Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420
- 439)
TUESDAY 23 JUNE 1998
MR DAVID
GARDNER, MR
MIKE PENN,
THE RT
HON THE
LORD PARKINSON
AND MR
CHRIS RENNARD
420. Lord Parkinson?
(Lord Parkinson) We suggested the national insurance
number but that is just a suggestion. We would like to find a
way, we all share this view, of giving homeless people the right
to vote. That was one suggestion but there are others and I am
sure if there is a will there is a way to find a way to register
people and we would like to see a way found.
421. Mr Gardner?
(Mr Gardner) We very much concur with that. We are
proposing a qualifying date of the first of each month. There
is case law that even rough sleepers would be able to register
on the first of the month where they happen to be rough sleeping.
Although rough sleepers are only a small number and the homeless
problem is much more widespread than that, I think it is possible
but clearly there do need to be safeguards against abuse.
Chairman: Now the franchise, various different
issues under that heading. Mr Singh?
Mr Singh
422. The registering issue is a very important
issue but I had not realised how deadly boring it was so I will
take the opportunity to change tack slightly. British citizens
resident overseas for up to 20 years can vote in the United Kingdom.
Are you happy with that? Do you think they should be allowed to
vote if they have had no connection with this country for 20 years?
Do you think this period should be shortened or lengthened? What
are your views on that?
(Mr Rennard) I think the period should be shortened.
20 years is too long a time for this. I think also there ought
to be some sort of indication by the person if they wish to vote
in our elections that they may come back at some point. Obviously
what you must do is protect the rights of people who are temporarily
working abroad who still may come back and be governed by the
laws and pay the taxes but I do not necessarily think if they
were away for 20 years and have no interest whatsoever in any
of our laws and taxes that they should have a vote here.
Chairman
423. Lord Parkinson?
(Lord Parkinson) I think it is more an apparent problem
than real. As I say, in theory three million people could have
voted at the last election. In fact about 40,000 did so I do not
think it would make very much difference whether one shortened
the period or not. Once they are away it is only the very dedicated
that seek to use their right.
424. The issue is one of principle though, Lord
Parkinson, rather than how many.
(Lord Parkinson) Yes, there is a very substantial
number of people sent by their companies to work in America and
so on. They keep a house here and plan to come back here in due
course, maybe they do not keep a house here. There are quite a
lot of people who go and live in places like the south of Spain.
Most of them, a very substantial number of them do eventually
come back here for a variety of reasons. As I say, I think it
is right to give people who have a continuing interest and commitment
to the country the opportunity to vote but the take up shows that
on the whole it is only a tiny minority who are interested.
(Mr Gardner) I think we can get too worked up about
the issue of overseas voters. When it was introduced I think the
then Government thought that it would be the window to bringing
a lot of new people on the register and there may or may not have
been some partisan motivation, it is not for me to say, and the
Government spent half a million pounds, almost as much as it did
on domestic registration. So we had the ridiculous situation where
half a million pounds was spent to register overseas voters and
half a million pounds was spent to register 44 million domestic
voters and clearly the balance was totally out and still is totally
out. I think there are genuine cases where British citizens do
go overseas for a number of years and keep connections with the
country. I tend to agree with Mr Rennard that 20 years may be
too long and ten years may be a more realistic time span but I
do not see this issue as a priority in the same way as a rolling
register, postal voting or an electoral commission is a priority.
425. If football is not coming home do you think
at least that overseas voters should come home to exercise their
vote at some stage in those ten years?
(Mr Rennard) I think there ought to be an indication
that they may at some point come back to the country in order
to retain their right to vote overseas. Of course that is dependent
on their word entirely. If they may come back there is a strong
case for saying they should be entitled to vote. If they admit
themselves they have no intention of ever returning to the United
Kingdom I am not sure they should be entitled to vote in our elections.
Chairman
426. If the Government said it was going to
change the rule back to what it was five or ten years ago would
anybody here feel strongly against that? Lord Parkinson?
(Lord Parkinson) I think it would be a pity for a
country that prides itself on its worldwide trading links and
so on and has a lot of its nationals living abroad for sometimes
quite long periods to deny those people the right. The proof of
the pudding is in the eating. It is only the people who are seriously
interested who are actually taking up their right and it is a
tiny proportion of those who are theoretically eligible but it
seems a pity to deprive the 40,000 who are clearly enthusiastic
and committed to their right. I think most people who have lived
away for 20 years have only a marginal interest in the elections
in the country from which they originate.
427. Most of the 40,000 would probably come
within the five years rule anyway.
(Lord Parkinson) I do not know much about them. We
do not know too much about who they are but, as I say, I do not
think we should take a sledge hammer to crack what is really quite
a small nut.
428. Is that the view of you all? Mr Gardner?
(Mr Gardner) Yes. I agree that it is not a major issue
but I do think if we were having a new Representation of the People
Act that overseas voting does need to be tidied up.
429. To a lower limit?
(Mr Rennard) It is not so much a sledgehammer to crack
a nut as a principle. If 20 million voted that would fundamentally
change our elections, would it not, and therefore I think it should
be tightened up and revert to something like five years as being
appropriate.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr Singh?
Mr Singh
430. What about the rights of foreign citizens
resident in the United Kingdom, citizens of the European Union
for example, who can vote at the moment in European elections
and local elections if they are resident here but not in Parliamentary
elections. Allied to that the rights of foreign nationals who
are resident in the United Kingdom for a fair time. What are your
views on extending their voting rights? Why should for example,
Commonwealth citizens be privileged over other foreign nationals
in terms of voting?
(Mr Gardner) I think we have very strong associations
with Commonwealth countries and I think it is well established
in electoral law that Commonwealth citizens should be able to
participate in our elections and I think that is right and the
same with Irish citizens. Clearly the law has recently been changed
after the Maastricht Treaty and EU citizens are allowed to participate
in European and local elections but not in Parliamentary elections.
I think there may be a case for participation of EU citizens in
Parliamentary elections but it may be best done in liaison with
our European partners so that we move together on that issue and
there is a common standard across the EU. I am less convinced
in terms of other foreign nationals but I think there is scope
for looking at the participation of foreign nationals particularly
in local elections where clearly they do use local services and
pay council taxes.
(Lord Parkinson) It is a basic qualification. Citizenship
is normally a basic qualification for the vote and the Commonwealth
vote is to some extent a sort of hangover, but I think unless
the Commonwealth is just going to be something that exists on
paper and has no real relevance then this is a recognition that
the Commonwealth is an important part of the British international
and national interest and the people who are part of the Commonwealth
are special. That has been accepted and I do not think it causes
a great deal of concern because I think people feel that the Commonwealth
is an important institution and this is a recognition of the fact
that it is unique. I do not think that is an argument for extending
the right to other people and I think that giving EU citizens
the right to vote in local elections where they actually are,
as my colleague says, paying local taxes and so on is perfectly
reasonable but I would be a shade reluctant to extend the right
to vote in Westminster elections to them. I think the Commonwealth
is a principle. Once you start breaching that why should not everybody
who lives here have a vote?
(Mr Rennard) I think if we were to extend the principle
that has been applied to 20 million people who left Britain some
time ago up to 20 years ago who can vote in our elections here,
it seems slightly strange to me that people who may have moved
here and lived here for 20 years and are governed by our laws
and pay our taxes do not have a right to vote. It is hard to draw
the definition of where the line should actually be but the principle
ought to be the converse of that which I suggested for people
abroad in that if they were permanently abroad and had no intention
of ever coming back perhaps they should have the right to vote
here and perhaps people who are not United Kingdom citizens who
permanently reside in this country should have a vote. I think
it is an artificial distinction to say they can vote at the European
level or at local level and you wonder if perhaps Members of Parliament
think the Parliamentary level is important and the local level
and European level unimportant. It seems to me if the principle
is that they should vote in local council elections because they
pay the council tax and send their children to local schools and
the local education authority runs those schools, then if they
also pay our income taxes and are governed by our laws perhaps
they should be allowed to participate in choosing Members of Parliament
also.
(Mr Gardner) If I may come back on this. I have just
been advised there are no reciprocal arrangements with other EU
countries such as Germany. I do think this is a matter where at
a governmental level we have to liaise with the other governments
in the EU and try to establish a pattern over the whole EU of
rights so that people do not have duplicate rights in some instances
and in other instances have no rights at all either in their country
of origin or in their country of residence.
431. Would you favour taking it away from Irish
citizens the vote on the basis that there is no reciprocity?
(Mr Gardner) Personally I think that is very well
established. I forget the precise number but there is a very large
number of Irish residents here. They have always had the right
to vote and they are very much integrated into British society
and I would like to ensure that that was reciprocal for the British
citizen.
Mr Howarth
432. What do you think of a group of people
like students, for example, who can register in two places and
then choose at the general election where they want to exercise
their vote? Should they have to nominate when they register where
they want to exercise their vote in advance?
(Mr Rennard) I can see why they should be able to
vote in either place in local elections if they come under the
auspices of one council for part of the year and for most of the
year under another council. Clearly they are not allowed to vote
in two Parliamentary elections. I do not think they should have
a right to choose though which of those two giving them the entitlement
to vote in Parliamentary elections. I think one of them should
be the main place of residence and that should determine where
their Parliamentary vote is rather than being able to choose,
"I live in a marginal seat two months of the year and in
a safe seat ten months of the year but I will vote in the seat
that is marginal where I live for two months of the year."
The same principle must apply in my view to second homeowners
who obviously will register twice for registration purposes and
legitimately a second homeowner who lives in Kensington during
the week and goes home to Cornwall at the weekend should have
a right to vote in council elections in both Cornwall and Kensington
but in a Parliamentary election if Kensington is the main place
of residence but it is not a marginal seat it is perhaps appropriate
that the person has the vote in Parliamentary elections in Kensington
and not in Cornwall where they are there at best two days a week
some weekends of the year.
Chairman
433. Lord Parkinson?
(Lord Parkinson) I agree with that actually. I think
people should nominate their principal place of residence. That
applies to students in particular because they are birds of passage
and they can elect the member and not be there for more than a
few months after he has been elected so I think they should nominate
their principal place and so should second homeowners. I agree
with that.
434. Mr Gardner?
(Mr Gardner) I think I have some sympathy with that
point of view as well. With the introduction of a rolling register
hopefully—because students are very mobile at the moment
they tend to move from address to address it is an anchor if you
like to be registered at their parental address—and hopefully
improved cross-referencing including student rolls and so forth
that becomes less of an issue. Certainly in Parliamentary and
European elections it would be better if people when they sign
their declaration say this is their main or principal residence
whichever definition was best.
435. Would that not disenfranchise a lot of
people because you cannot predict what time of the year an election
will be held and it might be in term time if you are a student
or it might not be in term time? Would the result be to disenfranchise
people?
(Lord Parkinson) The postal vote will be available.
(Mr Gardner) One point here is that when there is
an annual canvass there should be a postal vote application attached
to that form so people are advised if they are students or likely
to be working away to apply for a postal vote at the same time
that they are registering so students know that they are going
to be away and they are not going to know when the election is,
I think that will be of assistance.
436. Do you agree with that Mr Rennard?
(Mr Rennard) Yes.
Chairman: Mr Singh?
Mr Singh
437. Can I ask you about the rights of mental
health patients both those detained under the Mental Health Act
and voluntary patients. At the moment currently they cannot use
the hospital to register and they may be in that particular hospital
for a long period of time. It appears to me that they are being
disenfranchised at the moment. Do you have any thoughts on that?
(Mr Rennard) I think it is quite wrong that a hospital
is not deemed to be an appropriate address. I think it ought to
be an appropriate address for somebody in those circumstances
to be able to register to vote. Of course you do have some difficulty
in ensuring that that person is entitled to vote. They may have
difficulties of access to the polling station or a postal vote
and there is a possibility when you have large numbers of postal
votes going to one address—this applies more to residential
homes than it does to hospitals—or one person being appointed
as proxy that there are suggestions of abuse. I think what you
could perhaps do in these circumstances is have a moving polling
station, ie, the returning officer or staff could bring a ballot
box to such an institution, a hospital or a residential home or
hospital and ensure by taking a ballot box with them there is
some privacy and entitlement to vote by these people.
438. Lord Parkinson?
(Lord Parkinson) In my old constituency when I was
a Member of the Commons I had five large mental illness/mental
handicap hospitals in my constituency and this was a very big
issue because although care in the community is often attacked
now there were a lot of people tucked away in those hospitals
who should never have been there and who should have been entitled
to have a vote. I was very pleased when this was changed, but
to have five in one constituency with at the time over 7,000 patients
would have been a very big part of the electorate. That has gone
now. With care in the community there are very few huge hospitals
with huge aggregations of people and the hospital populations
are much more an integrated part of the community so I think ways
should be found of helping those who are capable of exercising
the vote of having it. I was interested, I saw the figure that
there were 1,195 voluntary patients on the register in 1997 which
did not seem to me to be a huge number. I cannot believe there
were not more people than that who should have had the right to
vote. I cannot see why the hospital for a long-stay patient should
not be an address but for a short-term patient, a person who is
on move, his or her permanent home should be the place where he
or she is registered, I think.
Chairman
439. Do you agree with that Mr Gardner?
(Mr Gardner) I agree with that.
Chairman: Mr Linton?
| 
