Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, not least in his admiration for my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has indeed undertaken a marathon on this Bill today. By contrast, mine will be a quick sprint. We are anxious to ensure with this amendment that we can get some urgent clarification on an extremely important issue relating to citizenship. There are obvious echoes from the previous debate.

I doubt that any Members here need reminding of the considerable contribution that EU citizens make to the life of this country: to its essential services, its economy and so many local communities, not least in the health services. If I needed any such reminder, I had it most forcibly this afternoon when I paid a visit to the dentist. Many of them, especially if they have worked and lived in the United Kingdom for some time, have made a considerable tax contribution—local as well as national—as my noble friend said. It is a well-respected principle, not least in this House, that there is no taxation without representation.

The Minister may be able to give us an updated figure of those EU citizens who are now regarded as resident here on at least a semi-permanent basis. Those figures are very relevant to this amendment, as they are to a number of other parts of this Bill. I recall that, of all the cities in the world, London has the largest number of French citizens, exceeded only by Paris. These EU friends are employed throughout the UK in some crucial roles. Some are more obvious than others; for example, although most of those who work in agriculture and horticulture are temporary residents, some are employed full time and for longer periods, for example specialist advisers for viniculture in this country. On the day that “Back British Farming” is the slogan that the NFU wishes us to sign up to to demonstrate our commitment to that industry, I should give that a deserved mention.

The significance of the contribution of all these groups caused me to table the Question to which my noble friend referred. I need to reiterate the Answer given to me by the noble Lord, Lord True, on behalf of the Government because it contains some important detail that is relevant to this debate:

“The May local elections were postponed until 2021 due to Covid-19. In that context, the UK Government can confirm that resident EU citizens will remain able to vote and stand in the rescheduled May 2021 local elections in England (including London Assembly elections) and the May 2021 Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales. Those elected to office will be able to serve their full term and this will also apply to those elected before 2021. The franchise for local elections are devolved in Scotland and Wales. The UK Government has been clear that the issue of local voting rights of EU citizens living in the UK needs to be considered alongside the rights and interests of British expats living abroad. The Government has signed bilateral voting rights agreements with Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg in 2019, and with Poland in May 2020. We continue to work on further bilateral voting rights agreements with other EU member states.”


As my noble friend said, there may be an update tonight from the Minister; that was from 10 July, and there may have been some more successful developments since.

It will be obvious to all in your Lordships’ House that there are two significant limitations to that assurance. First, it is limited to May 2021. After that, there is no guarantee that the principle will be maintained for any future local elections for the majority of these residents. Secondly, the Brexit negotiators have succeeded in achieving only four bilateral agreements—with Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland—so much larger numbers originally from France, Germany and Italy, for example, are, as far as we know, excluded. What is being done to get agreements with the remaining 23 member states? I also hope that the Minister will be able to spell out what exactly was agreed with these four Governments.

I turn to the other point in this reply: the mention of the very relevant rights and interests of British expats living abroad. I suspect other Members have heard of the distressing concerns, anxieties and frustrations of our fellow British citizens currently living in the EU. I have had a very full report from a survey of many hundreds of these in France—a detailed report of the current dilemmas they face, not least in relation to healthcare and its costs. Surely the time has come—in their interests, as well as the interests of those to whom this amendment directly relates—for the Government to revert to our traditional attitude in this country. For once, could they not take the lead? Can they not now commit to bringing before Parliament certainty of continuing these civil rights? A more generous and realistic approach to these civic rights here would be likely to stimulate an equally humane and civilised response there. I repeat what my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham said in the previous debate: they surely should do the right thing. I hope the Minister will be able to expand on the very limited information given to me previously and therefore respond positively to our amendment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 33 provides that regulations under Clause 4

“may not limit or remove the right to vote in local government elections”

for EU nationals who have lost free movement rights under this Bill

“unless the Secretary of State has laid … a draft of the … regulations and an assessment of their effect … at least three months before … the regulations”

are officially made. Parliament would thus have the opportunity to consider proposals for restricting the right of EU citizens to vote in local elections. Local voting rights are not covered by the withdrawal agreement as they are not an EU competence but a sovereign matter. There is thus an uncertainty about the future voting and candidacy rights in local government elections for many EU citizens as the Government have not gone down the road of giving a firm commitment that all settled EU citizens in this country will continue to have the right to vote in local elections.

All non-citizen residents from Ireland and the Commonwealth can vote in all elections and referendums. This is reciprocal in the case of Ireland, but most Commonwealth countries, including Cyprus and Malta, do not grant resident UK citizens the right to vote. EU citizens from the other 24 member states currently have a partial franchise that allows them to vote and stand as candidates in local government elections. This is guaranteed in UK law and the Government would need to take active steps to remove this right. There is disparity within the UK at present: Scotland and Wales grant voting rights to all migrants, while England and Northern Ireland do not.

As has been said, the Government have been seeking bilateral agreements on local election voting rights with EU member states, with agreements concluded with Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland. As I understand it, UK nationals will also be able to continue to vote, and in some cases stand, in local elections in EU member states where domestic legislation allows this. We are in favour of EU nationals living in the UK having full voting rights in future elections. They are our neighbours, friends, families, important parts of our communities and vital to our economy and healthcare service. We should value them. The Government should protect the local election voting rights that EU citizens living in this country currently have and seek to extend them so that they become full voting rights.

Brexit: Role of Parliament

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the stage, or stages, at which Parliament’s authority should be sought as part of the negotiation for leaving the European Union.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, Parliament will have a role in making sure that we find the best way forward. The Department for Exiting the European Union will consider the detailed arrangements to provide for that.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, this is not just a matter of the triggering of Article 50; the whole process ahead of us is a matter of concern to both Houses of Parliament. Does the Minister recall that throughout the referendum campaign there were constant calls to restore the sovereignty of the British Parliament, not least from Messrs Davis, Fox and Johnson? We also were told regularly that we should “take back control”. Who is in control? Is it the British Parliament? Who is answerable to the British Parliament? Is it one of those three? Can the Minister explain precisely which provisions of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 will be applied to this process?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, Parliament is sovereign. But the Executive has certain prerogative powers that it exercises in international legal matters, including the making and unmaking of treaties. That remains the position.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I shall start with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about two-tier authorities and what sorts of discussions we have been involved with. On a personal level, I have spoken to councils up and down the country. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that there is not consensus across the country, there is certainly the feeling that in some areas districts might feel vetoed by counties and vice versa, so this provision will enable either districts or counties to move in the way that they would wish. Consensus is of course the thing that we are seeking, but we also do not want authorities to be able to veto others in the aims that they seek to achieve.

The noble Lord asked me about transport across combined authority areas. We shall get on to transport in later groups, but of course Transport for the North, which will cover a vast area, will deal with just that issue, because of course transport does not start at one local authority boundary and finish at the other end of it; it transcends areas and is ideally placed to be dealt with on that much broader scale.

To go back to the first point, I understand that officials have held discussions with the County Councils Network and with the authorities involved—I am going beyond what I have been doing. Extensive discussions have taken place across the country.

The noble Lord also talked about the Bristol issue. Noble Lords will recall that an amendment was moved in this place, which the other place accepted, which put the Bristol mayor in the same position as mayors of other authorities, so that the local electorate can petition for a referendum to be held on whether mayoral governance in Bristol should continue and such a referendum is able to be held after the 10-year moratorium period—therefore from 2022. The other place accepted this as Clause 21 as the Bill left the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about powers being used very circumspectly. As the Secretary of State made clear in the other place, when he exercises those powers which the amendments made in the other place have given him, he will maintain the preference for consensus which he has shown to date, and the Government’s aim is to build on that consensus.

The noble Lord also talked about the large number of amendments which have come back to this House, and I agree with him that there are a large number. However, he also talked about the sensibleness of most of those amendments and about the need to work in partnership. He is absolutely right that devolution will not be effective in the long term unless partnership is effective. That is why the word “consensus” has been mentioned so much in today’s debate, because unless those local authorities can work together, they will not succeed in their aims for growth and other things.

The noble Lord also asked for further assurances that the powers will be used sparingly and that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would be reflected in the annual report. I hope that in my initial speech I gave those assurances, and I will give them again. Of course what will go into the report will be a matter for Bill managers, but I hope that I have made my feelings clear on that.

Both the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, talked about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I wrote yesterday—and I accept some criticism for the lateness of that letter—about Amendment 36, that,

“the context for these regulations making provision about local authority structures will be the implementation of devolution deals, specifically fast tracking the processes of such legislation as the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. I also commented”—

back on 29 June—

“as you rightly refer, to the need for consent by all councils being sufficient safeguard that fast tracking will not remove inappropriately any essential constraint or protection. Notwithstanding this, we subsequently introduced a further safeguard by requiring that the use of this regulation power must be accompanied by the transparency given by a specific report to Parliament setting out the context (i.e. describing the bespoke deal) and providing information about any consultations or representations in connection with the regulations”.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I serve on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Minister will recall that this is not the first time she has been put in an impossible situation. With great respect to her, in the light of the very serious concerns and anxieties expressed by that committee about this section of the Bill and the powers given to the Minister under the Bill, it is not good enough for her to be provided with that text to read to the House at this stage without us being given an opportunity to see its significance. We in the committee took great care, with very good advice, over how these powers were going to be exercised. The department has put the Minister in an impossible situation. It had all last week—I assume that those in the department were working—to get this information to the House, and your Lordships should be given the opportunity to see these things in print rather than having to rely on the Minister. She has been put in this position twice. She should have the best possible advice and support, and she should go back to the department and say “Not good enough”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can but apologise for the fact that the letter has arrived late and I hope noble Lords will accept that apology from me. However, I accept the noble Lord’s point.

Amendment 45, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, enables the Secretary of State to revoke orders conferring health functions on a combined authority. I hope the noble Lord will be slightly patient—perhaps we can come to that in a later grouping when my noble friend Lord Prior will be talking about health.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked me, I think, what happens to business rates if a district joins a combined authority without a county. There is no direct relationship between the membership of the combined authority and the business rates, which will be subject to further legislation. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said. He made some extremely telling points, which should certainly be taken into account, but I want to confine my own brief remarks to another point. The elected House has spoken. It has spoken not just once but twice. It has not whispered or murmured but spoken very clearly, with an emphatic majority. At this late stage in the Bill, it is not for us to go into what has so often been called piecemeal constitutional change. It is for us to accept the limitations on our role and power: to concede, above all things, on the franchise to the elected House; to accept that we perfectly properly used the right that this House has to ask Members in the other place to think again. They thought, and they spoke emphatically. We now need to listen.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I think that my friend here, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would like to follow me. He might like to react to what I have to say.

This afternoon the Minister, and indeed others, seem to be again saying, “Yes, one day this will happen but not now”. That is a position which I understand—it is a perfectly reasonable position—but it cannot be repeated and repeated without the Government coming forward and saying when and how. On 18 November, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, put it very succinctly when he said:

“There may come a time for change, when we lower the age to 16. There may be a debate to be had. This is not the moment for that debate”.—[Official Report, 18/11/15; col. 179.]

When is it going to be the time for that debate? This is the doctrine of unripe time, which I think I am right in saying that Sir Humphrey was always quoting to Jim Hacker in “Yes Minister”. Whenever they wanted to avoid taking a decision they would say, “We’ll get to it one day. Yes, of course it’ll be important”. But it is not going to be sufficient simply to put this off for ever.

The Prime Minister himself has said, as we understand it, to the leader of the Conservatives in the Holyrood Parliament that, yes, there will be an opportunity for the full debate which I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and I will both want to contribute to. When are we going to have that debate? We cannot go on for ever leaving this on the side, as if it somehow does not matter that one part of the United Kingdom adjoining another has a completely different franchise, as my noble friend Lord Purvis said. If this is the United Kingdom, the franchise should be consistent across the United Kingdom.

There is also an important issue here about the way in which we discuss these issues in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, seems to think that it is inappropriate for this House to have any views whatever about elections. I dispute that. During my whole period in this House, we have been able to improve the law in relation to elections in a more dispassionate way than when I was a Member of the other place. It has a special interest in the electoral arrangements, in the Representation of the People Acts and so on. This House has a proper responsibility, a disinterest, which is extremely relevant to important questions about the franchise and the way in which our democracy works. If we give that up it will be an important loss of responsibility and role for this House, and I hope that we will not go down that track. In response, I trust that the Minister will be able to tell us, as the Prime Minister has hinted to his colleagues in the Holyrood Parliament, that there will be an opportunity for the wider debate that Ministers keep telling us is timely and should be happening. If she cannot tell us that, then we are right to make progress in this Bill and move in this direction.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, while I have every sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I should say right at the outset that if the amendment is pressed to a vote, noble Lords on these Benches will abstain.

My party fought the general election last year on a commitment to bring forward legislation to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. We have, on numerous occasions, had debates, asked questions, moved Motions and won votes to advance the cause, but it has fallen on deaf ears on the government Benches. They have shown not the slightest interest in considering this change and I have come to the conclusion that it will probably take a Government of a different political persuasion to bring it about.

Not even the enthusiastic support of Ruth Davidson MSP, the leader of the Tory party in Scotland, or of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the former leader, has made any difference at all to the government Benches. We will continue to press the case at the appropriate time—the worst thing that the Government have done of course is to deny 16 and 17 year-olds a vote in the referendum on the European Union. The Government and the House of Commons have rejected this proposal repeatedly.

We are a revising Chamber. The elected Commons has made a decision, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, and I do not intend to challenge it further on this occasion. In taking this decision, I am also mindful of the advice from the Electoral Commission about making decisions in a timely manner and the extra work that would be involved in the short space of time before the elections.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am still, I confess, shaken by the news of my friend and colleague Charles Kennedy’s sudden death this morning, and I apologise to your Lordships if I am rather more tongue-tied than usual. This is obviously not the right moment for a full appreciation of his role, and I certainly cannot match the very heartfelt tributes I have heard and seen from all over the world of politics. However, I was his Chief Whip in the House of Commons, and I want to put on the record my appreciation of and admiration for his political courage. It is largely forgotten that when the Iraq invasion was imminent, most people did actually believe the spin that came from No. 10, and it took real courage—real political courage—to stand against that tide. It took guts, integrity and real wisdom. A minority in both the other parties—a majority in my own, of course—voted against the illegal invasion, and those of us who followed his lead then will not forget his strength of character.

Charles Kennedy was also, of course, a passionate European and a true Liberal in defence of human rights; I suspect that we will miss both those attributes in the next few months. He was also a long-standing campaigner for fairness and equality, not least for the long-suffering and cheated electorate. At a British Election Study seminar last December, I forecast that there would be a wide discrepancy between votes cast and seats gained, and, of course, a few weeks ago there was. I also prophesied that the inhabitant of No. 10 would enter the door with less than a quarter of the eligible electorate voting for him; and so he did.

However, after a political lifetime of campaigning for fairness in votes, I am the first to recognise that new MPs are unlikely reformers as far as their own House is concerned. In recent years, Parliament has been prepared to find fairer electoral systems for everybody else—for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, even the European Parliament—but for the House of Commons, of course, it has been a step too far. However, what about local government? That is where a real opportunity exists in the present Parliament. This is my plea for reform in this Parliament: to fulfil the gracious Speech and bring about effective democratic devolution.

In the multiparty environment of the 21st century, local government election results are quite as peculiar as those in Westminster, and sometimes worse. The good news is that at long last somebody is making a serious attempt to examine from the point of view of the voters a local government voting system that unfortunately is all too often examined only from the parties’ point of view. I am greatly indebted to the studies of Dr Lewis Baston, who made a recent detailed assessment of the consequences of a fairer system in local government. Hitherto, such limited analysis of the UK system as has been undertaken has tended to concentrate on its implications for the parties, and almost exclusively for Parliament. However, Dr Baston’s analysis is based on more robust evidence: the results of two rounds of single transferable vote elections in the Scottish local government elections of 2007 and 2012, following the reform introduced in Scotland by the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Until 2007, Scotland was in one respect not much different from the English counties: of those who voted for council candidates, barely half had the satisfaction of electing their choice. The average, on low turnouts, ranged from 40% to 55%. However, with the introduction of STV, three in four voters now get what they vote for. If you add in those whose second or subsequent preferences are effective, the “satisfied” figure can rise to 90%—perhaps double the proportion south of the border. Dr Baston terms these voters who get what they vote for “happy voters”, and I think it is time we spread that experience to other parts of our allegedly united Kingdom.

The core of Dr Baston’s case for reform is not the benefits or otherwise to any one party but the benefits to voters. Parties may be obsessed with gaining and maintaining control of councils, and the media certainly find it easier to interpret trends by reference to changes of control, but the consumer of the local democratic process is surely more interested in the connection between the way in which he or she votes and the representative outcome, and the resulting quality of service and accountability of those representatives. Surely England and Wales could, and should, now follow Scotland’s lead and introduce this modest, rational reform to the current local government system.

The narrow choice offered by first past the post discourages any attempt to distinguish the relative merits of candidates of the same party, and makes impossible an informed choice between those of different parties, and of independents, on a preferential basis. Candidates regularly complain about the lack of public interest in the individual personalities, their achievements and special qualifications, especially when local contests are submerged in a national campaign, as they were this year. They would therefore surely be delighted with a new system that encourages more discernment.

Those of us who knocked on doors during the recent election campaign will have come up against the old refrain, “They’re all the same”. That is unfair in general, but at local council level in some areas it carries real credibility. After all, if you live in a city, town or county where one party has continually dominated—not just in “control” but monopolising the whole gamut of council decision-making virtually unchallenged—they may indeed be truly “all the same”.

The experience in Scotland shows that the weakening of one-party hegemony has been wholly positive in reviving local democracy, and indeed has even given new life to local parties. In England, some of the spectacular failures in local authorities have coincided with long periods of one-party domination; that is surely not a coincidence. Long-sighted and wise parliamentarians —from Lord Hailsham to Robin Cook—have warned against “elective dictatorship”. I hope the Government will have that in mind when they think about persisting in pushing for further elected mayors.

Persistent monopoly council control by one party over many years, often with a minority of the total vote, is a recipe for inefficiency, partisan patronage and minor corruption, just as it would be in Westminster. The best way to avoid that is to introduce a fair local government electoral system, meaning many more “happy voters” and better, more efficient services.

I am convinced that Charles Kennedy would be delighted if, in this respect again, England and Wales followed Scotland’s example.

Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful again to the Minister for his explanation, and I admire his ability to keep going today, as this is the fifth debate in which he has taken part. I do not intend to repeat the comments I made previously when this matter was debated. He will recall—he alluded to this—that I challenged the Government on the robustness of the evidence he provided for the policy and its impact. Indeed, I used the 32nd and 35th reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I concurred with its conclusion that the effect of this policy, as outlined in the order, “appears to be negligible”. As I recall from the debate, he said that the level of reduction in alcohol consumption would be 10.5 million units in the first year. When the matter was considered further by the committee, it said that that was equivalent to one large glass of wine a year per individual. That does not have quite the same impact as saying 10.5 million units. There was no robust evidence to show that those who most needed to reduce their alcohol intake would do so under this policy.

The Minister alluded to the letter that he wrote to me following the debate. I admit that I had not expected this order to come before us again. Had it done so with no changes, my comments would be very brief, but there are significant changes and new evidence to which he did not refer today. It might be helpful if I did so. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 40th report drew attention to those changes. I share the committee’s disappointment that neither the Explanatory Memorandum nor the impact assessment was revised on being re-presented to your Lordships’ House in light of the strong and justified criticisms highlighted in the previous debate. It would have been helpful if those had been taken into account before re-presenting the Explanatory Memorandum and impact assessment to your Lordships’ House.

I will raise two issues on which I seek the Minister’s comments. In terms of new evidence, consideration of the Budget is important in assessing the impact of this policy. As was evident from the previous debate, there would be a marginal impact, which has failed to convince the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the costs to industry, which would be significant in implementing the permitted pricing policy, could be justified. The impacts would be low and marginal—one large glass of wine a year. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association claimed that the Budget would save the industry £175 million in additional duty payments. That, in turn, would bring down the permitted price at which alcohol would be sold. If the Minister is relying on a higher permitted price to reduce alcohol consumption, he perhaps ought to talk to the Chancellor, who has ensured that the permitted price will be reduced by the reduction and freezing of duty on alcohol.

Other evidence from the Cardiff University study was presented in the committee’s report. I do not know if the noble Lord has had an opportunity to read it, but it makes interesting reading around the reasons for a significant fall in violent crime. The study was unconvinced that alcohol pricing is the most significant factor. There was a 12% reduction in injuries from violent incidents in 2003 and, for the fifth consecutive year, the NHS has recorded a decrease in injuries from violence. This issue has to be looked at again, given the large implementation costs and the impact on the industry. What added value will this policy change brought forward by the order produce for the NHS and policing if you also take into account the economic and social factors, and the policing initiatives that have led to the fall in violent crime? What additional change will this order bring about?

Finally, the impact assessment suggests that doubling the level of alcohol excise duty will reduce alcohol-related mortality by an average of 35%, traffic-crash deaths by 11%, sexually transmitted diseases by 6%, violence by 2% and crime by 1.4%. Although the impact assessment does not specify the timeframe, it says that that would be the impact. That would be pretty impressive but it is not what this policy seeks to do. It is based only on maintaining the current level of excise duty, but the Chancellor reduced it in the Budget. Can we take it that we should now seek an increase following the reduction in excise duty?

We all want the harms from excess alcohol, to which the noble Lord referred in his comments on domestic violence, reduced. However, I have serious concerns.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

The noble Baroness seems to be coming to the end of her speech. Can she be optimistic for once? We have so much pessimism from the Opposition. Will she make a firm commitment? Does the Labour Party understand that the principle of minimum alcohol pricing is important? Are we not all in favour? This order may not go far enough for her; I understand that, but could she for once be optimistic and say that this may be a step in the right direction?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

There is a coalition Government and it is pretty hard to be optimistic. It is not about minimum alcohol pricing; that would be a completely different debate. The Government have ruled it in, then ruled it out—it will happen, it will not happen. This is about a different issue altogether. I am questioning whether the measures taken and the wonderful responses and results they are supposed to give really measure up. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee does not think so, and neither do I.

Immigration Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I think that I will have to write to my noble friend if he wants an authoritative on answer on that. I have given the answer that I have before me, but if that does not meet the point that he has made—it is clear that it does not—I hope that my noble friend will allow me to write to him.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

Before my noble friend sits down, will he go just one step further on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the case to which he referred, which seems on the face of it to be extremely serious if the facts as reported by Channel 4 last night are correct? Will he undertake to provide an answer and place it in the Library, and as soon as possible? I can see that, since the inquest has not taken place as yet, it would be all too easy for Ministers to hide behind that fact and not give us urgent advice on what seems to be a major problem with the way in which the immigration law is operating at present.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not want to be difficult. This matter is clearly not associated with an amendment or even this part of the Bill, but I am sympathetic to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lord Tyler have made. I will do my best to inform the House on the facts of the matter as much as I am able. If matters are sub judice, it would be inappropriate for any Minister to interfere with due process. I hope that noble Lords will understand that. I am always prepared to answer either Oral Questions or Written Questions on any subject, but we are here to debate the Immigration Bill. It may interest the noble Lord to learn that I am going on a removal flight on Friday to Kosovo and Albania. I want to see what goes on. I share the noble Lord’s determination to make sure that things that are done in our name are done properly. I hope that with that reassurance my noble friend will understand why I do not want to give an answer at the Dispatch Box at the moment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I will add to the comments of previous noble Lords in support of my noble friend Lady Doocey and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. As I said earlier, 30 years’ experience in the Metropolitan Police left me wondering whether the Independent Police Complaints Commission was truly independent. We have seen recent cases where the IPCC has not only apparently not been particularly independent but has not understood when a case is serious. It was only after officers had given evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee about the meeting between the former Chief Whip and Police Federation officers that the IPCC decided that the case was serious enough to take on as an independent investigation rather than referring it back to the police to investigate themselves.

Another less well known case is that of former officers in the Metropolitan Police who have complained about the way in which the Directorate of Professional Standards conducted an investigation against them. A complaint made to the IPCC was referred back to the Directorate of Professional Standards in the Metropolitan Police for it to investigate itself, which does not give much confidence to members of the public that things are being independently investigated. Clearly, having a former constable as the director of investigations—somebody who is controlling how investigations are carried out—does not appear to me to inspire confidence in the public that the IPCC is independent.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon; bearing in mind that he used to be my boss, it would be rude of me not to agree with him, and I notice nods from the other former commissioners who are in their place. However, I will say that I spent 15 years in uniform and was made an instant detective chief inspector overnight, such was the need at a certain time in the history of the Metropolitan Police. I received a visit some weeks later from my detective chief superintendent, who said, “Now you know what the secret is”—that there is really nothing much to being a detective.

I agree that the timescale set out in my noble friend Lady Doocey’s amendment may be ambitious but it is something that we need to aspire to in order give the public confidence. I am sure that there are people in other walks of life, such as former customs officers, who have not only the skills but the experience to investigate these sorts of issues. People who have not had previous experience of investigations could be given the necessary training to carry out effective investigations into alleged police malpractice.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lady Doocey for not being present for the first minute or so of her speech. She caught me out by moving faster than I anticipated and I apologise, too, if she made this point, about the general reputation of the police service. I have some past experience, as a member of a police authority for some six years and then as constituency Member of Parliament. I had to deal with not only the police service but occasionally of course, unfortunately, with the IPCC as well.

The police service itself would welcome a greater sense of independence from the IPCC because there is a perception—we all know in politics that the perception is very often more important than the reality—that there is an overcosy relationship between the police service and the IPCC that is almost incestuous. The case that has been made on all sides of the Committee for reinforcing the IPCC’s degree of independence is extremely important, not just for the reputation of the IPCC itself but for the overall reputation of the whole police service, which, as we all know today, is questionable. It is sad to say but, for those of us who rate the police service very highly and have a great respect for it, its reputation for integrity is not as great as we would like it to be. There would be support from within the service for a greater sense of independence between the IPCC and police officers themselves. On that basis, I hope there will be a very sympathetic response from the Minister.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I first spoke in a debate on the then gracious Speech in March 1974. I recall being mystified by that vital penultimate sentence heard again today: “other measures will be laid before you”. I could not then imagine that such innocent, innocuous words could be so important, but on many occasions since, they have proved to be the most significant warning of political earthquakes to be anticipated—in Harold Macmillan’s words, “Events, dear boy, events”. Those words today give me—and, it would seem, many other Members who have spoken in the debate—hope that there will be other vital measures excluded at present from the text of the gracious Speech.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Lang, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred yesterday to the absence from the gracious Speech of any reference to reform of your Lordships’ House. For once, I and my party shed no tears for that omission. We could hardly have expected the resurrection of the Government’s 2012 Bill.

However, it is salutary to remind Members that, far from being defeated in the House of Commons, as some members of this House have recently started to claim, the Bill received a record majority last July of 338 votes at Second Reading in the other place. Indeed, a majority of MPs in all three major parties supported it: 193 votes to 89 in the Conservative Party, 202 votes to 26 in the Labour Party and 53 votes to nil in the Liberal Democrats.

I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Fowler said earlier. He made an extraordinarily powerful case for the primacy of the House of Commons in this debate, as also in the others to which he referred. Had the Labour Party agreed to a programme Motion—any programme Motion—to ensure that the time on the Bill was well managed, we would now, in May 2013, be faced with legislation which had received Royal Assent, or which had been carried over, or a Bill which was to be subjected to the provisions of the Parliament Act. I suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was being rather disingenuous yesterday in failing to acknowledge the role that her party played in postponing serious reform. The truth is that her party sacrificed political reform at the altar of political opportunism. When its time came to make a difference, it funked it.

I am certain that the matter of reforming this House will come back to us in due course. Unless the result of the 2015 general election is a very long way from the current state of the parties, there will certainly be a majority in favour of reform. I hope that then, rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel, the incoming Cabinet—whatever its political composition—will simply reintroduce the 2012 Bill, which was backed by such a huge majority in this Parliament, and get on with the job in a workmanlike manner.

Meanwhile, to avoid any possible perception or accusation of personal interest, I suggest that party leaders would be wise to make it clear that any MP who voted to retain the fully appointed House should not expect to be nominated to join us here. It would do nothing for the reputation of either House of Parliament, or of politics generally, for them to be seen to be rewarded for putting self-interest ahead of their manifesto promises to the electorate.

I know that one “other measure” that many in this House would like laid before us is progress on modest changes to the membership of the House, along the lines of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood. Through all the muttering about this, I am never quite sure which Bill colleagues are referring to: Steel mark 1, which would have converted hereditary Peers into life Peers by abolishing the barmy by-elections, or Steel mark 2, which was filleted for easy digestion by hereditary Peers even before it completed its Committee stage in your Lordships’ House? The latter would hardly change the current situation. After all, there is already a retirement scheme—two Members have taken advantage of it—and the only other provisions related to disqualification. Anyone inside or outside this House who pinned their hopes on that latter Bill relieving overcrowding or easing the entry of new Peers was doomed to disappointment. Had the original Bill survived, I for one might have been bemoaning its absence from the gracious Speech, but the absence of Steel Mark 2 is no loss.

There are two other commitments in the party manifestos and the coalition agreement that seem to have been lost along the way, and which I still hope will be seen in this Session as “other measures”. First, the coalition agreement boldly stated:

“We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency”.

I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues in both Houses had high hopes of progress on that issue. It was indeed the Prime Minister who, as Leader of the Opposition, in the run-up to the 2010 election, rightly said that unregulated lobbying was,

“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.

However, we also know that solid and sensible proposals have been considered in government, and cannot understand why they have been delayed.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, lobbying by and for powerful interests—she may have been thinking of the Murdoch empire—under both the previous and the present Government has brought to the fore the urgent need to deal with lobbying. I understand that Mr Lynton Crosby, who previously helped the Conservative Party when it was “the nasty party”, is reputed to consider such issues as mere barnacles on the ship of state to be completely ignored in deciding electoral principles. As an Antipodean, he should know that too many barnacles can dangerously impede the smooth travel of any vessel on a long-distance voyage. I prefer the view of Cameron to Crosby, of the captain to the cabin boy, of the organ-grinder to the monkey.

Then we come to the vexed issue of money and politics. Following firm commitments in party manifestos in 2010, the coalition agreement promised:

“We will also pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics”.

Those interparty discussions have indeed been taking place, but apparently without any outcome. We can hope only that they, too, will still result in “other measures” in this Session. The current situation is far from satisfactory. As a member of the informal all-party group which advises the Electoral Commission, I have been only too well aware of the yawning gaps in the present monitoring, reporting and control regime when it comes to the funding of political campaigning activity which falls outside the normal definitions of party and candidate support. An enterprising Russian oligarch, bored with football clubs, or some other maverick multi-millionaire could completely distort the campaigns in 2014 and 2015. Buying political influence through third-party campaigning organisations with vast sums of money, from outside the well established rules for the parties, could take us along the discredited road that they have experienced in the USA.

To draw attention to this unsatisfactory situation, and to emphasise that this is certainly unfinished business after the excellent November 2011 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on this issue, I and a number of parliamentarians from across parties have been contributing to the preparation of a draft Bill. This will be published for consultation next week at a seminar to be chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, newly retired as chairman of that committee. In the absence of proposals from the Government or from those official discussions, we can but hope that this draft Bill could still stimulate yet another “other” measure for this Session. Certainly, without appropriate legislation, there is a real danger that the campaigns for the 2014 European parliamentary elections and for the general election a year later—and their outcomes—could be mired in controversy. Where then would be the promise of this Government to take the big money out of politics?

I welcome what the gracious Speech does to maintain the Government’s course towards a stronger, more sustainable economy while building a fairer society. There are many measures in the gracious Speech that will assist in these endeavours, and it is these that are central to the Liberal Democrat contribution to the coalition. But on these Benches we still strongly believe that a fairer society is also contingent on open, plural politics in which all views are represented and all voices heard. We will continue to press for those “other measures” that would help to make that happen.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the eloquent case made by my noble friend Lord Lexden, but I want to speak briefly as a former Member of the House of Commons and one who was devoted to his Cornish constituents.

One of the benefits of the single-Member constituency system that we have is that it provides a very special local link between each area and one Member of Parliament. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Lorton of Louth, speak eloquently in support of that principle, so I am surprised to see him endorse this amendment in its current form. It is true that the countries in the European Union that my noble friend Lord Lexden cited all have different electoral systems; they do not have the same direct link with the individual constituency as we have. I want to put the debate about overseas electors in that context.

If an MP’s primary role is to represent his or her area, and the constituents within it at that time, how does that square with a proposal which would see him or her representing people who live perhaps thousands of miles away in a very different economic and social context? And should we really equate in value the vote of someone who has departed—some would say deserted—this country for 15 years or more in favour of the Spanish sunshine with that of a British soldier currently serving his country in Afghanistan? That would be the effect of the amendment.

In 2020, it will be 15 years since I retired from the other place—in that respect, I sort of left North Cornwall then. It is surely beyond the limit of what is reasonable to ask my excellent successor in North Cornwall to represent after 2020 people who left that constituency as long ago as I did.

I accept, as my noble friend said, that there is some validity in the notional principle here about taxation without representation. In that connection, perhaps we should look at the system used for French national elections, to which reference was made, where representatives of a number of special “overseas” constituencies are elected in national elections by French voters who live abroad but who still somehow have a stake in French society. If more than 76,000 electors registered for such a constituency, it would justify under the previous legislation that we passed in your Lordships’ House having that separate constituency, but we are not in that position. However, that would be much less arbitrary than marrying people in perpetuity to an area with which they have had no direct connection for more than 15 years.

It has been asked whether there should be taxation without representation. Well, perhaps we should also think about representation without taxation. Why should someone who has lived on the Costa del Sol for the past 15 years still vote by post in local elections and therefore influence the local level of council tax in Cornwall for residents of Coads Green or Crantock in my former constituency?

Those of my overseas friends who have urged this change may come to regret raising this issue; they should be careful what they wish for. If all those overseas who have retained the right to vote in the United Kingdom in recent years now find themselves having to pay council tax, higher VAT or fuel tax, or even additional taxes imposed by the devolved Assemblies, the proposers of these amendments may not be as popular as they apparently are with overseas voters at the moment.

Meanwhile, I am particularly alarmed by the proposal under Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lexden for overseas citizens to be able to vote online. While that same convenience is not afforded to our own fellow citizens in this country at the moment, it would seem extraordinary to extend it to those people. As we know from previous experiments, there are real problems about that proposal anyway, quite apart from its unfairness, because it could raise a major risk of fraud.

For those practical reasons, we on these Benches ask my noble friend the Leader of the House and other Ministers to take the problem of taxation without representation seriously, of course, but also to find a solution which is less invidious and which properly recognises that our current system of single-Member constituencies makes it extremely unfair to introduce this particular proposal in this form.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, as one would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, made a cogent and well researched point in favour of effectively extending the timeframe not only beyond 15 years but perhaps indefinitely, so long as one can still claim British citizenship. Therein lie various practical problems, which I will come to in a moment.

My noble friend Lord Lipsey said that of the 5.6 million overseas voters only 23,000 currently take advantage of that, which suggests that the demand is not very great. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made the point about the key principle in our country of representing a constituency and those who live within it. We await with interest the result of the determination of the European Court of Human Rights, but I recall discussing this problem with a representative from the country in the European Union which is probably the closest to us—that is, the Republic of Ireland. A friend who was a Senator from Ireland said, “Well, think of all the Irish people who are overseas, the Irish diaspora. If we were to give a vote to them all, there would probably be a Sinn Fein Government in Ireland”. That is the point he was making.

Clearly the intention is obvious—to extend the vote to as many overseas British citizens as possible. I shall be brief because there is an important debate to follow, but there are clearly technical problems and grounds of principle that make one feel very cautious about this proposal. The potential numbers have been mentioned, particularly as more people travel and work overseas. There may be British citizens in Australia, Pakistan, Canada, Bangladesh and of course in all the European Union countries. There is a great range of countries and it will be very difficult to check adequately the bona fides of those who claim citizenship and claim to be eligible to vote. How do we prevent fraud? Those problems will be formidable and there will be also be a great problem in checking whether people are still alive after their last declaration.

On the grounds of principle, I recall the debate in the other place in 1985 when there was a package of proposals. I concede that the length of time is arbitrary but there was a consensus result at that time. Now of course the numbers are very much greater and we have, as has been cited, the reverse of the Boston Tea Party—that is, representation without taxation. We cannot extend that totally because many of the British citizens living overseas will be eligible for British pensions and therefore they have some stake in this country. Perhaps it would be better to say “representation without a substantial stake in this country”? Everyone who is resident in the UK has that substantial stake and those who live for perhaps a very extended period overseas increasingly lose sight of this country and lose sight of any stake they may have in it. Therefore, their stakeholding in this country becomes less and less serious. I will not go any further save to say that in my judgment there are considerable technical problems in the proposal and there are also major obstacles of principle.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has presented the amendment with enormous clarity and great conviction. As chair of the Constitution Committee, I can say that we have been working on this question for some time. We held a stand-alone inquiry on it in the autumn of 2011 and published our first report in January 2012. The most interesting thing about the difference between the report that we issued then and our subsequent scrutiny report on the Bill that is before your Lordships’ Committee this evening is that the Electoral Commission changed its mind between the two reports. That is significant. It looked at the evidence that we had taken and engaged in extensive correspondence and “offline” discussion with us and came back in October with the report from which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has quoted extensively. I think that it was convinced by the arguments that we made—I am sure that it was by others, too, and took other evidence—and, at the same time, the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, have continued to advance the same arguments. We heard those arguments last Wednesday when Chloe Smith represented the Government at a meeting of the Constitution Committee and put forward precisely the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has described.

It seems obvious that the fundamental right to vote is the question on which we should focus, and that the law in relation to this matter focuses almost exclusively on the rights and responsibilities of the statutory role of a returning officer and not on the right to vote. If one looks at it from the perspective of the voter, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, again has said, we can be talking about small numbers, but it is worth remembering that the Electoral Commission reckons that around 1,200 people were affected in 2010 by the law as it stands and the individual is very important in this respect. I would just add—not that it is significant in terms of statistical comparisons, but it is still relevant—that, in 47 constituencies in the 2010 election, fewer than 1,200 votes formed the majority, and in 28 constituencies, fewer than 600 votes formed the majority. In a sense, this can be significant, and if one puts value on the individual vote, as I certainly do, then the human right to vote is clearly very important.

The argument which was very current before our discussions with the Electoral Commission last year was that the law as it stood was secure. The Constitution Committee challenged this because when we looked at the two cases that were being relied on at that stage—one from 1901 and one from 2001, almost exactly 100 years later—it was very clear that these depended on the impact and role of the returning officers and not on the individual voter. We think that the time has come to achieve clarity about the rights and responsibilities of the individual voter, which could be done by this simple amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has already referred to the example of Scotland. I would refer also to the example of the United States, where in the presidential elections last November there were certain polling areas where queues were in place two hours after the official closing of the poll and yet the votes were still counted. This is something that we need to look at very swiftly and in time for the 2015 election.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. We strongly support the amendment. The fact that it is presented to the Committee by four very distinguished members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee gives it rather special significance.

In general, we should trust the presiding officer in the polling station to use his or her common sense. It is their role to use their discretion in that respect. However, if anything, they should surely seek to give every opportunity to the elector who has come in good faith, and in good time in most circumstances, to vote.

I am reminded of an incident when I went at about 11 am to a very remote polling station in a draughty caravan in the middle of Bodmin Moor in a winter election. It was the smallest electorate in my then constituency; indeed, there were only 18 people on the electoral register, and 17 of them had long since voted at 11 am. Everybody knew that the 18th person had actually died in the last few weeks before the poll. Yet of course the presiding officer and his assistant had to stay there in that bitterly cold caravan for the following 11 hours.

I give that example because, of course, we do not know how many presiding officers in May 2010 used their common sense to give a ballot paper to those who were actually within the building and standing in a queue ready to vote, having been there perhaps for some time, without already being given a ballot paper. We only know about the ones who were kept out by those who thought perhaps they were doing precisely the right thing in the circumstances—the 1,200. However, in my view it is incumbent on this House and the Government to try to clarify this situation. It is clearly the case that in May 2010 a large number of people were disenfranchised by the circumstances of the particular polling station and by a sensible approach not being taken in the terms to which the noble Baroness so eloquently referred—the human right to vote in a democratic society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness makes an interesting suggestion. It is rather like the doorkeepers here keeping the doors open after eight minutes; in exactly the same way, it is quite difficult to close the doors. It is definable, though, and I accept what the noble Baroness says. It is easier to manage a building in which the writ of the polling clerks actually operates than perhaps a street scene, where it would be quite difficult for polling clerks to define to an individual person that they were outside the scope of the queue because they joined the queue after 10 pm. That is in effect what we are having to suggest, is it not?

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has just said because it showed an openness of mind that I confess I have not previously witnessed from Ministers on this issue. I wonder if I could take this a step further: has he any evidence that every single presiding officer in every single polling station in the country did not take what I would regard as the common-sense view, when someone was standing there in the polling station ready to get a ballot paper when the clock struck 10 pm, and issue them with a ballot paper?

The Minister has referred to exit polls. I do not think that Parliament should worry too much about those who conduct exit polls. Those polls are taken only when people come out of the polling station, so frankly they are not relevant in the present circumstances to what we have been discussing. However, I am very encouraged by his openness of mind; perhaps with an appropriate tweak to this amendment, we might all make some progress.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I would like to add one sentence: one of the legal advisers to the Constitution Committee said that he thought it was beyond common sense to suggest that it was impossible for the parliamentary draftsmen to define a queue in terms that would be properly understood in an Act or a piece of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 55, I shall speak also to Amendments 56 and 57. As I would hope would be fairly obvious, Amendments 56 and 57 are alternatives should Amendment 55 not find favour. The amendments address the issue of the edited version of the electoral register. My starting point is that the current position in respect of personal data supplied by electors is not sustainable. Some electors find that they are included in the edited version, even though they have no wish to be included. Some find their personal data being made available through organisations selling data taken from the register, on occasion apparently even though they have opted out of being included in the edited version.

By introducing individual electoral registration, the Bill goes some way to addressing the problem. It means that each elector has to make a decision as to whether they wish to opt out of the edited version of the register, whereas at present the head of the household may make that decision, which could mean a decision taken, for instance, by an official on behalf of students residing in college. The Bill, however, does not go far enough. The retention of the edited version raises a fundamental issue of principle. It entails the harvesting and sale of personal data as a by-product of a civic duty imposed on citizens.

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, as well as the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators have argued that the edited register should be abolished. As the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has argued:

“Whatever benefit it might bring, we cannot justify the sale to commercial organisations of personal details gathered by the Government for electoral purposes”.

The Electoral Commission has reiterated its support for abolition of the edited version in its briefing notes on this Bill. As it notes, prohibiting the production and sale of the register is particularly important, given the need to maintain people’s confidence in the security of their personal details. In December 2011, the Guardian editorialised that the edited register,

“lingers on, a travesty of the democratic process that sullies the relationship between voter and state, and illustrates just how casually politicians think about democracy”.

There are then objections of principle to having an edited register. There are problems with the mechanism by which the names of electors are included. When the sale of the full electoral register was deemed illegal, the edited version was introduced with an opt-out provision. If one does not opt out of having one’s name included, it is assumed that one wants one’s name included in the edited register. The Government cannot be certain that those whose names appear in the edited version of the register want their names to be included. The extent to which the opt-out provisions are explained to electors appears to differ, but even if it was explained on a consistent and prominent basis, we still cannot be sure that the edited version comprises the names solely of those who wish their names to appear.

There are thus significant problems arising from the generation and publication of an edited register. At the heart of it, however, is an issue of principle. I am familiar with the arguments for its retention which are, essentially, practical arguments and are variously advanced in the magazine Parliamentary Brief and in the other place by Dan Rogerson. They do not engage with the issue of principle. The argument is that the edited version brings economic benefits because of the use made of it by commercial organisations. I understand that the Government were considering abolishing the register but have now been swayed by this argument. One would have thought that it was obvious why commercial organisations bought the edited register but this seems only now to have dawned on the Government.

There is a separate argument—essentially a public good argument—that some bodies use the edited version for altruistic reasons or for purposes that have a public benefit, such as tracing lost family members. I would have thought that the benefit is limited, given the scale of electors opting out of the edited register, and that there is a case for allowing bodies access to the full register where they can meet a public benefit test.

In response to the report of the Constitutional and Political Reform Committee, the Government said the arguments were “finely balanced”. In terms of principle, I am not sure that they are. I think principle trumps any commercial benefit. There is no public benefit in selling the edited register, other than a broad and incidental benefit in that it helps commercial organisations to trade, but that benefit would apply in all sorts of contexts where firms could operate in a way that conflicts with basic principles, be they in relation to the franchise or, say, working practices.

Amendment 55 thus prohibits the production and sale of the edited version of the register prior to the commencement of individual electoral registration in 2014. That is the clear-cut option. It gets rid of the edited register. That is my preferred option. If, however, the Government wish to persevere with an edited register—I would prefer that they did not—then Amendments 56 and 57 modify the existing arrangements. Amendment 56 is designed to get the Government thinking about who should have access to the edited register. It provides that only bodies designated by the Secretary of State as having a legitimate purpose for seeking access should be allowed to purchase it. My preference, as I have indicated, would be to abolish the edited version and introduce a public benefit test to allow bodies, other than presently permitted to do so, to have access to the full register. However, I put the amendment down to encourage reflection on the point.

Of the alternative options, Amendment 57 is the important one. This also engages an important principle. If—I stress if—the edited register is to be maintained, then it is essential that we move from an opt-out provision to an opt-in provision. In other words, electors should be included in the edited register only if they have explicitly given their consent to their inclusion. It is not sufficient to assume that they wish to be included if they do not opt out. Consent must be given rather than assumed.

The Government’s response may be that, although desirable in principle, there are practical difficulties, perhaps insurmountable problems, in introducing an opt-in provision. If that is the argument, then there is a clear alternative: get rid of the edited register. The choice is between Amendments 55 and 57. Either get rid of the edited register or introduce an opt-in provision. Leaving the situation as it is with the edited register is neither acceptable nor sustainable. I invite the Minister to indicate the Government’s preference. If he merely repeats the mantra that the arguments are finely balanced but things will remain as they are, we will be having this debate on further occasions. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is absolutely right to raise this issue in this context because the change to individual electoral registration provides a precise opportunity to think about this matter again. As he properly said, it already improves the situation and it is the right moment to be looking at this issue.

However, I confess that I am somewhat bemused. The most persuasive case for retaining the edited register has come from charities and credit agencies, both of which have a proper and natural interest that we should recognise. Theirs is a proper use of this data. It is rather unusual to hear a Conservative, of all people, apparently decrying that very proper interest of such organisations in accurate data of this sort.

It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is introducing a new idea, as he has done just now, by suggesting that some organisations of that sort should have access to the full register. That brings us to a very difficult problem of definition because under Amendment 56, he is apparently defining what a commercial purpose is. A credit agency would certainly be a commercial purpose. Is seeking to raise money for a charity not also a commercial purpose? I find it slightly bewitching at this time of night that a dedicated Conservative Peer appears to denigrate the idea of having a commercial purpose at all, as if it is somehow a disreputable activity. I therefore have a problem of definition under Amendment 56.

However, I return to my original point. It is perfectly right, proper and appropriate that we should ask the Government at this stage to be thinking about this matter. Amendment 57 is clearly the least objectionable option that the noble Lord has put forward, but I wonder whether, if electors had to opt into an edited register, many would do so and whether the whole exercise would become a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare. The opt-in option would, in that sense, be a red herring.

However, this is obviously the right moment to be asking Ministers to think again, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do just that. If he is unable to make progress in persuading the Committee in one direction or another, perhaps this is a matter that we will have to return to on Report.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I welcome that contribution from my noble friend Lord Tyler because he points to the fact that commercial activity is highly desired by this Government. We look for the growth agenda and when people are looking for a job, they perhaps think that that is a bigger principle than anything that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth may have raised.

I should make it clear that, before 2002, the full register was available for purchase by commercial organisations. There was no opt-out and no edited version was available. The edited version was produced in order to protect individuals who did not want such purchases to happen, and that opt-out arrangement remains current and will continue through the change to individual voter registration.

There has been discussion with interested parties on this matter. This is not the Government making their mind up without having discussed these matters with commercial organisations and electoral organisers. The Government have decided, on balance, to retain the edited register and the current opt-out arrangements. However, were the edited register to be abolished, there would be strong pressure for increased access to the full electoral register, from which no one can opt out. The Government are concerned about the potential impact this could have on registration rates; if people did not want to be removed from this register by an opt-out, they may choose not to register at all. On balance, the Government believe that an edited register from which electors can choose to opt out is the right outcome. It is worth noting, as I said before, that before the creation of the edited register in 2002, the full electoral register, including everyone’s name, address and details, was available for purchase by any commercial or other organisation.

Amendment 56 is, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth says, a little by way of an “either/or”. It would prohibit the use of an edited edition of the electoral register for commercial purposes, and require the Secretary of State to define designated organisations. We are aware that some within the electoral community have argued that data collected for electoral purposes should not be used for commercial gain. On the other hand, I have presented the case for the use of the register as an aid to business and commerce. I hope that my noble friend will take that seriously. Others have argued that the edited register provides significant economic and social benefits. Crucially, anyone who does not wish their details to be used for commercial—or any other—purposes is able to opt out of the edited register.

Under IER, registration forms will also include a statement on the processing of the data supplied by the individual, including the uses of the registers. The Government are reviewing the name and description of the two versions of the electoral register to ensure that it is as clear as possible to registering voters what the circumstances are and to enable them to make a fully informed choice. Given this important safeguard, I see no reason to limit the uses to which the edited register can be put.

My noble friend’s Amendment 57 would remove the current opt-out arrangements for the edited version of the electoral register, in favour of an opt- in. The Government take the handling of personal information seriously and believe that providing electors with a choice to opt out, alongside sufficient information—of which I have given an indication to my noble friend—to allow the individual to make an informed choice, provides appropriate protection and control. Electors will also be familiar with the choice of an opt-out; this has been in operation for a decade now.

However, we believe that the current system, where most electors are asked to make a fresh choice each year about whether they wish to opt out, is unnecessary. We are therefore proposing that under IER an individual’s choice will be carried forward unless and until they inform their registration officer that they wish to make a new choice or they complete a new application to register. We also intend to make it as simple and straightforward as possible for electors to change their preference at any time.

I hope that noble Lords will believe that I have tried to give as positive a response as I can. We are sensitive to the issues which underlie my noble friend’s amendments, but I ask him to withdraw them.