The
Chairman: May I assist the Committeeparticularly
the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute? I say this, of course, before the
Minister has replied to the debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to
press one or both of his amendments to a Division, he will need to make
it clear during the debate. As I say, the Minister is yet to reply, but
I have to advise him that if he does not make it clear, the Chair will
proceed to put the question on adding the clause to the Bill straight
away. I hope that will help the hon. Gentleman to make up his mind. Of
course, we now depend on the Ministers
reply.
Mr.
Wills: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for
Argyll and Bute at any point during my relatively brief remarks. I am
grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epping Forest
for their understanding of the special circumstances in Northern
Ireland. We all accept that. Unfortunately, like the people of the
United States of America, I shall reject the advice of the hon.
Lady. The
amendments will more carefully align the method of filling seats with
the current method of filling vacancies in the Northern Ireland
Assembly where a list of up to six possible substitutes can be
submitted prior to the election. However, hon. Members may be aware
that the
Government recently laid an order to change the
method for filling vacancies in the Assembly to one similar to that
proposed in new clause 18. When consulting on possible changes to the
method of filling vacant European parliamentary seats, the Northern
Ireland Office also consulted on changes to the method of filling
vacant Assembly seats. The consultation paper noted that the current
substitutes method used to fill seats in the Assembly can be
problematic in situations where those designated as substitutes are
unwilling or unable to fill the seat when the vacancy arises,
particularly if they have assumed other responsibilities during the
Assembly term or if other factors have emerged since they were first
listed as a substitute. Indeed, the person may have defected from the
party to which they belonged when they were listed as a
substitute. The
vast majority of respondents to the consultations, including the four
largest political parties in Northern Ireland, agreed that reform was
needed. With that in mind, I hope that the Committee will agree that it
is not appropriate now that the system has been changed to reintroduce
a system for
filling
David
Howarth: I am interested in what the Minister is saying.
Can he give any instances in which the problem to which he refers
actually happened, and what the resolution
was?
Mr.
Wills: It is not so much whether it has actually happened.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is a possibility
that it could happen and, as we have heard many times in this
Committee, we must legislate for reasonable possibilities as well. With
that in mindgiven that we have conducted the consultation and
that the four largest political parties in Northern Ireland agree that
the changes should be made to the Northern Ireland Assemblythe
changes in new clause 18 would align the method for filling vacancies
in the Northern Ireland Assembly with that for filling vacancies in the
European Parliament. It seems almost perverse to accept amendments that
would return to a system that the four largest political parties in
Northern Ireland want to change.
David
Howarth: Just to put it on the record, it does not have
the consent of the fifth largest party, the Alliance party. There is
another way out of the problem. France, I believe, has a
supplĂ(c)ant system for elections to the National Assembly. A party
can put forward a supplĂ(c)ant, and if the supplĂ(c)ant does
not want to do the job, a by-election must be held. That risk is up to
the
party.
Mr.
Wills: We have discussed by-elections, and I was careful
to say the four largest political parties in Northern
Ireland. That is an important consideration. As I said, it
would be perverse not to seek to align the two systems, and I very much
hope [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman
will be interested to hear that I have just been informed that,
although the consultation was widespread, the Alliance party did not
respond to it, which might account for the fact that it is not part of
the consensus. However, I am not sure that it would be anything other
than perverse to resist the amendments, and I hope that the Committee
will not do
so. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
read a Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause
19CORE
information and action to be taken by electoral registration
officers (1) Section 2 of
the Electoral Administration Act 2006 (c. 22) (co-ordinated
on-line record of electors: use of information) is amended as
follows. (2) In subsection
(6) (a) in paragraph
(b), after is requested there is inserted in
respect of the same address
or; (b) in paragraph
(c), for acts as there is substituted is
appointed as, or votes
as,. (3) After
subsection (6) there is
inserted (6A) A
CORE scheme may require that where a CORE keeper informs an ERO as
mentioned in subsection (5), or informs an ERO of any suspicions that
the CORE keeper has concerning the commission of an offence under the
1983 Act or other
impropriety (a) the ERO
must take such steps (if any) as appear to the ERO to be appropriate in
response to being so
informed; (b) the ERO must
notify the CORE keeper of the steps taken (or of the reasons for not
taking any), within such period and in such form and manner as is
specified (i) in the
scheme, or (ii) by the CORE
keeper in accordance with the
scheme. (4) In
subsection (7)(b), after relating to the person there
is inserted , or to any such suspicions as are mentioned in
subsection (6A),. (5)
In subsection (11) (a)
for must not authorise there is substituted
must not (a)
authorise; (b) at the
end there is
inserted (b)
authorise one ERO to supply information to
another..[Mr.
Wills.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Wills: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
129.
Mr.
Wills: I am moving this clause now because it is necessary
for the successful implementation of the co-ordinated online record of
electors scheme, and if we do not pass it, there may be delays in the
implementation of the scheme. Subsection (2) expands the circumstances
in which the CORE keeper must inform an electoral registration officer
that improprieties involving electoral records or potential absent
voter fraud may have arisen.
As for postal
votes, the CORE keeper will now be required to notify electoral
registration officers when more than a specified number of postal votes
are requested for a single address, as well as for a redirection
address. That is in response to feedback from electoral registration
officers that the number of postal vote redirections is minimal and
that there would be greater value in looking at all instances when
large numbers of postal votes have been requested to close the
opportunity for postal vote fraud to occur.
12.15
pm The
new clause also provides that the CORE keeper will be required to
notify electoral registration officers when the same person is
appointed or votes as proxy for more than two electors. Being appointed
as proxy for more than two electors is not in itself an offence, but
voting as proxy for more than two electors who are not close relatives
is. The new clause will provide an opportunity for electoral
registration officers to remind those appointed as proxies of the legal
position. Subsection
(3) of the new clause extends the Secretary of States
order-making powers in respect of a CORE scheme order so that he or she
can require an electoral registration officer to take steps, if any,
that seem to the electoral registration officer to be an appropriate
response to a notification from the CORE keeper. It will be the
responsibility of the electoral registration officer to decide what
steps should be taken or whether steps should be taken at all. That is
consistent with the nature of the statutory appointment of electoral
registration officers, in that they are ultimately responsible for
their own electoral registers. When deciding how to respond to a
notification from the CORE keeper, electoral registration officers will
be free to make best use of their professional judgment, local
knowledge and
experience. Subsection
(3) also requires electoral registration officers to report to the CORE
keeper about either the steps taken in response to information provided
by the CORE keeper or the reasons for not taking steps. That will
enable the CORE keeper to maintain an overview of how the CORE scheme
is running and ensure consistency throughout the scheme. Subsection (4)
of the new clause allows the CORE keeper to provide relevant
information to an electoral registration officer when the CORE keeper
has a suspicion that an offence has been committed or may have been
committed under the Representation of the People Act 1983 or that there
has been some other
impropriety. Subsection
(5) of the new clause allows a CORE scheme to provide for the electoral
registration officers to share information with each other for the
purposes of responding to information supplied by the CORE keeper under
the provisions. That will allow electoral registration officers to work
together across electoral boundaries for the purpose of taking steps in
response to notifications from the CORE keeper. The new clause is
essential to the detection of fraud and in making sure that the
prevention functions of the CORE scheme work effectively. It will
ensure that the CORE scheme can be delivered without unnecessary
delay.
Mrs.
Laing: I am pleased that the Minister has tabled the new
clause because we support all efforts that are made by the Government
to stop electoral fraud. As I have said several times, we want the
workings of our democratic system to be absolutely watertight and we
are in favour of every reasonable measure taken to ensure that that is
brought about. When the CORE scheme was introduced, we supported it for
that
reason. However,
I am worried that, in the few years since the scheme was introduced, it
has not achieved anything. Little has been done, but it has cost a lot
of money. If that money were invested in improving our record on
electoral fraud, I would be all in favour of it, but we have seen a lot
of money spent and little result. The Minister might explain that there
is a long time lag in the spending of money and the setting up of some
parts
of the CORE scheme. If he does, I will have to accept that. However,
when we first discussed the matter during consideration of the
Electoral Administration Act 2006 some three years ago, we all hoped
that something along the lines of CORE would happen. We hoped that by
the time we were looking at another general election and the important
European elections that we are about to face, the CORE scheme might be
achieving something.
However, in a
written answer to a question that I put to the Minister a couple of
weeks ago, we discover that to date, the staff costs of CORE are
£2.78 million and that £1.73 million has been
spent to
enable local authorities electoral management systems to output
data in an agreed Election Mark Up Language (EML)
format.[Official Report, 23 October 2008; Vol.
481, c.
559W.] I
accept that those sums, and the other several thousands of pounds that
have been spent in the intervening period, are necessary. One does not
get the results if one does not invest in the technologyI am in
favour of that. However, I have a couple of questions to ask the
Minister in this respect.
Mr.
Wills: To clarify the point, is the hon. Lady suggesting
that we should not spend this money on getting an agreed system for
outputting
data?
Mrs.
Laing: No, not at all. I am saying that if we can see that
this expenditure is investment in a good system to combat fraud, we are
certainly in favour of it. I am not suggesting that it is an enormous
amount of money; it is a few million pounds, and when covering
the whole country, I accept that that is what these things cost. Every
penny of taxpayers money spent in this way will be well spent
if it brings about the result that we hope for.
However, two
aspects in particular concern me. I am sure that the Minister is aware
of these points and will be able to address them. The first is that,
generally, the Governments record on investing in technology
has not been good. In the Ministry of Justice alone, several projects
have gone way over budget and have not achieved what they ought to have
achieved. I am not suggesting that that has yet happened with the CORE
scheme. I also appreciate that the Minister has not had responsibility
for this area of policy development for very long, so I do not hold him
personally responsible, or suggest that he has not carried out his
duties properly. However, we have had many examples of massive
expenditure on Government technology, on computer systems that do not
work, on new technology which promises the earth and where Ministers
announce in the House, We will be able to achieve x, y and z
because we have spent £10 million on a, b and c,
and it does not happen. People rely on technology and it does not work.
Not only do the Government not achieve what they set out to achieve,
but they are often in a worse position than they were before they spent
all the money on the technology.
I hope that
that will not happen with CORE. I am not suggesting that the evidence
we have so far indicates that the whole CORE project is likely to fail
and I seriously hope that it does not. We want this project to work; we
want the fight against electoral fraud to be won and we will do all we
can to support the Government in that respect. I merely draw the
Ministers attention to
the fact that some of his colleagues have been very unsuccessful in
bringing about good end results in the technology projects that they
have started. I hope that he will be able to assure us that vast
amounts of money will not be spent on CORE to no avail. I appreciate
that he may have good explanations of why it has not achieved anything
yet, but I would like to give him the opportunity to say what it will
achieve in future, hopefully without the spending of further enormous
amounts of taxpayers
money. My
second concern is the security of data, another matter on which the
Government have a bad track record. Again, it is not this Minister and
this project that have been in troublefar from it. Let us hope
that they never will be. However, even he must admit that his
colleagues in many Departments have been responsible for massive losses
of data that should have been kept secure and safeguarded on behalf of
the members of the public to whom it related. My one
concern[Interruption.]
|