HC Deb 13 January 2000 vol 342 cc511-3
Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 39, line 18, at end insert— "Closing date for applications 7A. In paragraph (2) of regulation 69 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 (as amended by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1997), for the words '5 p.m. on the eleventh day' there shall be substituted the words 'noon on the fifth day (in the case of an application received by post), or noon on the second day (in the case of an application made in person),'.". The amendment would move back the deadlines for postal voting applications to the fifth day before polling or, for applications in person, to the second day. I hope that we are in the big tent of consensus both across the Committee and between Front and Back Benchers. The amendment, I hope, has the key to solving many of the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

The current applications deadline is the 11th working day before the election—in other words, the Wednesday just over a fortnight before polling day. I am told that the election administrators are adamant that they cannot deal with postal vote applications in less time. If that is so, nothing illustrates better their over-cautious approach. The Home Affairs Committee thought that it was a ludicrously early deadline, especially now that registration offices are all computerised. It will be even more ludicrous when we have postal voting on demand.

The Home Affairs Committee did not specify a deadline, but I think that the proposal in amendment No. 86 is in the spirit of its recommendation: having postal vote applications by post by the Thursday before polling day and in person by the Tuesday before polling day. Those are conservative targets. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives said that it was possible for proxy vote applications to be granted on polling day. Back in 1993, the Plant report recommended that postal votes should be granted up to polling day, or the eve of polling day.

In Sweden, one can apply for and get a postal vote in any post office on the eve of poll and, in many cities, up to 5 pm on polling day. Indeed, in one post office in Stockholm, one can get it up till 7 pm, one hour before the polls close. That might be one reason why turnout in Sweden is more than 80 per cent., compared with 71 per cent. here. It is not because Swedish politics are that much more interesting.

It is difficult to believe that the 11th day provision was itself a concession. The previous deadline was the 13th day, which meant that people often had only four days after an election was called in which to apply for a postal vote. However, the changes in the Bill mean that electoral registration officers no longer have to consider why someone is applying for a postal vote, or satisfy themselves that the reason is genuine. They can grant the postal vote immediately; it can be sent by return of post, or handed over the counter. I do not understand why the election administrators say that it is difficult to do that in less than 11 days when in Sweden it is apparently possible to do it in one hour. In any case, the argument that it takes 11 days is rather undermined by the fact that late applications can still be dealt with up to the sixth day before an election, and applications from polling station staff up to the fourth day before.

I suggest that the Minister sets a deadline for the administrators that is closer than 11 days. I think that a five-day period is perfectly achievable. I understand that the Home Office believes in setting deadlines to get work done, and this is a classic case. Home Office Ministers need to set deadlines that the administrators can work around. Making it easier to apply for and get postal votes will solve many of the problems to do with early voting and Sunday voting. If it is easy enough to get a postal vote, people will not worry about elections being held on a Saturday or a Sunday. If it is that easy to get a postal vote, we will not need an elaborate system of early voting—we will effectively be able to go to a post office, library or town hall, and get our postal vote up to within days of the election.

There is support for the amendment from all parties; I urge the Minister to find out whether the Home Office will relent on this matter.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I fully support the proposal made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). I am reminded of the phrase from the Bible that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Elections are made for people to participate in, not the other way around. Although it is easy to find technical objections, it must be possible with all the modern technology to have the smallest period—literally a few hours—for people to register.

We all know that people pretend reasons to obtain postal or absent votes, for their own convenience, because they will not be around or because they are not certain whether they will be at home. We have to allow that flexibility. I hope that the Minister will be as supportive as possible. This may be one occasion when we have to say to the electoral administrators, "It may be difficult, but you have to deliver; we are a modern democracy".

Mr. William Ross

The existing time scale has been written in to prevent fraud by ensuring that applications are genuine. My electoral officers tell me that it is already extremely tight. It is difficult to understand how the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) could, a few minutes ago, have calmly accepted clause 12, which provides that the existing arrangements shall persist in Northern Ireland—something with which I am in full agreement. His intention may be good—although it is all motherhood and apple pie in my view—but it is inconceivable that the measure would work in practice. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Mr. George Howarth

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) makes a strong argument. The principle and sentiment behind his amendment are good. The difficulty for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I is that all our present advice suggests that the practical problems of implementation foreseen by the electoral administrators would make it hard—if not impossible—to comply with such a deadline.

However, my hon. Friend has undertaken to speak to the electoral administrators—if possible, he will do so next week—to impress upon them the feelings of the Committee, to see whether we can find a way of dealing with the practicalities. I caution the Committee to take seriously the strictures of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). When we make such changes, we must be absolutely certain that we do not open the door to fraud. With those remarks, and our positive attitude, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Linton

With that assurance from my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Forward to