Voting Age

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), whose motion is supported by Members on both sides of the House, on securing this debate. A number of Members have suggested that it is timely, but I suggest that it is overdue. As we have been reminded, when the Electoral Commission said back in 2004 that the voting age should remain unchanged, it also said that we should look at the issue again in five to seven years, so by any account we are at least two years late.

I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) sought to diminish the debate by suggesting that those of us who were advocating this cause were simply trying to be trendy. Looking at those Members who have spoken so far, including myself, I do not think there is any chance that any of us will be mistaken for being trendy—[Interruption.]—with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy).

In preparing for the debate, I invited views from constituents. I want to share just one, from Simon Landau who had been out campaigning on the NHS. He said:

“I was very much struck by a young man carrying his baby son in his arms who came up to us on the stall... He was 17, doing his training at Catterick and was due to go to Afghanistan this year. He was interested in our leaflets and the petition on the NHS as he realised its critical importance to his family. He was also aware that he didn’t have a vote, and so he wondered whether he was allowed to sign the petition.”

My constituent’s observation was that the doubt ought to be removed. I thought about that young man. He is old enough to be concerned about the NHS, and rightly so, old enough to join the Army, old enough to have a baby, old enough to be married and old enough to pay tax and receive benefits. If he had chosen a different course, he would also be old enough to be a company director, to join a trade union and, indeed, to vote in trade union elections—another example of the Labour movement setting the progressive path—but he is not judged old enough to vote in other elections. There are currently over 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds exercising those sorts of responsibilities on a daily basis, and they should have a bigger say.

Opponents, including the hon. Member for Shipley and others, say that we restrict many things to 18-year-olds. He cited buying cigarettes, drinking alcohol and gambling. There is a common thread there: we tend to restrict to 18-year-olds the stuff that is bad for people. We do not really want to lump engagement in democracy in that basket.

Although I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West that there should be varying age limits and thresholds, 16 is a threshold for a significant range of rights and responsibilities. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is not currently in his place, because I do not think that childhood extends to 18.

We should empower 16 and 17-year-olds not only because it aligns their rights with their responsibilities, but because it makes them more likely to participate in politics in the longer term. There is considerable evidence that the younger people are when they start voting, the more likely they are to stick with the habit. If young people do not get the opportunity to vote in a general election until six or seven years after their citizenship education—whatever efforts the Education Secretary is making to undermine that education—that gives the impression that their views are not valid. It gives young people time to feel excluded from politics, even before they have had the chance to express their political views. If people do not vote when they are young, they might never vote again.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) referred to our common experience of being beneficiaries when the voting age was reduced to 18. I am sure that many Members of the House at the time voiced exactly the same arguments that have been raised against today’s proposal: that 18 to 21-year-olds would not be mature enough to vote. I guess that the majority of us who benefited would disagree with that argument because we felt we were mature enough to vote, but I talk to many 16 and 17-year-olds in schools and colleges, and I have to say that they are more impressive than many of us would have been at that age.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest examples of that is the Youth Parliament debate that took place in this Chamber, which was absolutely exemplary?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that is confirmed by the contacts and engagement I have had with youth parliamentarians in Sheffield.

I can see why many in the Government might not want to extend the right to vote to 16, for very practical reasons from their point of view. Policies are often shaped in recognition of the power of the elderly vote, and rightly so—that is what democracy is about. However, young people have borne the brunt of this Government’s policies, with the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, the increase in tuition fees, the scrapping of the future jobs fund, turning the clock back with GCSE and A-level reforms, and much more besides. How differently those issues might have been viewed if 16 and 17-year-olds had had the vote. Just as with the elderly vote, that is what democracy is about. Because of their responsibilities, because they are affected by so many of the decisions made here and by local councils, and because we can trust their judgment, we should take the bold step of extending the voting age to 16.

Electoral Registration

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing this debate, which is not only important, but on the afternoon following the vote in the House of Lords to postpone the next boundary review until 2018, clearly timely. I have to say that I welcome that decision. The proposed new boundaries would have benefited me electorally, but they are unfair and undermine our democracy, precisely because of the mismatch between population and registration that was so ably highlighted by my hon. Friend in his comments.

I want to illustrate that point by comparing my constituency with that of my political neighbour, the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). My constituency is in the heart of Sheffield—inner-city, multicultural, with large council estates and two universities—and 17% of households have nobody on the register. The Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency, which is like a piece of the home counties parachuted into South Yorkshire, is monocultural, with large areas of comfortable owner-occupation and a stable population, and only 4% of households have nobody on the register. There is therefore a huge disparity between the number of people we actually represent and the number of registered voters.

On the surface, simply considering electoral registration, the constituencies would look much the same size, but if we compare the 2011 census figures with the number of voters registered on 2 January, the picture is very different. Sheffield Central has 76,596 registered voters, and Sheffield, Hallam has 71,559, so my constituency is 5,037 voters larger. However, according to the census, Sheffield Central has a population of 115,284, whereas Sheffield, Hallam has a population of 89,356, so I represent 25,928 more people. Many of those excluded from the register are precisely the people who form a huge proportion of my casework—a picture that I am sure is reflected for many other Members with similar constituencies.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Lords has quite rightly rejected this Government’s attempt to gerrymander the new boundaries in their favour. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should concentrate on getting electoral registration up, so that when we redraw the boundaries, it will be done on the basis of the most accurate figures possible?

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree with that point, which I will move on to. The relationship between the boundary review and the number of people registered to vote—the basis on which we calculate boundaries—is an important issue. As it stands, the boundary review would exacerbate the problem, not simply because of under-registration, but because of the point in the electoral cycle at which that review would be conducted, with the next one being in December 2015.

I worry that individual registration threatens to make the situation worse, which is why I have argued that we should base our boundaries on adult population, not numbers of registered voters. Whether or not we go down that route, there is a need massively to improve voter registration, because if we do not, we risk creating a US-style democracy, with huge under-registration that excludes the disadvantaged and disengaged and focuses elections on the needs of the more privileged, so poisoning our politics.

I am sure that many measures will be proposed by my hon. Friends, but I want to concentrate on young people. From my election campaign, I can think of many examples of speaking to young people on the doorstep. At the outset of the conversation, it was clear that they had no intention of voting and that they would never have been on the electoral roll had it not been for their parents, but in many cases—the marked register confirms this—after that conversation and having engaged with the issues, they voted. That vote would otherwise have been denied them. The Government need to focus specifically on imaginative ways to ensure the effective registration of young people—working with schools, using social media and considering other ways to address that group.

I want to talk particularly about students. Not all students are young, but the vast majority are, and given the impact of Government policy on mature student entry, an even greater proportion of students will be young people in future. Many of them are worryingly disillusioned with democratic politics. The Liberal Democrats’ broken pledge on tuition fees—this is not a party point, but none of them is here to listen; it is of some concern that that great reforming party has chosen not to engage in the debate or to show any interest in enhancing electoral registration—has not simply damaged their party; it has damaged trust in politics for a whole generation of young people.

Both Sheffield’s great universities are in my constituency, with 32,000 of their students living there. They live there for at least 31 weeks a year, and many of them for 52 weeks; it is their main place of residence. They contribute to the economy and life of the city, and they have a right to have their voice heard in elections. At the university of Sheffield, there is currently block registration of all eligible students in university accommodation, but that is threatened by the legislation on individual voter registration. I assume that the Government do not think that our universities are guilty of electoral fraud, so I question the need to rule out block registration.

Even if that argument is not accepted, there is a need to mitigate that policy’s impact. The former finance officer of Sheffield university students union made the point about the difficulties of individual voter registration for students very forcefully. He said:

“When students first arrive at University and live in halls, amongst all the other things going on, registering to vote often isn’t a priority and it is comforting to know that it’s often done automatically. If this is changed then it would become another form to fill in during the whirlwind first few weeks away from home and some students, particularly those not engaged in democracy will not be registered.”

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Like him, I have two universities in my constituency, and I strongly underline the points that he is making. Does he agree that a further difficulty is that the nature of much college and institutional accommodation makes it much more difficult to do a person-to-person, door-to-door canvass than in conventional streets? That will compound the problems that may occur with the under-registration of students.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is absolutely right. In Sheffield, there has been a trend away from houses in multiple occupation, which provided at least an opportunity for some contact during the canvass, to huge student flat complexes, in which the security arrangements make it impossible to engage by knocking on doors. That exacerbates the problem.

The difficulty of under-registration is that future boundary reviews will be conducted in the first term of each academic year. The students unions of both universities in my constituency run really vigorous electoral registration campaigns, and they have some impact, but they are held in the run-up to elections—in February, March and April—when people are beginning to think about voting. They do not run them in December, when data will be collected on which future boundary reviews will be based. When I am out talking to students in the days before elections, many of them are still unregistered when they finally decide that they want to cast their votes. Individual voter registration will effectively exclude tens of thousands of students—my constituents—from the electoral roll and therefore from consideration when boundaries are redrawn. They will be denied a voice unless we look at innovative ways to ensure that that does not happen.

I have spoken to the vice-chancellors of both Sheffield’s universities, and they would be happy for the voter registration process to be incorporated into the student registration process. I have discussed that idea with our electoral registration officer, who is keen to work with them. That process would involve a couple of simple questions on the student registration form, such as “Do you wish do register to vote?” Alongside that, there should be an explanatory note on entitlement to vote, because students are often confused about their rights to vote in their city of study and the city in which their parental home is located. That question would be linked to the collection of the student’s national insurance number, which would be a requirement of the process.

Sheffield is a great pioneering city, and we were at the forefront of the Chartist movement, too. If we can make the process work, there is no reason why it should not work elsewhere in the country. Will the Minister commit to meeting Universities UK and the National Union of Students to discuss that proposal and ways to maximise student registration?

European Council

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will be saying a bit more about that later this year. As I have said, I think that opportunities are opening up. As Europe changes—and the changes are coming because of the single currency and what it is doing to the European Union—options are opening up to form a different, better relationship that the British people would back. We will then have to work out exactly how to get the consent for that relationship that the British people deserve.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Following the Prime Minister’s earlier answer, he will know that the draft research and innovation budget in Horizon 2020 includes a number of elements that were not part of FP7 and therefore the growth is misleading. Will he reassure the House that he will fight unambiguously to protect the research and innovation budget?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The figures I read out are the correct ones—€83.5 billion in the last period and a proposal for more than €108 billion in the last negotiating box. I can reassure him that the like-minded group of countries that came together to argue for further tens of billions of cuts in this proposal were looking for only a very small reduction in that heading in the European budget. We can get down to the sort of figures we need without fundamentally changing that budget heading.

European Council

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend about many things, but on this one we do not agree. The problem with an in/out referendum is that it would put two options to the British people, which I do not think really complies with what people want. Many people, me included, are not satisfied with the status quo, which is why the “in” option is not acceptable; but many people—also like me—do not want us to leave altogether, because of the importance of the single market to Britain, a trading nation, so they do not want to be out. That is why I think that an in/out referendum is not the right answer.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Even before the budget negotiations have begun, the Prime Minister has threatened to veto them. Does that not say volumes about even his lack of confidence in his own powers of persuasion?

[The Prime Minister]

What I have done before these budget negotiations is work together with other European leaders to set out what I think is acceptable. In the letter that we published on 18 December 2010, we said that

“payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”

In these negotiations we are dealing with taxpayers’ money and we are already a massive net contributor to the European Union. It is right to set out your position and stick to it, knowing that you have a veto if you need to use it.

Immigration

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In opening the debate, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) talked about the need for honesty and open and candid discussion. I regret that many of the contributions so far have, I think, thrown more darkness than light on the subject. I want to concentrate on one specific thing, which I believe unites many Members on both sides of the House—the way we address the issue of students. We need to recognise the important role of UK higher education. I welcome the new Minister to his post and hope he will bring an open mind to this issue. I am sure he will be lobbied by Government Members as much as by Opposition Members.

As we were reminded by the Minister for Universities and Science in this morning’s Business, Innovation and Skills questions, UK higher education is a major export earner. It contributes something like £7.9 billion to our economy annually. It is not just about money—we recruit some of the best and the brightest to our universities and they add to the intellectual rigour and to the overall educational experience of UK students, as well as play a vital role in research and innovation, which is greatly recognised by British business—but the direct financial contribution is significant. The money spent through tuition fees is matched by the money spent in local economies. In all our major towns and cities across the country, tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on international students. In the city I represent, Sheffield, they are worth about £180 million to the local economy and involve more than 2,000 jobs. It is a major success story, but it could be even better.

Driven by the world’s growing economies, international demand for university education is expanding rapidly, and BIS estimated that we could double the number of international students in this country by 2025. That would mean another couple of thousand jobs in Sheffield and tens of thousands across the UK. With the world’s strongest higher education offer after the United States, we should be seeing huge growth, but we are losing market share. The reason for it is the message we have been sending out to prospective students around the world as a result of changes to the student visa system. The Home Office’s own impact assessment of the student visa changes, published just over a year ago, estimated that its proposal would cost our economy a massive £2.6 billion.

At a time when we need growth and should be encouraging our major export earners, I have to say that the situation has been made worse by the handling of the London Metropolitan university issue. Clearly, we need to act if universities are failing in their obligations, but we need to act appropriately and proportionately. How this has been handled, however, has done huge damage. A Google search reveals something like 700 stories in the international media about this issue, and a deeply damaging message is being sent out. They are saying “You can come to the UK, you can comply with visa requirements, you can pay thousands of pounds for your course and contribute to the local economy, you can be making a success of your studies, and, through no fault of your own, you can still be deported at any time on the whim of Government.” What would a prospective international student choose to do when confronted with that situation?

[Henry Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that enabling overseas students who are investing considerable sums to come here to feel confident that they are coming to a college or higher education institution that is complying with the law is fairer to them than the random, haphazard system that has existed up to now, which can leave genuine overseas students vulnerable?

[Paul Blomfield]

I think that genuine overseas students were left vulnerable by bogus colleges that were recruiting them to fairly bogus courses, but London Metropolitan university is not one of those. There may have been failings in its processes and systems—the situation is still being investigated—but the issue is that bona fide students who are succeeding in their courses are being threatened with deportation at a critical stage of the academic cycle.

We should bear in mind the message that that sends to prospective students around the world who are considering their options. They will say to themselves, “Shall I go to the UK? Thanks, but no thanks. I shall go to the United States”—or Canada, or Australia—“because I shall not be deported from that country on the whim of Government.”

[Mr Frank Field]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while it is proper for the system to be policed, the way in which the rules are being applied to students who are here legitimately and have paid their way is appalling? Does he agree that the one thing we want the Government to do is distinguish between how we behave to institutions that break the rules and how we behave to people who have every right to be here pursuing their courses?

[Paul Blomfield]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has made his point very well.

What worries me is the wider reputational damage to the higher education sector. Losing out in that market is not just about short-term financial loss. Those who study in the UK develop a great affection for the country. When they have returned home and have risen to prominent positions in business and politics, and are making decisions about trade and investment, they often turn first to the country where they studied. Every one of our universities is full of examples of alumni who have contributed to this country on the basis of that relationship.

[Mr Brazier]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not. I have given way twice, and I am running out of time.

What can we do to return to our historic position as the destination of choice for the world’s students? The answer came this morning in the report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, echoing the reports from the Home Affairs Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. All those Committees, and Members on both sides of the House, have said that we should remove students from the net migration targets, but it is not just their view. The case was made recently by the director general of the Institute of Directors, who said:

“International students should not be treated as migrants for the purposes of the government’s net migration figures”.

He said that a

“simple statistical change has the potential to neutralise what competitor countries see as a spectacular own goal.”

Treating students as migrants damages our universities, but it also distorts the immigration debate because it leads policy makers away from the real issues of concern. Australia—one of our competitors which is winning the game, building a growing share of the international student market—has undertaken an instructive journey on immigration. Political concerns led the Australians to tighten student visa rules in 2010. A fall in the number of student applications then led them to commission the Knight review, which recommended changes that have reopened opportunities for international students. In the United States, restrictions imposed after 9/11 have been loosened. The US Department of Homeland Security does not include international students in its numbers for migration policy purposes; it treats them, rightly, in the same way as it treats business visitors and tourists—as “nonimmigrant admissions”.

As I have said, while the Government are right to tackle the problem of bogus students and colleges, we need to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Taking students out of our net migration targets would enable us to look again at the changes that have been introduced by the Home Office. It could, for example, provide a basis for reviewing the restrictive rules on post-study work, which is a key issue as many prospective students are keen to consolidate their learning in the country of their study. That also has a huge amount to offer our economy. Barack Obama has learned that lesson in the United States. Addressing this debate in the context of his country, he said, “This is crazy. We’re taking the best minds from around the world. We’re bringing them to this country. We’re giving them the skills to apply in a whole range of areas—to develop business, to develop the economy—and then we’re kicking them out.” The post-study work route is an important issue, and such work makes an important contribution to the economy.

Taking students out of the net migration targets would, above all, send a positive message at a time when we have been sending nothing but negative messages, by saying, “You’re welcome in the UK.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I understand it, 2011 saw the fastest rate of new business creation of any year in decades. That is what our economy requires. It takes time and patience, because we need a massive rebalancing away from the public sector and towards the private sector, and we need other industries, not just finance and retail, to succeed. We want to see business regeneration right across our country. That rebalancing takes time and is difficult, but it is the only long-term way out of the economic difficulties that we were left by the Labour party.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q8. The Prime Minister is right to celebrate the most extraordinary Paralympics, which we are seeing at the moment, and the exceptional achievements of Team GB within those games. What, then, does he say to Baroness Grey-Thompson and the other Paralympians who warned this week that his decision to cut disability living allowance will prevent disabled people from participating in sport and threaten the legacy of the London games?

[The Prime Minister]

The message that I would give to everyone in ParalympicsGB—which is, of course, a separate team from Team GB—is a huge congratulations on their massive success at the games. It has been truly inspiring to see on television or in person, which I have had the privilege of doing, the absolutely packed stadiums for the Paralympics. That is not something that everyone expected, but it says a lot about our country and our people, and is great for the Paralympics.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly, we are not cutting the money that is going into supporting disability. We are reforming the system by replacing disability living allowance with the personal independence payment. That is all about recognising people’s needs. It has been worked up very carefully with the disability lobby and I think that it will be an improvement on the current system.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith]

I appreciate that point, and I have read what the Electoral Commission has said about it. However, the key point is the one I made a few moments ago, which is about the importance of getting it right. Secondly, the Electoral Commission has a certain perspective on this. A different perspective would understand the importance of stability at a time of radical change in the registration process. It has to be said that for as long as most of us can remember the culture of this country has seen us running an annual canvass in October every year. That is what people have come to understand, and under the new system there will still be a requirement for the head of the household, or someone in the household, to supply the information to the ERO to enable the sending out of the invitations to register. We will still have that culture of a form being filled in for every property, completed for every residence and returned to the ERO. Opposition Members feel it is important to continue the culture of running that exercise every October, not least because it is the time of year when further and higher education colleges enrol their new students.

In what is often a five or six month gap between the completion of the canvass and the establishment of the new register and the election, the chances of that register being grossly inaccurate are reasonably small. The risk of that is smaller than the risk of a drop-off—a fall—in the number of registrations because we have messed about with the time of year when people will register. I do not think that any hon. Member feels that an annual canvass should be run in July, Easter or post-Christmas. Is there any point in the year, other than October, that makes sense? There is a reason why October is the date, and we think we should stick with it. Amendment 6 would reinstate the requirement that EROs run an annual canvass in October of every year.

Amendment 8 seeks to strengthen and improve the process; this is the belt and braces approach that I talked about earlier in relation to amendments 9, 10 and 11. The gazetteer is a very complete and up-to-date list of any property in a local area. We believe that EROs should write once a year to every property listed in the gazetteer, supplemented by those properties that they know to have been built in the past two years, when registration forms have been returned in the past 10 years and when a property has been involved in the charging of taxes by the local authority in the past five years. In all those circumstances, we believe that the ERO should send a form to the property concerned to ensure that we do everything we can to guarantee the highest possible level of completion of each new register.

Earlier we argued for the need to glean information from university institutions, sheltered housing providers and private landlords in order to aid the process of building a high quality and highly complete register. We also believe, however, that such an approach should be supplemented by our using the soundest possible sources of information about which properties are occupied in any area when the local authority qualifies as an electoral registration authority. If the House agrees to those requirements, that will mean that we have done our best to guarantee that the new individual registration process succeeds rather than fails. That is the key point that Opposition Members are trying to make.

Amendment 7 deals with house-to-house inquiries on which, in our view, the Bill is far too weak. It gives EROs the power possibly to conduct a few house-to-house inquiries, stating that they “may” do so, but in our view they must carry out house-to-house inquiries, particularly when citizens have constantly and repeatedly refused to register to vote. Given that we have included a penalty in the Bill and reinstated the principle of enforcing the requirement on citizens of this country to register to vote, it makes sense that we should require EROs to do their utmost to ensure that the law on electoral registration is complied with. “May” is only one word, but it is very important and saying to EROs that they may, rather than must, conduct house-to-house inquiries represents a watering down of the commitment in the Representation of the People Act 1983.

I am convinced that not only Opposition Members but Government Members are fundamentally democrats at heart who believe in people’s right to vote and in the importance of their registering to vote. Let me make a plea to the Minister, who I know to be a man of logic and reason. The replacement of the single word “may” with the word “must” is a small concession to make for the sake of this House doing its best to ensure that democracy in this country is properly served and is as legitimate as it possibly can be. I call on the Minister to concede this amendment and to put hon. Members’ minds at rest on this point.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Amess, for the opportunity to comment, particularly on amendment 6 on the annual canvass, and the issues that it raises in relation to young people’s engagement in politics, and that of students in particular. I recognise that not all students are young people, but the vast majority are. Sadly, according to a million+ report produced recently, there are declining numbers of mature students as a result of the Government’s policies on higher education.

I represent a city where, as Members are aware, voters were turned away in large numbers at the general election. It is an issue which new clause 4 deals with later. Those voters were largely students or others who were affected by a surge in student voting, and those students were whipped up to vote by the fairly relentless campaigning of the Deputy Prime Minister on both our campuses, which are both in my constituency. Members will remember the “trust me, we’re different” initiative during the general election—the promise that

“We will resist, vote against, campaign against, any lifting”

of the cap on tuition fees, with a plan to abolish tuition fees within six years. I notice Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches looking a little bit embarrassed, and understandably so. That was no subscript in the manifesto. In constituencies such as mine, it was at the very heart of their party’s campaign, as the president of the Hallam university union, Caroline Dowd, said at the time:

“We could not get”

the Deputy Prime Minister

“out of our union before the general election.”

Afterwards, when she was being held to account, she pointed out that they could not get him in.

The broken pledge on tuition fees has not simply damaged the Liberal Democrats’ party; it has damaged trust in politics for a whole generation of young people. All the people who were persuaded to vote, queuing in Sheffield Hallam because they believed the pledge, they believed in a fresh approach, they believed that when people signed a solemn promise, they would keep it, feel betrayed by the trust that they put in politics. So many of them whom I have spoken to are now saying, “Why should we vote?” I have knocked on many student doors during subsequent local elections. This is precisely the time when we should be making extra efforts to engage students, not reduce their participation. Amendment 6 and the annual canvass in October specifically address that issue.

[Mr Mark Williams]

On a more positive note and with reference to amendment 7, which refers to the importance of face-to-face dialogue with students, will the hon. Gentleman endorse the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on the Front Bench that simply sending communications to students, many of them in halls of residence, and getting post through to students is a particular difficulty, and face-to-face dialogue is extremely important in building trust and building students’ confidence to sign up to the electoral register?

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is necessary to complement an annual canvass in October and support that process with face-to-face contact. It is a point that I will come to in a moment.

My city is associated with steel and still produces steel and engineering products, as it always did, but it is now also a major student city. As I said, both of our great universities are in my constituency. At the last count, 31,800 students live in Sheffield Central, and they are very much part of the place. They live there for at the very least 31 weeks a year, and many for 52 weeks on full accommodation contracts. For all of them, it is their main place of residence. They contribute to the economy and the life of the city and they have a right for their voice to be heard in elections.

At the university of Sheffield there is a block registration scheme for all eligible students in university accommodation, which will end with this legislation. The Government claim that individual electoral registration is about preventing fraud. I assume that they do not think the university of Sheffield is guilty of electoral fraud. Therefore, one wonders why the Government think it necessary to remove the opportunity for block registration in this legislation. But they are pressing ahead, so I think that amendment 6 and the need for an annual canvass would go some way towards mitigating the damage that will create.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams]

The hon. Gentleman might have guessed that I share an interest in higher education; I, like him, have two universities in my constituency. Might not an alternative approach be to have the students register to vote when registering for their college courses? Is that not an opportunity to maximise student participation in the electoral register?

[Paul Blomfield]

I think that that is an opportunity; there might be innovative ways to combine the registration process with other processes. However, there are certain difficulties because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, many universities now have fairly sophisticated online registration processes at the point of joining the institution, rather than the face-to-face contact to which he refers, so there are potentially some difficulties. In essence, we need to look creatively at every opportunity, and that would indeed be one of them.

The point the NUS makes is that, if we are to avoid a fall-off in registration, considerable information, communication and investment are needed. I must say that I think it would be simpler all round if we retained block registration, but the Government, whether or not they think that universities are guilty of electoral fraud, are pressing ahead. When I raised that issue on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) challenged me, suggesting that I underestimated the ability of students to complete forms, but that is not actually the point. I have been lobbied strongly by students on the issue. Only today the newly elected officers of the University of Sheffield students’ union met me in Westminster, along with their outgoing predecessors, and made the point again. One of them, Harry Horton, summed up the difficulty—the hon. Member for Ceredigion will appreciate this—and explained that when students first arrive at university and live in halls, among all the other things going on in their lives, registering to vote is not necessarily a priority, so it is comforting for them to know that it is done automatically. If that changes, registering becomes another form to fill in during the first few whirlwind weeks away from home when their whole lives are being turned upside down. As a result, the fear is that some students, particularly those who do not come with a commitment to engagement in democracy, will not register.

[Nick de Bois]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I have four children, the youngest of whom is currently at university, and so have shared with them all the experience of their first term. They were sprinkled with the occasional lesson and tutorial but they were hardly overwhelmed, and I regard the students as responsible and intelligent individuals. I think that there is too much here that is nanny-stating them to the ballot box and the voting forms. Surely they are quite capable of taking responsibility themselves.

[Paul Blomfield]

I, too, consider students to be responsible, intelligent and able individuals—all 31,800 in my constituency and indeed the rest in our universities and in higher education across the country. But for those students there are so many different things to register for, such as the health service and course modules, and there are all sorts of choices to be made in their lives, and many of them are also uncertain about where they stand in relation to electoral registration. They assume that their place of registration is their family home, as indeed it is, not what is in effect their primary place of residence, where they study at university, so that additional effort is needed to ensure that they are fully aware of their opportunity to register in their place of study.

For those students in private accommodation in Sheffield, the student unions of both universities run vigorous electoral registration campaigns, and the unions’ experience is pertinent to the issue, because their students, like many people, leave electoral registration until the point when they need it. The unions’ registration campaigns do not work in November or December; they work in February, March and April—just before elections. So the Bill will effectively, when taken alongside the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 exclude them not only from the electoral roll for upcoming elections, but from the redrawing of boundaries and the reshaping of our constituencies, thereby depriving them of their voice in general.

In that context, the annual canvass in October will provide students with a focus to register at the point when they join—and if it is complemented by face-to-face contact so much the better—and with an opportunity to join the electoral register at the point when it can make a difference not only in their entitlement to vote but, crucially, when it comes to redrawing parliamentary boundaries.

The students whom I met from the university of Sheffield told me that they have tried very hard to meet their other constituency MP, the Deputy Prime Minister, to talk about voter registration. In fact they have been trying since October, but unsuccessfully, so I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to reaffirm their desire to meet the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the issue both in his leading role on the matter and in his role as their constituency representative.

Although amendment 6 and, indeed, 9, which was considered earlier, would not go as far as I should wish and restore the right to block registration, they would work entirely with the grain of the Bill, so the Government should not have any difficulty accepting them and recognising that they are a modest attempt, among their other objectives, to address the potential drop in electoral registration and to ensure that electoral registration officers contact students in the first term of each year.

If the amendments are not accepted, I will conclude only that the Government do not want students to vote in the next election or to have a voice in the reshaped parliamentary constituencies.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I shall address primarily the issues around undertaking a good door-to-door canvass, because the experience of various electoral registration officers throughout the country is that, when that happens, they end up with a much more complete register than when any number of letters are simply sent out to drop on people’s doorsteps.

That is true of various other bureaucratic interventions that a local authority or, indeed, any other authority might want to make. I remember having much the same discussion about how to collect rent arrears effectively from tenants when I was the convenor of housing on Edinburgh city council. The habitual process was to send out letter one, letter two, letter three, but people who for whatever reason were not minded to pay much attention to that tended to disregard them and did not take them seriously—however well or clearly they were framed. That is a lesson in the fact that dropping lots of letters through people’s doors is not necessarily particularly effective.

When the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee was considering the Bill, we had evidence from some electoral registration officers who had achieved a much higher level of registration than others—largely through such things as regular door-to-door work. They put in that additional effort so they were gaining, even in areas, comparable with areas with much lower levels of registration, where it was otherwise difficult to register people. It was not that the EROs were in leafy suburbs where it is easy to get people registered; there was a return on the work put into some quite difficult areas.

In the inner-city areas of Edinburgh, there is the problem of a lot of multi-occupation—not just students, although there are student flats, but a large number of other shared accommodation. The Government want far more shared accommodation for young people, certainly in respect of the benefit system, so the issue will become even bigger.

We know what happens when letters come through the door of such households; they get stacked up somewhere. We also have issues, which I hope will be resolved, with how the addresses are labelled. Anybody who has done door-knocking and leafleting in some of our traditional tenements in Scotland invariably finds a little pile of undelivered mail sitting on the stairs; it has not been accurately addressed or people may have moved on. Trying to find out whether they are still there can be very confusing, partly because of the bizarre numbering system for our tenement buildings.

We call the first flat on the third floor, for example, 3F1. We also have PF1, PF2 and so on, which is the ground floor, although I still do not know what “P” stands for, while in other flats the ground floor is referred to as “G”. Traditionally, people called them something completely different. In shared accommodation, where people might well not pass on letters, the knock on the door—a personal approach—may yield results. It is important that we do not just say that it can be done, but that it should be done. A further issue is how we put the resources into doing that; it is resource-intensive, which some local authorities might find difficult.

However, I am reassured that the Minister has told us that he will look at the allocation of resources for electoral registration this summer; I hope that he will take the issue that I have mentioned into account when he divides up the resources to be made available for that purpose. If we do not take the resources into account, even saying “must” rather than “may” will lead us into problems.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) made guarded and thoughtful remarks, but I am concerned about the undertones of some Government Members’ speeches. To my knowledge, in the city of Sheffield, which is a large and multicultural city, only one person has ever been convicted of electoral fraud—fairly widespread electoral fraud—and he was a member of our white community and, indeed, a member of one of the coalition parties.

[Chris Ruane]

Which one?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will tell you later.

I want to express my concern about how this Bill will profoundly undermine our democracy by reference to two groups in my constituency, the first of which is those in urban areas. Let me compare my constituency with that of my political neighbour, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). My constituency is at the heart of Sheffield. It is an inner-city, multicultural area with large council estates, two universities, and a high level of electoral turnover. As a result, 17% of households already have nobody on the electoral register. The Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency consists of our leafy suburbs; it is monocultural with large areas of comfortable owner-occupation, a stable population, and only 4% of households with nobody on the register. There is therefore already a huge disparity between the number of people we represent and the number of registered voters. Assuming, on the basis of current boundaries, that we both have an average of 74,000 registered voters, the Deputy Prime Minister is representing an adult population of about 77,000 while I am representing about 89,000 people.

That situation will be exacerbated in 2020 if the 2015 boundary review is based on the register that many people fear. If we do have 60% registration levels, a redrawn Sheffield Central after the 2015 boundary review will have an adult population of up to 123,000—some 50% more than in Sheffield, Hallam. I recognise that the level may not be 60%, but we should consider seriously that significant imbalance in a depleted inner-city constituency. It is certainly not democratic and certainly not right.

Many of the people who will be excluded from the register are precisely those who form a huge proportion of our casework, and their voice in this Parliament will be reduced. Together with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, the Bill is leading us towards a US-style democracy that excludes the disadvantaged and disengaged at election times and instead focuses on the needs of the more privileged, thereby poisoning our politics. The Deputy Prime Minister has rather grandly compared his ambitions for our democracy with those of the Great Reform Act of 1832. [Interruption.] I understand the reason for the laughter. The Great Reform Act increased representation for our cities, whereas this measure, together with the boundary review and the other reforms, will reduce the voice of our cities.

The other issue I want to talk about is young people, particularly students. Not all students are young, but the vast majority are, and will increasingly be so as a result of this Government’s policies, with reports this week revealing a drop in the number of mature students. Many of those young people are worryingly disillusioned with democratic politics. The Liberal Democrats’ broken pledge on tuition fees has not only damaged their party but damaged the trust in politics of a whole generation of young people. When I talk to students on the doorstep, they are clear that that experience of raised expectations and broken hope has led them to not want to participate in the system.

Both Sheffield’s great universities are in my constituency and 31,800 students live in it. Some of them live there for 31 weeks a year and many for 52. It is their main place of residence and they contribute to the economy and life of the city. They have a right to have their voice heard in elections.

The university of Sheffield, in common with many universities across the country, has a system of block registration for all eligible students in university accommodation. That will end with this Bill. I assume that the Government do not think that our universities are guilty of electoral fraud, so why is there a need to outlaw block registration?

The students union finance officer, Harry Horton, explained the impact to me:

“When students first arrive at University and live in halls, amongst all the other things that are going on, registering to vote often isn’t a priority and it is comforting to know that it’s often done automatically. If this is changed then it would become another form to fill in during the whirlwind first few weeks away from home and some students, particularly those not engaged in democracy, will not be registered”.

Crucially, students will be particularly under-registered in the first term of each academic year. The students unions of both the universities in my constituency run vigorous electoral registration campaigns in the run-up to elections—in February, March and April—and those campaigns work.

The Bill will effectively exclude tens of thousands of students—my constituents—from the electoral roll in December 2015, and therefore from consideration when the boundaries are redrawn, denying them an effective voice.

[Mrs Laing]

Surely the hon. Gentleman is vastly underestimating the ability of the average student to fill in a form. We are talking about people who have three A-levels and who, in most cases, are going to get a difficult degree. They can fill in a form to allow themselves to vote.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am simply reflecting the views that have been expressed to me by the elected representatives of the students, and I take their concerns seriously.

The students at the university of Sheffield have tried hard, but unsuccessfully, to meet their other constituency MP, the Deputy Prime Minister, who represents a smaller number of them, albeit still several thousand. I understand why he is less keen to meet students now than he was during the general election campaign, when he worked the two campuses relentlessly with his party’s unequivocal promise on tuition fees. I challenge him today—I ask the Minister to convey this to him—to agree, finally, to meet the representatives of students in his constituency to discuss their concerns.

There is no good reason to accelerate the timetable for introducing individual electoral registration, other than to have the system in place for the 2015 boundary review in the knowledge of what impact that will have on the 2020 general election. The Minister rightly talked in his opening remarks about the importance of the integrity of the electoral system and of people’s confidence in its integrity. However, the Government’s plans, taken with the 2011 Act, will understandably be seen to be some of the most outrageous gerrymandering seen in this country. That will undermine confidence in the system. The Government are riding roughshod over democracy in the interests of party advantage. I urge them to think again.

Party Funding

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

Yes, sir.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister talked about unparalleled openness. Will he therefore commit to publish full details of all Conservative party donors who have made representations on the 50p tax rate—yes or no?

[Mr Maude]

All donors are published—

[Paul Blomfield]

Yes or no?

[Mr Maude]

All contacts with donors along the lines that were set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this morning are going to be published. I did talk about unparalleled transparency, and it is. We would love to hear the same degree or even a scintilla of the same transparency from the two Labour leaders who were Prime Minister for those 13 years, and indeed from the current Labour leader.

Individual Voter Registration

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the turnover of electors in his constituency. I am very clear that we want a consistent outcome from the process and for as many people as possible to be registered, but in order for that to be effective we might need to allow electoral registration officers to adapt their approach, depending on the nature of the constituency. In areas such as his constituency, or Tower Hamlets, which I have visited, where the turnover is 40%, a completely different methodology is adopted, for example by visiting every household in the first instance, rather than sending out forms. Such an approach would not be adopted in constituencies where there was much less turnover. We must allow electoral registration officers that flexibility in order to get a consistent outcome.

I have two more points to make on the motion before saying a little more about our proposals. The right hon. Member for Tooting referred to 10 million people being removed from the electoral register. He originally used that figure in a piece in the comment section of The Guardian on 13 October 2010. The Electoral Commission responded and made it clear that it did not state that 10 million people could lose the right to vote as a result of our proposals. I simply do not think that his claim is a realistic assessment based on any kind of evidence at all. I also gently point out that there is a mistake in the motion when it states that registration rates could fall by 65%. I think that it meant to say that registration rates could fall to 65%, because that is the number that some people have bandied about, but that is not what it says.

The motion relates to the 2015 boundary review, by which I mean the boundary review that will start in 2015 and use the 2015 register. As I have said, after the next general election there will be a full household canvass in 2015, at which those who have moved house since the previous registration will be invited to register. I think there is a good process in place to ensure that that register is as full and accurate as possible.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

On the Minister’s point about the views of the Electoral Commission, did not the chair of the commission say on 15 September:

“It is logical to suggest that those that do not vote in elections will not see the point of registering to vote and it is possible that the register may therefore go from a 90 per cent completeness that we currently have to 60-65 per cent”?

[Mr Harper]

She did, but she was talking about our proposal to allow voters to opt out by having a simple tick box on the form. We listened carefully to what the chair of the commission said, as did others, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I have confirmed that we are minded to change those parts of our provisions. The thing that she was concerned about that might have a direct effect, because people might tick the box, could also send out the message that we were less interested in people registering to vote. We have already accepted that that could have those consequences, which is why we have said that we will change it, and I think that that acknowledgment has been welcomed by the commission and its chair.

My final point on the motion is about the way it finishes by simply stating as a fact that moving to a system of individual registration

“will lead to large-scale under-registration.”

I simply do not think that there is any evidence to support that proposition. The motion is not quite in the spirit and tone with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced it. When the debate finishes, I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the motion, but to do so in the same constructive spirit with which he introduced it.

Let me say a little more about our proposals. I am happy to take interventions, but I will try to be mindful of your point, Mr Speaker, about the number of Members who wish to speak. I am pleased that the overall shift to individual registration is supported by all parties in the House—it was in all three main parties’ manifestos. The Electoral Commission supports it, as do the Association of Electoral Administrators, a wide range of international observers and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, whose Chair was present for the earlier part of the debate. There is much cross-party agreement on the principle and I recognise that we are effectively arguing over the detail.

The old, or current, system, involving the old-fashioned notion of a head of household who registers everyone else, is a little out of date and, as Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged, gives one person the ability to affect other people’s registration. We do not adopt that approach in other areas where people interact with the state, and the Electoral Commission has stated very clearly that the

“‘Household’ registration system means there is no personal ownership by citizens of a fundamental aspect of their participation in our democracy—their right to vote. This is too important to be left for anybody other than the individual”.

The Government agree, and I could not have put it better myself.

There is also a risk of fraud. The issue is not just about the fraud that actually takes place, but the risk of it, and even international observers, when they come and look at our system, note that we are very lucky to have a relatively low level of fraud. That is not because of our system, it is despite our system, and we would not be doing our jobs properly if we left in place a system that was open to fraud, even if we have been fortunate enough not to have had a huge amount of it to date that we know about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, which gives us the chance to consider what sort of democracy we want in this country. There is, as several Members have said, a distinct choice when it comes to how we see voting: it is either a civic duty or, at the other end of the spectrum, a consumer choice. The current system is clearly based on the principle of civic duty, but I note the Minister’s earlier description of the second form as an invitation to register, and the Government’s proposals move us significantly towards the consumer choice end of the spectrum.

Notwithstanding the Government’s back-pedalling on the opt-out, which I welcome, there remains substantial concern across the board about the impact of their proposals on the number of people who will be knocked off the electoral register. We know who those people are: they are those who are more mobile, younger people, those from black and minority ethnic communities, and those who are poorer.

I recognise the case for individual voter registration, but I am not convinced that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, particularly if it is implemented in the way the Government plan. Household registration is effectively a census. It is a statement of all those who live in a house and are eligible to vote. Individual registration, without the efforts to secure the registration of every individual being substantially enhanced, is an unambiguous move towards consumer choice. Far from strengthening registration efforts, the Government’s plans will weaken them.

Let me share a tale of two constituencies—mine and that of my neighbour, the Deputy Prime Minister. Mine is in the heart of the city, it is multicultural, and it has large council estates, houses in multiple occupation and two universities. Already, 17% of households have nobody on the register. The Deputy Prime Minister’s seat consists largely of Sheffield’s leafy suburbs and is the only traditionally Conservative seat in south Yorkshire. It has only 4% of households with nobody on the register. Assuming that we both had an average constituency of 74,000 registered voters, the Deputy Prime Minister would represent 77,000 people and I would represent 89,000. If we sank to a level of 60% registration and the boundaries were redrawn, I would represent 123,000 people —nearly twice as many.

Taken with the boundary changes, the effect of this system is clear: in 2015, people in seats such as mine will be substantially under-represented and people in seats such as the Deputy Prime Minister’s will be over-represented. That will be exacerbated in 2020. The Deputy Prime Minister has, rather extravagantly, compared his ambitions for our democracy with the Great Reform Act of 1832. However, this is the Great Reform Act in reverse. That Act increased representation in our cities. The drift of the Government’s agenda for our democracy will reduce representation in our cities.

I will mention one particular sector of voters, young people, who were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). In many households that I canvassed in the lead-up to the general election, it was clear that there were young people on the register who would not have been on it if it had not been for mum and dad putting them there. Because they were on it, they said, after discussion, that they would vote, although not necessarily for me.

One section of young people that has raised its concerns directly with me is students. I understand why the Deputy Prime Minister might not be keen on students voting in quite the same numbers at the next general election as at the last. At the university of Sheffield, there is block registration of all eligible students in university accommodation. That will end with the proposed legislation. One student officer at the university, Harry Horton, made a strong case that he asked me to raise. He pointed out that students often move houses on an annual basis, and sometimes even more regularly. Students also often live in houses in multiple occupancy. When registering to vote, any member of the household can fill in the form on behalf of the whole group and register everyone together. That makes a difficult process much easier and ultimately increases turnout in elections. It is easier to convince one person to do a job than eight.

The same sort of case can be made for all the groups that are likely to lose out as a result of the Government’s measures. I do not have the time to go through them. I say simply that if the Government do not think again, it will be no wonder if the legislation is seen by many as gerrymandering—putting party advantage before democratic benefit.