whether people had more than one eligible address, and at an election it would be simple to check—to return to the previous debate—whether there had been multiple voting.
It is a simple little matter. Even if amendment No. 15 is not pressed to a vote, I hope that the Minister will take on board its spirit because it tidies up a loophole—provided that it is coupled with amendment No. 14, which was debated on 15 December. I am grateful for your assistance, Sir Alan, which I hope has helped the force of my case. Sometimes one gets an opportunity to tidy up a little, if one marries two things together. It is useful democracy, is it not?

§ Mr. Fabricant
I rise briefly to support amendment No.15—not to talk about the role of Members of Parliament and where they may or may not live, but to say that, as the amendment is particularly concerned that there should be no determination of the amount of time that someone might spend in any place in the course of employment or of the provision of services for pecuniary rewards", it has a special relevance to the internet age in which we live.
More and more people find that they can work from several different locations—not only in their offices but from their homes, in hotel rooms or abroad—while maintaining direct contact with their companies by placing and fulfilling orders and completing reports through the internet. The amendment is particularly useful, recognising the changes in work patterns. The Government would be ill advised to ignore it.
We have already had some debate on whether one ought to be at a place of residence on the evening of 10 October to determine one's entitlement to vote. The amendment would ensure that people not resident at that time, but working elsewhere, wherever that might be, were still able to vote in a particular area.
The Government should take heed of the amendment; they would be unwise to ignore it. If they did so, they would be the party not of the 21st century but of the 20th century—although, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said much earlier, we are technically still in the 20th century. On that confusing note, I rest my case.

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien
I, too, was confused—but about whether the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome 360 (Mr. Heath) was about to introduce his views into the debate. As it appears he is not, and since he has not been listening for the past few minutes, perhaps we may proceed.
I believe that all hon. Members agree that homeless people have the same basic rights as us to register as electors and to vote. The fact that they are homeless does not mean that they should be excluded from the democratic process. The only point at issue is how we can make it as easy and proper as possible for homeless people to register, bearing in mind their particular circumstances, while, at the same time, doing nothing to make it easier to register fraudulently.
The solution that we have come up with is the declaration of local connection. The new section 7B of the Representation of the People Act 1983 will allow a homeless person to register in respect of a relevant address. That address will be a place where he commonly spends a substantial part of his time. We think that that is the right approach. A homeless person will be required to indicate where he spends much of his time, which is likely to be the place with which he has the closest connection. It may, for example, be a hostel or even a shop doorway where he sleeps. It may equally be the place where he spends the bulk of his waking hours. That could be a day centre for the homeless, but it could be a place where he is employed or where he routinely has a patch where he sells The Big Issue, for example. If such a place is the place with which the person concerned feels that he has the closest connection, we should not prevent it from being used for registration purposes, which is the purpose behind the amendment.
We are not talking about a place where a person goes to pick fruit or hops, or for his holidays. He or she needs to spend a substantial amount of time in the place. Seasonal workers are not generally considered to be homeless and they must register at their residence. The amendment applies only to the homeless.
I remind the Committee of the rules governing qualification for election as a local councillor. To be elected to a local authority, a person must live in or own property in the authority area, or must work there. The principle that one can establish a link with an area through employment is already well established and there is no reason why it should not apply to the homeless.

§ Mr. Fabricant
If someone is working for a company but is rarely based at the company—let us say that he is working for the company by using an internet link, which is frequently the case—would that qualify that person to stand for election to the local council in that area or, in the instance of the Bill, would it qualify him to have voting rights in that area?

§ Mr. O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman asks me to interpret as a court or a returning officer the words that appear in the Bill. That interpretation is best left to a returning officer or to the court rather than to a Minister. Let me ensure that I duck the question obviously and definitely.
Electoral registration has been largely based on residence. In many ways, that is the best principle. It cannot apply in exactly the same form to the homeless, but by allowing them to register in respect of the place with which they have a close connection we are making the minimum necessary modification to the underlying 361 principle. If that place happens to be one where the homeless person is employed or provides a service for reward, so be it. We should not force homeless persons to register in respect of some other place with which they have a less well-defined connection, or where they spend less of their time.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made some important points about multiple registration. To some extent, his comments have been dealt with in previous debates. However, I listened with great interest to his arguments and I shall continue to bear them in mind as we progress with the Bill.
I hope that in the light of my response the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will be able to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Evans
I am grateful for the contributions of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can at least support the thrust of the amendment.
I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response. I know that we are talking about the homeless, and he may feel that there will be no abuse. We wanted him to say that the Bill was never intended to be used in a way that would lead to abuse. Our purpose was to close any loopholes that might possibly open up.

§ Mr. O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman can accept that the Bill was never intended to be used in a way that would lead to abuse. In the nature of things, we would not intend that to be the case.

§ Mr. Evans
I am sure that that was never the intention, but if we can improve the Bill—which is what Committee stages are all about—we should take every opportunity to do so, and that is what our amendment seeks. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the amendment when he reflects on the debate, particularly the contribution from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. We should make it as easy as possible for the homeless to register to vote while ensuring that the system is not open to abuse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. William Ross
I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 8, line 43, at end insert— and the declarant's previous address". This part of the clause deals with the situation in Northern Ireland, and it is for that reason that I have tabled this short amendment. I tabled another amendment which seems not to have been selected, but perhaps, like the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I have been caught flat-footed; it may have been discussed before the House rose for the Christmas recess.
This is a probing amendment to find out what efforts the Government are making to prevent fraud. Northern Ireland has a land frontier, and there is the danger of people floating across the frontier for electoral purposes into constituencies and local government areas where a 362 dozen, 50 or 100 votes could make an enormous difference, such as changing a council's political complexion or making or breaking a Member of Parliament. Reference was made to that in the debates on the first group of amendments discussed earlier.
If the declarant has been in Northern Ireland for the previous three months, he probably has an address somewhere. If he has not had an address in the previous three months, he must have had an address just prior to that either in Northern Ireland, elsewhere in the United Kingdom or in the Irish Republic. I am trying to establish some method by which we can identify the individual, where he came from and whether he is genuine or part of a concerted effort deliberately to defraud or undermine the electoral system.
The Minister has made it perfectly clear that he is determined that electoral fraud shall not happen. I share that aim. My constituents and my colleagues in Northern Ireland have good reasons for sharing it. The present position in Northern Ireland is that a person must have lived in an electoral or council area or in a constituency for three months before 15 September, which is the qualifying date to prove that the individual has a genuine interest in the area, rather than October as in Great Britain.
We are now changing that and moving to a system of rolling registration. That has considerable implications in the Province which do not prevail elsewhere. I know that the Minister would not want to open the door to the possibility of widespread and carefully conceived electoral fraud, turning electoral takeover of certain areas from an illegal into a legal activity. The changes made in the Bill certainly make electoral fraud easy.
I have a fundamental problem with the Bill. It opens a barn door to fraud under certain circumstances. It makes it easy for people to allege that they are moving from one constituency to another. The Minister should consider this item carefully. I can see reasons why the words in the amendment should not be added to this subsection—make no mistake about that—but there are also good reasons for doing so. The amendment would provide a method of tracing an individual and determining whether he is engaged in fraud or is genuine and has a right to be on the electoral register. I am trying to close that loophole before it is too wide open. I should like the Minister to tell me why these words should not be added to the Bill and what the Government's objections to them are.

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien
The position in Northern Ireland is, in many respects, similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, but in other respects it is different. The situation in Northern Ireland has been difficult for some decades, and in the past it has been alleged that problems have arisen in its electoral system that have been less evident elsewhere in the UK.
I do not think that the amendment is necessary. It would make those wishing to register as electors in Northern Ireland sign a declaration of local connection, a requirement that would not apply to those seeking to register in other parts of the United Kingdom. If we are to impose extra requirements, we need substantial evidence that a problem is likely to arise.
I do not deny that, given the history of Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) may have valid reasons for expressing his concerns, but, as he said, a special requirement already 363 applies in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland—but not in other parts of the United Kingdom—a person cannot be registered unless he has resided in the Province for the previous three months. The proposed new section 4(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983—which clause 1(2) of this Bill will insert—replicates that requirement by providing that no one may register in Northern Ireland unless he has been resident there for the entire period of three months before the date of registration on the rolling register. Clause 6(4)(b) makes equivalent provision for homeless persons seeking to register in respect of a declaration of local connection.
I see no reason to impose any additional requirements at this stage. I certainly do not see why people in Northern Ireland who register by means of declarations of local connection should be required to provide information over and above that provided by other electors. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman, however. The Government do not want the system to be opened up to widespread fraud. They are aware that there may well be concerns in Northern Ireland, and are anxious not to seem unduly complacent. After every election—including general elections—the way in which the election was conducted will be monitored, and the electoral rules will be reviewed to ensure that they are not being abused.
We will certainly listen to the views of the hon. Gentleman and his party—and others in Northern Ireland—if, once the Bill has been enacted, evidence is submitted that an abuse has occurred. We shall then be prepared to consider ways of dealing with the problem.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have some concerns, given the history of Northern Ireland. We do not think that the arrangements there need to be exactly the same as those in other parts of the United Kingdom, but we do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on those seeking to vote in Northern Ireland. It is a question of getting the balance right. I think that we have got the balance right in the Bill and that we do not need the amendment. However, if evidence were subsequently produced suggesting that problems were starting to occur, we would examine it and consider how to deal with the problems.
I hope that, following my reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Ross
I am willing to withdraw the amendment, but I still have a sneaking concern. If there is fraud and some people lose their seats at an election, it will not be much comfort to them to say that we will correct the problem before the next election, especially if the complexion of the council has changed. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. We have deep concerns— and there are real reasons for them because we have a land frontier.
As the Minister knows, I have often, or at least on a number of occasions, taken part in the post mortem in the Home Office after elections. The reality is that it is almost impossible to catch people who practise deceit in electoral matters, or are involved in personation, and prove it.

§ Mr. O'Brien
Let me perhaps give the hon. Gentleman a little more reassurance. We need not necessarily wait for an election. If it became clear—remember, the provision is to do with homeless persons—that suddenly a large number of people were claiming to be homeless, 364 to have a local connection, and to have been there for three months, and many of those so-called homeless people were not known in the area, the returning officer would undoubtedly become suspicious in an area such as Northern Ireland because homeless people tend to become known. Therefore, the returning officer could at that point alert the authorities of that potential problem before the election took place.

§ Mr. Ross
I am grateful for that explanation. One of the ways in which the returning officers, or electoral officers as we call them in Northern Ireland, could increase their knowledge would be by asking the Housing Executive how many homeless people were applying for homes. People will start to look for a house if they are genuinely homeless. If they are not genuine, they will not be looking for such dwellings. Bearing that in mind—I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Evans
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 14, at end insert— (7A) If a person knowingly makes a declaration of local connection at a time when there is in existence another declaration of local connection which he has made and which has not been cancelled or rendered void, he is guilty of an offence. (7B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7A) of this section is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale".

§ The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 56, 57, 62 and 63.

§ Mr. Evans
As we can see from some of the Government amendments, the Government have come a long way in recognising some of the problems that we have detected in the Bill. It is only fair to say that we welcome that. We have gone a little further in making it an offence to register local connection in more than one place.
We are of the view that as many homeless people as possible should be encouraged to take the opportunity to register to vote. For some of them, it may be the first time that they have ever registered to vote. Just because they do not have the dignity of a roof over their heads does not mean that they should not be allowed to put a vote to their voice. Therefore, we welcome the thrust of the measure.
We have heard about some close constituency results and overseas electors. Some seats were decided by a small group of people; the majority was small. The 1992 Vale of Glamorgan election has been mentioned—I think that the majority was 19, a small number. As we know, some elections have been decided by even less, such as the Winchester election, which was decided by two votes. There have been other elections where the majority was in single figures.
Therefore, personation in relation to local connection could be a real problem. It could decide elections. We have to accept that that is true. We are trying—I hope that the Government accept that it is exactly what we are trying to do—to encourage homeless people to register 365 to vote, but, at the same time, ensure that we do not activate people who are not homeless, but who might use the flexibility in the Bill to start to register and to make more than one local connection. That is the last thing that we want to happen.
9.15 pm
We know that constituencies differ—my constituency, for example, is large. As we heard from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), in some areas it is enormously difficult for some people to register and vote. Accordingly, provisions in the Bill will make it easier for people to vote by post. I have enormous reservations, however, about the potential for fraud that we shall be building into the system, and believe that an offence of local declaration might prove to be useful.
The potential for fraud will be bad enough in general elections, but it might also be a problem in by-elections— with which I shall deal specifically when I speak to a subsequent clause. In general elections, there could be an enormous impact if local connections are declared in more than one area. Although I concede entirely that the number of homeless people who would try to abuse the system that we are establishing is small, those who might be considered as part of the Swampy factor—those who usually protest in other ways—might abuse both the system and the flexibility for homeless people that we are including in the Bill.
I believe that, in some constituencies, the ability to make a local declaration will cause problems with those who are not homeless, but who may register under the novel provisions of clause 6. Moreover, as things stand, it would not be an offence for them to make such a declaration. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that we plug the legislative loophole to ensure that those who make local declarations are allowed to do so only once and that we do not open the floodgates to a protest movement of those who will suddenly be able to make local declarations.
Currently, electoral registers across the country are not correlated. In 10 years, the situation may change and local registration officers may be able to check with one another. Today, I spoke to my electoral registration officer and asked her what would happen if I not only remained registered at the house that I left last year, but also registered in my new village. She said that their computer software would show my name appearing twice, and that they would investigate the double registration and remove one of the entries.
The duplication of my name would have occurred in a single constituency. I think that it is very unlikely that anyone would make more than one local declaration in the same constituency, as electoral officers would get wise to such attempts and identify possible problems. If such attempts—or even concerted campaigns—were made over a much wider area, however, I am not sure that they would be detected. We should therefore include in the Bill a provision to ensure that if such declarations are made and detected—detection is a separate issue—they will constitute an offence, possibly a criminal offence, for which people are liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
366 We should like the Minister carefully to consider amendment No. 16. We realise that the Government's amendments in this group go some way in tightening the legislation, but we ask him to go one stage further.

§ Mr. Linton
I shall not detain the Committee for more than a couple of minutes, but I cannot let this moment pass without pointing out the official Opposition's inconsistency. Before Christmas, Opposition Front Benchers very strenuously opposed amendments to stop dual registration that were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and me. The hon. Gentleman is now opposing dual registration for homeless people, after defending dual registration for rich people who are registered both at a country house and a town house. He raises the principle of dual registration in a way that applies not only to the homeless, but to everybody. The other categories who enjoy it are people with second homes, Members of Parliament and students. That gives many Members personal experience of—if not interest in—the subject.
The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and myself were almost exactly the same as those being moved now by the hon. Gentleman, if one substituted the word "declaration" of local interest for "registration".

§ Mr. Evans
We have asked for some form of identification to be made for local declarations, but that has not been accepted fully. It will be easier to register than ever before. When a campaign starts, it will be so much harder to detect where this is happening and close it down. It will still be an offence to vote in a general election in more than one constituency but, in respect of registration and a campaign by a group—I am not picking on the homeless, who I do not think will do this—people may abuse the system.

§ Mr. Linton
The point is that we want a registration system that is unlikely to be abused. The hon. Gentleman referred to moving within his constituency, but problems arise because there is no correlation between moving from one place and moving to another. We have advocated a system where there was no dual registration, and that would not stop Members of Parliament or students having a choice about where they voted. They could say that they were resident in one constituency or the other. However, it would stop them being registered in both places at the same time. That has the enormous benefit that when one moves one's registration for parliamentary purposes—this would not apply to local election registration—one moves away from one constituency to another. One transfers the registration, rather than simply starting a new one while probably forgetting to cancel the old one.
That is the enormous advantage of an end to dual registration. It would not be against the interests of those who reside in two places, who would always have a choice. It would ensure that the electoral registration process is one of registering in one place and transferring to another. That means that many of the 4 million people who are on the register but should not be, and the 7 million who should be but are not, would be eliminated by a basic reform to the system to prevent dual registration for parliamentary elections—not only for the homeless, but for everybody.

§ Mr. William Ross
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are serious about stopping dual registration, 367 every elector in the country should have a unique number attached to his name, whether it is his national insurance number or, even better, his medical card number, which the computers could then throw up if someone registered in more than one place?

§ Mr. Linton
I hope to come to that point in the debate on the next amendment.

§ Mr. David Heath
Clearly, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is expressing a point of interest to the Committee. I have some sympathy with his point, as I have with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), with whom I agree about single rather than dual registration. As far as possible, I believe that the same rules should apply to every class of elector, rather than having distinctive arrangements.
I do not believe that the amendment would cover what is needed, nor do I think that the Government have yet got it right. The criticism in both cases may be to do with the mechanism. The current proposition is that there should be a duty on the person registering to cancel any previous registration. We do not know exactly what cancellation means, and the duty could be very light or very onerous; we must discover that from the Minister.
The Minister clearly recognises that the wording was not right before, by virtue of the Government amendments, and especially No. 57, which would ensure that the same requirement applied to a declaration of local connection as to a normal registration.

§ Mr. Evans
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be difficult enough to get homeless people to register in the first place, let alone getting them to de-register when they move? That is why we must make absolutely certain that when they re-register they are asked specifically to declare whether they have registered anywhere else, so that their name can be removed from the other location.

§ Mr. Heath
That underlines my concerns about the arrangements proposed in the amendment. It seems to be an onerous duty that will be difficult for people to fulfil. One of the problems is the synchronicity: if the amendment were made, cancellation of the previous registration would have to occur before the declaration of local connection was made. That double process cannot be what the hon. Gentleman intended and I hope that it would not be implemented in that way.
Surely a cancellation is not what we need. The Government amendments make it clear that a previous registration by declaration of local connection falls when the person is re-registered in any way. We need a system that places a duty on the person not to cancel with the previous registration officer but simply to make the new registration officer aware that he or she was previously registered. The officer would then have the responsibility of ensuring that the other officer is made aware of the change. If we have that mechanism, we do not need to get too excited about the problem.
The hon. Gentleman has detected the fact that there is no clear duty or sanction to ensure that the applicant makes a previous registration known when re-registering, but the amendment does not quite answer the case.

§ Mr. Evans
The Minister referred to the problem in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of 16 December. He said: In addition, the form for registering in this way will also need to include details of any current registrations so that, again, the registration officer can ensure that the person is deleted from the register in respect of a previous address.

§ Mr. Heath
That is very helpful. If we have a form designed in that way and there is a penalty for knowingly giving false information, the matter is dealt with. If the Minister can assure me that that is the case, even though it is not in the Bill, there is no longer a problem of dual registration and the amendment is unnecessary.

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right. He quoted the letter that I sent and I hope that that provides him with sufficient reassurance. I can confirm that what I said in the letter was right, which it is always a pleasure to do.
As the Bill is currently drafted it does nothing to prevent a person from registering more than once as an elector using declarations of local connection. Because declarations of local connection are designed for use by those such as the homeless, mental patients and remand prisoners who are unable to establish residence in the normal way, that seems wrong and amendments Nos. 56 and 57 will prevent that.
I note the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley earlier, but overall, Members of Parliament receive an excellent service from the officers of the House and we have too little opportunity to pay tribute to them. Perhaps I should mention that the loophole that we seek to close was originally spotted by the eagle-eyed Oonagh Gay of the Library when she was preparing her excellent research paper on the Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to her for referring to the matter in her research paper so that we could deal with it.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 will make a similar change in respect of those who register by means of a service declaration. Those who register in the normal way and legitimately have more than one residence—I know that that includes many hon. Members—will not be prevented from registering in respect of each of them. I shall not revisit the debate that we had about dual registration, but I hope that, in the light of that reassurance and the indications I have given about how we intend to deal with the issue, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I invite the Committee to support amendments Nos. 56, 57, 62 and 63.
I do not go all the way with the hon. Gentleman on what he calls the Swampy factor, although it is something that we will wish to consider. I will discuss it with my officials and consider whether we will be able to deal with it in the other place if that turns out to be necessary. I am not convinced that it is as big a problem as the hon. Gentleman fears, but I will consider his constructive comments.

§ Mr. Evans
We have had another useful debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) for his contribution to it. I accept much of what he said about double registration. We have made a start in closing loopholes and, if clear abuses are taking place, we will 369 need to reconsider. I understand that students form the bulk of those who register twice—there are only 659 Members of Parliament—but it is an offence to vote more than once in a general election. I also understand that some people wish to vote in local elections that take place at different times in different areas. We may need to revisit the issue in five years' time, given the pace at which new technology is advancing.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The Government's amendments will do much to close the loophole. I am also grateful that he has undertaken to reconsider what I have called the Swampy factor—the fact that a politically motivated group of people may use the legislation to enfranchise people who currently cannot vote. It would be wrong for such people to be able to abuse the system for their own ends. If Home Office Ministers and officials study that matter and detect a problem, I hope that they will act, in another place, to close that loophole.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Evans
I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 20, at end insert— (10) A declaration of local connection shall be of no effect if that declaration states an address which is an address within a constituency which is not represented by a Member of Parliament at the time when that declaration is received by the registration officer". The amendment would offer further protection for the democratic process by ensuring that travelling voters could not target particular seats. I speak as one who bears the battle scars of two by-elections—in Pontypridd, where I came third, and in the safe Conservative seat of Ribble Valley, where I came second. The amendment would prevent groups of politically motivated people—who clearly would not belong to either the Conservative or the Labour parties—from inflicting the Swampy factor on elections.
Some protesters are prepared to stay underground or at the top of trees to make their point. It is naive to think that people motivated enough to do such things would not be motivated enough to travel around the country and make a local declaration in an area where a by-election was to be held.
I am rather disappointed that there are no representatives from Plaid Cymru in the Chamber tonight, as one of that party's seats has recently been vacated by the resignation of the hon. Member for Ceredigion. This important Bill tries to address the observed decline in voting by encouraging as many people as possible to vote. However, the Ceredigion by-election has been called for 3 February. It is doubly disappointing that about 3,800 young people—first-time voters, in the main—will not be able to vote on that date because they are registered on the new register that comes into force on 16 February.
The Ceredigion by-election will not be affected by the Bill, but other by-elections will be. When a seat is vacated because the Member of Parliament dies, several weeks normally pass before a by-election is held. That was what happened after the tragic death of Alan Clark, but, clearly, Plaid Cymru had its own reasons for acting quickly in the case of Ceredigion.
370 The gap of several weeks that normally occurs gives ample opportunity for the Swampy factor to come into play. People can move around the country and make local declarations in the constituency involved. That may not be very important in constituencies where one party enjoys a large majority, but we must ensure that the Bill closes down any abuses that might exist, and that it opens no fresh possibilities for abuse. Where a majority runs into only three or four figures, politically motivated people could travel around the country to where by-elections are to be called and could actually decide the results.
We are trying to be realistic about abuses of the system. Because there will be a rolling register and because we are bending over backwards to enable people to register to vote as quickly as possible—more quickly than ever before—no one can say that we are closing the stable door to prevent genuine and legitimate voters from voting. However, the amendment would ensure that, once a seat was vacated, normally because of the death of a Member of Parliament, people could not turn up, make declarations of their location and try to abuse the system.
I hope that the Minister can assure all hon. Members that the Government are taking the situation seriously and that, if they are not prepared to accept our amendment, they will introduce one to close that loophole.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
There is a danger that this might become a discussion between by-election groupies or people who have been through the by-election process. All I can say to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that some of us have a better score than he has.

§ Mr. Evans
Everybody has.

§ Mr. Hughes
I was trying to be gentle, but as the hon. Gentleman has owned up so generously, I thank him very much.
We are sympathetic to the amendment. It is important not to allow a sudden influx of people into an area once a by-election has been called. The electorate should be fixed on the day that the by-election is called. We share the concern and disappointment expressed about the by-election in Ceredigion. It has an intelligent electorate and there is often a very high turn-out. Because of the politics in the area, contests are close, and the seat has changed parties often since the last war. Yet the next generation of people who want to vote will be deprived of the chance to do so. As someone with family in Ceredigion, who are on the electoral register and will—I assume and hope—be voting, I share that concern. Plaid Cymru has let those people down and let down the case for wider electoral reform.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the proposal. Our electoral systems must not allow elections to be rigged by people suddenly moving in and signing on. The amendment is one way of ensuring that. The wording may not be perfect, but I hope that some comfort will be given to the proposition, and that we can deal with the problem before the Bill ends its passage through Parliament.

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien
The amendment presents some interesting questions and some difficulties. I would be reluctant to create a situation in which homeless people 371 were treated differently from those who could use the rolling registration scheme. The rolling register will enable people to register to vote when a vacancy occurs if they are not homeless—if they are registering other than by means of a local connection.
The amendment would stop those who register by means of a declaration of local connection from doing so where a vacancy has arisen. They would therefore be treated differently from those who could otherwise register under the rolling registration scheme. I am reluctant to do that. However, I listened with care to the points made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The reference to the Swampy factor can be overdone; I would not want to raise a spectre to haunt the whole idea. That would not be realistic. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, getting homeless people to register will be difficult in any event. At the same time, we want to ensure that we provide every encouragement and do not seek to disfranchise people by reason of their homelessness.
9.45 pm
We need to ensure that proper systems are in place to deal with those who seek to register for improper reasons. However, we must strike a balance to ensure that there is a level playing field. I have heard what has been said and shall discuss the issue with officials to see whether there may be some way to deal with it. The amendment is not the way to do that. It would create discrimination against people who were homeless and who sought to register by way of a declaration of local connection. I do not like that proposal, but I do not deny that there is an outside possibility that people may seek to register for a by-election. I shall consider the matter with more care and write to the hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and will happily copy the correspondence to any other hon. Member who indicates an interest to me when the debate is over.

§ Mr. Evans
I am grateful for what the Minister has said and for the support of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It is sad, as he said, that people who should vote for the first time in the Ceredigion by-election will be denied their opportunity for up to two years. They will remember well who denied them their vote in 2000.
I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. The Opposition do not want to set up some demarcation that picks on the homeless and no one else. However, when the Minister reconsiders the point, will he look into the possible problems with by-elections, particularly those that take place several weeks after a vacancy occurs? There is an opportunity for abuse of the system, but it could easily be prevented. Matters are different when people move house. People are not likely to go so far as to spend perhaps £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 to try to abuse the system and get a vote, but a local declaration costs nothing. It would be far easier for people to abuse the system in that way than it would in any other. I am reassured by what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 56, in page 9, line 38, leave out first "any" and insert "another".
372 No. 57, in page 9, line 39, leave out "otherwise than" and insert ", whether or not".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

§ Mr. David Heath
I do not want to detain the Committee for long. As the Minister gave his assurances on amendment No. 17, he said that the form of declaration would include a requirement that a person should declare whether he or she were already registered by virtue of a declaration of local connection elsewhere. Does he intend to table an amendment to clause 6 in order to amend section 7B(3) of the 1983 Act, where the contents of a declaration of local connection are specified? If a further mandatory requirement for information is to be placed on any person seeking to register, it seems extraordinary that it should not appear in legislation, and it would be more convenient if it did.

§ Mr. O'Brien
We do not need to include that in the Bill—it would simply be a matter of the returning officer having prescribed forms, which would, no doubt, be dealt with in the normal way under electoral registration procedures. Those forms would simply declare what information was required. We do not need to cover that in the Bill; there are other ways in which to do it. However, it is correct that the form would ask for the provision of that information.

§ Mr. William Ross
We have held an interesting and quite lengthy debate on the clause and its several amendments. There is one point in the clause that caught my eye and to which I draw the Minister's attention. Subsection (6) states: "No declaration of local connection shall be specially made by a person for the purposes of local government elections".
How on earth are we to know whether people are making their declaration for that or for some other purpose? If they make a declaration for parliamentary elections, they will be able to vote in local elections anyway.

§ Mr. O'Brien
The aim is to ensure that people are making a declaration that they have a local connection. They would then be included on the electoral register and would be able to vote in local or national elections, as appropriate, if they were qualified to do so. I do not think that we need to take the matter any further. However, if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that answer, perhaps the best way to proceed would be for me to consider his point in detail and to write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.