Political Parties and Elections Bill

I was rudely interrupted, but nevertheless I shall be extremely brief. I said that I have less sympathy with Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, because I believe that the issues of mobility to which he properly referred mean that it is in fact quite rare for people to go abroad for such long periods on the sort of job he was referring to. Indeed, it is now much more common to go to other parts of the world for shorter periods. There might be a better case if we linked the issue of qualifying for elections to whether the individual had a tax–paying responsibility in this country, on the principle the Americans used to such good effect: no taxation without representation. I am also anxious that we should not be distracted by the issue of European Union citizenship. The Minister may be able to confirm that EU citizens can vote in EU parliamentary elections wherever they are in the Union, so it is important that that issue should be taken out of this discussion because it is completely separate. I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. There is an anomaly here which needs to be addressed. It is rather extraordinary that we single out employees of the British Council, and yet someone serving this country in a specific official capacity in a number of important international organisations should not be considered. While I am a great fan of the British Council, this is a genuine anomaly and there is considerable justification for Amendment 125. With that, I have said enough.