| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.45 pm
Mr. Evans: I agree with all that the hon. Lady is saying. We want the franchise to be extended to homeless people. They have been discriminated against once and we do not want them to be doubly so. Our problem is that, for the first time, legislation is making it easier for people to claim a local connection at the town hall. We want to ensure that safeguards are put in place so that the system is not abused by others--not by the genuine homeless, but by other people who want to make protests.
Jackie Ballard: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, in putting that sledgehammer in place, he will be discriminating against the very people to whom he wanted to give a right.
As I said, the difficulty will be to persuade people who are roofless that they want to reconnect with the democratic process. That will be a real challenge for all of us and, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, we will oppose it.
Mr. Fabricant:
I welcome the provision that will enable the homeless, as well as prisoners on remand and those who live in psychiatric residential centres, to vote. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, that provision will mean that the legislation will be open to abuse, which means that democracy itself will be open to abuse.
The Minister said that he is not too concerned if a group of Ulster Unionists moves to north Warwickshire, but we must all be slightly concerned about people who are homeless, or indeed those who are not, registering a local connection in an area when they do not have one. Shelter has said that, sadly, more and more homeless people are living on our streets. One does not have to be homeless to make a declaration of local connection.
As we do not have a national register as such, how will the Minister ensure that people do not make multiple declarations? In Committee, one Labour Member told me that homeless people cannot get to a number of areas to vote. That is patently not so. If one is on the cusp of a number of adjoining constituencies, it is easy to walk into each to vote during a day. What if one is not homeless and is using the internet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) described? That makes it even more probable that there will be major abuses of democracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) mentioned Newbury, where tree-houses and tunnels were designated as places of residence. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the Swampy syndrome. There is a real probability that we will be inviting abuse if tight clauses are not added to the Bill as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested. It is pleasant to see that the amendments in the group are not mutually exclusive. They could all be accepted to ensure that there is no abuse.
There is no question but that there is abuse. Earlier in the passage of the Bill I asked the Minister how many abuses occur. He was unable to tell me. Clearly, they have not been detected. If the Bill is not amended to ensure that owners of properties must say that the individual who makes the declaration of local connection lives there, we shall be inviting the sort of abuse that my right hon. and hon. Friends have described.
We have discussed the question of verifying a number of issues, and we had a long debate about the word "verifiable". Amendment No. 9 is an important amendment. Making a person who owns or occupies a property agree that the declaration of local connection is viable and correct will be a small step towards ensuring that abuses do not happen in the future. If these amendments are not adopted, we will be inviting abuse. Surely that is not what the Minister wants.
Mr. Syms:
There are two sides to this question. The first is that people have an absolute right to vote, and the second is that there must be transparency and a right to challenge. The current electoral register is published, and people can check it and their right to be on it. Sometimes, people are open to challenge. If, within a year, somebody missing from the register wants to be added, his name is put up in a local council office or public place so that, in effect, people can challenge that right.
The real problem with homeless people is checking that they have a local connection. This is a problem not only for the returning officer, but for political parties. Many of
us in the Chamber could look at several constituencies and say that we have a local connection. In that case, where one votes could be an elective point, rather than a point of residence. That could cause a real problem, and could raise the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
The system could be open to abuse--not by the homeless, but by people taking advantage of their political position to scoop up a number of additional votes in a particularly marginal seat. All political parties try to take advantage of the electoral law as it stands to maximise their political performance in any seat. There are abuses in proxy or postal votes. Occasionally, agents of parties are accused of abuses because they have signed up people who may not know what day it is. There is scope for abuse by those who know what they are doing in taking advantage of those who are homeless and on the streets.
An address is a critical point for most of us. We register our address from the point of view of electoral registration, and if we purchase or do anything we are often asked where we live. Often, people check the electoral register. If one wants to join a video club, for example, people will ask for bills, or for some connection with a particular address to verify where one lives. If one does not have that, there is a problem. Political parties across the spectrum may look at an individual and measure whether the local connection is valid and whether that person should be on the electoral register. My fear is that the electoral registration officer will be put in a position whereby somebody wants to be registered and local political agents and parties will object because it cannot be proved that that person has a local connection.
In my constituency, the only people with a good idea of who lives on the streets are local police officers. The only way in which one could prove a local connection would be to get statements from local police officers who, in certain areas of Poole, know the people who are sleeping rough in those areas. I am not sure that those homeless people would want to go to the police for a statement that they are local residents, because there is sometimes an uneasy relationship between them.
I have concerns about this measure. It is well intentioned, but open to abuse. If we are not careful, unscrupulous people could take advantage of the homeless.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
We have had many lengthy speeches in this and other debates today. Some hon. Members have suggested that there has been some filibustering--heaven forfend--because the Opposition wish to prevent us reaching the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. This is an important amendment, but I should point out that Conservative Front Benchers have not opposed the next business and it would be particularly hypocritical of them to continue to make long-winded speeches. Perhaps they are just naturally given to them; we will see.
Each of the amendments in this group is designed to place obstacles in the way of people wishing to register as electors by means of a declaration of local connection and, in particular, those people who wish to use that route because they are homeless. We will need to work hard to get the homeless to register to vote, let alone fulfil the concerns that have been expressed tonight. The Conservative party was represented on the working party on electoral procedures, but it now appears to be backtracking on what it agreed then.
Amendment No. 30 would, in effect, impose a three-month residency qualification on a homeless person seeking to register as provided in the Bill. That raises the question of why the homeless should be treated differently in that respect from all other electors in Great Britain. Does the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) really think that a rent-a-homeless-vote procession would arrive in a constituency having a by-election and make straight for the town hall to register to vote, having been alerted to the need to do so via the internet to which, as homeless people, they would hardly have ready access? The hon. Gentleman seems to have a name for that idiocy--I can call it nothing else--and he calls it the Swampy factor. It would provoke much comment if such a thing were to happen and would damage any party that sought to organise it. It is unlikely to happen and the hon. Gentleman has presented no evidence for it. If he has some evidence, I would be pleased to see it before he pursues his argument further.
My objection applies also to amendment No. 9, which would require the homeless person seeking to use, for example, the address of the shop in whose doorway he normally spends the night, to get the shopkeeper's permission before doing so. If the shopkeeper refused, that person would be disfranchised. I can see no justification for that. The shopkeeper would not be affected because the fact that the homeless person had registered under such an address would not give him any rights to remain in the doorway. Indeed, it could be argued that the shopkeeper was consenting to the homeless person sleeping in the doorway if he gave consent to registration. The shopkeeper would be placed in a worse position in that case.
Homeless people have enough problems with being homeless and registering to vote without the Conservative party trying to restrict their ability to vote. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) described the prospect of the homeless voting as a nightmare. I suspect that one of the worst nightmares of the homeless would be for him to be in government again. The Conservative party simply does not want the homeless to vote. That is what the Conservatives are frightened of and what the amendments are about. They are seeking to deny electors the right to express a view on their policies.
The Conservatives are frightened of the electorate. They were defeated at the general election and they do not want more people to vote because they, too, would vote against the Conservative party. The amendments would deny homeless people the right to vote. They would undermine the ability of people who should be able to exercise their democratic rights to do so.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |