Political Parties and Elections Bill

Amendment 123 makes amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1985 which sets out the time limitation placed on those British electors wishing to register as overseas electors. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause under Amendment 123 would amend Section 1(3)(c) and subsection (4)(a) of the Act to substitute the time limitation for relying on a previous entry in the electoral register from 15 years to 20 years. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause replicates this arrangement for peers residing overseas by also substituting the time limitation of 15 years to 20 years in Section 3(3)(c) and subsection (4)(a) of the Act. Noble Lords may be aware that the 1985 Act provided for the first time for British citizens living overseas to be able to vote in general and European elections in the UK. Initially, electors could register as overseas electors at the last place they were registered in the UK for a period of five years. However, this period increased to 20 years under the Representation of the People Act 1989 and was decreased to 15 years during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The matter was debated in both Houses and the conclusion set out in the Act was that 15 years was a more appropriate length of time. The new 15-year limit has applied since 1 April 2002. I appreciate that some may view a time limit for UK citizens overseas as harsh, particularly for those who may not have a vote in the national elections of their country of residence. However, I think noble Lords will agree that it would be inappropriate to allow the voting rights of UK citizens overseas to continue beyond 15 years given that generally, over time, their connection to the UK is likely to diminish. The latest amendment seeks to increase the period again, but as far as the Government are concerned, the current 15-year limitation is a sufficient period for a person to retain links with the United Kingdom. We are not aware of any compelling argument or evidence that would justify such a move at this time. Rather than tinkering with the time limitation again, more focus should be placed on raising registration rates among those residing overseas, such as expatriates and British citizens working abroad. This is because the number of registered overseas electors is extremely low. Fewer than 13,000 were registered in England and Wales as of 1 December 2008. The good news is that the Electoral Commission, which is responsible for promoting electoral registration, has over the past few years been working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to promote registration for overseas electors. During autumn 2008 the commission undertook extensive activity comprising a wide-ranging campaign of online and press advertisements in newspapers and magazines aimed at British expatriates in the countries with the highest British populations. In November 2008 the commission also chaired a round-table discussion to explore ways of encouraging British citizens living abroad to register to vote, and of improving the provision of electoral information to overseas voters. In attendance were a range of stakeholders, including interested politicians, relevant government departments, electoral administrators, embassy staff and the Royal Mail. The commission has not yet provided any details of the outcome of those discussions but plans to do so in due course. Our view is that the 15-year time limitation is a sufficient period for a person to retain links with the UK, and thus we do not see any merit in accepting this amendment. Amendment 125 introduces a clause that would add a new category of person to be enfranchised under Section 14(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. We hypothesise that this amendment is as a result of correspondence between officials in my department and a group of British international civil servants working for the European Commission in Brussels. They have argued that it is unfair that they lose their right to vote after 15 years and that they should have the same rights as Crown servants working overseas. We are sympathetic to their position. The effect of the amendment would be to allow British international civil servants to make a service declaration when registering to vote overseas in the same way as Crown servants. This would exempt them from the requirement that, to register to vote as an overseas voter, they must demonstrate that they have appeared on the UK electoral register within 15 years of the time at which they wish to register. Before any changes can be implemented, the Government must thoroughly examine the proposal. We need to be particularly careful not to make premature decisions in this area, even if the arguments currently presented are persuasive. There is a risk that by simply accepting the amendment in this form without thoroughly researching the position of comparable workers, there could be effects that we have not yet considered, some of which may be negative if they are not properly thought through. In examining this issue, the Government need to be sure about the number of British international civil servants and the number of potential categories of electors that it may be appropriate to provide with this right. Equally, we need to research whether there are other categories of person who would seek enfranchisement as a result of any loosening of the rules for these individuals. In particular, we would need to consider whether we should expand the wider categories currently covered by Section 14 of the 1983 Act to include those categories of workers given special treatment by way of their status as UK civil servants working abroad in other comparable contexts. For example, the British Nationality Act 1981 has special rules in relation to the descendants of UK public servants working abroad. These rules apply, for example, to those who work for international organisations of which the UK is a member, which is the category that this amendment deals with. They also apply to wider categories of UK public servants who work for other comparable entities, particularly foreign Governments. As a result, there may or may not be a case for applying the effect of Section 14 to these wider categories rather than the more limited category identified by the amendment. In dealing with the democratic rights of our subjects, we must ensure that we examine the matter in the round and not just make piecemeal changes of the sort before us today. I regret to say that the exercise needs more time than this Bill allows. By allowing the Government a proper amount of time to consider the issue, it will enable us to build a firmer evidence base about the advantages and disadvantages of permitting any extensions of franchise and then to consider the way forward on the basis of the responses received. I therefore suggest that the Ministry of Justice undertakes a project to look into these issues, which will be conducted over the summer. In the mean time, noble Lords may take comfort in the fact that the Government will keep the British international Civil Service updated on our progress. In view of our intention to research the issue properly, it would be more sensible to examine the results at the end of that piece of work before making any changes to the current regulations. I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.