HC Deb 12 January 2000 vol 342 cc376-96
Mr. Linton

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 18, line 24, at end insert— (2A) The requirement at subsection (2)(a) above for the inclusion of the name of the person to be registered shall not apply where, in the opinion of the registration officer, inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person.". The amendment would allow electoral registration officers to register certain voters anonymously if it is considered that publication of their addresses would render them liable to danger. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that this is not the junk-mail amendment whereby people can opt to keep their names off the edited version of the register so that they are not inundated with junk mail. This might be better described as the battered wife or Jill Dando amendment. It would allow the names of vulnerable voters to be left off the register so that they could not be traced by a stalker, a violent ex-spouse or a vengeful ex-prisoner, but would retain their entitlement to vote.

Mr. Fabricant

I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks and can see some force behind his argument, but who would determine whether someone is at risk? Would it be the voter concerned, the police, or someone else?

Mr. Linton

I thought that it was becoming clear that with this amendment, the electoral registration officer could decide to register certain voters anonymously. It is quite different from the amendment to clause 9 under which the voter could opt to be excluded from an edited version of the register. I do not want to anticipate the debate on clause 9, but that amendment concerns the balance of convenience between avoiding the junk mail that people receive if they are on the register and the credit that they may not be able to get if they are not on it.

This amendment is about much more than a balance of convenience; it may be a matter of life or death. It embodies one of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report in September 1998. I urge the Minister and the Committee to give it serious consideration.

Mr. Grieve

I do not know how much detail the hon. Gentleman can go into about how the system would work. If the system would leave blanks on the register so that it would be noticeable that certain properties were not registered, would not that in itself alert people who consult the register to the fact that there is an anomaly? How would the system work in respect of the person concerned voting on polling day?

Mr. Linton

During our evidence sessions, the Home Affairs Committee heard that there are several categories of people whose safety can be put at risk if their name appears on the electoral register. That certainly includes battered wives, but also people in occupations that make them vulnerable to attack. Prison warders and police officers are two examples. Not everybody in those categories would need anonymity, but there may be individual cases in which it is required. Another example is people who have been victims of stalking or other forms of obsessional behaviour, particularly where there has been police surveillance or protection.

We do not recommend that the voter should be able to opt to go ex-register in the same way that one can go ex-directory in the telephone system because we want this provision to be used only in exceptional circumstances. We do not want it to be used for the wrong reasons, such as to avoid tax or jury service.

At the moment, a few vulnerable people keep their name off the electoral register. That is technically an offence and can attract a £1,000 fine, but as we heard earlier, nobody is ever prosecuted. We heard evidence from the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives that some electoral registration officers use devices to give anonymity to people who have good reason to avoid being identified.

One device that we know is used is allowing married women to use their maiden names to make it more difficult for people to trace them. Another is to allow them to use false names so that their husbands or ex-husbands cannot find them. Registration officers acknowledge that they may be at risk of challenge in using such devices; in other words, they do not know whether they are legal.

The Local Government Association suggested in its evidence to the Committee that people could be registered with names but no addresses under the "other voters" listed in every ward. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Another suggestion came from the Association of Electoral Administrators. It argued that to put the names in the list of other voters that appears at the end of every ward register might in some circumstances give too much of a clue about where someone lives. A determined ex-husband might, especially in small wards, be able to trace a person once they know roughly where that person lives. Electoral administrators therefore argued that there should be a constituency-wide list of anonymous electors, which would make it much more difficult to track people down.

All organisations that represent registration officers ask for an explicit ability to register voters anonymously. They point out that that right existed under the community charge register. It was used by very few people, but it existed so that registers could not be used as a way of tracing people who might be in danger.

I suggest that registration officers should have the power both to list vulnerable voters in a list of anonymous voters at the end of the register if their addresses need protection, and to list them under a permanent polling number if their names need protection. Clearly, something must appear on the register, but the mere existence of a polling number rather than a name would not give anyone a clue to an address.

Such an argument of course implies that there should be yet another version of the electoral register. If clause 9 is agreed, there will be two versions: a full version of the register, which will be available for public inspection and to political parties, and an edited version, which will be sold commercially. The amendment implies a third version, which would be available only in the polling station to polling station officers for use in the election.

The version that would be available for public inspection and to political parties would omit the names of vulnerable people or list them as anonymous names to protect their identity.

The provision of a full unpublished register would allow the inclusion of two further pieces of information that are sometimes necessary to prevent fraud. Some fathers give their sons their own names, down even to their middle names, and the only way in which to distinguish them is by date of birth. An unpublished register would enable the inclusion of dates of birth, making—one hopes—each person's electoral registration unique. Unusual first names also make it difficult to distinguish the gender of the voter. Gender could also be included on such a register. That is an incidental advantage that the amendment might bring.

I am not arguing for more information on the public register, but for less. Irrespective of what happens to clause 9, I hope that the Minister and the Committee will agree to give electoral registration officers the right for which they have asked to protect the identity of vulnerable voters.

Considering a Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House often provides a better platform but creates a more formal atmosphere in which sometimes it is more difficult to persuade Ministers to take on board the force of an argument. However, I hope that Ministers will seriously consider the amendment, which is supported by the entire Home Affairs Committee and all organisations that are intimately involved in electoral registration.

10.15 pm
Mr. Greenway

As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) knows from Second Reading, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Home Affairs Committee recommendation. I am not entirely clear whether his amendment provides a complete solution. In particular, the fact that other members of a person's family may be on the register creates a difficulty.

Even if clause 9 is agreed to in its present form—we hope that it will not be for many reasons—that will not be a solution. The full register will still be available in libraries. Stalkers, or former boy friends or husbands of women who have suffered serious domestic violence, can if they wish, and if they are as deranged as I have described, use whatever means are necessary to check where those women may be living.

I am not entirely clear how many people would qualify to come into the category that we are discussing. I suspect that there would be only a few. Those facing a problem would clearly be on an electoral register in terms of their right to vote but would not appear on it either by name or address.

We are all used to campaigning and canvassing on electoral registers that show gaps. About a quarter of the people on a register move from one address to another during a complete year. The absence of an address, let alone a name, from a register would not of itself spark any prospect of people thinking, "Somebody important must live there." Many addresses are missing from registers.

Mr. Barnes

The Bill will introduce a rolling register and a monthly update will take place.

Mr. Greenway

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He may be right in some respects. However, I understand that the requirement to publish a register for public scrutiny is only an annual event and not something that would be done routinely each time there are changes in the register. The opportunity for someone to get hold of the register would be limited in using it to check which properties are not accompanied by a name and address.

I wish to send a message to the Minister that we support the concept of action being taken. The Select Committee's report pointed out that the issue had not yet been considered by the working party. Was the working party unable to consider the matter in any detail? If that is the position, perhaps we should ask the Minister to consider the matter and produce a proposal that we could all support. That would allow people who feel that they are vulnerable to physical assault as a result of others finding out where they are to make their position clear. As I said on Second Reading, there is still a general suspicion that the murderer of Jill Dando may have been a stalker. Her address may have been discovered through an entry in a register that was available for public scrutiny. That cannot be dismissed lightly as something of no significance. Indeed, it is extremely important.

An opt-out box was considered because of the potential threat of violence. However, there was no great body of evidence that that was a big issue for most people. It might have been for a few.

The fact that electoral registration officers are looking to the House and to the Government to find a solution should be the final encouragement to the Minister to do so. Given the likely date of Report, it may not be possible for the House to find a solution in the Bill. However, even with the short timetable that the Minister has in mind to get the Bill on the statute book so that the pilot schemes can go ahead, I urge him to try to find a mechanism that could be approved by the other place and that the House could then approve in a very short time.

Mr. Grieve

I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that I broadly support what he is trying to achieve. The purpose of the questions that I posed in my intervention was not to destroy his basic premise, but to raise a number of issues. My understanding is—it is clearly his view, too—that as matters stand there is some discretion. Various ideas have been worked out by electoral registration officers to deal with this problem informally, in the absence of anything specific on the statute. The worrying thing about the amendment is that, by clarifying what is allowed and what is not, it may fetter the discretion of electoral registration officers, so we must get it right.

I am concerned that if we had a system that put the names of known people at the bottom of an electoral register covering what in cities can be quite small wards, nothing would be better calculated to alert people to the fact that those people live in a small, circumscribed area. If a person were sufficiently unpleasant to want to unearth someone's address, such a system might provide the very pointers that the hon. Gentleman is trying to remove.

That is why I am concerned about the amendment, although I suspect that it has been tabled so that this matter can be aired. If it were passed and included in the Bill, it might be counterproductive. I favour the system under which people can use pseudonyms, which ensures that addresses are filled in. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made, that blanks on the electoral register have never been a source of great consternation to those looking at it, but I see no reason why pseudonyms cannot be used in exceptional circumstances. They provide the anonymity that people are seeking, while ensuring that the register shows both the number of people and who is living in the area that it covers. I suggest to the Minister that that may be a better way forward, but I await with interest to hear what he has to say on this topic.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Like other hon. Members, I understand the position that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has adopted. The Select Committee on Home Affairs and the electoral registration officers have asked us to look into this matter, so we must properly consider it. We need to go down this road very carefully. I want to flag up several problems that could arise if people are allowed to go off the electoral register.

First, if we are to have such a system, it must apply common standards, be carefully adjudicated and monitored and not allow too much discretion. In our constituencies—we all know our own best—many people may want to avail themselves of this provision. I regularly get people in my surgery who justifiably complain that they are being harassed for racial or other reasons. They may want to come off the electoral register. Some people may make a similar application for family reasons, because of past or present domestic violence. People summoned to serve in a jury trial may be vulnerable from the moment they are identified as a juror in a serious armed robbery, murder or drugs case.

Witnesses in criminal cases, or those believed to be witnesses, might want to be taken off the register. The same might apply to those who, without any real evidence, believed themselves to be the subject of revenge attacks: the families of people convicted of offences might well be thought to have it in for those who were party to the process. Those of us who live in or represent inner cities are accustomed to revenge attacks. This morning, I talked to a constituent whose husband is missing. She and the family believe that he may be dead as a result of a violent attack; no one quite knows. Such events lead to similar circumstances in a number of cases.

Judges, magistrates, policemen and doctors might want to be removed from the register. The list is very long, and I fear that, once the door was opened, it would be opened to, potentially, a great many people, and the concept of the register as the place where citizenship is recorded for the purpose of participation in the electoral process would become a very different concept.

My second point is technical. All politicians know that, especially in these days of computers and database-held electoral registers, it is not difficult to track people down. If I could not find Martin Linton of Battersea on this year's register, it would not be difficult for me to consult last year's register, or the register for the year before. The fact that Martin Linton is not on this year's register will not stop me from tracking him down if I am determined to do so. If someone leaves a message in my constituency office and I have no address for that person, we can track him down pretty quickly, and it is not difficult to do that in a wider context.

Thirdly, the test proposed by the amendment is whether an individual would be prejudiced. It suggests that a person's name should not be included on the register if inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person". That should be considered in the contexts of terrorism and of freedom of information. What is prejudice—substantial prejudice, or some prejudice? A range of issues are involved.

Mr. Linton

Most of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are answered by the simple fact that the electoral registration officer, rather than the individual, would make the decision. The amendment is primarily intended for, and would be of use mainly to, battered wives who moved and wanted to ensure that their husbands could not trace them. Someone who has lived in the same house for 30 years can be traced through earlier registers. I can be traced through the telephone directory. Most of the jurors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would also be easily traceable, because they would not have known in the past that a threat would be posed to them, and therefore would not have taken precautions. I am thinking of people who try to move away from danger and find that the inclusion of their names on the electoral register gives their pursuers a chance to track them down.

Mr. Hughes

I entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman says. My point is that in the case of a potentially large category, the issue is for how long a person might want to claim that his or her safety was at risk, looking both backward and ahead.

A huge number of my constituents, if asked whether they felt vulnerable and harassed, might well say that they did. I understand the hon. Gentleman's proposition: they would need to consult the electoral registration officer, who would make the decision. However, the perception of what constitutes a risk to safety in my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman might be very different from the perception in other constituencies, where there might be few applicants in comparison with the number in multiracial, multicultural communities where attitudes are much less tolerant and there has been a tradition of attacks.

10.30 pm

I come to my final point. I do not want to make a great deal of it; I want simply to state the facts. There about 20 Members, of whom I am one, who have special protection because of such threats. I hope that we will never allow anyone who wants to stand for election to avail themselves of the opportunity not to be included on the register. To be allowed not to reveal where one lives cannot be consistent with seeking office as a councillor, Greater London Authority member or Member of Parliament.

I say all that in the light of the fact that colleagues from Northern Ireland have far more experience than the rest of us of such circumstances. They have kept a public presence in the face of huge risks. Some colleagues have suffered personally from those risks. We need to be careful that, in seeking to deal with a specific and proper concern when people move to a hostel or other address, we do not suddenly open the floodgates—with the electoral register no longer substantially comprising those who are eligible to vote, and with many people not on that register but, perhaps, without protection from discovery by those who are keen to track down where they are.

Mr. William Ross

I find myself in general agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), to some extent for the reasons that he mentioned in relation to Northern Ireland Members. I have at one time or another received all sorts of weird and wonderful information on how to protect myself and to conceal where I live. Everyone knows where I live. For heaven's sake, I could not hide it because I live in a fairly republican area. The IRA already knows where I live. One has only to ask someone in the village, town or county. The idea that we can hide ourselves away in a little corner in this country for ever and no one will find us is sheer nonsense. It just cannot be done.

I appreciate what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is trying to do and what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said about crime and its dangers, but the only way to protect citizens from such behaviour is by having an efficient police force, so that those who indulge in attacks on people for vengeance, or for whatever reason, are nearly 100 per cent. certain of getting caught and suffering severely for it. That is the way to stop the criminal elements imposing their will on people.

In Northern Ireland generally, many thousands of men and women served part-time in the security forces, and in situations incomparably more dangerous than anything on this side of the Irish sea. The idea that those people could hide either their identity or place of residence was nonsense; it was known. We cannot allow our society to get into a situation where everyone wants to hide from the violent and the criminal—that way lies nothing but domination by the violent and the criminal.

We should keep that in mind. We should be prepared to allow our names to go on to the electoral register. We should expect society to protect us from evil doers whenever we give evidence against them. There is no running away from a citizen's responsibility, and we should not do anything that would encourage people even to try that.

Mr. Fabricant

The whole Committee supports the principle of the amendment, but there is considerable doubt about its practicalities. I will come to my main criticism of the amendment shortly: the burden that it puts on electoral registration officers, who are already overburdened and under-resourced.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) gave several detailed examples. He talked about the use by battered wives of their maiden names. I do not think that that would prevent a husband from finding his wife. He said that exclusions would happen only in exceptional cases. That might mean exceptional blanks on the electoral register, but in practice someone could be found very easily. If the provision were used more generally, it would be more difficult to locate those who use it. However, I am not so sure that, in the democratic process, the provision should be used in cases that are less than exceptional.

The amendment states that inclusion of the name of the person to be registered shall not apply where, in the opinion of the registration officer, inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person. I do not believe that a registration officer on his own would be qualified to make that type of decision.

If the Minister supports the general principle in the amendment, he must say whether he wants registration officers alone to make decisions on anonymity, based on a very tight code of conduct, or whether another agency—such as the police or local social services—should provide an input before he makes the decision.

Mr. Linton

Had the hon. Gentleman been a member of the Home Affairs Committee at the time—he has joined since—he would know that the Association of Electoral Authorities suggested that applications to electoral registration officers should come from either police officers or social workers, so that there would be input from professionals with first-hand knowledge of risk assessment. Nevertheless, the decision would still lie with the registration officer.

Mr. Fabricant

It is reassuring to know that, although I am a new member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have independently reached the same conclusion on the matter that it did. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

I do not agree with one of the arguments against the amendment made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), namely, that people who are planning to persecute or attack someone would examine previous registration documents. If that were a valid argument, we should never make such a change to the system. The point is that if there is to be change, it will have to be made at some point. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Battersea said in reply to the point, the change would at least stop someone pursuing the individual as he or she moves from place to place.

The Home Office should consider the issue seriously. Although I do not think that amendment No. 85 is practicable, I should like to know whether the Government plan to include in the Bill a provision to ensure that battered wives, witnesses and all the other people who are under threat and have been mentioned in the debate will be able to sleep safely and soundly in their beds.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

This has been a useful debate, as it has raised a very serious issue. The Home Affairs Committee took the view that there should be some form of anonymous registration—for those whom some people may describe as secret voters, as they would not be known to the political parties.

The working party on electoral procedures also examined the issue. It agreed that there was a problem, and was sympathetic to the need to resolve it. However, it felt that, even with its expertise—there was substantial expertise in the working party—it was not in a position to determine precisely how a secret voting system could be established and administered.

Therefore—although we all have much sympathy for those involved in such situations, and think that there is a problem that has to be dealt with—I think that the view of the Committee is that the subject requires more study than we have so far been able to give it, and I cannot provide any reassurance that I shall be able to support an amendment to the Bill to address the issue in the manner that we have been discussing today.

Clause 9, however, has some relevance to the issue. If we were to include in the Bill clause 9 as drafted, it would provide some protection, as there would be two registers, one of which—a full register, including all the relevant names—would be available to the political parties, and another of which would be available only to some organisations.

Mr. Fabricant

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien

I am anxious to proceed, as the Committee wishes to get on. I shall make my points and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene later, I will happily give way.

I accept that there is a genuine problem, but we now have interactive search software which makes it easier to trace people. Electoral registers can be on CD-Roms, which can be given away free with computer magazines. Therefore, searching for first names and surnames is remarkably easy. Clause 9 might provide some assistance in this area, and it remains to be seen what view the House takes. The Government have listened carefully to representations on the matter.

We need to see how we proceed with clause 9, but I accept that there is an issue here. There are some problems with the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has made for the best of reasons. First, the parties will not know who is on the electoral register if some people are, in effect, secret voters. Those people will not be able to participate fully. They will not be able to receive the election address of the various candidates because the candidates will not know where these people are. It is possible to solve that problem, but we would have to work out a procedure to do so.

What would we do about the members of the family of the secret voter? Would they remain secret and off the register, known only to the electoral registration officer? That needs to be addressed.

I associate myself with the concerns of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about battered spouses and the victims of stalkers. We can accept that, but what about police officers, prison officers, some Members of Parliament or Child Support Agency officials? We could go on and list those who, for all sorts of reasons, feel that they and their families may not wish to prejudice their safety.

The proposals would put the electoral registration officer in a difficult position in deciding who to exclude. The amendment states that it would be in the opinion of the electoral registration officer that registration would be prejudicial to safety. That is not a clear test and, in many ways, is very subjective. The registration officer would be very much open to legal challenge, and we would probably have to set up an appeals system to deal with the issues. It would become very difficult for the registration officer to refuse secret registration in such situations.

I find myself in substantial agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, in that we must approach this matter with a great deal more care. There are serious issues here, but I suggest that we take the approach of the working party on electoral procedures and study this matter more before we legislate in haste and repent at leisure.

Mr. Fabricant

Have any representations been made to the Home Office either by the police, who have long-term witnesses, or by people such as Salman Rushdie, who have been in hiding for a period of longer than a year—seeking to vote but unable to do so?

Mr. O'Brien

I have had some personal representations from people who feel that they would prefer not to have their names on the register. I am not aware that letters have been received at the Home Office, although there is a real issue here which deserves further study. I cannot guarantee that that study will be completed so that we can introduce something in the Bill.

Mr. Linton

I urge my hon. Friend to make a clear distinction between clause 9 and the amendment. People who want to avoid junk mail will not be in the least bit worried by the fact that people can look at the full register at their local library—no one is going to go through the whole register by hand, without being able to copy it, simply to send someone else junk mail—but a battered wife cannot live with the knowledge that a violent or vengeful husband can track her down simply by going to the local reference library. It is an entirely different issue.

However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 pm
Mr. William Ross

I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 19, line 20, leave out "October" and insert "September".

The import of the amendment is clear. In Northern Ireland, the date has been 15 September for as long as I can remember and probably longer; I do not know why, other than to give people more time to explore the possibilities of fraud in the Northern Ireland registers. There may be other reasons.

We have the opportunity to apply the same date throughout the United Kingdom for what will become the basic register on which the rolling procedure will operate. There are several advantages to 15 September. It would create uniformity throughout the United Kingdom and simplify the position of university students.

A member of my family is at a Scottish university, so I know that the year tends to start early there, in September, but lots of universities start somewhat later than that, and one of the bones of contention that I have found on this side of the Irish sea is that those who leave home before the October date on which they are to be registered are away from home at the qualifying date and could legitimately register either at their place of study or at home.

If we move the date to 15 September, most university students in the United Kingdom will be registered at their home address and it will be much easier to keep track of them when they change thereafter. There is a definite advantage in that.

As the schedule says that the register must be published by 1 December, the 15 September date would give registration officers an extra month and people would have more time to check whether they were on the register. Elections rarely take place in December or January. I remember two, neither of which was very successful for some folk. One of them brought me here and the other, known as the snowman's election, was rather earlier in Northern Ireland.

There are advantages in having a uniform date throughout the United Kingdom. The Bill says that revised registers can be published if many changes are made. I suspect that that will not happen and that, despite all the high hopes that some have expressed, we will wind up producing one register for an electoral area and it will remain largely unchanged throughout the year. I suspect that people will not take as much advantage or notice of the rolling registration as the Bill's progenitors hope.

The amendment represents a straightforward change that would have certain advantages for the whole country and for the way in which the register is compiled. I invite the Minister to tell us why it should not be made.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I am not in a position to reflect the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, but the amendment raises two issues. The first, which is on all fours with a point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, is that it would seem to be a great advantage to have a national date on which registration for voting occurs, as well as having the rolling register in the background. I have made the point before in relation to the build-up to the census that people do not feel that registering is important. A form comes through the letter box, and if one does not fill it in, one gets another letter. One does not have the sense that the form has to be completed by a certain date.

The second point is that the date cycle works on the basis that the forms are delivered in August and collected for a date in October for a register that comes into effect in February—normally for an electoral cycle in May. That means that people fill in the form in August or September and by the time the register comes into force, it is four months out of date. By the time the election arrives, it is eight months out of date. We need a cycle that minimises the time between the form being filled in, the registration becoming valid and people feeling part of the process.

The rolling register will alter the situation slightly, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we will need to encourage people annually to register. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the working group reflected on that point. Even if we do not make a decision today, we should consider the cycle carefully to maximise the chance of people getting on the electoral register.

The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has always made the point that we lose millions of people from the register, and everything we do must be geared to getting the maximum number of people on to the register. The Bill will try to do that, but I am not sure that the cycle of registration has yet achieved it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I recognise that under current arrangements the qualifying date for registration in Northern Ireland is just under a month earlier than that for the rest of Britain—15 September compared with 10 October. In future there will not be a single annual qualifying date as people will be able to register at any point of the year. That is the effect of the rolling registration programme, but there will still be a requirement for electoral registration officers to carry out an annual canvass.

I see the benefits of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but it would lengthen by a month the period between the date by reference to which the annual registration canvass is to be held and the date on which the register based on that canvass is published. It would also require the canvass to be held over what is for many parts of the United Kingdom—including whole towns in some areas—a major holiday period.

I understand that the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has been consulted and is happy about the proposed changes. He does not anticipate any particular difficulty about moving to an October date for his canvass. I am therefore reluctant to accept the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman explained his concern about an October date and the fact that university students will be away from home on the date in question. Under the present law, students may register in respect of their home address even if they are not physically present there on the qualifying date. They may also register in respect of their university or college address. That will not be changed by the new provisions governing registration, so young people from Northern Ireland who are studying at institutions outside the Province will continue to be able to register in respect of their home addresses—as well as, if they wish, in respect of their university or college address. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment on that basis.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the working party. I do not know whether it considered the issue, but I shall write to him on that point.

Mr. William Ross

I have listened to what I consider to be the weak case made by the Minister. He said that the date will be put back a month, but the publication date could be brought forward a month, if that is all that is worrying the Government. I still take the view that the canvass date is simply replacing the present qualifying date. In my view, there is no good reason why 15 September should not be chosen. The evenings are long at that time of year, so when the part-time workers go round collecting the household forms they do so in the light. The long winter nights that set in during October make the job more difficult and render people—especially those in rural areas—less willing to open the door to strangers.

The last major holiday in Northern Ireland is at the end of August. The household forms go out in the same month, and I assume that that is true too of Great Britain. I see no difficulty in what I propose, but there seems to be a prejudice on this side of the Irish sea against following the example of what is done in Northern Ireland. Electoral registration is, and always has been, much better there than on the mainland.

I hope that the Minister will not ignore what I have said, and that he will consider the proposal further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Ross

I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 20, line 43, after "publish", insert in print and in electronic format". This amendment is as straightforward as amendment No. 111. It proposes that the register should be made available on computer disk as well as on paper. At present, the register is available in that format, but it has to be sent away for transcription. I want people to be able to put the disk into their computers much more easily than is the case at present.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. It proposes no more than what is already common practice, and should be put on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I cannot accept the amendment, as it is simply unnecessary. Registration officers are already required to make the electoral register available in paper form and, where it is produced electronically, in an electronic format. As all electoral registration officers now produce their registers on computer, the register can be obtained, on payment of the appropriate fee, in either format. Copies can even be reserved in advance.

We will shortly discuss the possibility that the full electoral register will be available in an electronic format. Although that is a separate matter, people entitled to the full electoral register will be able to get it on paper or in the electronic format. The edited register will also be for sale in both formats.

One problem in the past has been that the format used for the register was not always compatible with all computers, with the result that it had to be transcribed to another, more suitable, format. Requiring the electoral registration officer to undertake such a transcription for all personal computers would be onerous and unnecessary. In my experience, such problems in the United Kingdom have been overcome by the major political parties.

11 pm

Mr. Barnes

The Minister's point is that the electronic format was purchased; but should not political parties, in addition to being issued with the published version, be able to have access to the disk as well without being involved in massive expenditure? I hope that that will be considered.

Mr. O'Brien

I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is a valid point in many ways, but if extra expenditure will be occasioned for the taxpayer by reason of this proposal, it must be considered with care. It is not an invalid point because, as my hon. Friend would no doubt tell me were he not in a sedentary position, this is all about paying for democracy. The issue will have to be weighed in the balance, and I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said. The electronically formatted register is already available, and although I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Ross

The point that was well made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was the very point that I was trying to bring to the attention of the Committee. The register is on tape, and transcribing it costs quite a lot of money. I believe that since the present systems were set up, technology has moved forward so fast and so far that there are now bound to be much cheaper methods of doing this. Compact disks can carry a huge amount of information, and I do not believe that it would cost all that much for electoral officers throughout the United Kingdom to have a system in which their tapes could be transcribed on to disks and made available at a much lower cost than at present.

Mr. O'Brien

Perhaps I can be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. The best approach might be to consult the electoral registration officers and see what difficulties, or otherwise, might be occasioned by the proposal. I could then write to the hon. Gentleman and, if such an approach is feasible, we may be able to do something in another place. I cannot guarantee that, or undertake to do it, but we can certainly consult with the electoral registration officers.

Mr. Ross

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As we are spending some money, perhaps a bit more can be found if need be. In the light of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 21, line 39, after "above;", insert— (ca) is notified of any decision on an appeal by virtue of section 56 below which requires any such alteration in the register as is mentioned in subsection (4) of that section;".

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 61, 64 and 65.

Mr. O'Brien

These are minor drafting amendments. They deal with the point at which alterations to the register have been the subject of an appeal. I shall not outline them to the House at this stage of the proceedings unless any hon. Member particularly requests it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 21, line 41, at end insert— (1A) The registration officer shall determine an application for an alteration of the register within a period of three working days from receipt of the application.".

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 45, in page 21, line 45, leave out from "him" to "and" in line 50 and insert not later than the day following the day on which he determines or, as the case may be, becomes satisfied that the alteration should be made". Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60.

No. 46, in page 22, line 22, at end insert— except where a person can demonstrate that he was, before that day, entitled to be registered and where the registration officer makes his determination at least three working days before the election.".

Mr. Barnes

We have an increasingly mobile and rootless society, which has a tremendously adverse effect on electoral registration in the United Kingdom. The Government seek to tackle that problem, but the Bill is unduly restrictive. My amendments, and others to which I shall speak on later occasions, are intended to improve on the Government's proposals.

The problem I seek to tackle is that, while electoral registers do not come into force in Britain until 16 February each year, the person is registered at the address at which he or she was resident on 10 October in the preceding year. The Bill proposes to remove the 10 October qualifying date so that someone who moves to a new area may transfer his or her electoral registration without having to wait up to 16 months. When people move or die, their registration will be deleted from the original register.

That is fine as far as it goes, but the Bill has shortcomings in that the transferred registration will become effective only when it is published on a supplementary monthly list. Registration submitted within a fortnight before publication of those lists will be held over until the following month's publication. No monthly supplementary list will be published when an election is approaching once the last day for nominations has been reached. When those provisions are combined, in some cases, people seeking to transfer registration five and a half weeks from the close of nominations will not be able to vote in an election in the area of their new residence. We can do better than that.

A transferred registration could become operative as soon as it is accepted and logged into a computer by the electoral returning officer—as happened with the anti-social poll tax. To avoid an area's being subject to a rush of temporary registrations that would distort the result of a by-election, the register could cease to roll on the closing date for nominations, recommencing on the day after polling. However, if someone has moved to an area before the close of nominations but has not registered immediately, his or her registration could still be accepted up to, say, three days before the election.

To make my proposals fit the current Bill, amendment No. 44 proposes that registration should be determined three days after its receipt by the electoral returning officer. In amendment No. 45, I propose that registrations should be published the day after determination, and publication could be on the computer. Amendment No. 46 argues that someone who is late to register, but who qualifies to have registered, can still be put on the appropriate register three working days before an election. I am trying to make the register roll in keeping with modern needs. In later amendments, I shall try to help that process further. The current amendments are only part of my modernisation proposals.

I want to stress the seriousness of this problem. We need stronger provisions to allow the register to roll more genuinely than it would under the Bill. Radical reforms are needed. I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the seriousness of the shortfall in electoral registration. In 1993, the Office for Population, Censuses and Surveys published a survey by Stephen Smith entitled "Electoral registration in 1991" In the summary of his main findings, Mr. Smith wrote that the best estimate of non-registration in private households is therefore between 7.4 per cent, and 9 per cent, for England and Wales. On the same page, Mr. Smith published a table in which the most serious aspects of non-registration of those eligible were set out. The figures were: 38.2 per cent, of those in private and rented furnished accommodation; 36.6 per cent, of new Commonwealth citizens; 27.6 per cent, of those who have moved over the past year; 24 per cent, of black people; 21.9 per cent, of those under 17—the teenagers soon to have their names on a register; 20.6 per cent, of the 21 to 24 age group; and 20.4 per cent, in inner London. Those serious distortions have considerable effects on electoral registration. The Bill does something to deal with basic problems so that people who move can transfer registration, but we must do much more. I shall introduce amendments on the role of the electoral returning officer in those matters, as part of the whole scheme of things that I am proposing. At present, I am limited to the amendments before the Committee.

My evidence to the Select Committee continued: These calculations seem to me to be confirmed by two factors. First, the arguments about the inadequacy of the static registration system"— I mentioned those earlier. I went on to say that the second was that between 1983–96 the shortfall between those registered and the eligible population fell steadily in Britain from 2.2 per cent to 4.9 per cent. This seems to me to fit in with a period in which we have seen a breakdown in certain aspects of the social fabric: which will disproportionately affect groups highlighted in Stephen Smith's survey. A boost was given to non-registration by the impact of the Poll Tax from 1988 where there was an interlink between the Poll Tax and electoral registers. Probably, about 1 million people were missing from that registration.

My evidence continued: It seems to me that Stephen Smith's study of a registration shortfall of between 7.4 per cent and 9 per cent is entirely plausible. As the shortfall isn't random across society, it will also distort the drawing of electoral boundaries. If the situation is as serious as the one that I described in my evidence to the Select Committee, we need to take several measures that are stronger than those in the Bill. My amendments are intended to do that—they will set us on a path that will enable us to put the missing millions back on to electoral registers.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for tabling these amendments, because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to him. If there is anybody who can claim to be the father of rolling electoral registration, it is my hon. Friend. He kept the issue alive when it was far from fashionable, and now that it is fashionable, he deserves much credit.

At last, my hon. Friend's efforts are coming to fruition, and I hope that he regards the system of rolling electoral registration that the Bill provides as an important step forward. I use those words carefully. I would be the first to accept that this is not a perfect scheme—it is certainly not the scheme that he would like ideally—but it does represent a significant advance on what exists at present and it will lay the foundations for a more comprehensive rolling registration scheme in years to come.

The system that the Bill provides for was devised by a sub-group of the working party on electoral procedures whose members comprised electoral administrators and representatives of political parties. That is important, because those are the two groups who have the greatest interest in making rolling electoral registration work as effectively as possible; they are in the front line when it comes to receiving complaints from irate members of the public who are unable to vote in a particular election.

In its final report, the working party endorsed the sub-group's recommendations and stated: We recommend that the registration scheme should retain the present claims and objections procedure, but that this should be developed to include information necessary to prevent double registrations. Any claim received by the registration officer would only be entered onto the register after a period for public scrutiny and challenge, which would mean that claims received before the 15th day of one month and not requiring to be considered under objections procedure would be entered onto the register from the first day of the following month. The scheme in the Bill sticks exactly to that timetable. Quite simply, the electoral administrators did not believe that the more ambitious timetable that my hon. Friend had in mind would be possible at present. That is why I said that we hope to create a system that will deliver a much better and more effective rolling registration system, but I cannot say that we will deliver the ideal system envisaged by my hon. Friend. We may have that ideal system in future, but unfortunately we may have to wait for a short while before it comes to fruition.

Electoral administrators have many duties and cannot always consider registration applications instantaneously. For example, hon. Members could imagine what might happen if there was a by-election in one ward of a local authority. The registration officer, who might well also be the returning officer in that by-election, would probably be far too busy in the week of the by-election to give instant consideration to registration applications from other wards. Considering and processing applications as they come in, instead of monthly, would require registration officers to issue almost daily alteration lists, which I imagine would not be popular with the political parties or anyone else.

11.15 pm

Finally, there is the important point that electoral registration officers around the country are not currently electronically linked to one another, which is an important prerequisite of a fast-moving rolling registration system. Some 30 different, not necessarily compatible, software systems are being used by electoral registration departments. That sounds trivial. In the modern world one might think that the problem is easy to overcome, but most local authority electoral registration departments use computer systems that are offshoots of the main local authority computer system, so it is a much larger problem.

I hope that I have shown my hon. Friend that the scheme that his amendments seek to introduce, although in many ways very valid and ideal, is at present too ambitious, but I hope that it is something that we can aspire to in the years to come, as our technology improves.

Let me say a few words about amendment No. 46. Although we always say that we currently have a fixed register that is compiled annually and cannot be changed during the year, that is not quite true. Currently, anyone who can show that they were qualified on the qualifying date can have their name added to the register at any time of the year. The only exception is that no additions may be made to a register to be used at an election after the closing date for nominations at that election. It has always been felt that parties and candidates—to say nothing of the returning officer—need fixed goalposts during an election campaign and need to know exactly which, and how many, electors they are dealing with. We think that the principle must be preserved. However, amendment No. 46 would breach it.

I hope that on the basis of what I have said, my hon. Friend will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Finally, I shall say a few words about the two Government amendments. Amendment No. 59 is a simple amendment—although it may not look like it—to tidy up the provisions of the Bill relating to rolling electoral registration.

Under the new system, electoral registration officers will be required to carry out an annual canvass and to publish a revised version of the electoral register on 1 December each year. They will also be required to publish monthly lists of alterations, showing the additions and deletions made in the previous month. However, the working party received very strong advice from electoral administrators that it would not be practical for them to publish monthly alteration lists in October and November, as they would be in the midst of carrying out their annual canvass. The amendment makes that clear.

Amendment No. 60 is a simple drafting amendment. It simply makes it clear that, for reasons that I have explained in connection with amendment No. 46, changes to the register arising from monthly alterations cannot take effect after the last day for nominations in an election.

Mr. Barnes

I appreciate the importance of establishing a principle through Parliament. In the Bill we are establishing the principle of the rolling register. Because we have broken the mould and established that area, some of the further measures that I am seeking will have an opportunity to come into play in future.

The amendments that I have tabled are not quite as difficult as the Minister has suggested. The Association of Electoral Administrators, which has always strongly supported the idea of rolling registers, has taken the lead on this matter, and I am sure that it would be happy to take on board some of my amendments.

However, it would be very churlish of me not to seek to withdraw the amendment after being called the father of the rolling register, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 22, line 2, leave out from "in" to end of line 17 and insert a case where (apart from this subsection) that subsection would require the notice to be issued—

  1. (a) at the beginning of the month containing the date on which a revised version of the register is next due to be published in accordance with section 13(1) or (3) above, or
  2. (b) at the beginning of either of the two months preceding that containing the date on which a revised version of the register is next due to be published in accordance with section 13(1) above,
and in such a case the alteration in question shall be made in that revised version of the register.". No. 60, in page 22, line 19, after "effect", insert "under subsection (2) above".

No. 61, in page 22, line 25, leave out from "section" to end of line 26.

No. 62, in page 22, line 40, leave out first "any" and insert "another".

No. 63, in page 22, line 41, leave out "otherwise than" and insert ", whether or not".

No. 64, in page 24, line 13, after "appeal)", insert— (a) after 'the registration officer shall' insert ', in accordance with section 13A above,'; and (b)". No. 65, in page 24, line 13, at end insert— (4) In subsection (4A) (effect of alterations in register), for 'is made under subsection (4) above' substitute 'made in pursuance of subsection (4) above takes effect under section 13(5) or 13A(2) above.".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Mr. Barnes

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 26, line 20, leave out "authorising" and insert "requiring".

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in page 26, line 25, at end insert— (4A) Provisions authorising a registration officer to inspect, for the purpose of his registration duties, records kept (in whatever form) by categories of persons or bodies, to be specified by the Secretary of State, having information about any person's actual or proposed place of residence or change of place of residence, and to make copies of information contained in such records.".

Mr. Barnes

These amendments deal with the powers and duties of electoral returning officers in seeking to encourage people to register. I believe that electoral returning officers should play a much more proactive role than the Bill provides for.

In amendment No. 55, I would require, rather than just authorise, electoral returning officers to undertake a search for various records. Such duties should clearly be placed on electoral returning officers, although I agree that they should have the facilities and the resources to be able to carry them out.

In amendment No. 27, I would extend the records for which electoral returning officers could search beyond those that are held by local and public authorities. It would allow the Secretary of State to specify categories of people who have information about a person's actual or proposed place of residence or their change of residence. Estate agents, conveyancing solicitors, the former public utilities, such as gas, water, electricity and British Telecom, all have access to details of people's changed addresses. Consideration should be given to providing electoral returning officers with access to such information so that they can carry out their duties. Privatisation and public-private partnerships are the order of the day, so we are in danger of seeing continuously decreasing boundaries of local and public authorities. My amendment would ensure that there would be no cuts in the areas that electoral returning officers could turn to.

If my suggestions worry people because they perceive that they have big-brother implications for the work of electoral returning officers, we should be able to consider the future introduction of confidentiality clauses that would insist that such information would be collected by and would be for the use of electoral returning officers only when they decide whether to transfer, delete, alter or add registration arrangements.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the amendments because they allow me to pay tribute to one of the senior electoral officers who was on the working party on electoral procedures. Mr. David Monks, who is now the returning officer in Huntingdon, was formerly the returning officer in North Warwickshire, so he was able to declare that I was the elected Member for that constituency. I can guarantee that he is a very competent and careful electoral registration officer and that he has great experience of such matters.

The working party on electoral procedures of which David Monks was a member was very conscious of the difficulties that electoral registration officers have in compiling an accurate register. The great experience that he brought to bear enabled them to express the frustration that they feel in the knowledge that their councils often hold the requisite information, but electoral registration departments cannot get access to it. This issue becomes even more acute under a system of rolling registration when people can amend their electoral registration as soon as they move.

Accordingly the working party made the following recommendation: We recognise that there are a range of local authority and other data sources which it would be helpful to the registration officer to be able to consult in carrying out his duties under a rolling registration scheme … we recommend that registration officers should be entitled to request and receive information from local authority and other appropriate public data sources in order to allow them properly to carry out their duty of maintaining an accurate and up to date register. That is an important recommendation and paragraph 23 of schedule 1 is our way of giving effect to it. That paragraph will allow for regulations to be made that will authorise electoral registration officers to consult records held by the local authority and by those who provide services to the authority. That might include the housing department's records or the council tax register.

Amendment No. 55 would require registration officers to consult such records rather than simply allowing them to do so. I have to tell my hon. Friend and the Committee that I think that such a change would not be welcome to electoral registration officers. They have said that they will need no extra encouragement to use a facility that will make their jobs easier.

I do not think that we need to teach electoral registration officers to suck eggs. They have every incentive to ensure that their registers are as accurate and up to date as possible, not least because they are on the receiving end of complaints from those who are left off the register. Experience and the sharing of good practice means that they are best equipped to know how to compile their registers and we should avoid being unduly prescriptive and making their job more difficult.

I have every confidence that once registration officers are given access to local authority records, they will develop techniques for making the most of that access, and we should leave them to get on with it rather than telling them what to do.

My hon. Friend's second amendment would go further. It would allow for regulations to be made enabling the registration officer to consult the records of any person or body who held information about a person's residence. It is hard to know who falls into that category. The obvious answer is the utility companies, and it is true that people will generally notify the electricity and gas boards and the phone company when they move. Equally importantly, they will notify the local authority council tax office to ensure that they do not end up paying council tax on two properties.

Utility companies invariably want a single name for each property to whom they can send bills. I am not sure therefore that utility companies and other organisations necessarily offer useful information above and beyond that held by council tax registers, which is already provided for in the Bill.

Other bodies that have information on people's residence are lawyers, estate agents and other private organisations such as banks. We would be getting into very dangerous privacy and data protection waters if we were to give electoral registration officers access to the records held by such bodies, as the amendment might inadvertently suggest. Indeed the working party warned: Registration officers … should not be entitled to such access where this would otherwise result in a breach of data protection or other privacy regulations. I have every sympathy with the motives behind the amendments, but I hope from what I have said that my hon. Friend will realise that the Bill will make a major contribution to ensuring that electoral registration officers can compile accurate registers. I hope, therefore, that he will realise that his amendments are unnecessary and withdraw them.

Mr. Barnes

I have great faith in electoral returning officers, and the best practice is excellent. However, a variety of practices are used, and clearly some registers are much more up to date than others, so best practice needs to be spread. I do not worry about placing duties upon electoral returning officers.

On amendment No. 27, I have faith that electoral returning officers will make good use of the different techniques available to them to get hold of information and to ensure that it is used only for compiling electoral registers. As I said, I should perhaps have tabled another amendment that included a provision for confidentiality that might have dealt with some of the worries expressed by the Minister. As the future will eventually bring improved electoral registration techniques, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Forward to