Electoral Administration Bill

I was not expecting my drafting amendment to attract so much attention. I hate to think what debate my later amendments will generate in the light of that. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said. I made two or three notes in order to respond. No sooner had I done so than the Minister got to her feet and made the very points that I had noted. The problem with the existing wording—as the Minister indicated and as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, admitted explicitly—is that ““more than one”” can be interpreted as two. Therefore, that seems to impose a quite unnecessary commitment. The noble Lord identified a problem, but it does not concern the wording of my draft; it is the consequences of it, if you like. The Minister correctly stated that the important wider context is the duty that is imposed on registration officers. The issue is not how the amendment is drafted but the fulfilment of that duty. Therefore, it is a question not of drafting but of resources being made available to registration officers to fulfil their duty. As the Minister explained, this is a clearer wording. It prevents registration officers from feeling that they have to do something which is unnecessary if they have achieved it on a first visit. I agree completely with what the Minister said—the amendment clarifies the position. There is a wider issue, but it is not to do with the wording. My understanding is that the Minister is in agreement and that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does not object to the amendment.