---

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might equally be accused of taking up the time of the House. The Minister was only surmising; it is the Chair who decides.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows that I deliberately did not use the word "filibustering".

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised a number of points with which I shall try to deal, but there was an element of metaphysical discourse in his speech, and I am not entirely clear what specific points he was making. It is not entirely clear whether he himself knew exactly what points he was making, but I shall try to respond to those that I could identify.

Before I do so, I shall decline the offer that the hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago when he asked me to put at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Having watched the hon. Gentleman for some weeks, I have concluded that his mind is far too fevered for me to put it at rest.

There was some discussion about verifiability between the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The hon. Member for Lichfield is waiting for a flash of inspiration or enlightenment from me. I have to tell him that verifiability is a word that we all understand, but I suggest that when he has the opportunity he should read the work of Karl Popper, if he has not done so already. I know that the hon. Gentleman is better read than he sometimes appears to be. Karl Popper adds an even more interesting concept to the discussion of verifiability in that he believes that falsifiability is a far better tool. I suggest that when the hon. Gentleman has time, he reads Karl Popper for enlightenment, or revisits his work if he has read it already.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way once to the hon. Gentleman and that is all.

Mr. Bercow: We know your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we respect them, but it is of the utmost importance to understand to what the Minister is referring, because it is relevant to his response to the debate. Is the work to which he is referring to be found in "The Open Society and its Enemies" or in "Conjectures and Refutations"?

Mr. Howarth: It is some years since I have read either of those publications, and I was an undergraduate at the time. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the general philosophy that underlies Popper's approach is that any theory is a good theory only if it is open to falsification. That is relevant to the dialogue between the hon. Member

19 Jan 2000 : Column 926

for Lichfield and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but it would certainly be remiss of me to advise them to discuss that during this debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Having sat through the Committee proceedings on the Bill, I assume that the working party did not explore that area. Certainly members from our party did not report that they rose to such philosophical heights.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I intend to demonstrate in a moment, the working party stuck to practicalities and matters of interest to people who want to vote, because that is what the Bill is all about.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) requested information on the position of those in military service and merchant seafarers. Even though he has since decamped, I shall clarify the matter for the record. Military personnel register by means of a service declaration. Merchant seamen register under section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is not affected by the Bill. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman avidly reads the record of the debate tomorrow, he will understand the situation.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne embarked on a somewhat convoluted dialogue about the use in legislation of the expression "for example." I am sure that he has already read it, but to make matters clear I draw his attention to a good example of the use of that expression in the Bill. It appears in clause 3(2), which reads:

"Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date.


For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all circumstances be taken to be at that time--


(a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or


(b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere."

The hon. Gentleman has to concede that the use of the expression "for example" is, in that context, appropriate and enlightening.

Mr. Wilshire: I am afraid that I do not accept that. I was complaining about the use in the Bill of the words "for example." The fact that the Minister can find another example of their use in the Bill does not undermine my argument. My point is that they should not appear anywhere in the Bill, but I would have been out of order had I addressed clauses that we were not debating.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman objects in principle to the use of the words "for example." I was merely demonstrating, by means of yet another example, how it is possible to use that phrase to provide amplification and illustration of a provision.

I recognise that some of those right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the amendments are anxious to ensure that the electoral registration process is not susceptible to false claims and manipulation by those who are sufficiently unscrupulous to attempt them. I respect those views and share that concern, but I do not believe that the amendments would help to achieve that aim.

Even after listening to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)--always a great joy--I am somewhat puzzled by amendments

19 Jan 2000 : Column 927

Nos. 46 and 57. It appears that they would provide that residence should be determined solely by a person's presence or otherwise at the relevant address on the day in question. If that were so, a possible interpretation would be that a person who happened to be staying at a friend's house on the day of the annual canvass would register at the friend's address, rather than his own. I do not believe that the confusion of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke exists.

Amendment No. 5 is designed to tighten up the definition of "residence", by introducing the concept of "the verifiable fact". Having already referred to that and to falsifiability, I do not intend to dwell on the subject. However, the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the verifiable fact of someone's presence at, or absence from, a particular address on a particular date. How would that work? How is someone who lives alone to prove that he was at home on the date in question? If a false claim is made, there are established procedures for objecting to the inclusion of a specific name in the register. Those procedures are used when people believe it appropriate and necessary to use them. In my view, they provide a more appropriate and effective safeguard than the arrangements proposed in the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are designed to tighten the provisions relating to those who are temporarily absent from home in connection with their employment or business. Under new section 5(3)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as substituted by clause 3 of the Bill, a person who is so absent can continue to be treated as a resident at his home address, provided he intends to return within six months of leaving home; and new section 5(4) provides that periods of temporary unemployment may be disregarded in that connection. Use of the word "temporary" is accepted: the electoral administrators who were consulted and who participated in the framing of the proposals believe that that is a suitable definition, and I am content that it should remain on the face of the Bill.

9.15 pm

Mr. Brady: In my view, it is acceptable for "temporary" to remain in the Bill, but the Minister should give some indication of what the Government have in mind as the definition of "temporary". They must have a conception of what temporary unemployment means for these purposes.

Mr. Howarth: I have already referred--I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening--to people who are temporarily away from their home for the purposes of business. On six months of leaving home, they can be considered for registration. That is not an unreasonable period in terms of being temporarily away from home. It is not necessarily a period of unemployment.

Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. Having done so, I must make some progress.

Mr. Brady: We are dealing with an important point that has an impact on other areas of employment law. My concern is the reference in clause 3(4) to "temporary period of unemployment", and the suggestion that that can

19 Jan 2000 : Column 928

be disregarded. I accept what the Minister says about temporary absence from home on business, but to say that a temporary period of unemployment can be disregarded, when that period could mean anything from three days to three years, is not acceptable. The Government must give an indication of their thinking on the matter.

---