HC Deb 13 March 2000 vol 346 cc65-87 '.—(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended in accordance with this section. (2) In subsection (3) of section 1 (Extension of parliamentary franchise) leave out paragraph (c) and after paragraph (d) insert the words "and (dd) he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year.". (3) For subsection (4)(a) of section 1 (Extension of parliamentary franchise) substitute— "(a) he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year,".'.—[Mr. Linton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Linton

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

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

'.—(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended in accordance with this section.

(2) In subsection (3) of section 3 (Extension of franchise for European Parliamentary elections) for paragraph (c) substitute— (c) either that entry in the register was in force at any time falling within the period of 20 years ending immediately before the relevant date, or he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year,

(3) In subsection (4) of section 3 (Extension of franchise for European Parliamentary elections) for paragraph (a) substitute— (a) either he was last resident in the United Kingdom within the period of 20 years ending immediately before the relevant date, or he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year".'.

New clause 7—Extension of franchise for employees of international organisations— '.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 14 (Service qualification) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended in accordance with this section. (2) In paragraph (c) the words "or an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member" are inserted after the words "British Council". (3) After paragraph (e) the words "(f) is a person under the age of 25 who is resident with a parent qualifying under any paragraph (a) to (e) above," are inserted.'.

New clause 8—Representation of the People Act 1985— '(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended as follows. (2) after subsection (5) of section 1 add: (6)(a) Any person who was registered as an elector under this section at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date that he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and who registers in each succeeding year, shall be entitled to vote for the purposes of this section notwithstanding the fact that the period of time referred to in subsection 3(c) or subsection 4(a), as the case may be, has expired, provided that he satisfies the other relevant requirements of this section. (b) In respect of any person who by reason only of his age was incapable of being included in any register of parliamentary electors in force on the last day on which he was resident in the United Kingdom, the period of five years referred to in subsection (a) shall be taken as commencing on the day he ceased to be incapable of being so included by reason of his age.". (3) After subsection (9) of section 3 add: (10)(a) Any person who was registered as an elector under this section at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date that he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and who registers in each succeeding year, shall be entitled to vote for the purposes of this section notwithstanding the fact that the period of time referred to in subsection 3(c) or subsection 4(a), as the case may be, has expired, provided that he satisfies the other relevant requirements of this section. (b) In respect of any person who by reason only of his age was incapable of being included in any register of local government electors in force on the last day on which he was resident in the United Kingdom, the period of five years referred to in subsection (a) shall be taken as commencing on the day he ceased to be incapable Of being so included by reason of his age.".'.

Amendment No. 139, in clause 132, page 84, line 32, leave out "10" and insert "5".

Amendment No. 180, in page 84, line 32, at end add ', except for employees of approved international institutions, where for "20 years" there shall be substituted "the whole of their period of employment with an approved international institution". (2) For the purpose of subsection (1) an approved international institution shall be any organisation set up pursuant to any treaty or convention of which the United Kingdom is for the time being a signatory.'. Amendment No. 176, in page 84, line 32, at end add— '(2) The substitution of "10 years" for "20 years" in subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of any person who, on the coming into force of this section, was registered as an overseas elector and who continues to register in each succeeding year.'.

6.15 pm
Mr. Linton

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.

Mr. Evans

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.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

No.

Mr. Evans

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.

Mr. Miller

We wrote it.

Mr. Evans

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.

Mr. Bercow

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?

Mr. Evans

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.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (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.

Mr. Grieve

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?

Mr. Kaufman

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.

Mr. Grieve

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.

Mr. Kaufman

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.

Mr. David Wilshire (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?

Mr. Kaufman

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.

Mr. Wilshire

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?

Mr. Kaufman

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.

Mr. Stunell

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.

Mr. Evans

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?

Mr. Stunell

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.

Mr. Miller

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.

Mr. Evans

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?

Mr. Miller

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.

Mr. Grieve

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?

Mr. Miller

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.

Mr. Wilshire

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.

Mr. Miller

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?

Mr. Wilshire

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.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)

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

Mr. Wilshire

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.

Mr. Grieve

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

Mr. Wilshire

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.

Mr. Stunell

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?

Mr. Wilshire

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.

Mr. Denis MacShane (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.

Mr. Wilshire

Where? Where?

Mr. MacShane

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.

Mr. Grieve

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?

Mr. MacShane

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.

Mr. Tipping

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.

7.30 pm
Mr. Wilshire

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.

Mr. Tipping

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.

Mr. Evans

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.

Mr. Tipping

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.

Mr. Evans

It is on CNN.

Mr. Tipping

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.

Mr. Evans

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?

Mr. Tipping

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.

Mr. Evans

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?

Mr. Miller

It will be done by consensus.

Mr. Tipping

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.

Mr. Linton

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.

Forward to