Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

House of Commons, 19 January 2000.

REGULATIONS UNDER SCHEDULE 2 TO THE 1983 ACT

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. May I remind hon. Members, out of courtesy, of my interest in the Institute of Sales Promotion? The institute has no particular interest in the Bill, but I would not want any hon. Member to think that I had been in any way discourteous, even though aspects of this matter affect marketing in a way quite separate from my own interest. As recently as last Thursday, a Committee of the whole House discussed in some detail the vexed issue of the inclusion of an opt-out box on electoral registration forms: how that would be achieved; how voters would be made aware of the effect of ticking such a box by a leaflet explaining what that would mean and, more important, of the availability of a full and an edited register to various organisations for various purposes, including uses that could best be described as commercial. We had a fruitful and constructive debate. Some progress was made and the Under-Secretary kindly informed us that he was persuaded of the case for including credit referencing as one of the legitimate purposes for which the full register should be available. Less than a week—a brief period—has elapsed, but I make no criticism because that is the way in which our proceedings sometimes work, and given the pressures of business, one understands why. Nevertheless, we felt that it was pertinent and proper to revisit the issue on Report to test some things further with the Minister and—more to the point, for reasons that I shall explain—to include something further in the Bill. As I have said, the Bill provides for the commercial sale of both the full and edited registers. Thanks to amendment No. 21, to which the Minister kindly agreed, there is a clear requirement to explain to voters on both registers the consequences of ticking any opt-out box. However, the Bill does not clarify or indicate in any way which organisations will and will not have access to either register—or, indeed, for what purposes they will have such access on payment of whatever fees and under whatever licensing arrangements are to be enshrined in regulations, none of which is in the Bill. I should make it abundantly clear that, in moving the new clause, the Opposition are in no way suggesting that we are not prepared to take on trust the Minister's commitment to further consultation, which is welcome. We entirely accept that the hon. Gentleman is willing to consult, and will continue to consult. Our concerns are different: several very important questions remain to be answered. First, ideally, consultation before the Report stage should have been more extensive and comprehensive. The working party on electoral reform, whose report the Government are seeking to implement, was published, following the recommendations in July, only in late October. Meaningful consultation on the effects and implications for many commercial organisations and our constituents took place only after the Government signalled their intention to have an opt-out box and published the Bill. The Minister's promise to consult, which we take at face value—it is entirely right—implies clear acknowledgement that consultation thus far has been less than adequate to resolve all the issues. This is a complex matter and such issues will take some time to resolve. Secondly, we must ask whether the Minister's mind is fully made up on the question of access and use for commercial interests. Has he decided which organisations or types of organisation may have access to the full register, and for what purpose? The Minister's response in letters and replies to some of my questions in Committee last week is not completely clear. In a letter to the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, Mr. Colin Lloyd, on 12 January— I pointed this out in an intervention on him in Committee—the Minister said: The full version will only be made available for electoral purposes, for law enforcement and crime prevention and in connection with applications for credit. However, in direct response to my question on whether the letter was the final, definitive statement on who will have access to the register, he said: we want to ensure that all interests are taken into account. He went on to say: It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry. 5.15 pm I do not know whether the Under-Secretary or his officials had a chance to edit whatever he said or meant to say, but his statement is ambiguous. One interpretation is that the industry will not be allowed the full register, and another is that it will be allowed the full register but that that register will not be available for all kinds of commercial uses. So, there is a doubt. Later in last week's proceedings in Committee, however, the Minister appeared to reaffirm the point made in his letter when he said: The full register will be available for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes, which include money laundering and fraud protection checks. We have invited the financial industry to consider the best way in which to facilitate that."—[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 460–3.]. That appears unambiguous. Only two conclusions can be drawn from the Minister's responses: either he has made up his mind, in which case we must wonder what the promised consultation is for, or he remains open to change and further argument. Has he signed off his policy and come to a final position on the use to which the full register will be put for commercial purposes, so that further consultation will not change his mind? If that were the case, such consultation would be pointless, except to allow—this is what he may have meant—for continuing discussion on the use of the edited register, the leaflet and the fee and licensing arrangements for which the regulations will provide. All those things are extremely important, but none of the consultation would address the central issue of whether the full register should be commercially available to interests other than the four that he set out in his letter to the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association. If that is not so, might the Minister still be persuaded to widen the scope of the full register's use? We rather hope so, as do many commercial interests in both direct marketing and other organisations—including, still, many financial institutions. Given that the Bill has reached such an advanced stage, the position is unsatisfactory. In agreeing Third Reading, we must consider whether the Bill is satisfactory—and whatever the Minister's reply, my comments suggest that it is not. If policy is settled, why are the provisions not more explicit? Alternatively, why do we not have draft regulations to consider? In the Standing Committee considering the Freedom of Information Bill, we have been discussing constructively the fact that much of that legislation will be enacted through regulations. The Minister has confirmed the advanced state of drafting of those regulations, for which I commend him. Indeed, as he knows, in Standing Committee B yesterday, I expressed some surprise that the process was so advanced. That only fuels my argument that if the policy is settled we should have had the opportunity to consider draft regulations in conjunction with Third Reading. We can only conclude that this Bill has been rushed. We said that on Second Reading, as recently as 30 November. To be charitable, we understand the urgency with which the Government want to hold trials of different ways of conducting elections and their desire to be ready by the spring. We understand that that was the purpose of the working party and we appreciate the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose interest in the Bill we commend—we are glad to see him here—has put in a great deal of work. We also understand the Government's desire for consensus, but my central point on the opt-out box is that the issue is in no way ready for Parliament to approve. Even if the rest of the Bill is satisfactory—and we have other concerns that we will raise later—clause 9, in our judgment, is not. That is why we have begun our debate on Report with this issue.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend was taking me with him until he said that he understood the reason for the urgency and seemed to offer his support for it. For the life of me, I cannot see what is urgent about this. I suggest the opposite: there can never be anything urgent about making radical, experimental changes to electoral law. I hope that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that he endorsed any spurious urgency that the Government have attached to the measure.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

My right hon. Friend puts me in some difficulty, so I will pour myself a glass of water and pause for thought.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Whisky, John.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Alcoholic beverages are reserved for the Chancellor, I think, and his day is coming soon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must understand that our party, to which we are absolutely committed, had a representative on a working party that made recommendations about changes in electoral arrangements. We have considered whether it is sensible to accept the recommendation that there should be pilot schemes in respect of different ways of voting, on different days and with different procedures. [Interruption.] I hope that my right hon. Friend is listening, because what I have to say is important to him, given his constituency. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows for changes in voting in the Greater London Assembly elections. Parliament has already approved that. If this Bill is enacted, it will allow similar experiments to take place in other parts of the country. I do not happen to have local elections in my constituency this spring, but many others do. I do not want my right hon. Friend to think that we do not have concerns about other elements of the Bill. The fact that we have tabled amendments on issues such as the local connection declaration—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be tempted away from the new clause. Perhaps he can return to it.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I was about to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was simply going to say that we have concerns about other aspects of the Bill and have tabled amendments accordingly, and I am sure that hon. Members will seek to catch your eye to express their views on them. We have tabled the new clause because we believe that the opt-out box provision is the most unsatisfactory part of the Bill, and that it has nothing to do with the main thrust of the recommendations on the introduction of rolling registers or changes in the conduct of elections, which is what the working party was really about. We have all been sent on a wild goose chase that has nothing to do with the central requirement of the working party to examine our electoral procedures. Had the provision been put in any other Bill, it would not have been rushed as it has been; there would have been much more time for consultation with industry; and we would have had a much more settled position for Parliament to consider on Report and Third Reading than is the case tonight.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I want to add to the interesting comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). My hon. Friend is keen to co-operate, but just because some of us do not approve of the way in which the elections for the mayor of London are to be conducted, there is no reason why we should have two lots of elections carried out in the wrong way. An equivalent argument is that, if I beat my wife, that is no reason for my Front-Bench colleague to beat his.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Before the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) responds, he should be aware that that intervention, too, was well wide of the new clause. I would be grateful if he would deal with that.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would simply remind my hon. Friend that there was an experiment on proportional representation in elections last June in which the Government got a bloody nose, as a result of which their excitement over, and enthusiasm for, PR has been greatly diminished. I ask my hon. Friend not to anticipate the outcome of the pilots, which may not be—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I have no wish to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I will do so increasingly firmly unless he returns to the new clause.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We think that clause 9 is not satisfactory, but the provisions are not central to what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. But for the urgency of the provisions, it is doubtful whether the Minister would be seeking approval for the clause, given the uncertain outcome of so many key interests of importance to our constituents. He has already acknowledged—at column 458 on Thursday—that the House should debate the matter again. The Minister also says that he wants further consultation, and we do not doubt his word, but we think that it is not unreasonable in all the circumstances to reflect the incomplete nature of clause 9 by including in the Bill both the case for, and a commitment to, further meaningful consultation. That, in a nutshell, is what new clause 1 would do. We also want adequate time to be provided for these matters to be considered—and for representations to be made by those affected, both in industry and as individuals—before Parliament is asked to approve the regulations giving effect to the final outcome of those consultations.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will my hon. Friend confirm what is not in the new clause but may be implicit in his thinking behind it—namely, that the minimum three-month period would apply only to periods during which Parliament was sitting? Secondly—and, I think, importantly—in view of Lord Falkland's wise adage that that which it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change, does he agree that the consultation that he seeks through new clause 1 should be wide, detailed, academic and, preferably, protracted?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Even on his birthday, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is razor sharp. I am sure that we wish him many happy returns. We are all the better for having him here. He makes his own point extremely well, but I want to reflect a little further on what he said. Part of the problem is that the consultations often take place over four or five weeks during the holiday period. I am not entirely sure that Parliament needs to be sitting when consultations take place with industry, as we have a lengthy recess in the summer and autumn. In drafting the new clause, we initially thought that the consultation period might be six months, but that would be unprecedented. Three months is normal for draft regulations and arrangements to be consulted on with interested parties. Three months would give ample time to bring the matter to the attention of even those hon. Members who take the longest holidays during the recess—this does not apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who attends to all his duties with considerable care—and would allow for proper consultation. 5.30 pm Before concluding, let me draw the attention of the House to three other issues related to this matter that remain outstanding from Thursday's debate. First, I ask the Minister again to consider the use of the full register for debt recovery. We understand that the effect of what the hon. Gentleman has thus far agreed is that credit referencing agencies will have access to the full register to assist them in advising financial institutions on whether to grant credit. That is an important agreement because it in part tackles the concerns of many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the risk and danger of social exclusion that would arise from the opt-out box and the creation of an edited register. It seems extraordinary that the Minister can conclude that the use of the full register for such credit referencing would be legitimate while its use to assist with debt recovery would not. I want the hon. Gentleman to revisit that issue in his reply. Secondly, I asked the Minister what research his Department had undertaken into the use of the raw data in the electoral register as the sole source of names and addresses for sending unsolicited mail. He says that such mail is the main source of complaint to electoral registration offices—I think that the working party made some comment to that effect. Our understanding is that the data on the electoral register are seldom used in such a way—they are seldom the only source of names and addresses of persons to whom literature may be sent. They are more widely used as a source to verify data obtained by some other means. It follows that if the register is not to be available in any way to the direct marketing industry and those commercial organisations, they will not be able to verify and up-date their data. The consequence will be that the volume of junk mail will rise. If electoral registration officers are already receiving complaints about the volume of unsolicited mail because people perceive that the senders obtained their names and addresses from the register—we think that that is a false perception, but it is none the less a valid one—the Minister must consider what will happen if the amount of junk mail increases. The complaints will rise and the position will get worse. Also, if the letter to Colin Lloyd, the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, is a settled policy, can the Minister tell us why no new regulatory impact assessment has been carried out? There has been no such assessment of those aspects of the provisions. Thirdly, and finally, the Minister said that direct marketing firms would not have access to the full register, as that would conflict with the European Union data protection directive. How can the directive allow credit referencing, but not screening for unsolicited mail, or indeed, use of the register by charities? Also, it appears that only Home Office officials and the Data Protection Registrar gave evidence to the working party on data protection. Before the Minister closes his mind on the subject, would he be willing to receive a paper from the Direct Marketing Association and the CBI as they have a contrary view? I have looked in detail at the submission of the Data Protection Registrar to the working party, and it is hardly conclusive. On the contrary, the registrar's advice appears to confirm that, provided that voters are advised of the fact, their data could be used for other purposes. In her submission, the registrar states: Even if such a case can be made in relation to some purposes individuals should still have a choice over the sale of their data for other purposes particularly the compilation of direct marketing lists". Far from the registrar confirming that direct marketing use of the full register was incompatible with the data protection directive, which is enshrined in the Data Protection Act 1998, in the summary of her advice to the working party, she clearly sets out the circumstances in which it would be compatible. That is another reason for us to conclude that much of this provision has not been thought through. I do not want to detain the House further, and must reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not intend to speak at length. I have taken interruptions that have led us to stray from the key point of the new clause. I hope that what I have said demonstrates that there are far too many unresolved issues in relation to clause 9 for the House to be satisfied with how matters stand. Yes, let there be consultation—we welcome the Minister's comments on that and I suspect he will further reassure us later on his willingness to consult—but Parliament must continue to have a role. New clause 1 makes that role and our interest in and attention to the matter more likely than if we leave the Bill as it stands. I commend the new clause to the House.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am sure that you will advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not the occasion for me to tell the House that the fact that a colleague of mine apparently served on some obscure working party commits me in any way. I am sure that you would advise me that Third Reading would be the time for me to tell the House why I feel in no way bound by a colleague who, unbeknown to me, conspires with the Government in a working party to give this measure a spurious urgency that I do not understand and that has not yet been explained to me. Those points will come later and I cannot wait for Third Reading to make them. I hope that it will not be too long before we reach Third Reading because I am dying to make that speech. This is the occasion for us to concentrate our thoughts narrowly on clause 9 and the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The right hon. Gentleman says that, according to the Government, he seems to have been committed to the measure by a member of the Conservative party. The Ulster Unionist party was not committed to it by anyone because we were not represented on the working party. Furthermore, I should think that we are the party in the House that knows most about fraud.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that he could not wait for Third Reading. I am afraid that he will have to do so.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As ever, you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make it clear from the start that I welcome the new clause. It gives me pleasure to say that I welcome it—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Unalloyed pleasure.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Certainly. In his usual analytical but forceful way, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has illustrated all too well the weakness that regrettably still exists in clause 9. He has done us a great service in that respect, because doing so usefully puts in context the sense of urgency that he inexplicably introduced into the proceedings. It gives us the occasion to pause and reconsider whether we are wise to allow clause 9 to proceed in its present form. The new clause therefore gives us the opportunity to find out from the Minister, if we can, not only the answers to the many questions my hon. Friend rightly posed but whether it would be helpful to include new clauses for the reasons that he gave and one or two others that I could modestly add. The more I read clause 9, the more delphic I find it. That would be worrying enough in any Bill, but it is more worrying in a Bill proposing radical changes to our electoral procedures. I hope to catch your eye on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I will want to expatiate on why the Bill is unnecessary and dangerous. However, I will leave that until later. In the meantime, I want to concentrate on clause 9 and try to get from the Minister a clearer idea of what its provisions mean. The clause is tantalisingly long, but almost equally opaque. It does not reveal—as it should—either the intention or the effect of the proposals. The House has already spent considerable time on Second Reading and in Committee speculating on why we are to have this bifurcated register, and to what purposes it might be put. The fact that we are still speculating illustrates the difficulties in which the House may find itself. Clause 9, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is seeking to strengthen with the new clause, says that "provisions" should be made. That is a generous but vague word, which allows any amount of latitude to the Secretary of State of the day. The clause states that provisions will be made specifying a form of words". That means that almost anything can be written into the provisions. It goes on to state that the provisions specifying the form of words will explain to those registered or applying to be registered the purposes for which the edited register might be used". If that is not a circular argument, I do not know what is. The form of words in the Bill is completely without meaning or substance. The Bill says that something will happen in the future which will give rise to an explanation of the purposes of something that we do not yet understand. That is what the House is being asked to accept in this important Bill, and it is not good enough. The clause goes on, with impudence of the highest order, to say that the provisions will ascertain what is requested by or on behalf of such persons. We have the ultimate in legislative nonsense, with the Bill using a form of words which tells us nothing and leads us nowhere.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I endorse my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the new clause. Is not it absolutely typical that the clause that the Government are defending has been drawn up by a Department which, according to my immediate calculation, contains four Ministers—the Home Secretary, two Ministers of State and an Under-Secretary—who are lawyers?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That frightening thought may go some way to explaining our difficulties. However, our job on Report is to get ourselves out of those difficulties, and recognising them is an important first step. My hon. Friend, who will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale's excellent introduction, may not have been reassured to be told that this nonsense is the outcome of a working party which produced a consensus and led to the urgency with which the Bill is being rushed through the House today. 5.45 pm All of these words—"working parties", "consensus" and the spurious "urgency"—would make me suspicious about a Bill on any subject. However, this is where the new clause may come to our rescue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was persuasive, but it will take some considerable effort by the Minister to persuade me to support the Bill, although I do support the new clause. The doubts about the Bill, and its flaws, are evident. The advantage of the new clause is that before we are led astray by the looseness of the drafting of the Bill—and before the peculiar provisions alluded to in clause 9 lead to a miasma of inexplicable verbiage—we will be rescued, in part, by the draft to be published and by the time that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, in his sagacity, has allowed for that process.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a draft of the regulations before us would be a considerable improvement on what we have now, which is nothing?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is right. The irony is that the Government, who have told us so much about the virtues of pre-legislative activity and the strengthening of legislation by being open, have produced the antithesis of that—unless my hon. Friend believes that the working party, of which one of our colleagues was a member, did all the pre-legislative work.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

No.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That reassures me. We have a degree of reassurance with the safety net in the new clause, which may help us to correct a fundamental weakness in clause 9.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I have not taken a close interest in the progress of the Bill, but it so happens that the last time I attended such a debate, the House was discussing this very clause. I have never understood how many people will have the right to have the register, unrestricted. If that number is more than three, any suggestion of limiting its use is pie in the sky.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever, and he may have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale asking a similar question. The fact that we still have to pose such a fundamental question illustrates the extent to which we have got ourselves into difficulties with the Bill. Notwithstanding the working party and the consensus—I am beginning to wonder how real that consensus was—the Minister has failed to answer that fundamental question. That leads me to the conclusion that unless we get a satisfactory answer, the House may not want the Bill to proceed and should find a way to send it back for further consideration. I shall encapsulate my views by saying that I believe that the fundamental weaknesses and inadequacies of clause 9 can be partially corrected by new clause 1. On that basis, I am prepared to support the new clause, although I await the Minister's comments. I remain to be convinced of the necessity for, or viability and benefit of, the Bill.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I was prompted to take an interest in clause 9 and new clause 1 because of the Minister's comments in the debate last week. I do not blame the Minister personally because he has to carry the departmental brief, and the Government as a whole are responsible for the extreme haste with which clause 9 was produced despite their not having thought through the consequences. The Minister answered concerns raised by Labour Members about direct marketing and credit checking. He said: We are discussing the detail of that with the industry. It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry. However, we are examining with the industry ways in which credit issues can be better resolved. We are about to reach Third Reading of an important Bill that deals with the registration of electors, and the House should not be faced with such a clause as clause 9 which is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, completely inexplicable. It is so ambiguous that it could mean anything that any Minister wants it to mean, depending on what sort of regulations he wishes to produce or what sort of mood he is in.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My right hon. Friend has mentioned an issue of grave concern to me. He will be aware that I have tabled several written questions exploring concerns about the use that might be made by the credit industry of the information made available under the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I are both officers of the all-party group on insurance and financial services, and I find it extraordinary, in these days of pre-legislative scrutiny, that the Government are putting proposals before the House when they have not yet finished their consultations on the safeguards for the public.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My hon. Friend is right, and the humbug we get from the Government on that point is amazing. I sat on a Committee considering the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was also the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, and the same Minister also served on the Committee. We heard from him a daily mantra of how wonderful the Government were for having conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny and that a range of complex issues had been discussed in advance. We are now considering a complex issue that will affect everyone on the electoral register, as well as all the direct marketing agencies, the banks and credit checking agencies and Members of Parliament, but the Government do not have a clue about the regulations they will draw up. It gets worse. In the previous debate, the Minister was pressed on the subject of regulations and said: Once new regulations governing access to the full electoral register are in place, we can expect the public and any industries which are affected to make their views known about the impact of those regulations. He later continued: I have no doubt that hon. Members will continue to raise points of concern and, where appropriate, changes will be made to accommodate them." —[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 461–621.] That is a new doctrine from new Labour now it is in government. The attitude is, "We are not going to consult about the regulations in advance. We are going to pass them and if you don't like them, you can complain about them and we may change them later." If Ministers in the previous Government had tried that on, the Labour Opposition would have demanded emergency statements PDQ. It is an outrageous thing for a Minister to say. We know how difficult it is to change regulations after the event.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

rose—

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

I declare that interest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many regulations have been sprung on the House at the last minute in the past 10 or 15 years, and it was only when objections were raised to them that changes were made? What has changed?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Before the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) answers that point, I think that we have dealt sufficiently with the timetable surrounding the Bill. I ask Members now to deal with the contents of new clause 1.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have covered the background to clause 9 and I shall now address the content—or what I believe should be the content—of the regulations. I support new clause 1 because it attempts to make the diabolically vague clause 9 slightly better. New clause 1 would provide that The Secretary of State shall publish in draft any provisions he intends to make … and shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him to have an interest in the operation of those provisions. We heard from Labour Members in earlier debates about their concerns about the effect on direct marketing organisations. Denouncing junk mail is a popular pastime, but some junk mail we like and some we dislike. I have no particular objection to junk mail from a direct marketing organisation that may have obtained my name from the electoral register. If I do not like the wine on offer from Bordeaux Direct, I do not have to buy it and I can put the leaflet in the bin. If I do not want the thermal slippers from Kaleidoscope, I do not have to buy them. However, I am forced to deal with the junk mail I get from Members of Parliament and national lobby groups trying to blackmail me into supporting one cause or another in the House. I wish I could remove myself from that list. I suspect that all the 35 million people on the electoral register have different views about the junk mail that they would not like to receive. However, I do not know how many organisations would consider it vital to have access to the full register but would be prohibited from doing so under the Bill. If those organisations were to be consulted before the regulations were drafted, the Government would have a chance to get them right. That is not a political point, because if any Government planned to make regulations that introduced two types of register—one with all the names on and one without some names—I know from my Home Office experience that a dozen organisations could stake a legitimate claim to one version of the list and another dozen would feel as strongly that the first lot should not get that version. 6 pm In addition, what about the charities, some of which have been mentioned? I and other hon. Members received some very worrying correspondence from St. Dunstan's, the marvellous charity that helps people blinded, or partially blinded, as a result of military service. Every year that organisation, like other charities, sends out about 3 million letters and circulars to targeted people. Some would call that junk mail. I do not know where the mailing list comes from, or whether the charity buys it, or from whom. However, I think that the electoral register plays a key role as no charity would want to spend a fortune on the expensive lists available commercially. I made a special trip to talk to the charity's organisers. Their sense that they were not getting proper support from the Government or the national lottery is not relevant to the debate, but they emphasised that their charity needed mailing lists for the millions of letters sent out. There are many other charities, of course. Will the Minister say what position charities involved in direct mail operations will occupy in the future? What effect will the Bill have on other, commercial direct operations?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am struck by what my right hon. Friend has said about charities. Is he not worried that the Bill will prevent charities from targeting their fund-raising activities on middle-class or prosperous households, with the result that they will get less than at present?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I agree that that is a worry. Charities use the electoral register, Yellow Pages, postcode data and other data that they buy from other organisations. Target markets depend on what they want to sell or the funding that they want to raise: their target audience need not be middle class but could be any social group. The Bill could prohibit that activity. The new clause would at least give charities a chance to bring that difficulty to the Government's attention. I have never won the Reader's Digest prize draw but I do not mind putting that magazine's circular in the bin, yet that advertising is precisely what the Government seem to want to stop. If that is their prejudice, so be it, but clause 9 and the Government's reluctance to consult about the regulations mean that other, legitimate operations—such as charities—would suffer.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

If hundreds of people are entitled to have access to the unrestricted register, is not it almost certain that some of them will engage in illegal practices? The demand for the register is great, and its availability vast. Will we not be creating a jungle of potential crime?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My hon. Friend prompts me to bring forward the point with which I intended to conclude my contribution. In my little computer case in my office I have a compact disc entitled "Info UK". It contains more than 49 million names and addresses.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Gosh.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Some telephone contact numbers are also included, although I do not use them. I acquired the CD—for about £49.50—because I was told that it existed. I did not believe that it could contain so many names and addresses, but it does. I could enter the name of almost any hon. Member, and acquire the relevant address.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

Does the right hon. Gentleman have so much time to waste that he can check 49 million names?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

He will read them out in a moment.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I shall not go down that route, but there are various ways to waste time. Some would say that it is more interesting to read 49 million names and addresses than to read the speeches or court case reports of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. It is true that there are many different ways of wasting time, and the right hon. Gentleman is verging on one.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

That is why I shall not be tempted out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The CD that I have described is already in wide circulation and is constantly updated. A different worry stems from the forthcoming CD containing aerial photographs of every house in the country. When the two discs are amalgamated, there could be serious security breaches involving senior police and military officers, politicians and others. A large industry exists with access to the electoral register, but that comprises only a small part of a comprehensive database that can be easily searched and which is easily available. I suspect that most of the information on that database is bought from other companies. Every time we subscribe to an organisation or a Christmas catalogue, we have to tick a box to prevent our names being passed on to other companies. Huge resources are devoted to the compilation of information. All the telephone directories and full lists of internet and e-mail addresses are available on computer. The Government can try to restrict access to the full register as much as they like, but the one copy that may be made available to a credit card checking company may well be sufficient to act as authentication for the almost total picture already compiled about the 56 million people in the country. Hypothetically, we could abolish the electoral register completely. However, I suspect that it would remain possible to garner enough information from telephone directories, the internet and other sources to provide a pretty accurate register.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I just want to capture the moment and ask whether my right hon. Friend considers that the sources to which he has referred could, in an ironic sort of way, serve as an invaluable source of cross-checking and verification of the electoral register? Might not the downside of what he has suggested become an advantage? That matter is covered by a later amendment, but I wanted to ask the question as my right hon. Friend was on the topic.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Yes, and one can use the House of Commons address checker facility to check whether a letter comes from a constituent. That facility can determine on which side of a constituency boundary an address may lie. Hon. Members can use the House of Commons system for that, and I am sure that outsiders can tap into it too. A later amendment would make it possible for electoral registration officers to check on commercial systems to verify whether the names supplied to them are legitimate and valid. Because of the intervention of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, the Minister may have thought my point about the huge amount of information that there is on compact disc a cause for humour. It is not—it is a cause for concern. It is therefore vital that the Government consult before they draw up the regulations. I was alerted to Info UK by the police service. The police were legitimately concerned that, having taken vigorous steps to keep the names of certain officers off the electoral register for security purposes, their names were still on a CD that has sold about 1.5 million copies in the United Kingdom. The Government should consult the police service and other organisations with an interest in these matters, such as charities and direct marketing firms. I am absolutely certain that in a minefield such as this, with the best will in the world, no Government and no Minister can get it right in advance. The Minister may live to regret saying last week that the Government will make the regulations governing access first, and that, once they were in place, they would wait for complaints on where they had got them wrong, and might then be minded to change them. That approach will cause enormous difficulty. The new clause may be imperfectly drafted, but at least it will give the Government a chance to amend the regulations before they bring them before the House. I challenge the Minister: when, in his two years in the Home Office, has he prepared draft regulations that have not needed amending because someone spotted something wrong and suggested improvements? That is not a weakness, nor a fault. There is nothing wrong in preparing regulations with the help of the best lawyers that the Home Office can get its hands on, consulting on those regulations and then discovering a flaw or an omission. Pre-legislative scrutiny, consultation and trusting the people are supposed to be new Labour strengths, but the Minister is saying that he will not do that. If the Government reject the new clause, it will be a sign that they believe they know best. They will keep the provisions to themselves and rush them through quickly, and to blazes with those outside who may suffer. I do not think that that is the Minister's attitude. I am sorry that he is locked into this box; it has no doubt been forced on him by his colleagues and by the agreement that he reached in an alleged committee in Cabinet. We can also blame the working party. I hope that he can wangle out of it tonight by accepting the new clause.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

I hope to be but brief. I think that there is some sense in the new clause. I know that the Government may not agree with me, but sometimes it pays to stand back, to look and to think. I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) did not think me facetious when I asked whether he had checked that there were 49 million names. I could not for a moment understand who the heck would want 49 million names on a compact disc. When I hear that 1.5 million have been sold, and that a CD will be issued showing an aerial photograph of everyone's house, I begin to wonder about the words "privacy" and "personal privacy", and it causes me some concern. I came in here and, as I have done for years, glanced at the new clause. I listened to the comments and, when I heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) giving forth—no pun intended—I thought, "Here we go again. What's this load of rubbish?" Then I looked at the new clause again, and I thought very carefully. When in opposition, I said time and again about regulations, "If only people would stand back and think, we might cut down the number of challenges in the courts." That I have said not once but a thousand times in this House. The regulations on the electoral register may not be perfect. It would be so nice to get them right, which is why I think that the new clause has some merit. It may need redrafting, but the thought behind it is not hostile. The new clause would effectively provide that, when the provisions have been drafted, they should be put out to consultation with a view to reaching agreement. It is better to agree something by consensus than to vote it through against opposition. The second half of the new clause is also sensible. How many times do we get a raft of regulations and orders in July that most of us do not read? Then, some time in the fall, a constituent or someone connected with us says, "Did you see that regulation? What about X?"

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that his support for the new clause is warmly appreciated by Conservative Members, even though it has already earned the obvious wrath and probably the undying enmity of the representative of the Patronage Secretary—the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt). Will the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) say, on the strength of what he has already told us, whether he has a preferred length of consultation and a preferred format?

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) —my Whip—will not exercise his wrath on me. He, like me, is a civilised and dignified man; if we disagree, we will disagree head to head, as I would with my son. I have no fear in saying what I think, and I can now answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. The Government should consult as widely as possible, and the period of that consultation should be realistic—a matter of months, not weeks or days. Indeed, if I may return to the point that I was making before the hon. Gentleman's intervention—I did not see the purpose of the intervention, but that does not matter—if the publication or the draft is published at the beginning of the summer, for example, there should be a realistic time for consultation. The period allowed for consultation should be parliamentary time, not calendar time. I have in the past railed and ranted against the previous Government for publishing in July draft proposals that had a closing date when Parliament was not sitting. That seems counter-productive. The object of the exercise when consulting is to consult. If one is to be realistic, one consults in a way that enables those with whom one wishes to consult—or, if it is the public, to invite ideas—to have a realistic and practical opportunity to make their views known. Those views may or may not be of value—one does not know before one asks. There may be considerable value in the new clause, just as there was in another Opposition amendment that I mentioned the other week—the one originally tabled in December. I am not sure about the wording or the drafting, but it has merit. It should be considered, and I hope that the Government will do so.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I hope that all hon. Members listened to the key reason that he gave for supporting new clause 1. I believe that it is of the utmost significance when a barrister tells the House that he supports a proposal because it will mean less work for the courts. A barrister advancing the argument of less work for his profession means that his motives are of the purest. It means that the House is being given advice that, whatever our political party, we would be foolish to reject.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

It is free advice.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The advice may be free—time will tell. It is also a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I listened with much interest to his various definitions of junk mail, but I was deeply disappointed to learn that he does not extend his definition to my pet hate in the letter box—the invoice and the bill. On reflection, he might agree that they were dispensable. Indeed, perhaps we could legislate against sending bills to Members of Parliament. It is always enjoyable to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). This evening, he treated the House to a speech of great brevity and clarity, with the result that I was completely confused. The point of the new clause is to deal with confusion. My right hon. Friend's clarity made it clear that we cannot allow the Bill to proceed in its current form because it will confuse all those who try to tackle the matter. I have no difficulty in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I shall willingly vote for new clause 1, should he ask me to do so. As I said earlier, I have reservations about the haste with which the Bill has been introduced—that is one of the reasons for my intervention in the debate—but I wonder whether the new clause goes far enough. However, my colleagues and I are grateful to the Government for accepting the amendment that was tabled in Committee. In opposition, one rapidly learns to be thankful for small mercies, so I am more than willing to thank the Government for that especially small mercy. The amendment makes a bad Bill slightly less bad—I would go no further than that. However, even that is something. We should not be grudging in our thanks to the Minister. Having heard those words of thanks, I hope that he will accept the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South and will thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the new clause. I am concerned about some of the detail in the new clause. Under subsection (1), it states: The Secretary of State shall publish in draft". I am worried about the words "shall publish". I am all in favour of the Secretary of State publishing draft provisions, but I should have preferred the new clause to specify that the Government should place them before Parliament. If the words are merely "shall publish", the Government will probably give a press briefing, which parliamentarians will not attend. If they do not do that, they will organise a press release and will slip the measure out late at night, when we shall not have an opportunity to discuss it as soon as it appears. Alternatively, to judge by past experience, they will leak it. They will claim that to be publication. We need a new clause and a new Bill that provides for such provisions to be placed before Parliament. If we cannot have that, I am most willing to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. If the Minister does not accept my comments and the Bill goes to another place, I hope that he will try to strengthen the new clause and accept it. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is responsible for the Bill, is leaving the Chamber. He told me, from a sedentary position, that he did not have time to listen to the debate. Is that not worrying?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the Minister responsible for the Bill, and I am in the Chamber.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

That is not a point of order; it is just a statement of the position.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am most grateful that the Minister is in the Chamber. I assume that, when the Under-Secretary left the Chamber, it was to take instructions from Mr. Campbell as to whether he should accept—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to new clause 1.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Minister replies to my point about the distinction between placing before Parliament and publishing, will he tell us which draft publications he has in mind? Surely, we cannot have reached this stage of the Bill's progress without the Government having at least the beginnings of some ideas. Will the Minister throw some light on the matter? When the time comes to vote on the measure, that will guide us as to whether we need it. My second concern relates to the words—also under subsection (1)— shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him". I am not happy to leave it to a Minister to decide what "appears to him" to be correct, when we are dealing with the representation of the people. That is at the heart of our democracy. The new clause would be improved if the words were "as appears to Parliament". It is a parliamentary matter, and cannot safely be left to the Executive. Throughout the world, Executives have a nasty habit of playing fast and loose with democracy if they get half a chance. Parliament is the safeguard of our democracy. It should be for Parliament, not for Ministers, to decide whom it appears appropriate to consult at a given moment.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there has always been a list of the great and the good—the bodies to be consulted? That list rolls on from Government to Government. I cannot understand why he has such difficulty with the wording of that part of the new clause—it is the same format that has always been used.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. I pointed out that, just because something has been done wrong for 100 years, there is no reason to continue to do it wrong. At least I am being consistent, because I am making the same points about the defence of the rights of Parliament that I made when we were in government. In dealing with matters that are at the heart of representative democracy, I have always believed that it should be for Parliament and not for the Executive to make the decisions. I suggest that the measure is one such matter. I have some concerns about subsection (2) of the new clause, which includes the words until three months have elapsed". Reference has already been made to that matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale will not mind my saying that I should have preferred the words to be "six months". The hon. Member for St. Helens, South is correct: the three-month period makes it possible that the consultation process could take place when the House is not sitting. That cannot be right. It doubly reinforces my point about representative democracy. The provision is one that must come before the House, yet it could be dealt with during our absence. There are several other considerations. During the summer, the people who are consulted might find it difficult to hold proper consultations. I assume that the Minister proposes to list a range of representative organisations who will be consulted. They will have to ask the advice of their members before responding. If an organisation with a large number of members—such as some of those in the direct marketing profession—has to consult those members during three months in the summer, it might not be able to undertake realistic and effective consultations, so as to give the Government the advice that is needed, during that period. 6.30 pm It is also the case, as I have observed and I am sure that the House has observed during the past few weeks, that the United Kingdom comes perilously close to a standstill for an ever-longer period over the Christmas break. If the three-month consultation period were to include the run-up to Christmas, Christmas, the gap between Christmas and the new year, the new year and the hangover after the new year, an awful length of time within that three-month period could well be used up, and again we would not be getting the advice that we so urgently need. Another aspect of the new clause that causes me slight concern is that although, admirably, it calls for much more clarity in the consultation process, it does not address what I consider to be a further issue of great importance—the need to secure parliamentary approval for the guidelines and regulations after consultation has taken place. I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will reassure us that he will take on board the concept of returning to Parliament and allowing us the final say on the suitability of the entire consultation process. I hope that the Government listened to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, even if they did not listen with any great care and attention to what Opposition Members said, because I am convinced that the new clause strengthens the Bill and meets the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am amazed that it takes an Opposition amendment to address such a concern.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The new clause appears perfectly worthy, and worthy of Government support. I hope that the Government will be positive. I only add one PS. It comes to something when the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mistakes the Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), for the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt).

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The new clause was moved with characteristic vigour by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but I cannot invite the House to support it as it does not add sufficiently to the Bill to justify its inclusion. As the House is aware, we are carefully considering what form any regulations governing access to the full electoral register should take. We are examining carefully the representations that have been made to us, and my officials are holding regular meetings with representatives of the credit and finance industries to discuss those matters. Only two days ago they had a very helpful meeting with them. We have also received advice from the Data Protection Registrar. Obviously, we need to strike a balance between meeting privacy and data protection concerns and ensuring that we do not unduly harm the industries that now make use of the electoral register. We believe that we can strike that balance, and that the regulations that we draft will achieve that. Any such regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, so I can tell the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that Parliament will have a full opportunity to debate them. I can also repeat a previous commitment: that the regulations will be accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

My hon. Friend begins to reassure me, but I do not understand why the regulations cannot be published in draft, to allow representatives not only of the regulatory industries and the financial industries but of other bodies to comment on the proposals. Then, when the regulations come before the House for debate, they will at least have been seen by many other people who have been able to have an input, or offer advice on what will become the regulations drafted by the Department.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

If my hon. Friend had borne with me a little longer, he would have discovered that the regulations will be published in draft and consulted on. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we believe that the full register should be available to credit and finance companies for the purpose of establishing identity in connection with credit applications, and the Data Protection Registrar has confirmed that she would be happy with that. Such a step will ensure that those who opt out do not inadvertently suffer by finding it hard to obtain credit. Our discussions with the banking and finance industries are now concentrating on precisely how we would make such an arrangement work. As I hope to show, there is no question of ill-thought-out regulations being slipped through. The regulations that emerge will be based on the outcome of full and proper consultation with the industries concerned, and I am sure that they will be properly scrutinised here and in another place.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am anxious to make progress. We have a great deal of work before us today. There are many amendments further down the selection list on which I am sure hon. Members would like to make progress, so I am us to accept further interventions. However, I am happy to accept an intervention on this occasion from the right hon. Gentleman.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am grateful to the Minister; I hear his warnings. What he has just said is very welcome to all of us. We have obtained from him the huge concession that there will be proper consultation before the regulations are promulgated by his Department. Much as we welcome his conversion, what has changed since last Thursday when he made the opposite statement, as is recorded in Hansard?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am not sure that anything has changed, nor that I made the opposite statement. We have always taken the view that, on this matter, we need properly to consult with the industry on regulations. I have maintained that view throughout, in letters to and meetings with various parts of the industry. We have never been in any doubt that the industry will be legitimately concerned with these matters and that we should ensure that we take on board their arguments. The hon. Member for Ryedale asked whether we have a settled view on the direct marketing industry. We do have a settled view, but not a dogmatic view, about how we shall proceed. We are prepared to listen to representations from any organisation that may be prepared to make them and we shall happily consider them, but we shall need to be convinced by the strength of the argument. The Government have data protection and privacy obligations. The previous Government signed the data protection directive, with which we need to comply—I am sure that the hon Gentleman would want us to do so. It is our clear view that this legislation is necessary to comply with that. The working party also consulted on all these issues. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not suggesting that we could not be taken on trust. Indeed, he said that he was satisfied that we were prepared to consult on these matters, and I am grateful to him for putting it in that way. He was worried that the consultation period may not have been very long because the full report of the working party came out in October, but I can tell him that the initial findings of the working party were known in July and that there was the opportunity to make representations, although I accept that it was over the summer period. Some industries have been making representations and we have been continuing to listen to them. We do listen to the strength of the arguments. We have a settled view and a clear policy, but it is not dogmatic. The Direct Marketing Association and the Confederation of British Industry have sent us papers, and we shall continue to consider any representations that they are prepared to make. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that the credit card industry and the finance industry could seek information from other sources—even the telephone directory. He is right. In fact, most other European countries have quite stringent restrictions. Many of them prohibit the selling on of an electoral register. In those countries, the credit card and the direct marketing industries find the other means that are available to them. They might have to create new industries to gather that information, and that might benefit the economy by creating new business opportunities. However, the credit card and the finance industries will have the opportunity to move forward. I wish to deal with the issue of debt recovery that was raised by the hon. Member for Ryedale. We have consulted the Data Protection Registrar closely and the view taken was that the use of the register for debt recovery would be contrary to the spirit of the data protection directive. She took a different view to that about discovering the initial identity of individuals to decide whether credit could be granted to them. We could, no doubt, have a legalistic argument about the distinctions, but the registrar is there to advise and we have listened carefully to the advice that we have been given.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Will the Minister consider whether the explanatory leaflet given to householders would touch on the effect of ticking the opt-out box on debt recovery and on the use of the register for direct marketing purposes, so that existing data can be verified to restrict the amount of junk mail? Is his mind open to those ideas so that, when people tick the box, they know that they are granting consent for the data to be used for those purposes? That would get round the problem of the directive.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

As I understand it—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—he is asking whether, when a person considers whether to tick the opt-out box, he will know that the issues of debt recovery and direct marketing are before him. I see no reason why, on the face of it, such information should not appear in the leaflet that we shall circulate. Whether the debt recovery industry wants such information in the leaflet is a matter for consultation, but, in principle, I have an open mind. I am quite happy to consult the industry. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border asked whether we would consult the police. I am happy to inform him that we are doing that. My officials had a meeting with the National Criminal Intelligence Service only yesterday. Full and proper consultations will take place. The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked how we will proceed. My officials are already consulting the industries and, once the Bill is enacted, we will produce a draft. That will be put on the internet, it will be circulated among those who have signalled their interest, and we will listen to their concerns. I do not want to place a three-month limit on the consultation because that would raise all sorts of issues, but we shall talk to the industry about the time that it needs for reasonable consultation. I have given hon. Members as much reassurance as I can that we shall consult as much as is reasonable in all the circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will withdraw his motion.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am grateful to hon. Members for contributing to the debate and for making pertinent points in support of my case that the House should receive greater reassurance about the implications of clause 9 and the forthcoming regulations. There should be consultation and proper time should be given to interested parties to reflect on the regulations. The House should then have the opportunity to debate and approve them. I am grateful to the Minister for responding in the way that he did. His answer confirms that this has been an extremely worthwhile debate. I understand his point that he does not think that the new clause adds sufficiently to the Bill to justify its inclusion. That encourages me to try to do a little better next time to ensure that my new clauses are slightly more wide ranging. 6.45 pm In effect, the Minister said that, although he has come to a settled view about direct marketing, it is not a dogmatic one. I interpret that to mean that his mind is not yet fully made up and that both his door and his mind are not closed to further representations. I intervened on the Minister because the more I study the Data Protection Registrar's concerns, the more I am convinced that the problems can be got round through the information that is given to people about the implications of ticking the opt-out box. As the Bill allows, the information should explain to them the effect that ticking the box would have on a number of issues. All we can do in our debates is to provide the industry with the opportunity to discuss the issues further with the Minister. We have achieved that aim, but it is up to the industry to decide whether it is worth taking that opportunity. As I confirmed to the Minister the other day, the industry is perfectly prepared to pay the cost of the production of the leaflet, which would then be distributed at local authorities' expense when they make their electoral registration canvass. I think that we have made significant progress in the last couple of hours—we have made considerably more than on Thursday. The Minister should expect the matters to be further scrutinised if and when the Bill goes to the other place. However, in the spirit of the Minister's positive response to our concerns, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, leave out lines 26 to 31.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 6, page 8, leave out lines 39 to 43.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke with his customary wisdom in the previous debate, I reflected briefly that it was an unfortunate custom of the House that my right hon. Friend cannot properly be referred to as my right hon. and learned Friend. Not only does that form of address have a certain ring and cachet about it, it is absolutely appropriate and correct in view of the—to borrow his own phrase—sagacity of his previous contribution. My contribution will not be nearly as sagacious and it will be brief because I wish to reserve my energy for the Second Reading debates that will follow. The amendments relate to different clauses of the Bill. Amendment No. 13 would amend clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6, but they would both do exactly the same thing. They would delete the three-month residency qualification for Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 13 would delete lines in clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6(5) and remove the words: Where a declaration of local connection is made for the purposes of registration in Northern Ireland, the declaration must state that the declarant has been in Northern Ireland during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration. Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, but we have no such requirement for a special three-month residency qualification in any other part of the United Kingdom. No doubt it could be said that before the so-called peace settlement the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland meant that to avoid fraud—it would not be personation in this case—a three-month residency qualification was necessary. I am not sure what the justification is for that. Presumably, the aim was to check the bona fides of the applicant for electoral registration to ensure that citizens of the Irish Republic, a foreign country, were not popping up to Northern Ireland on registration day, staying in the Province overnight, and getting on to the register.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that the differential should exist and that it should be debated on the very day that the Government have claimed that normalisation will be achieved by the implementation of the Patten report on the RUC?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

That is a rather sad coincidence. I shall give the House an example that demonstrates the absurdity of maintaining that provision in the Bill. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I have a friend who is an officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on attachment in this country. He is a United Kingdom citizen, born and brought up in Northern Ireland, serving his country in the RUC. He has been working in this country for a few years and when he returns to Northern Ireland, if he has not maintained his place on the register, that British citizen, who pays taxes through the nose in this country, will have to live in the Province for at least three months before he can get on to the register in his own country and have a right to vote in British elections. On the other hand, citizens from a foreign country—the Irish Republic—may pass through Great Britain and get on to the electoral register here. I am talking not about people who come here for a holiday or for the day, but people who are doing short-term work in this country. They may not be paying a penny of tax in the UK. They may not care a jot for this Parliament, this Government, this Opposition or any of our country's institutions. However, the fact that, due to an historical anomaly, we grant citizens of the Irish Republic the right to vote in British elections, those people will get on to the electoral register in Britain without having to spend three months here to gain a residency qualification I think that I have got the facts correct: citizens of the Irish Republic passing through Great Britain get on to the register overnight, but UK citizens serving in Her Majesty's forces who return to their homes in Northern Ireland cannot get on to the register unless they have lived in the Province for three months and produced all the necessary documentation to prove that they are not frauds or foreigners. I do not find that an absurdity; I find it an obscenity. It is outrageous that we have built-in conditions that disadvantage our citizens, particularly those who are most likely to be affected: members of Her Majesty's armed forces who come from Northern Ireland to serve in regiments outside Northern Ireland and who return to their own country to retire or on posting, and who for technical reasons may not have the right to vote. Of course, that disadvantage may affect hundreds of other civilians who are also doing worthwhile work. If there was justification in the past, and there may have been, for the three-month Northern Ireland residency qualification, there is certainly no justification for allowing foreigners, such as citizens of the Irish Republic, to vote in British elections. However, that is another anomaly, which I shall leave undisturbed tonight. If there was justification in the past, what is the justification now when we are told that the peace process has resulted in fundamental change? We are now to destroy the RUC itself. We are to allow two members of Sinn Fein-IRA—whom my hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist party call "unreconstructed terrorists"—to participate in the Government of Northern Ireland. Perhaps they are to have an office next to mine and £50,000 of allowances in a couple of weeks. Perhaps they are to have access to the whole of Parliament, to be called a party and to be given short money because they are now democratic. Perhaps they will be wandering in and out of the Cafeteria. If all that is to happen, it is surely a sign that we are in a radically different world from the one in which a three-month residency qualification was appropriate.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the forthcoming Disqualifications Bill in his important speech. Will he inquire whether the Minister will make available to us the Government's security knowledge of the two individuals whom we shall allow into the House next week? That would make very interesting reading.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. We would be pushing it if we moved on to that particular subject.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Even I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, recognise that that is not a subject that you want me to pursue tonight, although the hon. Gentleman's point is valid and needs to be explored in a future debate. I described the situation as an obscenity. It will be even worse next Tuesday when another Bill is rushed through this House, because it will not be just any citizens of the Irish Republic who are entitled to be on our electoral register and to vote. The Government intend to extend to Members of Parliament in southern Ireland the privilege of becoming serving Members in any of our parliamentary institutions—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying from the point. He knows full well that we are discussing a narrow amendment, and he is going wide of the subject.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I entirely accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment would delete the three-month residency qualification. I was merely trying to illustrate the point that people from Northern Ireland who work in the rest of the UK and return to Northern Ireland will have to prove that they have lived in the Province for three months before they can vote. The Minister will probably say that he does not want to remove that condition and that, for various reasons, it must remain. He would say to the people of Northern Ireland, "Tough luck, ladies and gentleman. You have got to have a three-month residency qualification." I was not trying to explore the Bill that we shall debate on Monday and Tuesday; I was simply trying to illustrate how wrong the situation is for British citizens in Northern Ireland, because if the Disqualifications Bill goes through the House next week, Senators—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I say once again to the right hon. Gentleman that he has already said that. He has made that case to the House and he must move on without repeating what he has already said.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I have no intention of repeating my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not clear that the point had been made. I am not as capable of making lucid points as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I sometimes think that I have to put my point again in a slightly different way to make sure that it has been understood. I accept your advice that it has been understood. I move on to the substance of my remarks. The three-month residency qualification is in clauses 4 and 6. Without touching on the previous debate—if I were to mention that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order—I can say that it was about the Government making regulations. Clause 9 is vague and gives the Government great scope to produce any regulations that they want, yet in clauses 4 and 6 there is no suggestion that the residency qualification should be dealt with by regulation. 7 pm What will happen in a couple of months' time when the Bill has been rushed through the House, rushed through another place, and becomes law? What happens when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the Cabinet sub-Committee and says, "More progress has been made in Northern Ireland, so we must now scrap the residency qualification"? Given the pace at which the Government have been changing the constitution of this country and the law in Northern Ireland, it is no exaggeration to say that it is likely that, at some point in the future and for various reasons about which I shall not speculate, the Government will conclude that the three-month residency qualification is an obstacle to further progress in the peace process, or offends one or another of the political parties in Northern Ireland. However, if the amendment is not made, the provision will be in primary legislation; therefore, to change it, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have to introduce another piece of legislation. I am giving the Government an opportunity. If passed, the amendments would delete the relevant lines from clauses 4 and 6. However, if the Government believe that a residency qualification is essential for now, they can build in a regulation-making power that would enable them to make such a provision. They might be sensible to take the chance offered in another place to change clauses 4 and 6 and take a power that enables them to make a regulation requiring, for the time being, a residency qualification in Northern Ireland. Then, in two or six months' time, when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that, in the interests of peace, the residency qualification must be dropped, the Government will be able to make the necessary changes immediately, without consultation.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My right hon. Friend knows that I have the highest regard for the way in which he raises all sorts of important issues in the House. However, does he accept that many people criticise the Government's legislation for leaving too much to secondary legislation, as was the case with the Health Act 1999? Would not the acceptance of his proposals leave far too open matters that deserve, and should receive, the House's full attention, rather than being left to a decision made Upstairs?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I accept my hon. Friend's point that important pieces of election law should not be subject to the whim of regulation. However, we have just spent an hour or so debating a vital clause, the provisions of which are to be left entirely to regulations that we have not yet seen, which are likely to be subject to a brief consultation process before being bounced through. If the Government consider it acceptable to make a host of regulations under clause 9 and other clauses, why do they not use regulation in the narrow matter of the Northern Ireland residency provision? The Government can easily put in the Bill a provision stating that there will be a residency qualification in Northern Ireland, renewable by regulation each year until such time as the Secretary of State concludes that it is no longer needed—it would be similar to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. There are other means by which the Government can attain their end, so why put it in the Bill? I am giving the Government an opt-out, but what I really want to hear is not that they will make that provision through regulation, but that it is not necessary at all, because it is wrong to discriminate against British citizens who live in Northern Ireland.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I rise to reinforce the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and to thank him for his generous words. He might come to regret them, but I shall try to live up to his praise. I start by reinforcing my right hon. Friend's final argument, which is well worn but none the less important. During consideration of almost every Bill with which I have been involved during my many years as a Member of Parliament, we have, quite properly, debated the wisdom or otherwise of putting a provision in a Bill, thus giving it a sort of sanctity—fixing it. It is often argued that, if a matter is sufficiently important, there is a case for putting it in the Bill in order deliberately to make it more difficult to remove or alter. We have all heard that argument, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend's question is whether that argument makes sense in the context of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out, it seems strange that, just a few hours after hearing an important statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the future of the RUC in the context of progress being made—Northern Ireland was changing and that we must all be prepared to make changes—we are considering a Bill that features a measure that would, by definition, be fixed or at least extremely difficult to change. I cannot understand how those two things can be squared.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My right hon. Friend makes a sound point. Does he agree that, as in many other circumstances, the soundbite "joined-up government" makes no sense in this instance?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is true. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department consulted about the provision that we are debating. The Minister will agree that it appears greatly at odds with the message that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants to send—which is about the normalisation of Northern Ireland as conditions there come more into line with conditions in the United Kingdom mainland—to have in the Bill a provision that marks out Northern Ireland as being distinct and different from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Opposition are challenging that contradiction and the wisdom of the Government approach. The Government cannot have it both ways: if government were joined-up, there would be consistency between the arguments that they present and the content of their Bills. The problem goes deeper than that. Anyone who has spent any time as a Member of Parliament knows that, as soon as something is put in a Bill, it becomes fixed to some degree—not immutable, but extremely difficult to alter, because a provision in primary legislation can be changed only by further primary legislation. Do the Government really want to fix a measure relating to Northern Ireland to that extent, given their desire to persuade us that matters in Northern Ireland are moving forward, progressing, changing and improving—that Northern Ireland is becoming more "normal", as they would describe it? We have with us a distinguished colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I hope that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during this debate, because his contribution will be invaluable in revealing the point of view of our friends in Northern Ireland. We can only re-emphasise our commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom, our regard for Northern Ireland and our desire that it should be perceived as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the provision relating to a residency qualification is offensive, because it deliberately and gratuitously marks out Northern Ireland as requiring special treatment. I believe that I can anticipate the Minister's argument. He will say that there is a long-standing fear that aliens from the Republic of Ireland might try to invade the body politic in Northern Ireland by inveigling their way on to the electoral register, thus gaining influence over the voting process in that part of the United Kingdom. Be that as it may—I make no judgment as to the likelihood of that happening or even as to whether it has already happened—I can only speculate about whether a three-month residency requirement would do anything to prevent that process. I doubt very much that a three-month residency qualification would deter an alien person from the Republic of Ireland who was sufficiently determined to infiltrate the political process in Northern Ireland. Setting that aside for a moment, I hope that the Minister recognises that the provisions of the Bill, as it would be if the amendments were accepted, backed up by provisions dealing with validation and verification of the registration process that will—provided they are accepted—be inserted in the Bill by amendments to which we shall come shortly, will provide sufficient safeguards against the process of alien infiltration of which the Minister appears so afraid and which he might argue is the motivation for his putting such an ill-conceived measure in the Bill. We therefore have a peculiar set of circumstances. I shall be interested to hear the Minister weave his way through this part of the argument. I hope that he will deal with the discussions that he may have had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this context and with whether the right hon. Gentleman is content with this part of the Bill. I would like to know whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland feels that he can square what he said in the House a few hours ago with what is in the Bill relating to Northern Ireland. I want the Minister to tell me whether he regards Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, to be treated in every way the same as the rest of the United Kingdom, and whether he believes that the provisions that we shall come to later in our deliberations might well be sufficient to provide proper safeguards in the registration process without the need for an overriding process of the sort that we now have.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is it conceivable that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is content with the provision and that, notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said and notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, he advocated its inclusion in the Bill?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We know none of those things. It is ironic that so often we find ourselves speculating, whereas, in an era of alleged open government, we should know for sure. Ministers should be elbowing one another aside in their eagerness to share their thoughts with us and to demonstrate the Government's integrity and the effectiveness of collective responsibility. That should be the position, but I have not seen much sign of it so far.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I speak directly to the clause. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a direct consequence of the fact that Cabinet meetings are no longer held in the manner in which they were previously—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking not to a clause but to an amendment. He is out of order.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you know how anxious I am to get through this business quickly and to move on to Third Reading, when I can make really expansive remarks. My remarks now are but a taste of what I want to say. I cannot wait for Third Reading. I shall deal narrowly with my hon. Friend's point while I am on my feet, but first I shall respond to the introduction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. He pointed out that we are dealing not only with the matters set out in clause 1 but with the parallel provisions to which our amendments apply in clauses 6 to 8, on page 8. We shall return to the matter when we deal with other amendments, because the Bill is closely intertwined and interwoven with declarations of local connection in the context of Northern Ireland. I have a few doubts about such declarations as a principle, a concept and a working practice. Some of the amendments with which we shall deal later are designed to make the matter much more secure. Suffice to say that it is being suggested that, somehow, the declaration of local connection process or procedure in the Bill should be different in Northern Ireland. I do not see why that should be so. We are talking not about aliens coming from a strange foreign country, such as the Republic of Ireland, but local connection and the way in which that can be properly established. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. He has his work cut out tonight. He will have to work really hard to persuade us on this part of the Bill. However, I am sure that he can because he is an able man and has shown himself willing so far to do so. In this instance, he will have to take us carefully through the argument about why, in the context of local connection—we are seeking to amend the process by means of the amendment—Northern Ireland is necessarily different. 7.15 pm I have speculated on what the Minister might say about the previous part of the argument, but I cannot even begin to imagine how he will justify singling out Northern Ireland when it comes to declarations of local connection. I have my suspicions about the entire process, and no doubt we shall examine it later in our proceedings. However, at this stage I wish to point out that, yet again, distinctions are made between circumstances in Northern Ireland and those elsewhere when the Government are at pains to try to persuade the House that distinctions exist less and less, if they have not disappeared entirely. In conclusion—

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I will give way, but I wanted to conclude my remarks.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My right hon. Friend is dealing with local connection and I wished to intervene before he departed from it. I draw attention to lines 39 to 44 in clause 6 on page 8. Does he not find it incongruous that, about 15 lines beforehand, the clause states that a person can be on the register, having made a declaration of local connection, if he is a citizen of the Irish Republic? Will he contrast that with the fact that a citizen of Northern Ireland who lives there cannot get on the register for three months?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The more we examine the Bill, the more we are forced to believe that it is ill-directed, poorly drafted and contains the seeds of some real dangers for our electoral processes. That is bad enough for the mainland; how much worse could it be in relation to Northern Ireland, with the difficulties that it has? The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned earlier in an intervention that he is all too well aware of the dangers. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the House that having these provisions in the Bill is utter folly. The position would be bad enough anyway, but having in the Bill such provisions referring to Northern Ireland will not do. I hope that the Minister will accept that. Either he will deploy the most powerful and detailed arguments to persuade us that what I have said is groundless, or he must accept the amendments to put right this part of the Bill.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Given that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I agree on so many points that come before the House, they will understand how deep is my pain that I must disagree with them on this occasion. I understand from the expression of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that he is quite horrified. I hope that he will understand that my pain is exactly the same as that felt by every member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary this evening, and that of every widow of an RUC officer who was murdered by the IRA. I hope that he will understand how angry those people are.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better. He knows that he must speak to the amendment.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

That is the point. I was explaining how deeply pained I am that I must disagree with right hon. and hon. Members on this occasion. They will be aware that, if the amendment were accepted, it would run across existing legislation in Northern Ireland. The legislation provides that there must be residence of three months before 15 September, which is the qualifying date for electoral registration in Northern Ireland. It was provided as a safeguard. It meant that an individual had to come to live in Northern Ireland for three months. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has dealt with the danger that people would move from the Irish Republic into sensitive areas where 100 or 50 votes could make an enormous difference. Individuals had to be resident for three months before 15 September. They then had literally to stay there for another three months until the electoral list became the electoral register, which would be towards Christmas. In other words, all the hearings in the local electoral courts had to be completed and all the rest of it. Instead of having to stay for three months, they had to stay for six. That is why the legislation exists in regard to Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Gentlemen know, in normal circumstances I am most willing that legislation should be exactly the same for the whole of the United Kingdom. May I suggest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that rather than removing the provision for Northern Ireland, it should apply to the entire United Kingdom? That would be a much better solution to the problem. I can tell my right hon. Friends that there are always an enormous number of people floating backwards and forwards between the Irish Republic and Great Britain, who have voting rights in this country.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

The hon. Gentleman will see that amendment No. 30, which we shall discuss later, would have precisely that effect in respect of declarations of local connection. Its purpose is to avoid abuse at by-elections.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I am gratified that Conservative Members have spotted the loophole—the danger for the electoral process in Great Britain—and are trying to take steps to close it. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say one thing for Northern Ireland and reject the amendment, and then reject the next amendment, which protects the position in regard to Great Britain. I am delighted that right hon. and hon. Members with much greater expertise and resources than I have spotted the loophole, or rather, the barn door, and have proposed precautions to close the door. I hope that they are successful. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentlemen considered the crazy paragraph just after the words that amendment No. 17 would remove, which states: No declaration of local connection shall be specially made by a person for the purposes of local government elections". When I raised the matter in Committee, the Minister said that he would consider the point and write to me. He has not done so yet, so perhaps he has not had enough time to consider it. The proposals hang together as a piece. We need to know the purpose of the provision. If it deals with individuals coming into Northern Ireland and the requirement for them to be there for three months, how can it specify that those people cannot come in and register for the sole purpose of taking part in a local government election? The date of local government elections is known years ahead. I do not understand what the words mean. The Minister is listening, and I know that by this time he will have considered the matter, so he will be able to give us a clear answer.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I have been listening carefully and with great respect to my hon. Friend's point. Is it his firm view that there is still a genuine threat in Northern Ireland of the electoral register being flooded with aliens from another country and distortions occurring in the electoral process, which make the three-month provision vital?

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

That is indeed my view. I believe that there are certain circumstances and certain areas—perhaps very small—where that could be a factor. Whenever the outcome of council elections especially, and perhaps constituency elections, hangs on a handful of votes, 20 or 30 people moving into each ward or 50 people in a critical ward could make an enormous difference. I fear that that is true not only in Northern Ireland, but in Wales, perhaps in Scotland and in certain parts of England. If the Government want to retain the words in the Bill, they cannot refuse to insert the words that Conservative Members will seek to insert in later amendments. It pains me to tell the right hon. Gentlemen that I cannot support their amendment, but my pain has been considerably diminished by the discovery that they have spotted the barn door that exists with regard to Great Britain and that they propose a way of dealing with it. I hope that the Government will not wait for the amendment to be moved, but that the Minister will rise to say that it is so wise, so reasonable and so much in keeping with the provisions of clause 6 that the Government will instantly accept the amendment, and that they will make certain that the same rules apply throughout the United Kingdom. I should not like the Minister to lose his seat, in case a large number of Unionists moved over and settled in his constituency. After the performance of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today, he would not have a snowball's chance of getting an ex-Unionist vote. In the past, many people voted for the Labour party in Northern Ireland. By their actions today, the Government have destroyed any possibility of those people, should they emigrate to Great Britain, ever casting a vote for that party. The destruction being wreaked on the police force in Northern Ireland—I dare not stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you would instantly call me to order. Destroying the RUC and leaving so many people open to future attack by terrorists bites deeply and is greatly resented. That resentment will not quickly fade. The Minister will be long gone from the House before it will fade or be forgotten.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) —my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to call him that, because that is indeed what he is. It may help him to know that not only have events earlier in the day caused great hurt and offence to the widows of RUC officers—a matter which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you rightly say we should not discuss—but that the parts of the Bill with which amendments Nos. 13 and 17 deal will also cause hurt and offence to the widows of RUC officers and others who have served so bravely in that part of the United Kingdom. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry that I have always wondered what the Irish air, the Ulster-East Londonderry mist, does to the mind. I was deeply touched to hear ascribed to the Minister a great sense of charity and reasonableness, which I hope will lead the hon. Gentleman later to agree, if not with the Opposition, then with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry. If that is what the mists of East Londonderry do, perhaps we should all move there, if necessary for the three months, and have ourselves registered to vote in my hon. Friend's constituency. If by any chance today's events have not guaranteed his re-election for life, I for one would be delighted to go there and support him, should he ever need my vote. I am an Englishman and proud of it, but I have always done my level best to try to see things through the eyes of those who live in Northern Ireland. Therefore I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the special provisions. He will see from the list of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friends that amendment No. 3 would have provided an alternative way of dealing with the problem that he rightly identifies. Sadly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not select it. Had we gone down the route proposed in amendment No. 3, the present debate would not have been necessary. Amendment No. 3 would have removed—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Amendment No. 3 has not been selected, so the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it. He can discuss only the two amendments before us.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that. I am sure that it will be possible to raise the same issue as a matter that arises from amendment No. 13. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry—that the rule should apply to the entire United Kingdom—appeals to me. I might have enthusiastically supported such an amendment, had he tabled it. 7.30 pm Every week, nearly 500,000 people land at Heathrow airport on the borders of my constituency. The thought of their being able to rush into Spelthorne council offices and register to vote before they move on appals me.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and also apologise for not spotting the issue that he raised. If I had spotted the problem, I would have tabled an amendment on it. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill builds brick after brick on previous legislation. We have reached a point where we need consolidation. Before tabling an amendment, we need a week to plough through all the legislation.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is the problem with trying to rush a Bill through unnecessarily. Calmer, more reflective consideration would undoubtedly have made a bad Bill slightly less bad.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend speaks of rushing the measure through. The Government's interest is reflected by the presence of only two Labour Members while the Opposition Benches are packed.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Hon. Members must concentrate on the amendments.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) makes the fair point that many Opposition Members are deeply worried about the clause. It is significant that many of my hon. Friends are here to debate amendments Nos. 13 and 17 while Labour Members do not seem interested in them. Even if we cannot discuss the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, we can consider those who are interested and those who show no interest in the amendments. But you rightly urge me to speak about the substance of the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 13 would delete subsection (2). It is important to understand the exact aim of the amendment. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 4(1) set out ways in which people can register. Amendment No. 13 is necessary because of subsection (1)(c), which provides that citizens of the Republic of Ireland can, of right, get on to a United Kingdom register. But for that provision, amendment No. 13 would be unnecessary. I believe that it would have been better to face the problem of our giving foreigners a vote in the United Kingdom. If we did not do that, the amendment would have been unnecessary. I have never understood the reason for giving foreigners votes on the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. People claim that we have reciprocal arrangements, but, with the greatest respect, I do not want to vote in the Irish Republic. If I wanted to vote in that alien, foreign country, I would become an Irish citizen. I do not want to do that, so I do not understand why right my hon. Friends should have had to table amendment No. 13. We should not have to tackle such a problem. The fact remains that the problem exists, and I therefore support my right hon. Friends' approach.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

In earlier discussions, many hon. Members, especially Labour Members, commented on the ability of United Kingdom citizens to vote in this country when they were not resident for a period of time. There is inconsistency in their attitude towards the ability of our citizens and those of the Irish Republic to vote in UK elections.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It has become obvious in the past year or two that there are no depths to which the Government will not sink in trying to appease the Republic of Ireland. The provision is yet another example of the appeasement that takes place when the Government are faced with people pointing guns at them. If they believe that such appeasement will work, I have news for them: it will not.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking not only about the Government's insatiable appetite for appeasement but about their determination at all costs and wherever possible to gerrymander?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Government are keen on anything that gives the Labour party an advantage in electioneering. I assume that the Minister judged subsection (2) necessary through fear of thousands of foreigners jumping into coaches for an away-day or a weekend break and charging across the border into the United Kingdom for just long enough to try to gerrymander. However, my understanding of Northern Ireland politics, of which I try to be a student, shows that it does not take people on away-days from the Republic to cause a problem; people who are legitimately entitled to be on the register vote sufficiently often to do their own gerrymandering without involving those from a foreign country to add to the confusion. The Government would be advised to tackle the "vote early, vote often" problem rather than concentrating on people being bussed in from Dublin.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The question for the Minister is one that I wish I had asked my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but it has just occurred to me. If the provision is vital to prevent citizens of a foreign country from swamping Northern Ireland on 10 October, or whatever the date for registration, and they thus cannot be trusted, why should they be entitled to a vote in the United Kingdom or for the Northern Ireland Assembly?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My right hon. Friend had no choice but to ask me the question because I gave way to him, but I am the last person to give him a sensible answer. I do not have an answer, and I suspect that the Government do not either. I shall leave it to the Minister to try to defend the indefensible. I am worried about the way in which the Bill disfranchises many British citizens. That cannot be right. It is wrong for the House to pass measures that take the vote away from British citizens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border gave one example, but there are others that we need to consider. Not only people who serve the Crown in our armed forces and leave Northern Ireland, but any British subject normally resident in Northern Ireland who for some reason has to spend time in Great Britain in the prescribed three-month period, will be caught by the problem. Such people will automatically be left off the register. People who return to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, perhaps to nurse or take care of members of their families who are ill, during the specified three-month period will no longer qualify for a vote in their own country. People who are normally resident in Northern Ireland and have jobs that take them to Great Britain for periods of time would also be struck off the register. That cannot be right. We should consider another group of people: those who have been residents in Great Britain, perhaps for decades, who choose to move to that other part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland. Perhaps a promotion in their jobs means that they move to Belfast, or perhaps they move to be with their families. Perhaps, for the air or mists of Londonderry, people choose to retire in that beautiful part of our country. If such people do so within three months of the compilation of a register, they will lose their vote for the following year. That cannot be right.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government and encouraging investment in Northern Ireland. That is to be applauded. Does my hon. Friend think that there may be individuals in the rest of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland and Wales—who may be deterred from taking one of the new jobs that have been created in Northern Ireland because they would lose their voting rights as a consequence of the measure?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I must confess I had not got round to. I am most grateful to him for drawing it to my attention and I hope that the whole House will see that as yet another reason why the Bill should not pass tonight without amendment. I find the matter at the heart of amendment No. 13 as deeply offensive as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. If we do not amend the Bill, it will create two classes of British elector: the first-class electors, who will mainly be in Great Britain, and the second-class electors, who will mainly be in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. Up to now, there have been no lengths to which they would not go, but are they seriously telling us that they are content with a Bill that will create two classes of British elector? If so, they should be deeply ashamed. Amendment No. 17, on the face of it, appears to do exactly the same thing, but it has its arguments the other way round. As I understand it, the provision with which it seeks to deal addresses those people who, for whatever reason, are at the moment in a mental hospital or institution. They will be given the right to identify a place where they have a local connection. Throughout Great Britain, such people will only have to indicate an address for the provisions to apply. But if someone identifies an address in Northern Ireland, an additional test will be applied—the connection will have had to exist for a longer period. On this occasion, the test of a longer period could sensibly be applied to Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland because we are dealing with a specialist, sensitive and difficult issue. To have a period of time attached to the address would be in everybody's interest, because it would help to ensure that a sensible, lasting judgment was made. I support the amendment for that reason, but the Minister could get himself out of difficulty by saying that he will reintroduce it in another place, applying it not only to Northern Ireland but to Great Britain as well. I believe that it is deeply offensive to the British citizens who live in Northern Ireland to be told that, yet again, they are to be treated separately and in a second-class way. I will be charitable to the Minister and accept that he genuinely does not intend to cause that hurt and offence to the widows of those Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have been killed over the years in the tragedy that has been Northern Ireland. In that spirit, I plead with him either to accept the amendments or to listen to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and solve the problem in the alternative way.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made some powerful arguments. He mentioned the Royal Ulster Constabulary officers who have died, and we should remember that 301 serving officers have died in the cause of freedom, liberty and equity over the past few years in the—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about the RUC. Important as it is, it does not fall within the confines of the amendment, to which he must speak.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am afraid that my point might not be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should point out that those officers did not die—they were murdered.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My right hon. Friend might be out of order, but nevertheless I hope that Hansard will note his comment, with which I wholly agree. I support the amendment because, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have so ably pointed out, there is an inconsistency. In November, I suffered a personal tragedy: after 10 years, I had to surrender my dark blue passport and obtain my little flexible red European Union passport, which still has on its face—this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the words, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", an integrated whole. The Government are following in the tradition of the previous Government in trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is therefore ironic that, today of all days, we should be debating a measure that creates an inconsistency— a difference—between one part of the United Kingdom and another. I truly believe that that is wrong on two counts: first, on principle and, secondly, because it sends out all the wrong signals. Today we have heard a statement about the future of the RUC and the hopes of the Government—and, indeed, of the whole House—for the future of Northern Ireland and its normalisation, but only a few hours later we are, I suspect, about to hear the Minister argue against this reasonable amendment, which says that we should take an holistic approach to the Representation of the People Bill in particular and the law in general in respect of England, Scotland and Wales and the United Kingdom.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend may agree that an aspect of the statement on the Patten report is germane to the amendment. Several thousand RUC officers will be removed from service and given a substantial payment. They will probably become a mobile element of the population of Northern Ireland. They may move to other constituencies in Northern Ireland or come to other parts of the United Kingdom for a time. In that context, they are very much affected by the amendment.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

That point had not occurred to me, but is germane. If such officers attempt to seek work in other parts of the Province, they will meet the residency requirement for Northern Ireland, but the Minister must explain whether under the Bill they would have to be resident in a new constituency for three months to have a vote there. I hope that he will make that clear, one way or another.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has highlighted an extremely pertinent point. In reflecting on it, will my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield concede that the greater likelihood is that the problem will be not that an individual will perambulate around Northern Ireland or move to another part of it while looking for new employment but that he will move to another part of the kingdom altogether? If he is absent for several months, he may have great difficulties. Does not that point need to be entertained by Ministers?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

As ever, my hon. Friend raises a fascinating and powerful point, which demonstrates the inconsistency of the provision. That ex-RUC police officer would have to demonstrate not that he had been in England, Scotland or Wales for three months—merely that he was resident on 10 October or whatever the night might be. I might add that such an officer would have great difficulty in finding employment in a police constabulary in England, Scotland or Wales, given that in Staffordshire, for example, there has been a reduction in the number of police officers. I suspect that the poor ex-RUC officer would end up getting a job as a security guard or something else. I understand why the clause was drafted in the first place. I suspect that it was to prevent people from the Republic of Ireland from moving to Northern Ireland in order to vote. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is so. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out, that provision would be no deterrent. Many people living in the Republic have relatives and friends in Northern Ireland, so it would present no difficulty for them to claim that they have been resident in Northern Ireland for the specified three months. I would simply argue that, first, the clause is no deterrent; secondly, that it is inconsistent with the holistic approach that the Government are attempting to take, despite the fact that there is no joined-up government in Cabinet meetings; and thirdly, that there is no holistic approach to the idea that the United Kingdom is an integrated whole. I am pleased to see Ministers taking copious notes and listening carefully. I expect the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), whose constituency almost abuts mine, to respond fully to the points that and my hon. Friends and I have made.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I do not wish to detain the House long. I have listened with great care and interest to the arguments, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). My hon. Friend made some extremely valid points about the risk that is posed to people who are citizens of Ulster, Northern Ireland, who have to be away from their residences for three months for family or business reasons. Such practical considerations will put those people at a disadvantage in comparison with other citizens of this country.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his remarks, but I think that he is making an error that I have made. The test for qualification is not whether such people are away for the entire three months, but whether their residency of three months is interrupted for any short period. Therefore, somebody intending to live in Northern Ireland for a few months on attachment who returns to Great Britain for a week's course will lose the residency qualification. The provision is even more iniquitous than I thought.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

My right hon. Friend makes a forceful point, which the Government must answer. The Minister is a reasonable man and will want to deal comprehensively with it. The economy of Northern Ireland has been doing well for some time and it is not fair that the people there should be penalised simply because the Government want to ensure some modicum of protection against citizens of the Republic of Ireland flooding across the border, swamping the register and bringing about undesirable changes out of expediency. It is extraordinary that, when we are trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland people should continue to have to bear such a burden and be handicapped unlike any other part of the United Kingdom. There is some force to the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that they are second-class citizens.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

One of the difficulties with this debate is that the longer that we discuss the salient matters, the more potential objections to the Government's proposals seem to emerge. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that, under the clause as it stands, there is no distinction between, on the one hand, an interruption of the three-month period that could reasonably have been expected to be anticipated, and on the other, an interruption that could not be so anticipated?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The wording is clear: there is no distinction. A person must be resident in Northern Ireland for the entire three months, ending on the relevant date, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said. If an elector is away for any part of that three-month period, he will suffer disfranchisement, which all of us in the House obviously regard extremely seriously. I also have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I have felt for many years that it is simply not right that citizens of a country that is not part of the Commonwealth, does not acknowledge Her Majesty the Queen as head of state and owes no allegiance to this country should nevertheless enjoy the privilege—for indeed it is a privilege—of voting in our local and parliamentary elections. We are faced with a predicament precisely because we have for years without any foundation allowed people in the Republic of Ireland to enjoy such a privilege. The clause was drafted to afford some protection from gerrymandering that could bring about a sharp change in policy or, heaven forbid, the constitution of Northern Ireland. Both options before the House are unattractive. It is unattractive to have special arrangements for our fellow citizens, who are equally loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and that they should suffer such a handicap, but it is right and proper that we should protect our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland from a sudden influx of people from the Republic who have moved to Northern Ireland for the express purpose of robbing it of its constitution and bringing about change that would not be acceptable to its residents. 8 pm We are faced with two options: to continue with the present arrangements, which handicap our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland but provide them with the protection that I have outlined; or to sweep away that protection but ensure that people do not lose their franchise in Northern Ireland if they interrupt their three-month residency requirement. On balance, sadly, I would not support the amendment, not because I do not agree with the principle—I agree with almost everything that my right hon. Friends have said tonight—but because the consequences would be a greater disadvantage to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. Ministers must tell the people why we continue to perpetuate the right of citizens of the Republic of Ireland to vote in this country when they owe no allegiance to it or to Her Majesty the Queen and are not even entitled to the protection afforded to all of us who hold a British passport. The situation is anomalous and, I believe, wrong. I do not intend to support my right hon. Friends on the amendment, so I hope that Ministers will do me the courtesy of offering me some reassurance that they will try to engineer a state of affairs whereby we do not have to handicap our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland in order to provide them with protection against a concerted political assault from citizens of the Republic.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I understand the arguments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and his desire that the electoral registration system should be as free of inconsistencies across the United Kingdom as is reasonable in the circumstances, but the fact is that special circumstances apply in Northern Ireland, and the three-month residency requirement reflects that. It serves a useful purpose in ensuring that only bona fide registrations are made. More important, it is well worth pointing out that none of the Northern Ireland parties have asked for the requirement to be removed, even though the Bill would have provided an excellent opportunity to do that. The comments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) reflected that. The working party on electoral procedures had the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, Pat Bradley, as one of its members, and he did not recommend removing the requirement. As those most concerned seem happy with the existing position, I see no reason to change it.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Does the Minister share the view of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that there is a real risk of the register being flooded with people who are not normally resident in Northern Ireland if we do not have the three-month qualification?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am not sure that anyone is arguing that there is a risk of floods of voters coming in, but there is sensitivity to voting issues in Northern Ireland, and the provisions have been law since 1949. The right hon. Gentleman described the rules relating to who can vote and I remind him that in national elections British people, Irish people and people from the Commonwealth can vote, and in local and European elections British-registered voters and Commonwealth, Irish and European Union people can vote. The right hon. Gentleman described the way in which certain people from the Irish Republic can vote in British elections as an obscenity and an outrage. That obscenity and outrage existed during 18 years of Conservative government and there was not a peep out of him during that whole period. That says enough about the approach that he has taken. I appreciate what is happening today, but perhaps he should not engender more indignation than he can conveniently contain. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) also suggested that the rules take away certain people's right to vote. He, too, did not seem to be concerned about the matter when his party was in government. The position has existed since 1949.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

rose—

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me for a moment? Given the situation in Northern Ireland, we need to proceed with some care.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

rose—

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I will give way, if the hon. Gentleman will please bear with me for a moment. We would be best advised to proceed with care, and that is the approach that we intend to take.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I wanted to intervene only because of the comments that the Minister made about me and my position over the past 18 years. If he can find a moment in a busy day to check the record, he will find that I have been a public and vociferous critic of the way in which Northern Ireland has been treated by all Governments since I have been a Member of Parliament. I did indeed make the same criticisms when my party was in government.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

If the hon. Gentleman tells me that he has done that, I will certainly accept his word. Various comments have been made and I do not want to go through them all. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of them bordered on being out of order. I am sure that you would have dealt with them had they been out of order. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and others made various comments about Irish voters in Britain and I am sure that the large number of people of Irish heritage who vote in the UK will be well acquainted with his views. The best contribution was from the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who said that he was a little bit worried that floods of Unionists might come to North Warwickshire to deal with me during the election. I look forward to that, and I will think long and hard about his suggestions as a result of that comment. I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will withdraw the amendment.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am placed in a difficult position, because I had intended to follow my instinct and press the amendment to a vote, and I am not persuaded by the Minister, but I have to pay close attention to the earnest concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I want to clarify one point that the Minister mentioned. I think it an awful anomaly that citizens of the Irish Republic should be able to vote in our elections, but the obscenity is not that mere fact but the fact that citizens of the United Kingdom, born and brought up in the United Kingdom, who have perhaps served in the police, the RUC or the armed forces, or as teachers or nurses in Belfast, can lose their franchise if they come to this country for a week's course, for cancer treatment or on attachment for two or three weeks. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for drawing my attention to the point that, if those people fail to be resident for the whole of the period, they lose their right to be on the register and are disenfranchised, while someone passing through from the Republic of Ireland has the vote. Putting those two together is the juxtaposition: not the fact that aliens have the right to vote, but that British citizens will lose it through no fault of their own. Putting those two together is the obscenity. I was greatly interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry had to say, which is why I asked the Minister to clarify whether he agreed with him that there is the real risk that, unless we have the three-month qualification, some people from the Republic may—perhaps flood was the wrong word—register falsely and have a vote to which they are not entitled. The Minister was using a good Home Office brief, with the points to take and some that were to be used only if pressed. He picked his words carefully. He did not say, "Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Lots of Irish Republican citizens will be flooding the register." He did not use those words but, by the substance of the careful and sensitive words that he used in the present sensitive situation, he was agreeing that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry was right.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

indicated dissent.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The Government must be agreeing. There must be the risk. That is the only reason why they are maintaining it. Yes, the Government can hide behind the fact that all the parties in Northern Ireland still want the provision. The Government clearly share the view that there is a risk. I am faced with an awful dilemma. Here we have an injustice—it is an injustice that people in Northern Ireland have to have the residency qualification when the rest of us and aliens from another state do not. However, because the political parties in Northern Ireland see an even greater injustice in the register being flooded by those aliens who may influence their vote, they wish to keep it. Surely the only way to remedy the problem in future is to impose similar conditions on the rest of us in the United Kingdom, so that we can equalise that injustice to Northern Ireland citizens. I have listened carefully to the Minister, who replied carefully. I would not find his arguments on their own convincing or persuasive—

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Let the record show that the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my comments is not necessarily one that I precisely share. Let my comments speak for themselves in Hansard.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The Minister's comments will speak for themselves, but I can see the headlines when The Times, The Telegraph and Peterborough write up the essence of the Minister's remarks tomorrow. It will be, "Minister says danger of southern Irish citizens flooding register in north." That is what he said in essence, although he picked his words carefully. In view of the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for East Londonderry that an even greater injustice would be caused to citizens in northern Ireland if the amendment were agreed, I will reluctantly withdraw it, but I urge the Government to remove that injustice by another means. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RESIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION: GENERAL

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 5, leave out lines 7 to 9.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I have moved the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who tabled it. He has apologised that he cannot be here to do so. Through this amendment and the related amendment No. 57, which suggest that certain words should be deleted, we seek clarification from the Government as to why they are included and about the detail of what they mean. Clause 3, line 7 reads: Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is garbage.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It may be, but it is probably grammatically correct. What does that sentence mean? I confess that I do not know. I have an inkling of what I think that it may mean. I know what, "Regard shall be had" means. What about, "in particular"? If regard is to be had, in particular, what are all the other circumstances that the Government have in mind? Will the Minister explain these particular ones? What about to the purpose and other circumstances … of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date"? I think that the Minister would agree that the sentence is opaque. I am certain that the Minister, who is kindly with us on secondment again from the Northern Ireland Office—I think that he called it unpaid day release last week, or something of the sort—

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

No fixed fee.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Yes—on transfer for no fixed fee. I welcome the Minister's presence. He is always kind and courteous at the Dispatch Box and always seeks to elucidate where he can. I am certain that, if his brief has been prepared by the people whom I think prepared it in the Home Office—meaning no disrespect to the excellent Northern Ireland Office—it will contain some excellent detail. Admittedly, some of our legislation ended up in judicial review in the High Court—that is always a penalty of Home Office legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister's brief is likely to explain the circumstances. What are the facts? I suspect that much of the brief will be available to be put into the public domain, or put on the record, if an hon. Member asks. I suspect that little will be in the "If pressed" category and there may be nothing in the category at the bottom of the brief headed, "Not to be revealed in any circumstances." I simply ask the Minister, on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, what exactly those three lines mean and what other matters the Government have in mind that are not included by the words, "in particular"? The amendments also suggest the deletion of lines 10 to 14. Those read: For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all the circumstances be taken to be at that time— (a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or (b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere." That seems an extraordinary catch-all. No doubt the lawyers who drafted the clause know exactly what it means. The Minister, with his excellent brief and sharp mind, will know what it means, but it seems like gobbledegook to me and I would be grateful for an explanation. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is no doubt learned in a non-House of Commons, technical, nomenclatural sense, will be able to advise me.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am afraid that I have to disappoint my right hon. Friend. To try to help him, I took up the explanatory notes provided by the Government. However, the notes for this clause simply use the same words. They state: The subsection provides that a person who is staying somewhere other than on a permanent basis may be regarded as resident if he does not have a home elsewhere. Those sound suspiciously like the words that my right hon. Friend read from the Bill. It looks as though we are again trapped by the circularity that is becoming the hallmark of this badly drafted legislation.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I hear what my right hon. Friend says. I hope that the Home Office has not become so afraid of judicial review under the new Government that the explanatory memorandums are merely copying the exact words in the Bill lest some clever clogs should take the Department to court. However, I would not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Bill is badly drafted. We may discover that in due course. I suspect that it is an obscurely drafted Bill. That is often not the fault of departmental officials, who send away a technical brief that anyone—certainly a Minister—can understand, but get back something from the parliamentary draftsman that no one can understand.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is my right hon. Friend of the view that, if the meaning of the provision is that an individual is not resident there if he has a home elsewhere, it means also that, if he has a home elsewhere, he is judged to be permanently resident at that other home, notwithstanding the temporary interruption? If so, does it not appear that the wording of that provision conflicts directly with the proposal on page 2 to which we referred a moment ago?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My hon. Friend's explanation of what the proposal seems to mean appears to be correct, and may be the only explanation. I should like to hear from the Minister whether my hon. Friend has come to the correct interpretation. If he has, there would, prima facie, seem to be a conflict with clause 2.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I must confess that I am confused. Is my right hon. Friend arguing that he supports the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), under which the whole clause would be removed because it is gobbledegook? Or is he arguing in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), under which the gobbledegook would be improved by the addition of the word "verifiable"—which, to me, makes it even gobbledegooker?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I will leave the other amendments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For simplicity's sake, I am dealing with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The amendment must be phrased in such a way as to draw attention to what my hon. Friend calls gobbledegook. It is not possible to table an amendment to ask the Minister to explain that passage, so one must use the parliamentary device of proposing to delete lines 7 to 14. I would not propose to push the amendment to the vote—unless the Minister's explanation horrifies me—as my intention is not to delete the lines, but to seek information and elucidation. I have every confidence that the Minister will be able to provide that.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I will pick up the baton from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) at this point. I was upset when my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) indicated that my amendment was of less than complete value before I had even had a chance to explain it. He will be listening attentively, as always, as I try to explain it. A number of our amendments seek to make the Bill more secure and, therefore, to enhance it. This amendment is probably the least important of that group, but it has its own validity. Clause 3 states: Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date. However, as soon as one introduces the concept of "the fact", there is a duty to establish whether it is a fact or not.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I hesitate to argue with my right hon. Friend—for whom normally I have the greatest respect—but is it not usually the case that when one attests to a fact, one must verify it? Therefore, the amendment to introduce the word "verifiable" is a gross tautology.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I hope that that is not the case. I am barely scratching at the surface of my argument, so my hon. Friend should not rush too quickly to call me to account. If he is patient, he might be prepared to agree with me. If not, he will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and give the reasons why. I may not have selected the right word—the House knows how I struggle to find my words—in calling for a "verifiable" fact. I have tried to establish that there should be incumbent on the registration officer an additional procedure, through which he will seek to verify what is claimed in the process of registration by the person seeking that registration. We are talking about a new, dynamic register—of which I have not been fully persuaded—so there is a greater requirement for verification at every part of the process. Otherwise, we will introduce a dynamic, but highly inaccurate and vulnerable register, rather than one that is tight and secure. I hope that the Minister will agree that adding the word "verifiable" will give greater security to the process than would otherwise be the case. We do not know from the present wording how "the fact" is to be established or proved. Surely we cannot go too far in seeking to make our electoral register as secure as possible, and we shall return to this theme again and again.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is my right hon. Friend distinguishing between a fact being verifiable and a fact having been verified? There is surely a significant difference between the two. Will he explain whether his concern is that something should be capable of verification and whether, for example, we are to rely upon documents or circumstantial evidence? Or is he making the highly unlikely suggestion for a libertarian Conservative of his high credentials that there should be direct investigation of the whereabouts of particular individuals applying for the list on the date in question?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend has, as ever, gone to the nub of the argument with unerring accuracy, and he forces me to come down on one side or other of the fence that he has erected. In this case, I would be prepared to leave it, as we must when considering a Bill of this kind, to the expertise, dedication and discretion of the registration officer to decide the precise mechanisms to be used to verify the contents of the register. My hon. Friend has conjured up a nightmare vision of registration officers acting as though they were Customs and Excise officers— [Interruption.] I thought that that would shock my hon. Friends: it was intended to because I wanted to wake them up. We must avoid that approach, but it is important to ensure that registration officers possess the necessary mechanisms to do the job. I hope that I have done enough to satisfy my hon. Friend.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My right hon. Friend appears to be setting out a burden of proof which is just as great to demonstrate the presence of a person in his home as it is to demonstrate his absence. I think that that is wrong, because one should be able to state that one was present in one's home and have that accepted as a fact. If registration officers wish to prove one's absence, that should be verifiable.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is leading me into ethereal territory—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. That is the last thing we want.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

In that case, I shall return—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

May I attempt to assist my right hon. Friend by encapsulating the solution to the conundrum that he poses? Does he agree that for this purpose, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We are making progress.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I do not wish to complicate matters, or to introduce a Venn diagram in the manner of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but surely what he was trying to say was that it is impossible to ask, "Hands up those children who are not here."

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I remind the House that this is a debate, not a question and answer session. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wishes to conduct a tutorial, I am sure that he could see his hon. Friends afterwards.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Indeed I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a complicated argument about difficult concepts and it arose because we were exploring the meaning of the word "verifiable" in the context of amendment No. 5. However, I concede that we may have over-complicated the issue. We have probably teased enough out of it to give the Minister the opportunity to clarify the matter. He has followed the argument with ever more glazed eyes, but a useful brief may come to his assistance at any moment. I am confident that he will not need it. I shall move on rapidly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I try to be aware of your facial expressions and body language. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 cover different territory and we are, mercifully, out of the area of concept and into the area of numbers. Amendment No. 6 is a probing amendment. Clause 3 states: For the purpose of determining whether a person is resident in a dwelling on the relevant date for the purposes of section 4 above, his residence in the dwelling shall not be taken to have been interrupted by reason of his absence in the performance of any duty arising from or incidental to any office, service or employment held or undertaken by him if … he intends to resume actual residence within six months of giving up such residence, and will not be prevented from doing so by the performance of that duty". Amendment No. 6 suggests that the period should be three months, and I invite the Minister to explain why it should be six months. I believe that three months would be more appropriate, but I am open to persuasion. I am confident that the Minister will be able to persuade us of his reasons, but I would like them to be put on the record.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am? Earlier in the debate, the number of months necessary to establish residency in Northern Ireland was put at three, but the number of months in clause 3 is six. We heard earlier about inconsistencies between the laws in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but this is an inconsistency between one part of the Bill and another.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister's explanation, but the three months mentioned in the earlier debate about Northern Ireland related to the length of time that one must be able to establish residency before being able to register, but in this case we are talking about how long someone can be away from his established address but still remain validly registered. In the context of the new, dynamic, rolling register, six months may be too long if we wish to guarantee the reliability, validity and security of the register. We are launching ourselves into an experiment in democracy. I am not convinced that we need the Bill at all—although I do not wish to pre-empt my speech on Third Reading—but if we are to have this misbegotten, ill-thought-out and unnecessary measure, we must do what we can to make the register secure. We must be able to guarantee to the electorate that the new process will be tamper proof and cannot be misused.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My right hon. Friend is persuasive, but I am puzzled by his argument. I can imagine many circumstances in which people—such as officers and other ranks in the Merchant Navy, or those serving in the Army, Royal Air Force or Royal Navy—would be absent from home for longer than three months, if not six months. Should not the amendment increase the time that a person is permitted to be away from home without being taken off the register?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I accept that point. I am not aware that there are special arrangements for the military.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

indicated assent.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Under-Secretary of State is nodding. I am not surprised. The arrangements are probably buried somewhere in a schedule—[Interruption.] He confirms that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) makes a good point, which we should always bear in mind, but most military people often take the opportunity of proxy votes, postal votes or whatever. However, it would be useful if the Minister said a few words about the matter when he replies to the debate. I come to the next provision that we are seeking to probe through a little amendment. Clause 3(4) says: For the purposes of subsection (3) above"— the one that we have just been considering— any temporary period of unemployment shall be disregarded. That worries me. When I see a term such as "temporary" in this context in a Bill, I wonder whether it is the proper word to use. It gives rise to enormous potential for interpretation by different registration officers. It is possible that the Minister will want to tell me that the provision will be more closely specified in regulations. That would be half an argument.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion—nay, cynicism—that the inclusion of "temporary" with regard to unemployment might be an example of the politicisation of the Home Office?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I do not think that I share my hon. Friend's view. It is just sloppy drafting, not a conspiracy. It is a cock-up, which happens so often these days, I regret to say, even in something as important as legislation. The use of a term as variable and as open to diverse interpretation as "temporary" is unwise in such a Bill. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I have suggested in our amendment that we insert a period of unemployment of less than three months. It would put beyond doubt and beyond interpretation what the registration officer should have in mind when he does his necessary work and verifies the register's contents. I should like to think that the Minister will accept the amendment. I will not die in the last ditch over it at this stage. If he were to tell me that the period of three months was not right, but some other period was, I would go along with him. If we leave a word such as "temporary" in the Bill, how would that provide sufficient security in the nationwide implementation of the measure, were it ever to come to that? Indeed, does it provide sufficient guidance for either local authorities when they contemplate pilot schemes, or registration officers when they have to implement the provision? I do not believe that it does. We are pursuing a constant theme, to which we will return during discussion of future groups of amendments: is there sufficient tightness, sufficient security, in all the measures to make them reliable and effective? That is the thrust of my argument.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I will, but I am trying to conclude.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way as he seeks to conclude his argument. Does he agree that it would not be mere cynicism, but justified apprehension on our part to consider that the clause's failure to define the meaning of the word "temporary" for that purpose might indicate the Government's intention to allow themselves maximum flexibility in the regulations? Although that might be good news for Ministers, it could be a source of growing anxiety to hundreds of electoral registration officers throughout the country.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That has to be the case. As my hon. Friend spoke, another thought flitted across my mind. I will try to dismiss it because I doubt that it could be true—but it is just possible that, were unemployment to start to rise dramatically from the level that, mercifully, it is at present, that would have a severe impact on the clause and on its implementation, constituency by constituency, registration officer by registration officer. It is one thing to frame such legislation in the happy circumstances in which we find ourselves in terms of unemployment at the moment, but we are legislating for a long period. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, anything that is put in the Bill will, by definition, exist for quite some time. You know better than me that changing primary legislation is not easy. Therefore, we must feel triply reassured about whatever appears in the Bill. Those are the questions that I pose. We want to be helpful; we want to be flexible. Conservative Members are not being dogmatic. However, we are looking for the Minister's analysis, reasoning and explanation of those provisions in the Bill, either accepting our amendments or giving us cast-iron reassurances that the unhappiness that I have expressed is groundless and that that part of the Bill is secure. That is what I am looking for.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your predecessor had to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I did not raise this as a point of order at the time, because it would have stopped the flow of a very important debate. My hon. Friend used the word "gobbledegooker" and your predecessor in the Chair could not see the eyes of the Hansard writer above you roll upwards at the use of a word that does not exist. Did the previous Deputy Speaker indicate whether some guidance could be given, or whether my hon. Friend should be asked to provide a spelling for the word, because otherwise we will have some difficulty?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I suggest that the hon. Member would do better to stick to the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this was a difficult point in a difficult debate. However, as you say, there are important amendments before us which we must consider and, if necessary, vote on. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) both explained, we are dealing with six separate amendments. Although they are related, they raise five individual, but linked, issues. It is important to consider each of those five issues carefully and separately. When moving amendment No. 46, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said that it was a probing amendment. He said, quite rightly, that we wanted the Minister to explain why this provision had been included in the Bill. We should also consider why it is not sufficient to stick to the facts. The subsection provides that we must consider the purpose of someone's presence or absence as well as the facts. I always thought that legislation aimed at being clear and precise and at sticking to the point. Someone is either present or they are not; they are either absent or they are not. The reason why is not the issue. As I understand it, the electoral register seeks to determine someone's residence. We could get locked into an argument about why people choose to live where they do as a purpose for being there. Surely that is not the issue. Why are the facts of the matter not sufficient? Why do we have to wander into the issue of the purpose of presence or absence? What does the Minister mean by "purpose"? The Bill is not satisfied with the purpose alone—it states that regard shall be had in particular, to the purpose". As my right hon. Friend said, that raises the opportunity to include all sorts of other things, as well as purpose. If the Minister considers it necessary to specify that the purpose is relevant, why does he not tell us which other issues are relevant? Why not spell them out? He chooses to spell out "purpose"—why have the catch-all of "in particular", which allows the Bill to introduce anything else? Does the Minister have anything else in mind?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Rare are the occasions upon which I diverge in my opinions on these matters from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). But does he agree that the inclusion of "purpose" is not in itself objectionable; it is the fact that the Government have so far failed—it is a risible failure—to specify the difference between good reasons and bad, and to distinguish between circumstances that could be anticipated by a resident and those that could not?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am saddened that my hon. Friend does not go with the flow of my argument. I would be inclined to share his point of view unless I were given a good reason for the word's inclusion. The whole thing is very curious and difficult. The Government are asking me to support in legislation the concept that, even if people are present somewhere, it could be said that they are not. Alternatively, we are being asked to accept legislation that provides that, even if people are absent, if they can give a good enough explanation, they can be said to be present. That is the most extraordinary concept to introduce into legislation. Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) described the amendment as probing, I am slightly disappointed; the amendment should be for real. The gobbledegook to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred applies to this matter. Why can we not simply stick to the facts? If we accepted amendment No. 46, we should be left with the facts; that should be sufficient for British legislation.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I do not want to do the Minister's job for him. I am sure that he will deal with this point shortly. However, one might imagine circumstances in which a person lives at a particular address for the specific purpose of registering to vote. There could be widespread corruption; for example, people might move to a key marginal seat for two or three months—three months in this case—to change the voting outcome there. It would be right for the registration officer to take account of people's purpose in being in an area when considering their application for registration. It is harder to imagine why people should specifically want to be absent and why the registration officer should take account of that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is a valid point. If the House supports my hon. Friend's view, it is incumbent on the Government to state which purposes they would accept as good. My hon. Friend gives an example of a practice that, I hope, is not acceptable; it would be a bad purpose. To state only that purposes can be taken into account does not meet the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. If we accept my hon. Friend's argument, the Government will need to introduce further amendments in the other place. Amendment No. 5 would come into play if amendment No. 46 were to fail. I am a politician who likes to think well of my opponents, so I have great hope in the Government. I am sure that the reasonableness of the intricate arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the past few minutes will have persuaded the Minister of the justice of our cause, and that we will not need to invoke amendment No. 5. However, in case we need to do so, we should discuss it.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I put to my hon. Friend the same question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): does he agree that the insertion of the word "verifiable" is tautology? The word used in the clause is "fact". Do not all facts have to be verifiable, by definition?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was coming to that point as gently as I could. I suspect that the discussion is coming off the rails, because my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has difficulties with some of my arguments and I have some difficulties with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. Amendment No. 5—to insert the word "verifiable"—will be essential if amendment No. 46 does not succeed. That is because our society is based on the rule of law—that is how our system operates. I am not a lawyer, but I understand the rule of law to be the ability to prove an asserted fact. If that is so, there needs to be verifiable purpose. I could not go along with the concept that, in a matter that is as serious as the representation of the people, all one has to do is explain something and one's word will be accepted.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

If my hon. Friend is correct, and he uses that argument to support the insertion of the word "verifiable", would it not be necessary to use the word "verifiable" every time the word "fact" or any other condition is mentioned in a Bill? Clearly, that is not so.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.