Political Parties and Elections Bill

The amendment has a simple objective: to extend from 15 to 20 years the period during which individuals living overseas can remain on the electoral register. This period was reduced from 20 to 15 years in the PPER Act 2000, and I seek to reverse that on three grounds. The first is that we live in an era of increasing globalisation and internationalisation of economic activity, a process which has gathered pace since the reduction of the qualifying period in 2000. Secondly, we need to reflect the different nature of modern society and the mobility of populations. Thirdly, I seek to reflect the fact of Britain’s membership of the European Union. More than 3 million British citizens live overseas and a number of them are being, and increasingly will be, disenfranchised by the present limit of 15 years. Who are they? First, they are people who work overseas for UK companies or for subsidiaries of US or foreign companies operating in this country. Some people may say that that represents a limited number of people. I am not sure that that is right. One of my greatest friends at university worked for an American company based in London, but he worked overseas for his entire career. He did that because he enjoyed working for smaller subsidiaries, away from head-office politics. He worked in Lisbon, Moscow and Nairobi. He knew of many other people who effectively spent all of their careers overseas, which would have taken them over the current 15-year limit. Secondly, there are those who work for NGOs, including Oxfam and others, who will spend many years overseas in the pursuance of their careers. Within that there are, of course, governmental organisations. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is addressing this issue in Amendment 125 and I will therefore say no more about that, other than to draw the Committee’s attention to that category of people. Thirdly, there are those who retire overseas after a lifetime of endeavour and of paying tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why the sunshine of Spain should be better than the challenging conditions of the British weather, I simply cannot understand. There it is—they simply go overseas for the rest of their lives. All these people continue to contribute to our life and many of them have paid a great deal of tax along the way. In 1989, Mr Alistair Darling, then the opposition spokesman, said that 20 years was a sensible compromise. He said: ""it is now clear that a number of people will leave this country … but will still maintain a lively interest in the affairs of this country".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/89; col. 411.]" It is important to maintain that lively interest. My university friend who worked overseas for a US company all his life has maintained such a lively interest, because he is back in the United Kingdom and is involved in politics, although, sadly, with the party of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, not my party; but there we are, he maintains his lively interest. We touched on this in the debate nine years ago when my late friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish suggested that we could have a "use it or lose it" provision. People would have to register during an initial period—in that case, in the first five years—and thereafter had to register every year to show that they were in touch with what was going on in the UK and that any failure in that chain would result in the loss of the right to vote. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, who spoke in that debate, will remember all the machinations that went on. That just shows that if you wait long enough, it all comes round again. If the Government were inclined towards a "use it or lose it" provision, I would be perfectly happy with that. At the moment, I want to reflect modern society, modern economic conditions and modern ways of living. As through the Bill we want to extend democratic participation and involvement, I want to do so to those who live abroad who show an interest in the United Kingdom, and I therefore beg to move.