asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have welcomed the report of the Royal Commission and made clear that they wish to give proper consideration to all the recommendations. That process is still continuing and, as noble Lords will be aware, we hope to proceed by consensus with other political parties on the next stage of reform. It would be premature to say whether the Government intend to accept any particular recommendations and, therefore, what legislation would be required.

My Lords, there is nothing unpredictable in that Answer. Therefore, I cannot bring myself to thank the noble Baroness for it. However, perhaps she will be kind enough at least to understand that what some of us fear most is that either we shall get a pale shadow of the present House of Commons or a body which is merely a convenience for the House of Commons. Either would be very nasty. I wonder whether the time has come when the Government, flushed with their constitutional triumphs to date, will feel encouraged to take them a step further.

My Lords, I never aim to be unpredictable. Therefore, I am sure that I shall give the noble Lord another predictable answer for which, perhaps, he may be able to summon up some gratitude. I simply report that, as I am sure he is aware, there is an informal understanding between the usual channels in this House that we should have an early opportunity to debate this issue. I look forward very much to the noble Lord's contribution to that debate. I hope he looks forward to mine.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not all of us share the gloomy view about the future of this House just expressed on the Opposition Benches? Some of us are quite hopeful and optimistic. To that extent, perhaps the Government may feel assured.

My Lords, I am most grateful for my noble friend's support. I hope that he will feel it appropriate to express that support at greater length when we come to debate the issue in, I hope, a very few weeks.

My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that, as expressed in this Question, we do not want legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, or such of them as are acceptable to the Prime Minister, but legislation which will ensure that we get an effective second Chamber which is accountable properly to the people of this country?

My Lords, I am sure that that is a general aim. As I said in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that is why we very much hope to achieve consensus among all the political parties involved on a general approach to the second stage of reform.

My Lords, when my noble friend comes to examine the Royal Commission's report, perhaps I may ask that she should not be taken in by the siren calls from the Opposition, who suddenly seem to be taken by the novel constitutional principle that elected governments have no right to get their business through?

My Lords, the Opposition's view on both the short and long-term position on reform of your Lordships' House has, shall we say, been variable. In the spirit of genuine consensus which the Government now hope to achieve, I am sure that we shall be able to reach some kind of working arrangement on the way forward.

My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider that democratic accountability requires consideration of the way in which Members of the House of Commons are chosen by a tiny minority of political parties? Further, is she prepared to consider that the Whip is very strong, that independence is out and that Peers are more independent in this House? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to consider that independence should exist in this House rather than in the other place?

My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Government made clear in our White Paper, published just over a year ago, in the ensuing debates on what has now become the House of Lords Act and in the initial response to the Royal Commission that we intend that Cross-Bench contribution to this House should continue and that people who do not take a party Whip should be represented substantially in any reformed Chamber.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a Question such as this should be viewed with a degree of suspicion and certainly surprise coming, as it does, from an Opposition who defended the hereditary system for so long and now want to act in haste to make further changes?

My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I have decided that in this debate it does not help to be unpredictable and, presumably, it does not help to be suspicious. I believe that it is right to start with a clean slate on the whole issue of reform of the second Chamber and proceed to a proper and full discussion. I agree with my noble friend that anything which is considered to be enacted in haste is unlikely to produce a generally accepted solution. As I have said in response to two supplementary questions, we hope that there will soon be an opportunity for general debate. That may be a more appropriate way to continue these discussions rather than in a Starred Question.

My Lords, in the light of the answer which the noble Baroness has just given, does she not agree that it was a mistake to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers to oversee appointments to the new commission? Will the noble Baroness answer the question which I put on the last occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, raised this subject? How much are the Government paying PricewaterhouseCoopers to deal with the appointments to the commission and what are the contractual arrangements? Does she not believe that that too should be a matter of consensus?

My Lords, I have recently answered a Written Question about the fees to PricewaterhouseCoopers for its expert support to the Cabinet Office in relation to the logistics of making appointments to the appointments commission. I believe that it has been published in the Official Report. The details of the terms of reference for PricewaterhouseCoopers are given there, as well as the fees.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear my noble friend Lord Peyton asking these Questions. The Government asked the Royal Commission to report in record time. If they want to stop my noble friend asking questions, the best thing that they can do is to give a proper response to the Royal Commission. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell me when that is likely to occur?

Following on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does the noble Baroness now regret that she did not come to this House to make a statement about setting up the Prime Ministerial appointments commission? On whose ministerial authority was some £100,000 plus committed to the PricewaterhouseCoopers recruitment campaign? Will she confirm that that same Minister agreed the wording of the advertisement?

My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's request for an early opportunity for the Government to state their position, the Government have offered, through the usual channels, days for debate to the Opposition for precisely that purpose. I understand that the first date proposed was not convenient to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, he cannot be particularly concerned about the speed with which we respond.

On the second point, no, we do not regret that we asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist us in the administration of that particular activity. Government departments have had such assistance over many years, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when this matter was raised on a previous occasion. As I said in my Answer to the Written Question, Ministers gave general agreement to the appointment of that particular firm. The terms of the advertisement were agreed at very high levels within government.

My Lords, I am extremely glad that the Government have said that they will give a response to the Royal Commission when we debate the matter. However, the noble Baroness has missed the point of my second question. Does she regret that she did not make a statement to this House about asking PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist with the setting up of the appointments commission? Does she not believe that this House should have a role in deciding what should be the terms and conditions of the appointments commission?

My Lords, we have dealt with this point on several occasions. As is customary in many such appointments arrangements, PricewaterhouseCoopers was asked by the Cabinet Office to provide some logistical help in relation to setting out the advertisements, preliminary sifting and so on for that commission. As I said, I have given the exact terms of reference and the scope for that firm in the Written Answer which has appeared in the Official Report.

No, I do not regret that I did not come to explain to this House that rather immediate administrative arrangement made by the Cabinet Office. All the arrangements for the setting up of the appointments commission for the interim House were made clear in some detail in the White Paper published last January by the Government, and extensively discussed—I gave the noble Lord references—during Committee and Report stages of the House of Lords Bill.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, as a result of surpluses which have accrued in the two former British Coal pension schemes since 1994, the Government have to date received some £519 million. Her Majesty's Government receive 50 per cent of any scheme surpluses in exchange for underwriting 100 per cent of any downside risk in the event of deficits. Also, since 1994, the Government have paid around £400 million into the schemes in respect of deficiency and additional contribution commitments inherited from British Coal.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. Is he aware that, in addition to the payments made so far, a reserve fund of nearly £4 billion has been built up in the pension fund accounts from which future payments to the Government will be made at not less than £250 million per year for many years ahead? That sum and the payments made so far are vastly in excess of anything that might have been anticipated and, indeed, in excess of any reasonable risk that the Government might run in having to meet future deficiencies in the pension fund.

In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the need for additional assistance in the coalfield areas and also that further pit closures are contemplated, will the Government not consider that, out of that bonanza which has come their way, and which was not expected, further contributions should be made to help former mineworkers and mineworkers likely, shortly, to be out of a job?

My Lords, two sums are involved. I refer first to the £1.8 billion held in the investment reserves of the pension schemes, which comprises British Coal's unused share of the pre-1994 valuation surpluses, and which is being paid to the Government over a minimum of 25 years; and, secondly, to that being paid as a result of the 1994 valuation surpluses, which I have mentioned.

As regards the balance of assets and liabilities which will accrue to the Government as a result of the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, we shall not know the amount of such balance for 30 to 40 years as this pension scheme will probably run for 50 to 60 years. To date, the balance has been in favour of the scheme and the Government. However, there is no reason to suppose that in future years it will not go the other way. As governments are to pick up the deficit, the policy of the pension fund trustees can be largely divested in high-risk equities which will benefit the coalminer pensioners. Unless the Government were to pick up the potential deficit, that would not be possible.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that when we sat through the extraordinary treatment of state/industry pension surpluses at the time of privatisation, some of us found the argument which the Minister has repeated totally unconvincing? It is no more convincing today. Is he aware of the negotiations on behalf of the former employees of the National Bus Company about their pension surpluses? Will the decision to make payments from such surpluses, to which the Government are now committed, be applied to pensioners of other former state-owned industries? To make it easy for him, does he not agree that the policy of the former government was a mistake?

My Lords, the arrangements entered into under the schemes in 1994 were undertaken by the trustees of both schemes. As I understand it, the trustees continue to believe that such schemes are in the best interests of their members. Perhaps I may repeat that Her Majesty's Government have accepted a contingent liability in this case of over £17 billion. The safeguard provides for the trustees to be able aggressively to fund an equity-rich portfolio which would not normally be suitable for a mature pension fund of this sort.

Ministers have also indicated that they will study the document from the Coalfield Communities Campaign carefully. I am sure that the trustees will do the same.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would take a particularly imaginative actuarial exercise for there to be any prospect of the Government finding money to sustain this fund, not least because of the relatively low life expectancy of most of those who have worked in the mining industry? Does he further agree that given the intensity of economic and social need which continues within the coalfields, it would be appropriate for the Government to allow a little more of that surplus to reach organisations such as the Coalfields Regeneration Trust which is capable of helping those areas to surmount the difficulties, which remain intense?

My Lords, I do not believe that it would require an imaginative actuary to suggest that there will be a turn-round. I agree that present circumstances appear to favour the Government. However, given that the fund may last for 50 to 60 years, it is not difficult to think of scenarios where the situation would reverse.

The balance of assets and liabilities in the trust is a separate question from the amount that the Government should appropriately invest in the regeneration of coalfields. As at present, that amount should be properly generous. In December 1998, the Government announced an investment package of £354 million, which was substantial. As I have said, this subject can always be debated but it is independent of the question of what finally turns out to be the balance of assets and liabilities in the particular pension funds.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I asked a similar Question some months ago? Since that time the fund has continued to accrue many more millions. Given the figures he has quoted, I am not entirely convinced that there is not room to meet the point of the Question. Everybody in the former coalfield areas appreciates the generous help given by the Government. However, is the Minister aware of the large pool of unemployed miners, most of whom are young people? The older miners received fairly generous redundancies. Will the Minister give an assurance that the matter will seriously be considered again?

My Lords, as I have said, Ministers have made it clear, and will continue to do so, that they will listen to concerns raised. They will study the document from the Coalfield Communities Campaign seriously, as, indeed, will the trustees.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the key issue underlying the question of pension schemes is that the workers believe that pension contributions are deferred pay? As a consequence, when employers seem to be taking the lion's share, whether in the coal industry or any other industry, that is seen to be grossly unfair by the workers in such industries?

My Lords, I understand that this was a defined benefit scheme. Therefore, the liability on both the Coal Board and the Government, who have accepted the responsibility, is properly to fund those benefits, including any bonuses payable because of the upward valuation of the fund. That is a responsibility of the Coal Board of the past and of the government of the future which will be discharged, whatever the circumstances, over the long life of the fund.

My Lords, it seems that it would be possible for part of the Government's share of the surpluses to be transferred to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. As I understand it, £10 million has already been transferred. My contention is that £10 million is paltry in relation to the sums to which we are referring. As there would appear to be a mechanism for such transfers, could not the Government contemplate transferring a little more?

My Lords, it is always possible for the Government to make such a payment in the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord. I agree that there was a payment of £10 million which, in the total sum of all the payments, seems to be de minims. It is always in the power of the Government to make a gift of money to the coalfields campaign or the trust from general government funds.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Health Development Agency will play an important role in supporting the Government's health strategy. The agency will establish robust evidence on what works in public health and communicate that to the field; advise on developing standards for public health; and support public health agencies and workers in improving public health.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his useful reply. Perhaps I may ask one or two supplementary questions. The first relates to the recent excellent debate on the National Health Service instigated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. It seems to me that, as well as managing illness, we should manage health. Will the Health Development Agency remain a special health authority promoting healthy lifestyles and campaigns for health on such topics as coronary heart disease and smoking?

My Lords, the Health Development Agency will be a special health authority. Its three core functions will be: to ensure that, as regards health promotion, we have the best available research on what works and what does not work; to develop and advise on the setting of standards; and to build capacity in relation to those people in the field who have to develop health promotion programmes. I believe that much emphasis should be given to the latter responsibility. As regards its predecessor, the Health Education Authority, there was a great deal of lack of emphasis and focus in assisting people engaged at local level in those areas.

My Lords, the Minister will recall that in the last annual report of the Health Education Authority, Yve Buckland, the new chair of the Health Development Authority stated:

"The HDA will be charged with helping to address health inequalities and with mapping the evidence base for public health and health improvement".

Can the Minister confirm that part of that evidence base will be the recent report entitled The Widening Gap which demonstrates that the greatest factor in ill-health is poverty, that the wealth gap is still rising, and that the key way to tackle ill-health is to tackle poverty?

My Lords, the new Health Development Agency will be charged with obtaining the best available evidence on matters relating to the improvement of public health. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the inequalities in health in our society. But this Government's policy developments in relation to the New Deal, child benefits and social exclusion are designed to tackle the issues of poverty, which in turn will tackle the issues of poor health.

My Lords, bearing in mind the importance of mapping exercises and the exchange of information, can the Minister tell us what the relationship of the agency will be with the health promotion bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

My Lords, each country in the UK has its own arrangements for health promotion, but it will be important that all agencies work well together. We will ensure that the new Health Development Agency is given every encouragement to promote that relationship and will monitor its performance in that and in other aspects.

My Lords, can my noble friend say how the Health Development Agency will co-operate with the new Food Standards Agency and how the tasks of each will be allocated?

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important matter. The duties of the Food Standards Agency on matters of nutrition was set out clearly in the White Paper, Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change. The agency will have a major role in nutrition. It will also have to work closely with health departments which continue to lead on wider, public health agenda matters. We will expect both agencies to work well together to ensure that the advice they give is both consistent and effective.

My Lords, some years ago we had a Health Education Council which was perceived by the government of the day as being ineffective in performing its role. It was then replaced by a Health Education Authority. Now that authority is to be replaced by an agency. Can the Minister tell us in what way the terms of reference of this agency differ from those of its predecessor and can he give us an assurance that it will be more effective in fulfilling its major role?

My Lords, the noble Lord puts his finger on an important consideration; that is, the performance both of the Health Education Council and the Health Education Authority over a good many years. It is my experience that, although the Health Education Authority performed a valuable role in certain areas, it could not be said to have been an unqualified success. The Health Education Authority's campaigning role got in the way of a more considered policy development role. First, in relation to the Health Development Agency, its emphasis on the establishment of robust evidence of what works in health promotion and public health will be crucial. Secondly, we are determined to ensure that the agency gives all the support it can to people engaged in health promotion work. I am afraid that neither the Health Education Council nor the Health Education Authority enjoyed sufficient credibility with those charged with improving health at local level.

My Lords, will the general public be able to gain direct access to the information that the agency compiles?

My Lords, the Health Development Agency will be able to draw together information which is of value both to agencies and to the public. We expect the public to have access to that information.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the quality of housing is something in which the new agency will take an interest?

My Lords, many factors bear on the state of health of people in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, poverty is one of those factors and lack of housing or poor housing is also relevant. I have no doubt that, if the agency is charged with obtaining robust evidence in relation to those issues, it will be able to do so. However, I stress that the Government decide upon the priorities to be pursued, not the agency. Having said that, the agency will provide as much information as possible in that regard. Of course housing is an important consideration in the attack on poverty and ill health.

My Lords, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the research work of the development agency does not duplicate that of other bodies engaged in the research field?

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the agency should not duplicate work being done elsewhere. I expect agencies in other UK countries to share work and in some cases decide that one country should concentrate on one area and another country on another. The sharing of information and the avoidance of duplication is extremely important.

My Lords, as it is St Valentine's Day, does not the Minister agree with my noble friend that a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet?

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 17, after first ("a") insert ("British citizen or a").

I would not in any way object to Commonwealth citizens having voting rights within the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Lord will agree will me that there is a contradiction here when it comes to passport control, especially at Heathrow airport. There is a fast-track entry process for British and European Union passport holders, but Commonwealth citizens—even those with ties to this country, having been born within the UK—are herded through yet another channel, with all the consequent delays.

In our view it is wholly appropriate that anyone who is on the register and entitled to vote and who can, therefore, vote in a parliamentary or local government election should be entitled to vote in a referendum in that part of the United Kingdom where he or she lives. Otherwise, the situation would be seriously discriminatory. I should add that the indication of Commonwealth voters on the register, however well intentioned, is something that could lead to an increased level of racism.

There is another issue which my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish did not quite cover. Those of us who have lived a political life in the years since the Second World War can remember occasions when, to put it mildly, the countries of the Commonwealth were not best pleased with the policies of the British Government. Indeed, like many noble Lords, I recall times when it was not an impossible thought that the countries of the Commonwealth might have voted to exclude Britain from the Commonwealth. It is to be hoped that those awkward days are behind us. I certainly hope so. However. if it was not impossible in the past, one is entitled to say that it is not impossible in the future.

Perhaps I may put to the Minister the following possibility. With an election pending, if it were a decision of the nations of the Commonwealth to expel the United Kingdom, it seems to me on reading part of Clause 1 of the Bill that that would at a stroke make it impossible for British citizens to vote in a parliamentary election. I say that because if British citizens were no longer Commonwealth citizens, they would be automatically excluded. Surely it would be wise for us to insert these words into the legislation so that, if such an unthinkable and awful prospect were to arise, a whole lot of changes in the law would not need to be made to ensure that British people could vote in a British election. Can the Committee think of a more absurd situation? However, this seems to me to be an implication which we ought to think about. I hope that the noble Lord will take this point on board and will accept the amendment, or at least tell us that he will think carefully about it.

I think that this is something, with respect, that one has to think about. One has to distinguish on the one hand quite clearly between the allegiance of Commonwealth countries—which is sometimes in question—and Commonwealth citizenship. I begin to wonder whether in the context of the purpose of this Bill, Commonwealth citizenship is well conceived as a qualification to register.

My noble friend Lord Jopling is right to put his finger on this matter. When I was first in the other place a Motion was, I believe, tabled by Rajiv Gandhi to the effect that Britain should be excluded from the Commonwealth. Sadly, that gentleman—I say this sincerely—is no longer with us. However, it is conceivable that that situation could arise. Therefore, it seems to me that the Minister will need to take the point seriously. I support my noble friend's amendment.

I refer to the sensitive subject of asylum seekers. I travel to Sri Lanka later this week and I am conscious of the number of Sri Lankans who seek asylum at this time. As I understand the Bill, we are moving towards a rolling register. Presumably someone who is in this country seeking asylum would qualify to go on the register almost from the date on which he or she arrived. I imagine that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that is not the case. However, that situation may not have been foreseen.

I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in the caution that has been expressed with regard to the nomenclature of the Commonwealth embracing the United Kingdom and all other countries within the Commonwealth. We are, after all, talking about a sensitive designation; namely, the electoral roll. It implies an underlying community and shared commitment which is rather strained. The reality of the Commonwealth is of a diverse collection of countries and of historical coincidences largely related to a phase of British imperialism which has now passed away. What is left behind is potentially dangerous if it is invested with a potency and a collective identity that it clearly does not possess. It may be a gesture of good will or of convenience to use the term "Commonwealth" as proposed in the legislation. However, we are perfectly entitled to utter a word of caution in that regard. I welcome the debate.

One simple question puzzles me; namely, why we are so keen to advocate representation from Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa when we flatly refuse to introduce reciprocal agreements for Commonwealth pensioners. Any British citizens who live in Commonwealth countries receive only the pension to which they were entitled when they left Britain. The sad fact is that many such pensioners are in dire straits as they have never received the increases in their pensions to which they are entitled. Therefore, I am puzzled as to why the British Government are so keen to spend thousands of pounds on producing leaflets to canvass them on election matters. Will the Minister comment on the possible introduction of a reciprocal agreement for the pensioners I have mentioned?

I am fascinated by this discussion. If I recall correctly—I stand open to correction—the British Nationality Act 1948 conferred certain rights on Commonwealth citizens and British subjects. Those who came to this country after that date are entitled to participate fully in the government of this country. When lain Macleod was colonial secretary, he confirmed that he intended to enable Commonwealth citizens to come to this country and to participate fully in the government of it. I hope that we shall not create two tiers of citizenship which discriminate between those who are here permanently and those who have come here to settle on a permanent basis. There is a residential qualification in this regard. No one flies from Ceylon, India, Pakistan or any other country and automatically goes on the register. They have to satisfy certain residential qualifications in this country to go on the register. Some of the arguments that have been advanced as regards the rights of people who come to this country are far fetched.

This has been a rather more fascinating debate than I thought it would be. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has spoken to his amendments with his customary vigour and entertainment value. I believe that we all enjoy that. However, the debate has strayed rather wider than I thought would be the case. Reference has been made to the euro referendum—I do not think it would be entirely appropriate for me to be drawn into that discussion this afternoon—and to reciprocal arrangements for Commonwealth pensioners. However, we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill. I shall attempt to address my remarks to that Bill.

When I consider some of the amendments that we shall discuss later, and what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has said, I believe that he takes a rather narrower view of the Bill than he did at Second Reading, and than was taken by his colleagues in another place and, indeed, his party when considering the Bill and the proposals that have emerged from the all-party working party on which there was fairly unanimous agreement on most of those measures. As a consequence, we seem to have rather a large set of amendments before us this afternoon and I believe that the debate will range rather more widely than we had all anticipated.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I can help him in this regard. Parliamentary scrutiny means scrutiny. There may be many amendments on the Marshalled List, but many of them are designed to tease out exactly what the Government mean by a measure. The noble Lord will have to get used to that if he is to continue to be a Minister and to present Home Office legislation.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reminder. I have no problems with scrutiny; the Government have no problems with scrutiny. However, I am concerned that some of the matters we are likely to discuss today go rather wider than that point.

The provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill, setting out who is entitled to vote in parliamentary and local government elections, simply replicate the existing rules. However, a necessary change is being made to reflect the fact that, with the introduction of rolling electoral registration, there will no longer be a single annual qualifying date. Among those entitled to vote in both parliamentary and local elections are Commonwealth citizens. Let us be quite clear that that includes British citizens. Indeed, given our key role in the Commonwealth, I do not believe that there could be any doubt on that point.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 7, 23, 63, 77, 121 and 122 seek to add the words "British citizen" before all references to Commonwealth citizens. That would imply that British citizens were not citizens of the Commonwealth. Apart from casting doubt on any other enactment, the use of the term "Commonwealth citizen" would also, I suggest, send a negative and unwelcome message to our Commonwealth partners. The term "Commonwealth citizen" has served us well for many years. Indeed, it has found its way into legislation brought before Parliament by both of the major parties in government. I urge the noble Lord to consider that there is no reason to depart from that term today.

Finally, Amendment No. 38 would require all non-British citizens to be identified on the electoral register with a special mark. I simply ask: why? Given that these people have the right to vote, they should be treated in the same way as everyone else. A special mark on the register would serve no purpose except to single them out. Worse, I suspect, certain far Right groups may find considerable use for lists which specifically identify non-British citizens. Do we really want to introduce that? The noble Lord opposite should think long and hard before he presses that particular point.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised questions about the countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. As he quite rightly acknowledged, I have written to him extensively on that matter. As I set out in some of the correspondence, most of them do not—

I am grateful to the noble Lord. With the utmost respect, the Minister is not addressing his mind to the question. He is saying "as they have the right to vote" but, for the reasons that have been given, it is very much in question whether they should have the right to vote. The Minister referred to the existing rule; is not our function to examine the existing rule? He appears to assume that we have to accept that "what is, shall be".

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention.

We take the view that Commonwealth citizens should have that right. Historically, they have always had that right; it has been established before in legislation. I am grateful that noble Lords opposite wish to spell out a difference on this issue. We have reciprocal arrangements with most Commonwealth countries and they work in a similar way. All the countries listed in the correspondence allow voting on much the same basis as we allow Commonwealth citizens to vote.

Although noble Lords opposite may take a different view, we believe that it is right that Commonwealth citizens should exercise the right to vote in the UK. I trust that, in the light of our discussions this afternoon—

Before the noble Lord finishes, perhaps he can tell the Committee about those countries I mentioned which are not on the list—Canada, Australia, Pakistan and India—which are, dare I say it, the major players in the Commonwealth. Do we have no reciprocal arrangements at all with them?

As I have set out in the correspondence, as far as I understand it, there are no reciprocal arrangements with the countries to which the noble Lord referred. But there is a fairly extensive list of countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. I am happy with that; the Government are happy with that; and the party opposite was happy with those arrangements when it was in government: it did not raise any questions about those reciprocal arrangements. I trust that the noble Lord will now see fit to withdraw his amendment.

I am sorry, but, as far as concerns my earlier comments, the Minister's reply is 100 per cent inadequate. I raised a serious point and the Minister gave my comments about as much attention as he did at Second Reading. I insist that he responds to the point I made. If he did not understand it, I shall try to explain it a little more clearly and perhaps a little more slowly.

Let us assume that a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government was to be held during the autumn—such meetings often occur during the autumn—and that that meeting was to take place after Parliament had been prorogued for a general election. I and other noble Lords will know that the period of prorogation for a general election can often be for up to a month. If, during that month period—when Parliament was not in existence—a somewhat unhappy situation arose whereby the Commonwealth Heads of Government, in their wisdom, decided to exclude the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth, that would mean, as I understand it, that, at a stroke, British citizens would cease to be Commonwealth citizens because Britain was no longer a member of the Commonwealth. That would mean, as I understand it, that the law could not be changed to take account of that new situation because Parliament was not sitting and there would be no Parliament. Perhaps I may complete my argument as I am into the flow of it. As I understand it, that would mean that the only people who would be entitled to vote at a general election would be either non-British Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Irish Republic.

Can the Committee imagine a more absurd situation than a British general election where the only people able to vote are citizens of the Irish Republic or citizens of all the other countries in the Commonwealth except the United Kingdom? I am happy to give way now.

I did not want to interrupt after the noble Lord indicated that he did not wish me to. It seems to me that his premise is incorrect. British law and the British courts would follow the British Nationality Act 1948, whereby Commonwealth citizens are so defined as to include all British subjects and all citizens of the United Kingdom. Therefore, even if the Commonwealth Heads of Government did do what the noble Lord suggested, all citizens of the United Kingdom would be entitled to vote under United Kingdom law at the general election posited by the noble Lord.

I am intrigued to hear that. It is a somewhat legalistic situation, of which I was not immediately aware because I am not a great expert on British nationality laws. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. However, I should like to hear it from the Minister, with the authority of a government stamp behind it. It is a serious problem.

Although there may be a legal explanation, if the scenario I have mentioned were to occur, there would be the greatest possible consternation in the middle of a general election campaign among the British media and among the average British voters who, like myself, are not experts in nationality laws.

The Minister must apply himself to what is, in my view, a serious question—a question which he totally ignored in his reply.

I entirely support the words of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in expressing some surprise at the Minister's surprise. We are at Committee stage and, if I may say so, the noble Lord on the Front Bench is not the first to find these procedures something of an ordeal. I know that this is the first time that he has gone through these kinds of exchanges. On the whole, your Lordships' House is an extremely kindly place, given to mercy and pity on all occasions, but if the Minister cannot do better than his opening defence against these amendments, he will be in some difficulty.

When he rose to reply, the Minister said that the debate had been fascinating and had gone much wider than he expected. I cannot understand why he did not anticipate that or, if he did not personally anticipate it, why his advisers did not anticipate it. I hope that when he gets back to his private office he will address some stern words to his advisers and tell them that he found himself in a very embarrassing position in your Lordships' Committee and that in future he requires better advice and better briefs than he has had today. I am assuming that the words spoken by the Minister came from his brief—in which case he suffers from the appalling misfortune of extremely bad advice.

I should like to make another small point. Just because the matter has been accepted since the year dot, it does not mean to say that when a Bill is being read Members of the Committee may not suddenly be seized with a desire to change something. My noble friend Lord Mackay has tabled some simple, easily intelligible amendments, as one would expect. To quarrel with them, or even to appear to quarrel with them on the basis that they attempt to achieve something new and strange which the Minister's advisers did not expect, is rather meagre.

The Minister is fortunate in having the benefit of the advice of the Government Chief Whip so easily available. We all have profound respect for the Government Chief Whip and we have absolutely no reason to doubt the quality of his advice. The only matter on which I can congratulate the Minister this afternoon is his near proximity to the Government Chief Whip. If he would like to have a quiet word with him now—oh, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, looked as if he were going to depart. That would be an act of gross and gratuitous cruelty to his noble friend in his hour of need.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was leaving because of the noble Lord's speech.

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. Perhaps he will respond to my invitation and give his noble friend advice about the procedures we go through during Committee stage and what Ministers really must accept from Oppositions. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me and not believe that I am being at all rude to him when I say that this Opposition have so far been distinguished by their kindliness and patience in a way that the previous opposition were not. If the position had been reversed and a Minister had confronted the Committee with the kind of reply that we have had so far to the amendments, there would have been an uproar, not only from the Front Bench but from the gathered legions behind them. Today, I can say only that my noble friend has behaved with his characteristic civility and politeness, as have all other speakers from this side of the Committee.

If proceedings continue in that way, the almost legendary patience and tolerance of this side of the Committee will be tried almost to breaking point. I had not previously believed that there was a breaking point.

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say in a spirit of relaxed charity that one point has risen in the debate on which I should be grateful for elaboration; that is, the talk of Commonwealth membership being the subject of entitlement to vote and the discussion of reciprocity.

New Section 1(1)(c) states that eligibility is conferred upon:

"either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".

Does "a Commonwealth citizen" refer unconditionally to Commonwealth citizens, or does it result from reciprocity between this country and some Commonwealth countries?

Perhaps I got off on the wrong foot earlier on the matter. I shall take the admonishments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to heart. I am grateful to him for his advice as to how Ministers should conduct themselves at the Dispatch Box. No doubt I shall learn my lessons quickly and, if I do not, he will come back and remind me for not doing so. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his kind words of support. These things always come in spades.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for being less than full in my response. I have had some researches undertaken since I sat down. My understanding is that, when, for instance, Nigeria and Fiji were suspended from the Commonwealth, their citizens did not lose their rights to vote as Commonwealth citizens. My understanding of the law in relation to the term "Commonwealth" is as my noble friend Lord Borrie ably explained in his intervention. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that the situation would be fairly absurd if his interpretation were correct. I am grateful to him for his intervention. It has focused our minds neatly on the range of issues that this set of amendments seeks to address. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for the debate. It has been valuable for that reason, if not much more.

However, I have some concern about the amendments. We shall resist them. They would not serve much good purpose, but they would suggest a narrowness on our part. Commonwealth citizens have historically had the right to vote here. Members opposite clearly take a different view, but we hold to that view since the situation has been thus since the post-war settlement. I therefore suggest that it would be right and proper for the amendment to be withdrawn.

We have certainly had an interesting little debate. I can remember at the beginning of this Parliament arguing against the concept of referendums. I was told by Ministers that I was being old fashioned and that I had to enter the new world—I gather that "new" is the most commonly used word in Mr Blair's speeches—that referendums were part of the new world; and that I had to accept them. Then came Scottish devolution, in which we were to tear up a constitutional arrangement that had been in existence since 1707. But that was not good enough; it had to be questioned and abandoned. I was told I had to get used to the new world. When the Government turned to your Lordships' House, it had to be changed to as near as they could possibly make it to a "quango House".

When we said that we believed that was perhaps not quite the right way to go about it, we were told that we had to get into the new world. Today the Minister tells us that we must accept what has always been the case in the past. We must not even ask why. We must not say that it is time to change, or anything similar. I must say to the Minister that the convincing arguments for change advanced by his noble friends on previous occasions—largely by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—were rather more compelling than his defence of the status quo.

His defence was made worse by the fact that he failed totally to address the point I made about a possible euro referendum. That is not theory. The Minister may not have been here in the summer of 1997, but we spent a long time then discussing the question of the legitimate register to use on referendum votes. The Government decided on that occasion that overseas electors should not be allowed to vote. Some of us believed that that was wrong, but that was the Government's position. The Government would not have been able to take that position if those people had not been so marked on the register. Indeed, if Members of your Lordships' House had not been so marked on the register, Members such as myself who live in Scotland might not have been able to vote. It was because the register had marks on it regarding people who were not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections, including overseas voters, that the Government were able to limit the franchise for the referendum.

The Minister has failed miserably to explain why I should not be concerned about a referendum on the euro and the possibility that we may want to limit the franchise. We may want to decide that European citizens who have a vote here at local elections should certainly not be allowed to decide whether this country joins the euro. It is an arguable case—I put it no higher than that—that citizens of Commonwealth countries such as Australia or Canada should not be allowed to decide whether we join the euro. They may be absolutely opposed to us joining the euro. When the day comes, the Government may in fact want to knock them out of the register—out of voting—in order to try to ensure they achieve the result they want. It was not good enough for the Minister simply to dismiss a major part of my argument about wanting to make sure that British citizens were included clearly on the register by saying that he did not want to become involved in discussing the euro.

I should have thought that the euro is the most important issue currently before the British people and will be so for some years to come. Whether one is for it or against it, it will be the major issue of the first decade of the 21st century. Who decides will be an important issue for us to address on the day the Government come forward with their referendum Bill on the euro.

We may come back to residential qualifications later. Perhaps I may give the Minister some advance warning. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, says that residential qualifications are necessary. We should like to know what those residential qualifications are. For the moment I shall seek to withdraw the amendment, but I cannot say that I am satisfied with the replies I have had from the Government on the substantive issue of referendums. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 6, leave out (", a citizen of the Republic of Ireland").

I must point out to the Committee that, as Amendment No. 8 is being spoken to with this amendment, there is a misprint in Amendment No. 8 as it appears on the Marshalled List. The word "the" has been missed out. It should read,

"a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".

I must confess to being somewhat puzzled by Amendments Nos. 3 and 8. As I understand the position, their effect would be to deny citizens of the Republic of Ireland the right to vote in our local government elections.

I am sorry, but the Minister really must listen to my argument. I asked him this question. Can he name a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is not a relevant citizen of the Union and therefore entitled to vote as a relevant citizen of the Union? That is what I asked.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. The term "relevant citizen of the Union" may help us. That is defined in Section 202 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and refers to the citizens of all EU member states apart from Britain and Ireland. The right of nationals of other EU member states to vote in the local elections of the country where they reside is enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht, so this amendment would put us in breach of our treaty obligations. Just as important, there are good historical reasons for the voting rights that Irish citizens enjoy, which I stress are fully reciprocated. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Before the Minister sits down, he says that the voting rights of citizens of the Republic of Ireland are fully reciprocated. I was not aware that subjects of Her Majesty from the United Kingdom had voting rights of any kind in the Republic of Ireland.

If, by the deletion of these words, citizens of the Republic of Ireland would be denied the reciprocity which they have enjoyed over the years, I shall withdraw the amendment. But I am still puzzled to know why "relevant citizen of the Union" does not cover a citizen of the Irish Republic. After all, the Irish Republic is a member of the European Union. It is almost as daft as the situation of students from England who go to Scottish universities. This will give the Minister time to find a reply that may satisfy the Committee. Those students have to pay £4,000 when citizens of every other European Union country will be able to defer payment. They will have to pay £2,000 once they graduate. The answer from Mr Brian Wilson to that question was that England as a state is not a member of the European Union. For this legislation, perhaps the Republic of Ireland is not a member of the European Union. However, the Minister may have the answer by this time.

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him this question. Whereas Irish citizens now have the right to vote in parliamentary elections, the effect of removing the specific reference to Irish citizens would be that they would only have the same right as other European citizens; namely, to vote in local and European elections.

The noble Lord is trying, as do all noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to help the Government. If the noble Lord looks at where we are in the Bill he will see that new Section 2(1) begins:

"A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in any electoral area if on the date of the poll he … is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union".

We are talking about local government registers, not parliamentary ones.

Yes, but the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be that the reference to European Union voters would mean two different things in two different parts of the Bill.

That is actually the case. That is why at the outset I made the point that if we were to pursue the line taken in the amendment, we could end up denying citizens of the Republic of Ireland the right to vote in local government elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked about reciprocation with Ireland. That is the case. We have reciprocal rights to vote in Ireland's general elections and local elections. That has been the case for a long time. To pursue the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, could have a most confusing effect. On that ground I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Perhaps I am just stupid but I am still totally puzzled by that answer. With regard to voting in parliamentary elections, new Section 1(1)(c) states,

"is either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".

They have special rights. Other citizens of other European Union countries do not have the right to vote in our parliamentary elections. That is fine and simple. I think that I have it right at that point. We then come to the next part, which is about local government elections. Under that part, Commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote but also—because, as the noble Lord said, of Maastricht—in addition to Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland, relevant citizens of the Union are allowed to vote. I do not understand why the Bill needs to mention the citizens of the Republic of Ireland and the relevant citizens of the Union. Unless something has happened in the past hour, Ireland is a member of the European Union.

The noble Lord has failed to explain—perhaps I have misunderstood him—how a citizen of the Irish Republic would not qualify for a local government vote here if he lived here as "a relevant citizen of the Union". If I can have that explanation, I shall be quite happy. If I do not have that explanation, what I might call "the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mood" will come over me with regard to having unnecessary words in the legislation, words which make me wonder why we have them. It is a simple question. Perhaps I may have a simple answer at the third time of asking.

"A relevant citizen of the Union" is defined, as I said, as a citizen of one the 13 EU countries apart from Ireland, which is why it is necessary to refer specifically to Irish citizens. That is the explanation.

I am obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Is it the same argument— because it is, it has to remain? No reason is given. Will the noble Lord make it plain why the reference has to remain?

It is a question of definition; namely, citizens of the 13 EU states. That is the working definition.

I think the Minister is telling me that the Maastricht Treaty makes the Republic of Ireland different from the other EU member states. I shall take advice on whether that is the case. It seems an odd situation to have got ourselves into at the time, but perhaps there was some good reason for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although, frankly, once I have checked the Maastricht Treaty I may decide to return to the point.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 27, leave out ("Northern Ireland") and insert ("the United Kingdom").

I support my noble friend. I ask the Minister to reflect on what happened at Great Yarmouth during the Millennium. As one who lives in the eastern part of the country, to the best of my knowledge well over 1,000 New Age travelers—or whatever terminology is used to describe them—remained in Great Yarmouth for about two and a half weeks, not just a few days. One may have a situation—it is not entirely hypothetical—in which a by-election is pending in a marginal seat and, for one reason or another, the government of the day decide to delay it. Over the years, Great Yarmouth has been a marginal seat. The situation may arise in which a flood of homeless people decide to stay, register and vote. That seems to me to be a weakness. In their wisdom the Government have, rightly, decided that for a part of the United Kingdom a period of three months should apply. My noble friend makes a very powerful case that the arrangement should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom.

I too support the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Jopling. It is fascinating that in this particular instance legislation, which on the whole is designed to widen access to voting, imposes a restriction. One is entitled to ask what lies behind the bald print of this part of Clause 1. What is it about the situation in Northern Ireland which persuades the Minister to make this provision? Where do the dangers arise, and to what extent are they organised or spontaneous? One can elaborate this matter to a considerable extent to realise that the whole approach of more open electoral registration is one which, although in many ways commendable, carries dangers. These amendments give the Committee an opportunity to examine the dangers and, above all, an idea of what may develop in other circumstances over a longer period throughout the United Kingdom, as my noble friend suggests.

As expected, in putting his points to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Jopling made his case clearly. I hope that we can look forward to a reasonable reply. My noble friend Lord Biffen raises the interesting question: if for Northern Ireland, why not for the United Kingdom? I can hazard a guess why it has been done for Northern Ireland. I suggest to the Minister that, given increased mobility, the problems in Northern Ireland which brought about the need for the three-month period may also migrate to the United Kingdom.

One of the problems of my noble friend's amendment is that, for example, UK citizens who returned to this country from abroad, perhaps having worked in the European Commission or for British companies around the world, would have to wait three months before they could vote. If they had registered as overseas voters there would not be a gap between registration and the right to vote; if not, they would have to wait for three months. We must bear in mind that point when considering my noble friend's amendment. The same is true for somebody from Northern Ireland who had gone abroad to work. Many companies in Northern Ireland send people abroad to work. Currently, if they go home to Northern Ireland they will have to wait three months before they can register, which seems to be rather unfair to them. I look forward to the Minister's reply to my noble friend's points.

The Committee must consider these amendments in the context of the whole Bill. Although the Bill is a long one, a good part of it makes no change to existing law, and the matters on which these amendments touch are a case in point. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made an interesting case in relation to asylum seekers. We shall turn to that matter in later amendments. I hope that he will take some comfort from what I say later when the Committee debates the amendments which are relevant to that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about the possibility of migrating electors. We shall turn to that matter in later amendments. The noble Lord may find some satisfaction in what I say later when the Committee deals with those amendments.

As the law currently stands, those who wish to register as electors in Northern Ireland are required to have been resident there for a minimum of three months. There is no corresponding requirement for the rest of the UK, and the Bill makes no change in that regard. I believe most Members of the Committee accept that there are good reasons for the application of special conditions to Northern Ireland, which are widely supported by the political parties in that part of the UK.

The Home Office has carried out some research and detected no evidence that abuse of the kind that the extra conditions are designed to prevent takes place on the mainland. As far as I am aware, there is no real clamour among mainland political parties for similar extra conditions to be imposed there. Certainly, the Working Party on Electoral Procedures made no such recommendation when it looked at these matters. The working party had time to consider these issues at length and to make new proposals if it wished.

If these amendments were accepted, people who registered for the first time, or who changed their registration, would face an additional hurdle in trying to vote. With the best will in the world, sometimes it is difficult enough for people to understand the registration process and become involved. Given that we want to encourage more people to register and vote—after all, that is what the legislation is about—the amendments place another hurdle in their way, and we believe that that would be unwise. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made the point for me when he spoke about those who returned from abroad. Students and those returning after working abroad would find it particularly difficult to register. For those very good reasons, I do not believe that these amendments should be accepted. I see no reason why we should seek to place additional obstacles in front of people who return from working abroad having performed good service there.

I also do not believe that, as a matter of principle, we should treat those who register by means of a declaration of local connection any worse than those who register in the normal way. I see no justification for Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 35. There is already a perfectly satisfactory mechanism whereby people who believe that a name should not be included on the electoral register can appeal against it. That seems to me to be a much better avenue than to put in place unnecessary obstacles that make it harder for people in Britain to register. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

One should put the gap between registration and coming on to the register in its proper context. The amendments which I have tabled mean that people from overseas who had not previously been registered would have to wait three months to get on to the register. However, at the moment people still have to wait three months, so there is no change. As my noble friend Lord Mackay said, it is open to individuals who have been registered previously in the United Kingdom to register when they are abroad. A rule of this kind would encourage them to register as overseas voters.

I am not convinced by the arguments. I wish to consider the issue and perhaps return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 44, at end insert—

("(ii) compliance with any prescribed requirements; and").

These are fairly technical amendments which change some of the words. I am intrigued to know the difference between a registration officer determining something and a registration officer becoming satisfied about it. I wonder why the change is made in legislation which has already passed through the other place requiring the registration officer simply to be satisfied. I do not know whether the Minister can help me or whether I shall have to go to the dictionary.

We think that it is a better choice of word. I commend the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 3, line 2, at end insert—

("() The date on which any application made for registration shall be entered against his name in the register; and until the date given in the entry he shall not by virtue of that entry be treated as an elector for any purposes other than those of an election the date of the poll for which is the date so given or date thereafter.").

Initially I was somewhat baffled by the amendment. However, having heard the noble Lord's argument, I am a little wiser.

If I explain how the new electoral registration scheme will work, perhaps the noble Lord will feel satisfied with what we seek to do. There will still be an annual canvass conducted in the autumn but, in addition, people will be able to apply to be added to the electoral register throughout the year. This will, of course, be of particular benefit to those who move during the course of a year. That is the principle underlying a rolling register.

Once an electoral registration officer receives an application for registration he will need to consider it and decide whether it meets the prescribed requirements. If it does, he will include the name of the person concerned in the monthly list which he publishes on the 1st of every month (other than the months when the annual canvass is taking place) giving details of the additions to and deletions from his register. At the same time he will add the name of the person concerned to the register.

So the position is quite clear. There will be a monthly list. Names added and deleted will be published in that monthly list. On that basis, it should be clear to everyone how the register is working and how it will apply. Therefore I cannot envisage that the mischief the noble Lord hoped to deal with by the amendment will arise. I should have thought that the publication of the monthly list with additions and deletions would satisfy most of those concerned with and interested in the new register. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to clarify one point. At the moment the ANC list appears, if I am correct, at the February date after the October registration. I understand that there will be, in effect, a monthly ANC list. However, is there still to be a summary at the end of the year? Otherwise, I suspect that unless everybody is fully computerised, which a number of smaller, local charities will not be, they will have to go through the whole 12 months and work off the end-year register, whereas at the moment all they have to do is take the summary form in either October or February. I cannot remember when the summary is issued.

I am not quite sure that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, this afternoon on that point. My understanding is that the draft register is currently produced in December and the full register is produced in February. What we will have in December, of course, is a full register with the new system, and then additions and deletions thereto. Addressing the point that the noble Lord has raised, my belief is that the new arrangements will probably be more helpful than the current ones to those who have a concerted interest in the register, because the period to which it applies is continuous, rolling and updated, so that all the information will be there at some point during the course of the 12 months.

The question that I am asking is whether there will at any point in the year be a summary of all changes in the register, as there now is, or whether the public have to work from 12 individual returns.

My understanding is that there will not be a summary. They will have to work from the published register in December and then the updated supplementaries to it. That should provide almost up-to-the-minute accuracy. As I have said, I believe that that will be more helpful than the current arrangements.

I am grateful to my noble friend of intervening. He has spared me the effort of looking in the Bill for something else that I shall not be able to find. The Minister will no doubt be able to help me. My understanding is that a list will be published on the 1st of each month, clearly with the exception of 1st December, because that is the day on which a full list will be published. However, am I not right in thinking that that will apply also to 1st November? My recollection was that only 10 of those lists would go out. I am not sure either about 1st October or 1st January. I had understood that no addendum would be issued on 1st January and 1st November.

My understanding is that apart from the month when the annual canvass takes place and the publication of the register in its December form, there will be monthly updates and supplements to the register.

I am not disputing the logic of it. I am simply trying to work out which months we are talking about. The canvass is in October, but my recollection is that there is not one on 1st November, nor 'would I expect there to be, quite frankly, because at that stage the main register is being redone. What I cannot remember is whether it is simply 1st November, with the publication of the full register on 1st December, or whether it is 1st October and 1st January, one or other, as well. I can see the logic of 1st October.

However, that is not quite the point that I want to make. The point is that during the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, when we know that there will be a monthly published list of additions and subtractions, it will be easy for people to see who has been put on and who has been taken off. The problem will occur in October and November, when in the 1st December register it will not be easy at all, because there will be no indication. If it is right that there should be a dear indication for nine or 10 months of the year, it would seem sensible that there should be some indication on the 1st December register of who has been added. It is not a state secret. We shall know who has been added in the rolling register as the months of January, February, March and April proceed. Therefore, it would be convenient on 1st December. If the Minister can help my memory with regard to the months when the rolling additions will be published, I will then withdraw the amendment.

There certainly will not be a monthly update in October, and I can advise the noble Lord that neither will there be one in November. If it will help, I shall take on board the point made by the noble Lord in his argument and give it further thought between now and Report stage. I should not like to be held to that, but I shall try to be as helpful as possible.

I am grateful to the Minister and I am pleased to hear his assurance that he will look at this. He takes the point, as I am sure all your Lordships do, about new entrants on to the register. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bach moved Amendment No. 11 :

Page 4, line 12, leave out ("or 71").

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 4, line 13, after ("1984") insert ("or section 71 of that Act (being a person to whom that section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(a) of that section)").

May I be allowed one query on Clause 2? I cannot understand the wording on page 4, lines 12 and 13, which, as far as I can understand it, appears to go into the Welsh language. I wonder whether the Minister can help me with this. I shall not attempt to put it in the Welsh language. It refers to the "Mental y yn Health (Scotland) Act 1984". Could we have an explanation of what this is about?

The noble Lord has made a perfectly respectable joke! It is undoubtedly a typographical error. I do not believe that I have ever known "Mental y yn Health". We apologise for this and we will make sure that it is accurate in the next print.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 5, line 7, after ("purpose") insert (", lawfulness").

I have a problem with the way in which the amendment is framed. I understand that no one wants fraudulent registration, but many squatters have been on the register for many years. In a recent case in Lambeth, it took the High Court many years to determine whether the person was legally at an address.

I am particularly worried because the amendment proposes that a person who it is alleged is illegally in the premises should be unable to register or have his or her registration removed. I am not a lawyer and know little about the law, but I believe that squatting is a civil offence and I am worried that we are moving into forbidden realms.

Furthermore, I recall that, in relation to a number of people who were squatting at Greenham Common, the courts decided that they were legally entitled to register at that squat. Therefore, that is another complication which needs examining before we go down this road.

I am worried about the proposal that people who might be legally registered would be removed under the amendment. If they were found to be illegal, surely they would be evicted. The whole problem would then go away because they would no longer be living in the premises and would, unfortunately, come under the homeless category which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, believes is acceptable.

I also have a problem with Amendment No. 93. I cannot believe that anyone in our democracy is suggesting that the police should knock on doors to check whether the residents should be registered there. We would soon have cases, and quite rightly, of police harassment. I wonder whether, in tabling the amendment, the noble Lord has thought through its consequences. I am sure that he would soon be complaining that the police were not doing enough about crime because they were too busy going from door to door checking whether people should be on the electoral register. I hope that he will reconsider both amendments. Certainly, there is a case for ensuring that there is no fraud, but the amendments as they stand are not acceptable legally as well as morally, and I hope that he will withdraw them.

I very much hope that my noble friend will not reconsider the amendments because they carry with them a great deal of sense. I fully support them. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said; that many people illegally occupying squats are already registered. I am indifferent to whether they are or are not, but all we are proposing in the amendments is that they ought not to be.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he saying that it should not be proven that they are illegal before the registration is removed, or that he takes it for granted that they are squatting and that therefore registration should be removed?

The noble Baroness took the next words out of my mouth and I am grateful for her prompt. I draw her attention to my Amendment No. 34, which states:

"A declaration of local connection shall be of no effect if the lawful owner of the premises at the required address can show that the declarant is occupying that address unlawfully".

He would have to show that to the registration officer. In my experience, most registration officers are local council officials and lawyers. They have access to legal advice within local authorities and it would be for the local council to satisfy itself that the owner of the property had shown that there was an illegal occupation. I imagine that it would then be open to the person illegally occupying the premises to appeal to the court. However, it is important that the owners of properties which are illegally occupied, having discovered that the occupants have registered on the electoral roll, should have the opportunity of going to the registration officer and saying, "Look, these people are occupying my property illegally. Here are the deeds which demonstrate that I am the owner. Come round with me and I shall show you the people who are occupying my property and show that I can't get rid of them. What else need I do to show you that my property is being occupied unlawfully?".

I hope that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will not mind my saying this, but I believe that my amendment is one of the most important in this group. I hope that the noble Baroness feels that this particular amendment provides a satisfactory way of demonstrating to a registration officer, through the legal advice which is at his disposal, that this situation occurs, that it ought not to occur, and that such registration should be removed.

We on these Benches regard this group of amendments as mean-spirited and, indeed, frankly absurd. As we know, squatting is a trespass but not a crime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, quite rightly said. Of course, this amendment applies not only to squatters. It applies, for example, to people who have taken possession of property perfectly lawfully, or people whose tenancies have been terminated but who remain in occupation because that gives them a better chance of being rehoused. We all know that that is a very common practice. Until the court makes a possession order and they leave, they are occupying that property unlawfully. Therefore, they, too, will be disfranchised.

However, the main point is that we should not, without good cause, deprive people of their civil rights, including the right to vote, which is one of the most important of those rights. Detention in prison after conviction is plainly a good cause. But why should squatters be deprived of their vote? They have not committed a breach of the criminal law. They are simply trespassing on someone else's property, and that seems to me to fall far short of anything that would justify depriving them of the right to vote.

How does one prove that someone is an unlawful squatter? Of course, many squats now are lawful because they are licensed. Where they are not, there are fast-track powers for removal by court order. With all respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said about Amendment No. 34, I believe that most owners will be much too busy getting the squatters out of their property to bother to look at the electoral register and to go to the registration officer to make sure that the squatters do not get a vote. That is not what the owners are interested in; they are interested in getting back their property.

Finally, and worst of all, Amendment No. 93 proposes that everyone who applies for a vote on the basis of a declaration of local connection will be checked by the police. That does not apply to people who register not by virtue of a declaration of local connection but because they are squatters who register as residents. Amendment No. 93 does not apply to them. However, the police will have to check everyone who is homeless and makes a declaration of local connection. What a waste of valuable and short police time. Coming from the party which always claims to be particularly strong on law and order, I must say that I find that completely ridiculous.

In my view, these amendments confuse two important issues: on the one hand, the unlawful occupation of property; on the other, the right to register and to vote. I believe that those two issues should be kept separate. I have read the amendments and given the matter some thought over the weekend. I have also read some press reports on the issue of squatters and voters. One would imagine that the Government are about to introduce a law which gives squatters the right to vote. It is clear, and has been apparent for a long time, that squatters have always had the right to vote. This amendment seeks simply to take away that right.

However, this is a broader issue. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the case perfectly well. These amendments are in danger of leading us into an oppressive situation. Frankly, I believe that noble Lords opposite are in danger of being accused of wasting police time: sending police officers round in the middle of the night to check whether someone is bona fide for electoral purposes seems to me to be somewhat heavy-handed.

Who is to say ultimately whether or not someone occupies property lawfully? In circumstances where someone is licensed to occupy premises, there may be some uncertainty. It may well be the case that someone's tenancy has come to a conclusion and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, they are attempting to exercise their rights as a homeless person and seek accommodation from a local authority. Therefore, I believe that these are heavy-handed amendments and, for the reasons which I have given, I believe that they should be rejected.

It is clear that the party opposite is, again, trying to narrow access and the civil right to the franchise. I cannot believe that that is right and proper. In general with this legislation, we are trying to make it easier for people to vote and to exercise their civil rights. That is the system which we have always had. We are trying to open up access and to create a more inclusive society. That is the purpose of this legislation: to bolster, and to give greater confidence to, our electoral system. It seems to me that, in these amendments, Conservative Members are trying to close that down. That cannot be right and it cannot be good for local democracy. We should be encouraging people to register and to exercise their right to vote. Whether they are lawful or unlawful occupants of a property is neither here nor there. That is a separate issue to be tackled. The noble Lord was a member of the government who did just that. In the past, Labour governments have attempted to close down opportunities for the illegal occupation of property. However, as I say, that is a separate issue.

I believe that in principle we should give people the right to vote and that we should try to extend that wherever possible. This legislation attempts to do that. I believe that noble Lords opposite are trying to create a kind of "squatter shock horror" story where it does not exist. I believe that they should consider most carefully before they move amendments, particularly those such as Amendment No. 93. I suggest to noble Lords opposite that they should reconsider their position and withdraw the amendments.

I suspect that the noble Lord may be able to help us more than most members of the Government Front Bench on this particular issue. When one receives one's voting paper to fill in, in squatter households how is the head of the household described?

It is for those who live in that household to determine that issue. I have never had to fill in a form and it is a long time since I have been in that position. However, I believe that we are discussing the important issue of someone's right to vote, and that is the issue on which we should concentrate. I believe that noble Lords opposite are trying to narrow that right and access to it. That is regrettable.

The real issue here is that the clause is headed "Residence … general". It refers to residence for the purposes of registration. It seems to me perfectly pertinent to ask whether the residence is legal or illegal. In an impassioned defence of the Government's position, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that, from the point of view of registration, it did not matter if someone trespassed on someone else's property. However, it is precisely because they are trespassing on that property that they are asking for registration to vote. It is not unrelated to the fact that they are there illegally. They are saying, "Here I am. I want the right to vote from here".

Therefore, I do not believe that we have received an entirely satisfactory response. I believe that it is a little exaggerated to conjure up pictures of police being sent round in the middle of the night. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that it is difficult to evict squatters. That, indeed, seems to be the case, particularly people who are squatters for political reasons as, for example, is the case at Faslane nuclear base in Scotland. It seems amazing that it should be suggested that they are legally entitled to a vote if they are in a squat of that nature.

Does the noble Lord not accept that it was a court of law which allowed the Greenham women in a similar situation to register and vote?

It may well have been, but I do not agree with that decision any more than I agree with the recent decision at Greenock sheriff court which said that three women who had vandalised property of the British Government at Faslane nuclear base were guilty of no offence at all. That was an amazing decision. I presume that the Government whom the noble Baroness supports have also decided that it is an amazing decision because they have decided to appeal against that decision. Sheriffs are not infallible and can make wrong decisions as, indeed, I think the Government would agree the sheriff at Greenock has done.

Does the noble Lord accept that if we were to deprive people of the right to vote in the way in which his amendment suggests, we might also begin to fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights? Does he not believe that that is an important consideration in these matters?

The Government should not tempt me down the road of the European Convention on Human Rights because, for the third time in just about as many months, the Government are about to be found wanting in Scotland for having legislation which infringes that convention. Frankly, we shall have severe difficulty with those decisions if they stand up in the appeal courts.

That was not a good point to make on a day when I gather that the whole system of children's panels in Scotland, which we have heard being lauded on many occasions, may be found, to my mind in a quite crazy way, to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be amazing if that convention becomes the tool by which that excellent method of dealing with young juveniles who have committed crimes must be changed adversely because of that decision.

I digress principally because the noble Lord invited me to be careful of the convention on human rights. I suggest that he should take that warning back to his friends in government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 5, line 10, leave out ("for example.").

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the reasoning behind the amendment. I hope that I can reassure him.

It is a long-standing principle that electoral registration officers determine who is resident in their area and, therefore, who may be entered on their electoral register. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that is a straightforward exercise. It is quite a simple matter of fact whether or not a person is living at a particular address.

But there is also a grey area. There are cases, perhaps involving people who are only temporarily in residence, which are less clear cut. In such cases, registration officers must reach a judgment. They must decide whether they are satisfied that a name should appear on the register. To make that decision, they must take account of knowledge of the circumstances, common sense and, indeed, the considerable volume of case law which now exists on this question.

Registration officers must also take account of whatever guidance the relevant legislation gives and the words of new Section 5(2) of the 1983 Act are to be inserted by Clause 3 and appear at line 10 on page 5. They are there to help them. But—this is the crucial point—the words in the Bill are not the only factor which must be taken into account. If local knowledge leads the registration officer to believe strongly that there should be a different decision, he should clearly do what he thinks right. Equally, if a court decision were to suggest that a different decision should be reached, we should expect that to be followed.

The words in the Bill are simply one of the factors which must be taken into account. That is why they are qualified by "for example". I trust that with that explanation, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

I am puzzled by this. What do the words "for example" do? With respect, I do not believe that the Minister has explained that. It really had not crossed my mind, until my noble friend was speaking, that "for example" is rat her unusual in statute law. If my noble friend is quite wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will correct him immediately and say that "for example" appears frequently in many Bills and Acts of Parliament.

I have the impression that that is not the case. I do not quite know what a court of law would make of those words when it came to interpreting the will of Parliament. It would be a very odd idea if, in legislating, the government of the day were to illustrate what is meant by examples in the wording of the Bill. The Minister would be well advised to take this back to his legal advisers and ask them what they mean by it and what is its value.

I do not know whether it will help the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but I recall that in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, there is a whole schedule—if not more than one schedule—in which, deliberately, the draftsman has given examples of factual situations to which certain basic provisions of the Act apply. Most people looking at that legislation have found it extremely helpful.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that it is an unusual situation. But being unusual is one thing; being unhelpful is another. As I say, most people thought that that example was extremely helpful.

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has tabled further amendments which I have not yet noticed, but if the words "for example'. are omitted, it does not make sense because the words following the words "for example" are simply an example of the words which precede them. I should have thought that that was helpful rather than otherwise, even if unusual.

In his answer, the Minister did not differentiate between primary and secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is right that it is not unusual to find "for example" in a schedule. But as one who in another place was responsible for five years for secondary legislation, I am mystified as to why the Law Officers have recommended that there should be a "for example" in this primary legislation.

Surely a schedule is part of primary legislation. It is part of the Bill.

It may be, but this is not in a schedule. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that we have seen it in a clause of a Bill. My noble friend on the Front Bench is asking why this has appeared in primary legislation in a clause. Is it on advice from the Law Officers that that is to be the way forward now in the new age, or is it that it has just appeared as an example? It will be incredibly difficult for the courts to interpret those matters. I suggest that the Minister should either tell the Committee that the Law Officers are recommending that it should be done in primary rather than secondary legislation for reasons given; or that they are not. Perhaps if we had an answer to that, we should accept it.

I am very glad to have provoked the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to his feet because I am always interested to hear his contributions. But on this occasion he did rather invalidate the point he was making by quoting a schedule. I was asking whether there is a section of an Act of Parliament which uses those words "for example". If that is the case, I shall be very interested and I shall have had an educative day, which I do not always have. I am sure that my noble friend is correct to say that it is highly unusual to use these words in a clause. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will say so and I shall then be happy to withdraw my argument. However, if my noble friend is right, I believe that the Minister ought to look again at the advisability of using such a form of words here.

Given the huge volume of legislation that churns its way through Parliament, drafting is not usually famous for being immaculate. Indeed, it can be rather uneven and spotty.

I regret that the reply given by the Minister rather missed the point made by my noble friend. Either this is a new departure in legislation—and if it is a new departure, then why has it been done?—or the words have been put in only because someone thought they ought to put them in just for fun. We all know that such mistakes can happen. All we are asking for here is clarity and precedent. If precedent is to be broken, it should be broken for a reason. The Minister's response did not even attempt to respond to that point.

Will the Minister please answer the following two questions? First, is my noble friend right when he says that this form of words is unprecedented? Secondly, if he is right, why has it been put into the Bill? If the Minister does not know the answers to those questions, could he take them away and find out?

I am puzzled by most of the Minister's reply. I thought that I had attempted to delete lines 10 to 14. However, it appears that I have not done so and that they would remain in the Bill. Indeed, they are qualified by the beginning of subsection (2) where it states,

"Regard shall be had, in particular".

When I was a Government Minister I recall that I had to make the point constantly that I was reluctant to give examples because it then would be assumed that anything else would not be an example and would not fall within the scope of the legislation. For that reason, I find the use of the words "for example" most odd. Removing the words would not change the meaning of the following subsection; indeed, nothing would be changed.

When, nearly two hours ago, I suggested that certain unnecessary words should be removed from the Bill, the Minister persuaded me that I should not attempt to do it because of the Maastricht Treaty. I have now had an opportunity to look at the first Maastricht Treaty and it appears, so far as concerns the first treaty, that the position as the Minister explained it would not be the case. However, it may well be the case as regards the second Maastricht Treaty.

I do not believe that we should return to this matter, but I think that it is an important point. Why put in the words "for example" when there is no indication that they have been used elsewhere in primary legislation? They add nothing to the meaning of this part of the Bill. For that reason, I shall seek the opinion of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 5, line 32, at end insert—

("() Subsection (3) above shall apply in relation to a person's absence by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution as it applies in relation to a person's absence in the performance of any duty such as is mentioned in that subsection.").

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 6, leave out lines 3 to 9 and insert—

("(3) A person registered in a register of electors in pursuance of an application for registration made by virtue of subsection (2) above is entitled to remain so registered until—

(a) the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the entry in the register first takes effect, or

(b) another entry made in respect of him in any register of electors takes effect (whether or not in pursuance of an application made by virtue of subsection (2)),

whichever first occurs.

(3A) Where the entitlement of such a person to remain so registered terminates by virtue of subsection (3) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove that person's entry from the register, unless he is entitled to remain registered in pursuance of a further application made by virtue of subsection (2).").

moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 6, leave out lines 41 to 47 and insert—

("(3) A person registered in a register of electors in pursuance of an application for registration made by virtue of subsection (2) above is entitled to remain so registered until—

(a) the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the entry in the register first takes effect, or

(b) another entry made in respect of him in any register of electors takes effect (whether or not in pursuance of an application made by virtue of subsection (2)),

whichever first occurs.

(3A) Where the entitlement of such a person to remain so registered terminates by virtue of subsection (3) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove that person's entry from the register, unless he is entitled to remain registered in pursuance of a further application made by virtue of subsection (2).").

moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("order") to end of line 16 and insert ("under section 70 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or a transfer direction under section 71 of that Act made in respect of a person to whom that section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(c) of that section").

moved Amendment No. 21:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be a little surprised that I believe he raises an important issue which certainly needs clarification. I have a good deal of sympathy with what he says.

We will no doubt be in a happy condition after this discussion. This will be a rarity, if not an unknown situation.

It seems only fair to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for starters. In relation to asylum seekers, the situation is pretty much as he said. Non-Commonwealth asylum seekers do not have the right to vote and this Bill will not confer any such rights—let us be absolutely clear about that. With regard to those granted exceptional leave to remain, they will not be able to vote unless and until they are granted citizenship. So the answer is clear on that issue also.

I can be brief in responding to the further points made by the noble Lord. I shall not go into endless reams of statistics on the asylum issue; that is not a debate for today, though it would, I am sure, be interesting. We have already discussed the Commonwealth citizens in this country and the fact that they are allowed to vote in our elections. That is just as it should be and we have no plans to change the situation. I accept that the position of people whose status is uncertain is rather different and I clarified the two points there. Accordingly, I should like to explore the possibility of drafting an amendment to the Bill which will achieve the same effect as Amendment No. 21 and explore with electoral administrators whether or not it will be enforceable in practice. That is an important question and we will need to consult with them as to how the effect of the amendment may be best achieved.

We have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It is going in the right direction and I hope that, with my undertaking, all corners of the Chamber will be satisfied and the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment this afternoon.

I am not sure that this is going to do my reputation any good at all. Not only is the Minister saying he has sympathy with the proposal, but also the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has some sympathy. One must accept these things with good grace, and I do. I am pleased to hear the Minister's assurance that he will look at this and I am sure he accepts that it is an unusual amalgam No doubt 20 or 30 years ago nobody bothered too much about it because it was not an issue. But I am grateful to him for saying that he will take it away and look at it, and I look forward to hearing from him either by letter or by an amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw amendment.

moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 7, line 39, after ("not") insert (", for the purposes of section 4 above,").

I suppose that, initially, some Members of the Committee thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I were absolutely on the same wave-length when they noticed our names attached to the same amendment. However, as the noble Lord very fairly pointed out, we are probably approaching the matter from entirely different directions. Indeed, we have probably ended up in quite different places. The noble Lord seeks to remove subsection (7) and to replace it with some alternative words; I have also sought to remove that subsection, but do not propose to replace it with any alternative words.

We are in a new situation with regard to the register. It is now not just a once-a-year exercise; it is a rolling register, which means that the electoral position will not be frozen for a whole year—indeed, for more than a year, as is really the case—but will roll on month to month. There will be a bit of a freeze in October and November, but that is all. Therefore, the question of removing names from the register becomes even more important. Moreover, it is also important if one is to judge the success of all the changes that we are now considering.

To put it simply, if an electoral register contains 100 names and 60 people vote, it is very obvious that a 60 per cent turn-out has been achieved. However, if 10 of those 100 names could not vote even if they wanted to—perhaps because they were dead or because they had moved away—but, nevertheless, remained on the register, the turn-out would look a staggering 66.66 per cent, which, on the face of it, might be claimed by the Government to be a great success as regards some other experiment being conducted. In fact, it would not be anything of the kind; it would simply be a reflection that we should not determine turn-out based just on the electoral register because it is not wholly accurate.

It may seem odd if I pray in aid some words of the party opposite, the Liberal Democrat Party and the Scottish National Party over the 20 years after 1979. Those noble Lords who remember these events will recall that there was a hurdle in the Welsh and Scottish referendums in 1979 (imposed by a Labour MP in the other place) of 40 per cent of those registered to vote. There was much argument beforehand, much argument at the time and there has been much argument since about the unfairness involved because, many people on the register on which that 40 per cent was based were either dead or had moved away to such an extent that they could not possibly vote there.

Therefore, the number on the register—the denominator—is a very important factor, not just for ensuring that everyone who can vote is on the register; but also for ensuring that everyone who can no longer vote is removed from the register at the first available opportunity.

Although my next piece of information is fairly "old hat", I do not believe that the situation will have changed. In fact, I suspect that it may possibly have got worse because the mobility of population, and so on, has actually increased over the past 20 years, or so, since the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs inquired into the Representation of the People Act in 1982 and 1983. At that time, the annual survey of the methods of compiling the electoral register carried out by the Office of Population Censuses & Surveys included data to the extent on which EROs (electoral registration officers) carry forward names from one register to the next.

The 1990 survey showed that 6 per cent of all EROs do not carry forward at all; 50 per cent carry forward only if there is good supporting evidence—and, of those, 7 per cent believe that "carried forward with good evidence" is, in effect, a policy of not carrying forward at all; 18 per cent carry forward for one year only; 6 per cent carry forward for two years only; and 20 per cent carry forward for three years or more. That really means that 44 per cent of all EROs carry forward most or all of the names in the absence of any good supporting evidence to the contrary. That is a fairly staggering number of names being carried forward. It is now time to ask whether that is sensible. Later in the Committee stage I shall propose that the electoral registration officer uses some of the tools that I believe are to hand in order to make sure that the register is up to date. I shall speak about those proposals when we reach them.

The point at issue here is that the Government, in seeking to remove subsection (7) that we have discussed and reinstating it in another form, are not dealing with the problem of carrying names forward when there is no justification for that. If we want the register to be an accurate, rolling reflection of who is entitled to vote, we must take all possible steps to ensure that people's names are not carried forward year after year when they have made no attempt—perhaps because they are no longer able to make such an attempt—to fill in the form and send it back. They may simply not be there any more. It is slipshod to allow that situation to continue in the future when our objective is to try to make the register as accurate as possible to ensure that as many people as possible vote and to ensure that we know exactly what the turn-out is. It should not be measured against a register which may be in part fictional, but should be measured against a register which is as accurate as possible.

While, initially, I was pleased to note that the noble Lord had added his name to my amendment. I rapidly detected that he was not going as far as I would have wished. I regret that the Government have not taken more vigorous steps in this regard. However. I shall reserve most of my fire for later when I shall make some helpful suggestions as to how they may be able to improve the clearing of the register.

I support the comments of my noble friend on this matter. I live in a central London borough. Many London boroughs have an annual population turnover of about 33 to 34 per cent. In some wards in my borough the figure is as high as 40 per cent. It is therefore extremely important that those who have left are taken off the register as soon as possible; otherwise, the register is meaningless. I support the amendment.

We are certainly an odd couple. However, I am warming to this odd couple. It is a relationship that could go far.

I return to the subject in hand. On balance we have tried to recognise in part the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. It cannot be right that names remain on the register year after year after year. We believe that there is a balance to be struck here. We believe that a period of a year is about right. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, makes a good point in this regard. She will probably recall that I was the leader of Brighton and Hove Council. As in the noble Baroness's own good borough, we have wards in Brighton and Hove which have phenomenal population turnovers in the course of a year. I believe that one of those wards had a turnover of 60 per cent. In those circumstances it is hard to keep track of people's movements. Often they shift simply to the flat next door or to another street.

However, I believe that it is right to enable registration officers to keep names on the list for a further year. That is in part what our amendments seek to achieve. I believe that by clarifying the matter and providing a cut-off—a cap, if you like—we have struck the right balance. However, I understand the point that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, have made. Although our opinions may diverge with regard to what should happen to the amendment that stands in both our names, we share a concern to make the register accurate. In his usual entertaining manner the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made some good points on the need for an accurate register. However, I trust that with those comments he will feel happy with what we are trying to do.

moved Amendment No. 24:

Page 8, line 23, at end insert—

("( ) the nature of previous registration and the address at which he was previously registered").

I have sympathy with my noble friend's amendments; there is a potential for abuse.

I am particularly keen on the availability of the new declaration of local connections in order to ensure the right to vote of homeless people. It seems to hit the right balance between how we prevent abuse and how we allow homeless people the right to vote. However, I have concerns with these specific amendments, in particular with the one in regard to obliging people to say where they came from previously. I am concerned, for example, about the problems that this would cause battered wives. They may have become homeless as a result of being battered wives, and it would be a considerable problem for them if they had to declare their previous registration in this process. We must be concerned about that.

I sympathise particularly with the amendment in regard to parliamentary by-elections. There may be a considerable period of time between a parliamentary by-election becoming known and the date by which one may wish to be registered. That is a sensible consideration.

My main concern is about the necessary proof of identity for those who do not have a red-and-white striped badge. It is difficult for homeless people to prove their identity beyond doubt. Satisfactory evidence of identity to the registration officer would be a sensible provision.

I support what my noble friend Lord Rennard said about proof of identity. A similar provision to the one envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was introduced in relation to benefits in the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. It is causing considerable problems. The House to some extent foresaw this, but not in sufficient numbers to prevent the measure going through.

To take my noble friend's example, if it is applied to battered wives, very often they have perhaps had to leave the house in the middle of the night, in their night-dress, as fast as they could possibly go. They do not have time in that situation to pick up their passports, credit cards and all the other identification documents. The same applies to people who have to leave their houses because of fire, which continues to happen even in the most well ordered society.

In its report Still Running, the Children's Society has drawn attention to the difficulties encountered by 15 and 16 year-olds who have been thrown out by their parents in being able to produce proofs of identity. They cannot go back to ask the parents who threw them out for their birth certificates. If we all lived such well-ordered lives as the amendment envisages, it would be a reasonable and perhaps a necessary provision. But as it is, it may do a good deal of harm.

I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about the accuracy of the register, but people are in such a continual state of flux that it is inevitable that any register is going to be inaccurate. The question is whether one would rather have it inaccurate by including people who should not have been included or by excluding people who should not have been excluded. We have a simple choice: not of getting it right but of which mistake we would rather make.

The amendments of my noble friend Lord Jopling are very interesting. Amendment No. 47, which stands in my name, is grouped with them.

I listened to the noble Earl with care, as I always do, and I am little puzzled by the example he gave of the battered wife. All that my noble friend's Amendment No. 24 seeks is that the lady, when she asks for a registration at a new address, tells the electoral registration officer where was her previous address and where she was previously registered. Unless I am misreading my noble friend's amendment, I do not see necessarily that that information will get out. It will not be news to the husband if the lady's name is removed from the electoral register; after all, she has left him and he knows that. The question is how he would get to know where she now was simply by her telling the ERO that she had come from another address. Perhaps the noble Earl can help me.

There are cases where the name has got out from even such an elementary thing as the local police station being informed. Some such cases have ended in murder. There is a need for care.

I accept that point, but I find it hard to understand how the ERO could possibly release information about the wife to the pursuing husband—if I may call him that. I see the problem, but I would have to be persuaded that it was a real one in respect of telling the ERO the whereabouts of the woman's last address. My noble friend has a general and fairly good point in suggesting that people should say, when applying for a new registration, whether or not they have had a registration previously and, if so, where it was. I actually believe that everyone should be asked to do so, but those in this group in particular should be because obviously it is not as easy to register them as someone with a residence. I have great sympathy with that aspect of my noble friend's amendment.

I should like also to say a few words about Amendment No. 33. My noble friend suggests that the person concerned should go to the registration officer's office to make the application. I shall come to the phrase,

"accompanied by proof of identity",

in a moment. Perhaps the Minister will help us by telling us how the Government envisage that such a person may make an application. It is quite different from the current arrangement where once per year canvassing forms come in through our front doors which we fill in and return. People who move address are among the people whom the ERO must identify when they ask to be registered at their new address. That is done through a form. I wonder how the individual is going to accomplish his registration. I do not believe that going to the registration officer's office is a particularly onerous thing to do. I notice that in new Section 7B(3)(a)(ii) one of the options given to such a homeless person is,

"that he is willing to collect such correspondence periodically from the registration officer's office".

The Government themselves therefore envisage that at least some homeless people will make their point of contact the registration officer's office, although I accept that some others may make it the homeless hostel where they tend to reside or the hostel with which they have the greatest amount of contact. I understand that point, but it does not seem any great problem to make the registration officer's office the important point of contact.

As to proof of identity, I am more inclined to listen to my noble friend than to the noble Earl, although I appreciate his point about fire, flood and fleeing in the night. The fact is that anyone going through fire, flood and fleeing in the night will have to obtain some form of identification rather quickly. I was about to say that for most of us that might be a bank account or something of that nature, but we are talking about homeless people. For a homeless person it might well be the social security documents which entitle him to continue to claim social security. I suspect that a battered wife in the situation described earlier would be looking for social security documents. There will be some documents around that the registration office could check. My amendment is perhaps more acceptable to the Government—dare I say, having had a small success a little while ago—in that I do not specify what it should be. All I say is that the registration officer should have the responsibility to take whatever measures he deems necessary and reasonable to verify a declaration of local connection.

In addition to my support for my noble friend's amendment, I suggest that my amendment would make it clear that the ERO has the power and the responsibility to make checks. If the Minister tells me that he already has such powers and that he would make checks, I shall be quite content. I suggest that my amendment would go at least some way to relieve the concerns of my noble friend Lord Jopling without perhaps getting into the difficult territory of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

This has been a useful discussion. I want us to try to concentrate our minds a little on the benefits of the Bill and why it is drafted in this way. The whole purpose behind the Bill is surely to make it easier for the homeless, remand prisoners and mental health patients to be registered as electors. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to be more inclusive and to encourage people to participate in democracy. While I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, to ensure that we root out any abuse and fraudulent intent within the system, we stick to that fundamental principle. Trying to achieve greater participation is one of the purposes behind the legislation. The electoral system in this country bears comparison with all others. Our system is remarkably free from corruption and abuse. I believe that most of us would subscribe to that point of view.

In general, the provisions have been welcomed by all parties and that is as it should be. But having decided that those categories of people—the homeless, remand prisoners and mental health patients—should be allowed to register, it would be quite wrong if we were then to try to treat their registrations as different from everyone else's. Yet that is what these amendments seek to do: to discriminate between one set of electors and another.

Ordinary electors do not have to be issued with identification certificates or have to produce such documents when seeking to vote, so why should we place an additional requirement on those who register by means of a declaration of local connection? I shall try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. A person who wants to register by means of a declaration of local connection will need to complete a form. He will have to do some form-filling in the same way as everyone else; such as a person who registers normally and wants to change his registration mid-year. A person may fill in the form and return it directly, or by post. That is how the procedure will work.

Although I imagine that most homeless people will go to the town hall in person to register—which seems a logical consequence and a sensible way to behave—there is no reason to require them to do so when a similar requirement is not imposed on anyone else. I therefore cannot invite the Committee to accept Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

In that context, while the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is phrased in perhaps slightly friendlier and looser terms, I cannot invite the Committee to support it either. Imagine for a moment what happens in the case of those who register in the normal way. If the annual canvass form comes back with an extra name of a person who was not registered the previous year, or if an extra person applies to be registered during the course of the year, the registration officer takes that on trust. He does not call round to check that the new person really lives at the address in question. There is no justification for treating in a different way those who wish to register by means of a declaration of local connection. There is no reason to believe that such people are more prone to fraud or dishonesty, although I should point out that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Bill makes it quite clear that submitting a fraudulent declaration of local connection is an offence.

Whenever any name appears on the electoral register, whether in the normal way or through a declaration of local connection, there is a proper procedure for objecting to it. Another safeguard is therefore built in. That seems a much better approach than singling out those registering by means of a declaration of local connection and imposing an additional and heavy burden on already busy registration officers.

Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 24, about which I can perhaps be a little kinder. A feature of rolling electoral registration is that people will be able to change their registration during the course of the year. They will be able to register in respect of their new address and be removed from the register in respect of their old address. For that system to work, the registration form will need to ask them for details of their previous registration. Exactly the same question will need to appear on the form for registering by means of a declaration of local connection. The Bill as drafted will allow for that to happen.

Before I sit down, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his contribution. He made a valuable point about domestic violence. We too want to ensure that the system we are putting in place protects those who are victims of aggression in any shape or form; in particular, those who are victims of racist attacks. There would be some equally telling vulnerability if we were to adopt the course recommended in the amendments.

In the light of what I have said, and bearing in mind the reasonable points made by some of our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I hope that the noble Lord will decide that at this stage the amendments are not worth pursuing, although, as I said earlier, I recognise that we must be vigilant in tackling fraud and ensuring that there is no abuse of the system.

I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. I repeat what I said in my earlier remarks. I remain unsure about whether the Government are being sufficiently prudent in dealing with the dangers of abuse in the registration and voting of the electorate. We may be able to discuss that further as time goes on.

However, leaving the Minister's comments aside, I have to say that I was somewhat amused by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He quoted the example of the battered wife who escapes in her nightdress in the middle of the night on to the frozen winter streets. The thought that he left in my mind was that the first thought of an unfortunate lady in that situation would be to ensure that she had registered her vote by demonstrating a local connection—no thought of going first to the hospital, if that was necessary; no thought of trying to find somewhere to live temporarily; no thought of trying to find some clothing; and no thought of trying to get assistance from the social services! He seemed to imply that that was the first thing, or very nearly the first thing, the lady would do. The noble Earl shakes his head. I am perhaps saying this rather flippantly and I do not want to be taken too seriously.

I was heartened by what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said. At Second Reading I had the enormous pleasure of congratulating him on his maiden speech. I detected a good deal more sympathy in his remarks than I detected in the remarks of the noble Earl. It occurs to me that there are the seeds of co-operation between the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and myself over this matter. Whether that would compare with the new relationship across the Front Benches about which we heard, I am not entirely sure. In the course of the next few days perhaps I may have a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, to see whether there is any way in which we can find a compromise amendment. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, wishes to intervene. if once worked for the noble Lord many years ago. I am not sure what words he is breathing into the ear of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

I am advising my noble friend Lord Rennard that when mixing with a former Chief Whip he should take a good lawyer with him.

On that happy note, hoping that a warmer co-operation may emerge, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 9. leave out lines 12 and 13.

My noble friend Lord Jopling has a good point. I can understand the Government not being keen to accept more than one declaration stating different addresses on the same day. However, if I read the provision correctly, someone could make a declaration on one day for one place and then make another declaration the next day for another place, in an adjacent ward or constituency. There should be some limit on the number of declarations someone can make. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment bears careful study by the Government.

I accept that someone may make a declaration today and that in three or four months' time he may have moved sufficiently far away to want to make another declaration, but he should not be able to run two declarations at the same time. That brings us back to the protection offered by my noble friend's previous amendment—if someone makes a declaration, he should be asked (as I think we should all be asked) whether he has made a previous declaration and whether he is voting anywhere else using a declaration. That may be a way to get round the problem.

It is a long-established principle that a person may appear on the electoral register more than once. People who have two residences are entitled to be registered in respect of both of them. That is a facility of which many Members of another place take advantage and, for all I know, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, may have been registered in both London and Cumbria during his distinguished service there. The Bill does nothing to change that position.

However, the Bill does introduce the new concept of a declaration of local connection. It will be used by mental patients, remand prisoners and the homeless who would have difficulty in establishing residence in the normal way. Given that such declarations will be used by those who are unable to register in the normal way, it would be quite wrong, as the noble Lord said in moving the amendment, if such people were allowed to register more than once. A person who has difficulty establishing a single residence can hardly claim two residences.

It was for precisely that reason that the Government brought forward an amendment in another place to ensure that nobody who is registered by means of a declaration of local connection may appear on the electoral register more than once. If Members of the Committee care to look at new Section 7C(2)(c), which appears towards the bottom of page 9 of the Bill, they will see that as soon as another entry appears in the register—whether an entry in the normal way or by means of a declaration of local connection—the person's existing entitlement to registration is deemed to have lapsed. The effect of that is exactly as I set out. It means that no one who is registered by means of a declaration of local connection can be registered twice.

I believe that that takes care of the problem which the noble Lord highlighted. With that assurance, I trust that that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.