House of Lords

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 23 January 2013.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.

Children and Young People

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[The Earl of Listowel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that children and young people in the care of the state, and making the transition from state care, experience reliable and enduring relationships, including with siblings, foster carers and social workers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash)]

I thank the noble Earl for his gracious words. This is the first time that I have addressed your Lordships’ House, and it is a great honour to be able to do so. I thank the House and the staff for being so incredibly welcoming and kind and, as this is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box, I am tempted to say, “Long may it continue”.

I thank the noble Earl for raising an important issue for my first Question because, although it is not within my department’s brief, it has troubled me for many years. Lasting and supportive relationships are particularly important for children in care and their long-term outcomes. That is why we are taking action to increase the speed and number of adoptions, to improve the recruitment and training of foster carers and social workers, and to raise the quality of care in children’s homes. We also have a programme of work to improve support for care leavers making the important transition into adulthood.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and his gracious words. I welcome him to the House of Lords, congratulate him on his appointment to the Front Bench, and apologise to him for not putting those words a little earlier in these discussions.

The children in care who often have the most broken relationships are those in children’s homes, often having had many placements in foster care before arriving there. Is the Minister aware of the very good example of Break children’s homes in Norfolk, where the average stay for a child is two years—often children will stay for four years or more—and active efforts are made by the homes to keep in touch with children once they move on into adulthood? Will the Minister look at this best practice to see whether it can be applied more widely to children’s homes in general where the turnover is high? On average it is seven months.

[Lord Nash]

I shall try to get the words out in the right order now. I agree that many children in children’s homes have had failed foster placements. Our statistics show that 29% of children placed in children’s homes have had five or more previous placements. I have met quite a few children who have had over 20 placements. That is why we set up the expert working group: to look at how to improve the quality of support these children receive, building on good practice. This group has now reported to Ministers, and Ministers will make announcements on this shortly. We recognise Break’s impressive record—four years is an impressive average length of stay—and that is why we invited Hilary Richards of Break to be a member of the department’s expert group on quality.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, before he lost his job, the previous Minister for Children, Tim Loughton, said that it was a scandal that there remains under this Government,

“an enormous and widening attainment gap”,

between children in the care of the state and their peers, and that this is still evident throughout the school system and in further and higher education. In welcoming the noble Lord to his brief, which I think includes educational attainment, can he tell the House what priority he will put on the educational attainment of children in care and what steps he will take to close the attainment gap?

[Lord Nash]

The Government have strongly encouraged local authorities to have a senior educational officer known as a virtual school head to track closely the progress of every child in care and ensure they receive the support they need. Children in care are entitled to free early education for two year-olds, the pupil premium while at school and the new 16-to-19 further education bursary. Every child in care has to have a personal education plan setting out how they will be supported to fulfil their potential. Every school, including academies and free schools, has a legal duty to have a designated looked-after child teacher, and children in care get top priority in school admissions.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I asked a Question many years ago about adoption, and it has been asked again many times since. The age at which children are adopted is still far too high. Could we not avoid having so many children in care by applying more widely the concurrent adoption system, whereby a parent hoping to adopt can have the child to foster at a very early stage, even before the age of one year? All the world recognises that bonding works far better if a child comes to a family as early as possible. Would that not save us having ever so many unattractively aged children who people do not seem to want to adopt, sadly?

[Lord Nash]

I share my noble friend’s concerns on this. There is no doubt that the average time taken for a child to be adopted—two years and seven months, and a further year for a black child—is far too long. It is also true to say that would-be adopters in the system have not been well treated, when they should be welcomed with open arms. We are determined to reduce the time taken for adoption, and have introduced adoption scorecards to compare the performance of different local authorities, which varies widely. We have also published draft laws to stop ethnicity being a barrier to adoption. We are addressing the adoption recruitment problem by streamlining the adoption approval process, and we have published draft laws that promote the idea of fostering for adoption much earlier.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, has the Minister noted the Children’s Society report on the value of advocacy? It highlights significant inconsistencies in young people’s access to an independent advocate. What are the Government doing to improve the availability of advocacy services for children and young people in the care of the state?

[Lord Nash]

The Government believe that listening to those who use services is one of the best ways to improve them. Indeed, a lot of the new Ofsted framework is based on what it has been told by children, and the framework is now much more focused on outcomes for children. We have strengthened the children in care councils and strengthened legislation on the role of the independent reviewing officers to give them a duty to monitor the support provided for children under their care plans.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, following the Minister’s helpful comments about service users’ comments, the Care Leavers’ Association has grown steadily since it was formed in 2000 and, in its own words, is:

“An ever growing union of care leavers”.

Its advice and support is exemplary and a real help to young people getting ready to leave care. Can the Minister assure the House that every child facing the transition into leaving care is given the link to this website by their social worker, foster parent or care home manager?

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, the Care Leavers’ Association is an excellent user-led charity run by care leavers for care leavers. I agree that local authorities should give information to all care leavers about the support and advice that they can get from a range of voluntary sector groups, including the Care Leavers’ Association.

[Lord Northbourne]

Does the Minister agree that damaged children who have been passed from pillar to post in the care system often have a desperate need for secure attachment to one or more adults who care not only for them but about them? Are local authorities implementing their obligations under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and, in doing so, are they paying sufficient attention to a troubled child’s need for secure attachment and a sense of belonging?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s comments about relationships and attachment. I myself have spoken to many people who have told me that the worst experience of care is the loneliness of leaving it. It has always troubled me that we spend a lot of money and time with these young people but they are then often left on their own when they leave care. This is something that troubles us greatly. We are taking action to recruit and retain more social workers and, to focus on this, are reforming and improving their ongoing training. We have, for instance, invested more money in the excellent programme, From Care2Work, started by the previous Government to help care leavers into work. We recently published the Charter for Care Leavers, and the Minister for Children wrote to all DCSs on 30 October last year, mentioning not only the charter but data packs on care leavers and the staying-put arrangements, which seem to be working quite well and which we will be promoting further.

UK Trade

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:17

Asked by

[Lord Vinson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage export competitiveness and import substitution in view of the United Kingdom’s trade current account deficit, running at £29 billion in 2011.

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, this Government recognise that trade is essential if we are to achieve sustainable, balanced growth in the UK economy. That is why we published a trade White Paper providing a long-term strategy for UK trade and an industrial strategy setting out a long-term approach to supporting business. It is why we increased funding to UK Trade & Investment, enabling it to double the number of small and medium-sized firms it supports from 25,000 to 50,000 by 2015.

[Lord Vinson]

I thank the Minister for his very considered reply and I am sure we all wish him well in his new post. Does he agree that every penny to meet this £10 billion indebtedness has to be borrowed internationally or met by the sale of national assets such as Cadbury, Northumbrian Water, BAA and others, without which the deficit would be much bigger? Would he also agree that we cannot indefinitely trade at a loss and see our borrowing pay for a million jobs in other countries, not least in the EU? Surely, we should start creating jobs at home by buying British, encouraging import substitution and preventing the pound rising to levels that make our exports uncompetitive.

[Lord Popat]

I thank my noble friend for endorsing my appointment and for giving me the privilege to answer, for the first time, one of his Questions. I turn to the Business Secretary’s foreword to the 2011 trade White Paper, where he says that we must,

“restate the case for open markets”,

and resist,

“the temptation to put up trade and investment barriers”.

I agree that we should take action to support domestic industries, and we are doing this through the growth review and industrial strategy, and by providing help and advice to exporters, in particular our SMEs.

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the Front Benches. I have seen, as the founding chairman of the UK India Business Council, the help that the UK Government give through UK Trade & Investment to businesses to export. However, can the noble Lord tell us what more the Government are doing to help exporting, particularly to BRIC countries, and explain why UK Export Finance levels of finance seem to have fallen and there is very little take-up of new UK Export Finance products?

[Lord Popat]

The noble Lord asks a very interesting question that covers a wide range of subjects. Let me start with emerging markets. The world has changed; we are repositioning ourselves again and emerging markets are key for us—we give them a special priority. Within those emerging markets are the BRIC countries. I know the noble Lord’s interest and I pay tribute to his work for UKIBC. I was in India two weeks ago with UKTI, our excellent high commissioner in Delhi and a UKIBC colleague of the noble Lord’s. They work with India to make sure that we double our exports there by working with large numbers of corporations both in the UK and in India.

To answer the third part of the noble Lord’s question, insurance is being looked at and reviewed. I agree that we need to make a number of schemes available to our exporters, and it is up to UKTI—as it is well aware—to make the people who export aware of it, too.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I add my welcome to the noble Lord. My Lords, the IMF estimates that fiscal tightening in advanced economies will be 1% in 2013, compared to 0.75% in 2012. The squeeze will be particularly severe in our main export market, the European Union. Against this background of external weakness, how can it make sense for the Government to use fiscal policy to weaken demand in our domestic market as well? Who are our producers to sell to?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, we are in an open economy and that is why the Government have come forward with a plan for growth. We want to make sure that we create one of the most competitive tax systems in the G20; we want to make sure that we are open for business and that we welcome inward investment into the UK, and so we will be competitive. The only way to grow is to encourage new businesses, to help existing businesses to grow and to create a climate in which our businesses can do well. However, we cannot help internationally. We are positioned in such a way that we have to work and live in an open economy.

[Lord Higgins]

I congratulate my noble friend on moving from this Bench to the Front Bench, and wish him well in his new office. I hope he is more comfortable because this Bench is certainly due for refurbishment.

Does my noble friend agree that in the context of this Question the exchange rate is crucial? Has he seen reports over the past week or so of comments made in Germany that there is a danger of an exchange rate war? Does he agree that this would be disastrous for all countries concerned, and that Her Majesty’s Government should do everything possible to avoid such a thing happening?

[Lord Popat]

I thank my noble friend for those compliments. I am sure there is something that can be done about the Bench. I welcome the noble Lord’s interesting question. We helped to let our pound fluctuate freely in the international market. Although sterling has appreciated by 7% since January 2012, it is still around 23% below the January 2007 peak. All I can say on the exchange rate and the value of sterling is: let the international market decide what the value of our currency should be, rather than it being something we directly influence.

[Lord Mitchell]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box. Even though our politics are different, he and I both come from a business background, and both of us are from north-west London. We also shared the same profession when we studied at night school—we were both waiters. He worked on Kilburn High Street, I worked in Greenwich Village, and I bet I had the better social life.

I want to come back to the BRIC economies—that is, Brazil, Russia, India and China. This country exports more to Ireland than we do to all those countries combined. I ask the noble Lord: what further action we can take to improve our exports to these BRIC countries?

[Lord Popat]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. The BRIC countries are very important. As I said earlier, we have a very special relationship with emerging markets, in particular the BRIC countries. Exports to BRIC countries fell by 15% between 2008 and 2009, but grew by as much as 66% between 2009 and 2011. Exports to the BRIC countries now make up 6% of total UK exports. I agree that there is huge potential. My noble friend Lord Green has visited all the BRIC countries twice in the past 18 months to make sure that we have more trade.

The noble Lord is quite right that we do more trade with Ireland than with India. With 1.2 billion customers, we do around £13 billion a year in two-way trade with India. There is huge potential. The Prime Minister himself is putting special emphasis on the BRIC countries and I am sure that over time we will increase our exports to the BRIC countries—which we have already done in the past two years, by 66%, which is pretty good.

Local Government: Finance Settlement

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:25

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that financial settlements for local government funding are fair.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the Government have proposed a fair settlement for 2013-14 and 2014-15. Each local authority’s baseline funding level and the calculation of its tariff and top-up are based on figures that take account of the different needs of each area. The settlement allows local government to keep nearly £11 billion of business rates and keep the growth on that share of business rates, providing a direct financial incentive for councils to deliver growth.

[The Lord Bishop of Liverpool]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, and I assure her that my Question arises out of very genuine pastoral concern. Can the Government not think again in the interests of greater fairness and make more allowance for the highest levels of deprivation in both rural and urban areas? For example, in Liverpool there is to be a 52% cut in services over four years, which will directly impact upon services to mentally ill children, vulnerable families and the elderly housebound.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I know that the right reverend Prelate is very involved in the discussions that are taking place about settlements and the various levels of deprivation. I believe he held a conference last week that addressed this important subject.

However, the methodology that has been used and is set out in the formula funding document, which has been out to consultation several times, takes account of deprivation and the high cost of providing services in areas that have high deprivation, where local authorities have a low ability to raise funding. Such authorities will receive more funding than authorities with a low cost of providing services and a high ability to raise funding locally.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, under the local government settlement for the two years ending this March, the Audit Commission reported that in the 20 most deprived areas of the country revenue spending had fallen by 14% and in the 20 least deprived by 4.4%. In the most recent settlement, the 20 most deprived authorities will have their spending power cut by an average of 8% and the least deprived by 0.7%. Can the Minister tell me what definition of fairness justifies this distribution?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the distribution has been carried out, as it always is, against a formula which makes sure that there is fairness of distribution across the piece. As the noble Lord has just suggested, the highest loss of spending power is 8% and the lowest is much less than that. The department has taken a great deal of care to try to ensure that funds are well distributed across the country. Noble Lords will know that what we are dealing with here is, again, one of the difficulties of having a deficit left by the previous Government.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is at least as fair to look not only at the amount of funding the Government give each local authority but at the amount of funding each household gives to its local council? For instance, is she aware that in Liverpool the average annual council tax payment per dwelling is £961, whereas in Surrey it is £1,667, perhaps reflecting levels of deprivation? Is that fair?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, all I can say is that this is being done against the background of a formula which is pretty well understood. The average household spending power across the country is £2,000. The settlement is as fair as it can be in the financial circumstances.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The Minister tells us that she is presiding over this pure system of allocating resources between local authorities which is delivering fairness. Did Ministers change the formula for distribution so as to produce a result whereby, as my noble friend from the Dispatch Box pointed out, the most deprived areas are losing the most?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the formula has not been, as has been suggested, tinkered with; that is how it has come out. It is fair to point out that the local government settlement is not the only funding that local authorities get; there is also the new homes bonus and other contributions that local authorities can have. It is not just the settlement.

Airports: Heathrow

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:30

Tabled by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will hold an inquiry into the operations of London Heathrow airport following the recent severe disruption.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, Heathrow has already incorporated all 14 recommendations of the 2011 independent Heathrow resilience inquiry into a £50 million improvement programme, including more snow clearance vehicles and improved operational command and control and passenger welfare procedures. These enabled Heathrow to reduce disruption significantly compared to 2010. Airlines have also improved their responses to severe weather. However, we are asking them to explain why aircraft de-icing problems occurred at Heathrow and what improvements are needed.

[Baroness Browning]

I am grateful to my noble friend, but we will all have witnessed on the television the misery of passengers and, of course, the damage done to the UK’s reputation. Is it not time for Heathrow to learn the lessons quickly so that we do not have these annual reports following what was, after all, a rather modest snowfall?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I agree that there has been some disappointment about performance at Heathrow, and my right honourable friend the Minister of State will be having a chat with its management. However, noble Lords will be well aware that TV loves to portray a bad news story. It is interesting that it did not portray the problems at other European airports, which were also very significant.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords—

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not a question of de-icing or clearing the runways? British Airways comes on the television screens explaining proudly its problem that, “We run at 99% capacity. The slightest difference in allowing time between flights means that we have to cancel”. It turned out in this case that one in 10 incoming flights was cancelled on one day, and that on another it was one in five. Is it not time that an airport that is trying to pretend that it is an international hub stops running at a rate of capacity that is clearly outwith its capabilities to sustain?

[Earl Attlee]

I think that the noble Baroness is suggesting that an extra runway would solve the problem. However, I should point out that Charles de Gaulle airport experienced a cancellation rate of 40% despite having four runways.

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, I have managed all sorts of transport terminals and routes. The only way to deal with the problems at Heathrow would have been to put in a contingency plan which reduced in advance the number of flights taking off and landing. Proper contingency planning is needed so that passengers are advised well in advance not to leave their homes, not to leave their hotels and not to sleep on the terminal floor. Will the Minister encourage the CAA and other aviation authorities to introduce such plans?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is quite right in his analysis of a possible solution. Indeed, that is what happens. A committee called HADACAB determines whether we need to cancel some flights in advance in order to provide capacity to do things such as keep the runway clear. In addition, in future, as a result of the Civil Aviation Act 2012, the Civil Aviation Authority will be able to set resilience conditions on the operator’s licence, but that will not be until April 2014.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I am so sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was unable to ask this Question. That would have given me the opportunity to agree with him twice in consecutive days, which would be some kind of record as far as he and I are concerned.

As the Minister is so well briefed as to tell us what other European airports suffered delays, will he put in the Library an analysis of these problems, because north American airports, which have vastly more problems with snow than the UK, seem to keep planes flying through a great deal of it? It would be interesting to have a real, proper comparison.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the way I would explain the situation with regard to my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Browning is: out of the frying pan and into the fire.

As the noble Lord will understand, the meteorological conditions in north America are very different from those at Heathrow. It is interesting to note, however, that airports such as Zurich, Geneva and Basle also experienced cancellations.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I was one of those held in Madrid because of BA’s failure to take us on Friday. It re-booked us on Saturday, but again we were unable to fly BA. However, Iberia, closely connected with BA, had no problem whatever in taking us half an hour after the BA flight time. What is happening when a company such as Iberia, closely connected with BA, can fly and carry passengers without difficulty when BA cannot?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I suggest that the noble and learned Baroness writes to BA for an explanation.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords—

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords—

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I think I can keep going. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, my noble friend said that Charles de Gaulle has four runways, but the comparison she was making was in capacity. We would like to know what percentage of capacity Charles de Gaulle is running at compared with Heathrow.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I believe that Charles de Gaulle runs at about 75% capacity.

Business of the House

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion on Standing Orders

15:37

Moved by

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That Standing Order 48 (Amendments on Third Reading) be dispensed with today in respect of the Third Reading of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill.

Motion agreed.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Report

15:38

Schedule 2: Sharing and checking information etc

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

1: Schedule 2, page 18, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) must authorise or require institutions providing secondary education (as defined by section 2A of the Education Act 1996), the Student Loans Company Limited, the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency, tenancy deposit schemes (as defined by section 212 of the Housing Act 2004), and credit referencing agencies (as defined by section 145(8) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974), to disclose information to another person for the purpose of assisting a registration officer in Great Britain.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, Amendment 1 stands in my name and in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. In preparation for the move to individual electoral registration, the Government have been running some data-matching pilots, which we welcome. These pilots show a success rate of about 70% of existing electors—that is, from the household register—being confirmed through data matching with DWP data. However, looked at in more detail, the success rate in the 14 pilot areas varies markedly, with a low of 55%—that is, just over a half —of those in Tower Hamlets being matched between the data-matching scheme from DWP and the existing household register.

Having evaluated the pilots, the Electoral Commission said that it,

“found that there was significant variation across the pilot areas. Extra resources will be required by electoral registration officers in these areas where more of the electorate will need to be contacted directly … to encourage them to register individually”.

The commission also noted:

“It was also not possible to test the actual system that Electoral Registration Officers will use under IER”—

individual electoral registration—

“due to delays in the development of the IT system”.

We need to know from the Minister today whether the resources will be made available to electoral registration officers, whether the Government are confident that the IT will be on time and appropriate and whether there are back-up plans if future evaluation indicates ongoing problems.

What we know from these data-matching pilots, which use DWP and similar data, from the Electoral Commission and from the experience of Northern Ireland is how very difficult it is to capture and maintain certain groups of our citizens on the existing household register, never mind the new individual register that this Bill will introduce. If those groups already most likely to be disenfranchised—those in private rented property, the young, students and the mobile—are to be included in the democratic process, it will be essential that every possible effort is made to find those people and invite them to join the electoral register.

This amendment seeks to add some key authorised, official and secure databases to the existing, publicly produced lists that will be checked to find people so that local electoral officers will be able to write to those on such lists to encourage them to register. The groups listed in the amendment—the DVLC, the Student Loans Company, secondary schools, tenancy deposit schemes, and credit reference agencies—are all defined and thus regulated in some way in legislation. They are also covered by good data-protection protocols and have quality governance systems. This amendment would authorise them to provide relevant information to election officers, who can then write inviting those not on the register to sign up.

We know from every bit of research that those who are not, in fact, on the electoral register often assume that they are. This may be because they have other dealings with the state. They may have been issued with a driving licence or even an endorsement. They may be receiving or paying back a student loan. They may have money held by a tenancy deposit scheme or be at school. Given the move to individual registration, there is surely a right for all such people, many of whom think that they are on the register, to be invited to register, with it being clear that being on all those other lists does not make them a voter. All of this might appear obvious: that such sources of data will be key to finding those millions missing from our existing registers, let alone from the new system. However, without this requirement in the Bill, we fear that such data will not be shared in a timely manner and that many of our fellow citizens will never receive a personalised invitation to register to vote.

Northern Ireland moved ahead of us to individual electoral registration and found that its work with schools was very good at getting pupils to register. However, as soon as those pupils left home, registration fell away. As the Electoral Commission’s report shows:

“The majority of inaccuracies are related to entries for people who were no longer resident at the address”.

It also noted that there has been,

“a significant and worrying decline in the accuracy and completeness of Northern Ireland’s electoral register, largely as a result of an approach to maintaining the register which has not been able to keep pace with population movement”.

It is vital that we do not have a similar significant and worrying decline in our register, which is already perhaps 6 million short of what it should be. This amendment will help; perhaps only in a small way, but it will help. I beg to move.

15:45

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, it may not surprise the House that I have very considerable sympathy with the arguments just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and with the amendment tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as it is remarkably similar to the amendment that I moved in Committee. I made my points in support of it at col. 473 of Hansard for 29 October, and I shall not detain the House by rehearsing all them. However, I emphasise that we on these Benches feel very strongly that it is very important to make a success of what we are setting out to do through this Bill and that the widest possible range of data sources are used to encourage more people who are missing from the electoral register to be on it.

Of the organisations in the amendment, the Government have so far said publicly that they will move substantially on the Student Loans Company database only. There are very important issues still to be addressed, which could be addressed in further regulations, so it should not be necessary to vote at this stage. At some point, the House would like to know that the very good practice used in Northern Ireland of returning officers visiting schools as part of a civics lesson and registering 16 and 17 year-olds to make sure that they can vote when they are 18 and suggestions put forward in Committee about using things such as the tenancy deposit protection scheme and credit reference agencies’ information will be taken forward.

In particular, we would like to know from the Minister, if possible before the end of this debate, that action will be taken to try to ensure that the DVLA database is used in the same way as the DWP database, if not in exactly the same way for any legitimate reason. In the debates we have teased out the fact that very many people are missing from the electoral register because they move house. If we were simply to use the database of those people who notify the DVLA that they have moved house to then notify electoral registration officers that they should contact those individuals and invite them to be on the electoral register, that could ensure that many of the people missing from the voter registers were included.

These things could all be done relatively easily. I am hoping that it will not be necessary for us to vote at any point here, or on regulations on these issues at a later stage, but it is important that we receive some assurance from the Minister that the Government will take these points seriously if they are to assure us that they are sincere about improving the completeness of the electoral register as well as its accuracy.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have come a long way in discussing this issue since the Bill was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny, and the character of the Bill has changed quite a lot as it has gone through both Houses. We have also learnt as the various data matching and data mining exercises have been piloted, and that continues to be the case. We had an interesting and informative debate on this subject in Committee and, as I said then, the Government are sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, which seeks to ensure that the best possible use is made of data matching to identify people not on the register who may be entitled to be. The outcome of the second round of data pilots showed that some 70% of voters could be confirmed through the DWP database. As the noble Baroness said, this varies from local authority to local authority, but it enables us to focus on the 30% who are not confirmed.

We are all aware that it is the frequent movers and young people—above all, young men—who are the hardest to identify. In the various pilots under way, we are experimenting with using other databases. I remind noble Lords that, in last year’s data matching pilots, data were matched with organisations such as the DWP, HMRC, the Royal Mail—which was particularly useful for people who had given their changes of address—the Department for Education, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Transport, the Student Loans Company, the Ministry of Defence and, for Scotland, the Improvement Service company. In early 2013, we are currently planning to undertake pilots of data mining using databases held by the DWP, the Department for Education, HEFCE, the Welsh Government, the Royal Mail, the Student Loans Company and a small number of county councils.

Some data sets are held locally and some centrally, some are public and, as far as the credit reference agencies are concerned, some are private. The Bill enables us to remove any barriers to the usage of private sector data, and we have not ruled out the possibility of working with credit reference agencies to see what value their data sets can add to data matching for individual electoral registration.

I repeat: this is an area in which the Government are already very actively engaged. The amendment is not necessary. This schedule gives us the power to remove barriers to data sharing. Working through regulations enables us to discover new, useful data sets as we move forward. The Government are continuing to test which data sets are the most useful and effective in identifying potential electors.

Pre-empting such careful consideration of which may be the most appropriate data sets to use by specifying them in primary legislation could limit flexibility by requiring the unnecessary use of data sets that add no value to the work of EROs. The amendment would mean that the Government could not bring forward a data-matching order that did not include one of these agencies. That could potentially mean ruling out the future use of as-yet-unknown data sets or carrying out multiple data-matching exercises. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that we are in active discussion with the Department for Transport on the use of DVLA databases and others. It is likely that in 2013 we will be testing out other such databases.

The amendment is unnecessary and limits flexibility in an area where the Government are already engaged in intensive action to identify the best data sets to assist EROs in performance of their duties. I hope that I have said enough to reassure the noble Baroness and to enable her to withdraw the amendment. We all share the objective of coming out of this exercise with the maximum possible number of people on the register—and, as the noble Baroness has said, not just on the register first time around but staying on the register as they move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister for that, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his support. I am sorry that we pinched his words, but they were rather good words.

I disagree with the Minister on only one thing: when he said that the wording would make it compulsory and it might be difficult. If that really was the Government’s only opposition to it, we have Third Reading later tonight and we could have made it accurate. That was perhaps a slightly churlish bit of the response.

The rest of the response we found very heartening. There seems to be an attempt to look at most databases. It is particularly important to look at transport and the DVLA. The Minister mentioned that young men were some of those hardest to find. The last time I looked at it, young men had some of the highest records for both ownership of either cars or driving licences—or, sadly, for endorsements on them—so that is a particularly good way of finding them.

The Minister will not be surprised that we will continue to keep a watchful eye on this, to make sure that as much is done as possible. We will keep an eye out for any regulations that help. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Lexden]

2: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Representation of the People Act 1985 (Amendment)
(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the Representation of the People Act 1985 either—
(a) in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise), to omit subsections (3)(c) and 4(a) and in section 3 (extension of franchise for European Parliamentary elections), to omit subsections (3)(c) and (4)(a); or(b) to substitute for the period of 15 years provided for in each of those sections a longer period (“the relevant period”).(2) If the Secretary of State makes an order under subsection (1)(b) he may subsequently make further orders under subsection (1)(b) provided that any such subsequent order may only provide for a further increase in the relevant period.
(3) An instrument containing an order under subsection (1) shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 2 in order to return to an issue that I raised in Committee last week. I return to it, and underline some of the points that I made last week, because the issue is one of great importance: the complete disenfranchisement at the parliamentary level—I stress at parliamentary level only—of the vast majority of our fellow countrymen and women who have lived outside the United Kingdom for more than 15 years, retaining their British citizenship, in which so many of them take the deepest pride. Apart from a very limited number living in nine small Commonwealth nations, they cannot vote in the national parliamentary elections that take place in the countries where they reside. The world over, the parliamentary franchise rests on nationality, not on residence and not, it should be emphasised, on the payment of taxes. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, stated in Committee last week,

“taxation has never been a criterion for voting in this country and it is not now”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 484.]

Under our current legislation, the overwhelming majority of British subjects living overseas cannot vote in our parliamentary or European elections after 15 years’ absence. They are therefore deprived of the most fundamental of all democratic rights, which so many great British men and women of all parties strove so hard over long years to secure for all British adults.

Their disenfranchisement is thrown into sharp relief by the superior wisdom shown by so many other countries, which extend to their citizens living abroad a lifetime’s right to vote in their parliamentary elections. The overwhelming majority of our EU partners make such provision and so do other countries elsewhere in the world, including, in particular, the United States. We have failed to keep abreast of a prominent and continuing international trend. It is high time that we caught up.

Our disenfranchised fellow British subjects living overseas are large in number. Perhaps I may remind the House of the key figures. Some 5.6 million British subjects are estimated to reside beyond our shores, of whom some 4.4 million are of voting age. A not inconsiderable proportion have of course been abroad for less than 15 years and so are eligible to vote here, although there is no way of establishing the total number of those who fall into this category. Even estimates of the number by the Electoral Commission or other authoritative bodies are, as far as I know, lacking.

However, there is no doubt that at the moment many of them are not taking up their democratic right. No more than 23,388 people living overseas are on our electoral rolls today. It is important to be clear. That does not mean that only a mere 0.5% of those eligible to register have done so, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, suggested last week. No one can tell what the percentage is since we do not know the number of people who have been abroad for less than 15 years. Even so, it is true that many who could register have not done so.

There are some who say that this shows the indifference with which many British subjects overseas regard the democratic right that they possess, and use this as an argument against removing or extending the existing 15-year limit. I believe that that is a profoundly mistaken conclusion. Many who have been abroad for less than 15 years are deterred by the complex and time-consuming registration procedures to which they are now subject. That problem should be tackled by simplifying the procedures through the introduction, as rapidly as possible and in line with developments in Britain itself, of online arrangements, as I suggested in Committee, using a British passport as the key means of establishing identity.

Moreover, many expatriates see little point in claiming for a season a right that will be summarily withdrawn at the end of it. There is a natural human tendency to place less value on what is provisional than on what is permanent and assured. Others feel that the sense of affection and attachment with which they regard their country is insufficiently reciprocated by Parliament and by some politicians. That impression tends to be reinforced by speeches that are sometimes made attributing to British subjects rather ignoble motives, such as a delight in cheap alcohol, for leaving our shores. It is sad that the benefits that our country derives from our expatriates are not always properly celebrated.

There also seems to be a reluctance to accept that, in today’s world, distance is no longer a barrier to an expatriate’s participation in their country’s affairs. However, as my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said,

“if there was any rationale in the pre-internet age for the 15-year cut-off, to do with knowledge of what is going on in the United Kingdom, it has long since disappeared”.—[Official Report, 2/3/11; col. 1123.]

The day after our Committee debate last week, French state television featured a group of French citizens who had lived in Australia for more than 30 years. The tenor of the broadcast reflected France’s longstanding view that those who live abroad long-term should be thought of as great informal ambassadors for France in a wider world. That is a tradition that we should emulate. It can be no coincidence that half of all French citizens living overseas are registered to vote in their country.

I believe that we need to breathe new life and warmth into the relationship between our country and its expatriates. They should be made to feel truly welcome as participants in our affairs. The best way to do that would be by placing them all on the same basis with regard to parliamentary voting rights, which provide such a profound affirmation of national identity. Principle points to no other conclusion.

My noble friend Lord McNally has said that,

“early in this Parliament we should have a really radical look at voting for our overseas residents”.—[Official Report, 2/3/11; col. 1133.]

Since then, it has been stated from time to time that the Government have the issue under review, a formula that I trust is not a euphemism for evading action. Indeed, I hope that it is the not inconsiderable practical and administrative implications of change that are under review, in preparation for action.

If we are to reach out successfully to our valued expatriates, the process of dismantling the 15-year rule needs at the very least to begin. My amendment would give the Government flexibility in determining the pace of change by enabling them to extend the time limit beyond 15 years in stages through secondary legislation. My noble friend Lord Norton said last week that this would provide time to reflect and build a consensus in order to extend the period.

The proposal does not involve the creation of a new right but the extension of an existing one. For that, secondary legislation would not be inappropriate. However, if such a route to change were followed, it would be important to keep the final aim firmly in view—the complete removal of all discrimination against our fellow British subjects living overseas. I beg to move.

16:00

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I will not detain the House long as I made our position clear in Committee and it has not changed. As I said then, we believe that my noble friend Lord Lexden has hit on a very interesting and important issue about nationality and representation. There is clearly a strong case for some rationalisation and, indeed, for a careful look at the way in which our EU partners handle this issue, as was again said today. At the same time, we must note that the majority of them have a very different electoral system from our own. Here in the UK, we have a system of single-Member constituencies with a special link between an MP and his or her constituents. It is irrational to have people who used to live in my old constituency in north Cornwall, for example, still on the electoral roll 15 years or more after they have left for possibly sunnier climes.

Let me clear up any misunderstanding: every UK election, with the notable exception of European parliamentary elections, is in a sense a local election. Voters in a particular locality decide which local representative would in their judgment best represent their interests and those of that specific locality. It is also true that many local issues, from development threats in that locality to the level of council tax more generally, can be major factors even in a UK parliamentary election. For those who have left that locality 15 or more years ago to have a potentially decisive voice in such an election is illogical. I still remember the occasion when I was elected with a majority of nine. For all I know, that majority of nine came from many thousands of miles away and had no direct interest in that locality and that local parliamentary election.

Last week my noble friend Lord Deben, who is not in his usual place this afternoon, attacked me on this issue in a splendidly enjoyable diatribe. I make it clear: I do not defend or, indeed, reject the single-Member constituency that we have at present in the UK, but it is a fact of political life. Therefore, anything we do on this issue has to take that into the reckoning. If he or anybody else is now expecting a change to a multi-Member or list electoral system for the House of Commons, I am as surprised as I am delighted. However, I do not think that he is.

In the absence of any such reform, we urge my noble friend Lord Lexden to think again about his strategy. If he is to address the anomalies that he has rightly identified, he must take up the issue of an additional constituency for overseas voters. Several contributors to last week’s debate in Committee, including my noble friend Lord Lexden, referred to the French arrangement for overseas voters. Indeed, again, he made very important reference to the experience of French overseas voters. However, the significant point is that they have a separate constituency; they do not interfere with the individual constituencies in mainland France. In those circumstances, we believe that this amendment puts the cart before the horse. We believe that the creation of a separate constituency on the French model—or, indeed, constituencies, if the numbers justify something beyond one constituency—would be a much more appropriate way to make this injustice less of a problem in future. Surely that is the right and only way for the interests of former UK residents to be represented without diluting those of the people who still live in this country.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Lexden. It is a novel amendment but a modest one. In Committee, there were essentially two objections to the proposal to extend the 15-year limit on British nationals who live abroad having the vote. A third objection was to the mechanism proposed by my noble friend, which is again before us today.

One objection to extending the 15-year limit was that citizens who have retired to live abroad and enjoy the sunshine of foreign climes had effectively fled the United Kingdom and therefore should not be able to vote—certainly not for any great length of time. My noble friend Lord Tyler referred in Committee to the fact that some people may deem them to have deserted these shores. That is to misunderstand the situation of British nationals living abroad. Most emigrants from this country live abroad for work-related purposes. Some will be moving around the globe for their companies, which may well be UK companies. The fact of living abroad for some years is no proof of leaving the UK on a permanent basis.

My noble friend Lord Tyler raised a second objection, to which he referred again today. He argued that citizens living abroad do not have a clear constituency link, and he queried how an MP could represent,

“people who live perhaps thousands of miles away in a very different economic and social context”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 481.]

Well, I presume that they can do it in the same way in which they currently represent those who live abroad but have not yet done so for 15 years and are registered to vote. It is perhaps also worth reminding ourselves that the MEPs for the south-west of England also represent Gibraltar, where people live some way away in a different economic and social context.

The other objection was raised by my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble in respect of this particular amendment, on the grounds that it would be unusual to make such a change in secondary legislation. I note that he said “unusual” and not “unique”. In any event, what is involved here is not a new right but an extension of an existing right. Far greater changes affecting individuals are made through secondary legislation than is being envisaged here. What the amendment does is provide some flexibility. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Gardiner said that the question of extending the time limit,

“remains under consideration within government”.

The amendment provides the means to move forward, should that consideration result in recognition that the time limit should be extended.

The grounds for extending the time limit were made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lexden. As I stressed in that debate, we need to recognise the contribution made to the United Kingdom by citizens living abroad. They are a major source of soft power for the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Gardiner acknowledged,

“the continuing loyalty to the United Kingdom of so many who have lived and worked overseas for many years”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 489.]

We should look upon our citizens around the globe as a continuing asset and not as a body of people to be cast aside and treated as having deserted these shores. If they wish to demonstrate a continuing commitment to the United Kingdom, they should be enabled to do so.

My noble friend’s amendment provides the means for doing so but, at this stage, without commitment. It enables the Government to complete their consideration of the issue. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I intervene only briefly to ask a question, because the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, quite rightly drew the House’s attention to the sensitivity in very marginal seats to votes coming in from abroad. I want to know what happens in conditions of fraud. We have an individual registration system and the suggestion is that we should extend the right to vote to those who have been overseas for more than 15 years. What happens if a fraud takes place? Where are those involved to be prosecuted? Can they be prosecuted? Are they to be extradited? Does this not raise all kinds of problems in terms of prosecution? Perhaps the Minister can give the answer.

[Lord Bates]

I am toying with supporting my noble friend’s amendment but I just wish to seek clarification on a couple of things. The areas that I find totally persuasive are those raised by my noble friend in moving the amendment and those referred to by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, particularly when he talked about soft power. That soft power extends in a network world increasingly to include economic power. These people are overseas on business—they are economically active. There is a global network of 4.4 million or more people who can speak up for and promote Britain, as well as provide information on and connections to the commercial arms of the respective embassies and consulates overseas.

My only difficulty is this. My noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out that currently 4.4 million people are of voting age but only 23,500 or thereabouts are registered to vote, although I do not know what proportion actually voted at the last election. First, does my noble friend agree that it would be useful for the Electoral Commission to undertake extensive research into the reasons why people do not register overseas for this right to vote, which is extremely important to them? Secondly—perhaps this is better addressed to my noble friend on the Front Bench—does he agree that the time has come for the Government to appoint someone to champion the voice of overseas residents who have the vote here? In that regard, I cannot think of a better person to head that up than my noble friend Lord Lexden.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I support the amendment. I got a very dusty answer in Committee, and I do not really agree with most of the arguments against the amendment. If you start from first principles and the idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, in my view this does no harm. Moreover, it is only an enabling measure; it does not change anything. It creates a power to change things, which, to me, makes it seem rather modest. Having a single constituency or two constituencies for expatriates is an extremely good idea in my view, but I suspect that it might be found to be not relevant to this Bill, which would be shocking.

I feel that I have not yet heard a compelling argument against this power. I am encouraged that it is supported not only by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, but by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who is a great expert in these matters.

On the question of electoral fraud, where it would be prosecuted and how the miscreant would be brought to justice, I agree that that might be quite difficult to do if we were rash enough to opt out from justice and home affairs and the European arrest warrant.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I hope that the noble Lord did not hear what I just said to my noble friend, which was, “He’s wicked”.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for bringing the amendment to the House. His commitment to this is clear. Having worked abroad, I can say that it is always very nice to have someone speaking for us, as it were.

As we made clear in Committee, the Opposition do not support the amendment. We remain unconvinced that those who left these shores 20, 30 or more years ago should continue to vote for a Government under whom the rest of us pay our taxes and live with the consequences of our vote. Those people will not live with the consequence of theirs.

However, I want to stress another consideration which I raised in Committee. Should this extension go forward, such non-residents would then also be able to continue to make unlimited donations to UK political parties. By being on the electoral register, they are also categorised as permissible donors to a political party. The previous Government, in the light of ongoing concerns about overseas funding of our politics, passed the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Section 10 of the Act prohibits a registered party from accepting a donation of more than £7,500 in any year from a UK national living abroad and on the electoral register, unless they become resident in the UK and pay UK income tax. Sadly, however—and I think wrongly—this section of the Act has not yet come into force and the coalition Government have indicated that they have no intention of bringing it into force. Perhaps the Government would like to take a moment to announce a change in their view on this, in which case we would be up and ready to welcome it immediately.

However, as that provision has not been brought in, it means that all those UK nationals permanently living abroad would be allowed to give donations to our political parties, because the test of whether an individual is a permissible donor is whether they are on the electoral register. Therefore, if overseas electors were able to stay on the register for longer than 15 years, they would remain permissible donors for as long as their wealth held out. For this reason—if for no other—we could not support the amendment.

16:15

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I have two sisters, two nephews and one son who are British citizens living abroad at the moment. At least three of them, I think, are dual nationals; this is, of course, one of the many complications in addressing this. I said at an earlier stage that I knew a British civil servant who had gone to visit his cousins in Vermont so that he could vote in the US presidential election—on the right side, I am happy to say. This is one of the many complications in addressing this large area. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for ensuring that the Government will take a more active approach to this consideration from now on. I should criticise my noble friend Lord Tyler for suggesting that there could be, possibly, sunnier climes than Cornwall. I thought, when I was a boy and saw the Cornish Riviera Express go by, that it was called that because Cornwall was very warm. Among the messages that I, and probably others, have received from voters abroad—in particular from a group in the Var, Provence—have been some rather abusive messages suggesting that any attempt to take away the winter fuel allowance from people living in Provence would encourage them all to register en masse.

This is a complex area, and the short debate we have had suggests the many complexities that exist. The Government’s view remains that the franchise for UK elections is set out in primary legislation, and that it should be changed by primary legislation and not by regulation. It was pointed out earlier that, of our 4.5 million potential overseas voters, only 30,000 were registered at the peak in 2010. That is weak evidence that there is a pent-up demand that we are failing to satisfy.

The French have a great many more overseas residents registered, but the French approach to registration of citizens abroad is very different from the British one. Certainly, the Foreign Office would have to consider the consular resources available for much more active registration of British citizens abroad. I think the right figure at the moment is that some 50,000 British citizens abroad are currently registered with consulates, which suggests that if we were to follow the French model, we would be going through a whole sea-change in our relations with our overseas citizens. We do not know how many of our estimated 5.6 million overseas citizens are dual citizens; we do not know how many of them were born in Britain or born abroad. We have some interesting questions about how this would work: for example, in which constituency would British citizens born overseas be registered when they wished to vote? There are a very large number of questions even before we get to the question of special constituencies for them, and I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, should pursue the question of an all-party inquiry into this rather neglected area, not leaving everything to the Government here.

The choice of constituency, after all, is a contentious one. I recall many arguments in the past between the two coalition parties about the way in which people who have second homes in Devon and Cornwall might be registered, and about the constituency in which they should vote. In marginal seats, the addition of a very substantial number of overseas voters could alter the whole political balance. I will criticise the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for pinching my joke, and say that of course, if we are prosecuting someone for fraud, the European Arrest Warrant is appropriate for use against people in Spain and Cyprus.

Having said that, I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, to withdraw his amendment. We recognise that he has made his mark on the Government. There is a delicate issue here. I note that the Irish simply do not give the right to vote to their overseas citizens. I suspect they think that there are simply too many of them and that they would outweigh the domestic constituency. There are large questions here about what rights we might grant, for how long and for how many people we might grant them, and whether we should grant them for people who were born abroad. We might appropriately consider these questions, but, I suggest, not in the context of the Bill. Now that the noble Lord has registered his point with considerable vigour, I encourage him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for suggesting that I undertake the considerable duty of giving consideration to the establishment of an all-party inquiry. I am extremely interested in that suggestion. If I may, I will seek a meeting with him about how that might proceed. On the face of it, an all-party inquiry is extremely attractive.

The Bill has now provided the House with two major opportunities to consider the current seriously flawed and inadequate electoral arrangements for our fellow British subjects living overseas. I hope that our discussions have created a better understanding in Parliament of the issues, and at least challenged some of the misconceptions that have long been rife. I hope, too, that they have given at least a measure of encouragement to British expatriates. Large numbers of them will have watched our proceedings today and last week with keen interest. Many in this House will share my strong hope that many more expatriates eligible to register under the existing 15-year rule will exercise their right, as consideration continues to be given to the removal of that rule.

As my noble friend the Minister emphasised, the issues are firmly on the political agenda. They need to be pursued, in detail, with vigour and care. In these circumstances, it would be inappropriate to divide the House. In the knowledge that efforts to secure progress will continue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Clause 7 : Power to amend or abolish the annual canvass

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

3: Clause 7, page 5, line 40, leave out paragraph (b)

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, Amendment 3 stands in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The amendment is simple. Its purpose is to maintain the annual canvass. Clause 7(2)(b), which we seek to delete, would authorise the Minister to abolish the annual canvass. This long-standing canvass is a critical tool in compiling the register, and is the only way of judging whether the other systems that take information from a variety of data sources are working. Without the canvass there will be no check on the completeness of the register. All those experienced in this area are adamant that the old-fashioned canvass remains a crucial tool in locating citizens domiciled in Great Britain. Houses do not move. Ensuring that eligible residents are on the list is best done via the canvass. Nothing else competes.

Furthermore, we are concerned about the impact of the removal of the annual canvass in Northern Ireland, which the Electoral Commission considers contributed to the dip in registration there. Jenny Watson, head of the Electoral Commission, stated in her covering letter to the commission’s report on Northern Ireland that,

“the processes … employed by the Chief Electoral Officer … are unable to keep pace with either people moving home or people becoming newly eligible to … register. … We need robust process to respond to people moving … or becoming … eligible to… register … Any decision to remove the annual canvass in Great Britain … must be seriously thought through to ensure that any change would not lead to a drop in registration”.

Anna Carragher, the Electoral Commissioner for Northern Ireland, described how its Chief Electoral Officer,

“was no longer required to conduct a fresh canvass of electors every year”.

She commented that,

“data matching techniques … insufficient for maintaining an accurate and complete register”.

The report on Northern Ireland is clear. It states:

“Data matching initiatives have not been able to compensate for a full canvass of all households”.

Despite this, and after that report, Chloe Smith, Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet Office, in a debate in the other place last week, continued to place her faith in data matching, claiming it would open up a whole new world of possibilities for how we might annually register people to vote. She said:

“I do not think a situation in which the annual canvass is less effective than new methods is beyond our lifetimes. I do not suggest that I know what these methods might be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/13; col. 234WH]

She does not know but, nevertheless, she wants the power in a Minister’s hands to abolish the annual canvass. This is not reason enough to keep the power in the Bill as a kind of “Just in case”, “Well, perhaps” or “Here’s hoping we have a better method”. Does the Minister accept that Ms Smith’s faith in data matching directly contradicts the evidence of those in charge of and evaluating the Northern Ireland experience? We need evidence that the Government are learning from Northern Ireland and have recognised the centrality of the annual canvass.

While the Government have said they currently have no plans to abolish the annual canvass if there is nothing superior with which to replace it, they still want to legislate in this Bill to allow the change in the future. We remain deeply unconvinced by their argument. The continuing presence in the Bill of the power for a government Minister to abolish the annual canvass is potentially damaging to our democracy. The House, I am sure, will be concerned about giving an elected politician, in government, the power to dispense with this crucial democratic tool. I hope the Minister will therefore accept this important amendment and agree to remove the power from the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness. Many of us in this Chamber who have been involved in canvassing for by-elections, general elections and local government elections will know that, while it is an enjoyable experience, not every place you go to is a semi-detached or detached dwelling. Sometimes you find yourself on commercial premises and are surprised that someone is resident above a garage or a haulage company. Sometimes you are greeted by a friendly doberman or a territorial rottweiler when you approach to do a canvass.

Canvassing is no easy task—it is by no means a light job—and the men and women who take it on are the unsung heroes of the people within the democratic process who try to get a decent register together. Albeit that they are paid, they do it on a voluntary basis. Once the task is finished, they are paid a sum of money and they are gone. It would be very sad if we did away with this system of gathering votes because, as has been said before, including by me, every time there is a boundary change there is always a complaint that the electoral roll is inaccurate. These men and women go about the business of ensuring that there is great accuracy and, as I say, that is not an easy task.

The Minister might say that it would go through only with a parliamentary order that could be debated in both Houses. However, we all know that a Minister, quite unintentionally, could put the order through on a day when the work of the House is light or perhaps during the wash-up period when there is a lot of other activity. I think that the amendment is worth supporting.

16:30

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, the annual door-to-door household canvass is an extremely important part of the current registration system and has been shown to be very effective. Recent evidence from Northern Ireland shows that it was clearly a mistake to remove the annual canvass from the registration process there when individual electoral registration systems were introduced. However, some are arguing that for the data-mining and data-matching exercises to be successful, the Government may want to signal that at some point in the future it may be possible to remove the annual canvass. Personally, I cannot envisage it in the foreseeable future, but I accept that if all the other methods being tried to register voters prove as successful as some of us hope, there may be a case for doing so in the future. However, it would be unwise for the Government to proceed with removing the annual canvass without considerable consensus and the advice of the Electoral Commission that it was safe to do so, and without the new electoral registration systems being put forward in this Bill having been in place and embedded for a very considerable period.

I accept that we have made extensive changes and effected substantial improvements to this Bill, but I am unhappy about this power remaining in the Bill unless we know that positive parliamentary approval would be required for any Secretary of State to cancel the power for the annual canvass. However, as I say, I do not think that the power should be exercised at any point in the foreseeable future.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I start by stressing again that we all share the goal of getting as complete and accurate a register as possible and, indeed, of maintaining it over the years. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, whom I was about to call my noble friend because I have learnt a lot from him during the consideration of this Bill, as I have on previous occasions.

Over the next 10 years we will move more towards online and digital registration by default and we will find that communication between the citizen and the state becomes much easier. That is one of the large, indeed revolutionary, changes that we expect to go through. I would also remind noble Lords of what I said in Committee, which is that in certain parts of the country new housing in particular is making it increasingly difficult to carry out a full canvass. I visited the electoral registration office for Wandsworth. The figures there show that currently some 50,000 housing units are sited in gated communities or apartment blocks with entry phones, while the proposed development of the Battersea Power Station site will add a further 16,000 such units.

We all recognise that the annual canvass is useful and important. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that there are areas in Bradford where some houses are back to back and others are not; some houses where people use only the front entrance and others where they use only the back, so many of us are well aware of the difficulty of finding out who lives where. Nevertheless, the extent to which we find it easy to catch people when they are in and get them to answer their doors, and thus to rely primarily on the annual canvass, is itself changing. This provision has been put into the Bill to remove the necessity of coming back to the House with primary legislation for a change when we are confident that other methods—in particular, online methods—provide more efficient and cost-effective ways of ensuring that we have a complete and accurate register.

I also stress that, under the Bill as drafted, there is a statutory role for the Electoral Commission in any changes. This does not create a power that is simply in the hands of the Government. In addition to the changes requiring the approval of Parliament, the Electoral Commission must be consulted and give its approval. The commission itself considers that Clause 7 and the other clauses relating to piloting and implementing changes to the annual canvass are appropriate. It stated that,

“it is sensible to include these provisions in this Bill to allow the findings from pilots and the early years of IER to inform the future role of the canvass. The Government has already made changes to this part of the legislation to reflect comments made by the Commission during pre-legislative scrutiny”.

The commission’s report is also required for any specific changes that the Government make under the powers in Clause 7. Under Clause 8, the Minister bringing forward the order must ask the Electoral Commission to,

“prepare a report assessing … the extent to which the objective in subsection (2)”—

the registration objective—

“is met … and … the merits of alternative ways of achieving the objective”.

The Electoral Commission would be required to publish its report within three months, and the Minister would then be required to present that report to Parliament alongside the draft order—which is subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses—that would make the changes.

Our aim with this provision, and the associated provisions I have outlined, is to create a system that is flexible and able to respond to advances in technology but also one that is transparent and has the right amount of scrutiny and safeguards built into it. Having given those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently confident to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I want to be absolutely clear. Does the Electoral Commission have to give its approval or its advice? I ask in the context of what is happening in Scotland.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The Electoral Commission has to provide a report assessing the extent to which the registration objectives have been met. That report has to be presented to Parliament, and the Minister has to respond. Both Houses of Parliament then vote on whether they accept the Minister’s approval. It is a fairly strong set of safeguards.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, they are not strong enough. We are coming, later on, to an amendment on the 10 pm closing, where the Electoral Commission has also given its advice and the Government are seeking to overrule it. I think that reflects the question just asked: it is about advice and not approval, and a report coming here and to the other place that the Government could then override. It will basically be a government decision. They always have a majority, as we know, in the other place, while in this place we have a custom and practice not to vote against regulations. That basically means it is in the hands of a Government, who do not have to take the advice—although they have to listen to it—of the Electoral Commission.

I am afraid that I am not sufficiently assured that this power, which allows an elected Government to abolish the annual canvass, is one that should remain in the Bill. The Minister talked about it being 10 years before online registration will really be there. That seems a long time to leave the power to abolish it in the hands of the Government. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Martin, for his support and want to test the opinion of the House.

16:39

Division 1

Ayes: 199

---

Labour: 150
Crossbench: 37
Independent: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 223

---

Conservative: 137
Liberal Democrat: 61
Crossbench: 17
Independent: 3
Bishops: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

16:51

Clause 11 : Orders under Part 1

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

4: Clause 11, page 8, line 5, at end insert “(but paragraph 27A of Schedule 5 contains an exception to this)”

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this amendment is part of a group tabled in my name along with Amendments 5, 8, 10, 14 and 15. Together, they provide for an extended carry-forward of non-individually registered electors unless this is deemed unnecessary.

This group of amendments is one that I hope noble Lords on all sides of this House will welcome—indeed, names from the Labour Front Bench are attached to one of them. The amendments aim to give reassurance that the electoral register following the implementation of individual electoral registration will be as complete and accurate as possible.

My noble friends and I have set out the steps incorporated into the plan for implementation of individual electoral registration under the Bill that will help to achieve this outcome. These include: the confirmation of around 70% of existing electors through data matching; a transition period that includes the general election, when non-canvass-period registrations are likely to peak; and the numerous steps to encourage registration that are built into electoral registration officers’ duties.

However, having listened to arguments in this House and elsewhere, we can see that there is a desire for a further safeguard such as that proposed in the amendments. Their effect is to postpone to December 2016 the final date for the transition to a register made up entirely of individually registered electors following a third canvass under the new system.

The Secretary of State will, however, have a power to take that final step in 2015—in keeping with existing plans for implementation of IER—if he is satisfied that the transition to IER can be concluded at that point. Perhaps I might stress, mischievously, that this will be after the election, and the question as to who the Secretary of State will be and which party or parties he represents is of course a matter which none of us at this point knows. Let me be clear that it is this Government’s intention to continue to work towards concluding implementation in 2015, but we will review that position ahead of making a decision.

If the decision is made to conclude the transition to IER in 2015, an order subject to the negative procedure will be made by the then Secretary of State in the three months after 1 June 2015. When the annual canvass period concludes that autumn, those entries carried forward from the pre-transition register published in spring 2014, where the elector has not been confirmed through data matching or successfully applied under IER, will be removed from the register. The revised register published on 1 December 2015 will then be made up only of individually registered electors, as under the current plans for the implementation of IER.

If the order is not made, this process will be delayed by a year and will take place following the 2016 canvass, with the December 2016 register containing only individually registered electors.

I have mentioned some of the factors built into the transition to IER which the Government feel will support the maintenance of the current level of completeness. I remind noble Lords that we intend, with the encouragement of the Electoral Commission, to move through the transition and complete it as rapidly as possible, subject to confidence being built that we have successfully managed to capture the maximum possible number of individual electors.

The amendments enable the change to an IER-only register to be left until 2016, but we are confident that the Secretary of State of the day will feel able to make the order to take the final step of transition in 2015. However, we recognise the hesitations in the House and have thus provided that additional safeguard. I beg to move.

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, I shall be very brief, except to say that sometimes I sit here, as I have today, wondering what world it is that we think that we live in. The world around us is changing a lot faster than we are prepared to change the electoral system, apparently. As I have said before and will say only briefly again, what we really need is a national register based on every individual getting benefits, et cetera, only if they are on the register, backed up with an ID card—sorry, a smartcard. I had better not use the term ID card as I know that it sometimes causes frissons down people’s backs. Smartcard technology is now very advanced. Although I am grateful to the Minister for calling my name in aid in the previous debate, the fact is that 10 years is now a very long time in technological terms. If you look only at the two years since this Government came into power, when we abolished—wrongly, in my view—ID cards, the way in which smartcard technology has moved in those two years now makes it very feasible to have one register and to divide it up into the constituencies. Everybody who is on the national register and is a holder of an ID card will then be entitled to vote.

Personally, I think that we ought to be moving to a system whereby the actual voting is done electronically as well, using that smartcard. That will come, but, at the moment, it would appear that the last place in which we will be using a pencil will be to mark a cross on a ballot paper in some school, where people have to go out in the cold and wet to do it. I think that even golfers will give up the pencil before this Government are prepared to give up the pencil for ballots under the electoral system. Please, please, will the Government take this slight delay as an opportunity to look again at how we can introduce a national register to ensure that every citizen of this country is entitled to vote in the next general election?

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tyler and I have both signed the amendments in this group. They clearly result from the lengthy discussions we had in Committee about the right time to end the carryover for electors from the household register to the individual register. The debate then centred on how confident we can be as to how good the transition to individual electoral registration will be seen to be by 1 December 2015. Some people may be very confident that it will all work well in terms of both completeness and accuracy; as your Lordships know, I am a bit less confident about that. None of us can be certain about which is the right assessment to make until the transition is actually under way and properly tested. As we know, we are piloting various things at the moment but with software which will not even be the final software for use when we are fully into individual electoral registration. It was for that reason that I was determined in Committee that there should be a mechanism by which we could extend the carryover if, for example, the Electoral Commission reported by 1 December 2015 that many people would unjustifiably be removed from the electoral register and that the register was at that point significantly less complete than at present.

16:59

The Electoral Commission will, of course, give advice on this issue, but I do not think that it is appropriate for the commission to decide on such an issue. The Electoral Commission should advise us, and Parliament itself must be able to decide on this issue. It would not be right for a Minister simply to decide that—in his opinion, or in the opinion of the Government—it was the right time to make such a fundamental change. These amendments are right to extend the period of carryover for voters on the existing household register to 2016 as a default legislative position, while permitting the Minister to propose to Parliament that the carryover be ended in 2015, with the proviso that either House can disagree.

The government amendments in this group provide an essential failsafe and are an important part of protecting our democratic system. If it appears that this transition has not worked effectively enough in 2015 but a Minister tries to press ahead in any event, Parliament can prevent that Minister doing so. I am therefore very grateful to all those who have contributed to debates on this subject, and for the discussions that I have had with Ministers and for the flexibility shown. We on these Benches will therefore support the government amendments unamended.

Finally, I have a brief word on Amendments 6 and 7, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, which are about postal votes. I tested the logic of the Government’s position on this issue in Committee. We received considerable reassurances that postal voters will be given considerable assistance in ensuring that they can continue to have access to a postal vote, should they decide to do so. They are also, importantly, still able to vote in person should they wish to do so. They are not losing their right to vote if they are not registered under the IER system by the time of the relevant election. The Government have made a little concession on this issue. Perhaps it is something that we will still have to review but, for the moment, we on these Benches are satisfied by what the Government have said.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, these amendments in effect fall into two categories. First, on dealing with the carryover of the register up to 2016, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will be aware that an amendment similar to the one that he has put down was moved in Committee. We of course welcome the fact that he has extended the carryover period to 1 December 2016. I welcome it for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, gave in his speech and the reasons given in the speeches heard before.

Given the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I am slightly worried that he is starting from the predilection that the Government will exercise their powers to stop the carryover at 1 December 2015. I would be anxious about that and would hope that the Government, whichever Government they were, looked at the matter with an open mind rather than saying, “We hope that we will be able to use the powers”. One thing that has emerged during these debates is that everybody expects there to be a real diminution in the number of people who are on the register, at least the first time around. I very much hope that it is looked at from an objective point of view rather than a biased one.

In connection with that, I should say that this is an incredibly important issue for our democracy, again as I think everybody accepts. It would be much better if Parliament definitely had to debate this issue, which would be the effect of our Amendment 9 to government Amendment 8. We achieve that by saying that there has to be a positive vote in Parliament before the carryover is moved back to 1 December 2015, rather than having the negative procedure, which would mean that somebody would have to object in either House.

It would be useful if the Minister could explain why something that goes right to the heart of our democracy can go through by default. I was deeply disappointed and injured by the fact that my new friend the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, did not feel able to support me on this, although I know that in his heart he really does—I should make it clear that he has not said that to me. Will the Minister explain why he thinks it is not appropriate that this be dealt with by, in a sense, a compulsory prescription to Parliament where the Government—whoever they may be—think they have to in relation to the level of coverage in the register? That seems an appropriate matter for a Government to report to this House on.

[Lord Tyler]

The noble and learned Lord suggested earlier that he has some misgivings about the motivations and independence of thought of the Secretary of State in December 2015. Does that mean that he does not expect to be in that role?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I have to be frank with the noble Lord: I do not expect to be in the role of Secretary of State. I have no idea who the Secretary of State will be. My anxiety was not what I know would be an open-minded and fair approach should it be a Labour Administration—indeed, a Liberal Democrat Administration as well. My anxiety was the coalition’s predilection, should it remain in power, to say, “We think the position is that we should try to bring it back to 1 December 2015”. That is all I was thinking of. That is our position on the carryover.

On proxy and postal votes, my understanding of the logic behind carrying over for one extra year is that you recognise that even though there will be much publicity and support for people to register themselves individually, it will not work with everybody. If that logic applies to individual registration, it is bound to apply to those whose proxy or postal vote you have to carry over. We are surely in a position where we wish to encourage people to vote. If you believe that you have a proxy or postal vote, and then you discover you have not, the likely effect is a reduction in the number of people who can vote.

To my immense disappointment, for reasons he did not adequately explain, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—this is not a criticism of him—said that he was persuaded by the logic. He did not say why, and I was therefore unable to know why one should be persuaded by the logic. I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister as to why the logic applies to extending registration to 1 December 2016, where there will be help, but it does not apply where there is a proxy or postal vote. This is an important matter that goes to the heart of our democracy.

However, I do not want to sound churlish, and I am very grateful that there has been extension for the other bit of the carryover to 1 December 2016.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this short debate. The statement made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that everyone expects a diminution of registration in the process of transition is not one that I accept. As I have stressed throughout, we are facing a number of problems with electoral registration altogether. We have the difficulties of identifying potential electors; we have the difficulties of keeping, in particular, young voters on the register; and all the research that I have looked at in the past two years demonstrates that we have the problem of disillusionment with politics as such, which leaves a number of people positively to wish not to be on the register. As I take part in local politics in Bradford, I come across large swathes of people who have no interest in politics whatever and simply do not wish to be on the register. They are very often in Labour-held council wards.

I think we all recognise that what needs to accompany the process of transition is a range of activities by the Government, but not just the Government, to make sure that everyone understands what is going on, that people are alerted to the need to move through to a process of individual registration, and that we work with schools, colleges, universities and others to persuade people that it is part of their engagement with our civil society to register to vote. I hope that the Labour Party will play an active role in this. I recall discussing with a senior Labour figure the desirability of a Labour Party electoral registration drive, to which the answer was, “You know very well we can’t do that these days. We have too few members, and most of them are retired”. That is a problem, incidentally, which all political parties now face, of course. We have fewer members than we used to have. We are not so good at getting out and rounding up the marginal people. The Government certainly intend to be out there in schools, colleges and elsewhere, drawing attention to what is going on.

The reason for the Government’s position on Amendments 6 and 7 is that the largest area for electoral fraud in recent years has been postal vote fraud. We know that a certain amount of this has not proceeded through to prosecution. Talking to electoral registration officers, as I was last summer, I was told that a great deal is known that is not provable and, as such, is not prosecuted. However, we are clear that, particularly in local elections, postal vote fraud has been the largest area of electoral fraud.

If we are thinking about the accuracy as well as the completeness of the register, we wish to hold to ensuring that those who have existing absent-vote registration renew that registration as they go through this process. This will be accompanied by making sure that those who are in sheltered accommodation, and those in particular areas where absent-vote registration is concentrated, are aware of what is happening and are encouraged to renew their absent-vote registration. This is a question of the accuracy of the register, and not just the existence of voting fraud but the perception of a high level of voting fraud. For that reason, we resist Amendments 6 and 7.

On Amendment 9, the question is how confident one is that we will manage the transition with a degree of success. We all recognise that the completeness level of the register we have today has fallen and that, as we go through this process, we will have to work very hard to ensure that we improve on the levels of completeness. However, the safeguards that we have provided and the concessions that we have made in the government amendments in this group are sufficient to give the assurances that are needed. We therefore encourage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to take confidence in the reassurances that I have offered and not to move his amendments.

Amendment 4 agreed.

Schedule 5 : Transitional provision to do with Part 1

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

5: Schedule 5, page 29, line 23, leave out “second new canvass” and insert “third new canvass”

Amendment 5 agreed.

Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

8: Schedule 5, page 36, line 33, at end insert—
“Power to bring forward effect of paragraph 627A (1) The Minister may by order provide for paragraph 6 to have effect as if the reference to the third new canvass were a reference to the second new canvass.
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may be made only in the period of 3months beginning with 1 June in the year in which the second new canvass begins.
(3) A statutory instrument containing provision under sub-paragraph (1) only is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (and section 11(2) does not apply to it).”

Amendment 9 (to Amendment 8) not moved.

Amendment 8 agreed.

Amendment 10

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

10: Schedule 5, page 37, line 2, at end insert—
““the third new canvass” means the third canvass under section 9D of the Representation of the People Act 1983.”

Amendment 10 agreed.

17:15

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

11: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Voting procedure
(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 37 (voting procedure) after sub-paragraph (6) insert—
“(7) A voter who is in the polling station or in a queue outside the polling station for the purpose of voting at the time specified for the close of poll shall be entitled to apply for a ballot paper under sub-paragraph (1) above and a ballot paper shall be delivered and the voter entitled to vote in accordance with this paragraph.””

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and in the names of three other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, chairman of the committee, and the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Lang of Monkton. As I explained in Committee, the amendment seeks to address a problem which occurred at the 2010 general election and which may recur at the 2015 general election unless we address it now. The mischief is that voters who arrive at the polling station before 10 pm but are not issued with a ballot paper before 10 pm are unable to vote.

Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and the Electoral Commission have considered this problem. They have both arrived at the clear conclusion that if an eligible voter arrives at the polling station and presents himself before it closes at 10 pm, he should not be denied a vote because of circumstances beyond his control which mean that he does not receive a ballot paper before 10 pm. This amendment would address that problem. The Electoral Commission has communicated to your Lordships that:

“We strongly support this amendment”.

It has advised that the wording of the amendment is appropriate and correct.

Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and I had a very useful meeting with the Minister in the other place, Chloe Smith, and I am very grateful to her and to members of the Bill team for the care, attention and time that they have given to this issue both last week and during the course of this week. I understand that the Government now accept the principle of the amendment and that the Minister will tell the House that he proposes to table an amendment for Third Reading later today.

In the light of that, I will say nothing more at this stage, save that I beg to move.

Amendment 12 (to Amendment 11)

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

12: After Clause 18, line 10, at end insert—
“(3) Section 66A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (prohibition on publication of exit polls) is amended as follows.
(4) In subsection (1), after “before” insert “a time 30 minutes after”.”

[Lord Lipsey]

I owe the House an explanation, whichever way things go tonight, for moving an amendment which I believe to be otiose. Perhaps I may briefly explain. The matter at stake is whether there would be a problem in accepting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because voters queuing at a polling station would be able to hear the result of an exit poll and could change their vote. An exit poll cannot be published before 10 pm but it could be published at 10 pm and the result could become known to those people queuing at polling stations.

That may seem a bizarre hypothesis but it was advanced at some length on 14 January by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when he replied for the Government to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He must have meant it because he said it with some conviction, although it would be fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, had not previously had responsibility for the Bill. At the time, the Government had the problem that the Minister who knew about the Bill did not believe in it as it then was. Therefore, they had to find someone to take his place. But let us leave that aside because the noble Lord said it and, therefore, it must have been the policy.

How sensible is this argument? There is no evidence—I repeat, no evidence—that an exit poll has ever affected the vote of any voter. John Curtice, the leading psephologist at the University of Strathclyde, who kindly researched this for me, said:

“I have not uncovered any pieces on exit polls having an impact on voter choice”.

It does not happen.

It is true that exit polls can in certain circumstances affect elections. The effect is on turnout. There is no British evidence on this. There is American evidence, although it dates from the 1980s, referring to a Reagan election. In the event, people on the east coast voted. The exit polls were reported and voters in California who were going to vote for Reagan did not bother to vote because they had heard that on the east coast he was winning easily and so why bother. The turnout could have been affected by between 1% and 5%. If you try to apply this to the hypothesis in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, you have the situation of a person who comes rushing back from work thinking that he can just get his vote in. He rushes to the polling station and finds to his consternation that there is a queue. However, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, he can have a ballot paper anyway. Provided that he is in the polling station by 10 pm, he gets a ballot paper. Then he switches on his telephone and learns that the exit poll is showing that the Tories are going to win. The man then says to himself, “I have rushed back home, rushed to the polling station and been prepared to stand around while they finally produce a ballot paper for me but, having heard what the exit poll is showing, I am going back home without voting”. It really is a most absurd hypothesis. Even if in some extraordinary case it was true, what is the chance of it affecting the election result?

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, might result in a few hundred extra voters picking up ballot papers, even if we mess up things again as badly as we did last time. They will not be all of one party, of course. Let us suppose that a few of these voters did walk out and went home, most of the seats in places where this occurred would have been safe or quite safe. The chances of those voters not being there and not casting their vote making any difference to the result are practically zero.

When I was in Whitehall, we used to play a game late at night as to who could get a Minister to make the most ludicrous argument in either House of Parliament. It was a fantasy game, of course. This measure would have been a strong qualifier to win the gold medal in that game. However, just in case anybody believes this argument, I have provided a belt-and-braces amendment so that the exit polls cannot be published until 10.30 pm and, as a result, all those watching the 10 o’clock news will not know the result of an election. At least, thank goodness, the danger of the Pannick amendment affecting in any way the result in a single seat will be averted. Is that a price worth paying? Your Lordships will decide.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, as a member of the Constitution Committee and a signatory to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I rise to support not only what he has said but what I hope the Minister is about to say. Indeed, I have cast my notes aside because their tone was such that, had I proceeded, he might have withdrawn what he was about to say.

I am delighted to hear that common sense seems to have prevailed because a vote is a fundamental right in a parliamentary democracy. That is something of which we should never lose sight. Heaven knows, not enough of the electorate cast the votes that they are entitled to cast. For guidance we need look no further than the procedures in this House where, because of rising population, the increasingly awkward structure and access to where we vote and the time limit that we are up against, the doorkeepers have very sensibly developed their own process whereby, after eight minutes, they move in behind those who are present and waiting to go through the Lobbies, and nobody else can vote. If that can happen here in this rowdy House, I suspect that it can happen in the polling stations up and down the land if proper, sensible legislation is enacted. I will say no more and, in the interests of the cause, I will now resume my seat, supporting what I hope I am going to hear.

[Lord Tyler]

I, too, want to speak briefly to Amendment 11 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Lang, and their colleagues. It is tempting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who always entertains the House, because he demonstrated not only the ludicrous nature of some of the objections that we had from the Front Bench last week but a rather ludicrous solution to those objections, if I may put it like that.

I wish to follow the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We, too, have benefited from some very useful discussions with Chloe Smith, her ministerial colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Bill team. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will indicate that those discussions have brought forth a fruitful conclusion. I hope that that will be dealt with tonight. I do not think that it can be left any later in the passage of the Bill.

There was a time when it was suggested that this concern arose simply from some inadequacy or administrative incompetence in a few polling stations and the anticipation of the outcome in a few constituencies in 2010, and that there was therefore no need for any statutory change. We on these Benches felt that that was not sufficient and, for the important reasons advanced in Committee last week and briefly touched on this evening, we should make it absolutely clear that an elector who has gone to all the trouble of going to the polling station and is there before the allotted time has elapsed should be given every assistance to cast their vote. If the citizen is inside the polling station or in a queue before the deadline, that situation is similar to when someone is in a shop and wishes to make a purchase, the shop is open for business and closing time has not happened. Surely, in a polling station, the citizen should transact the business of democracy in exactly the same way and be permitted to vote.

We quoted in Committee last week the practical example in Scotland where this attitude was assisted by an acceptance of that principle. The Electoral Commission has strongly supported us again on the amendment. It is a failsafe amendment. We assume that there will not be great crowds turning up at the very last minute because of a change—a very small change—in the legislative framework of elections. It is surely the right thing to do and I am grateful for all the indications that there have been from Ministers that they now are listening, not just to the mood in this House on this issue but to the careful, considerable advice of the Electoral Commission, which is, after all, Parliament’s adviser on an issue of this sort.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the noble Lord is going to do something on Report. As has been mentioned, the procedure in such circumstances in Scotland is that a member of staff goes out and marks the end of the queue. However, we should not overlook the fact that most polling stations we are talking about are schools that have a yard, where at least a janitor can close the gates and have some control. Sometimes, if the polling station is a church or portakabin, those queues could be out on the street. When someone is arguing that they are entitled to be in the queue, the safety and health of the staff concerned must also be considered.

Although I welcome the amendment, a major responsibility remains with the returning officers in every city and constituency. After all, the labourer is worthy of his hire but, none the less, every returning officer is given a one-off payment, over and above their local authority salary. I looked at the figures for Sheffield Hallam where, in that constituency alone, 340 people lost out. It is a disgrace that that happened, because I have rubbed shoulders with colleagues with majorities of less than 340.

Perhaps I may put it in simple terms: if we were running a fund-raising function, dance, sale of work or whatever, and we got the catering wrong on one occasion, we would make sure that we got it right the next time. There is a responsibility on returning officers, if they got it wrong in Sheffield Hallam, to get it right the next time. The amendment should not allow them to sit back and forget that they have a responsibility. By the way, there were Scottish local government elections last year and only three people among the whole of the local authority areas in Scotland were concerned about whether they would get their votes. If a large queue formed outside a large school in one year, in the next year in which there is an approaching election, the returning officer should go about the business of creating another polling station—perhaps in a nursery or church around the corner. Also, the returning officer should make sure that communications are good within the city or the constituency, whichever applies. The staff at a polling station who see queues forming should be able to phone up and say, “We need extra help here and you must get that help right away”.

I also understand that at the last general election some polling stations had as many as 3,000 electors to one polling station. That is ridiculous. It should be somewhere in the region of 1,000 electors. For the sake of clarity, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that in Scotland the building or classrooms where voting takes place are known as the polling place and the designated streets are known as the polling station. That is a small matter but perhaps the Minister can consider it for Third Reading.

17:30

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, had noted in previous debates on this issue, the sentiment behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on behalf of the Constitution Committee, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Lang, is fully appreciated.

Having heard the view of the House and seen the cross-party support for this change, the Government are content to accept the principle of the amendment. Our resistance to it in its current form has been based on a concern about unexpected and unforeseen consequences flowing from the change, and we still have that concern. We have identified some of those consequences in debate and, in looking at them more closely since, have concluded that they need to be addressed.

The amendment as it stands brings ambiguity and uncertainty to the impact of other legislative provisions upon the broadcasting of exit polls and other matters pertaining to secrecy within electoral law that are subject to criminal penalties of fines or up to six months in prison. There are other impacts on legislation that refers to the close of poll.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has brought forward a further amendment to seek to address the issue of exit polls. Unfortunately, while deferring their publication until 30 minutes after close of play might deal with some potential instances of delay, it would not catch all such instances—for example, if there were a very considerable queue. In that sense, it would defer the problem to a later time.

It is also necessary to make some drafting changes to the amendment to ensure that it applies consistently. The amendment, as a consequence of the intricacies of the current law, does not apply to Northern Ireland. It would be most regrettable if we were to accept it and have a position where voters in a queue at 10 pm could receive ballot papers and vote after that time in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland.

On that basis, and recognising the will of the House and the laudable principle behind the proposed change, the Government propose to bring forward at Third Reading an amendment that makes the change being sought in terms of electors voting at close of poll but which also contains a provision, through a proportionately limited power, to make further amendments on commencement to deal with all the potential consequences that it has on other elements of electoral legislation.

On the basis of the Government’s commitment to bring forward a clause at Third Reading that achieves the aim of the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on behalf of the Constitution Committee and which deals with these further issues, I trust that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Lipsey]

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 12.

Amendment 12 (to Amendment 11) withdrawn.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful indeed to the Minister and to the Minister in another place, Chloe Smith. I am also very grateful to the Bill team for the considerable efforts that they have shown in addressing the substance of this amendment. I entirely accept that the amendment as put forward at this Report stage could be improved; I entirely accept that it is necessary to deal with Northern Ireland; I entirely accept that it is necessary to say expressly in the amendment that close of poll is still at 10 pm, with the consequence that that has for the publication of exit polls thereafter; and I entirely accept that it is appropriate for Ministers to have a power on commencement to introduce consequential amendments. Again, I am very grateful for the care and attention that the Government have given this matter. There is widespread agreement around the House that the principle of the amendment is correct. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Lord Norton of Louth]

13: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Opt-in to the edited version of the electoral register
(1) From 1 December 2013, the inclusion of the name of an elector on the edited version of the electoral register shall only take place when the elector has given permission for his name to be included.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), permission shall be deemed to have been given when the elector ticks a box on the electoral registration form indicating that he wishes to be so included.”

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, in Committee I raised the issue of the edited version of the electoral register. I return to it in this amendment because of the Government’s unsatisfactory response. The edited version of the electoral register engages important principles regarding personal data. The edited version is generated as a by-product—essentially a commercial by-product—of a citizen’s duty to supply personal data in order to be registered to vote.

I made the case in Committee for the edited register to be abolished. I had argued the case before and, in making the case in Committee, I was able to pray in aid the Electoral Commission, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons and the Association of Electoral Administrators. Each has argued the case for abolition. In Committee, I quoted an editorial of the Guardian in December 2011, which argued that the edited register,

“lingers on, a travesty of the democratic process that sullies the relationship between voters and state, and illustrates just how casually politicians think about democracy”.

In its briefing for Committee stage, the Electoral Commission contended that prohibiting the publishing of the edited version was,

“particularly important, given the need to maintain people’s confidence in the security of their personal details”.

In responding, my noble friend the Minister said that, on balance, the Government had decided to retain the edited register because of what was seen as a greater principle—that of commercial gain. There was no engagement with the argument beyond that. The Government’s stance would presumably justify reverting to the sale of the full register to any organisation that wished to purchase it.

However, given that the Government have decided in favour of retaining the edited register—and we will doubtless return to that issue in the future—I have decided to pursue the issue of the opt-out. In Committee, I argued the case for electors to opt in to the edited version of the register, rather than—as now—opt out. This is, to my mind, crucial in the use of personal data. If electors are to have their personal data sold to third parties, then they should have to give their consent to it being sold in this way. As I said in Committee, consent must be given rather than assumed. That need for consent is reinforced by the Minister’s reminder in Committee that under individual electoral registration, an individual’s choice—or rather, in many cases, assumptions made about an individual’s choice—will automatically be carried forward.

The Electoral Commission, in its briefing on today’s amendments, has made clear that it supports this amendment. It states:

“We believe that, if individuals are required by law to provide personal information for the purpose of electoral administration, they should be asked clearly if they also want their personal information to be sold. Their personal information should only be sold if they have explicitly given their consent”.

In Committee, the Minister’s line of argument was essentially that the situation had improved since the days when the full register could be sold—rather ignoring the circumstances leading to the creation of an edited register—and that the existing situation provided appropriate protection and control. That was asserted rather than justified. Where personal data are concerned, we need to apply a higher threshold than that which is being applied. The present arrangements rest on assumptions about electors’ wishes rather than their explicit consent and what appears to be implicitly the view that changing to an opt-in provision would be too much trouble. Perhaps in reply my noble friend will explain what precisely the obstacle is to moving to an opt-in provision. Surely the principle of consent must outweigh the claim of convenience.

I will raise a general point deriving from this amendment and from others moved in Committee, not only by me but by other noble Lords. The Government appeared unwilling to engage with points of principle relating to the franchise and to the protection of personal data. Their response was couched essentially in terms of convenience and practicality. This bears out the concern expressed by the Constitution Committee in its report of the previous Session on the process of constitutional change. More than a decade ago, when I chaired it, the committee expressed concern at the lack of a culture within government of dealing with constitutional issues. As the committee noted in its report of last Session:

“The evidence we have received points to this lack of coherence remaining a serious problem”.

The Government need to demonstrate that they are able to engage in debate about the principles underpinning our constitution and the way in which we conduct elections. My amendment raises important questions that take us beyond matters of administrative convenience. If the Government are not willing to accept the amendment, they must give a compelling argument for their stance. We need to do whatever is necessary to protect personal data and the integrity of the registration process. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made a compelling case. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the current situation is in place not because of a very long, very careful, very extensive and very thoughtful process. The edited register is the result not just of some quick legal judgment but of a long political process, started by the previous Labour Administration.

The electoral register has been available for sale in one form or another since 1832. In 1999, Labour rightly recognised—before the register was challenged in the courts—that there was a case for changing the Victorian arrangements. In 1999 a Home Office working group recommended, first, that electors should be allowed to decide whether their personal details should be included in a register that was made commercially available and, secondly, that the full register should continue to be available to electoral users, while a licensing arrangement should be agreed to ensure that its use was restricted to electoral purposes only.

As far as I am aware, that recommendation was by broad agreement across the parties. The situation resulted in Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which created the so-called “edited register”. It was only when the Government consulted on how to implement the new principle that they were challenged in court about the old system. In 2001, Brian Robertson from Pontefract won his case when the judge concluded that the compulsory disclosure to commercial organisations of data given for electoral purposes was in breach of the Data Protection Act and of the newly passed Human Rights Act. He won the legal point in court, but it appears that the political and moral point had already been acknowledged by the Labour Government in 1999, and here in Parliament in 2000. The edited register was finally implemented in regulations in 2002. The problem that the amendment before your Lordships seeks to solve is one that has already been dealt with in the 2000 Act and the 2002 regulations.

Your Lordships’ House is always rightly concerned about the unintended consequences of legislation that we scrutinise. We should be particularly alert to the unintended consequences of this amendment. The edited register does not just have a commercial purpose; it is also used by a great many charitable organisations. The suggestion from my noble friend that it was only commercial reasons that the government Front Bench advanced last week may or may not be true, but those reasons certainly are not my concern. My concern is that a large number of highly reputable, very public-spirited actions by very public-spirited organisations could be impeded by the removal of the edited register, or by it becoming ineffective. For example, the Salvation Army is a particular advocate for its retention. Each year it finds and reunites some 3,000 families by using the edited register. That is as much an issue of principle as of practice. The edited register underpins efforts to locate and connect organ donors—which, again, is very important—and even bone marrow donors.

17:45

Local government uses it for purposes for which, even as the compiler of the register, it cannot use the full register. In particular, councils use it for debt recovery. That function in local government draws attention to another wider cause—its use by credit reference agencies to find people who have abandoned their debts. It would be odd for us to be pressing hard for the banks and other lenders to increase the flow of credit and, at the same time, say to them, “If people don’t pay back, we’ll hinder your efforts to find them”.

I recognise that the Select Committee in the other place has made recommendations but it also said that the opt-in version of the edited register, which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, seems to be advocating,

“might well make the edited register too incomplete to be of much use”.

That is the weakness of the amendment: it neither abolishes the edited register nor leaves it as a useful resource for the proper purposes that I have described.

The balance is about right already as the result of a long, consequential and careful consideration by the previous Administration and the present Government of not only its immediate purpose but its unintended consequences if there were a major change. If someone wants to avoid contact by commercial or charitable organisations, they can opt out on the electoral registration form. When individual registration is fully introduced, every individual will get that opportunity; they will no longer have to rely on sub-contracting it to another member of their household.

I would welcome assurances from the Minister that we can look, for example, at how the edited register is described. I do not believe that “edited register” is an especially transparent description, and clearly we could change it.

However, for most who do not mind the simple fact of their name and address being registered locally, there remains a compelling case for retaining an edited register. It assists charities, it assists in the flow of credit, it can reunite families, it can even bring about organ donations and, in a modern market economy, it can provide a useful way for people to market their products to consumers. I find it difficult to understand why that is such an objectionable objective.

The previous Government got the regulations broadly right. As such, my noble friend Lord Rennard and I will oppose the amendment this evening if it is taken to a Division.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, this is not a subject on which I would often speak, but I have thought a great deal about the inconsistencies in our practice: having data protection legislation and yet an electoral register where you can opt-out of the publication of your address.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is right—there are too many people who have an interest in having access to this information for good purposes, by and large. If this were on an opt-in basis, have the Government done anything to obtain a picture of how many people would be likely to opt in. I imagine that the value of the register would be wholly destroyed. We know how many people have learnt in the age of the internet never to tick any of the boxes that state that you are willing to receive any further information for any purpose, even a worthy purpose.

I have a feeling that we are on the cusp between information that has to be public and information that our clunky data protection legislation regards as private. It is incoherent. We have ended up regarding home addresses in some contexts as personal information that is not to be transmitted or disclosed to others without express permission, and regarding them in other cases as public information that is non-personal and that may be published. It is not so much the purposes that concern me, whether they are commercial or not; it is that ultimately the opt-in register might be radically incomplete and not useful for many purposes.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, a change in public policy on this issue is long overdue, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on his persistence in returning to it on Report. I associate myself with everything he said in support of his amendment. In the past, Ministers have talked about the register being used as an aid for business and commerce, and we have heard in this debate about its uses for charities and other organisations. However, in my view, so far Ministers have advanced no good arguments, either practical or principled, about why such a public subsidy—because that is what these uses of the electoral register represent—to particular business sectors should take precedence over all the arguments for the other side that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton: weakened protection of personal data, the likely damage to registration rates caused under the present system, and the introduction of a commercial element into a relationship that should be founded on fundamental democratic principles.

When I was the Minister responsible for this issue in the last Government, I was minded to adopt an approach very similar to that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, both in Committee and today. Predictably, perhaps, I was vigorously lobbied by representatives of credit agencies who made fearsome claims about the potential detriment to businesses that would arise from any changes. Clearly there are arguments on both sides of the issue, so I asked those who had lobbied me to come back with detailed evidence of the potential damage: their analysis of what might be done to replace the electoral register as a source of data for them, how much the alternatives might cost, and a detailed principled case for public subsidy rather than their being put into the same position as other private sector firms that produce goods and services and fund their businesses from their own resources. I felt that when these people came back with the information, a proper assessment could be made of the advantages and disadvantages of different policy approaches.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that the same arguments apply to charities and other non-governmental organisations that use the electoral register for wholly commendable objectives. The argument is not so much about the usefulness of the electoral register, because that is clear and I think we all agree on it. The argument I would put is whether this is the best use of public money. What principled case is there for using public subsidy in this way, and could the sums involved perhaps be deployed more effectively in other ways? I have never seen any evidence to that effect, either as a Minister or subsequently. If there were any compelling evidence I might be prepared to change my mind, but in the absence of detailed analysis and evidence it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has made a compelling case for change. I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, might think again.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the last Government did consult on the future of the edited register and received some 7,600 responses, of which 7,450 were in favour of its retention. Last year, Ministers carefully considered the future of the edited register again and took further detailed representations from both sides of the debate. They concluded, as had their predecessor, that the edited register should be retained. We saw no evidence that people are put off registering and agreed with those who highlighted the wider social and economic benefits that it provides.

We have heard from the participants in this debate a different balance of views on whether the register is being sold for commercial gain or is providing a public subsidy to commercial firms. That is actually a rather contradictory impression, because my understanding is that the money charged by councils is intended to cover the costs of providing it, so it is maintained neither for commercial gain nor to provide a public subsidy.

As on many other things, I consulted my wife about the question of the edited register, and she gave me an extremely sharp response. She reminded me that at one stage she had actually opted the family out but had then run into difficulties when my son tried to rent a flat during his fourth year at university; she did not have the credit reference that was required for the credit reference agencies. There are real public benefits of different sorts in providing the register. We talked previously about using the credit reference agencies as a form of assistance in making sure that we have as complete an electoral register as possible, and we have to recognise that the growing interdependence between private and public databases is something from which we all benefit. We should not try to hold them at arm’s length.

I have to say that, on the balance between privacy and transparency, I am increasingly a Maxtonite. I believe that we are heading towards a society that will benefit from greater transparency and in which a sense that every bit of privacy we give away is a threat to our individual existence will not be acceptable. Incidentally, some months ago the Swedish ambassador told me that in the Nordic states, transparency extends to publishing citizens’ salaries and the taxes they pay on those salaries. I am sure that that would currently be regarded as a deep intrusion into the privacy of the citizen here in Britain, but it is the sort of thing with which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, might agree. Moreover, I find some aspects of this issue rather attractive. The trade-offs between transparency and privacy are complex; they are not simply all one way.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked how much research has been undertaken into opt-ins. I am advised that it is believed in government that an opt-in would be extremely confusing. It is not clear whether people would believe immediately that an opt-in was in fact an opt-out. The resulting register might be so incomplete that it would not be worth maintaining.

Some 10 years ago we moved from a compulsory register to an edited register. People are used to the system—

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, I intervene only to make a rather mundane point. The register is a great historical document as well as being useful for electoral purposes. Perhaps my question is for the noble Lord, Lord Norton, rather than for the Minister, but is there a timescale for this? Is there a point at which the full register would become available to those who wish to study this particular period in history?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is an excellent question to which I cannot give an immediate answer, but I promise to write to the noble Lord. However, that in turn raises the question about the future of the census, another historical document that we will have to come back to. We are beginning to move away from a paper register that is maintained locally and therefore not easily accessible, to online registration, which in the future will make it much easier for those interested in family history to access.

The Government take the handling of personal information seriously and are keen to ensure, in the context of the move to individual electoral registration, that electors are able to make a fully informed choice on the edited register. There should be sufficient balanced and impartial information on electoral registration forms to ensure that electors understand what the different versions of the registers are and the purposes for which their data may be used.

18:00

As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, remarked, the edited register serves a variety of purposes, some of which are commercial and some of which are very clearly valuable in social terms. To this end, the Government have therefore proposed, in the draft secondary IER legislation, that application forms will include a clear statement on the processing of data supplied by the individual and are looking at the language used to describe the uses of the registers. The Government will be working closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the forms will be user-friendly, clear and straightforward.

The Government believe that providing electors with a choice of an opt-out, alongside sufficient information to allow the individual to make an informed choice, provides electors with appropriate protection and control. So long as electors have an informed choice and can alter their preferences, there is little practical difference between an opt-out and an opt-in. We are not aware of any large-scale demand for change in the current situation.

In view of all these important safeguards, I can see no reason for removing the current opt-out arrangements. I therefore thank the noble Lord for the debate but ask him to accept the Government’s assurances and to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed, and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for his support on this amendment. I do not regard the responses that I have heard as particularly satisfactory. The Minister’s objection appears to be that electors are not bright enough to understand the difference between an opt-in and an opt-out. However, we do not know whether citizens are making an informed decision because they are not making that opt-in choice. It is notable, as happened in Committee, that neither my noble friend Lord Tyler nor the Minister addressed the core issue of principle that I raised. The objection was really practical—who benefits from the edited register—rather than on the core point about the use of personal data, how they are protected and whether people make an informed choice. In many respects, the points made by my noble friend Lord Tyler bore out the point I was making.

The fundamental point is that we place stress on the protection of personal data. As my noble friend Lord Tyler said, we had long discussions leading up to the Act in 2000. I took part in those discussions and made the case that what we did then did not go far enough in terms of the protection of personal data. It is definitely something we need to pursue and return to. As far as I am concerned, the Government need to think again. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, have said, the Government need to engage in serious research on this. It is not something that is going to go away. It is something we will doubtless come back to; indeed, we will come back to it.

On this occasion, we are clearly not making much progress but at least we have put down a marker. We will return to it because the protection of personal data is extraordinarily important. There is a core principle: people must give their consent. If the edited version is going to collapse because they do not give their consent, then I am sorry, but they must give it. In my view, electors are sufficiently intelligent to understand clear instructions on the point of an opt-in and opt-out. If the benefits are clearly explained then at least they can make an informed choice. However, it really must be up to electors rather than the Government making assumptions on their behalf. As I say, we will return to this, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Clause 26 : Commencement

Amendments 14 and 15

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

14: Clause 26, page 15, line 2, at beginning insert “Subject as follows,”

15: Clause 26, page 15, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) Paragraph 27A of Schedule 5 comes into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

Amendments 14 and 15 agreed.

Report received.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Announcement

18:04

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that concludes the Report stage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I understand that the Public Bill Office will soon have available for consultation an informal print of the Bill as amended on Report. Any noble Lord may table amendments for Third Reading within the next 45 minutes. The Third Reading will not begin before 90 minutes after the conclusion of Report.

Kashmir

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

18:04

Tabled by

[Lord Ahmed]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they support a peace process between India and Pakistan to resolve all outstanding disputes, including regarding the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir.

[Lord Ahmed]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords from all parts of the House for taking part in today’s short debate. Since 2004, civilians living near the line of control have welcomed and celebrated the sense of peace in both Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, even though there were 75 ceasefire violations and eight people died in an exchange last year. Diplomatic efforts by both India and Pakistan prior to that saw such events as the granting of most favoured nation—MFN—status to Pakistan by India in 1996. Pakistan has made attempts to return this favour to India more recently.

We hear a lot about the terrible Mumbai attacks, allegedly perpetrated by LeT, from Pakistan, which have damaged relations. However, the Indian Home Secretary, Mr RK Singh, on Tuesday said that the intelligence agencies had the names of at least 10 persons involved in the Samjhauta Express, Mecca Masjid and Dargah Sharif blasts who were associated with the terrorist organisation RSS, which I understand is linked to the BJP and is backing Mr Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujurat. He is a leading candidate in the BJP leadership elections and a future Prime Minister of India. That is frightening.

Further tensions have been created since Sunday 6 January this year, when Pakistan reported that one of its soldiers was shot dead by Indian troops. Four more fatalities have occurred, which has further escalated the tension between the two nations. Both sides are laying blame on the other, further escalating tension. Indian’s claim that one of its soldiers had been decapitated by Pakistani soldiers has been totally denied.

I understand that Pakistan’s Foreign Minister has contacted the United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan and asked it to conduct an inquiry into the breach of the ceasefire in an exchange of fire in the Rampur-Haji Pir area on the line of control. She has denied allegations of tit-for-tat tactics by Pakistan and has urged the media to avoid negative propaganda. She has called for a dialogue and for calm on all sides.

I thank the House of Lords Library for sending the recent press reports which have noted an escalation of cross-border violations and stressed the seriousness of the damage that it will have on bilateral relations between the two powerful nuclear states. I believe that this has huge consequences for regional peace as well as global peace due to the danger of nuclear weapons.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the reports of the ongoing torture, murder and rape of ordinary civilians in Kashmir. A systematic campaign to induce fear is a tool fearlessly employed by Indian forces as a means of social control. I recall that the Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Mr Hague, made a policy statement last year asking the UN to include rape as a “weapon of war” in conflict situations. I pay tribute to the Channel 4 documentary last year, which exposed abuses of human rights and the existence of 2,700 unknown, unmarked and mass graves. These graves contained over 2,943 bodies across 55 villages in Kashmir. This came from research conducted between November 2006 and November 2009 by the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir. The report was conducted by an American professor, Angana Chatterji, the renowned human rights lawyer, Parvez Imroz, and their colleagues. The graves contained bodies from murders that took place between 1990 and 2009. They included corpses of victims of massacres and executions committed by Indian military and paramilitary forces. More evidence has since emerged and is being exposed.

This is a clear indication of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. Despite there being clear evidence of breaches of human rights, to date, there has been no statement from the International Criminal Court regarding this matter. The ICC prosecutors have been vocal regarding African regimes; but what about serving officers of the Indian Army? At this stage I draw the attention of noble Lords to the petition signed by 25 British MPs, four Peers and four MEPs for the mortal remains of Maqbool Butt, the founder of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, who was hanged in a jail in Delhi in 1984, to be returned to the family to be buried in Kashmir.

The Minister will be aware of the case of Nepalese Colonel Kumar Lama who was arrested earlier this month and charged in the UK with two counts of torture during his country’s civil war in 2005. On 6 December 2012, the Guardian reported that 500 alleged perpetrators of human rights abuses—from low-ranking policemen to serving Indian army generals—had been involved in shooting, abduction, torture and rape in the Indian-administered Kashmir. A complete list has been published by the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Can the Minister confirm whether Her Majesty’s Government would be willing to arrest any of these accused if they ever tried to enter the United Kingdom? Will she consider putting those names on our watch list and banning them entering the United Kingdom? Noble Lords will be familiar with the heavily publicised case of Jyoti Singh Pandey, a 23 year-old Indian student who was raped and subsequently died. I pay tribute to the Indian public for their collective display of zeal and vigour in their attempt to bring the perpetrators of this heinous crime to justice. Their voices were heard in all corners of the globe by people who shared their sympathy and disgust at the crime committed. It is with such spirit that I ask noble Lords today to turn to the suffering and rape of girls and women in Kashmir. Their cries must not go unheard, and the perpetrators of this crime must also be brought to justice. Their suffering must be brought to an end.

There have been recent reports of prisoners of war in Indian prisons from 1965 and 1971. Whether they are prisoners of war from Pakistan or from India, they should all have been released, and should be released now. Kashmir remains one of the world’s oldest and longest militarised zones, with United Nations observers on the line of control since 1949. It must not be forgotten that self-determination has been a struggle fought by Kashmiris long before the struggle for an independent India and Pakistan. This struggle for self-determination has been debated and promised in history by former Prime Minister Pandit Nehru on many occasions, including 19 July 1951 when he said:

“Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan…Kashmir is not a commodity for sale...It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.”

My observation over the years has only strengthened my view that self-determination talks, confidence-building measures or comprehensive dialogue between India and Pakistan are meaningless without the involvement of Kashmiri leadership.

I have also heard many a time that Britain has a moral responsibility to the people of Kashmir because of its colonial history in that region, yet nothing seems to be done. The United Nations Security Council resolution of 1948 and 1949 promised a free, “fair and impartial plebiscite” for the Kashmiri people. I know that they are old resolutions. I know that they are not enforceable by force, but can the Minister confirm whether Her Majesty's Government recognise these resolutions as valid and legal documents?

Can the Minister confirm whether Her Majesty's Government have raised with the Indian Government the ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and its optional protocols? Can the Government consider suspending military relations with India until India ratifies the UN convention? Is she aware whether the UN special rapporteur on torture to India, including Kashmir, has published any findings in relation to the above?

I want to see better relations between India and Pakistan. I want both peoples to prosper and live in peace. For the sake of millions of poor Indians and poor Pakistanis, I want to see the end of money wasted on nuclear weapons, and instead spent on health and education and on the eradication of poverty and disease. This can be achieved only by resolving the bitter dispute, the long-standing issue of right of self determination for the Kashmiri people. This issue must be resolved before the international community withdraws from Afghanistan or I fear Kashmir may give extremists a rallying point.

18:14

[Lord Loomba]

My Lords, this subject has been debated many times before both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. Nearly 10 years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, asked a similar Question, the then Government clearly stated that the differences between India and Pakistan were a matter for those two nations. Just last year, the then Foreign Office Minister said that relations between India and Pakistan were a matter for those countries alone and that other countries should not attempt to intervene. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for initiating today’s debate, and I am pleased to participate in it.

For over six decades bilateral relations between Pakistan and India have been overshadowed by the Kashmir dispute. The Simla agreement and the Lahore declaration, which are the cornerstones of India-Pakistan relations, commit both countries to resolve all issues peacefully through direct bilateral approaches. There is no question of involving a third country in any aspect of India-Pakistan relations. As neighbours, it is in the interest of both India and Pakistan to work out a relationship which will ensure peace and security for both countries.

I am convinced that peace and prosperity will prevail in India and Pakistan, and it will be a win-win situation if both countries develop trade and trust between them. Despite geographical proximity and the resulting potential for reduced transportation costs, direct bilateral trade has failed to reach its full potential. Although it has increased substantially in recent years, in 2010-11 it remained at $2.6 billion, far below the $40 billion that could be achieved. Estimates of indirect trade through third countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Iran, Afghanistan and others range anywhere between $500 million to $10 billion a year.

In the last decade or so, a number of initiatives have been taken by both countries towards this end. Former Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee’s initiatives to bring the two countries together have been carried forward by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. If Prime Minister Vajpayee launched the Delhi-Lahore bus service, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh took steps to increase bilateral trade. I can recount several other peace initiatives taken in this direction.

Sadly, terrorism remains India’s core concern in the relationship with Pakistan. I do not have to remind noble Lords that the terrorism which takes place in India is carried out by infiltrators. Talking about the state of Jammu and Kashmir, I would like to mention that the territory has faced, in some ways, an extraordinary situation over an extended period, primarily due to cross-border terrorism. The main issue, therefore, is the continued infiltration of foreign terrorists from across the border. If terrorism can be stopped, I have no doubt that the peace process between India and Pakistan will start automatically, and I also have no doubts that it will be a sustainable peace process, bringing prosperity to both countries.

In conclusion, I would like to remind your Lordships’ House that we must support democracy and secularism—those most treasured of Britain’s political beliefs and values. Terrorism has no mandate and I hope that the Minister in her reply will rightly condemn such activities as a means of resolving the Kashmir dispute.

18:19

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for securing this debate and introducing it with the passion and eloquence that we have come to associate with him. He has been a good champion of his people and I admire him for that, although I do not agree with most of the things that he has said.

Relations between India and Pakistan have passed through several stages. It was Pandit Nehru who suggested, within five years of taking office, that there should be a confederation between the two countries, a proposal he reiterated on several occasions. Relations have passed through various phases because the two countries do not seem to be able to make up their minds on exactly how much to co-operate, at what pace and in which direction.

In Pakistan there are institutions and agencies that would like the two countries to get together; there are others that think differently. Ever since the military has been a dominant force in Pakistani politics, relations with India have remained rather tense, although I see that Pakistan is beginning to show a more ambiguous, nuanced approach. Given the penetration of the military into the economic sphere, and the fact that the economic sphere offers the opportunity for Pakistani business to flourish, there is a great deal of demand for closer ties between the two countries, including the proposal for giving India most favoured nation status.

At the same time, terrorist attacks such as those on the Indian Parliament and the Taj Hotel in Bombay have been occasions when the relations between the two countries seemed to point in the direction of hostility. In other words, there are gestures in both directions and one will have to see how things move and at what pace.

Our concern today is not to talk so much about India and Pakistan in general—this is not a summit between five noble Lords, one from Pakistan and the rest of us from India—but rather to concentrate on Kashmir. I know that the noble Lord has been preoccupied with Kashmir for quite a while.

I have taken a stand which has not been very popular in the Indian community or the Indian establishment. I have always argued that to talk about Kashmir “belonging” to India is an ambiguous expression. If “Kashmir” refers to land, land can belong to another country. But if “Kashmir” refers to people—which it does—no people can belong to another, short of slavery. Therefore, to say that Kashmir belongs to India is a very dangerous proposition if it is taken to mean that the people of Kashmir can be held hostage by the people of India.

I have wondered how best to handle the question. A plebiscite is not the answer. If I were the Prime Minister of India—which happily I am not—I would go for it because I would know that I would be able to organise a plebiscite but Pakistan would not. The 1948 resolution requires that both sides should withdraw their armed forces. Under Pakistan’s constitution, Pakistani-occupied Kashmir is already an integral part of Pakistan and therefore it is not open to Pakistan to cede Pakistani-occupied Kashmir or allow it to become separate.

It is also the case that in order for the United Nations resolution to be implemented, Kashmir will have to be whole, which means that the territory of Kashmir that Pakistan has ceded to China will have to be restored. In order for the 1948 resolution to go through, Pakistan would have to vacate Pakistani-occupied Kashmir and regain the land it has ceded to China. Neither of these conditions can be met, so India could easily say, “Let’s have a plebiscite”, knowing full well that the other side would not be able to meet those conditions.

There are other reasons why I can imagine India not agreeing, because if you agree to a plebiscite in Kashmir, you might have to do that in the north-east and other parts of India, and that is a non-starter. In addition, if the plebiscite went the other way one could not be entirely sure how the 148 million Muslims in India would respond and no Government could risk the disorder that this might cause. So a plebiscite is not an option.

At the same time, the existing situation is not an option either. It is absolutely right to say that India has behaved badly in Kashmir in recent years. Its forces have been responsible for violations of human rights. However, this has been recognised by the Indian media, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, pointed out. There are plenty of groups in India that have campaigned against this. The National Human Rights Commission of India has campaigned against this. There is a tremendous amount of Indian opposition—people like myself, Arundhati Roy and lots of others have written about it. Within India itself there are enough alternatives available to put pressure on the Government to do something about it—the kind of thing, I am afraid, that does not seem to obtain in Pakistan.

What should we be doing? India cannot continue as it is doing now. At the same time, one cannot expect that the two halves of Kashmir can remain as they are, for all kinds of reasons. For the time being at least, one must respect the line of control; expect and require the Indians to behave much more sensibly in Kashmir, as they used to do but have not done in recent years; and hope that the compulsions of democracy in India and Kashmir will force a course of events resulting in an increasingly relaxed climate in Kashmir and India, and between India and Pakistan, so that the situation can be handled much more intelligently than it is being handled now.

18:26

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Ahmed for initiating this debate on what is an important subject, which, despite the number of Questions that have been asked in this House and the other place, still does not receive the coverage that it merits in this country and indeed further afield.

Perhaps I may read out an answer that I received to a Parliamentary Question on Kashmir, which is as follows:

“Our position on Kashmir is well known and well established. We believe that the best way forward in Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on discussions between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the Simla agreement of 1972. There must be improvement in human rights in Kashmir, a genuine political process and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/95; col. 1040.]

That answer was given to me on 1 March 1995 by the then Minister, Mr Tony Baldry. Nearly 20 years further down the road, very little—if anything—has changed, except that the violence appears to have escalated.

I spoke about Kashmir in another place on a number of occasions during the 1990s, largely because the issue had been brought to my attention by the sizeable Kashmiri population in my then constituency of Glasgow Central. Indeed, the community was so insistent that I should see for myself the situation in that part of the world that it arranged visits for me to Azad Kashmir. I visited Muzaffarabad, Mirpur and other places to get a better feel of the situation than through the imploring of my constituents, which I assure noble Lords I received much of. There were also many lobbies in London at that time involving people of Kashmiri origin from many UK cities. That was two decades ago but we do not seem to be any further forward.

My noble friend Lord Ahmed outlined the litany of recent human rights abuses in Kashmir, which was really harrowing. That is not just because of what that must involve on an individual level for so many people, not least in terms of rape, which is possibly the worst act of war that anyone can commit—as my noble friend said, it is an act of war—but it seems that while our Government are raising the issue and answer questions in much the same way today as they did in 1995 and since then, nothing seems to change. What steps is the Minister prepared to say that the Government will take to intervene—I use that word advisedly—and make a serious attempt to bring the two countries together with a view to providing a solution?

The Question that we are discussing today mentions self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The original UN resolution, Security Council Resolution 47, adopted in 1948, mentioned that there should be a plebiscite. A plebiscite would be for all the people of Kashmir and, as I argued in the 1990s, should not ask merely, “Do you want to be under the aegis of Pakistan or do you want to be under the aegis of India?” but “Are you in favour of an independent Kashmir?”. That is a perfectly legitimate question which only the Kashmiri people can answer. Of course, they have never been allowed to answer that question because it has never been put to them. The question of self-determination underpins this whole issue.

There is no need to regurgitate the history of the issue, which I would maintain goes right back to the day when Maharaja Hari Singh, then the ruler of Kashmir, decided to sign the territory over to India. It is interesting that it was India that went to the United Nations in 1948 for the resolution which eventually emerged and it was then India, as history tells us, that prevented it happening because of disputes over Pakistani troops and their withdrawal from Kashmir. I do not seek to blame one country more than another, because that serves no purpose, but the question of a plebiscite or any kind of self-determination seems to have moved right off the agenda. Even the Hurriyat conference stated as long as 10 years ago that it no longer saw that as a realistic possibility. We have reluctantly to accept that, but it does not mean that we should not seek to offer the people of Kashmir the right to have their say in some meaningful form, whatever that should be. Kashmir is today the most militarised territory in the world, with up to 1 million troops stationed there. I do not know whether it is the longest-lasting territorial dispute—perhaps Palestinians would say that theirs is slightly longer, although it dates from about much the same time—but after three major wars, in 1947, 1965 and 1971, and a very tense standoff in 2002 which we thought at one time might lead to nuclear conflict, the need for intense diplomatic efforts on the part of our Government is urgent. I just wonder why more pressure is not put on the Governments of both India and Pakistan. Is it because India is such an emerging and important economic power now? Is it because Pakistan has to be an ally in the fight against terrorism in that part of the world? I do not know, but we should press for some kind of action. If UN Security Council Resolution 47 is now redundant, why not make it at least a starting point and go back to the United Nations to see whether a new one could be framed or some meaningful way of moving things forward via the United Nations could be found.

This Government have a moral responsibility, as did every other Government in Britain over the past 70 years because of the partition of India, and everything flows from that. I say to the Minister, in not a critical but a constructive way, that I hope she will be able to take back to her colleagues in her department the message that something needs to be done. I think that this Government can play a meaningful role in bringing the two countries together and trying to take things forward.

18:33

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Ahmed for bringing this topic to your Lordships’ House. To the substantial question of what Her Majesty’s Government can do, I think that the answer is not much. As far as possible, Her Majesty’s Government should keep out of this. I remember what happened to my right honourable friend David Miliband when he went to Delhi and made a statement on Kashmir. I had to spend several evenings defending him and telling people, “No, he’s really a good man”.

This is a bilateral issue. Since the Simla Agreement of 1972, as several noble Lords have pointed out, the UN no longer has any locus standi in the matter. This was a mutual agreement between the two countries. Neither the UN military observers nor the UN Security Council as of now has any locus standi in the matter.

I was in Pakistan 15 years ago and spent a whole month in Islamabad. I was very struck that the second question I was asked in every social gathering—after how I was and so on—was, “Why do you not give up Kashmir?” My answer was that I had a British passport, so Kashmir was not mine to give up. They said, “Forget about that. You really have Kashmir and you ought to give it up”. I suddenly realised that India has Kashmir by virtue of the agreement with the old king, Maharaja Hari Singh. Pakistan’s sense of nationhood depends on having Kashmir as part of Pakistan. There is a great asymmetry in feeling about Kashmir in those two countries. India has the bulk of the valley of Kashmir and Pakistan has only a sliver and wants all of it. Flying on Pakistan International Airlines in those days, I saw a map of Pakistan that included all Kashmir in Pakistan.

I can see that there is a very strong feeling in Pakistan that, somehow, something happened and Kashmir should have come to it. The state of Jammu and Kashmir has three components: one is the valley of Kashmir, which is majority-Muslim; then there is the Jammu, which is predominantly Hindu: and then there is Ladakh, a huge area which is mainly Buddhist if anything. When we talk about Kashmir, it is one of the three components of Jammu and Kashmir that we mean. You could not really hold a plebiscite even if it was possible, except on the condition that the votes of the three regions were counted separately and you had different choices, because, ultimately, Pakistan cares only about the valley—which is the most beautiful part as well.

Forgetting about the plebiscite, what we have to do is to maintain the status quo. In both areas—I do not think that there is a paradise of human rights in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir or even in Pakistan itself—we have to have civil society people monitor violations of human rights, complain about them, point them out and try to make the Governments involved behave better. In that respect, civil society in the UK can perform a function, but that function cannot be performed by the Government, who would be well advised to stay out.

I have always championed, and written about, an independent Kashmir which would be like Switzerland with a condominium guaranteed by all the major powers plus India and Pakistan. When I put forward this idea in Pakistan, I was violently opposed by people saying, “No, an independent Kashmir will not do. Kashmir is part of Pakistan”. I think that in India also there is considerable opposition.

This is one of those endless disputes, like that between Israel and Palestine, which goes on and there is nothing much that the UN can do about it. We have to make sure that the people involved in that tragedy are assured as peaceful and lawful an existence as possible and hope that India, which is a kind of older brother in this dispute and already has a democratic structure in Jammu and Kashmir, will improve governance in Kashmir. It should try to make sure that violations of human rights which take place are addressed and that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, about which there is a lot of debate in India—not only with respect to Jammu and Kashmir but also with respect to the north-east—is removed in its application from the area of Jammu and Kashmir.

Perhaps something like that can by urged by civil society groups in the UK, because it is already being urged by civil society groups in India. I do not say that that will happen, but we have to keep up the pressure. It is very important on humanitarian grounds that we keep up the pressure and try to improve as much as we can the lives of the people of Kashmir on both sides.

18:39

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Ahmed for instigating this debate. It is a serious matter. There have been three wars over Kashmir between those two countries, and that is bad enough, but they are also nuclear powers, which makes it all the more dangerous. I agree with my noble friends Lord Parekh and Lord Watson, who in different ways in wise observations made the point that the blame game is hardly likely to help any part of the process. We are not immune from it in this House, although I wonder whether it ever helps.

The events of the past couple of weeks have been worrying and threatening. There have been five deaths, one of them an Indian soldier who there is reliable evidence to say was beheaded, although there is much doubt as to who actually did it. Exchanges across the line of control are not uncommon but fatalities are, thankfully, relatively rare. On 11 January, India described the violations and armed infiltrations as “matters of serious concern”. India was “on alert”. Pakistan summoned India’s ambassador to protest over the death of one of its soldiers, and the tone of India’s language was also a matter of objection by the Pakistani Government. Pakistan denied responsibility for any of the attacks, including the beheading. An Indian opposition leader chillingly called for,

“at least 10 heads on the other side”.

My noble friend Lord Ahmed was quite right to deplore the excesses of language that have emerged on both sides. At senior levels in both Governments and military leaderships, more bellicose language is being used. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, while calling for calm, also accused India of “warmongering”. India’s army chief predicted instability and said that in respect of periods of relative calm,

“there can be no business as usual”.

In that light, it is perhaps extraordinary that military commanders have carved out what is at least a de facto truce at the moment. Cross-border firing stopped, I believe, on 16 January. Since then, although both sides are bristling with weapons, no one has crossed or fired across the line of control. How remarkable, in its way, that is. Two senior generals, India’s Vinod Bhatia and Pakistan’s Ashfaq Nadeem, made the truce agreement in a 10-minute telephone conversation, which illustrates what is possible in extreme circumstances. It is hopeful and it is helpful, but it is fragile. Peace, just getting back on track after the Mumbai attacks in 2008, is plainly at risk, and the line of control creates little security.

Our relations with India are obviously very strong. It is a powerful country and, even given some of the terrible threats that my noble friend mentioned to civil society and the safety of women, India is a partner with great stability. The quality of the relationship between our two countries should give us confidence that a dialogue on regional security is always possible. I fully share the point made by my noble friend Lord Parekh about making a pragmatic and sensitive approach.

Relations with Pakistan have become stronger, and they have to, precisely because of the problems faced by the Pakistani nation, which pose critical issues for us. The international community cannot neglect Pakistan, and its security is crucial to peace in the region. It is hugely influential in the region and in the Islamic world more generally. It is, as I said, a nuclear power. Internal violence in 2008 killed at least 2,000 people. If the coalition withdraws from Afghanistan prematurely, that could have enormous consequences for Pakistan.

The Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas have for a long time been the epicentre of global terrorism. AQ and its associates have exploited ungoverned space and instability where they can. Pakistan itself is now robustly tackling the terrorist threat with considerable courage.

Many people in Pakistan live in extreme poverty, as we all know, and the floods have affected a great many more people. It surprises me that the European Union spends just half a euro per person in Pakistan, compared to five to 10 times as much in other parts of the world that are more developed and less crucial to our security. I ask the Government this evening to give greater priority to this issue in discussion with the EU High Representative.

I was very pleased that my noble friend Lord Ahmed mentioned the Channel 4 documentary on the mass graves. I thought it a powerful indictment, and part of a tradition of extremely powerful Channel 4 documentaries. Like the Sri Lanka documentary, which was powerful, accurate, verified by Ofcom and the basis for UN decisions to condemn war crimes by the Sri Lankan Government, I believe that we have another documentary that should have a similar impact. I have long asserted, and I assert again, that Channel 4 has qualities that we should all look to in order to see that they are shared by some of the rest of our media and recognised by many international partners.

It is plainly not possible in a short debate to do full justice to this issue. It would be wrong to ignore the possibilities of intense diplomatic effort—quite rightly called for by my noble friend Lord Watson—by neglecting the potential engagement of Ban Ki-Moon. That effort, if it is to be made, should be made now before fragility across the line of control becomes sustained conflict. Kashmiri independence is and remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, said, a matter likely to be solved only through bilateral negotiations in the region. My noble friend Lord Desai was also quite right to say that there is a very limited amount that we can do.

What we can do is this. We can say to the United Nations in friendly terms—this will be a matter where there is no difference across the Floor of this Chamber—that we detect the early signs of what may be very much greater instability with much more dire consequences. This is a moment when it can potentially intervene with some benefit.

18:46

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for calling this debate on the peace process between India and Pakistan and the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. He has a long record of raising this issue and has consistently highlighted the concerns that he raised again today. Before I respond to his specific Question on India-Pakistan relations and Kashmir, I would like to put this discussion in context by setting out the current state of the United Kingdom’s relationship with both India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan are longstanding and important friends of the UK and we enjoy close relations with both countries. Our unique historical and cultural ties still bind us, as do our important Indian and Pakistani diaspora communities, some of whom have taken part in the debate today. I knew, when I saw the speakers’ list, including four British Indians and one British Kashmiri, that this debate was going to be extremely interesting.

The United Kingdom is committed to an enduring relationship with Pakistan built on mutual trust, mutual respect and our many shared interests. Both our Governments are committed, through our enhanced strategic dialogue, to strengthening practical co-operation across the bilateral spectrum in areas such as trade, development, security, culture and education.

The Prime Minister called this a “Naya Aghaz”, a new beginning, forming an unbreakable bond of friendship between our two countries. Our relationship is broad and deep. There are many challenges that we agree that we need to deal with together. Only last week, as the Minister responsible for Pakistan, I spoke at the United Nations Security Council debate on counterterrorism, initiated and chaired by Pakistan.

My noble friend Lord Loomba raised the issue of terrorism. We also accept that Pakistan is on the front line of terrorism, making bigger sacrifices in fighting terrorism than any other country. As the Prime Minister has said, when confronting terrorism, Pakistan’s enemy is our enemy. In Britain we understand the terrible losses that terrorism has inflicted upon Pakistan, and we feel them deeply too.

In relation to India, the United Kingdom enjoys an equally strong relationship—a relationship founded on a broad range of mutual interests, from education and climate change to security and defence. The Government have prioritised our relationship with India. When the Prime Minister made his first overseas visit to India in July 2010, he made clear that we would build a stronger, wider and deeper partnership. I can inform the House that he intends to visit again this year to strengthen further what is becoming an increasingly important relationship.

There have also been an increasing number of other high-level visits and exchanges over the past two years to both countries, including the Foreign Secretary’s visit and visits from the Department for International Development. I have had the pleasure of visiting both India and Pakistan. In 2011 I visited India for the first time, going to both Delhi and Amritsar and holding meetings with, among others, India’s now Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid.

As I have said before, we have in this country large diaspora communities from both India and Pakistan that have made enormous contributions in this country. In many ways they have continued to discuss these matters, as we have seen here in your Lordships’ House. It is clear to me that the UK enjoys strong bilateral relationships with India and Pakistan, and that we are working in partnership with both countries to make them even stronger.

I would now like to set out this Government’s assessment of India-Pakistan relations and the right of self-determination in Kashmir. We welcome the renewed engagement between India and Pakistan in recent years; we are particularly encouraged by the substantive progress on liberalising trade and visa arrangements. We hope that both sides will continue to take further steps to help the growth of both countries’ economies. It is this basic normalisation of trade relationships and contacts between ordinary citizens on both sides that will help assist other programmes of confidence-building measures. I was pleased to see the programme between the Jang Group and the Times of India called Aman ki Asha, which I thought went some way towards normalising relationships between the two countries.

We also welcome the number of high-profile, high-level engagements and regular official talks between both sides. The visit by President Zardari, during which he met Prime Minister Singh, and the meetings between the countries’ Foreign, Finance, Home and Commerce Ministers have continued to build the relationship. We recognise the importance of a strong relationship between India and Pakistan, not only for the good of their bilateral relationship but for regional stability.

The position of our successive Governments in relation to Kashmir was animated well by the noble Lord, Lord Watson. On Kashmir, our position has always been that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation there, which takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. I fully understand the strength of feeling about the dispute among many people in Britain. We are aware of the level of parliamentary interest and the all-party parliamentary group discussions on this issue. However, I believe that any attempts by the United Kingdom or other third parties, however well intentioned, to mediate or prescribe solutions would hinder progress. It is for the two countries to move towards resolving these issues directly. That is why successive British Governments, including the previous Labour Government, have taken the position that they have.

This Government continue to monitor developments in Kashmir closely, including the political, security and human rights situation on both sides of the line of control. We are all too familiar with the violence that has plagued Kashmir for far too long. It has affected the security and prosperity of ordinary Kashmiris. That is why we welcome peaceful dialogue to resolve all differences. We are concerned about the incidents that have taken place over the past fortnight on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir. Regrettably, those incidents caused the loss of life of soldiers on the line of control, as well as the suspension of cross-border trade.

We are encouraged by the recent steps taken to de-escalate tension and hope that all sides will continue to exercise restraint. British officials in New Delhi and Islamabad are in close contact with the Governments in both capitals on this issue. We also welcome their commitments to dialogue and to not allowing these incidents to derail the positive developments in bilateral relations. The UK is committed to supporting efforts to promote peace-building, which will help bring about stability and prosperity in the region. Our resources from the Conflict Pool will continue to support work towards this objective. In 2011-12, Her Majesty’s Government spent approximately £1.6 million, through their Conflict Pool, on regional stability programmes.

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, raised the issue of human rights. We take that issue extremely seriously. He also raised India’s ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture. Noble Lords will be familiar with the United Nations Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review, which covers every country in the world. In the universal periodic review of India in May, we recommended that India expedite the ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture and its optional protocol, and that it adopt robust domestic legislation to this effect. We have not raised the proposed visit by the UN special rapporteur but we understand that the visit has been postponed until after the ratification of the convention against torture.

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, also raised the issue of Colonel Lama from Nepal and asked whether the UK would take similar action against those accused of torture in Kashmir. In accordance with the UK’s international obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, and provided that there is sufficient admissible evidence and that it is in the public interest, the UK can take jurisdiction over torture wherever it is committed in the world. A decision would clearly need to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, raised the Channel 4 documentary, “Kashmir’s Torture Trail”. We are aware of that documentary on Kashmir. We monitor developments in Kashmir closely and regularly raise concerns about the human rights situation on the line of control. We welcome the fact that Prime Minister Singh has made it clear that human rights abuses by security forces in Kashmir will not be tolerated and note that the Indian Government have started an investigation by the Jammu and Kashmir state human rights commission. We welcome the initiative by Prime Minister Singh to appoint three interlocutors to engage with a wide range of interested parties to help resolve the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir. The Indian Government have recently published the interlocutors’ report; it sets out a range of confidence-building measures, including addressing human rights concerns. I understand that the Indian Government will take a decision on how to implement that report after a period of consultation.

It is clear that a resolution of the dispute over Kashmir must be for India and Pakistan to find, while taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We welcome the progress to date to build confidence between the two sides but recognise, too, that much more remains to be done. The United Kingdom will continue to encourage India and Pakistan to take further steps to strengthen their relationship, but we recognise that the pace and scope is clearly for them to determine.

18:57

Sitting suspended.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

19:35

Clause 6 : Amendment of Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

1: Page 5, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) In section 3(2)(a) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (timing of Boundary Commission reports), for “before 1st October 2013” substitute “before 1st October 2018 but not before 1st September 2018”.”

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

My Lords, this amendment and those grouped with it make a number of changes to Clause 6, which was inserted by this House in Committee. They are in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Wigley. The Government have assisted with the drafting of these amendments to ensure that the meaning and effect of the new clause is entirely clear and effective, and I expect to hear that the Minister agrees with that.

Further, the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England has indicated to me that all four Boundary Commissions would welcome the changes made by these amendments to ensure that the Boundary Commissions are certain about what the legislation requires of them. Therefore these amendments make a number of changes to remove any ambiguity from the meaning of Clause 6 and generally to tidy up the clause while ensuring that it still achieves the intended outcome. There is no change of substance whatever, and I ask the Minister to confirm that he agrees.

In particular, this amendment amends Clause 6 to ensure that there is clarity on which electoral register is to be used by the Boundary Commissions in the boundary review and on by when the commissions have to report. It specifies that the Boundary Commissions must submit recommendations to Ministers not before 1 September 2018 and before 1 October 2018. Taken in conjunction with the provisions in the PVSC Act, it would be clear that the electoral register as at 1 December 2015 would be used in this review. The formulation of the amendment makes it clear that the current review, which is based on electoral register data as at 1 December 2010 is cancelled as the boundary review under the clause would be required to be based on data as at 1 December 2015. Again, I ask the Minister to confirm that this is his understanding.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the effect of Clause 6 is clear and that necessary consequential changes are made, and I ask the House to accept this amendment.

As to other changes made by the amendments, they provide, first, that the Boundary Commissions would not have discretion to consider inconveniences attendant on boundary changes as a factor when drawing up boundary proposals for the review that must report before 1 October 2018. The PVSC Act provides that the discretion to consider inconveniences would be disapplied for the purposes of the first review under the changes made by the PVSC Act. This is because there would inevitably be more inconvenience attendant on the first review under the PVSC Act as it reduces the number of constituencies from 650 to 600 and, for the first time, it applies equality of electors as the overriding principle in drawing up constituencies. As the boundary review under Clause 6 would, in effect, become the first review under the PVSC Act, it is appropriate that we disapply this rule for that review, in line with Parliament’s intention two years ago. Does the Minister agree?

Secondly, it amends Section 14(3) of the PVSC Act to provide that the review that this House called for into the effect into the reduction in the number of constituencies provided for under that Act is now scheduled to take place in 2020 after the 2020 general election, and not in 2015. The Electoral Commission maintains that it would make no sense to review in 2015 a reduction that would not—in the Bill we have to send to the Commons—take place before 2020. I agree with that. Does the Minister?

Thirdly, an amendment would ensure that Clause 6 would amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 on the timing of boundary reviews, instead of the PVSC Act. That is a technical drafting point.

Finally, an amendment would make a consequential change to the Long Title of the Bill to explain that it amends the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendments moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hart, to which my name is attached. I will not go into the details because they have been well explained.

However, it is quite understandable that when an amendment of the sort that was moved in Committee finds its way through to the Bill there are consequences that nobody has thought out. My understanding is that this will avoid further amendments being necessary in the other place and that this will therefore, hopefully, avoid ping pong occurring with the Bill.

I understand that the four Boundary Commissions—not only for England, but for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—also concur with the amendments. This is clearly a sensible way forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that our understanding is correct and that this is helpful.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we had a lengthy debate on Clause 6 in Committee. It is well known that there are differing views within this House on the merits of that clause, and I do not wish to reopen the debate on it here today. The purpose of the amendment is to make changes to Clause 6, which this House added to the Bill in Committee, to ensure that the meaning and effect of the clause is clear. I hope that the whole House would agree that we should ensure that there is clarity about the meaning of provisions that we send to the House of Commons, and which could end up on the statute book, and that we improve the drafting of legislation when we are able to do so.

In the interests of ensuring well drafted legislation, we therefore welcome the noble Lord’s amendment, which seeks to remove any ambiguity from the meaning of Clause 6. In a matter as important as the setting of constituency boundaries, which is fundamental to our democracy, we should ensure that there is clarity over the rules governing the conduct and timing of boundary reviews and that the Boundary Commissions are clear on what the legislation requires of them.

There has, of course, been consultation about the drafting of this clause. I confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Hart, has asked, that the Government’s understanding of the meaning of the amendment is exactly as he has described it. That is agreed.

The amendment would ensure that the effect of Clause 6 is clear, and that necessary consequential changes are therefore made. I urge noble Lords to agree to the amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendments 2 to 4

Moved by

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

2: Page 5, line 27, leave out “10” and insert “11(2)”

3: Page 5, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert “for “1 October 2013” substitute “1 October 2018”.”

4: Page 5, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) In section 14(3) of that Act, for “2015” (in both places) substitute “2020”.”

Amendments 2 to 4 agreed.

19:45

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

5: Insert the following new Clause—
“Voters waiting at polling station at close of poll
(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (parliamentary election rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In rule 37 (voting procedure) as it extends to England and Wales and Scotland, after paragraph (6) insert—
“(7) A voter who at the close of the poll is in the polling station, or in a queue outside the polling station, for the purpose of voting shall (despite the close of the poll) be entitled to apply for a ballot paper under paragraph (1); and these rules apply in relation to such a voter accordingly.”
(3) In rule 37 (voting procedure) as it extends to Northern Ireland, after paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) A voter who at the close of the poll is in the polling station, or in a queue outside the polling station, for the purpose of voting shall (despite the close of the poll) be entitled to apply for a ballot paper under paragraph (1); and these rules apply in relation to such a voter accordingly.””

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government have brought forward this amendment to recognise this House’s support for a change to allow electors in a polling station or queuing outside at the time for close of poll who have not yet had the opportunity to receive a ballot paper and cast their vote, to do so. It takes the principle proposed in the amendment previously tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on behalf of the Constitution Committee, and the further amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on issues around exit polls.

The amendment addresses the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the scope of the change it will bring about. It isolates the change in relation to close of poll from impacting anyone who broadcasts an exit poll while people in the queue are still voting, thus removing the ambiguity on application of the criminal sanctions that they might have faced, and provides for proportionately tailored powers to make further changes to legislation to address other impacts that it has on provisions that also relate to the close of poll.

The amendment applies to the law governing UK parliamentary elections and does not as a matter of course apply to all other polls, elections or referendums. Depending on the relationship of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to other legislation and the effects of any combination provisions, the change may or may not also apply to other polls. The powers sought in the amendment are aimed at being able to address uncertainty and ambiguity about when and how it may apply to other provisions and for other elections or referendums.

The Government think that it would be better for electors if we were to make sure that any such changes were brought about in a co-ordinated manner and do not open up the possibility of electors in a queue being able to vote in a poll on one date but not on another. It helps us avoid, at least in part, the need to make legislation on a piecemeal basis for different polls, an issue which has been raised in relation to the complexity of that legislation. It also brings clarity for those administering elections and, more importantly, for those voting in them. I trust that noble Lords will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it has been brought so that the change sought can be introduced in a workable and effective fashion. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I wish to take this opportunity to say how much we welcome this measure. I think that we started to discuss the Bill in this House in July last year and noble Lords will be pleased to know that this is the last time they will hear me speak on it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who has been extraordinarily helpful to us throughout the discussions on the Bill. He was ably helped by the noble Lords, Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Taylor of Holbeach.

This has been a tricky Bill in some ways and the Bill team has served us well, as I am sure it has the government side. We thank the members of the Bill team as well as the clerks, who we have perhaps stretched beyond their normal role, including at the last minute tonight when the relevant paperwork was turned round quickly to enable us to get to this stage of the Bill. In doing so, we have seen the House at its very best.

I also take the opportunity to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, who has guided us through the Bill. We have in our office the most marvellous Jessica Levy, who has made sure that we have been kept well up to date at all times. We very much support this amendment and thank the noble Lord for tabling it.

Amendment 5 agreed.

Clause 26 : Commencement

Amendments 6 and 7

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

6: Page 15, line 8, at end insert—
“(4A) An order under subsection (1) bringing into force any provision of section (Voters waiting at polling station at close of poll) may—
(a) make provision in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, that section, or
(b) make supplementary or incidental provision for the purposes of that section.
(4B) An order made by virtue of subsection (4A) may—
(a) modify any Act (whenever passed), including any provision inserted by a provision of this Act apart from section (Voters waiting at polling station at close of poll), or
(b) modify subordinate legislation (whenever made).
(4C) An order made by virtue of subsection (4A) that contains provision modifying an Act may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4D) Any other order made by virtue of subsection (4A) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4E) In this section—
“modify” includes amend, repeal or revoke;
“subordinate legislation” has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.”

7: Page 15, line 11, at end insert “or of any provision of an order made by virtue of subsection (4A)”

Amendments 6 and 7 agreed

In the Title

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

8: Line 2, at end insert “; and to amend section 3(2)(a) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986”

Amendment 8 agreed.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

House adjourned at 7.49 pm.