---

Electoral Register

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the crucial issue of ensuring that the electoral register, which is one of the engines that drives our democracy, is accurate and honest and works in the way in which it was designed to work. There is a problem in the country with regard to the integrity of parts of the electoral register, partly caused through ill-information and by deliberate abuse of the system. I accept that this is a tricky and difficult subject that has to be treated with sensitivity. During the 2005 general election, one afternoon as I was canvassing in Waveney drive in my constituency in Chelmsford, a lady aged about 55 opened her door and told me that she would not be able to vote for me, even if she wanted to—although she did not express whether she wanted to—because she could not vote in a British general election. It came as a surprise to me. When I asked her about that, she said that, notwithstanding the fact that she had lived in Chelmsford for 25 years and had been married for 25 years to a Chelmsford man, she was a Swedish citizen, so she was not legally entitled to vote in a British general election, because she did not have British citizenship. I accept that that is right, because if she is not a British citizen she does not fit into the rules and she will not be able to vote in a British general election. However, I am concerned that there are numbers of people in Chelmsford—it is not restricted simply to Chelmsford; I suspect that in certain parts of the country it is far more extensive—are putting themselves on to the electoral register who have no right to do so, because they are asylum seekers or economic migrants whose status in this country has not been determined. Even though they may have come from a Commonwealth country, they are not entitled to go on to the electoral register. The rules for those people qualifying to go on the electoral register say:""Commonwealth citizens who are resident in the UK qualify to be registered if they do not require leave to remain in the UK, or if they do require leave and this has been granted."" Unfortunately, there are individuals who have come to this country seeking indefinite leave to remain who have not yet had that leave granted or may have been refused it and are appealing against the procedure. They may even have a deportation order issued against them, against which they are appealing. Such people may have placed themselves on the electoral register and I have no doubt that in some cases they have exercised their right to vote. I know of one definite case in my constituency a few years ago, in which someone with a deportation order was not only on the electoral register but voted in the last election. This is wrong, because these individuals are not entitled to vote. People who play by the rules—that is, my constituent who is a Swedish national—do not vote in a general election. This matter should be looked into and sorted out, so that people who should not be on the register are removed and denied the right to vote until their status in this country has been regularised so that they comply with the law. I suspect that individuals sometimes put themselves on the register through ignorance. This is the first issue that I would like to raise with the Minister. On the forms going through letterboxes in recent weeks, throughout Chelmsford and the rest of the country, people are invited to renew their registration on the electoral register. The form asks people for their surname, first name and nationality, with the text in brackets stating that this should be""as shown on your passport if you have one"," which suggests that if they do not have one they do not have to complete that part. I also suspect that, if they do have a passport and forget to complete that part of the form, it will make no difference to their registration. The notes on the reverse of that form say:""Who should be included on the form? Include the following people: All residents from Great Britain and qualifying citizens of the Commonwealth, the Republic of Ireland and the European Union…who will be living at your address on 15 October 2009."" That is fine. However, it does not say that qualifying citizens of the Commonwealth should put their names on the register or renew their entry only if their status to remain and live in this country has been regularised and approved by the Government. There is a similar situation in respect of the registration forms that people use to register in the first place. The form mentions Commonwealth citizens and lists the relevant Commonwealth countries in great detail, but nowhere does it say, "but only if your residency in the United Kingdom is regularised within the immigration law." Anyone who is not that familiar with our system will see that they come from a Commonwealth country—the form says that people "may register" if they come from a Commonwealth country—and will register, even if, at that moment in time, they have no legal status to live in this country or are fighting hard to get a decision on their remaining here reversed. More guidance should be provided on both those forms, so that people cannot use ignorance as an excuse or claim that they misunderstood the notes accompanying the forms and, in that way, not comply with the law. If someone puts themselves on the register and they should not be there, it is remarkably difficult to get them off. There are a number of ways in which such a person can be discovered: just by talking with neighbours, and so on, for example, although it would be incredibly embarrassing for a neighbour or someone who knows the person to report them. Members of Parliament can find out relatively easily whether someone should legally be on the electoral register, but it is rather tricky to do so, because of the mechanisms by which one identifies individuals and the procedures that have to be adopted to determine whether they should be, or remain, on the register. The electoral officer can look into the matter, as hon. Members will know. Chelmsford is no exception in having an excellent electoral registration officer, whose team works hard. Those officers will be less than likely to know if someone has registered themselves but is not entitled to do so. I suspect that in most parts of the country, few electoral registration officers find many cases where someone has put themselves wrongly on the electoral register. They do not have the time to find out: it is a rather complicated issue. If an individual finds out about someone who should not be on the register, they have to go through a set procedure to notify the electoral registration officer. They must make an objection to someone's being on the register in writing. The letter has to be signed and dated by the elector making the complaint and has to include the name, address and electoral number of the objector, as well as the qualifying address, and everything, of the person they are complaining about. That letter is, of course, in the public domain, which does not encourage people to draw to the attention of the authorities a situation where an error, deliberate or not deliberate, has been caused. That is a failing. If an individual in Chelmsford, Swindon or wherever were to complain that their neighbour's hedge was going on to the public footpath too much and needed cutting back and trimming, the local authority would write to the owner of the property where the hedge was causing the problem and ask them to take that course of action. If the homeowner then telephoned to ask who had made the complaint, the complainant would be guaranteed anonymity and the local authority would not disclose the complainant's name. The Government have a social security benefit fraud hotline, and openly advertise the fact that confidentiality is guaranteed. If an individual suspects that someone is defrauding the benefits system, all they have to do is ring the hotline, provide the information and the grounds on which they believe that someone is defrauding the system, and it will be investigated with anonymity guaranteed. In electoral fraud, which may often be deliberate, why is anonymity not guaranteed? I suggest that it should be guaranteed for a complainant, because that might help to achieve an electoral register that is more accurate, fair and honest. If someone goes through those hoops, what is the procedure for trying to remove someone from the electoral register if they should not legally be on it? The electoral registration officer must determine whether that person is on it illegally, and if their status in this country is involved, the UK Border Agency should be contacted. A few years ago, a local authority asked the Home Office, which then had responsibility for such matters, to check on someone who was on the electoral register and voting in elections when they should not have been because they were fighting a deportation order. The local authority wrote to the Home Office, but after six months it had not even received an acknowledgement of its request for information. It then stopped pursuing the matter, because October came along and the individual concerned did not re-register. If that is UKBA's record in responding to an electoral registration officer's request for information on an individual, it is pitiful. Secondly, if the electoral registration officer receives such information, they must inform the person who allegedly should not be on the register, who may call for a hearing to argue that they should remain on it, even if the electoral registration officer has a piece of paper from the UK Border Agency stating that, for example, they have been refused indefinite leave to remain and should not be in this country because they are an economic migrant, or whatever the reason. Imagine the legal fandango if people who were the subject of complaints called for a hearing and lawyers became involved. It would spin out the whole process, which would become immensely costly, and I suspect that it would be months, if not years, in cases in which the lawyers were determined to string things out, before a decision was made. Something must be done to improve procedures. Natural justice should not be denied, but if a decision on whether someone should remain on an electoral register boils down to someone's immigration status, that must be fairly clear when the UK Border Agency informs the electoral registration officer of their current status, and I do not understand why it is necessary to go through that costly and time-consuming effort for a matter that is relatively simple. Does the Minister have any ideas for improving and tightening the system without denying people natural justice? I have a proposal to put to him. I think that I am right in saying that until changes were made, if a complaint was made against an individual on the electoral register and it was not obviously a vexatious complaint, that person was automatically removed from the register until they could prove that they should be on it. I am not a lawyer, but that seems a sensible way to proceed. If someone should be on the register and wants to be on it, it is not difficult to prove their legal status in this country, and that would speed things up. The final thing I should like to raise is a little more complex and grey. What happens to Commonwealth citizens of states that have been suspended from the Commonwealth? Are they allowed to be on the electoral register? Under immigration rules, a Zimbabwean may not be allowed indefinite leave to remain in the UK, but they may not returned to Zimbabwe for very good and correct reasons, given the situation in that country. However, the Government's responsible attitude to that appalling situation should not mean that Zimbabweans may vote in a general election in this country. I suspect that the Minister will say that if a country is suspended, and its citizens, who would not normally be allowed to remain in the UK, may stay here because of the situation in that country. He will say that until it improves and it is safe for them to return, they will be allowed to appear on the electoral register. That is illogical, and I hope that he will reconsider the issue. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is crucial that the system is not abused, and that measures should be taken to tighten the system and to minimise the opportunity for abuse. I hope that my modest suggestions are both logical and acceptable, and I look forward to his response.