Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 87:"After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—" ““CERTAIN VOTERS ENTITLED TO VOTE IN PERSON (1)   Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (absent voting in Great Britain) is amended as follows. (2)   After paragraph 2(5) insert— ““(5A) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this paragraph applies to a person to whom section 7 of the 1983 Act (mental patients who are not detained offenders) applies and who is liable, by virtue of any enactment, to be detained in the mental hospital in question, whether he is registered by virtue of that provision or not; and such a person may vote— (a)   in person (where he is granted permission to be absent from the hospital and voting in person does not breach any condition attached to that permission), or (b)   by post or by proxy (where he is entitled as an elector to vote by post or, as the case may be, by proxy at the election).”” (3)   In paragraph 2(6), omit paragraph (a) and the ““or”” following it. (4)   This section does not apply to local government elections in Scotland (within the meaning of the 1983 Act).”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise. I have misplaced the papers. This amendment was originally tabled in a group with Amendment No. 22 of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord removed his amendments from that group in order that I could move mine because they achieved the same thing, but I would argue that mine did so in a better way. In moving Amendment No. 87 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 157. I am pleased to be able to bring forward these amendments. They remove the provision in electoral law which stipulates that mental health patients who are detained under civil powers must vote at elections either by post or proxy. In future such people will not be prevented by electoral law from voting in person in polling stations. I agree with noble Lords who discussed this in Committee that this restriction cannot be justified. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, knows, his Amendment No. 22 did not quite achieve what was necessary, hence my bringing forward these amendments. If a person is considered by a doctor well enough to be absent from the hospital, we believe he or she should not be prevented from voting in person. From a practical viewpoint it is not possible to enforce the restriction, as presiding officers at polling stations would not know whether a person is a detained mental health patient, so would not know if such a person were to present themselves at a polling station to vote. Patients can be given permission to be absent from the hospital for a short or long-term period, and there will be a significant number of people who are technically detained but in reality living in the community. Our amendment removes paragraph 2(6)(a) from Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000. Additionally, it inserts a new paragraph 2(5A) in Schedule 4, which provides that detained patients may vote in person where they are granted permission to be absent from the hospital and voting in person does not breach any condition that is attached to that condition. Our amendments have been drafted to cover all detained patients who have been granted permission to be absent, not just those who have been given such permission specifically to vote. There may be people who are able to vote in person because they have been given permission to be absent for another purpose; for example, they are allowed out every day. The amendment reflects the fact that some patients with permission to be absent from hospital could conceivably be unable to vote in person because of the conditions on which they are granted the permission. We would not want electoral law to interfere with conditions imposed by clinicians for the benefit of patients’ health and safety or the protection of other people. New paragraph (2)(5A) continues to give detained patients the option to vote by post or proxy if they wish to do so. In moving these amendments there are two points I want to make clear. First, the amendments will not mean that detained patients are entitled to be given permission to be absent from hospital in order to go and vote. The granting of such permission must remain a clinical decision based on the patient’s condition. Secondly, the amendments cannot and do not impose any requirement on hospitals to provide escorts for detained patients to enable them to vote in person at a polling station. As noble Lords will appreciate, hospitals may not have sufficient resources to provide such a service, and it would be completely inappropriate to expect them to do so. People who are registered to vote in person can apply to vote by post up until 11 days before the polling day. If on the polling day the patient is unfit to go out and vote, he or she would not instead be able to vote by post because, of course, the deadline would have passed. However, regulations passed in March this year include new provisions that allow, in certain limited circumstances, applications for a proxy vote to be cast up until 5 pm on polling day. We plan to make similar provisions for detained mental health patients who, for medical reasons, are unable to go to the polling station. Any amendments to the regulations will, of course, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.