| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has raised an issue which is clearly of particular concern to him and his party. As I am sure he is aware, the issue is also a very high priority for the Government. The Green Paper was made available, as I am sure he is also aware, in eight languages other than English.
The hon. Member raised a point to do with people who are visually impaired. The proposals will be published not only in Braille but in large print, and will be available on cassette. It is our intention to ensure that the summary of the White Paper is available in similar formats.
The hon. Member asked whether postal votes will be available. I reassure him again that, yes, they will. We shall make particular efforts to ensure that everyone is aware of their rights in the referendum.
The hon. Member raised some very interesting points about what he would like to be in the Bill. It is certainly our intention to examine those proposals. It would be worth examining them and putting them in the White
Paper. The Government are clear that, when we speak about equality, we genuinely mean it. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have already taken many steps to forward the equality of people with disabilities--whatever they may be. He is right to say that there can be no area more important to people with disabilities than equality in exercising what I would regard as one of their most precious possessions: the franchise.
Clause 2 defines the classes of person entitled to vote in the referendum. They will include those entitled to vote at a local government election in any London borough and those entitled to vote as residents at a ward election in the City of London. It is the usual practice for local elections that the eligibility requirement should be that of residency. We intend to follow that practice in the referendum.
It is a clearly established principle that the entitlement to vote in a referendum is also derived from residency. That principle was reaffirmed in the referendums earlier in the year in Scotland and Wales. We intend that the GLA should be elected by London residents. That was made clear in the Green Paper. It makes sense that people eligible to vote in the election of the GLA should be the ones who decide whether it should be established.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
On the issue concerning wards of the City of London, I declare an interest. As a member of a set of chambers in the Temple, I have a vote. All members of chambers in the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple are on the electoral roll of the City--even though, technically, the Temple is not in the City, which is a double nonsense.
I am not trying to be provocative, but I must point out the anomaly. I have always felt embarrassed that such a tradition continues. People who have votes in wards of the City, which include the Temple outside the City, are regarded as electors for all London purposes. I am in favour of the principle enunciated by the Minister that franchise is based on residency. Clearly, votes from the Temple are not residential--although one or two people live there, the votes are generally business votes.
I hope that at some stage--it may not be possible during the passage of this Bill--we get to grips with such an anomaly, since it means that there are two sorts of voter in the same referendum. There are people who vote because they live in London--the Minister for London and Construction, the Minister for Transport in London and I have our homes in London, and that is where we vote--and people who vote simply because they work in London. We clearly need to address that.
Ms Jackson:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising that point. I reassure him that the only criterion that will allow someone to vote in the referendum is that of residency. We have been in very close consultation with the City of London corporation to ensure that the franchise for the referendum is based on fair, uniform entitlements across the City and the 32 boroughs.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he had a right to vote because he is a member of chambers. It is very clear that the only entitlement to vote in the referendum--both in the wards of the City and across 32 boroughs--is through residency.
Mr. Hughes:
I am very grateful to the Minister. She has taken my point. The Government have clearly been seized of it. I am grateful that, in this context at least, the anomaly has been resolved. We shall clearly have to return to the issue in other contexts.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Burstow:
I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert
This is a fairly narrow and technical amendment which is intended to put into proper order the way in which the results of the local elections and the referendum should be dealt with. It is the Liberal Democrats' view that London borough election results should take precedence over the Greater London referendum, not least because we will be electing people who will be exercising authority and responsibility on behalf of Londoners there and then. The people who elect them deserve to know the results sooner rather than later.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
I have difficulty accepting the scenario advanced by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), that the voters of London will have a priority in knowing the results of their choices. I cannot believe, given the enormous public support for the restoration of a democratic voice to Londoners--which has been denied them for so long--that they would not wish to know the results of the referendum in the same way that they will eagerly anticipate the results of the local elections.
We see no good reason for the legislation to stipulate that the local election votes should be counted first. Nor would we expect to provide that the referendum should be counted first before the borough polls can be declared. Detailed count arrangements will rightly be a matter for returning officers and counting officers in the light of
legislative provision and any directions from the chief counting officer. We are working closely with returning officers and local electoral administrators.
Mr. Burstow:
Can the Minister assure us that no pressure will be applied to persuade counting officers to count the referendum first, if elected members wished to see the London borough elections counted first?
Ms Jackson:
On mature reflection, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to withdraw that question. The implications for the standards and approach to their task of counting officers and those who count the votes are unreasonable and unfair. I cannot envisage a situation in which any such pressure would be brought to bear. Perhaps more importantly, I cannot envisage a situation, should such pressure be brought to bear, in which the officers responsible for the proper conduct of the count would give way to it.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
I hope that that is the case. I wish to ask another question. I am told on reliable authority that, in the Welsh referendum, the order of declaration of the results was decided by the Secretary of State for Wales. At his express instigation, the Carmarthen result was held back until last. May we have an absolute assurance that the announcement of the results will also not be the subject of any political interference?
Ms Jackson:
With respect, we had an example of the sort of information that the hon. Gentleman said had come from a reliable source when he claimed that Greater London Labour party members had an overwhelming antipathy to the Government's proposals. I am not casting any particular slur on what he has just asked, but I merely remark on what the House is privileged to know from experience.
'but shall not so certify until after the declaration of the results of all local government elections held in Greater London on the same day as the referendum'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |