I rise to support amendments (a) and (b) and in so doing, I seek to honour a pledge to a group of men and women from whose company I have recently returned. Under the auspices of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, it was my privilege earlier this month to spend a few days on HMS Bulwark in the Gulf. That ship, with its men and women of the Royal Navy, its Royal Marine commandos and naval aviators, will have been on deployment for seven months by the time she returns to home waters. During that time, the most recent elections—the local government elections, gently to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—took place.
Ordinarily, when MPs visit military establishments, whether they be floating or shore-based, they expect to hear complaints about pay and conditions and all sorts of things. However, for the first time ever on my visits to military establishments—I remind the House that I have been Parliamentary Private Secretary to two Ministers of State, so I have visited many—I heard military men and women complain about the right to vote, or, more exactly, being denied it.
Those people discovered during the local government elections that they were effectively disfranchised and it mattered to them because they also felt that they should not have to pay council tax when they are away for such a long time. That is adding insult to injury, when they not only have to pay the council tax, but are unable to vote in council elections, and it was a cause of considerable irritation to them.
When people are deployed away from home and their families for as long as those men and women have been away, these issues matter. When they are in the teeth of danger—as they were in the Gulf, as they are now in the Red sea and as they will be until they return home safely, we hope, in two or three months’ time—they feel very strongly that we, their elected representatives, are letting them down.
To come specifically to amendments (a) and (b), I wish to support them because I believe that they will strengthen the measures contained in Lords amendment No. 6. The Minister said that one of the reasons for resisting those amendments was that there were—I quote exactly—““resource implications””. I suggest to the hon. Lady that there are very considerable resource implications for the men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line for this country. Frankly, if we cannot provide those boys and girls—that is what they are in many cases—with the resources to enable them to take part in the democratic process, we bring shame upon ourselves and do no justice to them.
I hope and believe that the Minister will think again, look at those two modest amendments and recognise that what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and their other signatories have sought to do is not to undermine the Government’s position, but to strengthen that of our armed forces and to send out a very clear message to those men and women who serve in extremely difficult and dangerous places overseas: ““We respect you. We admire you. We understand your needs. We recognise your democratic rights.”” And in the House of Commons, we are prepared to vote for them tonight.
Electoral Administration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Roger Gale
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 June 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Electoral Administration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
447 c721-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:13:22 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329878
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329878
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329878