I beg to move That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I had never previously realised how difficult a choice faces any hon. Member who is fortunate enough to draw a high place in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills. When I found myself lucky enough to be in that position, I realised instantly that I was in a slightly bewildering situation. Many good causes were pressed hard upon me and many private crusades came vividly before my eyes.

I was tempted not merely to adopt some of the good causes that other hon. Members have taken up but to draw the attention of the House to one or two matters that I have always thought desirable, such as making it a statutory duty for caravan site owners to screen their sites, camouflage their caravans and hide such eyesores in the countryside, or to make it an offence punishable by imprisonment to demolish any building over 150 years old without a licence from the Secretary of State. As the House will know, I decided in the peculiar circumstances of this Parliament that neither of those choices would be appropriate. Accordingly I seek to bring before the House a Bill that touches on the representation of the people and the law that surrounds it.

I am sure that I was not alone during the recent election in finding while canvassing that there were a number of faults in the electoral register in my constituency. I have always found that to be the case in any election I have fought. However, at the last election I probably found more faults in the register than during any previous election. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will have had a similar experience.

During the last election I found that there were three categories of potential elector who were angry because they would not be able to vote. In the first category were those who had made plans to be away from home and on holiday and who thereby did not qualify for a postal or proxy vote. The second category were members of the Services who found themselves for various reasons not registered to vote either where they happened to be stationed or where they lived and that the absent voting facilities that we seek to make available to members of the Services did not apply in this case. The third and angriest category I met were those who had discovered to their shock and surprise that their names did not appear on the register, although they had every reason to suppose that they would be included.

So it seemed to me, in the peculiar circumstances of this Parliament, and remembering that we are likely to find ourselves going to the polls again on the register which was in force at the last election and which we know to be imperfect, that we should try to do something about the matter. I am aware that there are those who take the view—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will not number herself among them—that the Representation of the People Acts are not a fit area into which private Members should seek to venture. That is not a view which the whole House shares.

I know that we have among us today more than one who sought to intrude into this sacred territory. For example, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) once had the courage to introduce a Bill seeking to provide votes for holidaymakers. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) once sought to do the same thing. There have been similar attempts in the past.

There are others who take refuge in the belief that the proper way of handling these matters is that they should be left to the Government after Mr. Speaker's Conference has mulled them over in due time. I say with great deference to you, Mr. Speaker, that having been a member of a conference that was chaired by one of your predecessors I am conscious that that august body does not always get everything right. Nor can we say from our own knowledge that all its recommendations always commend themselves to the House. It is not, though perhaps it should be, the source of Holy Writ on electoral law. Moreover, I think I am correct in saying that at this moment, although there are pressing matters concerning electoral law, there is no Mr. Speaker's Conference in being. That is an unfortunate state of affairs.

If those who have to deal with these matters take the view that they do not need further advice from Mr. Speaker's Conference and that the matter can be safely left to Ministers of the Home Department to bring it before the House whenever they see fit, I must tell the hon. Lady that our experience here has not always been encouraging.

There are hon. Members present who well remember the undignified episode when the then Home Secretary—now Foreign Secretary—found himself obliged by statute to lay before the House an order on the redistribution of parliamentary constituencies which the Government Chief Whip then organised Government supporters to defeat. That was as discreditable a piece of gerrymandering as we have ever witnessed and does not give the Government very good credentials as the custodians of public interest in a matter of public importance.

I make no special apology, therefore, for having chosen this subject. If the circumstances of this Parliament had been different I might have sought to go a little wider by bringing in a Bill which would also have abolished the anachronism of the £150 deposit. It is an absurd situation that anyone who can scrape up £150 can come under starter's orders at an election if he can also get 10 signatures. I would rather see him obliged to get 150 signatures and be let off with a contribution of £10 as a deposit. That would be the right way to settle that matter.

I hope on a future occasion also to press for a law making it illegal for any person or body to make contributions in excess of £10,000 to any political organisation in any one year. It might seem that this would damage the interests of one party as against another, but I make no judgment of that. I dare say that the Liberal Party would have its excessive reliance on that largess of eccentric millionaires curbed by such a provision. Indeed it must be that painful thought which makes Liberal Members so reluctant, apparently, to take part in this debate.

We should certainly reflect on whether we have in this country as good a financial system for the funding of democracy as some other European countries have recently developed. The French, the Germans and the Swedes, who link public funding of political parties with the performance of parties at the polls, have worked their way towards a situation which in many respects is more satisfactory than the one prevailing here. That sort of proposal, however, would cause rather more controversy than my modest suggestion today, so you will be relieved to know, Mr. Speaker, that I have not sought to make any such proposal in the Bill.

I hope the House will accept the Bill as being non-partisan. I am glad to say that I have support for its provisions from two outside bodies, the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the National Union of Students. Both have been kind enough to say that they support its provisions, and I hope that that fact will add to my credentials of non-partisanship.

I hope that the Bill is at least comprehensible and that its intentions are clear. I say this in the knowledge that I am likely to be assailed on the ground that its drafting is far from perfect. I take the entire blame for that. Any hon. Member who associates himself with me in supporting the Bill can spare his blushes. I did the drafting myself. I must therefore take the blame if it is wrongly phrased and the parliamentary draftsmen have been suffering stroke after stroke at the violence done to the beauty of their legal language. But I saved £200 for the taxpayer by doing it myself; I did not see the point of hiring a man to put it into legal language. The Long Title of the Bill sets out the objective, and we can surely sort it all out in Committee.

The parliamentary draftsmen work for Parliament rather than for the Government, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will be most helpful in trying to get the Bill right in Committee—in trying to get the right number of split infinitives, for example. If the hon. Lady has any criticisms on grounds of drafting, I hope that I have disarmed her. I have admitted that the Bill is not perfect and I am seeking her assistance in improving it.

Clause 1 provides that every elector who plans to be on holiday on a day on which it is subsequently decided that a parliamentary election should be held should be on the same footing as an elector who can claim a proxy or postal vote because he will be, or is likely to be, absent on business on polling day. This is not a new idea. It has been opposed in the past, but times have moved on and I think we are now rather unlikely to attach much weight to the implication that it is somehow morally wrong to go on holiday when one should be doing one's duty at the polls.

That impression still lingers, however, My local newspaper was kind enough to mention the Bill under the somewhat pejorative headline

indicated assent.

I see that the hon. Member, whom one would expect to be the first to show puritan tendencies, shares that view.

What is all the more extraordinary, however, is the suggestion that my proposal would open the way to universal postal voting and consequently to widespread fraud and abuse. If that argument is deployed, those who use it must satisfy us that there is no room for fraud in the present system. As I have been told in a parliamentary answer, there are few convictions under the present system, but I have the tiniest of suspicions that the present business vote system is open to the possibility of abuse, even if we turn a blind eye to it. I have a fraction of a notion that part of the abuse of the business vote system is committed by electors who are technically at fault when they say that they are going to be absent on business when they are in fact going to be absent on holiday. If that is so, however, the moral surely is that we should tighten up the regulations on business voting, not that there is anything wrong with absent voting as such.

The most important experience we have had recently, and which is both topical and relevant, is the situation in Ulster. I am sure we all recall how widely, if not universally, absent voting facilities were made available in Northern Ireland in last year's local government and Assembly elections and in the border poll. The proportion of absent voters taking part increased from the norm of 2 per cent. to 14 per cent. We know the reasons why that provision was made for Northern Ireland, and it was sensible and right. But it is a striking fact that there is virtually no evidence of abuse of the absent voting facilities by those who chose to take advantage of them, whatever abuses there may have been among the 86 per cent. who went in person to the polls or at least on behalf of someone else.

I believe that a significant lesson can be drawn from that experience since it shows that people are anxious to have absent voting facilities in certain conditions. Of course one appreciates the problems which exist in Northern Ireland, but one must also take into account the safeguards that were introduced into the absent voting provisions. Their procedure, for example, included a much stricter counter-signature or witnessing process for applications. To be satisfied that he could properly grant absent voting facilities, the registration officer required an application to be countersigned by a person of substance. That is not quite the same category as is required for countersigning passport applications, but includes those in a similar band of social responsibility such as social workers, magistrates and ministers of religion. There might be a case for applying this requirement to the business voting procedure.

The Bill hints at the point that, in satisfying himself that it was proper to grant an application to a person who stated that he had made plans to be on holiday, a registration officer should require vouchsafing of the application by a person in responsibility in a similar category to that used in Ulster. I have been deliberately vague about this because I feel it is a good point to be considered in Committee.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He wants the vouchsafing to be undertaken by a person who has some degree of social responsibility. He is surely aware, however, that this is not required under present provisions for obtaining postal voting for a person who is too infirm to go to the polls. At the time of the last election, the Government positively incited registration officers to accept applications for postal votes from some people regardless of whether the vouchsafing was done by a doctor or a person of similar status.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. In my experience, an application for the right to vote by post on the grounds of illness or infirmity requires countersignature by a doctor. I have obtained a postal vote for my mother in this way. Hon. Members on the Government side may have an opposite point of view to put forward, but that does not invalidate my point. We can look at the matter in Committee.

I hope the House will agree that absence on holiday, when a genuine prior commitment had been made, is as good a reason for a postal vote as any other reason on the statute book. I do not seek to give voting faculties to people who are merely away for the day, but I believe that my proposals on this matter should commend themselves to the House. Some people may still think that the proposals should be left to be considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference for a little longer. But I believe that there is urgency, because we may have another election on the existing register. An election might be called by or forced on the Government at the height of the holiday season, and people have every reason to expect that the House should enable them to take part in it.

Regarding students, and leaving aside the question of dual registration, I see no difference in this respect between a student who is able to vote, as the law stands, if he is away on business or at work and a student who is unable to vote because he is away on holiday. We should also remember that those who are fortunate enough to get their names added to the list of postal or proxy voters as business voters can still use their postal vote whether they are in fact away on business or on holiday.

I commend Clause 2 to the House simply by saying that it seeks to carry out the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference in the last Parliament, with which the House will be familiar and which were set out in Command 5363, the letter of 20th June which Mr. Speaker sent to the then Prime Minister. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has taken a close interest in this matter and will, I hope, expand somewhat on the present situation of the Service voter if he is lucky enough to be called. He has a powerful constituency interest, as do I with the Guards depot at Pirbright in my constituency.

The whole House should take a close interest in this matter. At present there are about 360,000 men and women in the Armed Forces, only 25 per cent. of whom are registered to vote. There are 280,000 members of the Armed Forces who are not entitled to vote. I refuse to believe that this is because they do not want to vote. There may be some who do not wish to vote, but to suggest that three-quarters of the people who serve this country in the Forces of the Crown have deliberately chosen to disfranchise themselves is a gross exaggeration. All the evidence shows that the reason why registration of Service men has tended to decline so much in recent years is the unhappy change in the law which was introduced substituting annual registration, even though that was, I freely admit, a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. There is a recognised need to change the law to give Service men the opportunity to vote and to give their units the opportunity, and indeed the duty, to see that if Service men wish to take part in politics by exercising their rights as citizens to vote, no obstacle of procedure is placed in their way. My hon. and learned Friend will, I hope, expand on these arguments which to me seem compelling, and I am sure that he will put the points compellingly.

With regard to Clause 3, all of us, in every election which we have fought, have had a very good giggle at the number of children, dogs and even the occasional parrot included on the register by the householder who feels that it is better to be safe than sorry. Such instances are usually marked by a cute little photograph in the local paper showing little Mandy who so looks forward to voting. Such things brighten our day yet they greatly annoy those whose names are not on the register when they ought to be. They are the sorest electors of all because they are unable to vote.

In my experience there may be many reasons why these people are not on the register, but this does not make any difference to their anger. Those who have themselves to blame are angry with themselves, but there are some who find that their names have been omitted through the fault of their landlord or the head of their household, and these people also are angry. I have had letters from some of them. One letter is from a gentleman in Brixton who states:

On two counts.

The hon. Gentleman may seek to amend the Long Title in Committee to cover that point.

People are also left off the register by the head of a household for reasons of inadvertence by a third party. For example, I received a letter from a schoolmaster at a boarding school who stated that the bursar, who was responsible for filling in the form, was under the misapprehension that the schoolmaster would have a vote elsewhere and so he did not bother to include him on the form. This was inadvertent, not malicious, but it still disfranchised the schoolmaster.

There is also a third category of person who may be disfranchised. I once came across a case in my constituency. I can describe this sort of case as the Alf Garnett syndrome. I canvassed an elector who assured me that he always voted "blue", but when I asked him about his lad who was in the garden he told me "Don't waste your time on him. He is as 'red' as they come. But you have no cause to worry. I have refused to put him on the register." [HON. MEMBERS: "Typical Tory."] I dare say that hon. Gentlemen opposite who shout "Typical Tory" would, if they were honest enough to admit it, find that there was more than one latter-day Keir Hardie who had disfranchised his young Conservative son or daughter in the same way. Do not let us have stones thrown from people in glass houses.

I can give a few examples.

I am sure my hon. Friend will do what he says. In any case, I do not think that we can tackle abuses of that sort in this Bill, although if hon. Members opposite want to try to do so in Committee, I shall be the last to stand in their way.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the seriousness of his position. If the head of a household refuses to include on the form a person who is entitled to be on the register, that is a criminal offence, and the person concerned in that instance told the hon. Member that he had committed it. The hon. Member is therefore guilty of a criminal offence in not reporting it to the registration officer and bringing about the prosecution of that Conservative householder.

The hon. Member is a terrible barrack-room lawyer and we do not necessarily like him any the better for that. However, as any offence was committed at a time when I could not be in any way involved in it and has in any case long since passed, the hon. Member really is not making a valid point. Indeed I must tell him that I have been in the House long enough to know that it is full of people who are cleverer, wittier and brighter than I am, but I have never found any of them of the slightest help in making my speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get on with it in my own way, because I shall probably be quicker, whatever else, if I am allowed to do so.

We must seek to tackle the problem of people who have been disfranchised by official default. They feel very strongly about it. I had a letter from a lady who wrote from Westminster:

I realise that the situation is very complex. I asked my own electoral registration officer, the clerk of my local borough council, Mr. Shawcross, who may be known to the Minister's advisers and who has been very helpful to me in this respect, for some figures. He tells me that in my constituency there are 68,188 electors, of whom so far only 86 have complained that their names were not on the register when they should have been. In 20 instances that was due to errors by the electors. Of the remaining 66, 11 were Service voters, although the canvassers had received a list of Service voters, and the other 56 errors were attributable to a small number of canvassers—who were employed to make up the register—so that the fault was theirs not the electors.

If my calculations are correct, we have a situation in which 66 potential electors in my constituency know that they have been left off the register because of bureaucratic default, and as many again may not have complained. Thus, taking my constituency as average, there are at least 100 persons in each constituency, 60,000 people throughout the country, who have been disfranchised in this way —a whole constituency disfranchised, if one wants to put it like that—not an insignificant matter and a situation that we ought to do something about.

It is true that attempts have in the past been made to put this right. The business of a printer's error has been overcome by Section 7(2) of the 1969 Act. That has plugged one gap that was known to be there and that a previous Speaker's Conference recommended should be plugged. I have had a letter from a Mr. Turner, a retired registration officer, who wrote to me showing the initiative that he had displayed in an election in the 1960's when he found that names had been left off the register when it was first published in draft form. He told everybody involved that he intended to write their names back into the register for the election. He did so and suffered no penalty thereby. He is to be commended for his good sense, but that is not necessarily a solution that will commend itself to everybody, and I do not know that we should encourage registration officers generally to take that way out.

There are many instances throughout the country, as hon. Members know. A whole street was left off in St. Albans; half a village was lost in Runcorn; 36 electors were omitted because they lived in new houses in Manchester; a number were omitted from the register in Rushcliffe. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) was kind enough to write to me himself to say that he would be here today to support me because of his experience of a number of cases.

It is true that there is a remedy. The present law provides a cumbersome machinery, but it is a remedy of sorts. I understand that its technical name is an order for mandamus. A former local government officer, Mr. Blomeley, drew my attention to an interesting article that he wrote for the Local Government Chronicle on 15th March of this year expounding the situation and saying how unsatisfactory it was, but drawing attention to the use of an order of mandamus. It is a procedure by which an order may be made against a returning officer requiring him to rectify an error that was his fault or the fault of his servants.

I very much hope that by publicising this procedure, which is not as widely known as it should be, I can at least give a remedy to anybody who wishes to seek to take advantage of it. But I do not know that the High Court would necessarily be pleased to find itself overwhelmed by orders for mandamus, even supposing that all those who had been omitted in each of the 635 constituencies could be persuaded or could find the time to band together to bring one single action.

Nevertheless, there is that remedy and I hope to persuade my own local authority to use it in order to re-enfranchise constituents who have been so wrongfully denied the vote. I hope that other hon. Members will agree that in the prevailing circumstances it should be used, but I do not seek to persuade the hon. Lady that it is the right procedure on which to rely in general in future and indefinitely. It is a remedy and I have reminded the House about it. If we do not do something about this defect now that it has been demonstrated, we shall have added insult to injury to more than 60,000 people, who will be disfranchised twice, because the same register will be used at the next election.

It is finally because the matter is so urgent that I seek a Second Reading of this Bill today. It is no part of the duty of this House, or of any hon. Member, to stand between an individual elector and his vote. The situation is exactly the reverse. If an elector is unable to vote because he has planned to be away on holiday—and indeed he may lose financially if he seeks to break it off—we should help him. If a Service man cannot register to vote because of the way the law now confounds him, we must put that right. If a single elector has been disfranchised by official error or inefficiency, it is our duty to restore that elector's right to vote.

There is no party bias in this matter. I do not believe that there is any party advantage one way or the other. I am speaking for a simple democratic principle—one man, one vote. I ask the House to join me in giving the Bill a Second Reading in the hope that it will give back the vote to about 500,000 people who may otherwise be denied it at the next election.

11.38 a.m.

I have not had any representations on this subject from outside, but I have had many representations from electors in Kings-wood when they have found themselves left off the register and so disfranchised at the last election.

The three operative clauses of the Bill are important. The first would allow persons on holiday to vote by post or proxy. That is a much-needed reform for electors who are being allowed to claim only what is rightfully theirs, namely, the right to vote.

There have been occasions in the past when electors have voted by post when on holiday. I well remember looking at the Absent Voters List of the General Election of 18th June 1970 and being amazed to see husbands and wives marked on the register as "removals" to places such as Bournemouth, South-bourne and Brighton. Obviously these people had been on holiday and had slipped through. This Bill asks only for official blessing on what has been going on already, with some electoral registration officers turning a blind eye to it.

Yesterday I referred in the House to the electoral registration officer in my constituency of Kingswood who refuses to comply with the law and who will accept only the signature of a doctor on the postal vote application form. My constituency Labour Party and parties in the whole of the region, including the Conservative and Liberal Parties, have tried to make this officer change his view and to allow others to sign the form, but to no avail. At the same time this person, who is insisting on a doctor's signature for this form, is apparently turning a blind eye to people going on holiday and voting by post. This is plainly a much-neded reform.

The Bill also provides that any person who is a member of the Forces shall be invited to obtain a postal vote franchise within three months of entering the Service. All of us at General Elections have found that frequently people have contacted us, relatives of Service men for example, to say that the Service man wanted a postal vote. It was then found that the time had passed for such an application to be made. A great deal of frustration is caused by this. If everyone in the Forces were registered well before hand there would be no disappointment at local government or parliamentary elections.

The third and final provision in the Bill is equally important. It concerns electors who have been left off the original register through no fault of their own and who are entitled to be on the register because they were resident at the time of qualification, namely 16th December. In my constituency many electors have been left off the list, including residents in a whole road of flats. This came to light only when they received no literature from me during the election. When I went to canvass in that road I was asked why this was so. We then found out that they were not on the register. Only three houses in that road were on it.

Upon investigation it was found that there had been an error on the part of the canvasser acting on behalf of the local electoral officer, 35 miles away in Gloucester. I do not seek to criticise the local government officials who undertake this job of canvassing but these things happen and it is most frustrating for voters. The issue of a supplementary register from time to time would entitle these people to be added to the register.

I have found that very often landlords do not put the tenants of their flats on the register. Such people also come to me. I have had to ask the electoral registration officer to take the unprecedented step of giving me photostat copies of the forms returned by the landlords so that the officer may be exonerated from all blame and the blame may be attached to the landlords. It is vital that supple- mentary registers are brought forward from time to time to deal with such things which only come to light when there is an election, local government or parliamentary.

The three points contained in this Bill are much-needed reforms to the Representation of the People Act. They all concern electors who are entitled to vote under the law. We hear a lot about the law of the land. These people are not asking for any special favour but simply to be able to exercise their right to vote, according to political persuasion, in parliamentary or local government elections. A myth has grown up about the postal vote arrangements to the extent that sometimes one would think that people were asking for an extra vote rather than the one to which they are entitled. As I go round my constituency I hear about people unable to vote, or of those who have been unable to vote because they have not been able to get a postal vote or have not been able to get on the register as a result of some slip. The time is long overdue to stop these things. I hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading.

11.46 a.m.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) upon his Bill, which in many ways is so typical of himself. It is crammed full of excellent intentions and—I speak only as a onetime lawyer—a little rough round the edges.

We have all come across the three categories set out in the Bill, particularly, no doubt, during the last General Election. The feelings of anger and frustration which have been mentioned are known to us. We have all met the elector on the doorstep who has said, "I am not on the register." I had an experience at the last election when a person indicated to me very clearly and shortly that he would not vote for me. I then looked at the register and had to inform him that his name did not appear upon it. He got out of his front gate before I did on the way to the town hall saying, "You Tories can't fool me like that."

We have to recognise that the choice of a holiday period has to take into account such factors as children's holidays and the like. The holiday is very much a part of the annual work pattern of an individual. To say that in some way he should make a sacrifice, financial or other, to return to carry out his polling duty is asking a little too much.

Dealing with the Service voter, when we look at the figure for those registered in the Service it seems to have been at an average of about 25 per cent. over the years. This is a shameful figure. When thinking in terms of reform here we must look at the realities of Service life. It is not enough, as happened in the past, for the adjutant or some similar officer, to say a few words on parade or for a notice to appear on the notice board. Like most notices in the Services, it will probably be ignored. We have to get it home to commanding officers that they have a duty to impress upon those under them that the opportunity for a postal vote exists.

In the past officials concerned with the voting process—and this goes all the way to the responsible Government Department—have tended to be over-bureaucratic and over-formal in the application of the rules. One feels almost that the vote is not a right but a donation by officialdom. The time limits on qualification could be minimised. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) that there is an idea that any method of voting other than by a person walking into the polling station is almost improper, and that the right to do so should be granted only in the most extreme situations.

As official observers at the Border poll in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and I saw several curious practices. A lady who called herself a personating officer looked at me and the hon. Gentleman and said that she would let me vote but not him—on appearance alone. There were no complaints about the exercise of the postal vote. In the special circumstances of Northern Ireland a large number of people, quite rightly, thought that by exercising the postal vote rather than going to the polling station they were freeing themselves from the danger of intimidation. Perhaps officialdom thinks that by extending the category of people who are eligible for postal voting we might get near a terrible situation in which a large number of the electorate voted by post, but one would not raise one's hands in horror at that.

I do not wish to introduce party controversy where so far none has existed, but in the past there may have been a feeling among Labour supporters that because of the existence of what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer once referred to as the "expensive Tory Party machinery", the postal voting system gave some advantage to the party possessing the better electoral machine. I wonder whether it does. At the last election advertisements —which I welcomed—appeared in newspapers advising people of their opportunity to exercise the postal vote. Conservative agents in the past sometimes conducted a competition among themselves as to who could get the largest number of postal votes, but there was no certainty about results. It was a false assumption that a postal vote would necessarily go to the party which was successful in obtaining that postal vote for an elector.

There is one objection to postal voting. A man or woman who votes by post misses out on the last couple of speeches in the election campaign, the final eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation of the party leaders, and I suppose it is possible to argue that the postal vote system favours the party-committed rather than the floater.

We all know that it is a great achievement to persuade the floater to vote for one's party, but how much more of an achievement is it to persuade a man to vote for one's party who has previously voted for the opposing party? In speaking of the efficacy of the party machine, let us consider the last election, when the Labour Party captured a former Tory Cabinet Minister, the very man whose name had been used by good Socialist mothers to terrorise their children. I suppose one must congratulate the Labour agent in Wolverhampton, South-West on that achievement, which attracted a great deal of publicity. On that occasion the right hon. Enoch Powell voted by post—I do not know how.

It is possible to represent our domestic history in the nineteenth century as an extension by the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in turn of the classes of people entitled to exercise the franchise. The only people who do not exercise the franchise now are those who for a variety of technical reasons are unable to do so. No system is perfect. Inevitably, there will still be mistakes, but this Bill endeavours to remove the disabilities which still exist and should not exist for a considerable section of the community.

11.55 a.m.

This is an interesting Bill which we should welcome because at least it gives us the opportunity of discussing the matter. We are often complacent about voting. We are treated with cynicism outside the House because people often regard us as part of a machine for going out and getting votes before an election and then ignoring the electorate during the ensuring period until the next election.

During the election campaign I found that many people in my constituency were bitter about being left off the register—left off through no fault of their own but because they were out when the canvasser called. That is likely to happen more extensively during the coming few months because of local government reorganisation. Local authorities with particular methods of canvassing have been swallowed up by larger local authorities which have different methods. People who perhaps have not been bothered too much about filling in forms because a canvasser has called on them will be omitted from the register because the new local authority which requires the form to be completed may canvass only in selected areas. There will, therefore, be many dissatisfied potential voters. We should encourage people to vote. We should be seen as looking after their electoral interests all the time, not just during the three or four weeks before an election.

In my constituency the illustration I have given is likely to happen. We are trying to persuade Bradford Metropolitan District Council to continue the method of canvassing that has been used in Keighley for the past 20 or 30 years. If Bradford agrees to do that, there will be no problem, but if it does not canvass so extensively as did Keighley, there will be great dissatisfaction. The publication of a supplementary register would eradicate many grumbles during election campaigns.

When we discuss voting we should also remember the concept of democracy. A vote every one, two, three, four or five years at a General Election is not a very frequent occurrence, nor is a vote every three or four years at a local election. I hope that the Government will consider the implementation of democracy on a wider basis by ensuring that a much wider range of voting is possible and that people are not left off the register, as they have been, in an arbitrary and often bureaucratic manner.

I should like to see at local elections voting for area health authority representatives and also for area water board authorities. People often do not turn out to vote in local elections. There is a good deal of concern about electoral representations at General Elections, but not so much about local elections. In many instances people are quite indifferent about local elections because they believe that the power lies in central rather than in local government. Therefore, to stimulate a degree of participation in local democracy, we must widen the powers of voting—and this means widening the franchise to include those who otherwise might have been left off the register.

In the past few years, and more immediately following the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, we have seen a frightening move away from local democracy. To find that local authorities have become very much larger and remote, and in addition that a number of people are left off the register, leads to cynicism, dismay and disenchantment with our democratic system. It can lead only to bitterness, frustration and an involvement in the sort of direct action which results when people say, "Democracy is no good: it gets nothing done". If we are to look at voting, we should also examine what people are voting for and seek to widen the democratic participation in the way I have suggested.

When I have said to people "You should be on the register", I have often met with the response, "What does it matter anyhow? What does a vote get me? They are all the same. Once they get into office they do nothing". Coupled with that cynicism and indifference, we find that there is remoteness in all sorts of other ways. Therefore, it will be a useful exercise in democratic administration to ensure that at local elections people have the opportunity to vote, not only for their local councillors but for area water boards and hospital authorities. This is an area of activity which we tend to ignore, except perhaps when rate increases hit everybody at a certain time of the year. People then say "To whom do we go to complain about these rate increases, particularly water charges?" They then find that they have no electoral representatives on those matters at all, and that tends to bring the voting system greatly into disrepute. Again when there is some sort of complaint about a hospital or perhaps a medical centre, people say, "To whom do we complain? Where are our elected representatives?"

We in this House as elected representatives take up complaints in areas of activity with which we have little or no connection, and indeed where there is no directly elected representative whom we can contact in order to demand that something must be done. We rely too often on bureaucratic officials and appointees.

If we do not get this extension of democratic participation it means that more and more appointees will run our affairs. That is a bad thing because at least with elected representatives, if one does not like them one can get rid of them. This causes a tremor in most of us from time to time, but people have a right to take that action. Because that right is vital, I think that this Bill contains very important provisions in this connection.

I feel that the most important provision in the Bill is Clause 3, which deals with the publication of supplementary registers. I have known people who have moved from one area to another at a time when new registers are being compiled. They may move some distance away and, because of the difficulties of settling into the new area, they may not immediately rush round to the registration office and register their vote on the new register. When the new register is published in February each year, those people discover, particularly when an election comes round, that they are not on the new register. Since they are not on the old register because they have been removed, they therefore have no vote. In the General Election I came across cases of this kind not once but probably fifty times. It is not until an election takes place that people recognise the importance of registering their vote.

How many hon. Members now present in the House could say directly and firmly where any one of us could register our vote on the register, particularly in view of the local government reorganisation? In my constituency one cannot even get into the office to pay rates let alone go in to register a right to vote. It is difficult to discover even whether one can do so in my local office at the moment. Like many other local authorities there has been a great amount of centralisation, and facilities for registration, the payment of rates and rent vary from area to area. Therefore, in any given circumstances we cannot say with certainty whether any individual can register a vote.

I suggest that it might be useful to find out precisely where all our constituents can register their votes, but we might encounter grave difficulties in this task. In present circumstances if they have not been told the situation and have not troubled to register their vote, they have lost that right for twelve months. This is grossly unfair, and that is why this Bill will make a useful contribution to alleviating that situation.

Clause 1 deals with postal votes, but it is less than satisfactory and indeed the sponsor of the Bill the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that the drafting was a little rough. I am somewhat unhappy that the definition of postal voting in regard to a holidaymaker is so loose. We have all come across electoral registration officers who are obdurate and obtuse about registering postal voters. Some of them accept a person of standing—for example, a doctor. I suspect that both major political parties take the view that registration officers work against them and against their interests. I should like to see a tightening of Clause 1 so that an electoral registration officer is given less discretion and so that there can be no suspicion that the registration officer is willing to register those people with whom he has sympathy rather than others.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, I must explain that the wording of the Bill is deliberately loose because this is the sort of point which we can tie up in Committee. If I had come to the House with detailed proposals, I should have spent a good deal of time in dealing with the "nitty gritty" and might have lost a substantial amount of support in terms of the principle of the Bill—on which, incidentally, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's personal support.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he is concerned as I am that there should be a tightening of Clause 1. The figures given by the hon. Gentleman about voting omissions in the Armed Forces were impressive. With that one reservation on Clause 1, I give a cautious welcome to the Bill.

12.9 p.m.

I warmly support the Bill. I come from an area where voting is taken very seriously indeed at both the national and local level. Indeed, at last year's local election we achieved no less than 74 per cent. voting in one ward and an average of over 50 per cent. At a General Election we would be surprised if we did not clock up around the 82 per cent. mark.

However keen people may be to vote, they cannot plan their whole lives around the uncertain factor of when the Prime Minister of the day may decide to hold a General Election; nor, indeed, if they tried would they be able to do so. In my constituency the dates of the factory holidays are announced well in advance, and people have no option but to arrange matters about their holidays accordingly. The rural vote is very dependent upon the weather because although the electorate will turn out to vote whatever the weather, unfortunately those engaged in agriculture can go away only when they have completed whatever farming operation is in progress, whether it is spring drilling, the hay harvest or the cereal harvest. In neither of these cases can there by the slightest possible fault on the part of the elector. In my view, to deprive them of their vote is very undemocratic indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) dealt extensively with the question of the Service voters and possible errors in registration, so I will not take up time on those matters, but I hope that the House, in its wisdom and devotion to democracy today, will not seek to obstruct the Bill but will allow it a good passage.

12.11 p.m.

Perhaps it will be convenient to the House if I intervene at this stage. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on achieving the first place in the Ballot and on the skill with which he has commended his Bill to the House. I can understand that his intentions are wholly well meaning and that they have strong support not only in this House but outside as well. He will not be entirely surprised, I think, when I say that the Government do not feel able to support it today.

Shame!

Our attitude to it is dictated not so much by the merits of what it proposes, nor by the way in which it has been drawn up, as the hon. Gentleman feared, but by the merits of its timing and nature. I will endeavour to explain this in more detail.

Nobody will claim that Governments have a prerogative of introducing legislation on electoral matters any more than on any other matters, but I feel bound to say that in practice it seems more appropriate for reform measures of this importance and magnitude to be brought forward by the Government after the process of consultation that customarily takes place on these subjects. It is because of their democratic nature, because the proposals are essential for the way in which we conduct our elections on which we place such value in this country, that these discussions and consultations are essential. There is also the general convention—it is, of course, no more than a convention, and I know that there are exceptions—that proposals for electoral reform should be considered by a Speaker's Conference. I think and hope that most Members in this House support the existence of the Speaker's Conference and the objects which it is aiming to achieve.

The hon. Lady is on slightly dangerous ground here. I have no wish to involve you, Mr. Speaker, but I dare say that there are many hon. Members, including those who have not attended a Speaker's Conference, who do not regard this as the best way to make progress. As the hon. Lady has been kind enough to say that the Government intend to oppose the Bill, may I remind her that one of the matters which have been dealt with at a Speaker's Conference are the recommendations in Clause 2. The second matter which has been dealt with at a Speaker's Conference has come to an unsatisfactory conclusion. The third matter does not need to be dealt with by a Speaker's Conference in order to ascertain its merits. I submit that the House is at least as competent as a Speaker's Conference and, indeed, would give these matters a great deal more attention.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not regard it as a reflection on yourself if we discuss Mr. Speaker's Conference. Of the three matters with which the Bill deals, only one accords with a recommendation of a Speaker's Conference; one goes right against the last Conference recommendation; and one has not been considered at all by a Speaker's Conference but is within the terms of reference of a working party which was set up on the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and which is not expected to report for some months. That, I think, clarifies the position of the Speaker's Conference and the three clauses in this Bill.

The hon. Lady is awaiting a report from the Speaker's Conference. Can she say when this is likely to be re-formed? In any event, would she not think it appropriate that the Bill should have a Second Reading so that we can discuss all the matters contained therein. If she can persuade us in Committee that it is inappropriate to proceed with the two matters which have not been dealt with in a Speaker's Conference, my hon. Friends and I who support the Bill will be persuaded by her and will even be prepared to drop those parts of the Bill.

I cannot say at this stage when the Speaker's Conference will be re-formed. The present Government have been in office for only five or six weeks. The re-forming of the Speaker's Conference is a matter for discussion between the leaders of the three parties. It is for them to decide.

Clause 1, dealing with the question of absent voting facilities for those on holiday, was last considered by the Speaker's Conference in 1965–68. The Conference recommended that there should be no extension of absent voting facilities to electors who are absent from their qualifying addresses on holiday. This recommendation may have disappointed some people, but we must assume that the Conference made it on good grounds after adequate consideration.

The question of absent voting generally was included in the terms of reference of the Speaker's Conference in the last Parliament, and I take it that it was intended that they should again consider the question of absent voting facilities for those on holiday. As the House knows, this was not one of the items on which the Conference was able to report before the Dissolution of Parliament. Here is the crucial point of Clause 1. What it provides is contrary to a recommendation made by the Speaker's Conference only seven years ago, although seven years is a considerable time—

Seven years, if I may coin a phrase, is a long time in politics. Within that period, as the hon. Lady knows, one recommendation of the Speaker's Conference has been disregarded by the Government who decided to lower the voting age to 18 whereas the Speaker's Conference settled for 20. The hon. Lady is not on any ground at all. She has got a vacuum underneath her. If she relies so heavily on the marvellous perception and diligence of the Speaker's Conference, can she say what initiative has been taken? We know that the work in the last Speaker's Conference had to be rearranged to deal with the matter of election expenses. It seems strange that the hon. Lady should say, "We have had only a little time in which to do nothing." This ought to have been one of the first matters to which the Government should have requested the other parties to direct their attention. It is the Government who are responsible for the delay.

I agree that seven years in politics is a long time, but seven years ago the decision was against this clause. That is why the substance of this clause ought to be considered again. The last Speaker's Conference did not approve the substance of this clause. As regards the setting up of the Speaker's Conference, it is for the leaders of the three parties to get together and I assume that all hon. Members will urge the respective leaders of their parties accordingly.

Would not the hon. Lady agree in the meantime that just as the vast majority of the electors in this country do not determine when they shall be away on business because it is decided by their employers, equally the vast majority of electors do not determine when they shall take their holidays? This is determined by the conditions of their work. It is not a decision which they can make for themselves.

I am now coming to the merits of Clause 1, which I had not yet reached.

May I put this to the hon. Lady, before she leaves the question of the seven years' delay? In those seven years, much has happened. There has been experience which would be of great value to the Government now in guiding them about the wisdom of adopting measures of the sort set out in the Bill. For example, we have had the Border poll in Northren Ireland—

No Speaker's Conference on that.

—local elections and votes for the Assembly in Northern Ireland.

No Speaker's Conference on that.

A large proportion of the electorate availed themselves of the facilities which were afforded to vote by post.

I acknowledge all those developments. That is why I think that a continuous Speaker's Conference is necessary, in theory, since events are changing and developments are taking place, and all these matters should be under constant consideration within the whole context of electoral reform. I am not saying that electoral reform should be considered once every seven years. Ideally, it should be considered all the time. That is the concept behind a Speaker's Conference.

I promise that this will be my last intervention on that point. Will the hon. Lady remind me of which Speaker's Conference considered the reforms which were introduced in Ulster, which everyone had found so useful? Why should we have to go over the ground again, having found them so useful?

I am trying to come to all these points in the process of dealing with each clause.

I feel that we ought to press the hon. Lady on this matter. Did I hear aright a few minutes ago? I understood her, as it were, to invite hon. Members on both sides to prod their leaders to do something about reconvening Mr. Speaker's Conference. I do not think that that is good enough. There is a responsibility on the Government here to take the initiative to set Mr. Speaker's Conference going again. Will the hon. Lady clarify that point and give a more satisfactory assurance about an urgent reconvening of Mr. Speaker's Conference before we go on to the meat of the Bill?

I can only say that I am not in a position to announce when Mr. Speaker's Conference will be reconvened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]. This is a matter for the leaders of the three parties.

May I now point out to the House the fact that I have maintained an exemplary silence on the topic of a Speaker's Conference, on which I have strong private views.

I recognise, Mr. Speaker, that many people may lose their vote if they are on holiday. This may happen at any time of year, because people take holidays at different times. Obviously, the numbers involved rise sharply if an election is held in June. Because of this, the Electoral Advisory Conference was asked in 1971 to consider the practical implications of giving a postal vote to those on holiday. That conference included representative registration and returning officers any representatives of the political parties at official level.

The conference was not asked to make a recommendation one way or the other; it recognised that this was for a Speaker's Conference. It was concerned simply with practical considerations. The Minister of State at the Home Office reported the conclusion of the conference to the House on 5th July 1971.

The conference drew attention to three major considerations: first, the increased risks of abuse involved in postal voting for those on holiday; secondly, the need to lengthen the election timetable to cater for them; thirdly, the increased cost.

The conference thought that, in practice, it would not be possible to check on the applications of people who said that they would be on holiday on polling day, that it was virtually impossible legally to define "holiday", and that a postal vote would, in practice, have to be allowed to almost anyone who said that he would be unable to vote in person because he would be away. This would mean voting by post virtually as a general alternative to voting in person. The conference concluded that, over a period of years, this might raise the proportion of postal voters from the present 2 per cent. to something like 30 per cent.

Postal voting, as has already been pointed out, may involve risk of abuse. This is so at present, and an extension of postal voting would do the same. Also, it would require a longer election timetable. The conference thought that the timetable might need to be extended by 12 days, which would mean that the statutory period between Dissolution and polling day would have to be 29 working days instead of the present 17.

Is not the hon. Lady aware of the changes which are taking place, with the computerisation of voting lists and so on? Does she hold out no hope that many of the difficulties which she is now outlining will be overcome? Have they not long since been overcome?

I appreciate that. It would apply also to the more accurate compilation of registers. I recognise that those changes will bring about an im- provement if they can be introduced throughout the country eventually.

It was estimated by the conference that the extra cost of this scheme of postal voting for people on holiday might be as much as £1 million for a parliamentary election.

Good heavens.

It is true that in the Northern Ireland elections last year—at the Border poll, the local government elections and the Assembly elections—an experiment was made with giving a postal vote to anyone who applied. This was done because the number of polling stations was restricted in the Province, and because voting in person might have involved personal danger. That was one of the main reasons for its introduction. The closing date for applications was extended by 11 days, and in the event about 16 per cent. of electors applied.

I understand that, on the whole, the experiment was a success and that there were few reports of abuse. That is not to say that abuse would always be absent if it were a permanent feature of our elections, but that experiment certainly gave rise to few reports of abuse.

Postal voting applications are very difficult to check thoroughly. They arrive in hundreds in the last day or two before the closing date. People tend to leave it until the last minute, and the registration officer often simply has no time to check them all thoroughly. This, no doubt, explains why some people who were to be away on holiday have applied for and been allowed a postal vote on the ground that their work was taking them away from home. It is small wonder that little is known of the extent of misrepresentations that occur.

Surely, the passing of this Bill would remedy that defect, because those away on work and those on holiday would be treated equally, especially if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) suggests, a reputable person would have to countersign the form.

That amounts to accepting that anyone who wants a postal vote for any reason whatever should have one.

As set out in the Bill.

But that is not the point of the Bill.

It is not in the Bill, no.

What I am talking about is the possibility of abuse with any form of postal voting, not the purpose of the postal vote. It is quite possible to deny someone a vote by falsely applying in his name for a postal vote and asking that the ballot paper be sent to a bogus address. We must, therefore, be chary of anything which may increase the risk of abuse. The Government consider that this question needs to be gone into in a little more detail and with a bit more specialised knowledge.

I recognise that the possibility of abuse is there. Indeed, at present the simple way to do it is just to make a false application on the ground that the elector will be away on business. It will not make any difference if, as the hon. Lady thinks it should be, the matter is left as it is. I urge her to take a more positive view and recognise that it is not impossible for a Committee of the House considering the Bill to bring to itself at least as much expertise and wisdom as can be gathered by those who participate in a Speaker's Conference. We should then at least be able to get on with it, which at present we are not.

It depends whether we think that the Speaker's Conference should continue. If we consider that it should continue, putting these matters to a Committee of this House is not a satisfactory substitute.

It is a satisfactory substitute in one respect. It is that many hon. Members, myself included, were not in this House seven years ago. Those hon. Members who have come to the House since then have had strong representations on the subject. By giving an opportunity for this Bill to proceed, those representations will have a chance to be implemented. Holidays are to be welcomed and if, as the hon. Lady suggests, there would be a 30 per cent. increase in postal voting as a result of the passing of the Bill, which I find hard to believe, it would show why it is desirable to have such legislation—if currently 30 per cent. are not able to vote.

These arguments have all been studied very carefully by the Electoral Advisory Conference at which there were representatives of registration and returning officers and representatives of the political parties at official level. I am telling the House the results of their inquiries and discussions. They went into this subject in great detail.

I turn to Clause 2. The Speaker's Conference, if I may mention it again, recommended the substance of it. The recommendation was agreed by a majority of 11 to 8 in the conference, and it is to be found in the report dated 20th June 1973. This was one of the matters to which the conference was asked by the last administration to give early attention, though the last Government did not in the event introduce legislation based on the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference.

Concern was caused by the small proportion of Service men who succeed in getting themselves on the register. Fewer than a third of Service men and their wives, if the wives are abroad with them, during the last three or four years succeeded in getting themselves on the register. I agree that this is a very poor figure, and it should be improved upon. But present arrangements give Service men the opportunity of being registered annually in the same way as a civilian elector can be, so this ensures that their registration details up to date.

The practical difficulty is to make sure that every Service man makes use of this opportunity to be registered annually, especially in the rather unpredictable conditions of Service life. It was to overcome this difficulty that the Speaker's Conference recommended, in effect, a return to the once-for-all system of registration which had operated before 1969.

The recommendation involves a major change to a system which was not without its faults when it was previously in force because some soldiers had their names at old addresses and then could never be traced to those addresses, which had either disappeared or which they had left.

The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. She cannot put her faith in the Speaker's Conference and in the next breath pull it to pieces.

I am coming to our general conclusions in a moment if the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) will be a little patient.

We wish to consider the implications of the recommendations for other categories of Service voters besides members of the Armed Forces and to consider how best to give effect to the conference recommendation that the wives of Service men, whether at home or abroad, should be registered as Service voters.

All these matters will be considered in the context of a major Representation of the People Bill dealing with the whole range of recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. In general, we are opposed to piecemeal legislations on these matters.

This was the view taken by the Government at the time of the Speaker's Conference in 1965–68. During those years, we had five interim reports, but it was not until 1968 that legislation was introduced. In case any hon. Member says that that was under a Labour Government, let me remind the House that exactly the same view about the undesirability of piecemeal legislation was taken by the last Government. On 29th November 1973, the Minister of State at the Home Office, the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), said that the Government considered it preferable to await further recommendations from the conference before embarking on legislation on Service men's registration.

I agree that attention must be concentrated on improving the arrangements for Service men to receive and complete their declaration forms. During the period in office of the last Government and before becoming a Minister, I visited many regiments in Germany where I went out of my way to discover whether people there were being provided with forms to fill in and to register their desire for a vote. My personal finding was that all this was working well, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is conscious of the criticisms which are being made. The amount of publicity both within individual units and in Service newspapers is being increased to stimulate interest in registration. But there is no compulsion on Service men to register, and I do not think that there should be. The low proportion of those who register is due to many factors, but compulsion would not seem to be the answer. It should be noted that the Speaker's Conference went out of its way to recommend that no military offence should be created as a result of its recommendations.

I come to Clause 3, which is perhaps the most attractive clause and the one which will command the most sympathy. Most right hon. and hon. Members, myself included, have had constituents who are indignant to find that their names have been left off the register and that nothing can be done about it except perhaps by recourse to what is called a mandamus action in the Divisional Court. We all want to see the register made as accurate as is humanly possible, and I think computerisation or some sort of mechanisation in the future would help. But it is fair to pay tribute to registration officers who obviously have a very difficult task in this and many other respects.

The mistakes which come to notice are probably a small proportion of the whole electorate, and in general the registers have an amazingly high standard of accuracy. Of course, canvassers are sometimes blamed for mistakes when they occur. But if human beings are involved in any procedure, there are bound to be human errors. In general, canvassers are experienced people with good local knowledge, and many people who have difficulty in filling up the forms have reason to be grateful to the canvasser who sometimes helps them.

In general, the Government are sympathetic to what Clause 3 seeks to achieve. What concerns us is the way in which it seeks to reform the carefully regulated procedure which ensures that the register is an open document, openly compiled, and open to challenge and inspection at every stage.

It may be said that these are Committee points, points of detail, but the clause would seem to be the crux of the whole Bill. It is well meaning, but its proposals need further detailed consideration before coming to Parliament. This is the item which I said in my opening remarks had not been considered by the Speaker's Conference, yet it falls within the scope of a working party which has been set up at the instance of the Speaker's Conference in the last Parliament.

The hon. Lady and I are on the same ground in this respect. A Committee considering this Bill no doubt would be very anxious to go over this very carefully, and it would be right to do so. I accept that there is a need for an objection procedure to be built in. I have deliberately left the clause vague on this point. The mandamus procedure does not allow for any satisfactory method of objection unless the objector is prepared to incur substantial expense, and I hope that the hon. Lady does not defend that. But we have the working party. Cannot we get the Bill into Committee and proceed with our consideration of it? Why do we have to wait while dust accumulates all the time?

The history of electoral change shows that it has been a slow process. These are such serious and fundamental matters that it is better that they should be taken slowly rather than rushed. I think we have one of the best electoral systems in the world and I should not wish to change it for what I have seen in other countries. I agree that we are trying to improve it all the time and in this connection in their report of 25th October last year the Speaker's Conference recommended that the working party should be set up. The working party, in conjunction with local authorities and representatives of the political parties, would study the means of keeping the electoral register more up to date including, as the hon. Member for Lancaster mentioned, the likely results of the more general use of computers. There would therefore be a great deal of detailed ground for the working party to cover.

The mandamus writ is new to me. Is it a procedure which is available to electors in Scotland?

I could give the hon. Member a short lecture on the mandamus procedure, but whether it applies to Scotland may not be in the lecture. I understand that it does not apply to Scotland. I see, however, that it applies to Manchester where there was a case, but I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Member.

The working party has a wide remit and it will clearly be able to make recom- mendations about correcting the register, because that is a part of what is involved in keeping it up to date. If, for example, it recommends continuous updating, that will meet the point in Clause 3. If it recommends a supplementary register before an election, that too will largely meet the point. If it recommends two registers a year, that will partly meet the point. Since the working party was established at the instance of the Speaker's Conference, however, the Government do not feel they can support a Bill which prejudges the decisions or recommendations of the working party.

In the meantime the remedy for those whose names may be left off the register is to check the electors' lists or the draft register when they are available for inspection each December. I know that many people do not bother to check the list, or do not even know that it is available for checking. They are then annoyed when they get to the polling booth and find they do not have a vote, and that it is too late to do anything about it. Local and national publicity is therefore being given to the need to check the lists, and we are considering how this can be made more effective.

About £17.000 a year is already spent on publicity for the canvass and the stage of checking the lists. Publicity is given in the Press, by films on television, announcements on the BBC, Press advertisement to Service voters and by Press hand outs to the national Press and teenage and immigrant magazines. Registration officers arrange their own publicity in local papers and they also work with community relations councils to produce and distribute large numbers of leaflets in various Asian languages explaining how the electoral registration system works.

In this connection it should be remembered that when Parliament last considered provisions for correcting the register it approved those which are now in the 1969 Act. These allow correction only for a mistake such as a printer's error which has occurred between the lists or draft register and the published register. This is on the basis that, since the law gives the elector an opportunity of ensuring that his name is on the register, it does not need to go further and give him a second chance. That may be rough justice but it seeks to make people conscious of the value and importance of their vote. It may be that this principle is outweighed by the consideration that no one should lose his vote as a result of human error if that can be avoided. Those are the considerations which the working party will have to weigh.

The working party has been going for nearly nine months, which is, after all, the period of gestation. Surely the Minister can give us an interim report on the matter to assist us in our work on the Bill.

I said that the working party was announced in October, not that it had been going since October. The working party consists of a chairman, who is a Home Office official. It has representatives of the Home Office, the Scottish Home and Health Department, the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys, registration officers from all over Britain and Northern Ireland and outside experts and representatives of the political parties.

Another factor of which the working party will need to take note is the recourse which has been made to the courts in recent years.

The working party seems to have very many prominent people who must be very difficult to get into place at one time. Has it met yet, and, if it has, how many times?

That is something that I must write to the hon. Member about.

The working party will also consider the mandamus procedure. Clearly if the courts think it right to make orders of this nature so that citizens can vote at an election, we should ask how the statutory and administrative arrangements can be improved so as to avoid the need for such applications. No doubt the arrangements can be improved and the Government therefore await with interest the recommendations of the working party on this point. Another consideration is the simplification of forms, but I can assure hon. Members that we are certainly doing what we can in this direction.

I hope I have shown why the Government, although understanding fully the importance and the intentions behind the Bill, feel that the time and the exact nature of the proposals are either for further consideration by the Speaker's conference or are more suitable for bringing in as a Government Bill and not as piecemeal legislation.

12.49 p.m.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on raising this most important matter. Many people felt very passionately this year when they found they had been disenfranchised, whether it was because they arranged to go on holiday and the election cropped up or for the reasons in Clause 3. In this country there is a general wish to vote and the opportunity to vote twice on one register in a General Election, which is certain to come this year, focuses attention very closely on the subject.

People get extremely worried about holiday votes. They are anxious to exercise their option to vote, and they are terrified that they just might make all the difference to the result if they do not vote. In the 1959 election two of my constituents returned from holiday in Norway simply to vote for me. I hope they were not disappointed that I got a majority of 8,000. I am sorry that they should have spoiled their holiday just to add to that adequate figure.

Of course, there are anomalies. A business man who on the call of his business may be away at any time is entitled to claim a postal vote. Even if he is on holiday he will still have a postal vote. It seems unreasonable that some people are able to get a postal vote and that others are not. I agree that there are immense administrative difficulties in granting a large number of postal votes. The Minister has told us that if a large number of postal votes were granted there would be a need to extend the election period. That is something that none of us would wish to see. Let us consider the clause closely in Committee Let us thrash it out carefully and decide whether it is practicable to give holiday voters a chance to vote. It seems that it should be possible to give them such a chance.

We are now about to enter a closed season when we cannot have a General Election because too many people would be disenfranchised. That must be contrary to the needs of the nation. If a Prime Minister wants to have an election in July, it is ridiculous that he cannot have it because too many people are away and too many people would be disenfranchised, it therefore being unfair to have an election at such a time. The closed season extends from June to the beginning of October.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are closed seasons for elections on other grounds? December and January are regarded as closed for election purposes except in extremis because it would be extremely difficult for the people of Caithness, for example, to get to the polls at that time. That is one of many reasons for certain months of the year being regarded as unacceptable for election purposes.

Is not that all the more reason for us to try to reduce the number of closed seasons? If for climatic reason we cannot have elections at certain times of the year, let us not have closed seasons when favourable climatic conditions apply.

I now turn to correcting the register. Great administrative inconvenience must be set against the constitutional impropriety of not being able to correct the register. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking suggests in the Bill that at any time a new supplementary register may be published. That would be extremely inconvenient for those who have to keep checking the registers, those who have to worry about canvassing and those who have to ensure that the register of electors is completely up to date. However, it would be practicable to have a new supplementary register published, for example, once every two months which would include the latest and most up-to-date supplementary list. A whole series of supplementary lists would make life a nightmare not only for the electoral officials but for political parties which take such a keen interest in the register.

It must be undoubted that there is a great need to correct the lists. At present, under Section 7(2) of the 1967 Act, the position is very limited. As I understand it, the meaning of the section is that the registration officer intended to place a name on the registration list and that his intention failed to be achieved. That means that it was a printer's error—namely, that the registration officer supplied the name to the printer and that the printer failed to include it.

Such cases happen. However, that does not meet the many other cases when somebody has correctly submitted his name and when the registration officer has not given effect to it.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the imperfections of Clause 3 is that if a name is not registered by reason of a fault the registration officer must adjudicate? How is it to be proved that there is a fault on

"the part of the registration officer"?

Let us suppose that a person has the form but does not fill it in. That would not be the fault of the registration officer.

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has missed out a word or two. The clause refers to mandamus procedure. With the best of good will on both sides, that procedure takes time. On the last occasion counsel appeared on both sides, although there was no dispute, and the procedure took five weeks.

That is a ludicrous situation when it is sought to deal with one man who has been left off the register by mistake. The consequence is that the mandamus procedure is normally applied only when there is a considerable error such as that which occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). Further, the procedure cannot be invoked once the notice of election has been given.

We have all heard of many cases in which people filled in their Form A in October and then nothing happened to give effect to putting their name on the register. Of course, there are other errors which can take place. For example, a young lady in my constituency attained the age of 18 years on 2nd May 1973. She was admitted on the register for 1973 with 2/5 against her name. That entry re-occurred on the 1974 register. That clearly was an error by the registration officer or by the printer. It had the effect of making that young lady ineligible to vote in the February election. There are other errors which creep in which should be dealt with, and I am not sure that they are properly dealt with in the Bill.

There are occasions when the names of people who have been long dead have still appeared on the register. That is extremely inconvenient—I hope that no one votes in their place—and extremely embarrassing for canvassers. That has happened in my constituency, the canvasser being told, "Oh, she died two years ago." On another occasion four of my constituents were each given two votes. Their names appeared in two separate places on the register quite close together. It would have been simpler for the canvassers if they had realised that the John Smith who appeared in one place and the John Smith who appeared lower down the page were one and the same person. Presumably that John Smith—that was not his name—might have been able to vote twice. There are grounds for correcting errors both ways.

The question of errors of compilation has been raised. I want to read out the order in which the houses of a road in my constituency were printed in the register as opposed to their actual order. It is quite extraordinary. It is difficult to know whether the printer was inebriated when he printed the register or whether the canvasser was inebriated when he put the numbers down. The houses do not have separate numbers, so no doubt the error might have been spotted. Each house has its own name. The order is 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 22, 26, 28, and 27. If that sort of thing can occur, it must mean that grave error is going on. There is surely need to have a method of correcting the register without having to go for a writ of mandamus.

I find the attitude of the Government to the Bill extraordinary. They accept that Clause 2 would give effect to the report of Mr. Speaker's Conference, but they do not want to do it. They have ground for objecting to Clause 1, but let us discuss it in Committee and, if neces- sary, remove it. They admit that Clause 3 would seem to produce a useful improvement, so let us do that.

I think that the real argument of the Government against the Bill is that such provisions should be introduced by the Government, but there have been many occasions when the law has been improved by a private Member's Bill. The House is spending valuable time on discussing the Bill. Do not let us waste it. Let us give the Bill a Second Reading, let it go to Committee, and let it be improved as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking agrees that it should be.

1.2 p.m.

If it should transpire that the House—or at least those few Members present—is wasting time in debating the Bill, at least some of the blame must attach to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)—who, no doubt, is absent at lunch—for choosing to use his place at the top of the Ballot to introduce a private Member's Bill proposing to changes to the electoral law, which has not normally been amended by such process. However, no doubt the airing of the subject today, whatever the result, will prod the Government not only to reconstitute Mr. Speaker's Conference but to firm their own ideas more rapidly on what they want to achieve in the direction proposed by the Bill.

It is unfair of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to blame the Government for seeking to go through the normal procedure, protracted but careful, by which important changes to the electoral law are brought before the House. I do not suggest that a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference need necessarily be accepted by the House, any more than that one which has been turned down by the conference should automatically be refused by the House. We should give due weight to the conference, which exists for exactly for such purposes.

The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) said that no system is perfect for the registration of votes, and we should take into account that, whatever devices we employ, disadvantages are nearly always attached to each of them. In any case, we have to weigh whether the case for a proposal is outweighed by a disadvantage which would come in its train.

This week, it was announced that there is to be a General Election in Canada in about two months' time. This lapse of time in Canada is because the electoral register, so I understand, is drawn up afresh after the calling of an election. Since Canada is the second largest geographical entity in the world, the drawing up of the electoral register takes a considerable time. Many countries have many different habits in drawing up registers and in voting devices. Each method has to be weighed in the light of the circumstances of the country, bearing in mind possible abuses.

I sympathise completely with the intentions behind Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill, and I dare say that the intentions behind Clause 2 are good enough, too. However, the Bill, according to the Long Title, is designed not merely to provide, in respect of Clause 1, simply for absent voting, for which there is a strong case, but for postal or proxy voting, a form of absent voting which is open to criticism.

One sympathises with those who go on holiday and find that they have thereby lost their vote. There is no logical reason, on the first round of the argument, why a person on holiday should lose his vote while a person who is away on business, or says that he is away on business, is entitled to his vote. We also know that many people say that they are away on business when they are not. Therefore, such people, because they are prepared to be dishonest, get a vote although they are in fact away on holiday, or on a mixture of holiday and business perhaps, while those who are honest and say that they are away on holiday lose their votes.

There is another grievance—the situation of those citizens of the United Kingdow who are resident abroad for a period of perhaps a year or two but who still take an interest in our political affairs and who believe that, like the citizens of many other countries, they should be allowed still to vote in their country's General Elections. I have considerable sympathy with them.

This is also an opportunity to remind ourselves of the craziness of our system, which permits no less than one-quarter of the population of the world to vote in British elections by reason of nationality, only provided that they happen to be resi- dent in this country on 10th October of the previous year. This is because we attach the right to vote on ground of nationality not to citizens of this country but to all who are British subjects in British law, and that definition embraces all those who are citizens of any Commonwealth country and, indeed, some who are citizens of non-Commonwealth countries.

In reforming our electoral law, it is high time that we did what any sensible country would have done long ago—restrict the right to vote in this country to citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who are normally resident here, perhaps with the addition of those who have been in the recent past normally resident here but are, for a period of perhaps up to two years, currently resident abroad.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with the content of Clause 2. It would give rise to a great block of names on registers behind which there would be no people who were still entitled to vote. If many members of the Armed Forces do not get their names on the register this must be either their fault, which I think will be so in the majority of cases, or the fault of the military authorities for not advertising the right and opportunity for members of the Armed Forces to get on to the register.

Before one takes this characteristic too seriously let us remind ourselves that in this country we have the habit of voting not for a national Government but for a local Member of Parliament. It is therefore understandable that a member of the Armed Forces who goes home on leave only occasionally should be semidetached, as it were, from his local constituency to the extent that he does not care to claim his right to vote there. On two occasions, I think, either by reason of being in the Army or as a servant of the Crown serving abroad I was entitled to vote by post, but I did not exercise the right for, I suppose, the reason that there was no constituency with which I particularly identified myself.

I have complete sympathy with Clause 3 of the Bill which deals with mistakes. But we could do much more to reduce mistakes in the register even without permitting ipso facto corrections. It was only two or three years ago that reminders about the legal penalties for not filling in Form A were removed, or were played down within the context of the form. This was done quite consciously as a result of consideration by a Home Office Committee on, I think, the ground that a citizen ought not often to be receiving forms which on the face of it threaten him with all sorts of penalties if he did not fill them in. I understand that reason, but it was an ill-advised decision.

Many people do not understand that it is not a matter of free choice whether they fill in the form in October of each year and that it is a criminal offence both not to complete it and not to complete it as accurately as they know how. This regard of the consequences of the legalities involved was reflected in the jocular interchange between the hon. Member for Woking and myself. The hon. Gentleman said that he had come across a head of a household who had said that because his son was on the other side of the political fence from him he had not put his name on the register. A head of household who acts in that way is committing a criminal offence.

If we as Members of Parliament or as representatives of parties, going around seeing voters, find a head of household who for that reason or any other says that he has intentionally left somebody's name off the form it is our duty, first, to deliver him a most severe rebuke and, secondly, to tell him that he has broken the law, and we should report the matter to the electoral registration officer. It would be terrible if the day came when heads of households refused to register those people in their premises who were opposed to their own political viewpoint.

A more serious grievance is that many people who are heads of households in only part of one set of premises receive the form but do not complete the section which asks for particulars of any other separate households living within the premises. That part of the form is entirely ignored. I should like to see electoral registration officers encouraged by the Home Office to institute more prosecutions against people who commit this offence. It would not be necessary to have many such prosecutions; a few well-publicised prosecutions would do the trick and make people more careful and make them realise that this is not a matter of choice, but a legal obligation.

I return to what I regard as the most important clause in the Bill and one which I would vote against, if it came to that. One consideration of postal voting has not been mentioned so far in the debate. I do not think that the word "bribery" has been mentioned since eleven o'clock this morning. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State mentioned the possibility that people might send for a postal vote in respect of another voter in order to deprive that other voter of his vote by having the postal vote dispatched to another address. But do not let us forget about bribery.

It is over 100 years since the Ballot Act and because the Ballot Act removed the possibility of bribery in this country we have fallen into the habit of thinking that bribery in elections is impossible. It is not impossible in relation to a postal vote. The secrecy created by the Ballot Act contained two elements. First there was the right to keep one's vote secret—the right that no one should know how one voted unless one wished to say. But the second and more important feature of the secrecy enjoined by the Ballot Act was that it was not possible to prove to another person how one voted, even if one wished to do so. One could go around boasting about how one had voted, but one could not prove it because one did not have the bit of paper to show how one had voted. It is that second aspect of secrecy which killed bribery, not the first, because it is no good paying a fellow a "quid" for his vote if one cannot be sure that he has voted.

However, with the postal vote one can be sure that he has voted, and the same applies with the proxy vote. With the proxy vote and the postal vote a ballot paper can be completed in the presence of another person. I do not however ask hon. Members to believe that bribery is therefore widespread among postal voters. I merely ask hon. Members to accept that it is a possibility among postal voters whereas it is not a possibility for those who vote in person as they cannot reveal the bit of paper to a witness within the polling station.

We have heard about the weaknesses of the postal vote system, but surely that has nothing to do specifically with the Bill, unless it is to be followed by withdrawal of the postal vote principle. Have the Government, or hon. Members on the Government side, got this in mind?

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me I will address myself to that point, which has great validity. My view is that rather than do anything which serves to erode the secrecy of the vote, which we have come to take for granted, we should move in the other direction.

I draw here a contrast between this country and Canada. In this country voting is secret because no one is allowed to get two bits of paper together at the same time. But it is of course technically possible to find out how a person voted because the number of the voter is recorded on the same bit of paper as that on which he records his vote, although the voting remains secret because no one is allowed to have access to the papers. But in some countries the technical arrangements are different and if one opened a ballot box one could not tell who had marked a ballot paper because there would be no number on it. The number would be attached to the counterfoil, and not to the ballot paper. I would rather move in that direction than in the opposite direction, as suggested in the Bill. We have come to take the secrecy of the ballot so much for granted that when we are slightly eroding it, as here, for very good intentions, we insufficiently recognise the dangers that we may be opening up.

In my view, the present arrangements accord the postal vote too easily because of the dangers I have mentioned. A year or two back, the previous system was changed in order to allow discretion to the registration officer to accord a postal vote to people who were too infirm to get to the poll, and we have heard today several hon. Members say how registration officers in different parts of the country use that discretion in different ways. Some continue to apply the old rule as though it still existed and will accept certification of infirmity only from a registered practitioner. Others will accept certification from a broader band of people thought to have some medical knowledge, such as nurses and perhaps social workers, the matrons of homes and so on.

But many are now prepared to accept certification by candidates in the election—that is the case in my constituency—or the agent of candidates in the election, or councillors in the area, as well as the others I have mentioned. At the last election, in 1974, there was a further push in that direction. This happened because of the advertising campaign launched in the newspapers, on television and radio by the then Government. I imagine that they embarked on that campaign because the election might be fought virtually on the old register.

To counter the strong arguments that we were putting forward, that it would be unfair to have an election right at the end of the period of validity of the old register, the then Conservative Government launched a massive advertising campaign to tell people how they could get their postal vote. The advertisements in the newspapers, placed there, I imagine by the Home Office, had some practical effects. One part of the text tells people who cannot get to their polling stations:

Right at the bottom of the advertisement, at the normal place for a telephone number, the advertisement says:

I know that many people in my constituency got the postal vote simply by getting a neighbour to certify that they were too infirm to get to the poll. Mr. A was certifying Mr. B and Mr. B was certifying Mr. A, neither of them having any medical knowledge. That has now gone far too far, because in practice, though not in law, if these arrangements apply, anyone can have a postal vote for the asking. If the process is then extended and people can have a postal vote if they are going on holiday, the potential for abuse is even greater.

I do not think that in my constituency, or in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woking, the opposition parties, far less the sitting parties, would be likely to shell out money in order to buy votes. But in marginal constituencies, especially in local elections, it is not a possibility that should be entirely excluded. Where 100 votes make all the difference—and 100 votes make all the difference in some elections and 500 votes make all the difference in a number of parliamentary elections—we should not create the possibility that those votes could be bought, and the vote could then be witnessed by a second person to ensure that the money paid would achieve a return.

I have never heard of any of the situations that the hon. Gentleman describes. However, I have often heard of people who have lived at a particular address for many years and who have suddenly discovered on going to the polling station that they were not on the register. Those people are disfranchised and that is very serious. That is a real situation and the hon. Gentleman appears to oppose changing it. He is raising important matters, but they could he discussed in another context and they are not relevant to the proposed reforms, which the hon. Gentleman appears to be not supporting.

What I am saying is relevant in the sense that if there is a possibility of bribery in respect of a severely circumscribed maximum possible number of votes, that is one thing; it is bad, but it may be decided on balance to be acceptable. If the number of people potentially entitled to vote by such a bribable procedure is enlarged, the danger is much greater and a different balance may result.

If the entitlement to vote by post is so enlarged to such categories as are unenforceable that, as was suggested by the Minister, it would amount almost to giving the right to a postal vote on request, the danger of abuse—let me not mince my words—the danger of bribery would become that much greater and eradicating the disadvantages by allowing people on holiday to vote or allowing those who cannot be bothered to go and vote to have a postal vote would demand a larger price.

I am listening to the hon. Member's valuable contribution with great attention. Would he not agree that those are arguments that could be deployed elsewhere—there is much in the Bill with which he is in sympathy—to see whether further safeguards were needed? I hope that he will not overlook that the practices he is discussing would constitute an offence under Section 47 of the Representation of the People Act and would render offenders liable to two years' imprisonment? That is a deterrent that I look forward to discussing with the hon. Gentleman in Committee.

Of course they would constitute serious offences, but when the circumstances are such that there is not a cat in hell's chance of discovering that an offence has been committed, that is no deterrent.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that before the Ballot Act 1872, buying votes was common. It was the Ballot Act, not making it an offence to buy votes, that made that practice impossible. We could make it an offence as much as we like, but if it is possible to commit an offence in secrecy between two conspirators, the procurer of the vote and the seller of the vote, the operation will simply never be detected.

There is a way round my difficulty, to which I shall come. While we have a relatively easy system of according the right to the postal vote—and I count the present arrangements as relatively easy—I require two things from the Minister. First, I would still like the information for which I asked last week and which I had hoped to have before this debate, although I understand why it was probably impossible to get it. This was information concerning the number of postal voters registered at the last election in respect of each of the categories—those who were registered for a postal vote because of blindness and other infirmity, absence on business and so on.

That will, I think, show the potential which exists for bribery. Secondly, I should like the Government to consider introducing a public register of those entitled to vote by post so that if a person claimed that he was away on business his name would be publicly available in the usual places such as the public library and he could be seen to be a person who made such a claim. That would give him cause for thought if he knew that his neighbours knew full well that he was not likely to be away on business, or, perhaps in a more practical strain, if he knew that his local newspaper might look it up I do not think there would be any breach of normal privacy in it being known which voters had asked for and been given the right to vote by post and upon what ground.

The objections I have mentioned could all be got round, while still permitting absent voting because people were on holiday, by one device. That would be if we were prepared to allow people to vote away from the polling stations of the constituency in respect of which they were voters and instead at a polling station in the place where they were on holiday. That would exclude those who were abroad on holiday. Hard luck on those who are abroad on holiday, because we cannot set up polling stations abroad except perhaps conceivably if people were prepared to go to embassies and consulates. It might be done that way. Some countries have done that.

I cannot see that there would be any overwhelming practical difficulty in establishing in each constituency one polling station for the use of voters whose vote would apply to a different constituency but which would be cast in the place where they were on holiday. The check upon the application of the vote to the constituency where they normally reside would have to be an ex post facto one and therefore the figures announced for the election in the middle of the night or the next day would be subject to some last minute alteration as the absent votes were taken into account. If it were possible to make a change of that kind in the Bill I would be content that the Bill should receive a Second Reading with the prospect of its being changed in Committee.

But that is not possible as I see it because the Bill says quite clearly that it is to enable electors away on holiday to vote by post or proxy. It is a postal-voting Bill not an absent-voting Bill. I do not think sufficient account has been taken of what is no doubt regarded as the rather far-fetched dangers to which I have alluded. I do not think that they are as far fetched as some imagine. We can get round the difficulty, but not by a wholesale opening up of the possibility of witnessable voting as is proposed here.

1.35 p.m.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who is not in his place at the moment—no doubt he is refreshing himself after opening the debate—on the fact that he secured first place in the Ballot and also on the excellence of his choice of subject for his Bill. As he told the House, the peculiar circumstances of this Parliament make the Bill particularly appropriate and give it a special urgency. Those special circumstances are, I suppose, continually in the minds of all of us. I refer to the possibility that at almost any moment there may be a General Election. It is said that there is a possibility, indeed a likelihood, that there might be an election as early as autumn of this year.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the presentation of his case. Most of us would suspect that the subject of the law relating to the representation of the people might be somewhat dull, but by a delightful mix of wit and wisdom my hon. Friend has made a sparkling and impressive speech.

Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have had the experience of fighting a number of General Elections. I cannot remember any General Election in which I have been involved where there have not been raised on a number of occasions by discontented people in the constituency complaints about the fact that, either because of absence or a deficiency in the register, someone has lost his right to vote. I suppose it was a common experience in the last election that we had more complaints than ever, certainly from those who were about to go on holiday or who found that they had not been appropriately registered. I should have thought that the House would have no difficulty in accepting the proposition that electors must not only be encouraged to vote but that Parliament must see that their ability to vote was not unnecessarily or avoidably impeded.

Years of experience have demonstrated defects in our existing law. Here the Government have an opportunity of taking steps to cure the defects which we all know exist in our electoral law. All my hon. Friends, and I suspect some Labour Members, listened to the Under-Secretary, when she said that the Government were not prepared to accept the Bill or anything like it at the moment, with a feeling not so much of disappointment but of shock that the Government should be so lacking in initiative and understanding of the urgency of these problems and so lacking in any desire to do what we on this side—and I like to think that the Bill was supported by all hon. Members—believe is one of the first duties of Parliament, namely, to ensure that everyone who has the right to vote is able to exercise that right under a law which makes sense.

It seems a paltry, quite unconvinicng reason for not accepting the opportunity of amending the law to say that we have to wait upon the convening of Mr. Speaker's Conference. The hon. Lady cannot tell us when it is to be reconvened. She cannot tell us when the high-powered Government working party that is supposed to be dealing with problems in the law will meet or whether it has met.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say why the previous Government, who were in office until a few weeks ago, did not take the urgent action on electoral reform that he thinks is necessary?

I will say why. I thought I had already said it. In the appropriate phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, there are peculiar circumstances now. There is the immediate possibility of an election, which gives to the need for electoral reform an urgency that possibly did not exist previously.

There was a General Election in February.

One has always understood that the one party which professes itself to be deeply devoted to the rights of the electorate and the ability of people to vote was the Liberal Party. In intro- ducing the Bill, my hon. Friend pointed out that the Liberal benches were empty. I look at them now and I say the same thing. Where are these people who creep on to their bench in the night when there is perhaps only one other Member left in the Chamber? Where are they today?

I come to one of the most important aspects of the Bill as it was described by the Under-Secretary of State—the compilation of the register. Clearly, many people who believe that their names and addresses are included are left off the register. The Government should take steps to ensure that the register is complete and that the administrative mistakes of those who are responsible for compiling it are not visited upon the electors.

The new, amended register comes out annually in mid-February. The latest date for publication of the draft register is 28th November. Claims or objections in respect of the draft register must be received by 16th December. It is perhaps not surprising that many electors are left off the new register and, being left off, as the law stands, are disfranchised. It is no good saying that it is their fault and that they should have looked at the register in the 19 days that are allowed for inspection. It is only right that I should break off to say that at last some hon. Members have appeared on the Liberal benches.

They are not Liberals.

I did not notice their identity. However, the Liberals' places have been most appropriately taken, and I welcome that.

Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that, as one of his colleagues, I am delighted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that throughout this debate on electoral reform there has been present no member of the Liberal Party which is dedicated to electoral reform?

I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend.

If the Bill reaches Committee, as it concerns electoral reform may we be sure that the Liberal Party will be represented on the Committee?

I come back to what I was saying before the long "Liberal" intervention. Few people realise that they may inspect the draft register. How many hon. Members have taken the trouble to inspect the draft register to see whether they are registered? Publicity is one way to deal with that, but even with all the publicity that the Government could afford I doubt whether we could rely on the public at large taking the trouble to see that their names and addresses were properly registered.

I do not want to deal in detail with Service votes because I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) wishes to comment on that aspect. If it is right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said—I accept his figures—that three-quarters of the members of the Armed Services are in effect disfrancised at each election, there is something sadly and gravely wrong with the law and it needs immediate improvement.

There is nothing in the Bill or in my hon. Friend's speech to suggest that he seeks to extend the right to the postal voting facility beyond people who have booked their holiday at a time when an election is about to take place, who go on holiday and who still wish while on holiday to exercise their right to vote.

It is seven years since the matter was considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference and much has happened during those seven years. We have had the experience of Northern Ireland, a salutary and useful experience. As the House knows, the extension of postal voting facilities in Northern Ireland was upon the basis that any elector could apply to vote by post if he was included in the register of electors, if he had an address in the United Kingdom and if he could satisfy the returning officer of his identity.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder), I went to Northern Ireland as a member of the delegation sent by the Government to observe the Border poll. Although there were complaints and criticisms about the way in which the polling stations were run, I heard nothing approaching criticism of the way in which the postal votes were employed. The only criticism I heard was about the way in which the application form was made up. That was corrected in the local election and in the Assembly election.

In the border poll 8 per cent. of the electorate—160,000 people—voted by post and took advantage of the new facilities. Some Roman Catholics publicly declared that they had taken the postal vote and then destroyed the papers. In the local elections the percentage of the electorate voting by post increased to 13·5 per cent., and in the Assembly elections 15·5 per cent. of the people voted by post. There has been no evidence of abuse of that facility.

It is right that we should be worldly-wise and appreciate that these facilities can be abused and a criminal offence committed. The general impression—I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has made inquiries from the Northern Ireland Office as well as from her own Department—is that the new postal voting system, far from increasing election malpractices in a country where they are supposed to be endemic, has reduced corruption. The lists of absent voters and marked registers were confidential to polling station offices and were not made available to the political parties. No doubt that is a precaution and safeguard which could be adopted for a General Election in this country.

Professor Lawrence of Queen's University, Belfast, has prepared two reports on the Border poll and the local government elections in Ulster and has published the first of them. I hope that the hon. Lady and her Department will pay attention to the lessons learned in Ulster. They are sufficiently impressive and cogent to make it safe for the Government to say that they will now consider introducing legislation to make it possible for people on holiday to vote by post. This Bill is the perfect vehicle for such a reform of the law. I am sure the Government will not forget that the right to vote belongs to the people. It is a right which must not be qualified or weakened by any defect in the law which can be properly and easily removed. I believe that in today's peculiar circumstances, with the possible imminence of a General Election, the Government should take steps forthwith to see that the law is amended. This is their opportunity. It must not be lost.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you please confirm that the Liberal Party has been informed that there is a debate on electoral reform today, because it is the one subject on which it appears to be most worried?

The hon. Member it not behaving very well. He well knows that that was not a point of order—nor does he by his sedentary habit for the moment acquire the status of a minority party.

1.54 p.m.

I regret that because of other commitments I was not able to hear what I have been told was an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in introducing the Bill. I apologise to him for that omission. I can only say that I have listened to a considerable part of the rest of the debate.

I know that the Bill is well intentioned, and nobody in the House would dissent from the view that it is necessary to make some change in the law affecting the voting rights of electors. I personally see no reason why in certain cases a Private Member's Bill cannot be the instrument embracing this subject, but there are some exceptions.

The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) stressed the importance of the right of every person to vote in an election. There are two considerations of great importance. One is the right to vote and to ensure that every elector has that opportunity, and there is also the need to make absolutely certain that that important function is carried out properly and is not abused in any way. Because we must balance these two considerations, we must see to it that we do not introduce changes in the law in terms of electoral reform unless there has been a Speaker's Conference to recommend changes. To introduce provisions in any other way would be a departure from established practice. On a matter of this importance, we must make certain that the problem is thoroughly investigated and that there is no question of abuse.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department men- tioned administrative considerations. One of the most important points relates to the possibility of abuse. We must be careful not to open the door to abuse. I suppose it could be said that there is not a great deal of abuse in this country in matters of voting, and no doubt the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde is right to say that there was no real evidence of abuse in the Northern Ireland elections. But that does not prevent us when drafting legislation from making it as certain as we can that there is no question of abuse.

Against that background it is as well to examine carefully the wording of Clause 1, particularly the words

Apart from the question of administrative difficulty in terms of supplementary registers, adjudication by registration officers and when and where that process is to take place, it must be said that the provisions of Clause 1 leave scope for abuse. I do not say that there would be abuse, but we must guard against it. When a working party and a Speaker's Conference had examined the whole subject meticulously to prevent the possibility of abuse, perhaps the situation would be different. With Clause 1 as it stands, however, I could not support its provisions without the closest possible examination without being given guarantees against the likelihood of abuse.

Then we have these delightful words in Clause 2:

Clause 3 contains the following words:

May I assist the hon. and learned Gentleman? He said that he was not here this morning when my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) introduced the Bill. May I tell him that my hon. Friend was the first to recognise the drafting defects in the Bill? It was drafted by my hon. Friend personally, and he told the House that he did this to save the country£200. He recognises that it will probably have to be redrafted. Therefore, any drafting points will be accepted at once if they are matters of substance.

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sorry I missed that point. However, it rather emphasises what I am saying. It is true that one may say these are matters of drafting and that the Bill can be put in order by redrafting, but this rather emphasises my criticism that particularly in a Bill of this kind, dealing with electoral reform, it is extremely important that it should be looked at most carefully from every angle. It should be drafted in the most careful manner to cover all possibilities—administration, the possibility of abuse and the danger of other things happening.

Reference has been made to this question of supplementary registers. Clause 3(2) states that

Although I am in complete sympathy with the objects of the Bill, I suggest, for the reasons I have given, that the proper course for the hon. Gentleman to take is to withdraw the Bill and allow a working party to get out a proper scheme so that a Speaker's Conference can decide upon it. I certainly agree that the objects of the Bill should be embodied in legislation as soon as possible, because they are obviously in the interests of every elector and of the country.

2.5 p.m.

I hesitate to follow the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) on a Bill of this nature, especially when he and his colleagues have talked about abuse and, in one case, bribery. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the constituency which I represent includes the city of St. Albans, which at one time was disfranchised and had no representative in this House because there was so much bribery. That was a long time ago. To remind us, however, we still have Guinea Alley, where guineas were paid out to those who promised to vote in a certain way. There was a restricted franchise in those days, and so one or two bought votes probably made a great deal of difference. However, I think that the possibility of bribery and abuse today and its likely effect on elections has been exaggerated by Labour Members.

The sort of objections which we have heard to the Bill have been rather of a nit-picking nature. I accept that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington had not heard my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) introducing the Bill when he mentioned the question of drafting. But one thing is very clear from the Bill, and that is that the intentions cannot be misunderstood. This cannot be said of most Bills which come before us. Knowing the intentions of the Bill, I do not think it is impossible for a Standing Committee to put it into acceptable form to safeguard against the various matters which worry Members on the Government side.

I cannot understand why it is suggested that we need a special standing conference headed by you, Mr. Speaker. I say that without any disrespect to you. I cannot understand why in one sphere like this we think we need a special body for the purpose when this Parliament is sovereign. It manages to legislate on many complicated matters, much more complicated than this, and it does so by first giving a Bill its First and Second Readings. It then appoints a Standing Committee of interested Members who can draw upon the expertise in Government Departments. The Committee then reports back to the House with the Bill, which is given a final and Third Reading. It seems ridiculous to imagine that because this Bill deals with one or two matters connected with voting, it should require different treatment from that given to any other Bill.

I was disturbed to find that the Under-Secretary of State, who is normally a very sympathetic person, dismissed the Bill with such a cavalier attitude. If she were speaking anywhere but on the Government Front Bench, I do not believe she would have adopted that attitude. She is the type of hon. Member who is known to be very keen to help in matters of this kind.

I come to the timing of the Bill, which the hon. Lady thought was wrong. The Government do not like to admit this, but it is the circumstances of this Parliament, with a minority Government who may be defeated at any time and with a Prime Minister who may decide to do a summer "streak"—

I am touched by these comments. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he was in the Division Lobby last night when there was an opportunity to vote against the Government?

Yes, indeed I was. I voted against the Government, and I shall continue to do so at every opportunity in the hope of defeating them.

There is the possibility also of the Prime Minister deciding to do a summer "streak". He knows perfectly well that a lot of chickens will come home to roost in the autumn. Therefore, the likelihood of a summer election, at a time when many people are on holiday, is much stronger this year than in any year that I have known in the 14½ years I have been in Parliament. Therefore, I think it is an important matter.

The Prime Minister is running out of things to do. He was given a programme by the Communist Party back in January, and much of that has been completed. For the benefit of hon. Members on the Government side who may not have realised the extent to which they have been carrying out the Communist Party's programme, although they sit here as Socialists, I quote from the Morning Star of 14th January, which reported:

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will soon explain how relevant his remarks are to the Bill.

I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that you would be persuaded that that was exactly what I was doing. I am trying to show how likely it is that the Government will go for an election in the summer when many electors are on holiday, and I am pointing out the strength of that likelihood on the basis of their completion of a programme which had been set out for them. I was running through that programme. It went on to say,

Next, the programme is to

The Communist Party goes on to talk about the

Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he was running through the programme. He is not running fast enough. He must come back to the Bill.

If you do not wish me to give the entire wording, Mr. Speaker, of course I shall not. However, having started the list, I wonder whether I am required under the rules of the House to complete the extract, since I have given only part of it. At least, let me assure you, Sir, that all that was set out in the seven-point programme published by the Communist Party in January has been completed by the present Government in a matter of five or six weeks, with the exception of the nationalisation of

There has been a good deal of talk about electors going on holiday. It is ridiculous to expect people to be able to change their holiday plans at the last moment. One of the changes in recent years has been that many people who would usually have taken their holidays not far from home now go on package tours to various parts of the world, to Spain, Portugal and other countries, some of which are not always acceptable to Labour Members but to which their electors go none the less.

Portugal is all right now.

I am glad to hear it. When people book for a package tour or holiday, they cannot change the date even for a day or two. They have booked to fly out on a certain day on a particular aeroplane and fly back on another. With the best will in the world, even if they wish to exercise their right to vote, once they have booked the holiday they cannot do so without cancelling the holiday altogether.

Moreover, as I pointed out in an earlier intervention, the vast majority of people have the dates of their holidays dictated by their employers; they are not able to make their own selection. Their position, therefore, is just the same as that of anyone who is sent away on business. I cannot see why they should not enjoy the same voting rights.

Nothing said in the Chamber today diminishes the strength of the case that a person on holiday should he treated in the same way as a person away on business is treated. If there are abuses of the one, there may be abuses of the other, but means could without doubt be found and provided for in the Bill to prevent such abuses in both categories. In this connection, therefore, Clause 1 is essential.

I turn now to Clause 2. It is most disturbing to learn how few Service voters have been in a position to exercise their vote in recent years. I know for a fact —the records are there—that this was not so before the last change in the law, when there was registration for a proxy vote which lasted for a fairly long period. In those circumstances, many more Service votes were cast at elections. It was the change to annual registration which resulted in many Service personnel losing the opportunity to vote, and this at a time when the decisions taken in the House very much affect what happens to our Service men.

There have already been several references to Northern Ireland, and—Heaven knows—Service men who have to go there and serve in those very unattractive and uncomfortable conditions deserve to be given every possibility to use their vote.

Then bring them back.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Defence was very popular for making a similar suggestion recently. Even though I have views about such utterances at this time, I must not get involved in a debate about Northern Ireland. In the context of the Bill, however, I cannot believe that it would be a particularly controversial matter to ensure that Service men have their vote.

I come next to the question of those who are not on the electoral register. Many hon. Members must know how difficult it is to ensure in certain households that a form is properly completed. Before I became the Member for St. Albans, I fought as a candidate in Paddington, North and I was there for several years. In such an area, where there are many old terrace houses with, perhaps, a family on each floor, if an electoral registration form is simply stuffed through the letter box one morning or afternoon, Heaven knows whether there will be anybody in a responsible position as householder to fill in the form. One often wonders whether in such cases any of those people appear on the electoral roll at all. Indeed, I imagine that they are lucky if they do. Inevitably there are such cases.

Here is another example. During the last election campaign I came across an individual who, because of an error, did not have a form put through his door at all. It has been said already that we are often so busy with other matters that, if we do not receive the form through the door, we probably do not realise until it is too late, when an election is announced.

In my constituency a whole street, Monks Horton Way, was disfranchised. It was completely omitted from the register. There had been an error, and the electoral registration officer wrote to me to say:

All those people, who were very annoyed at being deprived of their right to vote at the last election, are in danger of not being able to vote at the next General Election either if we have one before February next year.

In my view, therefore, we have the right to say from this side, even if hon. Members on the Government benches do not appreciate the fact, that there are large numbers of people—especially if one includes those likely to be on holiday—who will be denied the opportunity to exercise their vote at the next election if it comes before February, and there is every likelihood of that.

I had expected much more sympathy from the Government. It seems extraordinary that a party which has always prided itself upon its respect for democratic rights should on an occasion like this sweep aside in a cavalier fashion an opportunity presented by an hon. Member to put right these very unfortunate mistakes or failures in the present law. I hope that it is not just because it is a Conservative Member who put forward the Bill that the Government show such coolness towards it and that they may yet be persuaded that it is sensible and wise to give the Bill a Second Reading so that we may have an opportunity to see what we can make of it in Committee. I have no doubt that there is sufficient expertise among right hon. and hon. Members to put the Bill into a satisfactory condition for Third Reading, just as they do any other Bill which comes before the House.

I strongly support the Bill.

2.20 p.m.

I intervene briefly to support what I regard as an excellent Bill. It goes to the heart of one of our most important rights—the right of every citizen to exercise his vote.

There is no doubt that every elector has the right to have his name recorded on the electoral register and to exercise his vote, whether he be at home or away on the day on which politicians decide to call an election.

At one time it was generally recognised that most people took their annual holidays during July, August and September. Consequently those months have been avoided for the holding of General Elections. But times have changed. At the General Election that we had on 28th February, for example, there is no doubt that many electors were on holiday. Certainly that was the case in my constituency. As a result they were deprived of that fundamental right to vote.

During the past few years, the pattern of holiday making has changed completely. It is now common place for people to take their holidays in the winter months of January and February, especially those who are retired and who wish to take advantage of cheaper holidays that are available during those months. They are entitled to vote. Therefore, it is the duty of all politicians of all parties to see that they can do so by post if they are away on holiday in this country or by proxy if they are abroad at the time of an election.

There is no doubt that the correctness of any register varies from one part of the country to another. Equally there is no doubt that people are left off the register because of their own slackness in not filling up forms, because they happen to be away, because they do not happen to receive the forms when they are delivered, or because the electoral registration department at the local town hall has left their names off the register. They are forced to wait at least 12 months and sometimes longer before they can be restored to the electoral roll. I believe that this is a situation which we should put right.

In years gone by, there used to be two registers a year. That practice was discontinued some time in the late 1930s or 1940s for economy reasons, if my memory serves me right. I wonder whether the Minister will look into this and advise me whether my memory is right.

I feel that it would not be difficult, it would not be expensive and it would not be a great burden on town hall staffs to produce a supplementary register of electors, provided that those people could show that they were resident in their homes on the qualifying date and had been left off the register because of some mistake on their own part or by the electoral registration department.

If this House does not give the Bill a Second Reading, I believe that voters have every right to descend on us in their wrath. They have the right to vote. It is up to us to make certain that that right is protected by introducing postal voting for those on holiday in this country and proxy voting for those who are abroad, and providing every opportunity for the register to be kept up to date at all times.

2.24 p.m.

I came into the Chamber to listen and to admire, hoping that this simplistic measure would be given the Second Reading that it deserves. It may be a little naive of me as a new Member, but I was horrified by the extraordinary Byzantine elements of bureaucracy which seemed to dominate both Front Benches. I thought that I was in the latter stages of the decline of the Hapsburg Empire.

We are discussing an issue which the electors have asked us to discuss. Are we unable to do anything in this House? During my own election campaign, I knocked on a great many doors and discovered that there were these three simple propositions which are dealt with in the Bill. They are enunciated in relatively simply language. I cannot attempt to go through the Bill and dissect it word by word as some hon. and learned Members can, but they seem to indicate that they are fully in support of the Bill's contents and they recognise the ability of this House in Committee to put into the Bill exactly what they want. However, committed as they are to all that is in the Bill, they nevertheless will not endorse it.

I am perplexed. What do I say to people who suggest that holiday voting is a reasonable difficulty which might be overcome? What do I say about the clause concerning the military? What do I say about the implementation of supplementary registers? None of them seems catastrophic. Have we to wait another seven years?

I am also perplexed by the total absence since eleven o'clock this morning of representatives of a certain party which purports to represent a view in this Parliament and which suggests that electoral reform is one of the most important issues in its policies. Could not the Liberal Party have bothered to have at least one of its Members attending the whole of this debate? Of course not. The Liberal Party is concerned only with talking. It is not interested in doing something constructive about issues of this kind.

I am astonished at our inability to do what we all wish to do in relation to three simple matters which will help our citizens in their right to vote and not just to have the right to vote.

2.28 p.m.

The Bill has my wholehearted support, and I have been very glad to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on some of the preliminaries.

In quite a number of years in this House, I have found that our work is at its most satisfactory and useful when we are debating matters which transcend party boundaries. This has been the case today. We have listened to speeches from the Government benches commending a considerable amount of that which is contained in the Bill. I welcome that. I share the disappointment which has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House at the fact that there has been no Liberal intervention and not even a Liberal Party presence during the debate. I find it remarkable that Liberal Members should not concern themselves with the very important matters contained in the Bill.

As I say, this House is at its best when it is working across party lines. I recollect the work which was done when the Labour Party was last in power on our gaming legislation which later became the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. I served on that Committee with Mr. Elystan Morgan, whose absence from the House I regret, with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and others. We served together as a working Committee trying to get the best solution for the organisation of gambling based on the Government's proposals. We worked well, across party lines.

I foresee a similar rôle for the Committee which will handle the Bill. If we go into Committee, as I hope we shall, especially since Labour Members have expressed themselves in favour of the measure, we shall then be able, in a non-partisan spirit quietly and carefully to consider the best way of improving the electoral system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking is prepared to be flexible and reasonable, as are those of us who support him. If it is shown by the Under-Secretary at a later stage to be inappropriate for those matters which have not been fully considered by the Speaker's Conference not to be legislated on until they have been so considered I am sure that my hon. Friend will be prepared to amend his Bill as appropriate.

As a former Service Minister, representing a garrison town, I am particularly keen on the clause dealing with Service voters, and that provision has been considered by the Speaker's Conference. The Bill incorporates the recommendations of the conference. It is worth giving the Bill a Second Reading for that clause alone. Perhaps my hon. Friend in Committee could be persuaded that it would be best to leave those matters which have not been the subject of recommendations by the Speaker's Conference. Woe betide anyone who votes against the Bill and who claims to have the interests of the Services at heart.

Does the hon. and learned Member recall that the Government of which he was a Service Minister laid the Representation of the People Regulations 1974. I understand that proposals could have been included in those regulations to deal with the problems of Service voters along the lines the hon. and learned Member now seems so desperately anxious should be implemented. Will he tell us whether he, as a member of the Defence Council, made representations for justice to be given to Service men, or is this just a political conversion because we may be entering into a General Election period?

That is unworthy of the hon. Member. I admit that our Government were in my view mistaken in not at once implementing this proposal. I admit some of the responsibility as a junior Service Minister for the fact that we were unable to get this proposal through. I am all for a little more admission by Governments that they did not do all they should have done. Our Government should have acted on these recommendations and I regret that they did not. If the hon. Member has the interests of the Services at heart he will take the opportunity of joining us and setting the matter to rights now.

Before the General Election there might have been a case for waiting for the Speaker's Conference which then existed, but which now does not, to complete all its deliberations so that they could be presented in one Bill. In the post-election situation, however, in which the Government have not only done nothing to set up a Speaker's Conference but have also done nothing to carry out the recommendations of the last Speaker's Conference, the time has come for something to be done. If nothing is done about this now it will not be possible to do anything about it before the register of 1976.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I would have liked my Government to act on this issue but we did not and it is now a matter for the House of Commons to deal with. The present situation is unsatisfactory and the House of Commons should set the matter to rights. The last Government did not act, but there was more reason for their failure to act than there is for lack of action now. There is the possibility of an early election, and as we have the opportunity of putting the matter right let us do so.

Home Office figures show that of those eligible for registration in the Forces in 1970, 32 per cent. were registered. In 1971 the figure was 22 per cent., in 1972 it was 25 per cent. and it was also 25 per cent. in 1973. Therefore, about 75 per cent. of Service personnel are not appearing on the register, for a variety of reasons. Those reasons are set out with great cogency in the full report of the Speaker's Conference. The conference took evidence on Wednesday 4th April relating to the Session of 1972–73. The main reason for the small number of Service voters on the register is conditions of service. In Northern Ireland, it is pointed out, it is unrealistic to expect many men to fill in the forms when they face the risk of being shot while on duty. I have had the privilege of being the Minister for the Royal Navy. I appreciate the difficulties of getting registration of those who serve in Polaris submarines which may be at sea for two months or more. That is a deficiency which will be taken care of by the Bill.

A whole series of deficiencies is set out in the report, but we can set this one to rights. Woe betide any hon. Member who does not now take the opportunity to put the matter right and to get these Service people back on the register.

My constituency is a graphic example of the problem. I have figures about the various polling stations which show the percentages voting at each. Throughout the constituency the poll was around 81 per cent. In one case it was 87 per cent., 80 per cent. in another, 81 per cent. somewhere else, 79 per cent. and so on. At a polling station at the Shrub End ward in Layer Road, Colchester the turnout there was a mere 55 per cent. That is because the Royal Hampshire Regiment had been posted to Northern Ireland. The men could have made arrangements for proxies, but that system is faulty, as was pointed out by the Speaker's Conference. If the scheme suggested by the conference and incorporated in the Bill had been in force those soldiers would not have been disenfranchised. Perhaps I could have some attention from the Government Front Bench.

Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the tenor of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks regarding the difficulties of Service voters, does he not think that it is incongruous to combine the peculiar problem of their difficulties and the much more arguable question of holiday voting in the same Bill?

To be frank, it is not. But if the hon. Gentleman takes that view, let him come on the Committee. I do not know whether he was present for my earlier remarks. There are parts of the Bill on which I hope the House will unite—for example, Service voters. I indicated that if the Under-Secretary of State were able to convince us in Committee that the other two matters should be dropped which are not the subject of a unanimous recommendation by Mr. Speaker's Conference, we could well be persuaded by what she says.

The Bill takes care of the difficult situation in which those people find themselves who are now in the forefront of protecting our democratic society against the assaults upon it. The Bill would give them a proper and more ready opportunity to vote. I ask any hon. Member who is thinking of voting against the Bill to reflect on that matter.

The Under-Secretary of State indicated that it was inappropriate for private Members' legislation to deal with a matter of this character. That I cannot accept for one moment. Some of the most important legislation on the statute book deals with the rights of the individual and the rights of citizens inter se. That has been brought about because of the enterprise of private Members. That goes all the way through from the divorce law to the law relating to abortion and other criminal matters, including homosexuality and so forth. I see no reason in principle for a matter of this character not being dealt with by a Private Member's Bill. I hope that in due course this measure will have the support of the Government draftsmen.

I had the privilege early in my parliamentary career to get through the House a Private Member's Bill which later became known as the Limitation Act. Among other things that enable miners and those who suffer from industrial diseases such as pneumoconiosis and silicosis to get a remedy outside the normal limitation period of three years. That was a fundamental and important matter. I received Government support at that time. I was glad to get that piece of legislation on the statute book. I remember that a former right hon. Member of this House, Mr. Jim Griffiths, supported me. I spoke to him after we had got the measure through. He said to me "If you come down to South Wales, boy, the miners will give you a cheer." I replied "Yes, they might give me a cheer but would they give me a vote?" He replied, "No, not a vote, boy, but just a cheer."

That was a matter of fundamental importance to the whole mining community and, indeed, to a wider section of the community. It is through that Bill that many of the mothers of thalidomide children have been able to get some compensation or have had the opportunity to bring an action against the companies involved. The whole of our statute book is full of pieces of legislation that are of great and profound importance. Why should not the Bill go through in the same way?

I can see no matter of principle involved that prevents this measure being dealt with by private Members' legislation. I hope that we shall have a Committee that will work as one body without there being any cleavages of a fundamental and political character. I hope that we shall see the formation of a working Committee that will strive to get the right solutions to these difficult issues. It is especially important that that should happen because of the possible proximity of an election.

I have accepted strictures for the fact that the previous Government did not at once act on these matters. If it were possible to have our time again in Government, I think that we should do so. I think that the previous Government would have acted on behalf of Service voters if the election had not come when it did. It behoves this House and authority generally to admit that on occasions it has not done some things which it should have done.

Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman talk about the proximity of a General Election when his party will do nothing in that direction?

I take the view that there is likely to be an election fairly soon. If the hon. and learned Gentleman takes a different view, I am surprised. In the context of a minority Government it would be foolish not to think in terms of the likelihood of there being an election before long. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he votes against the Bill or a closure, that vote will be resented by the people who are at the forefront of maintaining law and order in this country. It is agreed on both sides that the system of registration for them is undesirable. We now have the opportunity to set that to rights. There are many points which will have to be dealt with in Committee. However, the full history is set out in the admirable memorandum that was put before Mr. Speaker's Conference when it dealt with this matter. We have ample material.

Fears have been expressed, quite understandably, about the extension of postal voting. In spite of this, an amendment which I hope to bring forward myself is intended to extend further the right to vote by post. I think that at least a House of Commons Committee should consider this. I do not see why a Service man posted to Northern Ireland should not have the right to vote by post from there, or similarly from BAOR. Why should a Service man not have the right to vote by post?

He has.

He has not at the moment. A Service man can do so only by proxy. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) expresses surprise. When I first became the Member for Colchester I too was surprised. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's reaction, I might carry him with me. Those in BAOR should also have the right to vote by post. I agree that normally it would not be desirable for British ballot papers to go outside our jurisdiction, but our forces in BAOR have the whole system under domestic control because of the Armed Forces postal system. That is an amendment which I hope to bring forward. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking would give a sympathetic consideration to that matter.

I agree that there are dangers in extending the postal vote but I think that they have been exaggerated. I have reminded the House of the severe penalties which exist. If there were any question of bribery it would be likely to come out. I do not want to make too controversial a point when I say that all sorts of payments that are thought to be confidential do appear from time to time. If there were a case of bribery I have little doubt that it would be ferreted out. One might have expected to find some examples of that in Northern Ireland in view of the history of what has happened in that troubled province, yet there has been none. I look forward to discussing that matter in Committee.

The supplementary register seems to have the sympathy of all hon. Members. I hope that we shall be able to consider that matter seriously. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to get her high-powered committee set up which apparently she thinks is in existence. We do not know whether it has yet met. It seems that it has been in existence for nine months. That is ample time for the Committee to have been in existence.

It was decided to set it up last October.

Has the hon. Lady been able to check whether it has yet met? I do not want to be ungallant. I find it surprising that the decision was made nine months ago to set up the committee and that the Minister does not know whether it has met or been brought into existence. Gallantry prevents me from pressing the hon. Lady further. I enjoyed her speech, which was full of charm but totally devoid of content. That is borne out by her being unable to tell us about the committee's existence.

I wish to press this point. I understand that the hon. Lady is still not clear whether this very important working party has even met yet. We are entitled to some information on this matter because she rested a large part of her case on it, and I feel that before we reach a decision it should be possible for her, with all the resources of the Government behind her, to find out whether the working party has met, and if it has not met, when it will do so.

I agree. If the working party has been constituted and has begun its deliberations, I am sure that it could quickly give an interim report on the important matters covered by the last part of the Bill. But again, why should not a Committee of this House consider the matter? I believe in getting the focal point of our constitutional affairs more and more centred on the Floor of this House and on its legislative Committees.

The Bill deals with matters about which the country feels deeply. There is a great deal of resentment among my constituents that people should be disfranchised be-because they are on holiday on polling day. I would look forward to hearing in Committee about the difficulties of too wide an extension of postal voting, and there is no better place in which to consider these matters in depth than a Committee of this House, being a microcosm of the representation in the House—although perhaps the Liberal Party might not be strictly entitled to membership of the Committee in view of its absence today.

I am sure my hon. and learned Friend would not, even inadvertently, wish to do injustice to the Liberal Party. There was a Liberal Member present about five minutes ago, but he sat on the Labour Benches for some strange reason and has now left.

I am interested to note my hon. Friend's close watch on the attitudes of hon. Members to the Bill, and he is right to keep such watch because the Bill is important.

It is certainly absolutely suited to proper consideration by a Committee of the House of Commons which should consider these difficult matters on a nonparty basis. I do not think that party considerations enter into this matter. If hon. Members vote against the Bill or a closure their attitude will be bitterly resented by people in all parties who wish to vote even if they are away on holiday, by people who wish to see the Services' voting system organised on more satisfactory basis, and by those who rightly feel so annoyed and frustrated when they find that, because of administrative error, their names have been excluded from the register. All these categories would be benefited by the Bill, and I hope that we can all unite in giving it a Second Reading.

2.54 p.m.

Although I am deeply interested in the Bill, I was prepared to forgo making a speech on it because, like most hon. Members here, I am anxious that we should get on to the second Bill on the Order Paper, the Spouses of United Kingdom Citizens (Equal Treatment) Bill, which is being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger). Anxious as I am that her Bill should get a Second Reading today, however, I have been provoked into making a brief speech on this Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck).

What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was almost an affront to the House in view of the fact that until a few short weeks ago he had responsibility for one of the Armed Forces and was a member of the Defence Council. I must repeat what I said in my intervention in his speech: that it seems inconceivable that the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, Statutory Instrument No. 648, which was laid before the House before the General Election and came into operation shortly afterwards, should not have included such amendments in respect of Service votes as were deemed necessary and expedient. It would have been within the power of the last Government and within the orbit of responsibility of the hon. and learned Gentleman to have made such recommendations. But they failed to do it. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself failed, as a member of the Defence Council, to recommend what he now believes to be a change of great importance.

There can be no excuse for that lapse, because Mr. Speaker's report on the Conference on Electoral Law was presented, as Command Paper No. 5363, to the House in July 1973. It included in its recommendations the very proposals now contained in the Bill today. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot now claim that he did not know of the desire for this piece of reform; nor can he disclaim responsibility for having failed, and failed miserably, to do his duty when he had the opportunity.

But my second charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman is even more serious. He presented to the House today detailed statistics about the number of members of the Armed Forces who have taken up their right to registration for electoral purposes. The number is abysmally low. With his colleagues in the Conservative Government, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman held the responsibility. There are provisions in Regulations 58 to 65 dealing with the whole business of registration.

If, therefore, it is the case that, under the existing law, too few Service men register for electoral purposes, whose responsibility is it? If it is a matter of public policy, as I believe it is, that the greatest possible number of our troops, airmen and seamen should be encouraged to take part in the democratic process of election, it is the responsibility of the Defence Council to carry that out. It was the responsibility of the hon. and learned Gentleman as a member of the Defence Council, and he cannot now shuffle it off. He could have taken such steps as were open to him to issue orders, recommendations or encouragement to commanding officers to ensure that registration was brought to the notice of serving members of Her Majesty's Forces and that they were encouraged on a voluntary basis to register. It does not lie with the hon. and learned Gentleman to make the charges he has made today.

The hon. Gentleman could not have been paying much attention to what I said. I said that I wished we had done this. I have faced up to that omission. The hon. Gentleman is now being a little churlish in keeping on about it. The point is that we now have the opportunity to put the matter right. This has never been a party matter. The figures I quoted, and for which the hon. Gentleman blames me, are low. But a directive was sent to the whole of the Fleet to make sure that everything was done that could possibly be done under the existing system. I may say that this was rather more than was done by previous Governments. We did our best, but the present system is not able to be worked properly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now stop being churlish and will help us put the matter right.

I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman has again confirmed, following the intervention I made in his speech earlier, that he was forced to accept the failings of himself and his fellow members of the Defence Council. If the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) wishes to intervene I shall be delighted to allow him to do so. I should not like it to be thought that I had made an unfair attack on either the hon. and learned Member for Colchester or the hon. Member for Woking, the promoter of the Bill.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House would not wish me to do anything to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I point out to him that the rapid and significant decline in the numbers of Service men registered to vote between 1970 and 1971 was the direct result of legislation introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party when last in office. I do not recall him as having been a great champion of change in that respect, but I now welcome him to the ranks of progressives on this occasion and I hope that it will not take him too long to tell us why he has changed his mind.

It would be far better if a much larger percentage of Armed Forces personnel participated in elections. They should be encouraged by all Governments to register and participate. My claim against the hon. Gentleman is that in his speech he made what I regarded as unfounded attacks in the certain knowledge—I use my words deliberately and carefully—that he had failed in his duty, as a Minister with responsibility for the Royal Navy and as a member of the Defence Council, to ensure that a greater percentage of Service men were registered, or alternatively that he failed to insist that the previous administration brought about the changes that were so essential.

I do not wish to take too long because I share the anxiety of the House in trying to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South has the opportunity of getting her Bill through the House today. However, the Bill now under consideration is important and it is not always possible in the discharge of one's parliamentary duties to forgo those duties in relation to examining a particular piece of legislation which is before the House in order that another piece of legislation which is due to follow should get through as quickly as one would hope. We have our duty to do. The sequence in which legislation appears on the Order Paper is not our choice. We must examine what is before us.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Gentleman has made that remark when there are still 59 minutes remaining for debate. Did he not hear me say when I opened the debate that the draftsmanship in the Bill was not perfect, that it could be improved in Committee and that I was anxious to get the Bill into Committee so that it could be improved? The hon. Gentleman can cut out all the filibustering and have 58 minutes on the next Bill.

The hon. Gentleman cannot yet make the charge that I am filibustering, because I have been on my feet for only a short while. We must not seek to saddle Parliament with a Bill which is so defective in principle and which in view of many hon. Members is not capable of being sufficiently amended in Committee to meet those defects. If we were concerned merely with one or two minor matters of detail which could easily be put right in Committee, there would be no problem. But I hope to show to the House, and I hope to get the fact into the inner thoughts of the hon. Gentleman, that his Bill is defective in principle on a number of matters in respect of which it would not be within the competence of any Committee to make adjustments. We have a responsibility not to allow a Second Reading to a Bill if its principle is unacceptable or defective.

There are on the surface a number of points of agreement among some hon. Members who have addressed the House. There can be no doubt that there is serious dissatisfaction by those voters who want to vote in general or local elections but who for reasons beyond their control are unable to do so. It may be because they are having a late or an early holiday which they booked long before the announcement of an election and which coincides with an election.

There is another category of people who desperately want to participate in elections but who, due to circumstances beyond their control, are deprived of the opportunity. I refer to those who are suddenly taken ill and are in hospital at the time of the expiry of the period for making a postal vote application. There are many categories. When I go canvassing in a General Election or a local election, time and again I find people who desperately want to exercise influence over the destiny of their country and all they hold dear but who are deprived of the opportunity because they have suffered a sudden illness and no one has helped them to get a postal vote. I would have been more impressed if the Bill had contained a clause to deal with this.

What is even more unacceptable to the elector is that he should be deprived of a vote because of an error made by the registration officer or his agents who have failed to ensure that his name appears on the register. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) who suggested the publication of supplementary registers. That would greatly ease the situation. I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) that this could not be done in the manner set out in the Bill because it would necessitate an almost continuous flow of supplementary registers.

The hon. Member for Woking described how he had come across an elector who was in default of the provisions of the laws of the United Kingdom. He listened to the elector describe in detail how he had perverted the law and failed to perform the duty that rests upon all citizens of upholding the law. I thought it was a bit of a cheek on his part to try to brush that off in view of the attitude that he and so many of his hon. Friends take towards others who wish to treat the law lightly, as a joke—and some of the laws passed by the last Government were jokes. Some were serious.

It does not lie with the hon. Member to take that view. He has a duty to report that offence. He obviously failed to do so and he should receive the condemnation of the House. [ Interruption .] It is no good the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) tutting, because if by that he is signifying that he supports his hon. Friend in not carrying out his duty to uphold the requirements of the Representation of the People Act he ought to get up and say so instead of sitting there tutting. Does he support his hon. Friend in encouraging a breach of the law?

The hon. Gentleman is taking up time unnecessarily. I was not tutting about anything he was saying. He is leading himself astray with his own red herring.

The hon. Gentleman may think it is a red herring. I could quote the regulation but I shall forgo that pleasure.

In my view the Bill does not deal with some of the other problems associated with registration for electoral purposes. For instance, the hon. Gentleman could have included not only the provision about the Service voter but also Part III of Mr. Speaker's letter to the Prime Minister dealing with the minimum age for election. There will be many hon. Members, and certainly an overwhelming majority of electors, who probably share my view that if at the age of 18 a person can be in the British Army and be sent to die for an inglorious cause in Northern Ireland, he ought to be able to stand for election to the United Kingdom Parliament and thus express an opinion of the principles for which his age group is dying in the gutters of Northern Ireland. That could have been included in the Bill if it was a serious effort to get to grips with some of the anomalies and omissions in existing law.

I believe that the deposit of £150 required of candidates is too low. It should be increased to a substantially higher figure. A deposit should also be required for local elections—a much more modest one than for parliamentary elections—because it is in the interests of the democratic process to encourage nominations to be made by people who have a genuine and responsible point of view and a reasonable amount of public support which goes beyond the signatures on the nomination paper. That is a reasonable principle to enshrine in a Bill to which we could have given a Second Reading. Such a Bill would be more capable of dealing in principle with some of the deficiencies of our electoral system.

Passing reference was made to the public funding of political parties. I am glad that that matter is not included in the Bill. It needs much more careful study before being accepted as a principle to be enshrined in legislation.

Another omission in principle from the Bill concerns people who move from one electoral area to another within the same local government administrative area. The London borough of Bexley has three parliamentary constituencies, Erith and Crayford, Bexleyheath and Sid-cup. An elector who moves from a council house in Sidcup to one in Bexley-heath is not transferred on the electoral register until 10th October in the following year, when application is made, and the register will not be published until 15th February in the year following.

It would be reasonable for the Bill to enable a registered elector who moved from one parliamentary constituency to another within the same local government administrative area automatically to be transferred by the registration officer to the electoral register for his new constituency. That provision would be of greater benefit to a greater number of people than would the provisions which are suggested for dealing with people on holiday. In areas where considerable redevelopment is occurring there is a tremendous upheaval because people are being rehoused. The registration officer should be given powers in the Bill to enable him to make automatic transfers in the electoral register.

The real problem is that concerning the sick and the disabled. I should have liked a Bill dealing with the distress caused to those people. It should have been possible to draft a clause placing on the registration officer the requirement that when he issues the forms prior to 10th October and subsequently sends his enumerators, as they are called, he encourages the ill and the infirm and those likely to become infirm in the reasonably foreseeable future to register as postal voters rather than merely go on the list and rely on the activities of political parties to pick them up in a political canvass before the last date for the inclusion on the postal voting list.

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's plea. He ought to declare an interest in those who are about to become infirm in the reasonably foreseeable future. There is nothing to stop him bringing in his own Bill in his own time to deal with those issues. What he is saying is no justification for talking out this Bill.

The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that I am capable of talking for another three-quarters of an hour when I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South is waiting to make her speech. I had every intention of sitting down to give my hon. Friend a chance to speak on behalf of her important Bill. It is not my intention to thwart her ambitions in a worthwhile cause.

My intention is to demonstrate the unworthy cause of the hon. Gentleman, to unmask the unworthy motives behind the Bill and to show how many of its basic principles are inadequate. I am showing what the Bill would contain if the hon. Gentleman were serious about introducing electoral reform instead of being, as usual, frivolous and deeply partisan. Having exchanged those few polite courtesies with the hon. Gentleman, I return to my speech.

I should have liked a provision requiring local authority social service departments to assist registration officers in the location of those who might be included on the postal voting list. I should have been whole-heartedly with the hon. Gentleman if he had brought forward a Bill seriously intended to bring some measure of electoral justice.

I have demonstrated the falseness of the hon. Gentleman's claims about the Service vote. All this could have been done when he was a Minister of the Crown. The Bill would not materially affect the Armed Forces. Service men could be encouraged by directives to commanding officers to make a splash on the mess deck and the barrack room to encourage men to vote. That could have been done under existing regulations.

I am surprised that my hon. Friend did not deal with the major drawback to the Bill.

I have not spoken yet.

My hon. Friend has not joined in this short debate to deal with a scandalous omission from the Bill. The Bill omits any proposal to put teeth into Regulation 69 of the Representation of the People Regulations.

That regulation deals with the issue of Form A, which requires the head of the household to enter upon it the names of all those residing in the household on 10th October of the year in question. There are many landlords who would seek to escape the scrutiny of local authorities about the number of people who reside in a particular dwelling, because the Public Health Act 1936 lays down an average number of people per dwelling based on the number of rooms. Information of that kind would disclose the numbers of people herded into accommodation by some landlords, whom the hon. Member for Woking seems to wish to protect. Since he has not included in the Bill any provision to expose those landlords. Such a provision would contribute to electoral reform and also bring pressure to bear on landlords who do not act in a reasonable manner.

I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South has returned to the Chamber. I can assure her that I shall be only a few more moments, and she will soon be able to put on record her words of wisdom and, I hope, encourage hon. Members to support the Second Reading of her Bill.

I am sure that the whole House is cheered by those good tidings from the hon. Gentleman. It is a pity that he is making such heavy weather of his points since, as HANSARD will clearly show, it was I who raised the subject of multi-occupation and deprecated it as much as did the hon. Gentleman. He is making bricks without straw and, indeed, is carrying that situation to the point of total absurdity.

The hon. Gentleman—in company with some, though not all, of his Conservative colleagues—seems to go round the country deprecating this and that, but when there is an opportunity to do something about the matter, either in a Private Member's Bill or in Government legislation, they spend their time indulging in party politics. The multi-occupation matter could have been dealt with in the hon. Gentleman's proposals.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department referred to the forms issued under the regulations and said that the Government intended to simplify them. I hope she will proceed on those lines, because the 25 forms set out in the principle Act are rather complicated and she would make a great contribution to electoral reform if she were to encourage the Government to carry out her suggestion of simplifying them.

I should like to say a few brief words on the three clauses in the Bill, and then we can move on.

I should think so. It is now 3.25 p.m.

If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way.

Will the hon. Gentleman hurry up?

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that for a new Member who is here on a Friday in a debate on Private Members' legislation it is a little disconcerting to hear the hon. Gentleman spend over half an hour in making his speech? Does he not realise that some of us have sat here during the day in anticipation of supporting the Bill which is to be introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger)?

I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman has been here for a little time he will recognise that, whatever the pressures of other legislation, the House must not shrink from its duty of examining legislation that is before us. If he is as anxious as I am to support the Bill which is about to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, he can ensure its speedy passage immediately agreeing to that Bill "on the nod" at four o'clock. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not one Labour Member will call "Object" when that Bill comes before the House at four o'clock. Therefore, it lies in the hon. Gentleman's hands to expedite that measure by ensuring that no sinister figure sitting near him on the Conservative benches calls "Object" when that measure is called.

I will briefly go through my remaining remarks. I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) about Clause 1. It is so deficient in guidance to registration officers as to be beyond the possibility of detailed adjustment in Committee to ensure that there is enshrined in the Bill a principle which would be acceptable to Parliament. How can one talk about evidence in respect of holidays being made available to a registration officer? Many people could say "I am going camping that week" and there would be no receipts, booking forms or air tickets available. If we are prepared to accept the uncorroborated word of such a person, let us say so in the Bill. Let us not talk about being

I shall not deal with the Service vote since that has already been dealt with. The only part of the Bill which comes anywhere near to satisfying the genuine desire for electoral reform is Clause 3. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had concentrated his efforts entirely on that clause and had introduced a one-clause Bill. We could then have dealt much more quickly with it and sent it to Committee. Then we could have got on to the other measures which lie before us, instead of taking up so much time adducing to the House good reasons why hon. Members should join me in opposing this measure if it is put to a vote.

I hope that in the interests of time and democracy the hon. Gentleman will now withdraw the Bill so that some other Member may at a later stage get the opportunity to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill based on a genuine desire to bring about electoral reform, thus relieving the House of the necessity of rejecting this ridiculous, unnecessary, petty, partisan measure which has been presented today.

With those few brief words I resume my seat, and I conclude by saying that I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South will get her Bill.

3.27 p.m.

Friday is a day on which the whole House tends to eschew polemics. If it is any consolation to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who was becoming increasingly agitated, or so it seemed to me, during the course of the brief remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), he may recall that in the 1966–70 Parliament a proposal was made by Denis Coe, at that time the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich, which brought for the first time the party label on to the ballot paper. This has since been incorporated into our electrocal law.

The hon. Gentleman will recollect that at the time the Leader of the House was unable to accept that Bill because, among other things, it is the practice in this House that changes in the constitutional structure and rights of voters in general are not normally carried out on the basis of piecemeal legislation in a back-bench Member's Bill. It may be of some comfort to the hon. Member if one quotes that example because, no doubt, Mr. Coe's Bill on that occasion, although it was not accepted by the House, was a precursor to Government legislation which put right an absurdity in the electoral system which many of us had long worried about.

Considering the proliferation of political parties which have grown up in recent years, some of which are now represented in the House, one realises how important that change was.

Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman should be so unfortunate as not to secure a Second Reading for his Bill today, he can comfort himself with the thought that there may well be an opportunity in due time for some of its intended effect to find its way into a Government measure, no doubt after proper consideration by a Speaker's Conference.

The trouble with the Bill, in the first place, is that it joins together two quite dissimilar matters. The question of holiday voting and the right which people should or should not enjoy when away for leisure is wholly different from that of Service voting. In an intervention during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), I said that I had some sympathy with the tenor of his observations. I shall not bandy polemics with him about his own role in this matter. That has been referred to already, and I accept his indication of contrition in so far as he had any responsibility in this matter.

I accept also—I say this in no ironic sense—that the arrangements governing the position of Service voters could undoubtedly be improved. It is my belief that, if the Bill had been confined to the problems facing Service voters, the hon. Member for Woking would probably have received support on both sides of the House. Indeed, I think it possible that he would not even have had to argue the case and the Bill would have been accepted on the nod.

I take the point which is made regarding voters overseas. It is a long time since it happened, but one recalls that in 1945 votes were cast in places throughout the world by Service men in various theatres of war, and I am told that only 17 votes were established as having been lost in transit in the whole of that operation, notwithstanding that we were still at war with Japan and the votes had to be collected from so wide a field that it took three weeks from the date on which the General Election occurred-5th July 1945, I think—until 26th July when they were finally counted. That aspect of the matter, therefore, should present no great problem, and I think that the hon. Gentleman makes quite a good case for it.

What worries me about the Bill is the rest of it. I speak here not only of the textual criticism which it deserves. By way of preliminary observation with regard to the textual criticism—I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will not take it ill; he is not in his place at the moment—I must comment on what he told us about the drafting. We gather that he saved the country about £200 by drafting the Bill himself. That is very kind of him, but £200 is a very small sum these days, certainly by Concorde standards, and even by any less extreme comparison.

It would have been far better, and the money would have been well spent, if the hon. Gentleman had forgone that generosity to the taxpayer and enlisted the support of the draftsmen so as to remove some of the imprecisions which undoubtedly blemish even those parts of the Bill with which we agree and make worse—indeed, incurably defective—those parts with which we cannot agree.

I now consider just how serious a problem this is. There is a close season for General Elections. The whole of July, August and September is out. The period between the end of November and the end of January is out. The weeks immediately after Easter are out. In practice, elections are confined to a fairly predictable period.

One matter which makes Government supporters less sympathetic to this piece of legislation is that we had less notice of the last Government election than was the case in any General Election for about 50 years. It was the practice in the post-war years for several weeks' notice to be given. Forgetting the position in 1945, which was the long-overdue expiry of a Parliament, I will state the situation. The 1950 General Election was announced on 14th January of that year, and polling day was on 23rd February. That gave a considerable period of time for people to know their arrangements. The 1951 General Election was called in the third or fourth week of September, and polling day was not until 25th October. In 1955, Sir Anthony Eden, as he then was, gave notice of the election almost immediately after taking office on 5th April, and polling day was 23rd May. Anyone who had holiday arrangements in mind had plenty of time to make different arrangements.

In 1959, Parliament was dissolved in September, and polling day took place on 8th October. That was perhaps the shortest period of notice that we had. It will be remembered that that was the "never-had-it-so-good" election—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you could give me some guidance. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee) has now reached the 8th October 1959, and I am not sure how long it will take him to come to the present day. Can you advise me whether at some stage between now and four o'clock—and, for my money, sooner rather than later—you would be prepared to accept a motion, That the Question be now put?

I never like making promises which have to be fulfilled in a short time. In any event, it is too early for the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to move the closure.

I am well aware of that and I am not seeking to do that. I am simply asking for your advice—

The hon. Gentleman is wasting time.

—and seeking not to waste time. If an hon. Member rose on a point of order in, say, 10 minutes, which would still allow a little time for the next Bill, would that receive consideration?

Right hon. and hon. Members know the custom on Fridays. I suggest that the hon. Member for Woking waits until the normal time.

We are discussing matters of major constitutional importance, and the hon. Member for Woking must not become impatient if hon. Members wish to flatter him with the attention which perhaps his Bill does not deserve.

As I was saying, the situation about people's holiday arrangements affecting their ability to vote has almost invariably been such that a generous period of time has been provided in which they might consider and reconsider their position. That was so in 1959, although the period of time was fairly limited.

In 1964, when Parliament was kept going so long that it almost subsided into an unlawful assembly because the Conservative Government kept trying to put off the evil day, everyone had good reason to know by the early part of the year that there was bound to be an autumn election so that anyone with holiday arrangements in mind was able to make them without inconvenience. The election was on 15th October.

We now come to the situation of a minority Government. There are always difficulties with Parliaments of uncertain length because any arrangements that are made can be suddenly interrupted. That is one of the disadvantages of not having Parliaments for a fixed term. Just about the only good thing that can be said about the American Constitution—and not much good can be said of it at the moment—is that Congress runs for a fixed period. The Government of the day have to face the electorate on a given day, come fair weather or foul. without fiddling the situation for party advantage. In the United States it is marginally easier to make one's arrangements for voting because it is known in advance that voting will take place on the first Thursday in November every four years in the case of the Presidential elections.

Is the hon. Member trying to talk this Bill out or is he trying to prevent discussion on the Bill which follows?

Scandalous.

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) is showing the same constitutional impropriety that his leaders showed over the Common Market. Is he trying to curtail discussion on a most important matter? His hon. Friend the Member for Woking has been suggesting with considerable acrimony this afternoon that this is a matter of great importance and that my hon. Friends and I should be treating him with greater sympathy than he has been receiving. The next Bill cannot get the kind of attention it deserves if it is to be debated with so short a time left for discussion. If the hon. Member for Bolton, West does not object, we may be able to nod the next Bill through. I hope that he will be agreeable to that. I hope he will support that admirable piece of legislation.

In 1970 the announcement of the General Election was made on 18th May and the election was held on 18th June. I realise that a number of people would have made their holiday arrangements by that time. Nevertheless the bulk of people do not take their holidays at least until the end of June. The position this year is in marked contrast to that which has prevailed before.

The Leader of the Opposition behaved in an extraordinary fashion last February. He permitted the bare statutory minimum period of notice for an election and 20 days elapsed between the date of Dissolution and the election. Notice of that election was given only the day before Dissolution. I should have thought that was an abuse of the prerogative powers and it does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to become too pompous and up-stage for the rights of voters who are going on holiday when an election is called.

I do not know whether the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton, West were away ski-ing last February, but their ski-ing arrangements must have gone by the board because the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) could not cope with the situation and had to run away from a crisis which was largely one of his own making.

I turn to some other aspects of the electoral system. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford made a number of remarks about the way in which the Bill could have been improved. He was right to draw attention particularly to the far greater claims of persons who suffer from medical disablements. This has been a cause of vexation and anxiety for a large number of people. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not think it appropriate of me to enter into detail, but in my professional capacity a few years ago, I took part in a trial in which various persons were accused of making fraudulent representations to the electoral registration officer by making unreasonable claims for the right to vote by post.

The basis of the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation was that they were obtaining medical certificates quite unreasonably having regard to the circumstances of their case. It would be wholly inappropriate, and you no doubt would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were in any sense to identify the case, but one of the factors which caused anxiety, both to the learned judge and to the jury, was the point at which one has to determine what is a reasonable ground for a medical certificate and what is not a reasonable ground.

Earlier this week, one of my hon. Friends suggested to the Home Secretary that district nurses should be able to give a certificate in the same way as a medical practitioner is empowered to do. That of itself would not solve the problem, of course, for one would still be faced with the difficulty of defining "reasonableness". This point emerged from the trial. The mere fact that a medical practitioner provides a certificate is not of itself a guarantee of the bona fides of the certificate. If the hon. Member for Woking wants to improve the electoral system and thinks that a Private Member's Bill is the appropriate way of so doing, that is one of the things that could have found its way into his measure.

I want to make a few remarks on other aspects. In the constituency I have the honour to represent—

Not for long.

The hon. Lady should not be too hasty. In my constituency, there is a case for the ballot paper to be in more than one language. My electoral address went out in five languages. There is a lot to be said for the ballot paper in my constituency to be able to be endorsed in Urdu, Gujarati, Bengali and Punjabi, which are the languages with which we are concerned there as well as English. It would certainly have been much easier at the General Election if this had been done. The poll was one of the highest that Handsworth has ever had. It would have been higher still if we had had ballot papers in a number of different scripts and languages—[ Laughter .] Some hon. Members may laugh, but we should do everything possible to maximise votes. I enter this caveat —

Oh!

I ask the hon. Lady to bear with me. I enter the caveat that it is one thing to go out of our way to facilitate voting for people whose work takes them away from home or because of irregularities of work. The same applies to Service voters. I entirely accept the point of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester despite whatever misgivings there may have been in the past. That was not the worst sin of omission of the previous Government. There were so many others that that one has been crowded out in the catalogue of sins of omission and commission.

There is much merit in extending to a wide area the concept of disability in relation to the right to vote. It should not be necessary to prove an acute heart condition, blindness, paraplegia or something of that kind. A certificate from a general practitioner that a person is likely to be unfit should be sufficient, but that is not the position at the moment.

There is a great deal to be said for the concept that anyone over the age of 75 should of right have a postal vote. That is the kind of measure which, if included in the Bill, would have helped to make my hon. Friends and myself a little more sympathetic towards the general intention of trying to maximise the vote. That is a different matter altogether from making arrangements for holiday makers. Reference has already been made by my hon. Friends to a weekend flip to Paris. Does that justify putting the electoral registration officer to the trouble of a supplementary list?

As my hon. Friend knows, our constituencies are close together. I have no doubt that the women of our mutual constituencies will be interested to hear of the fascinating Committee points that he has put. I shall see that they are informed.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We can meet another time.

It is a totally different matter to say that a person who is on holiday should be entitled to have a vote. Leaving aside questions of disability, occupational difficulties and extreme age, I take a slightly calvinistic view of the situation. To vote is a right and a privilege. It seems to be no bad thing that an elector should be put to some inconvenience and made to feel that some effort is required to vote.

Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention to furnish his constituents with the text of his speech? Is he to send to Service men and other people in his constituency, including those who go on holiday, and perhaps all those who have been omitted from the electoral register, a copy of his speech, and details of the time it started and the time it finished?

Perhaps the £200 saved by the hon. Member for Woking could be spent on defraying that. We do not know whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. MacFarlane) would wish my speech to be distributed in those languages which I referred to earlier. If he does, I would have more sympathy with what he says, but I detect that he has brought an ironic approach to bear on the subject.

I turn now to textual criticisms of the Bill. The hon. Member for Woking should not get upset because he has been criticised about looseness or ambiguities in the Bill. Private Members' Bills are not alone in suffering from this. I recall once in the early hours of the morning suggesting that a parliamentary draftsman should undergo a crash course in plain English. I made that remark in relation to a measure from a Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman should not be unduly touchy if we are to criticise him a little on these textual points.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) pointed out that there were a number of loose phrases in the Bill. Clause 1(1), referring to absent voting facilities for electors on holiday, states:

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).

holiday or does it mean actually placing a booking with Thomas Cook? Does it mean making a part payment? Does the matter have to go as far as that or is it sufficient merely to—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel sure that even the hon. Gentleman would be relieved if you would now accept a closure motion.

I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 2.

It being after Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21st June.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14th June.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

The subject matter of this Adjournment debate concerns the most famous capital city, London. The object of the debate is to draw attention to many of the environmental problems which afflict Londoners and grievously affect their standard of life. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment cannot accept full responsibility for all the points which I shall raise, but I hope that he will confer with my hon. and right hon. Friends in Government to try to deal with some of the problems by using the solutions which I hope to outline.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "environment" as:

Between one-fifth and one-sixth of the British population reside in Greater London. I have the highest regard for Londoners of all parties who serve as councillors and aldermen on the London borough councils and the Greater London Council, and for the chief officers and local government officers who contribute so much to making London an even better city in which to live. Those councillors and officials share the frustration felt by the average London family, yet with the best will in the world they can do little to arrest the deterioration of life in Greater London.

We who live in London have a justifiable pride in it. I have some knowledge of many other capital cities and I can say that London is the finest capital city in the world. No other capital city has pageantry that compares with ours, or comparable parks. London is the seat of our Parliament. Great sporting events take place at Twickenham and Wembley. I give precedence to Twickenham because I am a rugby rather than a soccer fan. We have great theatres and public halls of world renown. Throughout the world London is recognised as a bastion of democracy and freedom.

While Londoners justifiably bask in the glory of living in London, they are frustrated because they feel that unless something is done it will not be a nice place in which to live. Time does not allow me to go into great detail, but the quality of life is depreciating because London's social furniture is in urgent need of re-examination.

The Londoner's peace of mind is under threat from constant frustration, and that is reflected through his family, his work and his leisure hours. I am speaking not so much of the commuter who works in London and returns to the quietness of Surrey or Sussex. I am speaking of the Londoner who lives and works in this great city. His main complaint is how difficult it is for him to move about the city, particularly if he lives in an outer suburb such as the London Borough of Ealing. It is becoming difficult for a housewife to go by bus to a shopping centre. Grave difficulties are encountered by people who wish to travel by bus to visit a close relative who is sick in hospital.

Whether we speak to the Chairman of the London Transport Executive, officials of the GLC, councillors or local government officers, they always have one excuse, that the problem is one of staff. We all know that London's population is decreasing. This has been caused in part by the loss of social workers and teachers who have been tempted to move out of the city to seek employment elsewhere.

Furthermore the police of London are very much overburdened, and although they have an establishment of 25,000 the force totals only 20,000. The deficiency in the number of policemen in London is equivalent to the entire constabulary of Liverpool or Manchester, and this must be food for thought. It must be remembered that the undermanned London police force has to deal with situations that do not occur elsewhere. I refer to frequent visits by VIPs, large sporting events, great ceremonial occasions and the large demonstrations which regularly take place in London.

I turn next to the consternation felt throughout the Greater London area on the whole subject of education. This concern exists whatever people's political views and whether they believe in a transformation of the education system or that it should be left alone. Everybody in London must be concerned at the fact that the teachers in London are totally dissatisfied with their conditions, and their numbers are running down at a most alarming level.

Let us consider the situation of young married teachers in Greater London who wish to set up home in the capital city. If they want to buy a house of their own, an average two-bedroom semi-detached house in Greater London will cost them £5,000 more than would a similar dwelling in Cardiff, Leeds or Glasgow. So what do that couple do? They look in The Times Educational Supplement and other educational publications and respond to advertisements that will give them employment and the chance of a house in some other part of Britain. As a result parents are frustrated and the education system is damaged, and this could be a blight on the children of London.

I should like next to turn to the considerable problem of London's housing situation. At this very moment, on this Friday afternoon, there are nearly 200,000 families in Greater London who have no proper place in which to live. The extent of homelessness is increasing, and the massive burden which this puts on the shoulders of our local government councillors, and particularly the GLC members, is a serious problem. The House of Commons must take some share of the responsibility which we have given to local authorities in trying to resolve this problem. I shall not, in the short time available to me, say how that problem should be resolved, but I wish to emphasise that it is about time that Parliament considered most carefully its responsibility in lifting the grievous blight on our capital city in terms of the housing situation, and particularly the problem of homelessness.

Another area of great frustration for Londoners is the ever-present problem of noise. The noise from massive lorries and trucks that roll through the London suburbs, the crush-hour traffic and the enormous amount of aircraft noise in London make a difficult burden for Londoners to bear and create annoyance and irritation. I must pay credit to our great metropolitan newspapers and our local Press in general—I hope that they will always flourish in Greater London—because they have done a great deal in pointing to the pollution of the air in our capital city. The sulphur and carbon monoxide content in the London atmosphere is greater than in any other part of the United Kingdom. An examination must be made of this important problem so that ways and means can be found of preventing this blight on all of us.

As I speak here, thousands of children in Greater London are on part-time education. This is the place where we said to the parents "You must see that your children go to school so many days a week." If Parliament has provided the will, it must contribute to providing the end as well.

I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to suggest to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that one of the immediate requirements is to ensure that the absurd area health boards are abolished, possibly at a stroke. In their place the sensible thing to do, which would be supported by all councillors—Conservative and Labour, and even Liberal councillors if they exist—would be to set up coterminous area health boards.

How are we to overcome these problems? I have no time to go into the details of the agonising situation of frustration in London and to suggest solutions. However, I suggest that there is a requirement for a London conference, embracing Members of Parliament, whether Ministers of the Crown or not, representatives of our London boroughs and the GLC, trade unions and employers' organisations, the police, London Transport Executive, the British Road Federation and public service administrators. Such a London conference might not provide a solution but its deliberations would give an indication of how the problems can be seriously tackled. We cannot be satisfied with

The crime is this. For too long and too often at all levels, whenever we have excuses. complained about the deterioration in the standard of life in London we have not been fobbed off but administration has tended to defend itself by erecting a wall of justifiable excuses. Any excuse is not good enough. We want reasonably justifiable answers. Following the great London conference which I suggest we could set about trying to find the indicator which would lead us to the solution to these problems. From this great London conference I believe there would evolve the co-operation and exchange of ideas that would indicate the solution, restore the peace of mind of the Londoner and improve and defend his quality of life.

4.24 p.m.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). All parties have long respected him for his concern and affection for his constituents in Ealing. This debate reveals that that affection is not confined to his constituency but spreads to the whole of our capital city.

I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said. I must, however, comment on one contentious observation which he made at the beginning of his speech, and I do so as the Member of Parliament for Widnes. I take issue with him when he draws a distinction between Twickenham and Wembley, and I assure him that tomorrow the oval ball will be at Wembley and the proper rugby game will be played at Wembley.

My hon. Friend has raised some fundamental questions, some of which do not concern my Department, as he rightly said, but I assure him that his remarks regarding the police, the area health boards, teachers and so on will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends who have responsibility for those Departments.

Much of the debate, and much of what my hon. Friend said, relates not only to the environmental problems of London, for it touches the very nature of urban society itself. It is this we are questioning today. Underlying much of what has been said has been the need for all of us to decide, as Members of Parliament, as members of other decision-making bodies or as individuals in local communities, that we must stop and think about what we are trying to achieve, what we want our urban societies to provide and what we ourselves are willing to offer to make them living and humane communities.

Much of the difficulty, as my hon. Friend made clear, lies in a lack of communication. In a large urban area such as London there is a lack of communication with the appropriate Government Departments or with the Greater London Council, because it is so big that its very bigness can make it an amorphous structure so that the individual feels at a loss when dealing with the huge organisations which must inevitably exist to handle the affairs of a city of the size of London.

When we talk about cities or, as the planners and various sociologists now have it in their jargon, urban structures—I much prefer the word "city"—we are really talking about people living together, people reacting together, and all our policies must be aimed at maximising the welfare of individuals.

As a party we have tried consistently to deal with the problem of high density. High density is one of London's problems. Our efforts began way back in the 1940s with our provision of new towns. Housing, as my hon. Friend said, lies very much at the root of London's problems.

That takes me straight to the point of what the Department of the Environment and the Government themselves are endeavouring to do in regard to housing. There are about 2¼ million permanent, residential dwellings in London, and about 7¼ million people live in them. Moreover, as my hon. Friend said, although the population of London has fallen, the number of households has hardly altered, so the demand for housing presses as hard as ever.

The latest figures, which are not a very reliable guide because many people are not included, show that about 190,000 families are on the housing waiting lists of various London boroughs. The figure is probably much greater than that because of the long waiting period involved. Some people who are in need of a home do not even bother to apply because they feel that there is such a long wait that it is not worth their while.

What we as a Government are doing nationally, as my hon. Friend knows, is that we have earmarked an extra £350 million this year for housing, much of which will be spent on relieving the situation in London.

One of my ministerial colleagues chairs the action group on London housing, which calls together elected representatives and officials from the London authorities and people from other interested bodies experienced in and concerned about the London housing problem. The group is now carrying out a series of studies to see how we can help the boroughs to draw up and achieve new housing programmes matched to the land available to them. Later this year it will turn to the task of discussing with the boroughs the preparation of urban renewal and improvement strategies designed to match local circumstances, traditions and needs.

We are trying to help London also, as my hon. Friend appreciates, in the distribution of the rate support grant this year. Many Londoners should realise that under the Conservative Government most of the London boroughs would have received 7p but are now receiving 13p. One or two will have slightly less, but the bulk of London will have that much more, and this has resulted in the diversion of £25 million to the Greater London area. Of that sum, approximately £11·5 million goes to the 20 outer London boroughs and £15·5 million to the 13 inner London boroughs.

One of the problems which my hon. Friend raised was the vexed question of transport, and we all appreciate that this is another crucial problem in an urban environment like London.

As a result of the infrastructure grant and the new bus grant introduced by the last Labour Government in the Transport Act 1968, the past few years have seen an increasing investment in public transport facilities in London. In 1974–75 London Transport will be investing some £42 million and British Railways some £32 million in the London commuter network. Projects under way at the moment include the extension of the Piccadilly Line from Hounslow to London Airport, the electrification of suburban lines out of Kings Cross, the resignalling of the approaches to London Bridge Station which will greatly increase the reliability of British Rail's South-Eastern services, new rolling stock for both London Transport and British Railways and new buses for London Transport.

Many of the schemes mark a channelling of resources to outer London as well as inner London. Very often when we talk about London we tend to think of inner London. My hon. Friend was right to draw my attention and that of the House to the fact that London is not merely inner London and that many people live in outer London boroughs as well. Therefore, as a result of some of our transport policies there should be some improvement in this acute need in the London area. Perhaps London has done too well on the transport side in comparison with other cities and in comparison with the other needs of London.

The reaction to the road proposals in the Greater London Development Plan showed a healthy questioning by the people who live in London of the necessity to pump more and more millions of pounds into one mode of transport. I showed a general healthy public awareness and willingness to defend existing communities and to criticise comprehensive plans which will vitally affect those communities.

I believe that it was right for the previous Labour Government to submit the Greater London Development Plan to an important panel of inquiry under Mr. Frank Layfield. It is also right that, when the final decision is taken on the recommended modifications of this plan, the GLC should be asked to publish the proposed modifications so that this important plan can be subjected to further public scrutiny. No one should be able to say that the future of London has not been considered in a comprehensive way and that the bureaucrats have decided upon London's future without a chance for Londoners who live and work here to participate. That inquiry is a prime example of the way in which individuals can play an active and constructive part in dealing with plans which vitally affect them, their environment and their lives.

I have tried to show how we have a consistent policy for urban communities, especially for London. My right hon. and hon. Friends are always willing to discuss the problems of London, and I am sure that the GLC is similarly disposed. Central Government, the GLC, the boroughs and the statutory authorities must work together to create a physical environment and a social and economic framework which will serve and improve the standard of life in London. The aim must be to provide every Londoner with adequate housing, a satisfactory environment, suitable employment, good public transport, high standards of education, leisure facilities and other amenities. At the same time we must protect all that is best in London's fabric and modernise where necessary without destroying as vandals a city that we all love so much.

I make one final point on my hon. Friend's suggestion about a great London conference, not a Greater London conference. This proposal is worthy of consideration. There is a standing conference of local authorities—and only of local authorities—of London and the South-East Region which meets continuously. One of the difficulties of a conference of the type my hon. Friend described is that much of what we need to do involves a continuing process rather than a one-off conference or series of conferences. We do not want the position in which Ministers, the boroughs and the GLC can put things off until the next standing conference on London, because too many of these things—

I take my hon. Friend's point. I was seeking to suggest that the great London conference would not by itself be the answer but would evolve into continuing discussions involving statutory bodies, the GLC, the boroughs and so on, which could develop a solution while not working within the Department as is done at the moment.

My hon. Friend is saying that one of the biggest problems is not to find the right answers but to ask the right questions. If one asks the right question, one can often quickly get the right answer.

This has been a useful debate on the environment of London and on the problems of its people. It has been said that civilisation was born when men got together in cities. It is our duty as a House to ensure that civilisation does not die in those cities.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Five o'clock.