Orders of the Day — Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

House of Commons, 13 March 2000.

INVOLVEMENT OF COMMISSION IN CHANGES IN ELECTORAL PROCEDURES

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 131.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

New clause 1 and amendment No. 131 will extend the functions of the Electoral Commission so as to include a role in relation to pilot schemes. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 makes provision for local authorities to bring forward proposals for pilot schemes for the purpose of testing electoral innovations such as early voting and electronic voting at local government elections. Section 11 of that Act also provides for the Secretary of State, in the light of the success of such pilots, to apply such electoral innovations to local government elections generally. It is clearly right that the Electoral Commission should have a role here. The Bill already provides the commission with a broad remit in relation to electoral law and with a role in providing advice and assistance to other authorities in relation to electoral matters. It will also have an important role in promoting public participation in the democratic process. Those functions clearly dovetail with the rationale behind the arrangements for the conduct of pilot schemes, and it would be a serious omission not to provide the commission with a clear role. Amendment No. 131 will amend sections 10 and 11 of the Representation of the People Act so as to spell out the commission's role. New clause 1 will add to the commission's functions under part I a power to participate with a local authority in the joint submission of proposals for a pilot scheme and to provide assistance to that authority in conducting the pilot.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

Is there any way in which an individual or organisation can appeal if a local authority is refusing to undertake a pilot scheme in particular areas? I have it in mind that certain areas may have a heavy Labour or heavy Conservative vote. What is to stop the party that does not control the council making representations that the pilot area should be extended to other areas of the council?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

We have not yet been able to approve pilot schemes, but we shall consult local authorities this week. The orders are being drafted, and I hope to be able to lay them before Parliament on Thursday, when we will be able to announce which pilots we are approving. We have, however, considered the provisional pilots and, where we have been informed of a substantive disagreement within various councils, such as Conservatives disagreeing with a Labour-controlled council, we have in most cases decided not to proceed with the application. I have had a few discussions through the usual channels to find out whether there are any particular problems. At present, there are no means by which someone can introduce a proposal to extend the remit of a pilot scheme but, if the new clause is accepted, an obvious way to do so would be to ask the Electoral Commission to make the proposal and discuss it with the local authority so that, hopefully, the authority would then agree with the commission that it was worth approving the pilot. Any scheme would then have to be fully evaluated to see whether it prevented personation and ensured that more people participated. If the Electoral Commission felt that it could endorse the scheme, it might then be rolled out nationally in local government elections only. As will become clear, our view is that any roll-out for parliamentary elections would have to be done by legislation.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The Minister referred to UK general elections. Although we are dealing primarily here with local government, how will the legislation interface with the National Assembly for Wales, with regard to the Assembly's involvement with local government, which is obviously directly relevant, or with any wish by the Assembly to develop pilot schemes that are particularly relevant in Wales?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

We would want to proceed with changes in the operation of electoral procedures in local government, or indeed in national Government, only after full discussion and consultation with the Welsh Assembly and Executive. Throughout consideration of the Representation of the People Act and this Bill, which deals with the organisation of political parties, we have sought to ensure that the views of parties in the Welsh Assembly are considered. We have also had several discussions with the Executive at different stages to ensure that, although our proposals might not have universal approval, they are at least broadly supported by parties in Wales. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him about exactly how the procedures for local government elections will operate in Wales and to set out clearly how the measures will apply.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if a local authority proceeds with a pilot scheme and decides that it is beneficial but subsequently changes its mind, its initial decision would be revocable?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

A local authority could decide to undertake a pilot scheme and undertake it, but it would then have to submit a report on the scheme and, before it was able to repeat the exercise, receive the consent of the Electoral Commission—indeed, the Home Office would have to approve the scheme. Therefore, in the sense that the local authority could not undertake another pilot scheme if we were dissatisfied with the way in which the first one was conducted, its initial decision is revocable. The fact that an authority has decided to undertake a pilot scheme once does not mean that it would be able to do so in subsequent years.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Or would have to?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Where the commission does not co-sponsor a pilot scheme, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the commission before making an order providing for the implementation of a pilot scheme proposed only by a local authority. During the passage of the Representation of the People Act, several hon. Members, both here and in another place, stressed the need to provide for the independent and objective evaluation of the pilot schemes. For the first wave of pilot schemes in May, the task of evaluating such schemes will fall to the relevant local authority. However, during debate of the Representation of the People Bill on Report in another place on 29 February, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary said that the Electoral Commission would have an important role in evaluating the operation of pilot schemes. Indeed, we envisage that, in future, such evaluation would fall to the commission. Amendment No. 131 would amend section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 to that end. The commission would be expected to work closely with the relevant local authority, which would also be required to provide the commission with appropriate assistance in preparing the report. That assistance might, for example, take the form of seeking the views of voters, parties and electoral staff on the success of the scheme, and of providing information on the cost of the pilot scheme. The local authority would also be required to publish the commission's report in its area. Evaluation of the outcomes of pilot schemes leads naturally to the question of the roll-out of successful innovations to local government elections generally. Section 11(1) of the Representation of the People Act provides for successful pilots to be rolled out by order of the Secretary of State. As recommended by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in another place, amendment No. 135 would amend section 11(1) so that the order-making power may be exercised only on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. Our intention is that that new requirement will apply to innovations piloted this May, as well as to those successfully piloted in subsequent elections. It will therefore provide safeguards which I hope will satisfy all in the House. The new clause and amendment No. 135 will provide the independent Electoral Commission with a decisive role in the conduct, evaluation and wider application of pilot schemes. Amendment No. 6 responds to the point raised in Committee by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who made the case for the Electoral Commission's reports under clause 5 to be published at the same time as they were submitted to the Home Secretary. In Committee, we said that we had no difficulty with the broad thrust of his argument, but that the question of publication should be left in the hands of the Electoral Commission. Any reports produced by the commission under the provisions of clause 5 would, in effect, constitute expert advice to the Government of the day from an independent statutory authority. The commission will have ownership of that advice, and it should rightly be for the commission to publish it in the manner that it sees fit. The amendment makes the position clear. I should add that I would fully expect the commission to publish its reports in parallel to submitting them to the Home Secretary for consideration. Amendment No. 7 adds to the list of delegated powers in relation to elections that may be exercised only by the relevant Secretary of State after consultation with the Electoral Commission. The Representation of the People Act inserted a new section 17A into the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Subsection (3) of it contains a power to prescribe, by order, the arrangements for a free mailshot during future GLA elections. There is already a requirement, under new section 17A(6), on the Secretary of State to consult with such bodies as he considers appropriate before making an order, but it is as well to recognise the particular role that the Electoral Commission will have as the principal source of advice on electoral matters.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. The Government amendments show the efficacy of proper scrutiny of legislation, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House. Last week, by contrast, a guillotine was imposed on discussion of the Representation of the People Bill. The quality of legislation may suffer as a consequence of the quantity, but I hope that we shall make progress on the present Bill in the next two days. We welcome the fact that the Government recognise the importance of the electoral process remaining untarnished by perceived or actual rigging of elections by party politicians. Amendments to the Representation of the People Act 2000 relate to the rolling out of the Secretary of State's powers in regard to future parliamentary elections. I am delighted that the Government have taken the initial steps on a journey that we have been enticing them to make, both in this place and in another place, but there is still some way to go. It is a journey well worth making, as I hope the Minister will agree. On 9 February, the Select Committee on Deregulation issued a report that proposed that changes to electoral law be made in consultation with the new Electoral Commission. The Government also accepted the recommendation that other sweeping powers relating to electoral changes to parliamentary elections require primary legislation. That was enshrined in the Representation of the People Act 2000, and we thank the Government for those changes. The Neill report in October 1998 called for the establishment of the Electoral Commission and for the commission to be given a wide remit, including the review within six months of major elections and referendums. Recommendation 72 proposes that the Government should consult the Commission before making or proposing any changes relating to electoral law and administration. With regard to the commission and to electoral law and administration, I have some questions about the Government's new clauses and amendments. We have enormous reservations about the make-up of the Electoral Commission, in view of the powers that it is to be given. We know that it will comprise between five and nine members, as recommended by the Neill committee. The Neill report further recommended that the commission should include no party politicians. That is a sound recommendation. The Speaker's Committee is to be established, on which politicians will serve. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent past or present party politicians being members of the Electoral Commission, and we hope that the Government will reconsider its composition. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) will comment on the timetable for the establishment of the commission and the pilots due to take place in May. Problems may arise because of the time lapse between the pilots and the setting up of the Electoral Commission and the appointment of the chief executive. It is important that the changes are made and seen to be made by an independent body. A number of pilots have already been approved by the Secretary of State, and the new body must be given sight of the local authority reports when the pilots take place. Can the Minister say what will happen to those reports, given the time lag? I believe that the Home Secretary told our shadow Home Secretary in a letter that the commission will be up and running in November. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. If that is the case, we hope that the reports will be made available in November.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

We will use our best endeavours, but I cannot provide a complete reassurance that everything will be in place by that date. However, we are doing our best to get things moving.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for that response. The Minister knows why we are worried about the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire will also refer to the powers of the new chief executive, who will be appointed before the chairman of the Electoral Commission. We have other anxieties. Several pilots will be up and running throughout the country and, when the new commission is established, it will not only have the power—indeed, the obligation—to consider their efficacy, but it will have to deal with representations from several other local authorities, which want to introduce pilots next year. The Electoral Commission will thus have a lot of work in its initial stages. We want to ensure that it will be an absolute success. Will the Minister therefore explain the way in which he envisages the Electoral Commission working, and comment on the fact that it will begin its work long after the first pilot schemes have been established? Will the Minister also confirm that the Electoral Commission may also want to investigate the London mayoral elections, or will it have no power to examine them? After the rigged referendum in Wales, the Neill committee presented important recommendations on the publication of literature by the Government. The Electoral Commission may want to consider what happened in that referendum to ensure that future referendums are not rigged. It may also want to present proposals on the London mayoral elections. As the Minister knows, the list of pilots was made available to bodies outside the House before the House knew about them. We have received written answers about that from him, and he has given explanations at the Dispatch Box. However, in the next roll-out in 2001, the Electoral Commission and local authorities will work together, and we are keen to ensure that the House will be informed of the pilots before the Press Association or any other bodies. We should be told at least at the same time as local authorities. Let us consider Government amendment No. 7. There has been much controversy about the literature for the Greater London Authority elections. First, we were told that it would be impossible for any free literature to be made available to the electorate. We were then told that the costs of doing that would be prohibitive. However, we are now told that it is not only possible to produce such literature, but that the costs have shrunk dramatically. A hard-fought victory for democracy was won by the unelected House of Lords. We know why the Government were not keen initially on free mailshots for the London mayoral elections. However, they will now be provided. Even Dafydd Elis-Thomas was heard to remark in the House of Lords that politics was a funny business, and that he never thought that he would vote in the same Lobby as Margaret Thatcher in defence of Ken Livingstone. Why do the Government wish to retain power over future mailshots? A mailshot is assured only for the first Londonwide elections. Why cannot the commission have the same powers for mailshots as it has for rolling out further reforms for pilot elections? The Secretary of State no longer has the power unilaterally to introduce changes to elections; he has to do that on the commission's recommendation. There is a suspicion that the Government want to retain at least a reserve power to stop mailshots, and act in cahoots with a more compliant second Chamber in future. The Minister may call me cynical, but my cynicism is bred from the stench of rigging and control freakery of which the former Soviet Union would be proud. Will the Minister allay the House's suspicions and agree to reconsider whether the commission should introduce recommendations for future mailshots in London mayoral elections? If so, we will be reassured that the Government are not continuing to try to rig elections.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked me about the composition of the Electoral Commission. We believe that, essentially, members of the commission should be above party politics. Generally, that would mean those who were not recently actively engaged in the party political process. We would want to be sure that those who were appointed to the commission had the broad support of all the political parties in the House. We would not wish it to be thought that an attempt was being made to put in place a group of party political hacks, who might try to manipulate the situation to their own advantage. That is not the way in which the Neill report envisaged the commission operating, and it is not the way in which the Government want it to operate. I trust that we shall have the Opposition's support in ensuring that the process takes place in a way that is seen as above the fray.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I will clarify the matter and then give way. We have already discussed whether someone who had been involved in politics by standing as a candidate some time ago would be excluded from the commission. I would not necessarily exclude such a person, but it is not our intention to include him or her in the process. We do not have a particular view on who will be on the commission but, in due course, we shall be starting the examination of possible candidates. We hope that they will be of the great and good, but not too political.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for that reassurance. Will the Minister therefore confirm that no current Member of the House of Lords will be eligible for membership of the commission? Given the number of hereditary peers who have left the House of Lords, does he envisage some of them being used for the commission? I hear what he says about consultation with leaders of political parties that are represented in this place by two or more Members. Will each political leader have a black ball to put against any names that come forward if he is unhappy about those people?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I hope that these things can be done by consensus rather than black balls. We do not want to get into black balls—that approach leads to the situation where one side blackballs, followed by the other. We want there to be a number of individuals who are seen to be above the party political fray, whom broadly everyone can accept. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether any Member of the House of Lords might be included in the process. Law Lords are able to sit in another place, and I would not wish to exclude individuals of that calibre from the commission. We need to ensure that we have a commission with which all parties with two or more Members sitting in the House are broadly satisfied. I hope that other political parties will be able to go along with that, to ensure that the members of the commission are of a high calibre and the sort of people who can be relied upon to reach independent and fair judgments.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Will the Minister give way?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am not getting very far in responding to the debate, but I shall give way.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Perhaps I might tempt the Minister to go a little further. The debate in Committee on this matter focused not only on where potential members of the commission might come from but on where they might go. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I moved some amendments to prevent members continuing in office if they were going to take up political activity. We should have some poachers becoming gamekeepers, but not gamekeepers becoming poachers.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I do not envisage these people subsequently deciding to become involved in politics. I suspect that those who are likely to sit on that body would not be likely to get involved in partisan politics or to put themselves into the fray but, if they did so, questions would have to be asked about whether they would continue in that role. We would want to be very careful about the types of individual who were members of the Electoral Commission and avoid that problem arising in the first place. Let me answer some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. In terms of the pilots, there will be a time lapse before the Electoral Commission is in place. Subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent by summer, we aim to establish the commission in November 2000, and its priority will be to put in place the arrangements for the reporting of donations and the controls on electoral campaign spending. We will therefore need to discuss with the commission the extent to which it can be involved in pilot schemes at the May 2001 elections. Any roll-out of such schemes to local government elections generally will be on the commission's recommendation. A number of pilot schemes will be tested this year and we shall evaluate those tests, but I should be surprised if we were able to roll them out before the next election—although that would not be impossible, were there no controversy—and the time scale will probably be slightly longer. We would hope to have the Electoral Commission in place by then. We would also hope that it would be in a position at least to examine some of the possible pilots for next year. If we were to set up the commission in November, evaluation would probably have to take place in December and the time scales for the pilots for May 2001 would become very tight. We could leave the decision late, as we have done for parliamentary reasons this year, but that would not be desirable. We would like to tell the local authorities the pilots to which we had agreed before that. The Electoral Commission's role would, to some extent, depend on its ability to deliver an evaluation. We would want it to be involved, but in the interim we would deal with these matters by ensuring that there was proper consultation between the political parties and a way of evaluating each scheme. We would not proceed where there were serious political objections, particularly during the next year. There is lots of speculation about various things that might happen next year and we would be particularly cautious about the way in which we proceeded with pilots then. We would be able to evaluate those schemes. If we were disposed, without any great controversy, to agree to some extension of the electoral arrangements, that would be done by affirmative order. It would be fully debated in the House. Again, it would be in no one's interests—certainly not the Government's—to put electoral arrangements that are a matter of party political dispute before the people of this country. We are trying to move forward by consensus. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Electoral Commission would consider the mayoral elections, but they might have taken place a year previously by the time it got round to holding an inquiry, and it would have to consider party donations and perhaps evaluate some of the pilots before doing so. I cannot preclude that, and there may be good reasons for making such a decision-1 do not know—but that would be essentially a matter for the commission. It seems to me that the time scale does not easily lend itself to such an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman asked about the announcement of provisional pilots. I hope that there would be more publicity about which pilots were being considered. I have been concerned that there has not been the lead-in time to enable some Members of Parliament to be fully consulted by their local authorities because of the way in which things have been done over the year, because of delays with the Bill and because of a number of issues in respect of which authorities would introduce pilots. Indeed, I pulled at least one pilot because Members of Parliament said not only that they had not been consulted, but that they would have disagreed if they had been. We did not want to get into a controversy even if it were internal and involved one political party, as in this case, rather than inter-party. 4.45 pm The best way to carry out these pilots is for them to be as uncontroversial as possible, so that there is broad support. We should evaluate them properly, and the House should decide in due course whether to go further. Before we proceed on a broader basis, we should consider the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about postage and payment for the distribution of electoral addresses for the Greater London Assembly elections. That brings us back to the debate that we had last week. The Conservatives want the distribution of their election addresses to be subsidised by the taxpayer. The Conservative party has financial problems owing to its lack of support in the country. The hon. Gentleman tries our patience by arguing that decisions on whether taxpayers' money should be spent on subsidising political parties in elections should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and given to the Electoral Commission. I am not easily convinced by that argument. I suspect that, when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have considered the proposal, they will not be able to endorse it. The House has always jealously guarded decisions on the expenditure of taxpayers' money. I suspect that most Tories would not endorse handing them over to an entirely independent and unelected body. The Electoral Commission may, in certain circumstances, be prepared to express a view on that issue, which the House could consider seriously, but the decision on expenditure should always rest with the House.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Our view has nothing to do with the Conservative party wanting money to distribute our publications, but everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—and everyone knows that, so the Minister's point is a smokescreen. It was a hard-won victory in the other place. We are keen to ensure that the Government take the Electoral Commission's views seriously if it says that it is vital to have free postage to ensure that the electorate are fully informed of the various merits and policies of the candidates. I understand what the Minister says about giving another body responsibility for the expenditure of taxpayers' money, but he must accept that, for the full workings of democracy, it is important that all candidates can avail themselves of the opportunity to have their publications delivered to every house in London.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am not sure whether this new clause is the appropriate place to debate that issue. I was a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this was nothing to do with the Conservative party, and everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The Conservative party's advocacy of this proposal now seems to have everything to do with its support for the hon. Member for Brent, East. I suspect that Steven Norris would be a little chagrined by the hon. Gentleman's view. The Conservatives moved from supporting Lord Archer to Steven Norris, and now they are supporting the hon. Member for Brent, East. That is a surprise. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Conservative party advocated this measure before the hon. Member for Brent, East indicated his intention to stand as an independent candidate in the London mayoral elections. I find his suggestion that this has nothing to do with the finances of the Tory party difficult to believe. In any event, I am grateful to him for his broad support for the Government's new clauses and amendments.

PAYMENTS ETC. WHICH ARE (OR ARE NOT) TO BE TREATED AS DONATIONS BY PERMISSIBLE DONORS

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 15, 90 to 93, 96, 23, 97 to 100, 103 to 106, 111 and 114.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am intrigued that the Minister is not speaking to what is a large group of amendments. When we discussed the Bill in the Standing Committee, I was delighted that the Government promised to revisit on Report the two important aspects that are covered in the amendments. One concerns the international links that our various political parties have. Under the Bill as drafted, there is a danger that we may cut ourselves off from the outside world to prevent any money flowing through the international links that our parties have. It is clear that a modern political party should be able to deal with its sister parties overseas. The second important strand deals with the power of trustees and bequests. Government amendments Nos. 15, 111 and 114 essentially seek to delete the paragraph which states that any donation received by a registered party by way of a donation by a trustee, in his capacity as such, shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor. That was at variance with Neill. Although Neill was fairly specific about blind trusts, that paragraph would have covered open trusts. Neill's recommendation 22 was that open trusts should be permitted, and it was my understanding that the Government had accepted that. Paragraph 3.37 of their White Paper states: In recommendations 22 and 23 of their report, the Neill committee addressed the wider issue of donations to individual members of political parties or to unofficial groups within a party, as distinct from donations to political parties as such. The Government sympathises with the view that the principles of openness and accountability should apply equally to such donations. Consider the case of a trust that was set up as a result of a bequest, the purpose of which was to donate funds for political purposes. To suggest, as the clause does, that that would not be a permissible source flies in the face of Neill and in the face of what I regard as natural justice. I hope not to die too soon, but, if I were to leave a bequest that was managed by trustees on my part and my will said that I would like the trustees at their discretion to make occasional donations to the Conservative party, I would expect my wishes to be carried out. Subsection (4) would mean that trustees would not be able to carry out my wishes; it would not be permissible to make such a donation. In Committee, the Opposition made it clear that we saw little purpose in banning such donations. I welcome the Government's acceptance of that, as I welcome their acceptance that international links should be preserved and that the money necessary to preserve those links should be allowed to flow.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

For my part, I welcome the direction in which the new clause is going. The discussion in Committee covered many of the points, and I echo what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has said. One or two loose ends remain. May I ask the Minister to say something on the role of trustees of property? I have done my best to comprehend precisely what the Minister believes he has achieved in that area. I am still not sure that the Government have achieved what hon. Members want them to achieve. I ask the Minister to say a little more about subsection (5) and how it will be applied, especially as the words used in the subsection are used in many other parts of the Bill. Broadly, however, I welcome new clause 2, and Liberal Democrat Members will support it.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who have supported this group of amendments, which give effect to the prohibition on foreign and anonymous donations. The Bill currently prevents political parties and other regulated bodies and persons from accepting donations from sources other than permissible donors. One effect of that provision is to prevent not only hon. Members, but party members and party officers from undertaking overseas visits at the expense of an overseas Government or body. That was not our direct intention. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has rightly said, it is important that we maintain our international links with parties of a similar philosophical view. Such links both add to knowledge abroad of this country, and enable us to maintain very important relationships with other countries that benefit the United Kingdom not only politically, but in many other spheres. Hon. Members undertake many and varied overseas visits in pursuance of their proper parliamentary duties. Such visits are invaluable in promoting hon. Members' understanding of a wide variety of issues, and thereby better equip them to discharge their duties as parliamentarians. A quick glance through the Register of Members' Interests reveals visits paid for by overseas Governments, overseas territories, overseas Parliaments and a variety of political foundations, such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The main point is that, in the Bill as it stands, not all those sponsors would constitute a permissible donor. The issue is not confined to Members of Parliament. We have had representations from the Green party and other groups about their arrangements, and they have sought the type of changes proposed in this group of amendments. New clause 2 and the raft of amendments grouped with it are directed primarily at addressing that issue. The key provisions are in subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause, which applies to donations to political parties. Government amendment No. 100 makes identical provisions for party members, members of associations and holders of elected office. I very much hope that the House will accept this group of amendments. From the broad support that hon. Members have demonstrated for the provisions, it seems that they will be accepted. A subsidiary purpose of this group of amendments is, in certain very limited cases, to allow donations from trustees. Clause 48(4)(b) currently provides that a donation received by a registered party from a trustee acting in his capacity as such is to be treated as a donation from a person who is not a permissible donor. That provision sits uncomfortably with clause 48(3), on donations made in the form of a bequest. Clearly, when a person's will includes a bequest of money or property to a political party, the trustees of the will should be able to give effect to that bequest. Reckless as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) may be to want to give money to the party that he mentioned, I think that he should have every right to do so. Provided that the deceased was on the electoral register at the time of his or her death, the registered party named in the will should be able to accept the bequest. There may be other cases in which a trustee is simply acting as an agent in passing money or property. Again, it would be legitimate for a party to accept a donation of property provided that the person on whose behalf the trustee is acting is a permissible—that is, registered—donor. In such circumstances, clause 48(7) would apply, and the trustee would be acting as an agent for another person. That other person would be recorded as the donor. I hope that, now that those points have been dealt with, the House will be able to give strong support to the new clause and amendments in this group.

TRANSFER TO COMMISSION OF FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 140, in schedule 1, page 99, line 21, at end insert— 'or by the Scottish Parliament in pursuance of section [Transfer to Commission of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland] (8)'. No. 141, in clause 5, page 4, line 7, after "however", insert— 'save with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly (as the case may be)'. No. 142, in page 4, line 26, at end insert— '(iv) local government elections in Scotland (with the consent of the Scottish Parliament); and'. No. 143, in clause 8, page 6, line 31, at end insert— 'unless the Scottish Parliament requests otherwise'. No. 144, in clause 11, page 8, line 16, after "Scotland", insert— 'except with the consent of the Scottish Parliament'.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

We are revisiting an issue that was touched on in Committee. There appeared to be a possible problem that the House could help to solve. As a result of the Scotland Act 1998, all responsibility over local government in Scotland is given to the Scottish Parliament. It is for the Scottish Parliament to determine how local government is to be run, what alterations might be made to its structure and to boundaries and, in particular, how elections might be conducted. I emphasise that we have no problem with that. However, as we looked through the Bill, it became apparent that there are many areas in which the Electoral Commission might—I emphasise that word—be of benefit to the Scottish Parliament and Executive. We are setting up a structure with responsibilities for England and for certain devolved matters in Wales. Our concern was that if the Scottish Parliament and Executive wished to avail themselves of the services of the Electoral Commission, they should be in a position to do so. I emphasise that we are not seeking to tell the Scottish Parliament how they should go about their own business. That applies to the ability of the Electoral Commission to provide input and advice to the boundary commission. Scotland has a distinctive, small commission that deals only with local government boundaries. The services of the Electoral Commission may be wanted for that purpose.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

It may assist the hon. Gentleman to know that he does not have to convince me in principle. We are having discussions with the Scottish Executive on how to move forward. We may well be able to table amendments in another place in due course.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am grateful to the Minister. I knew that the matter appeared to be of some interest to the Government when we raised it previously and I am grateful for a progress report. We were waiting for the Report stage to see how matters were progressing. In those circumstances, I do not intend to take up more of the time of the House. Having re-read the new clause, I should emphasise that, if the boundary commission for local government matters in Scotland were subsumed into the Electoral Commission, that commission should then report to the Scottish Parliament and Executive and not here. Otherwise, there would be a suggestion that we were trying to ratchet those powers back. I flag that up because I am the first to accept that the phrasing of the new clause might be capable of improvement. Subject to those comments and to the Minister's helpful remarks, I shall ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The hon. Gentleman should give the Minister an opportunity to reply before he does so.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked me for an update. 1 thought that I might not have a chance to give one. We are considering similar proposals and we are sympathetic to the broad principles that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said on 14 February, we are discussing with the Scottish Executive whether they wish to include provisions along the lines of the new clause and associated amendments. The Scottish Parliament and Executive have said that they would welcome an order-making power exercisable by Scottish Ministers to enable the functions of the local government boundary commission for Scotland to be transferred to the Electoral Commission. They have also agreed that there should be a similar enabling power to extend, to local government elections in Scotland, with the agreement of the Scottish Executive and Parliament, the Electoral Commission's remit under clause 8(3)(a) and clause 11. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield is right that the commission would then have to report to the Scottish Parliament. In the light of this agreement, I am ready to accept in principle the new clause and amendments Nos. 140, 143 and 144. The Government will table amendments along similar lines when the Bill reaches another place. We propose that those amendments will provide that the various functions in relation to local government boundaries and elections may be transferred to the Electoral Commission by an order made by a member of the Scottish Executive. Any such order would be subject to the equivalent of the affirmative resolution procedure in the Scottish Parliament. I should add that we see no need for provisions along the lines of amendments Nos. 141 or 142. Under clause 8(1) the commission may, at the request of any relevant body, provide that body with advice and assistance in respect of any matter in which the commission has skill and experience. The definition of a "relevant body" in clause 8(6) includes the Scottish Parliament and Executive, and the National Assembly for Wales. It would therefore be open to the Scottish Parliament to request, for example, that the commission undertake a review of electoral law in relation to local government elections, or for the National Assembly to ask the commission to review the conduct of a poll held under section 36 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Given that clause 8(1) essentially has the same effect as amendments Nos. 141 and 142, I am pleased that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is disposed to withdraw them.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am sorry to have had to rush in for this debate, which I had not expected to start so early. I am aware that the debate applies to Scotland, but the Minister has referred to Wales. Some parts of the electoral law in Wales come under the Home Office, and others come under what used to be the Welsh Office and the National Assembly. To what extent are the Minister's comments about Scotland applicable to Wales?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The right hon. Gentleman will know that he has to be quick in this House, and I am pleased that he managed to get here for the debate. However, I am not sure of the focus of his question. The Government would always seek to consult the Welsh Executive and the Welsh Assembly if there were to be any change to the way that things were done in Wales. We would also hope that the Welsh Assembly would let us know how it wanted to proceed in relation to any matters with which it deals. So far, dealing with devolved matters has proved remarkably easy. Good relationships are being developed, and plenty of discussions are being held between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Executive here in London. I hope that we will be able to ensure that the procedures that we use will be acceptable to all parties.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I agree that, where good will exists, the system can be made to work. However, I seek some clarification from the Minister. Orders may occasionally need to be made, and I was asking about the facility that exists to enable the National Assembly for Wales to make them. Given that the local government legislation has transferred powers to the Assembly, will provisions equivalent to those that apply to Scotland be made?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The Government do not at present propose to transfer to the Welsh Assembly matters relating to council elections. They are not devolved matters, but there is no reason why the Welsh Assembly should not refer a matter to the Electoral Commission for advice. I am not sure that I have got the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's point—or perhaps I have and have answered it.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I shall try and clarify my question. On several occasions, order-making facilities have been added to Bills going through Westminster, with the result that the National Assembly is able to undertake extra functions. Will the Minister bear in mind the possibility of making such provision for Wales in future, where it seems appropriate that orders should come from the Assembly?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I certainly agree to bear that in mind. If matters are best dealt with in Wales, it is appropriate that they are dealt with there, just as it is right that matters best dealt with here are dealt with here. There may well be occasions in the future when we will be able to act as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was seeking to curtail the debate. Opposition Members are usually accused of trying to spin out debate on their amendments for longer than is justified. I thank the Minister for his comments. I note that the Scottish National party is not represented here today, and assume from that that its members felt reassured by comments that they had heard previously that the new clause would not fetter the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for giving us the Welsh dimension. I look forward to seeing what progress has been made when the Bill eventually returns here from the other place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Tax relief for donations to political parties

Relief for donations to political parties

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We consider this proposal important, because it goes to the heart of our democratic process and the party system. It would introduce a tax relief at the basic rate of tax on political donations up to £500 a year. The wording is based on the mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—scheme and the charities gift aid schemes, so it has some tax precedents. Opposition Members have never believed that we should cherry-pick the Neill recommendations. We think that, as far as possible, they should be implemented in full, and that is what the new clause would bring about. We must make what is, perhaps, a philosophical choice about whether we want our political parties to be directly funded by taxpayers—I know some hon. Members would sympathise with that view—or whether we want to implement a procedure to encourage more voluntary donations to political parties. The new clause would encourage voluntary donations. In evidence to the Neill committee, the Conservative party said: Rather than call for state funding we would welcome the Committee's views about how more individuals could be encouraged to donate. We note that in some countries individuals are offered tax relief for political donations, elsewhere tax credits or matching grants are provided. We believe that the Committee should give serious consideration to the practicalities of these approaches in the context of the United Kingdom's voluntary system. The Neill committee's recommendations are set out in our new clause. It is important, in the interests of democracy, for the funding of political parties to be as broadly based as possible. The Neill report cites evidence from Germany about a system of tax relief introduced in 1974, under which the pattern of donations to political parties has changed from significantly large donations to many small ones. That is in keeping with the spirit of the new clause and, we believe, with the Bill. The new clause is identical to a proposal tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 22 June last year in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill. It would amend section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 by inserting a new section 379AA. Lord Neill's recommendation 38 states: Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to eligible registered political parties. Recommendation 39 states: Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes. 5.15 pm Why do we feel that it would be appropriate to include what seems to be a taxation measure in the Bill? The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) said in response to my hon. Friend's amendment to the Finance Bill being considered in Committee in June 1999: The Government do not believe that that is the appropriate way to respond to the Neill committee, which proposed a package of recommendations that should be considered together. That is why I shall ask the Committee to reject the new clause. The question of whether there should be tax relief for donations to political parties—and, if so, how it should operate—must be considered alongside all the proposed measures that we intend to publish in the draft Bill before the summer. That draft Bill has now become the Bill before us. The hon. Lady went on: We should not try to deal with this one aspect in isolation. She continued: It is also necessary to consider the issue of tax relief for donations to political parties alongside the review of tax relief for charitable donations—something that we are already working on with the charitable sector. It would be most unfortunate if the system appeared to be more generous in relation to smaller donations to political parties than in relation to smaller donations to charities. The new clause takes note of that. The then Economic Secetary concluded: I urge hon. Members to await publication of our draft Bill on donations to political parties and campaign expenditure. I hope that, in the spirit of fraternity … the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will agree to withdraw the new clause.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 June 1999; c.778.] It is therefore the Treasury's view that the new clause should be considered as part of this Bill, not in isolation and not as part of a Finance Bill. That is why, although the new clause was tabled in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill last year, it was felt that it should be considered alongside this Bill. As the Minister will be aware, given arguments for and against tax relief, Lord Neill concludes in favour of a system of tax relief. In his evidence to the Neill committee, Lord Razzall, the treasurer of the Liberal Democrats, saw benefit in the tax relief system. He said: I think that as a weapon for the political parties to build up their membership base in particular … as part of that armoury as long as it was structured in a way that was designed to benefit the small donations, I wouldn't be against it. Lord Parkinson, giving evidence on behalf of the Conservative party, said: I think that this is a very attractive idea. I think anything that encourages people to participate in a political process, to get involved in political parties, to broaden the base of their membership is to be welcomed because I think politics is a very honourable profession and supporting a political party is a very worthwhile way of spending one's time and money. It would be wrong to say that there were no arguments against the measure. In his evidence, the finance director of the Labour party, Mr. David Pitt-Watson, said: Tax relief is of value only to people who pay tax— That is true— and where the donations given are of significant size. It would be of little value to the Labour Party, which has 400,000 members who are paying an average of £20 each to the Labour Party's coffers. It would be of enormous value to our opponents. As well as those who give the Labour party an average of £20, many donors give much more. I say with some sadness that I know for a fact that the Labour party has more donors giving more than £5,000 than the Conservative party. I imagine that some of those donors might value a small tax concession. We are aiming not at those who give £20, nor at those who donate £5,000, but at those who want to make a contribution that is significant in their terms. I refer to those on middle incomes who consider that making a substantial donation to a political party is a worthwhile way of spending their money. I offer the example of my Conservative association in North Dorset, which has a successful patrons' club. Members donate £200 and are content to do so without the benefit of tax relief. We should be in a much healthier state, however, if tax relief applied, because more people might be inclined to make such a donation to the party. The Liberal Democrats would benefit, as would the Labour party. The new clause would bring many small to medium-sized donors into the political process. It is not concerned with those who pay basic subscriptions, or with those who can write cheques for £5,000 or even £1 million. Those people will make their contributions anyway, and the tax relief on, say, £500 would be of minimal benefit to them. We want to aim for people who already make charitable donations of up to £500 using the gift aid scheme and who are encouraged to do so by the tax relief granted on their donations. We could enable political parties to broaden the base of their finances so that they are less reliant on large donors of more than £5,000, not to mention those who can donate £1 million or more. We want the financing of political parties to become more broadly based, which was one of the major themes of the Neill report. Such a scheme would constitute a great fillip for democracy and would be of minimal cost to the Treasury. I say that advisedly, having examined the costs of other political parties and compared the figure with the cost of special advisers alone, which is a burden on the taxpayer. This modest money measure would add an entirely appropriate new clause in the Bill, and I commend it.

John MacGregor (Conservative, South Norfolk)

As I was a member of the Neill committee, which drew up the original recommendations, hon. Members will be unsurprised to know that I warmly support the new clause. We should understand from the outset the important difference between tax relief and public funding. Neill did not recommend public funding for general party political purposes, nor is there any stomach in the country for such a proposal. Tax relief, however, depends on individual donors deciding where they want their money to go and making a direct contribution accordingly. The Neill committee took the unanimous view that tax relief should be included as part of the package. "Package" is the relevant word—the committee saw all its recommendations hanging together, and I regret that this is the major element of those recommendations so far left out of the Government's proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) correctly explained the principle behind the Neill committee's proposal. We envisaged that donations from traditional sources to political parties would drop off as a result of our recommendations. We saw tax relief as a means of ensuring that sufficient funds to serve our democratic purposes were attracted to political parties. In particular, if corporate and trade union donations to political parties drop off, making the parties more reliant on donations from wealthy individuals, it would be important to move towards small donations from many people rather than large donations from a few. In an era in which we wish to encourage many more people to participate in our democratic political process—by and large, they must do so through political parties—we can do so by encouraging them to make financial contributions. We have heard that the proposed tax reliefs are similar to those for charities. The House will recall that not long ago there was a leak—this time directly from the Chancellor—to the effect that the Budget would include a new charitable aid package. He gave as one of the reasons the need to encourage people to make that voluntary contribution to important parts of our national life. I believe that nothing in our national life is more important than the democratic process and the work done by political parties in that regard. If there is to be another major package of charitable aid in the Budget, this provision would be only a small addition to it. My final point in favour of the new clause will be brief, because the matter has been debated on other occasions: the principle has already been accepted in the tax system. The Inheritance Tax Act 1984 accepted the principle of tax relief for political donations through inheritance taxes and it is now part of our fiscal law. Several objections have been made to the new clause. The first is that it would help parties that were more likely to receive donations from richer individuals. There are three answers to that point. First, a cap of £500 is proposed. Secondly, the tax relief proposed would be at the basic rate, not at the higher rate or at the marginal rate of the individual; it would thus be the same for every donation. The third answer relates to the argument that the new clause would favour parties that did not rely on large numbers of small donations from people on low incomes—the treasurer of the Labour party may have had that point in mind when he gave evidence to the Neill committee. However, if we consider the current donations to the Labour party, it seems unlikely that many donors are not paying tax. With personal allowances relief at a little more than £4,000, it is unlikely that many people could make a decent contribution to a political party on that amount of income. We all know—because of the frequent new Labour boast—that the Labour party now has a broad spread of membership and donors. There would be no difference between the parties as to the extent to which they benefited.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the marginal rate and the limitation on the amount of tax relief. Does he agree that he and his colleagues on the Neill committee would have been better advised to recommend a tax credit, such as the system they observed in Canada? That would ensure not only that the marginal rate was the same, but that the amount of subsidy would be the same for everyone, regardless of their rate of tax or how much they paid.

John MacGregor (Conservative, South Norfolk)

That is similar to our proposal. There would be a difference for those who pay no tax at all. However, as I have pointed out, few people who pay no tax would be likely to make a contribution to a political party. We did indeed examine tax credits and we carefully considered the Canadian system. We concluded that the British tax system is not appropriate for that system. The proposal that we recommended, and which is in the new clause, is much more relevant to the British system and has a precedent in charitable tax relief—that is why we came down on that side. We asked the Inland Revenue to consider the implications of a tax relief system and what would be most appropriate for the UK. We received a memorandum from the Revenue that made it clear that the proposed system was right for the UK. Furthermore, it would be easy to administer in the UK system. That is why we came down in favour of it. A second objection to the new clause is that it would create a precedent for other forms of tax relief—for example, for certain lobby organisations that were allied to a political view. The answer to that objection is that the inheritance tax reliefs introduced in the 1984 Act have not been extended beyond political parties, so there is no reason why that should be regarded as a precedent for such an extension under the definition in the new clause. The definition in the new clause is the same as the one in inheritance tax legislation. The third objection was the administrative cost of the proposal. In previous debates, the Government have tended to rely on that objection. I believe that the administrative cost would be very light. If the scheme were operated in the way that the scheme for charitable contributions operates, it would be for the political parties to make the claim for tax relief. Therefore, from the Inland Revenue's viewpoint, very few organisations would submit applications for tax relief—far fewer than the number of charities that do so. There would be an administrative burden on political parties, and it would be for them to judge whether they wished to make applications and whether the benefits outweighed the costs, but the cost to the Inland Revenue would be much less than the cost of existing forms of charitable tax relief. Therefore, I do not believe that that objection is a strong argument against the proposal. 5.30 pm Finally, there is the objection that there would be a small cost to pay in terms of the tax forgone—the tax relief allowed. By any calculation, that amount would be small. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset suggested that it would be less than the cost to taxpayers of special advisers. Certainly, it would not be very different from that cost. It would be entirely up to political parties to try to take the maximum advantage of the tax relief by encouraging an increasing number of people who do not currently subscribe to political parties to do so. As I have said, it is one of the main purposes of the proposal to encourage that wider participation in the political process. I believe that the objections, which we did consider very carefully in the Neill committee, do not have sufficient force. That is why we came unanimously to the view that this proposal was a very important part of the overall package. I therefore hope that the Government, now that they have had time to consider all the arguments, will accept, either through this Bill or the Finance Bill, that this proposal is to the benefit of all political parties and does not unfairly benefit one as against another.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I, too, support the new clause, although perhaps not with as much warmth and enthusiasm as others have expressed. I feel that it is an important step forward. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the principle, which has been well outlined and has a pedigree that makes it worthy of support and careful consideration. I do not want to focus my remarks on the direct advantages to political parties of this proposal. Instead, I want to discuss the overall effect that the legislation will have on the funding of political activity in this country. I shall ask the simple question, where will the money to fund political parties come from if the Bill becomes law in its present form? Obviously, in future, overseas donations will not be made to political parties—and a good thing too, many of us believe. I and many observers believe that there will be a strong tendency for the level of commercial support for political parties to reduce. The requirements for transparency and disclosure and the need to get decisions past shareholders will tend to inhibit the inflow of money from that source. There will be a similar effect on private large donors, who may not want to be exposed to the full glare of publicity. All those changes may be beneficial—I believe that they will be—and it is quite proper for us to bring such matters out into the open and for them to be matters of public debate and public knowledge. Sponsors of party political conferences and so on will face similar inhibitions. The Bill has one or two unintended side effects, which have been discussed in Committee elsewhere. In certain circumstances, bequests will not now be able to be fulfilled in the way that the testator wanted. There has been a limited relaxation today, which I welcome. However, in Committee I moved an amendment drawing attention to the fact that, especially in the last year or two of a person's life, it is commonplace for them to move—perhaps into residential care or to live with carers elsewhere—and no longer to appear on the register. Those people will be cut out of the situation. Another unintended consequence of the Bill as it stands relates to the complexity of accounting for even quite small donations. It is quite proper and appropriate that the Bill should require such accounting, but I point out to the Minister that every one of the things that I have mentioned will result in less money coming into the province of voluntary support for political parties in this country. Neill certainly believed that it was appropriate to give incentives to broaden the financial base on which political parties operate. I can probably speak from a fairly neutral viewpoint because, at the moment, the Liberal Democrats are supported almost exclusively by small donations. I regret that—I wish that we received large donations, but we do not seem able to attract them. I do not know whether my party would benefit from the proposal. The proposal's value is not that it would necessarily create a broader base for a political party. I doubt that whole categories of people want to donate to a political party, but are just waiting for tax relief to become available so that they can do so. Providing tax relief is a means of enhancing income from what is probably a static base of donors. Nevertheless, tax relief would be welcome. The proposal is not about encouraging participation, but about encouraging activity. What do the Government think would happen if, as a result of the Bill becoming law, political parties had less to spend on campaigning and on getting people elected? Would that be likely to increase the turnout and the level of political competition? Would that be likely to develop and extend democracy, or would it, on the whole, lead to more apathy and less interest, with politicians and political parties having less impact on the communities that they try to serve? Although my support for the new clause is not as warm and enthusiastic as that of other hon. Members, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Bill—deliberately in some cases and accidentally in others—will result in less money being available to political parties. That means less political activity, which is not good for the body politic in this country. If that happens, surely the Government must consider a countervailing mechanism that would allow political parties, in a legitimate, fair and transparent way, to conduct the activity that we are all quite good at, which is campaigning and motivating electors to support us.

Martin Bell (Independent, Tatton)

I shall speak briefly on behalf of the Independents in the House. As we have just doubled our number, I think that we have a contribution to make. I have a slightly questionable declaration of interest to make. My cousin is a prominent member of the constituency association of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I do not want her to bankrupt herself raising money for that association. Small contributions, with tax relief, would be entirely appropriate. If there is a flaw in the Bill—and there is a flaw—it is the high ceiling of £19.77 million that the main parties will be allowed to raise and spend at the next election. They will spend more money than they can safely raise and, in their different ways, the Ecclestone and the Ashcroft cases have reminded us of that. It would be infinitely preferable if contributions were made to parties and, in exceptional cases, to non-parties, such as my own, with tax relief. That would encourage the little people to get involved in politics, which would help our democracy and make it much healthier.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I am pleased to support new clause 4, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). The Neill committee report was a job well done. I was very surprised that the Government did not take up the proposals for tax relief. Everyone in the House realises that the days of large donors and, perhaps, of trade unions donating as much as they did in the past are over. If political parties want to thrive, they must get many more people donating reasonable sums of money. I am thinking in terms of hundreds of pounds rather than the £15 or £20 that they receive from ordinary party members. We all realise that that is the future. The new clause would set a cultural environment in which people would think that it was a good thing to donate to political parties. Tax relief would provide a seal of public acceptance. In our current culture, it is fine to give £20, but if one gives a large donation, people think that there is something wrong or that one is in it for something. New clause 4 would change the culture of our political process. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made a good point: most of us regard £20 million as a lot of money. All political parties face a hard task in raising that amount. We all know of the pressure to spend in the run-up to elections and the campaign itself and to worry about raising the money another day, and all of us in politics will try to take a shortcut if we can, provided that it is legal. Tax relief would make a great difference. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) eloquently made the case for tax relief. A greater number of donors to all political parties would greatly improve our political process. The new clause is well drafted and contains safeguards, such as a political party having to have two Members and 150,000 votes. That would accommodate Independent Members if they formed, in effect, a political party. Even if the Government reject the new clause today, I urge them to return to the issue in future legislation. We have heard the case for special advisers, and we could consider other services on which a lot of money is spent. As my right hon. Friend said, this is not public funding, although there would be some cost to the Exchequer. A man or woman will make a personal decision to give money to a political party, and the state will give that decision its seal of approval. That is a good, healthy and honourable action, and it would lead to a much better political process.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who opened the debate, said that the new clause is important to him, but is it a priority for the people of this country for us to give tax relief on support for political parties? I suspect that they would rather we spent the money that is available directly on health or education or on tax relief such as allowances for children or lone parents, individual allowances or business allowances. We have calculated that the proposal would effectively cost the Exchequer about £5 billion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Billion?"] I apologise—I mean £5 million. That is £5 million of taxpayers' money that would go to political parties, but which could be spent in more desirable ways. The people of this country would not support that approach.

John MacGregor (Conservative, South Norfolk)

If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he wants to rest it on the basis of putting the question to the people of this country, does he not think that they would feel exactly the same about the big increases in funding for special advisers?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Special advisers are a different issue. That is a question of whether Ministers should have advice from someone who is able to support them through contact with their local party and the people who elected them. A Minister making a decision therefore has not only the civil service view but an independent view from someone who has a different political perspective. That ensures good decision making and is effective expenditure of public money. It enables Ministers to hear more than one point of view and therefore to reach better judgments. We are talking about entirely different matters. I would certainly have no qualms about supporting the need for at least some expenditure on political advisers to Secretaries of State. That is well worth while and pays dividends to the public in efficiency and good-quality decisions. It is entirely different to subsidise—as we are being asked to do—unelected officers and full-time officials of political parties. I do not accept that that is a good way in which to spend taxpayers' money. 5.45 pm The Government have sought to implement the Neill committee's recommendations as a package, as the committee intended, but we are not persuaded of the case for tax relief on political donations, as the new clause proposes. Last week, the Conservatives sought aid for their candidates' leaflets; earlier, they were seeking further aid for that. This week, they want subsidies for the salaries of Conservative party officials. Public declarations by the Conservative party of opposition to state subsidies are being replaced by constant moves to secure more and more of them. The Liberal Democrats have always been entirely consistent in favouring state funding of political parties. The Conservative party has always said that it is opposed to such funding, but time and again in recent weeks Conservative Members have demanded in the House that the taxpayer should subsidise their politics. We are not convinced that that would be good expenditure of public money, and there are several reasons why. The Government acknowledge the desirability of broadening the base of contributors to political parties. In placing a ceiling on political parties' expenditure, the Bill will do much to reduce their need to seek large donations from wealthy individual donors. The Government have also increased the amount of public money made available to opposition parties in order to fulfil their role in Parliament. The Bill will also provide for the disbursement of up to £2 million in policy development grants to political parties. Now, the Conservative party says, "Give us another large amount"—whether it be £5 million or not. Against that background, we remain unpersuaded of the case for tax relief on donations. As the Government stated in their White Paper, we believe that such a scheme would amount to state aid by another route. Indeed, loss of revenue has been estimated to be between £4 million and £5 million. That must be considered in the light of our other expenditure priorities. I am not convinced that political parties are, in the broader scheme of things, a spending priority. Nor would it be desirable for them to become increasingly dependent on, in effect, public funding of their activities outside Parliament. I recognise that the new clause would give effect to one of the Neill committee's recommendations—the Government have sought wherever possible to adhere to its recommendations—but this is one issue on which the Government have concluded that we must depart from such recommendations. That is because we do not agree with it; we are unpersuaded of the need for it. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the Bill might result in fewer foreign donations, with which he would be pleased, and in fewer company donations, which to some extent he accepts. That might result in less of an arms race on funding. The new clause would fuel that arms race. The views on these matters of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) carry a great deal of weight because they particularly concern him and were some of the reasons why he stood for Parliament. He wanted to ensure improvement in the funding of political parties and the integrity of the political process. However, such tax relief would simply fuel the funding race that he fears the Bill will not control sufficiently. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that he thought that the future lay in getting hundreds of political party members to make contributions of hundreds of pounds. There may be members of his political association who are able to contribute hundreds of pounds a year, but I can think of very few members of my political party who could contribute £100, never mind several hundred pounds, to the Labour party. The way in which—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), from a sedentary position, is starting to bandy about the names of certain individuals. We could both do that. He should be a little careful about mixing it. We could both mix it, more toughly than he intends. I shall deal with a more sensible comment from the hon. Member for Poole. There is a difference in wealth between individuals who might comprise particular political associations or parties. There would therefore be a disproportionate advantage to one political party compared with another or, I suspect, most of the others. I understand why the Conservatives have proposed the measure—they would benefit from it. They would get more public subsidy and probably more donations. However, I fail to see the public interest; indeed, I am not satisfied that there is a public interest. I am not satisfied that this is a purpose for which taxpayers in my constituency would want reliefs to be granted. Neither I nor the Government are prepared to recommend the new clause.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Until we heard the Minister's contribution, I thought that a considerable consensus on our new clause was building up in the House. I am grateful for the valuable contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who was a member of the Neill committee, as he pointed out. Like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I regret that my right hon. Friend is not standing at the next election, and that we will not benefit from his contribution after that. My right hon. Friend summed up exceedingly well the basis of the Neill recommendations. As he said, the new clause is not a charter for those who write out large cheques. It states clearly that donations would be capped at £500 and relief would be granted at the basic rate of income tax. It would answer what my right hon. Friend considered spurious objections from the Labour party. Few donors to any political party are below the tax threshold, so donors to all parties are taxpayers. My right hon. Friend stated that Labour would benefit from the measure. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, because of the way in which our new clause is phrased, the administrative burden would fall on the political parties. It would not be a requirement on each taxpayer to reclaim the tax. Claims for tax relief would be made by the small number of political parties when they made their returns to the Inland Revenue. The administrative burden would fall not on the various inspectors of taxes, but on the party treasurers. In any case, the amount of tax forgone by the Treasury would be quite small. I was grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) posed the question of where the money would come from to fund the political process in the future, as several categories of donors to our political parties are excluded by the Bill. He asked who would replace the overseas donors who could no longer contribute, the corporate donors who might in future have difficulty getting shareholder approval for their donations, and the large donors who valued their present state of anonymity but whose names would have to be published if they wrote cheques for more than £5,000. The hon. Gentleman's view was that the parties would have less money at their disposal, so an incentive scheme such as the one proposed would be of value to all political parties. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). We all applaud his championing of the cause of the little people in politics. The measure is designed to govern the financing of political parties, so as an Independent, the hon. Gentleman unfortunately would not benefit from the provisions of the new clause. The Bill is quite specific in its definition of an "Independent". My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) spoke of the change in the cultural environment that would be brought about by the Bill. He argued that through legislation, we should make people aware that it was socially acceptable to give slightly larger sums to political parties—sums up to £500—in the same way as it is socially acceptable to give larger donations to charities, up to the same level. He thought that that should be encouraged by our political process. Finally, we heard the contribution from the Minister, who at the beginning had difficulty distinguishing his billions from his millions. I can reassure him that the figure that he was looking for was £5 million, not £5 billion. He later qualified that as £4 million to £5 million. In the context of Government expenditure, £5 million is quite small beer, considering the incentive effect of the new clause. We are discussing the incentive effect for parliamentary democracy, not state subsidies for political parties. The Minister accepts that we need to broaden the base of support for our political parties, but he believes that capping at just under £20 million the sum that a large political party can spend in a general election would broaden the base of our democracy. The Minister was entirely wrong about one thing: the new clause may have been tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who are all members of the Conservative party, but it is not a recommendation of the Conservative party alone; it is a recommendation of the Neill committee. Neill's recommendation 38 states: Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to eligible registered political parties. Neill's recommendation 39 goes on: Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes. The Government must not cherry-pick the Neill report, which arose from an independent inquiry and is broadly supported in the House and very much supported in the country. The report is designed to bring a new level of financial propriety into our political process, and transparency into our political operations. Underlying the report is the view that we should broaden the base of political support and encourage more people to participate in the political process, not just by voting at elections but by contributing to our political parties. If the Government do not accept the new clause, we will press the motion to a Division.

ANNUAL REGISTRATION OF OVERSEAS VOTERS

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 6—Annual registration for overseas voters: peers—

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

I have moved the new clause, with which we shall consider other new clauses and amendments, because I believe that we still do not have a fully satisfactory compromise on overseas voting. The Government have effectively split the difference between 20 years, which is the current law, and nil, which was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others in our original debate on the matter, and argued for cogently. New clauses 5 and 6 follow a different approach. They would reduce the qualifying period to five years and allow people who have claimed registration to continue claiming it every year. Different people approach the issue from different standpoints. Some take a liberal attitude and argue that anyone with a United Kingdom passport should be able to vote in a UK election regardless of where they live, of whether they pay tax, of how long they have lived where they live or of whether they have any other passport. Others look for a more disciplined approach, including a commitment to the country in which someone wishes to vote. Other considerations are where people live and where they pay tax. Those who take that approach are opposed to giving votes to people who are effectively tax exiles, who have moved abroad to avoid paying tax in the UK. I have much sympathy with that second point of view, but I think that new clauses 5 and 6 represent a happy compromise. I pay tribute to the constructive way in which international organisations of all the parties have approached the issue. I find their arguments persuasive, and I think that those who live abroad deserve some certainty in their lives. There was no overseas vote until 1985. There was a five-year requirement until 1989, when it became 20 years. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has called for the requirement to be reduced to five years, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary suggests 10 years. Those living abroad would be within their rights if they complained that the situation was confused. Anyone who has lived in a foreign capital, as I have, knows that there are many British expatriates who do not work for the British embassy, for the British Council or for an international body, and who are not married to foreigners. Those people happen to live abroad but they remain completely British in their outlook and sense of identity. If such people live in the European Union, the Maastricht treaty guarantees them the right to vote in local and European elections and to stand as candidates, just as European citizens in this country can vote in local and European elections here. The Maastricht treaty applies only to local and European elections. As for national elections, it is assumed that people vote in the country of which they are a citizen. On that basis, it is fair to say that if a British national is living in a European Union capital, it is only right that they should have the chance to keep their vote. It is true that German, French, Spanish, Italian and Swedish citizens can keep their vote in national elections in their home country. The "use it or lose it" nature of the concession ensures that it will not be used by the half-hearted, by tax exiles, by dual nationals or by the rootless: it will be used and appreciated by those for whom it is intended—those who wish to maintain a strong commitment to the UK while they live abroad. New clause 7 would give automatic voting rights to those who work abroad for international organisations. It has nothing to do with whether they have lived in a certain place for five, 10 or 20 years. It will only affect people who work for organisations of which the UK is a member state. There have always been provisions for diplomats to vote abroad. There has long been a service vote, and more recently the staff of the British Council have been given the vote abroad. The foreign service vote has been extended to the civil service. I do not think that anyone would dispute that there is a strong case for extending the concession to those who work for the European Union. Many people will have received a letter from four British officials of the EU, who I think have made the case very well. They give three reasons why they think that they should have an automatic right to a vote in UK elections. First, they say that they are public servants, working to serve the public in Britain as well as in other member states. Secondly, they say that they work for a transnational organisation of which Britain is a member and which represents Britain's interests. Thirdly, they argue that it is Government policy to try to increase the representation of British nationals in Brussels, on the basis that it is in the national interest to have as many British nationals as possible working in the EU so that its institutions can better reflect our culture and attitudes. They conclude by saying that they believe that their aim is reinforced by the need to ensure that those working inside EU institutions retain their connection with Britain, and that disfranchisement severs the link with British political life and risks weakening their ties. The demands of justice and of national interest do not always coincide so completely, but here we have justice represented by the call for equal treatment with domestic civil servants and the argument that it is in our national interest that those officials should retain a strong sense of British identity once they work in the EU. Not to make a concession to their case would not only be unjust but counter-productive, leaving them not only disfranchised but disenchanted. Many have accepted jobs since 1989 expecting their voting rights to be safeguarded for 20 years and, indeed, many may have been recruited on that understanding. The only hesitation that I can imagine holding the Minister back from agreement is whether there is any confusion surrounding the definition of an international organisation, but new clause 7 states that such an organisation is one of which the United Kingdom is a member … That clearly includes not only the EU institutions, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the United Nations and all its daughter organisations, the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and so on. We have come a long way from the days when Britain's only representatives abroad were diplomats and soldiers: in these days of globalisation, it is time we recognised that far more people fly the flag in other countries. They are not asking much when they say that, if they are to represent the interests of this country abroad, they would like to be guaranteed a say in how it is run. Increasingly, the political discourse in this country is about globalisation, and more and more people, as part of their careers in this country, work in other countries for extended periods. That is most obvious in Paris, Geneva, Rome and New York, but it takes place across the EU and farther afield. There are two sound reasons for accepting the new clause and extending the rights of overseas voters. The first is a simple recognition of the way the world is moving, and the second is political—a right, once granted, is difficult to remove. By depriving a small number of people of the automatic right to vote, we shall make completely unnecessary enemies. Annual registration serves, in practice, as a tough test of people's commitment to this country, by testing their determination to vote. I am appealing to hon. Members on both sides of the House. International organisations representing our three parties have already reached a high degree of consensus. They have agreed the form of the "use it or lose it" new clause and the international organisation new clause, and it would be a good thing if their representatives in the Chamber also reached agreement. If we can show the Government that there is broad consensus not only among our parties' international organisations but among Members of the House, we may hear the Minister say that he is prepared to reconsider.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I hear what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) says about seeking a consensual approach and about the possibility of deals being done. We look to the Minister. I complimented the Labour party on taking some steps on the journey that we wish it to make, and feel that it could go a little further in this regard: the Government have to take a few more steps. Our amendment and new clause would correct the ignorance, prejudice and lack of consultation that have shrouded the whole overseas voter issue, and I hope that overseas voters will achieve some justice in an otherwise squalid measure. It would be far better if the Government dropped all this nonsense now, undertook a comprehensive consultation on their proposals and introduced sensible and fully thought through measures. That would be the best option on overseas voters. [Interruption.] Is the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) trying to intervene? There has been no consultation. I am bemused as to why speed is a necessity and why the consultation could not have taken place before measures were introduced. Why it all has to be so hurried, I simply do not know. As the Minister knows, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary on 25 November 1999 to say that she opposed these measures because there had been no full consultation. Let us bring some sense to what the Government are attempting to do. We have tabled new clause 8 and amendment No. 176. The Government have in mind the picture of a number of people who fled Britain and have little interest in this country—except that they have the ability to vote in our general elections every five years or so. That is an old-fashioned idea, and certainly one that cannot sit easily with new Labour. I do not want glibly to pass over the fact that the Bill takes the right to vote in British elections away from a number of people. We are trying to temper that, as the vote will otherwise be removed without consultation. We have heard all the arguments about whether there should be a cut-off of five, 10 or 20 years, or no limit at all. Some were rehearsed in Committee. If the Government are intent on introducing a Bill that would deny the vote to people who are currently able to vote, that is completely wrong. I hope that they will listen to what we have to say. I listened to the hon. Member for Battersea, and believe that his new clauses go some way in the right direction. People may have to go abroad for all sorts of reasons—I shall come to that later—and I see merit in dropping the figure to perhaps five years and allowing them to keep their vote provided that they show sufficient and continuous interest in what is going on in this country to go out of their way to register every year. However, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's new clauses are sufficient to meet the demands that we make in new clause 8—nor is the job description wide enough. We could go a little further. The 10-year argument baffles me. We hear that 10 years is the compromise figure, but it is not a compromise between what we want, what the right hon. Member for Gorton wants and what the people who will lose the vote want. I hope that the Government can cut through the political agenda on this issue and introduce a more sensible measure. The new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea are insufficient because this country operates globally. The hon. Gentleman listed a number of organisations with which we are involved. We have also signed up to a number of international obligations and, moreover, British people work throughout the world. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the European Union and European institutions. Like other Members of the House, we received a letter from an individual, who also sent a copy to The Guardian. It would be completely wrong if people working on behalf of this country fell foul of the Bill. We must consider the fact that people who work in a global economy and who may be sent abroad suddenly, for whatever reason, to work in the commercial sector on behalf of their companies will run the risk of losing their vote after 10 years. 6.30 pm The way things are going, people may go abroad and work for a company for five years and then be moved to another part of the world without coming back to the United Kingdom. They may have every intention of returning to the UK at some point, and may do so at a later stage when their company decides that it is right for them to come back. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has Vauxhall in his constituency, which is a global company and has plants throughout the world. Some of his constituents may be sent abroad.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

No.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Employees of companies like Vauxhall may be sent abroad for some years. I believe that the five-year limit for public institutions or organisations with which we have signed treaty obligations is not sufficient. We must extend the provision to the commercial sector. It would be a big advance if the Minister considered that proposal. New clause 8 deals with youngsters who go abroad with their parents and then fall foul of this legislation. This matter was dealt with in Committee.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

We wrote it.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Indeed, so Labour Members should support it. Many of our suggestions are common-sense measures which Back Benchers have proposed, so I hope that the Government will consider them. We want people aged 16 or 17 who are taken abroad and turn 18 while they are there to be able to register, and to vote in elections. We are trying to encourage as many young people as possible to vote. The thrust of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which was passed last week, was to encourage people to vote. It would help if the Government considered that anomaly more closely. Amendment No. 176 deals with the retrospective element.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that there is a curious tension in the thinking of a number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches? They seem anxious to do absolutely everything they can to assist certain persons, some of whom are too lazy to make any significant effort to vote and should apparently be assisted by the facility of pressing a button. However, they regard with hostility the people who have the sheer audacity, in pursuit of their commercial obligations, to go abroad to work when requested to do so. Is that not a curious—one might even say, troglodyte—view of the world?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

My hon. Friend speaks far better than I. He is better educated and able to come up with words like troglodyte, which I shall ensure is included in many of my speeches in future. He is absolutely right. It is ironical that the Representation of the People Act gives the vote to some people in mental institutions, which we agreed with and supported, and to remand prisoners, who may be on remand for various crimes. We thought that it was right to give them the vote as they have not gone before the courts, sentence has not been passed and they have not been convicted of any crime. My hon. Friend has encouraged me to consider amendment No. 139 tabled by the right hon. Member for Gorton. We are considering the proposal to take away the vote after five years: that is when the cruel guillotine will fall on those people, irrespective of the fact that they are in parts of the world earning money, possibly earning profits for this country, and paying tax in this country. I look forward to hearing what the right hon. Member for Gorton has to say as he tries to twist the knife even further into that group of people, who are doing this country a great service. That is wholly wrong. My only hope is that the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench treat his suggestions with as much disdain as I do, and as would the vast majority of people in this country. I have studied the Liberal Democrat amendments and amendment No. 180. Although we have some sympathy with them, they do not go far enough on the job descriptions. The hon. Member for Battersea wants a consensual approach. I hope that the Minister can give us some hope and assurance that some ground can be made on the issue of overseas voters. I do not believe that we should proceed with a measure out of spite and vindictiveness. It will remove the vote from many people who would wish to contribute to democracy in this country. We shall listen carefully to the Minister's comments before we decide whether to press our amendments to a vote.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

I intended to be rather gentle with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) until he accused me of disdain and heightened the temperature of this gentle and good-natured debate. Like his party, the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the historical perspective of the franchise. He talks about taking votes away from people as though that was utterly unprecedented. The Attlee Government of 1945 rightly abolished the business vote and the university vote. They were perfectly right to abolish fancy franchises. We got on quite well with the extension of the franchise—the Wilson Government extended it to 18-year-olds—until the Conservative Government introduced a new fancy franchise. The hon. Gentleman talks about lack of consultation and squalor, but he should look back to what happened when this franchise was introduced. I have reminded the House on a number of occasions that I was there. The very idea that there was consultation is an extraordinary sick joke. There was no consultation whatever. We had a serious disagreement when Leon Brittan decided to invent this franchise to benefit his own party. There was no attempt at consensus. It was a unilateral act by the Conservative party. The Conservatives wanted to increase the period to 25 years when my right honourable and noble Friend Lord Hattersley was in charge of these matters for the Labour party. They now say that there was consensus because the present Secretary of State for Social Security had been ready to settle for 20 years rather than 25. There was not: we were making the best of a bad job on a franchise that ought never to have been introduced. It was introduced against the wishes of the then principal Opposition party—which was a lot bigger than the present one—to suit the interests of the Conservative Government. We should be clear about the historical context in which this franchise was arranged. The hon. Gentleman talks about a political agenda. Unfortunately, the Government have less of a political agenda than I would like them to have. The Conservative party has the agenda. Having read the report of the Committee stage, I understand that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I would go along with them without any difficulty. To provide the right to a franchise for servants of this country overseas is an act of justice. It is a principle that servants of this country overseas are given a vote, whether they are diplomats or members of the armed forces. My hon. Friend's proposal fits in with that.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Persons who go abroad to serve international organisations—I have previously given the example of a person known to me—do not necessarily come back to this country afterwards. How does the right hon. Gentleman square that with the principles that he is trying to enunciate?

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

If the hon. Gentleman believes that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea are too generous, I am ready to accept his strictures. When the Select Committee on National Heritage, as it then was, went to Barcelona, we found that our consul general intended to retire to that place. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, if that were his choice, he should not have the vote any more, I agree. I thank him for being so acute in his political perception.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It might be possible to argue that it should go the other way—that the distinctions that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce between people working for international organisations and people who are abroad for business reasons are non-existent and that one should simply accept that those who wish to have the franchise when they are abroad should be allowed to have it.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

I was not trying to introduce any distinctions whatever. I was commenting on what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had proposed. My amendment is the purest, most straightforward and most logical amendment that anyone could possibly table. It changes one figure for another with no exemptions. I was saying that, because I am flexible, good-natured, helpful and basically wish good will to most of my fellow men, I am ready to entertain the principle on which my hon. Friend was operating, but my amendment is clear. I come—I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me—to an area where I disagree with him. Commendably, he has thought a great deal before introducing the "use it or lose it" concept, but that concept entrenches still further what I object to most about that franchise: it is a voluntary franchise, not a voluntary exercise of the franchise, which should be available to any citizen in a democracy. People choose whether to have it. All the rest of us in this country are committing an offence if we do not register to vote. We do not have to vote once we have registered, but we are committing an offence if we do not register.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Does his argument about the voluntary franchise and the distinction between that and a compulsory one mean that he is in favour of making it compulsory to vote?

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

Certainly not. I wish that it were compulsory to vote from one point of view: my puny majority of 17,000 would probably double. That is an attractive proposition, but I believe that democracy entitles people not to use the franchise, although I wish that they would, particularly if they are Labour voters. I am considering the fact that it is a voluntary franchise. People decide whether to take it up—they decide not whether to use it but whether to take up the right to have it. 6.45 pm My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has sensibly made himself scarce. When we debated the matter on the previous occasion, he added up the monumental millions whom we would punish by depriving them of the vote, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea pointed out in the Standing Committee—just as I did the last time we voted—the figure is 13,000. This huge subject revolves around 13,000 people: the number who have decided to take up that option. We are talking not about democracy as a right but about democracy as an option. I do not believe that the vote is an option. Either people are entitled to it or they are not. Although I disagree strongly with Conservative Members about the matter, there might be an argument that it should be granted in perpetuity, rather than being time-limited. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about a compromise between 20 years and nil. I am not a compromiser on the issue. I want nil. My five is there to chop the period down still further. The reason why I propose five is that, except in unusual circumstances, it would mean that someone qualifying for the franchise would be able to exercise it once. I would be ready reluctantly to accept that, but the 10-year period, which the Government, with sentimental generosity, have decided to abide by, will allow someone to vote in three general elections. There were three general elections between 1979 to 1987. That is a great deal more than is acceptable. I am not going to divide the House against the Government. They know that I will not do so because I am subservient to their wishes on most occasions, but I have to tell the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office that I am looking forward to a response in which he says that, on the basis of the way in which the measure operates, he will consider in a future Bill whether he can reduce the period to five years. I intend to stay in the House for a very long time. I assure my hon. Friend that, in Parliament after Parliament, I shall table amendments on the matter. I warned Ministers early in this Parliament that it was one of my obsessive interests. I do not let my obsessive interests rest, whether they be related to the film "Singin' in the Rain" or to the overseas franchise.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I warm to a man of courage, conviction and principles. Why on this occasion is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to push his convictions, which he holds so strongly, to a vote, and to stand up for what he believes in?

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

Before I finish—I have spoken for too long—I shall tell the House of a conversation that I had with Denis Healey. His full name is Denis Winston Healey. I asked him how he came to be called Winston. He said, "I was born during the first world war and my father was a great admirer of Winston Churchill, who was First Lord of the Admiralty. He gave me the name Winston because of his huge admiration for Winston Churchill. He did it as a gesture." I said, "But Denis, if your father admired Winston Churchill so much, why did he not call you Winston Healey?" He said, "Hell. A gesture is a gesture." That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I shall speak primarily in support of amendment No. 180, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), not Gorton, but I have added my name to two of the new clauses that have been proposed by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—5 and 7—and I find myself in considerable sympathy with some of the others. That perhaps shows, as the hon. Gentleman said, that an all-party view that something needs to be done is at least beginning to emerge. The Government may take the view that some of the shells have landed somewhat randomly, but the fact that they have been bracketed by a variety of amendments shows perhaps that some progress could be made to the advantage of the Bill, as well as to the groups of British citizens about whom we are concerned. Amendment No. 180 was, in essence, drafted at the Committee stage, before it broke into the parallel universe of the new clauses created by the hon. Member for Battersea. To a large extent, it overlaps his new clauses. Without repeating all the arguments that he deployed, let me say that the intention is to ensure that we provide not only a continuing benefit for those who work in international institutions, but a benefit to the UK. Amendment No. 180 defines such international institutions as any organisation set up pursuant to any treaty or convention of which the United Kingdom is for the time being a signatory. It would therefore remove doubt and ambiguity in defining such organisations and make the relevant definition sufficiently wide. The hon. Member for Battersea touched on the matter of the benefits that might accrue to the United Kingdom from extending the franchise to the employees of such organisations, but I should like to expand on those benefits. There are not only many such organisations but, in many cases, treaties require that United Kingdom citizens comprise part of those organisations' staff and provide support to those organisations. More to the point, there is a very strong UK interest in our playing an active part in those organisations. That interest is not only wide ranging, but potentially long lasting. Through our participation in them, we may gain not only diplomatic advantage but perhaps economic and even linguistic and cultural advantage. Those benefits should not be thrown away. As the hon. Member for Battersea said, we may lose those benefits in two ways. They might be lost, first, if we were to inhibit the participation of UK citizens in those bodies. People might be reluctant to play a part in those organisations if they were forced to forgo the wider benefits of United Kingdom citizenship. Secondly, the issue of disengagement from the United Kingdom could affect people currently working in such organisations and those who will one day work in them. The popular description of people who have been affected by disengagement is that they have "gone native". In many organisations, people can go native pretty quickly, and the Government might think that, for the general benefit of the United Kingdom, it is worthwhile trying to slow down that process. The case for amendment No. 180, therefore, is based not simply on the rights and obligations of citizens working for such organisations, but on the United Kingdom's pure self-interest as a player on the international stage. Such a realpolitik argument may appeal to the Government, even if other arguments fall on deaf ears. Some of the other amendments in this group address broader issues which Ministers should consider. It is sensible to allow family members of people working overseas to vote at 18, allowing them essentially to get on the bottom step of the escalator of our democratic process. Those people are expected to move, if not involuntarily, certainly without resistance. I should think that such a proposal could not be criticised on the basis that those people will subsequently become perfidious donators to United Kingdom political parties and undermine democracy in the United Kingdom. The issue is one of ensuring that they are able to develop roots in and links with the United Kingdom and to exercise their United Kingdom citizenship.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept—in an attempt to further the consensual nature of our proceedings—that, if we were to allow people to join a rolling register, to begin the process, there would have to be a transitional period of perhaps 12 months in which those who are currently abroad were allowed to register on such a rolling register?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

It is always worth trying to push the limits in our debate. However, we really should consider whether the Bill's objective should be to include and continue on a register everyone overseas who is currently registered. That is one option in proceeding on the matter. Another option is to open registration to everyone who is currently overseas, even if they have not yet registered. That seemed to be what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting. If there were an amendment proposing the first option, the hon. Gentleman might be able to tempt me to support it. People in that category not only have taken the trouble to register, but, as the right hon. Member for Gorton said, comprise a small group. There are only six such people in my constituency, and that number may be typical of the number in other hon. Members' constituencies. I am less persuaded that we should throw open inclusion to everyone who is currently overseas. I do not think that hon. Members could be persuaded that those people have not registered because they have not been able to get round to it. I think that they have not registered because it is not an attractive proposition for them to do so. The intervention by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has served one purpose—to divert me from my thread of argument—and I appreciate the spirit in which it was done. New clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea and to which I put my name, introduces the "use it or lose it" concept. It also contains an element of self-regulation, which I hope Ministers will take on board if they are at all tempted to adopt such a provision. "Use it or lose it" is also the essence of amendment No. 176, which was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. I think that, rather than providing a completely open-ended obligation or opportunity for those who live and work overseas, it would be appropriate to include a process of rolling re-registration. I hope that Ministers will have listened to this debate and appreciated the concerns expressed by hon. Members holding various views on the issue. However, each of those views goes to the same point. Overseas, there is a group of United Kingdom citizens who have, and should continue to have, a role to play in the United Kingdom democratic process. In coming decades, the size of that group of people may well grow. I do not overlook the fact that one of the reasons why the restrictions are being introduced is to stop the abuse of donations from overseas. I am well aware of that issue and of the fact that Ministers may feel that they should make only carefully judged and limited concessions on the issue. However, I ask Ministers not simply to shut the door on every overseas group and category, but to determine which amendments they are able to accept, or which specific provisions they might otherwise be able to import into the Bill. The amendments express feelings that are widespread in the House.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

When the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was appealing at the Dispatch Box for consensus, he seemed to be defeating his own argument by adopting an aggressive style. I assure him that hon. Members who believe that the current principle is wrong—for the very reason outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—do not intend to extend it to include people from his ethnic grouping. Despite the fact that he comes from south Wales, the hon. Gentleman will keep the votes in Ribble Valley. [Interruption.] I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was going to intervene, to say that the hon. Gentleman will not keep those votes, but he is merely going to speak to the Minister. I should like to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. He mentioned Vauxhall Motors UK, in my constituency, which is an important player in both the regional economy and the British economy. Some super people are leading that company, not only in Britain but in Europe. However, in the context of the franchise, their position—they are answerable to the parent company, which is registered in the United States—is different from that of people who work for institutions of which Britain is a member. 7 pm We shall come to clause 48 later. In Committee, the Conservatives tabled an amendment that would not have allowed donations from companies incorporated in the European Union. They cannot have it both ways. They have recognised that we do not have the necessary transparency. My hon. Friend the Minister has a difficult judgment to make, because the line has to be drawn somewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has a clear idea about where it should be drawn. Others have said, "Yes, but" in various ways. With the exception of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who, I think, would prefer the status quo to prevail, most of those involved in the debate want a consensus to be reached.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman think it ironic that those of Italian or French descent who work for Vauxhall in his constituency are encouraged to vote in elections in France and Italy—the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) mentioned other countries as well—while we are going in the other direction?

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

We are dealing with the franchise of those who work for Britain in institutions of which we are a member. There is some common ground. All of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, accept that diplomats, the armed forces and British Council staff are legitimately covered by the current legislation. However, other categories should fall within that broad definition. The facts that the mother of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is French, as we discovered in Committee, that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) lived in Finland, or that I happened to brought up in Malta are red herrings, although they made for a good debate in Committee. The essential principle relates to institutions of which Britain is a member. I appreciate that lines have to be drawn somewhere, but as we attempt to reach a consensus, it is not illogical to include those who work for institutions such as NATO within the ambit of existing legislation, which incorporates the armed forces, diplomats and the British Council. It is ludicrous and unfair that a general or someone of diplomatic status in NATO is covered, but a civilian member of personnel is excluded.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I seek clarification of the hon. Gentleman's views. He is talking about new clause 7, but I think he will agree that it would be unnecessary if new clause 5 were agreed to, because all the categories would be covered by virtue of the ability of individuals to continue provided that they re-registered. Would not new clause 5 deal with his points?

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am not a million miles from the hon. Gentleman. I accept that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley seemed to want it drawn too far from where most people in the country would regard as acceptable. If the principles that I am espousing were incorporated in the 10-year rule proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister or the five-year rule espoused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, we could have a workable consensus. I appreciate that some Conservative Members would say that that would not go far enough. I understand their point, but they have to understand that a line has to be drawn somewhere in an attempt to arrive at a consensus. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look for ways in which the line can be drawn slightly away from his current proposal. I would have no objection if the base line was that espoused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, so long as there was a mechanism by which those who work for legitimate organisations of which Britain is a member could continue to be enfranchised.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Unlike the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber, I am very happy to support those on my Front Bench. I trust that they are suitably grateful. I note that a word about my enthusiasm is already going into the little blue book. I look forward to the result of that enthusiasm. New clause 8 and amendment No. 176 are necessary to meet my concerns and those of some of my hon. Friends—and, by the sound of it, of some Labour Members. The Government's plans to cut the time available worry me. As far as I can gather, no valid reasons for the change have been given. I hope that the Minister will give us some. There has been a spirit of compromise around and I am prepared to listen. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not give any reasons, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt at least until he speaks. Given that the proposal was not in the Neill recommendations, the Minister needs to explain why the Government now think it so important. I have heard no evidence of abuse of the current arrangements, and the Government have offered none. Abuse would be the most important reason for change. If there is any evidence of abuse, perhaps the Minister could give it to us. As others have said, there are so few people registered abroad that I am at a loss to understand why the measure has become such a key part of a complicated Bill. This is a minor matter and there are many far better things to do, such as finding the money to ensure that my hospital does not have its accident and emergency unit closed by the Government. There are so many other more important things than messing about with this change. It will clearly cost money and I would rather that that money was spent on preventing cuts to my hospital. Why are the Government worried about such a small group of people? I have tried to find out what research has been done. How many people will be affected? How many of the very few who register stay abroad beyond the period that the Minister is proposing? My guess is that only a minute number of people will be caught by the change. Why is the Minister making it? It is also important to know whether the Government have done any research on the sort of people who would lose their vote. That would allow us to see whether the proposal was even-handed, or whether an ulterior motive existed.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Would that not be an abuse of the Government's power, as the outcome of such research might confer a party political advantage? Another Government—not this one—might be tempted to make decisions based on that outcome. Should we not be dealing with the principle?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I do not see that objection at all. There is no need to ask people how they are going to vote. The questions will concern their reasons for living abroad, why they chose to register, and how long they propose to be abroad. That is the sort of fundamental research that any Government should undertake before bringing such proposals before the House. I would also be interested to know how many of the small number who register actually use their votes. That should not be too difficult to find out, as the marked register is available from every constituency. It would be relatively simple to go back as far as the previous two general elections, say, and find out how many overseas votes were exercised. My third worry is that the Government appear not to have consulted the people affected. If they have, I hope that the Minister will describe how the people who currently have votes were approached.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

There have been many representations from, and discussions with, the people affected.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to the Minister, but according to Home Office evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1998, the overwhelming majority of the representations being received at the time were requests for an extension to the period.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that those who were consulted this time rather appreciated being able to keep the franchise.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces my point by reporting that that view is still held. I hope that the Government will give details of any research that has been carried out. How many people have been contacted, how many have asked for a shorter period, and how many have asked for longer? That information would be useful. The Government have not explained why they have changed their mind since 1989, when the then Labour Opposition backed the 20-year proposal. I have heard it said in the debate that that was some sort of compromise but, even if the Government were not wedded to the principle, something must have happened to bring about a change of heart. Governments dislike having their U-turns exposed and having to justify them. However, that is another example of a U-turn by this Government. They are always doing it, and it would be nice to know why they have torn up their previous beliefs in favour of a new set. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) offered a sensible and understandable way to adopt an approach based on the "use it or lose it" principle. I have no difficulty in accepting that people should have some link with the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman's proposal is not the best way forward. However, it is not so dissimilar to new clause 8, for which I hope the hon. Gentleman's conviction about the importance of the "use it or lose it" principle will lead him to vote if the Government do not accept his new clause 5. He has argued strongly in favour of new clause 8, and I look forward to welcoming him into the Lobby in support of that new clause when the time comes. 7.15 pm I commend new clause 8 to the hon. Member for Battersea on the basis that requiring people to register every year is quite a good way to ensure that links with the United Kingdom are kept up. Given the spirit of compromise and consensus in the debate, it is reasonable to accept the case for such links, but I am worried that the absence of a mechanism for continuing the present arrangements for as long as people had expected will be an impediment to those who feel strongly about their home country but who want to accept a posting overseas. It would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom if people were prevented from going abroad and doing a good job on our behalf because they would be disfranchised as a result. When he spoke about new clause 7, the hon. Member for Battersea referred to international organisations. I was not clear whether he was talking about formal organisations only, or whether he also meant non-governmental bodies. He referred to the European Union and NATO, and I agree that the people involved with those organisations constitute an important group. Similarly, however, there are people who work for non-governmental organisations such as charities who do not come within the definitions proposed for those working for the official organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that. A group of people not exempted by new clause 7 are those who work for British businesses. Big multinationals send some of their key employees abroad to run branches of the main business but, whereas diplomats come and go—and in any case return to London after a four-year posting—some business men and women are sent abroad for very long periods. However, because they work for British firms, they come back to head office regularly. Their companies are seriously affected by British legislation and the nature of the British Government. Their futures and prospects are tied up with the fate of their companies in this country. If anyone is to be exempted, it should be those people. I hope that we do not go down the route of having two classes of people. The right hon. Member for Gorton argued that it was wrong to put voluntary franchises and compulsory franchises in opposition. In the same way, it would be wrong and an affront to democracy to divide British citizens abroad into two classes—those who are allowed to vote and those who are not. All British citizens abroad should have the right to vote.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Is there not an incongruity in the hon. Gentleman's view, given the different qualifications that apply to people in the diplomatic and military services, and to people working for the British Council? Does not the situation that he describes exist already?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes, it does. However, the arrangements that I would prefer would render those distinctions unnecessary. The House must never try to create a democracy with two types of people in it. That would be very dangerous for the principle underlying how we run our country. Finally, I turn to amendment No. 176. Even if my arguments are ignored and the Government do not accept the proposals from my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, the legislation should not be made retrospective. People who live and work abroad on the understanding that they will have a vote for a particular length of time should not be penalised. It could be that they would not have gone abroad if they had known that they could not vote. Moreover, such people might find that, even though they wanted to keep their votes, they could not return home to make sure that they did. I really hate retrospective legislation, and I make a strong plea to the Minister to assure the House—even if he will accept no other argument—that, in the spirit of compromise, he will not go down the route of retrospective legislation.

Denis MacShane (Labour, Rotherham)

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to tell him that, when I entered the House six years ago, I would have found two things inconceivable—first, that I could disagree with him on any subject under the sun; secondly, that I would be invited to reduce the franchise—to reduce the rights of British people to vote. There we are, however: alas, things move on. I shall be brief, but I want to tell the House about all the e-mails, letters, faxes and telephone calls that I have received from profoundly patriotic British citizens, and all the meetings that I have had with them—[Interruption.] I shall come to the Conservatives later. Anyway, those who have been to see me, or have contacted me in other ways, have said that they want to keep their right to vote. We are not the French Parliament, in which Members can represent far-flung sunny climes of the former empire and colonies; but I feel that it would be wrong not to record those people's dismay about what is being proposed tonight. I have three reasons for concern. First, it is a good principle of democracy for us to extend any franchise, rather than reduce it. Secondly, we should be proud of all our citizens living and working overseas. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned the business community, but British citizens make a huge contribution to many voluntary and non-profit-making organisations, such as the World Council of Churches, trade union international organisations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and various non-governmental organisations. When I was travelling in on the tube today, I saw a moving advertisement for Voluntary Service Overseas, asking people to work for £400 a year and to risk malaria to fly the flag for Britain. Many VSO members subsequently remain in the international community because of a love of their country, and I do not think that their vote should be taken away. Thirdly, I feel that, in a global economy in which democracy needs to be preserved and extended, we should fly our flag for the democratic process and practice, rather than saying that people can exercise their democratic rights only if they reside in the United Kingdom. Conservative Members have made interesting and enjoyable speeches: I am delighted to observe that they seem to be discovering many hidden virtues in Europe that I do not recall their praying in aid before.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Where? Where?

Denis MacShane (Labour, Rotherham)

I am glad to note that the xenophobic beast is rising up again after his generous internationalist speech, but the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke glowingly of Italy and of France. I hope that we shall observe the same at Prime Minister's Question Time and other events. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It appears that, as we expected, the Tories' love of Europe was instrumental only in so far as it might embarrass the Government. I have another reason for being unconvinced of the generosity of spirit involved in the Conservatives' arguments. Theirs is the party—a party for which hon. Members here may have voted—that introduced the poll tax, which removed between 1 million and 4 million British citizens from the electoral roll, deliberately, cynically and cold-bloodedly, to fix and rig elections. Furthermore—this will for ever place a mark of shame on the Conservatives' period of office—the Conservatives changed the terms of the immigration Act 1971 in the British Nationality Act 1981. They did so not in order to take away the right to vote—although that would have been a serious measure—but in order to take away the right to citizenship of the descendants of British citizens who lived overseas. There are many British citizens, to whom the hon. Member for Spelthorne referred, whose children are born overseas. If they marry foreigners and have their children overseas, that generation—the grandchildren of the people whom we have been discussing, who are living and working overseas—will lose the right to be British, save on the fiat, or at the discretion, of the Home Secretary. That was a shaming alteration of our nationality laws, which took away citizenship and has caused great hurt and concern to many British people overseas. However, I do not want to be polemical tonight. I think that the new clauses and amendments are sensible, and go in the right direction. The "use it or lose it" proposition that has emerged since the Bill was tabled reflects the wishes of British citizens who actively wish to maintain a participatory voting link. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is not here now, and other Ministers have spent a great deal of time—perhaps, given that this is only a small part of a complicated Bill, more than we might have expected—meeting and talking to concerned citizens. I have attended those meetings, and I salute them for their generosity in finding time to do that. I do not know how, given the number of Home Office Bills, a Home Office Minister finds time to do anything other than keep us here all night.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It seems that we may be building on the chrysalis of consensus that emerged in Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the merits of the "use it or lose it" approach is that it removes the frequent complaint from some of his hon. Friends that people suddenly intervene in domestic politics, having shown no interest for some time?

Denis MacShane (Labour, Rotherham)

I think that it offers a sense of continuity, rather than the ability to be "bought in"—not necessarily in a financial sense—to participate in an election. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has done remarkable and assiduous work, which has been warmly welcomed by many British citizens overseas—all of whom seem to vote Labour nowadays. I cannot bring myself massively to disagree with the Conservatives' new clause 8 either. In any event, I do not want to press this to a Division in order to record a vote. Perhaps when the Bill goes to another place, Ministers can examine the problems, because there is time for that to happen before it is enacted. Perhaps we can arrive at a conclusion that will deal with the many protests that I have received, and will honour the tradition that the House always seeks to extend rather than reduce the franchise.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

It seems that clause 132 has become one of the most contentious parts of the Bill. I congratulate hon. Members in all parts of the House who have tabled ingenious and well-thought-out amendments, which deserve serious consideration and which I will consider and, indeed, already have considered. In the light of all those good ideas—shells, as they were called by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—the Government are inclined to look for a consensus. Such a consensus appears to be growing, and I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—who is not present now, but who will be back—and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who argued for consensus but whose language at times took us away from it, that we will consider what might be done. Clause 132 takes forward the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is an influential member. He has changed his mind on the issue since the Select Committee report, but I do not criticise him for that. He has argued that we need to move away from the present 20-year period to the Home Affairs Committee's proposed five-year period—a view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton retains. The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked me a number of questions; let me deal with two. First, he asked about the principle behind the proposal. I think that the argument is fairly clear and straightforward. If a person chooses to live overseas for a long period, at some point—there is an argument about when that point is—they are distanced from the current political climate. They are, in a sense, fighting old battles with old ideas. We live in a period of modernisation in which we move forward and ideas develop.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am pleased that the Minister is viewing the new clauses in a consensual way. Could he give a little more thought to his use of the word "choose"? Some people, including voluntary workers and business people, could say that they will not be posted overseas. Their contract or their beliefs, however, lead them to live overseas, and I do not think that they should be caught.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and I will come to it in more detail in a few minutes. People in the voluntary sector and in the commercial sector, to which he referred in his speech, generally do not live abroad for 20 years, but come and go. However, we should acknowledge the importance of people in both the voluntary and commercial sectors, as well as public servants, who work overseas. The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation. The Select Committee on Home Affairs did some work on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), in his normal, generous way, pointed out that there had been a series of meetings on this issue. Perhaps there were more meetings about this than about any other part of the Bill. That is rather surprising, in the light of the fact that, at present, slightly more than 13,000 overseas voters are registered here. We do not have information about how many of those voted in the last election, or what kind of people they are. The central issue is how long someone needs to be overseas to become detached from the political process. It may be 20 years or it may, as the Home Affairs Committee recommended, be five years. There may be a middle way. The Government's preferred option is for a 10-year period. It is a compromise that will work in many ways. It allows people to be overseas for quite a long time—perhaps enough for two postings—yet remain on the register. A couple of other ways forward have been proposed. The one that seems to have captured the imagination of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during this debate has been the "use it or lose it" option. That is a subtle way of countering the argument that, if people have been away from home for some time, they are out of touch. Registering within five years and continuing to register on a yearly basis shows a commitment to remaining in touch with the real issues.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Will the Minister concede that, with new technology, the internet and satellite television, people who live abroad can keep up to date with current affairs in their countries of origin? Recurring registration seems to leave the way open for us all to agree.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

New technology, information technology and the use of digital television certainly enable people to keep in touch better. The question before the House is how long it is necessary for someone to have been away to lose touch. The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that it is increasingly easy to remain in touch. I remember reading that, in the old days, it took 174 days for a letter to come from India reporting whether a battle had been lost or won. Today, such an event would be reported almost simultaneously.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It is on CNN.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Absolutely. The question is whether we are right about how long people should live abroad—should it be for five, 10 or 20 years? Or is it better to support the "use it or lose it" option? A third option which has been discussed tonight is to extend the service conditions to make allowance for people who work for British organisations abroad. The telling point was made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Spelthorne. What is the difference between a civil servant working in Brussels or for NATO, and someone working for an aid agency in Mozambique? What about the employee of Vauxhall Motors UK who works abroad but is still interested in British issues? The final issue concerns amendment No. 176 which, in a sense, maintains existing rights. There is a logic to that. The counter-argument is that, if the amendment were accepted, at the beginning of this year—before the legislation came into operation—people would be safeguarded for 20 years, but after these provisions were implemented, they would be safeguarded only for as long as we decided. Different classes of voters have been mentioned, and amendment No. 176 might not be the best way forward. The Government's preferred option is to have a simple rule and explanation that everyone can understand, and for that to command consensus across the political parties. There seems to have been a growing consensus in Committee and in the Chamber tonight, apart from the occasional burst of shelling. I believe that the "use it or lose it" option meets everybody's needs. It deals with all the points that have been discussed.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I welcome the Minister's approach. Will he also take account of proposed new subsection (6)(b) of new clause 8, which deals with people who have not yet reached the age of majority, but will do so while they are abroad with their parents?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

That, again, is a fair point, but a careful application of the "use it or lose it" principle would meet their needs too. I do not want to make false promises. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said throughout the Bill's proceedings, it is important that we take the political parties with us, and that a consensus emerges. It seems from this evening's discussion that we have not simply a kernel of a consensus but a wave that is beginning to roll out over "use it or lose it". I am well aware, having received representations and heard the views expressed in Committee and in the debate tonight that this argument will not go away. I simply say to those right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the new clauses and amendments in this group that I guarantee to listen to the argument and reflect on it. Let me be clear on this: I make no guarantee that I will bring forward an amendment. However, if the consensus continues to build and develop across all the political parties, the "use it or lose it" option may become a real possibility. In that spirit of consensus, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea to withdraw new clause 5.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Will the Minister clarify one point about the "use it or lose it" principle, no matter whether it is introduced under new clause 5 or new clause 8 or some amalgam of them? If someone registers within five years and continues to register every year, can they continue to do so for ever, or will there be some limit?

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

It will be done by consensus.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I hear what my hon. Friend says: we would have to discuss that. There is a strong argument for a cut-off date, because a "use it or lose it" option would be more generous than the current provisions. However, I give no guarantee, except that, as the Home Secretary has said, if a consensus emerges and a model develops that has the consent of all the political parties, it will deserve serious consideration.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

We have had a debate on the nature of compromise and the way towards consensus. The Government's original attempt at consensus was to offer a mid point—a geometrical bisection between 20 years and nought, which was, of course, 10 years. The alternative that has emerged might be described as a non-linear compromise—five years, not 10, but with continuous registration. That proves that the middle way does not always mean reaching a mid point. I claim no credit for thinking of that solution; it came from the international organisations of the parties. I freely confess that I have, as the Minister said, changed my mind since the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee. As that recommendation was for five years, however, I have changed my mind not on the length of time required, but on the way in which the law may apply to those who are prepared to re-register year after year. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, our approach contains an important self-regulating feature, ensuring that the amendment would apply only to the small number of people who show determination to register. There are perhaps 3 million or 4 million British passport holders overseas, but we are talking about only 13,000 of them—just one in 300 are determined to keep their vote. New clause 7, on international organisations, was never meant as special pleading for those who work for public sector organisations. It was intended to be taken with new clause 5, on the "use it or lose it" principle, to create a double system by which people whose commitment to the UK is beyond doubt could be assured a continuing vote. Those who work in the public sector for organisations of which we are treaty members would receive an assurance. Those who do not would prove their good faith through registering year after year. In either case, the intention of the amendments is to set a test of people's continued commitment rather than opening up the vote to the millions who live abroad and who have British citizenship. I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. I understand that he offers no guarantee, but it is incumbent on all parties to seek the consensus that would persuade him to accept an amendment so that what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) called the chrysalis of consensus may burst into the butterfly of agreement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.