House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Fourth Report

SECTION F: THE FRANCHISE

112. No great concern was expressed in the evidence we have received over the extent of the franchise, i.e. who should be entitled to vote in UK elections. Points were however raised concerning foreigners' and British overseas voters' rights and we comment on these below, together with a further issue over the rights of those with double registrations. The Prisoners' Reform Trust raised also the possibility that voting rights should be given to convicted prisoners,[242] but we did not receive evidence from other groups on this point and we do not therefore come to any conclusions here.[243]

British citizens overseas

113. The Representation of the People Act 1985 introduced a right for British citizens resident overseas on the qualifying date to register as a voter for parliamentary and European elections for up to five years following their move overseas. This period was increased to twenty years under the Representation of the People Act 1989. The peak year for actual registrations under the Act was in 1991 when 34,500 registered; the numbers have steadily decreased since then until a rise in 1997, when the total stood at 23,600, followed by a further fall in 1998 to 17,300.[244] Estimates of the potential number who could register have ranged as high as three million.[245]

114. It has been suggested that it is unreasonable for people who have been away for so long to retain the right to vote. Professor Blackburn argued that the system meant that "an expatriate living hundreds or thousands of miles away, for the duration of a period exceeding a whole generation, carrying memories of British politics in the past and with little or no personal knowledge of contemporary issues in the constituency where he or she used to live, can influence the election of the government of a country to which he is not subject and to whom he or she may be paying no taxes".[246] Electoral administrators pointed out that there were costs attached to registering overseas citizens[247] and that a shorter period might be cheaper and easier to operate.[248] The Labour Party and Liberal Democrat representatives both suggested that 20 years was perhaps too long.[249] Professor Blackburn suggested that the right to vote while overseas might be related in some way to the nature of the links retained with the UK or to an intention to return.[250]

115. On the other hand, it is clear that the present rules—with so few persons actually registering—cause very little disruption or distortion to the actual results[251] and, for the Labour Party, Mr Gardner indicated that changing the time limit was not a priority issue.[252] It must also be likely that those who do register are those with the greater commitment to events in the UK and are those most likely to be planning to return.[253] A further restraining factor is that overseas voters have to vote by proxy (because it is not possible to send a ballot paper overseas reliably in the time available) which means that in order to exercise their right to vote they have to establish some form of connection with their former home. The Home Office reported that most of the correspondence they received on this issue was not from people calling for the twenty year period to be lowered but from people who had been resident overseas for more than twenty years arguing for it to be increased.[254]

116. On balance, we take the view that the twenty year maximum period within which a British citizen overseas may retain the right to vote is excessive and that the earlier limit—five years—should be restored.

Foreign nationals in the UK

117. The present position regarding voting rights for non-British citizens is that citizens of a Commonwealth country or of the Republic of Ireland may vote in any election, while other EU citizens may vote in local or European elections but not in the elections for Westminster. Some witnesses contrasted the rights of British citizens overseas to vote in the UK with the absence of similar rights for many foreign nationals who had been resident and paying taxes here for a long time.[255]

118. There were no calls in the evidence for any restriction of these rights, with the special position of Irish and Commonwealth citizens being specifically endorsed;[256] but it has been suggested that the right to vote in parliamentary elections could be extended to all EU citizens or, further still, that the right to vote in all elections could be given to all foreign residents after they had been in this country for a set period of time. The representatives of the political parties were not at one on this point, with Lord Parkinson for the Conservatives reluctant to extend the current exceptions, Mr Gardner for Labour recognising there might be a case—particularly on a basis of reciprocity—for some extension, and Mr Rennard for the Liberal Democrats suggesting that the present distinctions were artificial and that prima facie those who were resident here and paying taxes should have some form of right to vote.[257] Although there are around 370,000 adult citizens of EU countries (other than the UK and the Republic of Ireland) resident in the UK[258] we do not think the present voting entitlements for non-UK citizens need extension.

Double registrations

119. As already noted, people can legitimately register at more than one address. They may vote at both addresses at local elections; at national elections they may vote at only one but they may choose which one. There have been a number of calls for this situation to be changed so as to remove the freedom of choice as to where to exercise their vote. (This is thus not strictly an issue of reduction or extension of the franchise, but of reduction of the franchise at a particular electoral area.)

120. The principal purpose of such a restriction would be to remove the possibility that such voters could attempt to affect the outcome of an election by choosing to vote in the more marginal seat.[259] Obviously the number of occasions in which any such effect would occur would be very few, but the possibility cannot be ruled out[260] in constituencies where there are large student populations or large numbers of second homes. The present system also gives rise to the danger that a person with two registrations might, improperly, vote at both in a national election; although no hard evidence of this was brought to our attention, this is not surprising since there is virtually no way that such a practice would ever be noticed.[261] All the three main parties agreed that the present system should be changed,[262] and electoral administrators broadly agreed, though they noted that administrative costs would be involved.[263]

121. We agree with our witnesses on this point and accordingly recommend that, provided the administrative costs are not excessive, all persons registered on more than one register should be required to specify at the time of registration which one was to be regarded as their main residence and thus the one at which they would vote at any national election.[264]

242 It was noted that this was done in a number of other countries, and it was argued that it could be a small step towards encouraging a sense of civic responsibility in prisoners (Appendix 14). Back

243 We note that the Minister indicated that the possible extension of voting rights to sentenced prisoners was not currently under consideration (Q 521). Back

244 Appendix 1, Table 5 and Q 522 (Mr George Howarth MP). Back

245 Q 365 (Lord Parkinson) and Q 522 (Mr George Howarth MP). Back

246 Appendix 2, section 1. Back

247 QQ 275-277. Back

248 Q 279. Back

249 Q 422, Q 424. Back

250 Appendix 2, section 1; see also Q 425 (Mr Rennard, for the Liberal Democrats). Back

251 See Q 366 and Q 426 (Lord Parkinson). Back

252 Q 424. Back

253 QQ 423-4 (Lord Parkinson, for the Conservative Party). Back