§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if they are aware of the large number of inaccurate entries in the Register of Electors relating to former Service electors, and whether they are satisfied that the Central National Registration Office notifies Electoral Registration Offices without undue delay when such personnel leave the Services.]
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the Register of Electors, which is published annually on February 15, relates to circumstances on the qualifying date for the register—namely, the previous October 10. The register remains in force for a year from February 16 and cannot be amended once it is published. It follows that a person who was a Service voter on the qualifying date will remain on the relevant register as a Service voter even if he has left the Service in the meantime. This cannot be avoided, and the person concerned suffers no disadvantage by remaining on the register as a Service voter. The important thing is to ensure that discharges from the Services are notified promptly to the electoral registration officer at the time the register is being compiled, and Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that this is in fact done.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I think that perhaps I failed to make my meaning perfectly clear. Would he not agree that, owing to the fact that electoral registration officers are not allowed to delete a Serviceman's name from the register until they have authority from the central office, names frequently remain on the register for, not twelve months, but several years after a man has left the Service? In view of that, the Serviceman is misled into thinking that he is entitled to vote, if he has a vote, and the register itself is artificially inflated with names which are useless and out of date. Would Her Majesty's Government go into the question of this imperfection in the system of representation of the people, in order to try to 168 remove this delay? Or, if delay cannot be removed under the system as it is, would they look into the possibility of changing the system?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the noble Earl is of course right in that if the Services Register Index fails to send the necessary document to the electoral registration officer, the name will remain on the list. He is right in saying that the registration officer cannot remove it without the necessary document being passed to him. But I have no knowledge of there being great discrepancies in this respect, and if the noble Earl has evidence to the contrary, perhaps he will be good enough to let me know about it so that the matter can be looked into. I should like to say further, in regard to the deletion of obsolete addresses of Service voters, that a Working Party has been working on this matter and the Service Departments have agreed that at the annual check-up in the Services every man who may have made a declaration some time before should be asked to bring it as completely up-to-date as he can.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy Lords, I am glad to hear that; and I will certainly let the Minister have the instances of which I know.