Representation of the People Bill

HL Deb 13 June 1985 vol 464 cc1411-27

7.1 p.m.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Representation of the People Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Clause 1 [Extension of parliamentary franchise]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 3, after ("date") insert ("(subject to subsection (3A) below)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if in moving Amendment No. 1 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21. Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 4, leave out ("resident outside") and insert ("not resident in"). Amendment No. 3: Page 2, leave out lines 5 to 7. Amendment No. 4: Page 2, leave out lines 14 and 15. Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

("(3A) A person does not qualify as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency on the qualifying date for those purposes unless—

1. (a) the date referred to in subsection (3)(b) above fell within the period of five years ending immediately before the qualifying date, or
2. (b) throughout the period beginning when he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and ending with the qualifying date, he has resided outside the United Kingdom in connection with his occupation as a member, officer or servant of a Community institution, who—
1. (i) on the date (if it is the appropriate date for qualifying) or on the appropriate date in the same year as that date for qualifying, qualifies as an overseas elector in respect of any constituency, or qualifies under section 3 of this Act in respect of any Assembly constituency, and is a British citizen, and
2. (ii) satisfies the condition mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

(4) The reference in subsection (3A)(b) above to a person ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom is, in the case of a person relying on registration in pursuance of a service declaration, a reference to his ceasing to have a service qualification or, if later, ceasing to be so resident.

(4A) For the purposes of this section and sections 2 and 3 of this Act, the appropriate date for qualifying as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency, or for qualifying under section 3 of this Act in respect of an Assembly constituency, is the date by reference to which the register of parliamentary electors or, as the case may be, the register under section 3 of this Act for the constituency concerned is prepared.")

Amendment No. 7: Clause 2, page 2, line 42, leave out from ("person") to end of line 44 and insert ("may not").

Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 2, after ("Act") insert ("on the ground that he may be entitled by virtue of section 1 of this Act to vote at parliamentary elections for which the register is to be used")

Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("and") to ("unless") and insert ("may not be so registered on that ground")

Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 39, at end insert—

("(4A) In the case of a person relying on paragraph (b) of section 1(3A) of this Act, his overseas elector's declaration must in addition—

1. (a) state that he will satisfy the condition mentioned in that paragraph, and
2. (b) specify the Community institution of which he is a member, officer or servant.

(4B) In the case of a person relying on section 1(3A)(c) of this Act, his overseas elector's declaration must in addition state—

1. (a) that he is and will on the qualifying date be resident outside the United Kingdom to be with his spouse, and
2. (b) that his spouse will, on that date (if it is the approporiate date for qualifying) or on the appropriate date in the same year as that date for qualifying, qualify as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency, or qualify under section 3 of this Act in respect of an Assembly constituency, and be a British citizen and will satisfy the condition mentioned in section 1(3A)(b) of this Act,

and specify the Community institution of which his spouse is a member, officer or servant.")

Amendment No. 13: Page 4, line 10, leave out ("resident outside") and insert ("not resident in")

Amendment No. 14: Clause 3, page 4, line 38, after ("date") insert ("(subject to subsection (4A) below)")

Amendment No. 15: Page 4, line 39, leave out ("resident outside") and insert ("not resident in").

Amendment No. 16: Page 4, leave out lines 40 to 42.

Amendment No. 17: Page 5, line 3, at end insert ("and").

Amendment No. 18: Page 5, leave out lines 4 and 5.

Amendment No. 19: Page 5, line 11, at end insert—

("4A) A peer does not qualify under this section in respect of a constituency on the qualifying date for those purposes unless—

1. (a) the date referred to in subsection (4)(b) above fell within the period of five years ending immediately before the qualifying date, or
2. (b) throughout the period beginning when he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and ending with the qualifying date, he has resided outside the United Kingdom in connection with his occupation as a member, officer or servant of a community institution, or
3. (c) on the qualifying date, he is resident outside the United Kingdom to be with his spouse, who—
1. (i) on that date (if it is the appropriate date for qualifying) or on the appropriate date in the same year as that date for qualifying, qualifies as an overseas elector in respect of any parliamentary constituency, or qualifies under this section in respect of any constituency, and is a British citizen, and
2. (ii) satisfies the condition mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

(4B) The reference in subsection (4A)(b) above to a person ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom is, in the case of a person relying on registration in pursuance of a service declaration, a reference to him ceasing to have a service qualification or, if later, ceasing to be so resident.").

Amendment No. 21: Clause 4, page 7, line 20, after ("person") insert ("satisfying any of the requirements for").

The main purpose of these amendments is to fulfil the undertaking I gave to my noble friend Lady Elles that the Government would return at a later stage with amendments which would give officials of the European Community institutions, together with their spouses, the right to vote at parliamentary and European Parliament elections. As some of your Lordships may be aware, we did not get these amendments quite right when they were first tabled and I apologise to your Lordships if any inconvenience has been caused by corrections having to be made.

In general, our amendments are designed to carry out, so far as possible, the intentions behind the amendments that were carried at the Committee stage, subject to some minor changes about which I have written to my noble friend. Your Lordships will note that our amendments refer to members, officers and servants of the Community institutions. They are intended to clarify a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about whether judges of the European Court would benefit from my noble friend's amendments. They would certainly benefit from the amendments I am about to move.

Your Lordships will have noticed that on the Marshalled List there are amendments to some of these amendments. It may be helpful if I explained that these raise a separate and distinct issue which need not affect your Lordships' decision on my amendments. For that reason it may be more convenient to debate them later when they are moved at the appropriate point in our proceedings. I understand that that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, for 12 years many British officials who went into institutions of the European Community have been waiting for this occasion when they hope to be granted by this House and another place the right to vote in national and European Parliament elections, putting them on a par with all other officials of the Community so far as European Parliament elections are concerned, and on a par with the vast majority of officials with regard to the national elections in their member states.

I should like particularly to thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for, if I may say so, taking over my amendments, putting them into proper form and moving them before your Lordships' House. I hope the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has taken these on board, will influence Members of another place in their support of these amendments when the Bill reaches them.

I should also like to thank all those on all sides of the House who supported the main amendments at Committee stage and the question of the spouses which I presented at Report stage. I would say to your Lordships that all the officials I have met since the first amendment was carried have expressed their joy and satisfaction that your Lordships have seen fit to recognise their right and duty to take part in elections in the country whose interests they continue to serve, along with those of other member states, as well as their strong ties and family connections with this country.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I had anticipated that the Labour Party Front Bench would wish to make some comment on these slightly different amendments that are being put before us. I would join with the noble Baroness in welcoming these amendments and in sayng clearly that, whatever may happen to subsequent amendments, the basic amendments have our support. The amendments to which we shall be speaking in a few moments go rather beyond these, but the basic amendments have our full and wholehearted support. We are delighted that people in an admittedly rather narrow area are being given their right and proper franchise in British and European elections. The House, and indeed the people concerned, should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 en bloc: [Printed earlier: col. 1411.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 en bloc. I have already referred to them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 5: [Printed earlier: col. 1411.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. I. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, Amendment No. 6: Line 11, after ("institution") insert— ("or as an official of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have been following the progress of this Bill will remember that, at an earlier stage when we had already entrenched within the Bill so far as was possible the franchise for the members of the European Community, an interesting question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who pointed out that this did not seem to include those people who were working for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They are, of course, in a very similar position to those who are working for the European Community. It was really with the intention of setting that apparent injustice right that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich and I originally put down this amendment, and we are glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, have joined their names to it. We did seek support from the other side of the water. In fact a number of people who supported the original amendment on the European Community were written to by me and my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, and in fact I have received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who regrets that he cannot be with your Lordships tonight but certainly lends his support. But perhaps more important, if I dare say so, is a letter that we received, after a letter sent from us, from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who says: I feel that the right to vote should be accorded to all British citizens living in Community countries whether or not they happen to be international Civil Servants; and, if these views were accepted, it would of course give the right to vote to British members of the NATO international staff which I would very much like to see. I would also of course very much regret anything which served to put the British working at NATO in a worse position than British working for the Commission, and I would be happy for you to say so if it is any help". I believe that it is of considerable help to have his weight behind this amendment. I think he sets it out very well. Now that we have accepted that members working for the Community should be enfranchised, it really would be quite wrong that people in a precisely similar position working for NATO should be disfranchised. It is on that very simple proposition that I beg to move this amendment. I should have said that I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 20.

Amendment No. 11: Clause 2, line 7, at end insert— ("or that he is an official of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.").

Amendment No. 12, Clause 2, line 20, at end insert— ("or that his spouse is an official of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.").

Amendment No. 20: Clause 3, line 10, after ("institution") insert— ("or as an official of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.").

7.15 p.m.

The Earl of Cork and Orrery

My Lords, I have nothing at all to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has just said, except to say that I heartily approve of every word of it. It seems to me that this amendment is sound, both in logic and in justice. I heartily support it.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I am sorry that Lord Mishcon cannot be here tonight, since he has of course had a great deal to do with this Bill and, so far as concerns the Opposition, has piloted it through. But he is engaged elsewhere, and therefore I must do my humble best to deal with this very important amendment. It is an important amendment; there is no doubt about that. I really wonder whether the amendment can, in fact, be supported because it seems to me that if we are not careful we will put voting of people abroad on a ratchet. We agreed to an amendment at Committee stage. We now have another amendment, and one wonders just how far we can take this.

In my view, there is a difference between the officials of the EC and the officials of NATO, and the case for extending the franchise to British officials living and working permanently in other EC countries is in fact rather different from the case of officials working for NATO—at least that is the way I see it. In the case of the EC, for example, there was some case for arguing that Britain is part of a community that works through democratic forms, one of which is an assembly elected by universal franchise, and that British officials resident outside Britain are, at least in part, serving that body and in that sense they are in some relationship to civil servants serving our own Parliament.

That is not the case so far as NATO is concerned. NATO is quite a different animal. It is not at all the same sort of animal as the EC, and in fact it embraces a much wider range of countries, including the United States of America—and that is a very significant difference indeed. I note that noble Lords are very amused. I am glad they are amused. We shall afford them some more amusement in a minute, I am quite sure. Nevertheless, the institutions are quite different from those of the EC, and there is in fact no elected assembly.

There is of course, as I have already said, this other worry. How much further do we go if we carry this amendment? There are other organisations, such as the British Council and the Council of Europe, where officials may feel they had an equal claim to enfranchisement, and that certainly has to be taken into account. Furthermore, there must come a point where people are so remote from this country that they can in no sense be entitled to a say in its government.

The issue of taxation is a case in point, and indeed it was raised at Committee stage. We all know the slogan, "No taxation without representation". Is there a case in fact for reversing it in this instance and saying, "No representation without taxation"?

Before I sit down there are one or two questions I should like to raise, and I think these are important questions when talking about the enfranchisement of people, apart from the taxation element. The entitlement to vote brings with it not only privileges but obligations as well: for example, the obligation for jury service. Are NATO officials to be given the privilege of voting in elections and yet escape the obligation of playing a role in the judicial service? I direct this question particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. What is to happen when the Government introduce their poll tax? Will these people be liable to pay that tax or is it intended that they should be exempted? There are some very real difficulties about this amendment.

I listened very carefully indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I shall listen to further arguments that are used, and of course when those arguments have been put we shall make up our minds as to how we shall vote.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I have a slight suspicion about the way in which the noble Lord and his friends will go; but I have also a suspicion that the real argument has not in fact been put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. What we have to do is to understand, from the rather incomprehensible speech—if the House will forgive my saying so—to which we have just listened, how it was that the noble Lord and his friend voted for British officials of the European Communities to get the vote. He is now advocating, as we have just heard, that British officials of NATO should not get the vote. He did not, I think, wholly explain his position. But perhaps some words of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on the last occasion explain why the Opposition Front Bench have taken the view that they have done. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur was speaking on the proposition on which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, voted of course with his colleagues on the last occasion in support of the noble Baroness's amendment to enfranchise British officials of the Communities. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was obviously rather surprised by the attitude of the Labour Party in this House because of the very different attitude of the Labour Party in another place. Indeed at col. 1185 of Hansard for 28th March he said: I noted with interest the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concerning the enfranchisement of Community officials. I have to tell the noble Lord that it was mainly because of the vigorous opposition of his party that the Government had to reduce the seven-year period to five years. At no stage of the proceedings in another place was there the least suggestion that the noble Lord's party, or the other parties, supported special arrangements for Community officials.". I think it deeply disappointing, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will join me at least in this, that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not here to explain exactly what view he took on the last occasion and what view he would have taken if indeed he had been with us this evening. Perhaps I may quote what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said on the last occasion in his speech justifying his vote at the Committee stage. I refer to his speech justifying his decision to go into the Division Lobby in favour of enfranchising British officials of the Community. I quote from col. 1181 of the Official Report for 28th March. The noble Lord said: I have had the privilege when visiting various institutions of the European Community and its Parliament of meeting some of our officials in Europe who have brought great distinction to the Community itself and its service, and if I may say so, to this country. The more British people we can send to be officials in this institution while we continue to belong to it—and many of us are in favour of continuing our membership, while some of us are not quite so fervent—the better. I am only going to say that, having been in the service of the Community for the number of years they have, to deprive them of a vote seems to me to be completely and absolutely wrong. I would put them in line, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, with the members of the Armed Forces and the Diplomatic Corps. This is an amendment to which the Opposition would give favourable consideration". We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, try to explain why the Opposition voted for that amendment on that occasion on the basis of that argument. The difference of position is to be explained entirely because of the existence of the European Assembly. But of course that is not even remotely the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the last occasion. In fact as we all know perfectly well, the Opposition in another place are extremely cross that the Labour Party in this House voted for the amendment of the noble Baroness, and because of that they have decided to vote against this amendment. All I would say to the House, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is that it seems to me to be a pretty squalid way to disfranchise. If the position of the Government is one of resistance to the amendment, are we really going to disfranchise—that is what it means—a number of our fellow citizens simply because of considerations of this kind? This is not the way in which Parliament should conduct itself when it is discussing the question of giving British citizens the vote.

What makes it even more incomprehensible—I refer again to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in the matter—is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out on the last occasion, the Labour Party at the last general election indicated that It was going to come out of the European Community. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said very frankly, some members of the Labour Party would still rather like to come out of the European Community. But the one thing that the Labour Party made clear at the last general election, and has made clear since, is that it totally supports British membership of NATO. Yet NATO officials are the one group who apparently are going to be deprived of the vote in the context of a situation where officials of the European Community are going to get it. That seems to me to be a wholly extraordinary argument and I hope very much that the House will vote in favour of my noble friend's amendment.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, I should like entirely to support all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I agree entirely that voting powers should be given to those who are working for us as British citizens with NATO. In every respect I support all that he has said.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, one thing I am certainly not going to get drawn into is the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about a poll tax, but before I say anything else about juries I can tell him that a person who is outside the United Kingdom when summoned for jury service already has automatic exemption under the Juries Act 1974. So at least that answers one question which has been raised this evening.

Before I turn to the amendments themselves, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make two general observations. First, at an earlier stage of the Bill I was invited to say whether the Government amendments to be tabled for Third Reading would give the vote to NATO officials on the same basis as Community officials. They do not do so because in the Government's view the position of NATO officials needs to be considered separately. The purpose of the Government amendments, as I described, is to give effect to the clear decision of your Lordships' House that British citizens working for the institutions of the European Community should have the right to vote with their spouses at parliamentary and European Parliament elections for an indefinite period after they leave the United Kingdom. In bringing forward those amendments, it was not the Government's role to extend the franchise to other categories whose position had not been debated at an earlier stage.

The second observation I must make concerns the nature of the agreement between the parties to which reference has been made. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, described it then as a rather sordid compromise, but agreement and compromise between the parties represented in another place has been a feature—

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, with all due respect, I think it was an arrangement between the Government and the Labour Party. Other parties were not involved.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, that may be—

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, it is.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I know it is true to some extent—

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, that is the position.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, that may be the position on the agreement, but the party to which the noble Lord belongs did take part in the discussions and I can say from the information I have that it was happy enough to drop its opposition to the Bill as a whole when it was agreed to reduce the increase in the deposit to £500. So it is certainly not true that it did not take part in the discussions.

The agreement and compromise that was reached has been a feature of every major change in our electoral arrangements since 1918, and this Bill is no exception. I believe that some of your Lordships—

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he is saying happens to be factually inaccurate? Many elements of past representation Bills have been matters of intense partisan debate. I would remind him only of the abolition of the university seats in the 1945–50 Parliament. What he is saying happens to be entirely untrue.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I note the noble Lord's feelings on the issue but I can stand by what I said—that there was discussion. I accept the point about whether or not the noble Lord's party was actually part of the agreement; but the fact is that there were discussions which involved the noble Lord's party. I note that he does not rise to refute that suggestion.

The agreement that was reached was that the seven-year qualification period under the Bill as originally introduced should be reduced to five years but that the five-year period should apply across the board without unfair discrimination to British citizens working in the public service and the private sector. There were to be no exceptions to this rule. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that his noble friend Lord Mishcon intervened at the Report stage to acknowledge that this was the position.

Many of your Lordships may feel that the provisions of the Bill do not go far enough and that there is a strong case for giving the vote to British citizens living and working abroad who will not be enfranchised by the Bill. The Government have every sympathy with this view, but as I explained at the Committee stage we think it would be quite wrong to seek exemptions from the rule in favour of particular groups such as officials of NATO or the European Community. To do so would devalue the contribution—it is a considerable contribution—made to British interests by British citizens living and working abroad in the private sector.

Of course, at the Committee stage the Bill was amended to give special treatment to Community officials. It will be for another place to consider those amendments in the usual way. I have nothing to say on that subject now. But even if I were to announce today that the Government had decided that Community officials should be enfranchised, I do not believe it follows automatically that NATO officials should be treated in the same way. Of course I have enormous respect for my noble friend Lord Home and for the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and for their views on this matter. The constitutional status of the Community is wholly unique and this is a point that must be remembered. Decisions of the Community institutions have the force of law in the United Kingdom, and British citizens working in the Community institutions are involved from day to day in making these decisions.

NATO is different. Although it may differ in importance, it does not differ in kind from other international organisations of which Her Majesty's Government are a member; the Council of Europe, the United Nations and its agencies, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and so on. It is hard to think of a reason for giving the vote to NATO officials but not to officials of all those other organisations—but that is what the amendments of the noble Lords invite your Lordships to do.

We are not proposing in this Bill to deal any less fairly with NATO officials than other British citizens serving abroad. Of the 1,000 or so British citizens working at NATO headquarters in Brussels, a substantial proportion have been away from home for less than five years. Far from being disfranchised as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicated they would be, they will be given the vote for the first time by the Bill. Your Lordships should not overlook that fact. Your Lordships need to ask whether it is right to sacrifice the principles of fairness and equity for the benefit of the comparatively small number of people involved.

At one stage the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough to say that he was in honour bound by the agreement reached in another place. My position this evening is exactly similar. I cannot honourably invite your Lordships to agree to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other noble Lords, including some of my noble friends, whose views I respect. Even if I were in a position to be more sympathetic, I should advise your Lordships to consider this matter very carefully on its merits. I do not need to underline the Government's commitment to NATO in any way but this amendment is not the right way to express it. In view of what I have said, I hope that noble Lords will not wish to press their amendments. If they choose to do so, then I shall invite the House to vote against them.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am grateful for the response of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. He is at least consistent in what he has been saying. It will be remembered that when at an earlier stage we moved that all British citizens who live in Europe should be enfranchised, the noble Lord opposed it. The only inconsistency in the Government's position is that this House having agreed to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, Community officials are now in a somewhat privileged position. But that was the wish of your Lordships, and so be it.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has dealt with the difficult position in which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, finds himself. I appreciate that he is doubly unfortunate in having this land in his lap on this occasion, when it is a bit of a hot potato for him. It seems to me that the proposition we have before us tonight is a very simple one; that the people who are in many cases living as next door neighbours to Community officials in Brussels doing similar if not identical jobs on behalf of this country, in defence of the realm and of Europe, should be as entitled to vote in British and European elections as are those of their neighbours who work for the European Community.

The rest of the argument is largely a smoke-screen caused, I known perfectly well, by certain accommodations made in another place between the two Front Benches. But that does not seem to me to be any reason why we should not make our minds up on this matter here tonight. I beg to move.

7.34 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6), as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Amherst, E.	Howie of Troon, L.
Attlee, E.	Kilmarnock, L.
Aylestone, L.	Lane-Fox, B.
Banks, L.	McNair,
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Meston, L.
Bowden, L.	Molson, L.
Cathcart, E.	Morris of Kenwood, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Ogmore, L.
Crawshaw of Aintree, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Diamond, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Foot, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Gray, L.	Rochester, L.
Grey, E.	Stedman, B. [Teller.]
Hampton, L.	Tordoff, L. [Teller.]
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Wigoder, L.
Hooson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Heycock, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Hives, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Hooper, B.
Barber, L.	Hornsby-Smith, B.
Bathurst, E.	Hughes, L.
Bauer, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Ironside, L.
Bellwin, L.	Irving of Dartford, L.
Beloff, L.	Kimball, L.
Belstead, L.	Kitchener, E.
Birk, B.	Limerick, E.
Boardman, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Long, V.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Lyell, L.
Butterworth, L.	McFadzean, L.
Caithness, E.	Mansfield, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Margadale, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Mersey, V.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Molloy, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Molson, L.
Carnock, L.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Mountevans, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Munster, E.
Coleraine; L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Nicol, B.
Cowley, E.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Cox, B.	Penrhyn, L.
Craigavon, V.	Phillips, B.
David, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Davidson, V.	Rankeillour, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Renwick, L.
De La Warr, E.	Rodney, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Ross of Marnock, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Rugby, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Elibank, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Sandford, L.
Elton, L.	Scanlon, L.
Faithfull, B.	Silkin of Dulwich, L.
Gallacher, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Galpern, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Geddes, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Swinfen, L.
Gowrie, E.	Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Grimthorpe, L.	Teviot, L.
Haig, E.	Trumpington, B.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
	Vivian, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Ward of Witley, V.
Harris of High Cross, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Henley, L.	Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.41 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton)

We now come to Clause 2, Amendment No. 7. But I must first put the Question on Amendment No. 5, which is unamended.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Registration of British citizens overseas]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9: [Printed earlier: col. 1412.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which we have already debated. I spoke to them on Amendment No 1.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 10: [Printed earlier: col. 1412.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, there are amendments to Amendment No. 10—namely, Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 13: [Printed earlier: col. 1412.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Extension of franchise for European Assembly elections]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 18: [Printed earlier: col. 1412.]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 19: [Printed earlier: col. 1412.]

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, Amendment No. 20 is an amendment to Amendment No. 19.

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Extension of franchise: consequential amendments]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 21: [Printed earlier: col. 1412.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this with Amendment No. 1.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Miscellaneous amendments of the principal Act]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 22: Page 39, line 41, after ("person") insert ("appointed to assist or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment makes a minor correction to paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. The amendment sets out a new formulation of the offence of breach of official duty at parliamentary and local government elections. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 23: Page 44, line 31 at end insert— ("(cc) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted— (3) Within the prescribed time after giving the security, the petitioner shall serve on the respondent in the prescribed manner—

1. (a) a notice of the presentation of the petition and of the amount and nature of the security, and
2. (b) a copy of the petition.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 28 and 29. Amendment No. 24: Page 44, leave out lines 34 and 35. Amendment No. 25: Page 44, line 38 leave out ("(b)"). Amendment No. 28: Schedule 5, page 54, line 9 leave out from ("136") to ("in") in line 12. Amendment No. 29: Page 54, line 15 leave out ("(b)").

These amendments make a small but, we hope, worthwhile improvement in the procedure for presenting an election petition. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 24: [Printed above.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 25: [Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 26: Page 51, line 32, leave out ("paragraphs 8 and") and insert ("for paragraph 8 there shall be substituted— 8. Provisions requiring the registration officer to prepare a special list of those persons entitled to be registered whose addresses are not required to be shown on the electors lists or of any class of such persons, showing the addresses of the persons concerned."; (aa) paragraph").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we may conveniently take Amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 30: Schedule 6, page 55, line 34, leave out ("8").

These two amendments are tabled in response to representations from the political parties. Their purpose is to give the parties access, for canvassing purposes, to the addresses outside the United Kingdom of overseas electors. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Repeals]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 53, line 30, in column 3 at end insert—

("In section 43(2)(b), the words", or section 44(2)".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I propose to put Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 together, as I believe they go together. Is that correct?

Lord Glenarthur

Yes, my Lords; together with Amendment No. 30.

The Deputy Speaker

Then we shall take Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 together.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 30: [Printed above.]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Our proceedings on this Bill have been dominated by one issue, but before I turn to that perhaps I could remind your Lordships of the other significant changes that it makes: namely, an extension of the franchise to perhaps half a million British citizens resident abroad; a rethinking of postal and proxy voting, including new arrangements for people who are away on holiday on polling day; and an increase in the deposit required of a candidate at a parliamentary election, together with a reduction of the threshold for forfeiture.

These are all changes which have been widely sought for a number of years, but none of them has ever had the complete support of all the political parties represented in another place. That so many of the Bill's provisions have passed through your Lordships' House with so little comment is a tribute to the work of my right honourable friend in securing the maximum possible agreement for the Bill before it reached your Lordships, as it is to noble Lords who have taken part in the debates so constructively and tolerated me when I took over from my noble friend Lord Elton the Bill and his former responsibilities for it.

As I said earlier, agreement and compromise have been the foundation of changes in electoral law throughout this century. The principal change made to the Bill in your Lordships' House—the exemption of European Community officials and their spouses from the five-year qualification period for overseas electors—is an example of a provision which had support in all quarters of your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend will note this with interest, and in particular the support that was given to its amendment from the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that it will also be agreed on all sides of your Lordships' House that on matters relating to parliamentary elections another place should have the final say. I am sure your Lordships wish to send these amendments on to another place only to ensure that important issues are fully and properly considered by both Houses, as they should be, before the Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it quickly will.

The prime mover of the amendments on Community officials was my noble friend Lady Elles. I congratulate her on her achievement and hope she feels she has done as well as she might reasonably have expected. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who is sadly not here this evening, raised a number of important issues, as has the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.

Regrettably perhaps, electoral law is a complex and specialised field, as I have certainly found in the course of my involvement with the Bill, and it is not always possible to deal with the subject at the length it perhaps deserves. I hope that those who have taken part in the debates are satisfied with the replies that they have received, in most cases at any rate, but if not I could write to them, though I think perhaps not at this stage of the Bill. I hope too that they and all your Lordships will join me in wishing the Bill a swift passage back to the other place and thereafter to the statute book. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Glenarthur.)

7.52 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I have not had very much to do with the Bill until tonight, but I know that my noble friend Lord Mishcon would wish me to say a few words at this stage and to agree with the noble Lord that this is indeed an important measure which makes great improvements in our electoral arrangements. Many people will benefit from them. I think that it is altogether good, although perhaps there has been a little criticism tonight, that when we propose to make changes in electoral law and arrangements they should as far as possible be on an agreed basis. I think that any other way would make for conflict, and unnecessary conflict. It is the beauty of our constitution that we endeavour to get agreement about such arrangements. I accept the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, tonight of my position. After all, I am a newcomer to the Bill.

In conclusion, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I should like to agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that the Bill has been well received in this House. It has gone through the House with no difficulty. Noble Lords have been kind to each other, as they usually are in this House. The amendments that have been made will be considered by the other place, and we shall have to see what it does. It may very well be that we shall have to have a look at the Bill again. I do not know. On behalf of my noble friend I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debates. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for the pleasant and efficient way that he has piloted the Bill through the House.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. It was not an easy task for him to come into an area which requires a certain amount of specialist knowledge. I think that having got his toe into the water he will find that these things are habit-forming! As a party hack of many years standing I perhaps have as much experience of these things as anybody in your Lordships' House.

The Bill as it passes on its way is a great improvement on current electoral law. If it has any sins I think that they are sins of omission which we have tried to correct from these Benches, as have others, throughout the Bill's passage. The great success that we have had has been the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. Now that the Government have taken that under their wing I hope that they will sustain it in another place. There are many things that we should have liked to see in the Bill. We should have liked to use it as yet another vehicle to introduce proportional representation. But since we have had several goes at that in recent days without too much success we have restrained ourselves. We are Mill not happy with the idea of having deposits; we would far rather have nominations. But certainly the compromise reached is reasonable. I think that only time will tell as to whether it penalises small parties—for instance, the small nationalist parties—in the way in which we on these Benches feared that it might.

Taking it all with all, it is a positive Bill which takes some important steps forward for electoral law. People who have been disfranchised in the past for not very good reasons will now be able to vote in elections. That surely is a good thing. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debates, and particularly the Minister, and I certainly support this Bill tonight.

7.58 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I would add only a few words to what my noble friend Lord Tordoff said. In one respect, but only one, the Bill has been improved, and that was when the Government were defeated at the Committee stage on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. The Minister on that occasion did the best he could in undoubtedly difficult circumstances to defend the agreement worked out between the Conservative and Labour Parties in the House of Commons.

But, if I may have his attention for a moment, I would just say one thing to him. It does not help him to repeat the same bad point twice, if I may say so. In his speech a few moments ago he said that it was the habit in this country to proceed by consensus in such matters. Speaking for my noble friends, we are rather in favour of consensus and we should like to have a greater degree of consensus on a whole range of other issues, but that, as the noble Lord knows, is regarded as controversial by some members of his party.

What I say to him is that there is ample precedent for Governments imposing their views where changes of the electoral system are involved. In an intervention in his speech I gave one particular example, and that was the abolition of the university seats in 1945 and 1950. Despite that, the noble Lord a few moments later repeated exactly the same argument without apparently taking any note of the point that I made.

All I would say to him is that I think he has done well to get the Bill through with only one significant amendment. But we shall look with interest to see what happens when the Bill gets to the House of Commons and whether as a result of the deal done between the Labour and Conservative Parties in which we were not—I repeat, not—involved, the amendment made at the Committee stage is sustained, as I very much hope it will be.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who had to take over within 24 hours, or certainly not more than 48 hours, a Bill which had been undertaken by my noble friend Lord Elton. Therefore, I think the whole House would like to join me in warmly congratulating him on the way he has tackled what is a complex Bill and also on the courtesy with which he has dealt with Members of your Lordships' House.

I am extremely pleased, not for myself, but on behalf of the many British officials in the European Community institutions who have been writing to me during the days when the amendment was being debated and discussed in your Lordships' House. I came back only this afternoon from Strasbourg with messages of thanks to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for having taken over our amendment, and to noble Lords on all sides of the House who supported that particular amendment. It has removed what for those officials has been a great deal of discrimination.

I have mentioned before, but should like to repeat, that my own son was an official of the European Commission. His wife is French and had the vote, while he was not able to vote in a European parliamentary or a national election. I thought that, if ever there was one, there was an injustice in my own family. My son is no longer a member of the staff of the Commission. However, I know that many of his colleagues will be extremely grateful for the fact that this discrimination has been removed from them. I should just like to say that I hope that before too long we shall get votes from all British citizens in the member states of the Community. With those few words, once again I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Glenarthur.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks from all Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken. Most of the work on this Bill naturally reflects upon my noble friend Lord Elton, but I shall pass on to my noble friend the remarks that have kindly been made by your Lordships to me.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.