| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: The temptation in circumstances such as these is to respond to an argument on the basis that one
likes and trusts the people who have made it. Because they have been charming, one is inclined to feel that a measure is safe in their hands. I am tempted in that way today because of the way in which the Minister has put the argument.
The problem is that neither the Minister nor the Home Secretary, whom we all admire so much, will not be in their posts for the rest of time. It is possible that people will be appointed who, under clause 11, will be empowered to take a different view and act in a less trustworthy way. I accept what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government and, on balance, it would be appropriate for me to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the House of Lords will look again at this and other matters.
The irony is that, as long as the House of Lords remains unelected--a fact that I consider unfortunate--we will be asking unelected people to consider a Bill that bears directly on our electoral process. However, I hope that their Lordships will take a view closer to mine than to the Minister's.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Evans:
I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 19, leave out lines 45 to 50 and insert--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 32, in page 19, line 50, at end insert--
Mr. Evans:
I shall be brief, as the amendments are self-explanatory and I want the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who attended every day of our deliberations in Committee, to be able to move his amendments. Time will also be needed for Third Reading.
The amendments would ensure that the electoral registration officer is encouraged to keep the rolling register as up to date as possible. It would empower him to make regular canvasses of inquiries for all or part of the register, as he saw fit. It would also encourage him to collaborate with all registrars of births, marriages and deaths in the area to ensure that the register is kept up to date.
Some hon. Members will know of a film called "Dead Man Walking", but the amendment is designed to avoid a sequel that might be called "Dead Man Voting". That happens at general and local elections, but the amendment
would mean that the names of people who die are taken off the register, so that other people cannot use those names to vote.
Mr. Barnes:
I do not want to filibuster my own time, but I shall speak very briefly to these amendments.
Canvassing activity is very important. In Northern Ireland, complete canvasses are conducted when electoral registers are compiled. That does not happen elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and the Northern Ireland lesson is one from which we could all learn.
Amendment No. 32 proposes collaborating with the registrars of births, deaths and marriages to remove the names of dead people from electoral registers. That is an important matter. Widows and widowers should not be bothered by polling cards and election addresses for their dead spouses, or by people knocking on their doors to find out why those dead people have not voted.
Many returning officers may already have access to such information, but they cannot use it to delete names from the register. That is what Mr. Bradley, the returning officer for Northern Ireland, told the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The anomaly causes great difficulty when it comes to handling personation.
Personation is less likely to be of dead people than of people who do not normally vote, but I feel remiss that I did not table an amendment along the same lines. My previous proposals for rolling registers are based on the principle that accurate registers of local voters depend on the ability of the registration officer to remove the names of those who have left an area, or died. This is an important amendment.
Mr. Hancock:
I support the amendment, as I am sure do my Liberal Democrat colleagues. To implement it, electoral registration officers must have the necessary resources. At present, the resources are devoted to the accurate maintenance of electoral registration are inadequate .
What is proposed is only common sense. The Home Office and Ministers with responsibility for local government must give real credibility to statements about the need for accuracy, maintenance and regular updating of electoral registration facilities. At present, those facilities are pitiful and are a real deterrent to voting. People are often offended at receiving poll cards for relatives who have died, and I have known them turn up at the polling station and refuse to vote as a protest against such inefficiency. I am aware of instances in which polling cards have been sent to people who have been dead for many years.
The amendment is long overdue.
Mr. William Ross:
Would it not be possible for registrars of births, deaths and marriages to send a list of the names of those who have died to the people responsible for electoral registration? That could be done once a week, or once a month, as required.
Mr. Hancock:
That is an excellent suggestion, but the question is one of resources. The funding for the registrars of births, deaths and marriages is inadequate and needs to be revised.
I want the amendment to be adopted, and the suggestion from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is worth pursuing. However, extra resources must be devoted to the task.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
Amendment No. 33 is a deceptive little amendment, since the words that it seeks to delete from the Bill are more important than the words that it seeks to add.
It is an unfortunate fact that, every year, a large number of households fail to return their electoral registration form. Electoral registration officers are assiduous in chasing missing forms, often paying several visits to the properties concerned. Even then, there are some properties from which no information is forthcoming. In such circumstances, a practice has evolved of keeping names on the register for a year in the absence of any evidence that the person concerned has moved out. We believe that this is right. In cases of uncertainty, the decision should always be to keep people on the register rather than disfranchising them.
New section 10(7) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which schedule 1 to the Bill inserts, will simply put the existing practice on a statutory footing. I am sorry that the Opposition seek to remove the provision, since to do so would ultimately deny people the right to vote. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was not aware of the result of such a deletion. Although I have some sympathy with the point that he made, the Conservative attempt to slip this through is far more worrying.
The Conservative Opposition want to insert a provision allowing registration officers to carry out an inquiry or canvass at any time of the year. In principle, that is entirely unobjectionable. But I wonder, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South suggested, how realistic it would be in practice. Registration officers find it difficult, costly and labour-intensive carrying out one canvass each year. I doubt whether they have the resources or the inclination to carry out a second. Do the Opposition want the Government to increase the grants to local authorities to pay for their amendment? If so, we will note such an expenditure commitment. Or do they merely want to impose the burden but not will the means?
Mr. Ross:
If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that I recently tabled a number of questions inquiring about the cost of registering an elector in the various sub-divisions of the United Kingdom. He will find it of interest.
Mr. O'Brien:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly look with interest at the answers, which I presume came from me.
The key to the amendment is canvassing all the areas, which is what the Conservative Opposition appear to want. Amendment No. 32 would require electoral registration officers to consult the local registrars of births, marriages and deaths with a view to removing the names of the deceased from the register. Apart from the fact that people do not always conveniently die in the area where they are registered, the amendment is unnecessary.
In line 22 of page 26 of the Bill, paragraph 23(3) of schedule 1 provides that registration officers will be able to inspect records kept by
"(7) Each registration officer may, as he thinks fit, conduct an enquiry or canvass in relation to part or all of an electoral register at any time, notwithstanding sub-section (1) of this section.".
"(8) Each registration officer shall each month, or seven days before any poll, contact all registrars of births, deaths and marriages covering the area for which he is responsible, in order to ascertain the names and addresses of those persons deceased within the previous month, and shall remove such deceased persons from the register within three working days of ascertaining this information.".4.45 pm
"any local or public authority".
That encompasses not just records that are publicly available, such as the local register of births, deaths and marriages, but those to which he would not otherwise have access.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |