HC Deb 19 January 2000 vol 342 cc912-29 8.15 pm
Mr. Maclean

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 5, line 7, after 'the', insert 'verifiable'.

No. 57, in page 5, leave out lines 10 to 14.

No. 6, in page 5, line 22, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.

No. 7, in page 5, line 32, leave out 'temporary'.

No. 8, in page 5, line 32, after 'unemployment', insert 'of less than 3 months'.

Mr. Maclean

I have moved the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who tabled it. He has apologised that he cannot be here to do so.

Through this amendment and the related amendment No. 57, which suggest that certain words should be deleted, we seek clarification from the Government as to why they are included and about the detail of what they mean. Clause 3, line 7 reads: Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date.

Mr. Forth

That is garbage.

Mr. Maclean

It may be, but it is probably grammatically correct. What does that sentence mean? I confess that I do not know. I have an inkling of what I think that it may mean. I know what, "Regard shall be had" means. What about, "in particular"? If regard is to be had, in particular, what are all the other circumstances that the Government have in mind? Will the Minister explain these particular ones? What about to the purpose and other circumstances … of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date"? I think that the Minister would agree that the sentence is opaque.

I am certain that the Minister, who is kindly with us on secondment again from the Northern Ireland Office—I think that he called it unpaid day release last week, or something of the sort—

Mr. Gerald Howarth

No fixed fee.

Mr. Maclean

Yes—on transfer for no fixed fee.

I welcome the Minister's presence. He is always kind and courteous at the Dispatch Box and always seeks to elucidate where he can. I am certain that, if his brief has been prepared by the people whom I think prepared it in the Home Office—meaning no disrespect to the excellent Northern Ireland Office—it will contain some excellent detail. Admittedly, some of our legislation ended up in judicial review in the High Court—that is always a penalty of Home Office legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister's brief is likely to explain the circumstances.

What are the facts? I suspect that much of the brief will be available to be put into the public domain, or put on the record, if an hon. Member asks. I suspect that little will be in the "If pressed" category and there may be nothing in the category at the bottom of the brief headed, "Not to be revealed in any circumstances."

I simply ask the Minister, on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, what exactly those three lines mean and what other matters the Government have in mind that are not included by the words, "in particular"?

The amendments also suggest the deletion of lines 10 to 14. Those read: For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all the circumstances be taken to be at that time—

  1. (a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or
  2. (b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere."
That seems an extraordinary catch-all. No doubt the lawyers who drafted the clause know exactly what it means. The Minister, with his excellent brief and sharp mind, will know what it means, but it seems like gobbledegook to me and I would be grateful for an explanation. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is no doubt learned in a non-House of Commons, technical, nomenclatural sense, will be able to advise me.

Mr. Forth

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

Mr. Maclean

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

Mr. Bercow

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

Mr. Maclean

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

Mr. Fabricant

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

Mr. Maclean

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I will leave the other amendments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For simplicity's sake, I am dealing with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The amendment must be phrased in such a way as to draw attention to what my hon. Friend calls gobbledegook. It is not possible to table an amendment to ask the Minister to explain that passage, so one must use the parliamentary device of proposing to delete lines 7 to 14.

I would not propose to push the amendment to the vote—unless the Minister's explanation horrifies me—as my intention is not to delete the lines, but to seek information and elucidation. I have every confidence that the Minister will be able to provide that.

Mr. Forth

I will pick up the baton from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) at this point.

I was upset when my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) indicated that my amendment was of less than complete value before I had even had a chance to explain it. He will be listening attentively, as always, as I try to explain it. A number of our amendments seek to make the Bill more secure and, therefore, to enhance it. This amendment is probably the least important of that group, but it has its own validity.

Clause 3 states: Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date. However, as soon as one introduces the concept of "the fact", there is a duty to establish whether it is a fact or not.

Mr. Fabricant

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

Mr. Forth

I hope that that is not the case. I am barely scratching at the surface of my argument, so my hon. Friend should not rush too quickly to call me to account. If he is patient, he might be prepared to agree with me. If not, he will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and give the reasons why.

I may not have selected the right word—the House knows how I struggle to find my words—in calling for a "verifiable" fact. I have tried to establish that there should be incumbent on the registration officer an additional procedure, through which he will seek to verify what is claimed in the process of registration by the person seeking that registration.

We are talking about a new, dynamic register—of which I have not been fully persuaded—so there is a greater requirement for verification at every part of the process. Otherwise, we will introduce a dynamic, but highly inaccurate and vulnerable register, rather than one that is tight and secure. I hope that the Minister will agree that adding the word "verifiable" will give greater security to the process than would otherwise be the case. We do not know from the present wording how "the fact" is to be established or proved. Surely we cannot go too far in seeking to make our electoral register as secure as possible, and we shall return to this theme again and again.

Mr. Bercow

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

8.30 pm
Mr. Forth

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

Mr. Brady

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

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend is leading me into ethereal territory—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. That is the last thing we want.

Mr. Forth

In that case, I shall return—

Mr. Bercow

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

Mr. Forth

We are making progress.

Mr. Fabricant

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

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

Mr. Forth

Indeed I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a complicated argument about difficult concepts and it arose because we were exploring the meaning of the word "verifiable" in the context of amendment No. 5. However, I concede that we may have over-complicated the issue. We have probably teased enough out of it to give the Minister the opportunity to clarify the matter. He has followed the argument with ever more glazed eyes, but a useful brief may come to his assistance at any moment. I am confident that he will not need it.

I shall move on rapidly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I try to be aware of your facial expressions and body language. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 cover different territory and we are, mercifully, out of the area of concept and into the area of numbers. Amendment No. 6 is a probing amendment. Clause 3 states: For the purpose of determining whether a person is resident in a dwelling on the relevant date for the purposes of section 4 above, his residence in the dwelling shall not be taken to have been interrupted by reason of his absence in the performance of any duty arising from or incidental to any office, service or employment held or undertaken by him if … he intends to resume actual residence within six months of giving up such residence, and will not be prevented from doing so by the performance of that duty". Amendment No. 6 suggests that the period should be three months, and I invite the Minister to explain why it should be six months. I believe that three months would be more appropriate, but I am open to persuasion. I am confident that the Minister will be able to persuade us of his reasons, but I would like them to be put on the record.

Mr. Fabricant

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

Mr. Forth

I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister's explanation, but the three months mentioned in the earlier debate about Northern Ireland related to the length of time that one must be able to establish residency before being able to register, but in this case we are talking about how long someone can be away from his established address but still remain validly registered. In the context of the new, dynamic, rolling register, six months may be too long if we wish to guarantee the reliability, validity and security of the register.

We are launching ourselves into an experiment in democracy. I am not convinced that we need the Bill at all—although I do not wish to pre-empt my speech on Third Reading—but if we are to have this misbegotten, ill-thought-out and unnecessary measure, we must do what we can to make the register secure. We must be able to guarantee to the electorate that the new process will be tamper proof and cannot be misused.

Mr. Gray

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

Mr. Forth

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

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth)

indicated assent.

Mr. Forth

The Under-Secretary of State is nodding. I am not surprised. The arrangements are probably buried somewhere in a schedule—[Interruption.] He confirms that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) makes a good point, which we should always bear in mind, but most military people often take the opportunity of proxy votes, postal votes or whatever. However, it would be useful if the Minister said a few words about the matter when he replies to the debate.

I come to the next provision that we are seeking to probe through a little amendment. Clause 3(4) says: For the purposes of subsection (3) above"— the one that we have just been considering— any temporary period of unemployment shall be disregarded. That worries me. When I see a term such as "temporary" in this context in a Bill, I wonder whether it is the proper word to use. It gives rise to enormous potential for interpretation by different registration officers. It is possible that the Minister will want to tell me that the provision will be more closely specified in regulations. That would be half an argument.

Mr. Fabricant

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

Mr. Forth

I do not think that I share my hon. Friend's view. It is just sloppy drafting, not a conspiracy. It is a cock-up, which happens so often these days, I regret to say, even in something as important as legislation. The use of a term as variable and as open to diverse interpretation as "temporary" is unwise in such a Bill. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I have suggested in our amendment that we insert a period of unemployment of less than three months. It would put beyond doubt and beyond interpretation what the registration officer should have in mind when he does his necessary work and verifies the register's contents. I should like to think that the Minister will accept the amendment. I will not die in the last ditch over it at this stage. If he were to tell me that the period of three months was not right, but some other period was, I would go along with him.

If we leave a word such as "temporary" in the Bill, how would that provide sufficient security in the nationwide implementation of the measure, were it ever to come to that? Indeed, does it provide sufficient guidance for either local authorities when they contemplate pilot schemes, or registration officers when they have to implement the provision? I do not believe that it does.

We are pursuing a constant theme, to which we will return during discussion of future groups of amendments: is there sufficient tightness, sufficient security, in all the measures to make them reliable and effective? That is the thrust of my argument.

Mr. Bercow

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth

I will, but I am trying to conclude.

Mr. Bercow

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

Mr. Forth

That has to be the case. As my hon. Friend spoke, another thought flitted across my mind. I will try to dismiss it because I doubt that it could be true—but it is just possible that, were unemployment to start to rise dramatically from the level that, mercifully, it is at present, that would have a severe impact on the clause and on its implementation, constituency by constituency, registration officer by registration officer. It is one thing to frame such legislation in the happy circumstances in which we find ourselves in terms of unemployment at the moment, but we are legislating for a long period. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, anything that is put in the Bill will, by definition, exist for quite some time. You know better than me that changing primary legislation is not easy. Therefore, we must feel triply reassured about whatever appears in the Bill.

Those are the questions that I pose. We want to be helpful; we want to be flexible. Conservative Members are not being dogmatic. However, we are looking for the Minister's analysis, reasoning and explanation of those provisions in the Bill, either accepting our amendments or giving us cast-iron reassurances that the unhappiness that I have expressed is groundless and that that part of the Bill is secure. That is what I am looking for.

8.45 pm
Mr. Wilshire

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

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

Mr. Wilshire

I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this was a difficult point in a difficult debate. However, as you say, there are important amendments before us which we must consider and, if necessary, vote on. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) both explained, we are dealing with six separate amendments. Although they are related, they raise five individual, but linked, issues. It is important to consider each of those five issues carefully and separately.

When moving amendment No. 46, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said that it was a probing amendment. He said, quite rightly, that we wanted the Minister to explain why this provision had been included in the Bill. We should also consider why it is not sufficient to stick to the facts. The subsection provides that we must consider the purpose of someone's presence or absence as well as the facts. I always thought that legislation aimed at being clear and precise and at sticking to the point. Someone is either present or they are not; they are either absent or they are not. The reason why is not the issue. As I understand it, the electoral register seeks to determine someone's residence. We could get locked into an argument about why people choose to live where they do as a purpose for being there. Surely that is not the issue.

Why are the facts of the matter not sufficient? Why do we have to wander into the issue of the purpose of presence or absence? What does the Minister mean by "purpose"? The Bill is not satisfied with the purpose alone—it states that regard shall be had in particular, to the purpose". As my right hon. Friend said, that raises the opportunity to include all sorts of other things, as well as purpose. If the Minister considers it necessary to specify that the purpose is relevant, why does he not tell us which other issues are relevant? Why not spell them out? He chooses to spell out "purpose"—why have the catch-all of "in particular", which allows the Bill to introduce anything else? Does the Minister have anything else in mind?

Mr. Bercow

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

Mr. Wilshire

I am saddened that my hon. Friend does not go with the flow of my argument. I would be inclined to share his point of view unless I were given a good reason for the word's inclusion. The whole thing is very curious and difficult. The Government are asking me to support in legislation the concept that, even if people are present somewhere, it could be said that they are not. Alternatively, we are being asked to accept legislation that provides that, even if people are absent, if they can give a good enough explanation, they can be said to be present. That is the most extraordinary concept to introduce into legislation.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) described the amendment as probing, I am slightly disappointed; the amendment should be for real. The gobbledegook to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred applies to this matter. Why can we not simply stick to the facts? If we accepted amendment No. 46, we should be left with the facts; that should be sufficient for British legislation.

Mr. Gray

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

Mr. Wilshire

That is a valid point. If the House supports my hon. Friend's view, it is incumbent on the Government to state which purposes they would accept as good. My hon. Friend gives an example of a practice that, I hope, is not acceptable; it would be a bad purpose. To state only that purposes can be taken into account does not meet the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. If we accept my hon. Friend's argument, the Government will need to introduce further amendments in the other place.

Amendment No. 5 would come into play if amendment No. 46 were to fail. I am a politician who likes to think well of my opponents, so I have great hope in the Government. I am sure that the reasonableness of the intricate arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the past few minutes will have persuaded the Minister of the justice of our cause, and that we will not need to invoke amendment No. 5. However, in case we need to do so, we should discuss it.

Mr. Fabricant

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

Mr. Wilshire

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

Mr. Fabricant

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.

Mr. Wilshire

I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. There are a further 13 groups of amendments, which do not include the word "verifiable", to be debated tonight, but if he tables amendments on a future occasion, I should be happy to debate whether that was verifiable.

Amendment No. 57 deals with the difficult issue of those without a permanent address. I should be grateful if, before we vote on the matter, the Minister would tell us whether, when we are talking about whether a person has a permanent address, we are talking about whether they have a permanent address in the United Kingdom or a permanent address anywhere. If a person has a permanent address outside the country but enters the country and says, "I have no permanent address here", the Bill does not make it clear whether the qualification of no permanent address would apply.

Another concern that I have about the issues addressed by amendment No. 57 is the fact that I see in a Bill the words "for example". If there is a lawyer in the House at the moment, perhaps that lawyer—or the Minister—will explain whether a colloquial throwaway comment such as "for example" has any place in legislation and could be taken before a court for judicial review, because I rather think that "for example" should come as a footnote. In my 13 years in the House, I have never come across legislation with footnotes. I have seen many a Select Committee report with a "for example" tucked at the bottom, but never in legislation have I seen such a device.

Mr. Maclean

The words "for example" have been used in legislation—that is, much legislation includes lists of types of things. However, perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the Minister to explain whether the sui generis rule applies in this case and, by quoting these examples, whether other categories of the same generic family would also be included or excluded. That is the important point.

Mr. Wilshire

That was a fascinating intervention. I should be grateful to hear the answer.

Mr. Brady

My hon. Friend may not have noticed that the Minister appeared to be nodding assent to the suggestion that the sui generis rule applies.

Mr. George Howarth

No, I nodded off.

Mr. Wilshire

My admiration for the Minister knows no bounds if he actually understood the detail of those interventions well enough, as a non-lawyer, to explain to me what we have been discussing for the last few moments, because I could not get my mind around it.

This is all about the question, when is permanence permanence and when is non-permanence non-permanence? I do not find that difficult. What we are seeking to do, if I may say "for example", is to draw a distinction between a person who lives on a park bench for months on end and a person who is chucked out for a night by his wife and has to spend the night on a park bench. That is an example of what we are trying to do.

However, it occurs to me that a problem arises from trying to draw such distinctions, because if someone says, "I live on a park bench", that is a non-residence, unless the person is resident somewhere else. Perhaps we need to consider what happens if the other place is also a non-residence. If someone sleeps on this park bench or that park bench, does having two park benches mean that one of them is the alternative place of residence, and therefore the provision does not apply?

The Minister may think that I am being foolish, but I am trying to save the taxpayer money because, if we do not clarify the matter now, judicial review looms on what is permanent and what is not. If we clarify the matter now, we shall save the taxpayer the enormous legal fees involved in letting the courts sort it out later.

Mr. Maclean

I can give my hon. Friend a better example from a real case, not just what may be regarded as a facetious or spurious case involving people on park benches. When the Newbury protesters were taken to court by the police and the Transport Department, the courts ruled that the holes in the ground, or tree-house, in which the protesters were living amounted to a place of residence, and they were bailed to return to their residence—the piece of land that they were demonstrating on. That demonstration is irrelevant to my hon. Friend's argument, but the point is that a residence can be a tree-house or a hole in the ground, as ruled by the courts in Newbury.

Mr. Wilshire

That reinforces my feeling that we must clarify the matter before we give the Bill a Third Reading.

I move on to amendment No. 6. If I understand it, the Bill addresses the issue of how long a person can be away from somewhere without its mattering. The Bill says six months, but the amendment would make it three. That suggests to me that we spent an entirely futile two hours discussing whether in Northern Ireland somebody should be resident for three months before going on to the register. Even though we had that discussion and accepted that provision, we are now saying that it does not matter. I hope that the Minister will tell us which period applies. Is it the one that we discussed earlier or the one that we are discussing now? I see nowhere in the clause the words, "Notwithstanding the references to residence in Northern Ireland". Does the clause refer to the residency test in Northern Ireland? If it does, it should say so. If it does not, why did we have the earlier debate?

9 pm

Another issue is short-term unemployment. As was said earlier, the word "temporary" should be defined. As a non-lawyer, I am amazed that the drafters of the legislation could use what I consider to be such a sloppy word. If I were unemployed for three years and then got a job, I could say that it was only a temporary period in my life.

I know what the Government were trying to do. They were trying to catch the sense of "short term". That would have been a better term than "temporary", but both are sloppy.

Mr. Bercow

Is not the intellectual paucity of the Government's position demonstrated by the conflict in their treatment of Northern Ireland on the one hand and the rest of the United Kingdom on the other? A week is a long time when it suits the Government in the context of Northern Ireland, but six months is a short time in the context of the rest of the United Kingdom because that fits in with their predestined purpose. In a nutshell, are not the Government guilty of what the late Winston Churchill would have called "terminological inexactitude"?

Mr. Wilshire

Despite occasional appearances to the contrary, I am a kind and generous man at heart. Unlike my hon. Friend, I prefer to believe that that is just sloppiness, not devious Labour politics of the worst kind. I hope that my generosity to the Minister will be repaid by his telling us that he now realises that it would have made much more sense to specify a period of time rather than to throw out a general term such as "temporary". That would have set my hon. Friend's mind at rest and he would not have had to think the worst about the Labour party's motives.

I could be persuaded that three months was not the period that the Minister had in mind. However, for the purposes of the debate and a vote, let us stick with three months. If he wants us to agree to two or four months, I should also be entirely happy about that.

Mr. Fabricant

I wonder whether the clause could have been better phrased by using the words in the Bill's explanatory notes. If I may read a brief note, they say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This is an intervention, which must be brief. Will the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) resume his speech?

Mr. Wilshire

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise one more issue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield may then catch your eye so that he can develop his point.

As well as wondering why the Bill is so sloppily drafted, I am mystified why the concept of unemployment gets dragged into a factual matter, such as whether one qualifies to be on the register. That returns me to the first point that I raised. Surely to goodness, we are dealing with where a person resides, not with whether he has a job. I am wholly puzzled by the fact that the Bill considers what a person does with his time. That is not what the Bill is about; it is about where he lives.

I notice that the Minister has been making careful notes, so I look forward to hearing his answers to my many questions.

Mr. George Howarth

I shall try my best to deal with the points that have been raised, although I suspect that some were made to fill up time rather than to shed enlightenment.

Mr. Fabricant

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not it have been out of order if there had been a filibuster and would you not have called the House to order if there had been?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman might equally be accused of taking up the time of the House. The Minister was only surmising; it is the Chair who decides.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman knows that I deliberately did not use the word "filibustering".

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised a number of points with which I shall try to deal, but there was an element of metaphysical discourse in his speech, and I am not entirely clear what specific points he was making. It is not entirely clear whether he himself knew exactly what points he was making, but I shall try to respond to those that I could identify.

Before I do so, I shall decline the offer that the hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago when he asked me to put at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Having watched the hon. Gentleman for some weeks, I have concluded that his mind is far too fevered for me to put it at rest.

There was some discussion about verifiability between the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The hon. Member for Lichfield is waiting for a flash of inspiration or enlightenment from me. I have to tell him that verifiability is a word that we all understand, but I suggest that when he has the opportunity he should read the work of Karl Popper, if he has not done so already. I know that the hon. Gentleman is better read than he sometimes appears to be. Karl Popper adds an even more interesting concept to the discussion of verifiability in that he believes that falsifiability is a far better tool. I suggest that when the hon. Gentleman has time, he reads Karl Popper for enlightenment, or revisits his work if he has read it already.

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth

I shall give way once to the hon. Gentleman and that is all.

Mr. Bercow

We know your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we respect them, but it is of the utmost importance to understand to what the Minister is referring, because it is relevant to his response to the debate. Is the work to which he is referring to be found in "The Open Society and its Enemies" or in "Conjectures and Refutations"?

Mr. Howarth

It is some years since I have read either of those publications, and I was an undergraduate at the time. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the general philosophy that underlies Popper's approach is that any theory is a good theory only if it is open to falsification. That is relevant to the dialogue between the hon. Member for Lichfield and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but it would certainly be remiss of me to advise them to discuss that during this debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Having sat through the Committee proceedings on the Bill, I assume that the working party did not explore that area. Certainly members from our party did not report that they rose to such philosophical heights.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman is right. As I intend to demonstrate in a moment, the working party stuck to practicalities and matters of interest to people who want to vote, because that is what the Bill is all about.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) requested information on the position of those in military service and merchant seafarers. Even though he has since decamped, I shall clarify the matter for the record. Military personnel register by means of a service declaration. Merchant seamen register under section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is not affected by the Bill. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman avidly reads the record of the debate tomorrow, he will understand the situation.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne embarked on a somewhat convoluted dialogue about the use in legislation of the expression "for example." I am sure that he has already read it, but to make matters clear I draw his attention to a good example of the use of that expression in the Bill. It appears in clause 3(2), which reads: Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date. For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all circumstances be taken to be at that time—

  1. (a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or
  2. (b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere."
The hon. Gentleman has to concede that the use of the expression "for example" is, in that context, appropriate and enlightening.

Mr. Wilshire

I am afraid that I do not accept that. I was complaining about the use in the Bill of the words "for example." The fact that the Minister can find another example of their use in the Bill does not undermine my argument. My point is that they should not appear anywhere in the Bill, but I would have been out of order had I addressed clauses that we were not debating.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman objects in principle to the use of the words "for example." I was merely demonstrating, by means of yet another example, how it is possible to use that phrase to provide amplification and illustration of a provision.

I recognise that some of those right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the amendments are anxious to ensure that the electoral registration process is not susceptible to false claims and manipulation by those who are sufficiently unscrupulous to attempt them. I respect those views and share that concern, but I do not believe that the amendments would help to achieve that aim.

Even after listening to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) —always a great joy—I am somewhat puzzled by amendments Nos. 46 and 57. It appears that they would provide that residence should be determined solely by a person's presence or otherwise at the relevant address on the day in question. If that were so, a possible interpretation would be that a person who happened to be staying at a friend's house on the day of the annual canvass would register at the friend's address, rather than his own. I do not believe that the confusion of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke exists.

Amendment No. 5 is designed to tighten up the definition of "residence", by introducing the concept of "the verifiable fact". Having already referred to that and to falsifiability, I do not intend to dwell on the subject. However, the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the verifiable fact of someone's presence at, or absence from, a particular address on a particular date. How would that work? How is someone who lives alone to prove that he was at home on the date in question? If a false claim is made, there are established procedures for objecting to the inclusion of a specific name in the register. Those procedures are used when people believe it appropriate and necessary to use them. In my view, they provide a more appropriate and effective safeguard than the arrangements proposed in the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are designed to tighten the provisions relating to those who are temporarily absent from home in connection with their employment or business. Under new section 5(3)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as substituted by clause 3 of the Bill, a person who is so absent can continue to be treated as a resident at his home address, provided he intends to return within six months of leaving home; and new section 5(4) provides that periods of temporary unemployment may be disregarded in that connection. Use of the word "temporary" is accepted: the electoral administrators who were consulted and who participated in the framing of the proposals believe that that is a suitable definition, and I am content that it should remain on the face of the Bill.

9.15 pm
Mr. Brady

In my view, it is acceptable for "temporary" to remain in the Bill, but the Minister should give some indication of what the Government have in mind as the definition of "temporary". They must have a conception of what temporary unemployment means for these purposes.

Mr. Howarth

I have already referred—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening—to people who are temporarily away from their home for the purposes of business. On six months of leaving home, they can be considered for registration. That is not an unreasonable period in terms of being temporarily away from home. It is not necessarily a period of unemployment.

Mr. Brady

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth

I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. Having done so, I must make some progress.

Mr. Brady

We are dealing with an important point that has an impact on other areas of employment law. My concern is the reference in clause 3(4) to "temporary period of unemployment", and the suggestion that that can be disregarded. I accept what the Minister says about temporary absence from home on business, but to say that a temporary period of unemployment can be disregarded, when that period could mean anything from three days to three years, is not acceptable. The Government must give an indication of their thinking on the matter.

Mr. Howarth

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that his concern is unnecessary. I do not think that it is necessary for me to state a specific period after which temporary unemployment becomes long-term unemployment. I think that the Department for Education and Employment probably has a definition of when temporary employment becomes full-time employment. Perhaps we can reflect on that subsequently. It is not necessary for us to get into a convoluted argument about that.

Mr. Fabricant

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he always provides the House with great entertainment. This will be the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Fabricant

Why is the time clearly defined in the explanatory notes and not in the Bill?

Mr. Howarth

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, explanatory notes explain what is in a Bill. That is why we provide explanatory notes.

I intend to move on. I understand why Opposition members might want to delay me, but I think I have been more than generous in giving way. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to do so again.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has commented on the use of language. He has been honest enough to say on more than one occasion that he is not entirely convinced of the need for the Bill. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has said, the Bill was conceived as a result of co-operation between the three major parties in the House. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not included in that process. He has his own view on these matters, and the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench may sometimes consider it to be somewhat wayward. However, I do not question the fact that he has the right to take that approach.

Throughout the process of co-operation, we had the benefit of advice from and the thoughts of electoral administrators. They believe that the arrangements set out in the Bill are useful.

Amendment No. 6 would reduce the maximum period of absence from employment from six months to three. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would substitute a maximum period of three months' unemployment for "temporary" unemployment.

I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. The provisions in clause 3 make it simpler for people to register, and clarify the circumstances in which they do so without opening the door to abuse. Given all the advice that we have painstakingly taken, we think that the provisions strike the right balance. I hope that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) jointly will feel it appropriate to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Maclean

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister and to hear him explain why the amendments may not be necessary or may be misguided. Casual observers may have regarded the debate of the past hour as tedious or boring. I am sure that the Minister was not one of those. He was courteous, as usual, in paying attention to the important points that have been made, and he is always meticulous in responding properly to debate.

It would clearly be nonsense for me to force a vote on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not wish to press his amendments to a Division because of the generous response from the Minister, which we welcome. As I wish to speak at length on the main business tonight—

Mr. Forth

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is peculiar for the Minister to tell the House that because a measure has been agreed by all parties, it must be beyond reproach? The House will recall that the Child Support Agency had the support of all parties, and I do not think that any of us are particularly proud of that.

Mr. Maclean

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. The issues on which the great and the good agree are often the ones about which we should worry. Some Ministers think that if a measure is bounced through in five minutes on a Friday, that is good. I know that the Under-Secretary does not take that view and is always meticulous and courteous. In order that we can crack on and deal with the main group of amendments relating to pilot schemes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to