HL Deb 13 March 1985 vol 461 cc177-86

3.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill had its origins in the first report from the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, Session 1982–83, on the Representation of the People Acts. That report was published in April 1983. Its main recommendations were: an extension of the franchise at parliamentary and European parliamentary elections to British citizens resident in the European Community; changes in absent voting arrangement to enfranchise electors who are away on holiday on polling day; an increase in the deposit required of a candidate at a parliamentary election from £150 to 1,000, together with a reduction in the threshold for forfeiture; and a reduction in polling hours. The Select Committee's work on the franchise was paralleled by the European Committee of your Lordships' House which, at about the same time, also recommended an extension of the franchise at European Parliament elections to British citizens in the European Community, but only for a period of 10 years after they leave the United Kingdom.

After the 1983 General Election the Government decided that the time was ripe for a major Representation of the People Bill, the first since the 1969 Act lowered voting age to 18. Changes in electoral law have always been preceded by consultations between the parties represented in another place. The parties were accordingly consulted on the Select Committee's report at the end of 1983. As a result of those consultations, the Government published a White Paper outlining their proposals for change. Most of these proposals were in accordance with the Select Committee's recommendations, but there was one significant change—the proposal to limit the period for which a British citizen may vote while resident abroad to seven years after departure. The White Paper proposals formed the basis of the Bill as introduced in another place, but as the Bill went through my right honourable friend engaged in further consultations with the parties and further change were made. The Bill which is now before your Lordships' House is thus substantially an agreed measure, and it was given an unopposed Third Reading in another place.

Clause 1 gives British citizens resident abroad the right to vote in parliamentary elections for a period of five years after the expiry of the last register in which they were included before departure. I ask noble Lords to note that period of five years; although it is correctly printed in the Bill, it is wrongly stated as seven year in the explanatory memorandum. The correct term is five years, not seven. The Government have made it clear that we should have preferred a longer period, either the seven years proposed by the White Paper or something longer still. But we accept that on a major constitutional issue of this kind no Government should seek to impose change on those with sincerely held reservations about the principles involved. The importance of the Bill is that it establishes the principle that British citizens should not be disfranchised solely because they are not resident here on the qualifying date. British citizens working abroad in either the public service or the private sector make an invaluable contribution to British interests. It is no longer acceptable that they should have no say in this country's affairs.

Clause 2 deals with the mechanics. It allows a person who qualifies as an overseas elector in relation to a particular constituency to make an overseas elector's declaration by virtue of which he may be included in the register of electors. The procedure is based on that which already exists for service voters. An important change which was made to this clause in another place was the addition of paragraph (e) to subsection (3). This requires the overseas elector's declaration to include a statement that he does not intend to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom. This means that a person who has left the United Kingdom to take up permanent residence abroad will not be able to get a vote under the new provisions.

Clause 3 extends the new arrangements to European Parliament elections. Subsections (2) to (9) are of particular interest to your Lordships' House because they entitle noble Lords (who, of course, do not have the right to vote at parliamentary elections) to make an overseas elector's declaration solely in relation to European Parliament elections. I should at this point say that the Bill does not give overseas electors the right to vote at local government elections.

As your Lordships may be aware, the Council of Ministers has resolved to renew its efforts to reach agreement on a uniform electoral procedure for European Parliament elections, including agreement on a uniform franchise, in time for the next elections in 1989. The Government have made no secret of their preference for a uniform franchise based on the so-called residence principle. This would involve each member state giving the vote at European Parliament elections to nationals of other member states who are living there. But it would clearly be indefensible, in the absence of agreement, not to extend the franchise at European Parliament elections in the same way as is proposed for parliamentary elections. That is what is achieved by Clause 3. It is broadly in line with the recommendation of your Lordships' European Committee, although it is a matter of regret to the Government that there was not general support for the ten-year limit on the extension which that committee recommended.

The next important part of the Bill is Clauses 5 to 11. These replace the existing provisions of the 1983 Act on absent voting, which have become very difficult to understand, and they make a number of significant changes. The biggest change comes in subsection (1) of Clause 7. This extends the right to vote by post or proxy to all those electors who cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station, most notably those who are on holiday on polling day. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the Government that this long-sought reform now has the agreement of all the parties represented in another place.

The Bill proposes other notable changes. First, it gives all absent voters the right to vote either by post or by proxy. The right is subject to the existing requirement that those who vote by post must provide an address within the United Kingdom to which a ballot paper may be sent. The Government would have preferred to have given absent voters who are outside the United Kingdom on polling day the right to vote by post, but on this, as on other points, we bowed to the view of another place. Another significant change, which may not be apparent from the face of the Bill, is that it extends postal and proxy voting to parish and community council elections in England and Wales. This corrects a shortcoming of the present law which the Government have often been asked to put right, and I am glad that we could take the opportunity to do so.

Clause 10 calls for special mention. The Government's initial view was, as I have said, that the new absent voting arrangements could not be made to apply in Northern Ireland. Intimidation of postal voters and other forms of malpractice are common in the Province, and increasing the numbers of postal voters could only have added to the opportunities for abuse. It became clear, however, that our original proposals were not acceptable, and we have therefore adopted a different approach. While Clauses 7 to 9 put the right to a postal or proxy vote on the same basis in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain, Clause 10 empowers the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent serious abuse of postal voting, to introduce the special polling arrangements for which provision is made in Schedule 1. Under these arrangements, a Northern Ireland elector who is in Northern Ireland on polling day but who cannot vote at his own polling station may apply to vote in person at one of a number of special polling stations throughout Northern Ireland. So long as these arrangements are in force, Northern Ireland electors may not apply for ballot papers to be sent in respect of a particular election to addresses in Northern Ireland. The Government hope that they will not have to exercise the power in Clause 10, but if it should become necessary to use it the power is there.

Clause 13 deals with the deposit. At present, a candidate at a parliamentary election is required to deposit with the returning officer the sum of £150 which is returned in full if the candidate polls more than one-eighth, that is to say, 12 per cent., of the total votes cast in the constituency. The deposit has stood at its present level since 1918, and both the Select Committee and the Government took the view that an increase was necessary to reduce the number of purely frivolous candidatures which have become such a feature of recent elections. The Select Committee proposed—and so, originally, did the Government—that the increase should be to £1,000. This would still have been rather less than half the level at which the deposit would now stand had its value kept pace with inflation. However, the proposal was widely criticised, and during the Committee stage the Government accepted an amendment bringing the increase down to £500. The Bill also reduces the level of the threshold to 5 per cent., or one-twentieth, of the total votes cast in the constituency, to protect the interests of the smaller parties. Few candidates outside the major parties can keep their deposits with the present 12 per cent. threshold. The 5 per cent. threshold gives them a significant chance of doing so.

That is the last of the major changes introduced by the Bill, but as your Lordships will have seen over half its pages are taken up with smaller changes in the electoral machinery. We have taken this opportunity of reviewing the whole field of electoral law to see what changes are desirable. Wherever possible, the changes have been the subject of consultations with the political parties and local authority associations in the usual way.

Clauses 15 to 17 introduce a general system for the combination of polls when more than one election is held on the same day. When the 1979 parliamentary general election was held on the same day as the ordinary district councils that year, special legislation had to be passed to combine them. Clause 18 postpones the ordinary day of election in 1986 for a week in response to representations from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Clause 19 simplifies and rationalises the various provisions relating to the computation of time for electoral purposes. Clause 20 replaces provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 under which the old Parliament is recalled if a demise of the Crown occurs after dissolution at a general election with a provision postponing polling day by a fortnight.

Clause 21 puts right a defect in parish and community council elections to which our attention was drawn by the National Association of Local Councils. Clause 22 makes it easier for my right honourable friend to prescribe versions of statutory elections forms partly in English and partly in Welsh. Clause 23 gives effect to the new penalities for corrupt and illegal practices and other election offences for which provision is made in Schedule 3. Clause 24 gives effect to the whole host of minor amendments to the 1983 Act listed in Schedule 4. Finally, Clause 25 reinstates a provision which was inadvertently repealed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

This is a substantial Bill, which makes a number of important changes in our electoral arrangements. The Government have done their best to accommodate views put forward from different points of the political spectrum, and I understand that the proceedings in another place were conducted with an unusual degree of harmony and consensus. The Bill was even, as I say, given an unopposed Third Reading. I believe your Lordships will wish to give it a swift passage on to the statute book so that its provisions can be fully implemented in time for the next general election (whenever that may be). I commend it to your Lordships' House. I beg to move

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare)

The Question is—

Lord Broxbourne

My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, would he be good enough to comment on a short point, as I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with a speech on Second Reading?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am in a little difficulty. My noble friend on the Woolsack has not put the Question. This is a Second Reading debate to which I shall be replying, and I can therefore give the answer that the noble Lord wants if he asks his question in the gap.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, may I ask that—

The Deputy Speaker

The Question is that this Bill be now read a second time.

Lord Broxbourne

My Lords, may I now put Noble Lords: No!

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I really do think that we must stick to the list of speakers. There is a gap in which any noble Lord who wishes to speak may put his name.

3.22 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, is it in order in this ancient home of deprived citizens (in this context) to say that franchise is the very air which our British parliamentary democracy breathes? Therefore, when a Bill of this kind comes before Parliament it deserves to be looked at with the greatest of respect but also with the greatest of attention.

We are always grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he introduces those Bills with which he is charged and his subsequent treatment of them; we are no less grateful on this occasion. I must confess, however, that I thought it was a most unusual compliment to my right honourable friend Mr. Gerald Kaufman to say that this Bill was treated in the other place in a very calm atmosphere. I have had the privilege of studying the Second Reading debate in another place and I shall report to my right honourable friend that his language—which I thought was the usual form—has been interpreted by the noble Lord the Minister as being most moderate and charitable.

It is a great shame—and it was the first point that I was going to make on this Bill—that a constitutional matter of this kind affecting such an important subject as franchise did not appear to merit, in spite of what was said by the noble Lord the Minister, very much consultation at all. One of the things which I noted as being complained of in the other place at this very peaceful Second Reading was the lack of consultation which had taken place. Indeed, it is a parliamentary tradition, as I understand it, that matters of this kind—so that they may be as non-controversial as possible, and so that one may get the maximum amount of agreement—are dealt with at a Speaker's Conference. No such Speaker's Conference was held on this occasion, and the result of this was that there were many debates, many arguments, and many amendments which were put down and which took a great deal of time in another place. I think that is to be regretted.

This Bill flows—as the noble Lord the Minister has said—from the deliberations of the Home Affairs Committee which sat upon Representation of the People Bills of the past. They issued a report, the Government issued a White Paper and there was a debate upon that in the Commons in June of 1984. That was all that preceded the introduction of this Bill into another place.

Possibly, I ought now to turn to the Bill itself and I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to deal with three things which are in the Bill and three things which are not and which, in my submission, should be in the Bill. First of all, I shall deal with what is in the Bill. As the noble Lord the Minister quite rightly said, the vote is to be given to those who are genuinely on holiday. I was surprised to find that on average the number of people who are deprived of this great privilege of a citizen because they are on holiday is some two million. I think therefore that your Lordships will welcome, as do we on these Benches, the inclusion in the electoral right to register a vote of people who are genuinely on holiday.

What I think is a little regrettable is that that right, as I understand it, is still to be withheld from citizens of Northern Ireland. It is an odd situation—is it not?—that you could have two citizens in adjoining bedrooms in an hotel in France, one of whom was a Northern Ireland citizen currently resident in Northern Ireland, and the other a Northern Ireland citizen who had ceased to be resident in Northern Ireland; in precisely the same election one would have a vote and the other would not. That strikes me as an oddity that we ought to be looking at in the course of the passage of this Bill. Having said that, perhaps I may repeat that we on these Benches welcome the inclusion of the genuine holidaymakers whether they be in the United Kingdom itself or whether they be abroad.

Now I come to the second matter dealt with in this Bill—dealt with in its very opening clauses—and that is the right of the expatriate to be given a vote. The noble Lord the Minister, while paying very courteous and deferential respect to the Home Affairs Select Committee, did not mention to your Lordships that a recommendation of that committee which confined this right to those who left this country and went by way of residence to another country in the EEC, only got through by five votes to four. Your Lordships may well think that it is by no means a very well backed recommendation to give the right to vote in our parliamentary elections to expatriates, limited now to five years after they leave these shores. Is it a very sensible provision? Is it very sensible to include those expatriates who decided to leave this country because they did not like paying taxes? Is it right to give this right to people who have fled our shores in order not to come up against our criminal courts? It seems very odd, does it not?

Quite obviously, one extends this right immediately to members of the diplomatic service, to members of the Armed Forces and to those who are on official duty abroad. But is it right for people who can influence near-vote elections—and we have had examples of it—where a government are in by a small majority? Is it right that those who have voluntarily decided that they are not going to pay any of our taxes at all should be responsible for electing a government who pass Finance Acts? Is it right that those who have fled our shores in order to avoid coming before our criminal courts should influence the election of a government who may be dealing with a Criminal Justice Bill? These seem to be oddities, and it seems to Members on these Benches to be necessary, without any doubt at all, that we should certainly have a right to vote for those who are abroad on official duties; but to extend that right, in our view, is wrong.

Baroness White

My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me for intervening? Some of us were deeply disturbed by his representations on this particular matter. We are, after all, members of the European Community. There are many persons who are working on behalf of that Community who are not officially employed by Her Majesty's Government but who are nevertheless rendering a service to their country and should be given greater consideration than my noble friend has found it proper to afford.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that intervention, because she enables me to repeat the words that I used. I specially used very broad terms. I said, "those on official duties". I did not say, "those who are on duties, employed by Her Majesty's Government on official business". I intentionally said, "official duties", and I have no doubt that at the Conmittee stage one can define what official duties may be.

Baroness White

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but there are in Brussels many representatives of British industry and commerce—banking, financial institutions and other reputable bodies—who are also working on behalf of or in connection with the European Community.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, again, if I may say so to my noble friend—whose views I obviously respect, as will the House—this is a question of defining those who should have the privilege of a vote, and this can be dealt with possibly at subsequent stages of the Bill. The main point that I made was this: to put under a very broad umbrella all those who happened to be resident abroad, for whatever reason they have left our shores, seems to be a very wrong thing to do, especially when all of us know that some of our citizens have decided to be resident abroad purely and simply because they did not wish to pay taxes in this country. If there be a principle of no voting or no representation without taxation, presumably that principle should apply.

May I ask the House, as well as my noble friend, with great respect: in regard to our electoral law what are the things that decide? Is it not uniformity as the first principle? In regard to uniformity, are not those of us resident in this country who are British subjects bound to register, by law, and is there uniformity when various people resident abroad will have the option as to whether or not they register? Furthermore, is there not uniformity in our case that there should be residence within the United Kingdom, and does it not breach that fundamental law, except for the matters that my noble friend dealt with, if those who decide to be resident abroad, for no other purpose—I repeat—than to evade our tax laws or to evade our criminal laws, are included in this right to vote, which can be so important in affecting which government we have or do not have?

Baroness Elles

My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Would he agree, nevertheless, that a citizen who has residence in this country but consistently and systematically evades our tax laws, and also disobeys our criminal law, still has the right to vote even though he is resident in this country?

A noble Lord

My Lords, not if he is in prison.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, it would indeed be a difficult thing to decide who of our citizens evaded tax and who did not.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, would the same apply to a citizen who lives abroad?

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, it may very well do so. But if you had a category of those who are resident abroad for reasons of business, for reasons which are useful to this country, and the category that I spoke of, and that we all speak of with great respect—the forces, the Diplomatic Corps; you can go on beyond that, quite obviously, to those who are on official duties, whatever they may be—you can obviously define them and you can decide, by reason of their decision to reside abroad, whether or not others come within those categories. I know of no language at all in a statute which would be able to decide who of our citizens resident in this country had paid all the taxes they should or should not. If I may continue—

Lord Broxbourne

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way, with his characteristic courtesy. Can he comment on the position of one specific category? I refer to the officials serving in the European Parliament. He may have seen the submission of some of them. The noble Lord puts his point on the question of liability to taxation. Has he considered the effect of Article 14 of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities, which provides that British officials of the institutions remain resident, for tax purposes, in this country? Would it not follow from that that any curtailment or denial of voting rights to them would constitute an infringement of the principle of no taxation without representation?

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am flattered by the number of interventions, all of which are courteous and helpful. I hope I shall be forgiven if, because of them, I go on for a little longer than I had intended to do, out of consideration for your Lordships. I merely answer the intervention of the noble Lord in this way. I have at no time suggested that those who, fortunately or otherwise, do not pay taxes in this country should be excluded from the right to vote if they happen to be living abroad. It happens to apply to everyone who has decided not to be resident in this country. As I understand the situation, they will not be liable to taxation in this country provided the Revenue is satisfied that they are in fact now resident abroad. I was merely saying that it seems a rather unfortunate state of affairs if, within provisions which may have the greatest of justification in certain circumstances, we include among those who are entitled to elect a government who decide upon our taxation those who have deliberately left this country in order to avoid taxation. That is a very different point, if I may say so, from that which the noble Lord was quite properly making.

I turn, for the second question upon which I want to address your Lordships, to the matter of the deposit. It seems to us on these Benches a wrongful use of the deciding factor, as to whether someone is a genuine candidate for parliamentary election or what I believe has been termed a "freak" candidate, to ask what is the state of his bank balance. Where he becomes genuine is presumably where he is able to put down a £500 deposit as against the £150, which the noble Lord the Minister was quite right in reminding us dates from 1918. If we are to look at the deposit provisions again, is it not much more sensible to decide that matter by seeing how many supporters of the nomination can be found? If one looks at that as the deciding factor, one finds that one is deciding upon a proper democratic basis, and not making money the determining factor.

Having spoken about those three factors, may I merely say that there are certain matters which are not dealt with in the Bill and perhaps I may very briefly deal with them. The first I can deal with very briefly because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will deal with this matter in much greater detail and with much greater authority. The matter concerns the voting rights of people in mental illness hospitals and mental handicap hospitals, many of whom are there purely and simply because unfortunately our community does not manage to house them and look after their needs elsewhere.

Under the present state of the law, those people cannot use the hospital in which they reside as an address of residence for election purposes. That means that they must give another address, very often outside their own constituency and outside the place where they would expect to vote. As I have said, this is a matter with which I believe others with greater authority than I dare present to your Lordships will deal later in the debate.

I turn briefly to two matters which I believe will command the sympathy of your Lordships, although the noble Lord the Minister will no doubt say when he replies whether one of them can be dealt with in the Bill. The first is the matter of the public meeting place and the right given—and it is a very generous right—to parliamentary candidates in an election. They have certain privileges in regard to the public meetings that they hold and the places at which they hold them. One party in particular—and I refer quite openly to the National Front—uses these privileges at election time and does so with no intention at all of having a genuine public meeting. Indeed, it seeks to ensure that members of the public—and that includes the police—are not allowed into the public meeting at all. As some of us know, that public meeting is used for the most vicious racial purposes that can ever be imagined by Members of your Lordships' House and in a way that is completely contrary to the tradition of the British people.

Then I come to the question of how one deals with that situation. I should have thought that in this Bill we could define a public meeting as being one in which a certain proportion of the unoccupied seats must be available for members of the public, provided of course that anyone deliberately attending the meeting to try to break it up can be excluded, thus providing protection for those conducting the meeting.

The last point that I make on the omissions from the Bill concerns the wretched question of the demonstrations and marches which are also used by the National Front in order to terrify minorities in various parts of our country and to inflame others with racial prejudice. Whether something can be done about this under the Bill or whether the Government intend to deal with the matter under the public order legislation which I know is under consideration, the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell us.

I apologise for having taken up more than the time to which I rationed myself. However, I can say in one sentence that this is a Bill which at present has imperfections; perhaps I may be allowed to say without disrespect that it was very sensibly revised by another place after a great deal of discussion, which could have been avoided if only the proper constitutional traditions had been observed.

Back to