| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth: I will, but I am trying to conclude.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way as he seeks to conclude his argument. Does he agree that it would not be mere cynicism, but justified apprehension on our part to consider that the clause's failure to define the meaning of the word "temporary" for that purpose might indicate the Government's intention to allow themselves maximum flexibility in the regulations? Although that might be good news for Ministers, it could be a source of growing anxiety to hundreds of electoral registration officers throughout the country.
Mr. Forth: That has to be the case. As my hon. Friend spoke, another thought flitted across my mind. I will try to dismiss it because I doubt that it could be true--but it is just possible that, were unemployment to start to rise dramatically from the level that, mercifully, it is at present, that would have a severe impact on the clause and on its implementation, constituency by constituency, registration officer by registration officer. It is one thing to frame such legislation in the happy circumstances in which we find ourselves in terms of unemployment at the moment, but we are legislating for a long period. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, anything that is put in the Bill will, by definition, exist for quite some time. You know better than me that changing primary legislation is not easy. Therefore, we must feel triply reassured about whatever appears in the Bill.
Mr. Wilshire: Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your predecessor had to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I did not raise this as a point of order at the time, because it would have stopped the flow of a very important debate. My hon. Friend used the word "gobbledegooker" and your predecessor in the Chair could not see the eyes of the Hansard writer above you roll upwards at the use of a
word that does not exist. Did the previous Deputy Speaker indicate whether some guidance could be given, or whether my hon. Friend should be asked to provide a spelling for the word, because otherwise we will have some difficulty?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member would do better to stick to the amendment.
Mr. Wilshire: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this was a difficult point in a difficult debate. However, as you say, there are important amendments before us which we must consider and, if necessary, vote on. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) both explained, we are dealing with six separate amendments. Although they are related, they raise five individual, but linked, issues. It is important to consider each of those five issues carefully and separately.
When moving amendment No. 46, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said that it was a probing amendment. He said, quite rightly, that we wanted the Minister to explain why this provision had been included in the Bill. We should also consider why it is not sufficient to stick to the facts. The subsection provides that we must consider the purpose of someone's presence or absence as well as the facts. I always thought that legislation aimed at being clear and precise and at sticking to the point. Someone is either present or they are not; they are either absent or they are not. The reason why is not the issue. As I understand it, the electoral register seeks to determine someone's residence. We could get locked into an argument about why people choose to live where they do as a purpose for being there. Surely that is not the issue.
Why are the facts of the matter not sufficient? Why do we have to wander into the issue of the purpose of presence or absence? What does the Minister mean by "purpose"? The Bill is not satisfied with the purpose alone--it states that regard shall be had
Mr. Bercow:
Rare are the occasions upon which I diverge in my opinions on these matters from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). But does he agree that the inclusion of "purpose" is not in itself objectionable; it is the fact that the Government have so far failed--it is a risible failure--to specify the difference between good reasons and bad, and to distinguish between circumstances that could be anticipated by a resident and those that could not?
Mr. Wilshire:
I am saddened that my hon. Friend does not go with the flow of my argument. I would be inclined to share his point of view unless I were given a good reason for the word's inclusion. The whole thing is very
Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) described the amendment as probing, I am slightly disappointed; the amendment should be for real. The gobbledegook to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred applies to this matter. Why can we not simply stick to the facts? If we accepted amendment No. 46, we should be left with the facts; that should be sufficient for British legislation.
Mr. Gray:
I do not want to do the Minister's job for him. I am sure that he will deal with this point shortly. However, one might imagine circumstances in which a person lives at a particular address for the specific purpose of registering to vote. There could be widespread corruption; for example, people might move to a key marginal seat for two or three months--three months in this case--to change the voting outcome there. It would be right for the registration officer to take account of people's purpose in being in an area when considering their application for registration. It is harder to imagine why people should specifically want to be absent and why the registration officer should take account of that.
Mr. Wilshire:
That is a valid point. If the House supports my hon. Friend's view, it is incumbent on the Government to state which purposes they would accept as good. My hon. Friend gives an example of a practice that, I hope, is not acceptable; it would be a bad purpose. To state only that purposes can be taken into account does not meet the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. If we accept my hon. Friend's argument, the Government will need to introduce further amendments in the other place.
Amendment No. 5 would come into play if amendment No. 46 were to fail. I am a politician who likes to think well of my opponents, so I have great hope in the Government. I am sure that the reasonableness of the intricate arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the past few minutes will have persuaded the Minister of the justice of our cause, and that we will not need to invoke amendment No. 5. However, in case we need to do so, we should discuss it.
Mr. Fabricant:
I put to my hon. Friend the same question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): does he agree that the insertion of the word "verifiable" is tautology? The word used in the clause is "fact". Do not all facts have to be verifiable, by definition?
Mr. Wilshire:
I was coming to that point as gently as I could. I suspect that the discussion is coming off the rails, because my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has difficulties with some of my arguments and I have some difficulties with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. Amendment No. 5--to insert the word "verifiable"--will
"in particular, to the purpose".
As my right hon. Friend said, that raises the opportunity to include all sorts of other things, as well as purpose. If the Minister considers it necessary to specify that the purpose is relevant, why does he not tell us which other issues are relevant? Why not spell them out? He chooses to spell out "purpose"--why have the catch-all of "in particular", which allows the Bill to introduce anything else? Does the Minister have anything else in mind?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |