Mrs.
Laing: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful
intervention. We have received evidence from electoral registration
officers that they are worried about the matter and the chief executive
of the Association of Electoral Administrators has warned of the worst
logistical challenge in living memory if matters were all to go wrong.
We do not want the process to go wrong. The point of amendment No. 17
is to identify a possible loophole in the Bill and to help the
Government to overcome the problems. The practical result of the
amendment would be that the electoral registration officer would put
the new names at the end of the register, thereby avoiding the need to
renumber it until the next month, and following a general
election. I
have proposed how the problem could be obviated. There could be a much
cleverer or more practical way of getting round it. If the Minister and
those immersed in the Ministry of Justice who know exactly how the
system works can come up with a better solution than the amendment, I
shall be delighted because it is merely my quick attempt to highlight
the problem and suggest a way in which it might be put
right.
David
Howarth: Good morning to you, Sir Nicholas, and to members
of the Committee. I wish to put on the record my thanks to the
Government for clause 12. It attempts to resolve a problem which, as
the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, affects a number of places,
especially university towns, by changes in the electoral register in
the canvass period in two respects: first-year students might not be on
a register, and second and third-year students will have changed
address, as a result of which there will be terrible confusion about
where their polling card should go.
There is not
a problem in the clause but, if there is, I am sure that the Minister
will deal with it. However, there is a problem with the amendment,
which is that it would remove the words
“shall take
effect as from the beginning of that
day” from
proposed subsection (6). Without those words, there would be a
fundamental problem in the
Bill.
The
Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael
Wills): I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. The
hon. Member for Epping Forest rightly drew attention to misuse of the
rolling canvass. I congratulate her on
investing the clause with the significance of the highest order that few
of us might have guessed before she started her remarks. She has raised
real issues, but it is precisely those matters that the clause is
designed to address. The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether the
electoral administrators had been consulted. Yes, they have, and so has
the Electoral Commission. All agree with our approach, which is that
the provision will reduce its administrative burden in the event of an
election being called during the canvass
period. Incidentally,
the hon. Lady keeps referring to John Turner and his nightmare. That
was hypothetical and would happen only if administrators had to issue
rolling register forms. They will not do that, so she will be relieved
to hear that nightmares are off the agenda. She asked whether the
elector’s number will change when the register is republished in
December. Yes, it will at that point, but it will not change when the
notice amending the register is published. She made a specific point
towards the end of her remarks, which I will address in some detail
because it is important. It relates to the concern that clause 12 could
result in a mass of new people being added to the electoral register
shortly before an election and therefore it would be difficult to
scrutinise their applications. That is a valid concern. However, in
resisting the amendment, I hope to be able to demonstrate to her, and
the Committee, that appropriate procedures are already in place to
allow applications for registrations to be scrutinised by the public. I
hope that in doing so, I shall bring the clarity that the hon. Lady
seeks. It
is important that, in addition to the checks being made by registration
officers, members of the public and parties can check a person’s
eligibility to register—to help prevent fraud, among other
things. At present, the provisions set out in the Representation of the
People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 provide a means for an
elector’s eligibility to register to be scrutinised. Regulation
27 provides that an elector registered in the area of the local
authority may make an objection to a person’s registration,
whether before or after that person has been added to the register.
Regulation 28 provides that an application for registration, including
one made on a canvass form and any objection to a person’s
registration, shall be made available for inspection at the
registration officer’s premises, until the application has been
determined. Regulation 29 sets out the procedure that must be followed
by a registration officer when he or she determines applications for
registration, or objections to a person’s registration without a
hearing. Under this regulation, each registration officer is required
to keep a list of all the applications for registration that still have
to be determined. While there is no obligation to do so, in practice,
each registration officer compiles this list by reference to the street
name and the ward of the registrant and allows members of the public,
or political parties, to inspect it, together with the registration
applications.
Once an
application for registration has been determined, clause 12 requires
the registration officer to add new electors to the appropriate section
of the register by the publication of a notice, which then becomes part
of the register. It contains the name, ward, street and house number of
each new elector, or person, removed from the register. That notice is
published five days before the poll; it is available to political
parties to inspect, or they can request that they be supplied with a
copy. It is
therefore already possible for members of the public and political
parties to scrutinise applications for registration made before the
poll. Mr.
Djanogly: Is it not currently the case that political
parties are given a copy of the new list? Is the Minister now saying
that they will have to request a
copy?
Mr.
Wills: It is absolutely the case that they will have to
request a copy if they so wish, but it is readily available. I am not
sure that that is an additional burden on the volunteers with whom we
have been so rightly concerned throughout these
proceedings.
Mr.
Djanogly: Would that be at nil cost to the
candidates?
Mr.
Wills: No, it will not be at nil cost but it would be at a
marginal cost. [Interruption.] I stand corrected, it will be at
nil cost to the candidates. In other words, the costs would be borne by
the electoral registration officer.
It is
possible for these applications already to be scrutinised. It is also
possible to see which new entries have been added to the register for
the election by looking at the published 13BB notice. As mentioned,
this amendment would also delete proposed new section 13BB(7)
to the 1983 Act, which serves a useful purpose. It is quite feasible
that an election may be called late in the canvass period, where
registration officers have completed their annual canvass and wish to
bring forward the publication of the register from 1 December to
coincide with the poll. Deleting this subsection would leave the effect
of the provision unclear and may mean that registration officers will
not be able to deal with canvass forms in the usual manner, which is
the quickest way of compiling the register.
We need to
get the right balance between enabling as many people as possible to
register to vote and being able to check that those who register are
eligible. We believe that the current arrangement for making a list of
applications and objections available for inspection and publishing a
list of changes to the register achieves this end. I hope that in the
light of that explanation the hon. Lady will withdraw her
amendment.
Mrs.
Laing: I thank the Minister for his explanation. My reason
for tabling the amendment has always been clarity. I am pleased by his
explanation to the Committee this morning. We certainly welcome clause
12 in general, but I was concerned about the renumbering issue in
particular. I would like him to confirm that I have got the following
right: the register will not be renumbered during the month before an
election if it falls within the canvass period. Given his undertaking
that that is the intent of the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
11
am
Mrs.
Laing: There is another area of considerable concern, to
do with the way in which electoral registration takes place. It comes
within the scope of clause 12 and concerns service
voters—serving members of Her Majesty’s
forces, many of whom are now on active service in dangerous places.
Before 2000, members of Her Majesty’s forces could register once
in order to exercise their vote and their registration was valid for
the whole time that they served in Her Majesty’s forces. Those
service voters, and the members of their families who travelled with
them, would move around the country and around the world because of the
duties they undertook. When I say service voters, I am not speaking of
serving people only, but of their families as well. Before 2000, being
registered to vote was not an additional concern for someone in Her
Majesty’s forces.
In 2000, the
Government disfranchised thousands and thousands of people serving in
the forces by making it compulsory for them to register every year.
Unsurprisingly, as people were taken up with their duties on behalf of
Her Majesty’s forces, sometimes they forgot to re-register. If
someone is in a combat zone, I do not suppose that it is at the top of
their list of concerns to think, “Oh goodness, it’s 15
October, I’d better register again to vote.” As we all
know, there are other pressures on serving officers and their
families.
In the
Electoral Administration Act 2006, after we complained bitterly about
the situation, the Government finally conceded that registration should
be necessary by members of Her Majesty’s forces every three
years only. The way in which clause 12 deals with how the canvass is
done and registration is carried out will keep the provision that
people have to register every three years. When hundreds of our
servicemen and women are risking, and giving, their lives for the
freedoms that we enjoy in this country by fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan
and other parts of the world, putting on them the burden of having to
register every three years is wrong. Those people are literally
risking, and giving, their lives for the very democracy that we are
talking about, but they are often not able to take part in the
democratic process, because they are disfranchised by the bureaucracy
of having to register again and again. That is wrong, and the
Government have an opportunity to put it
right. Mr.
Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): This is an issue that I
am extremely concerned about, and have been for several years. Clearly,
the only issue that we should and can address today is the relationship
between clause 12 and the methods that the Government have already put
in place to try to ameliorate the problem. However, they have not fully
ameliorated it, so I am not convinced. I want to know from the
Minister—we shall find out—how much thought has gone into
the relationship between clause 12 and the largely consultative, ad hoc
measures for addressing the effective disfranchisement of a large
proportion of our service
voters. It
is important to explain and rehearse how we got into this mess,
otherwise we shall not be clear on how or whether clause 12 can get us
out of it. The problem all arose because, inadvertently, as a
consequence of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
2000, thousands of service voters—probably a third to half of
them—and their families were removed from the register. They
thought that they had been registered for the whole period of their
service, which is what they were told when they joined, but they then
discovered—a few of them, much later—that PPERA had
disfranchised them. Their enfranchisement no longer applied, without
there being any notification or information about how to get back on
the register.
As
a matter of fact, I was the one who uncovered the situation. At the
time, I had two bases in my constituency, and I asked my returning
officer in Chichester, casually, about the registration figures. He
said, “Well, on Thorney island there has been a drop in
registration.” I said, “Oh. By how much?” He said,
“Forty-seven per cent.” About half those on the island,
who are almost all service voters and their families, had been taken
off the register. I raised that with the Government and the Electoral
Commission, but I am afraid that I got dilatory
responses.
The
Chairman: Order. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to make
his point, but it goes rather wider than clause 12, which
deals with registration during the canvass period. However, I
understand the importance of his point, so I shall use my
discretion.
Mr.
Tyrie: Thank you very much, Sir Nicholas. It will be of
particular concern to a large proportion of our service voters if they
can have some assurance that this change will not inadvertently lead to
another ill effect, as yet not thought out—I have not thought it
out—just as no one thought out the effect of
PPERA. I
could not persuade the Government to do anything about service voters
before the 2005 election. The Ministry of Defence has to shoulder some
responsibility for this, because the Department was aware of the
situation but did nothing about it. In the Department’s defence,
it was fighting a war, so one might argue that it had more important
things on its mind—that is what the Ministry of Defence would
argue. Taking
to heart your strictures about ensuring that my remarks are pertinent,
Sir Nicholas, this is my last general point. It is particularly ironic
that, as a country, we expected members of our military to put their
lives at risk to extend democracy in countries such as Iraq while we
were neglecting to ensure that they could vote in a general election.
Furthermore, in that general election, the biggest single issue was the
war in Iraq. That was absolutely
extraordinary. My
questions to the Minister come in several parts. First, since he took
office, has he examined the schemes that have been put in place to
ameliorate the problem? I shall give time for the officials to prepare
an answer. I understand the position, and I apologise to him for not
telling him in advance what matters I intended to raise with him, as I
can see from how he is scribbling that he regards them as important. Is
he up to speed with knowing what has been done since I raised the
matter previously? A number of us made a lot of noise about it in the
House. Is he confident that the existing service register is
functioning properly? What estimate does he have of registration as a
proportion of the total service
vote? Given
what the clause does to the rolling registration period, my second
question concerns the effect that it will have on the level of service
registration. Has it been taken into account? Have there been any
discussions with the Ministry of Defence about it? Are we confident
that it will have no ill
effects? The
road to hell is paved with good intentions, or whatever the phrase is.
Everyone thought that PPERA would be all right, but it had the dramatic
consequence
of perhaps taking 100,000 service voters off the register. The effect of
the clause will not be remotely as bad as that, but I am worried that
the suspension of rolling registration embodied in it might
inadvertently generate some ill effects for service
voters. Is
the Minister ready to answer the questions? It seems as though he is
getting near that point, so I shall gladly allow him to
respond.
| 
