Mr.
Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I only have
three minutes to go and I want to make only one more point.
Finally, the
Electoral Commission has looked at the issue in great detail and it
sent me an e-mail today. I asked for some advice on the Northern
Ireland experience and whether the e-mail could be put in the public
domain. It
states: We
commissioned a series of research reports to monitor the impact of
individual registration on the numbers of people registered. The
research clearly showed that the requirement to conduct an annual
canvass tended to have a negative impact on the number of people
registered by as much as 2-3% per year. It was this, rather than
individual registration itself, which affected the numbers of people
registered. That
is crystal clear, and it
adds: An
analysis of the drop in numbers registered concluded that it was
largely explained by the removal of duplicate names that had been
contained in the household
register. That
is where the real fall came from; it is pretty unambiguous.
We should not
have had to rely on this e-mail. I will make it available to the
Committee and I am sure that the Electoral Commission will
too.
Peter Wardle,
in his oral evidence on 6 November said much the same. I will conclude
with that quote, and I think that I will be nicely on time. He
said: There
are legitimate concerns about the impact on the comprehensiveness of
the register...but in my view we can and should address those
concerns and should not make them a reason for continuing to put off
the introduction of individual registration and thereby putting off
addressing the accuracy and integrity of the register...a
21st-century modern western democracy
ought to be able to address both the integrity and accuracy of the
register and its comprehensiveness, but we will make no progress on
either of those things unless we get
started. [ Official Report, Political
Parties and Elections Public Bill Committee, 6 November 2008; c.
59,
Q153.] I
could not have put it better
myself. 6.30
pm
Mr.
Wills: Everyone on the Committee will agree that this has
been an extremely important and useful debate. I want to address the
new clauses in some detail and to make some general points of principle
in response to comments, but I shall start by correcting some of what
has been said during the
debate.
We have heard
several times from those on the Opposition Benches about a belief that
there is a legal duty on an elector to take proactive steps to register
to vote. That is not correct. A person is liable to be fined only if
they fail to respond to a registration officers request for
information. The next point was that the Government have taken no
action on electoral fraudI think I am referring to this
correctlyand that, somehow, we are insouciant about that which
exists. I shall briefly put the record
straight. On
postal voting, in measures in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and
associated secondary legislation, we have stipulated that postal voters
must specify a reason if they want their postal vote to be sent to an
address other than that at which they are registered. As administrators
get more time to check postal vote applications, there is a requirement
for electors to provide personal identifierssignature and date
of birthif they wish to have a postal vote. The identifiers
must be replicated by the elector when casting the postal vote, and
they will be cross-checked with the original samples to ensure that the
postal vote is
valid. There
is a new offence of falsely applying for a postal or proxy vote, and
new secrecy warnings on voting papers to deter attempts unlawfully to
influence anothers vote. There is a strengthened offence of
undue influence, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest alluded to and
which will make prosecution easier. Ballot papers have a security mark
to enable ballot papers to be validated. After every election, a list
of all those who voted by post is published, so that individuals can
check whether their vote was
counted. The
police can check with any individual whether they voted by post or
their vote was stolen. Police have been given more time to carry out
investigations of electoral fraudincreased from one year to two
years. There is a new criminal offence of supplying false information.
There are clear new powers for electoral administrators to cross-check
applications to register to vote against other information that the
councils
hold. That
brief listbrief in terms of timeshows how ridiculous it
is to say that we do not take such matters seriously. Of course we
do.
Mr.
Wills: I am also under constraints. If it is a highly
significant point, I shall happily give
way.
Mrs.
Laing: I agree with the Minister. We accept that the
Government take those matters seriously and therefore are amazed that
they are not going further with individual
registration.
Mr.
Wills: I am glada measure of consensus on that. I
hope we achieve consensus on some other things that I am about to
say. Specifically,
the hon. Member for Cambridge raised a detailed point about whether
electoral registration officers have been given enough resources to
check postal votes. It is an important point. We think that being able
to check 20 per cent. is statistically robust. Most people would think
that a reasonable argument. It is a good indicator of whether fraud is
occurring. Obviously, if an electoral officer thought that there was a
real risk of fraud, they could specify from the outset that all postal
voting statements would be
checked. We
are committed to the principle that 100 per cent. of returned postal
votes need checking, but we need to ensure that electoral
administrators have the necessary systems in placethat is a
question not so much of resources, but of the systems to do it. We
shall work with the Electoral Commission, electoral administrators and
software suppliers to establish when it will be appropriate and safe to
mandate 100 per cent. checking of postal votes. The opportunity is
there20 per cent. is statistically robust, but we are moving
towards that 100 per cent., which I hope the Committee agrees is the
desired
goal. We
had a whole series of hyperbolic statements about banana republics and
all the rest of it. I would urge all hon.
Members
Mr.
Tyrie: Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Wills: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, he might want
to hear the point I am making, then I shall be happy to give
way.
Mr.
Tyrie: I have heard the
point.
Mr.
Wills: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is
saying from a sedentary position that he has heard the point, he has
not. We
have had hyperbolic statements from those on the Opposition
BenchesI am referring to a small amount of what they said. All
I say to them is that they should be extremely careful when they use
such language to ensure that they are putting it in the correct
context. Hyperbole does not usually help a reasoned
argument. The
hon. Member for Chichester in particularI will give way to
himhas shown over and over again that he is well capable of
making an extremely logical and intellectually consistent argument. I
urge him to be careful about ruining it with
hyperbole.
Mr.
Tyrie: The Minister seemed to backtrack a fraction there.
If I may say so, he is a very good chap, too, and a very thoughtful
fellow. It is a bit rich to describe a High Court judge as exercising
hyperbole when he came out with the
phrase would
disgrace a banana
republic.
Mr.
Wills: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was at
great pains to point out that I was not accusing the High Court judge
of hyperbole; I was accusing the hon. Gentleman of hyperbole in the
context in which he was describing this. If he reads Hansard, he
will see that
I was urging him to be extremely careful about that. I do not think that
any objective [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to
consider, from their own experience of elections in this country,
whether they think it is appropriate to describe their own
participation in the electoral process as analogous to what goes on in
a banana republic. That is all I ask them to
consider.
Mr.
Tyrie: Will the Minister give way? That point really is
outrageous.
Mr.
Wills: Not at the moment, because I want to
raise
The
Chairman: Order. The Minister is not giving way. Will the
hon. Gentleman resume his
seat?
Mr.
Wills: We have spent a great deal of time on the new
clause. I have many important points that I want to make. If I may say
so, we can consider the question whether we are or are not a banana
republic as outside the purview of the
Committee. The
hon. Member for Chichester again raised a serious point about service
voters. That is a significant issue that we take seriously, and the
revised figures that he gave us underline how important it is. Of
course we take it seriously. As far as I am aware, there have not been
any detailed discussions with regard to the effect of individual
registration, but as I said this morning, there are continuing
discussions involving the Ministry of Defence, electoral administrators
and Ministry of Justice officials on that issue. We will certainly bear
it in mind as we move forward in this
area. Before
I come to the substance of my remarks, let me say this. A lot of
comparisons with other countries have been made. Without wishing to go
into great detail, I ask all hon. Members, when they listen to the hon.
Gentleman, to bear it in mind that in this country we have a democracy
of extremely long standing. We are almost unique in the world in that
sense. Obviously, our circumstances are different. As a constitutional
theorist of great distinction, he will know that our constitution
evolves. It evolves organically and it is right that it should do so.
The Bill is part of that organic evolution. I hope he can agree at
least on
that.
Mr.
Tyrie: I want to make a couple of quick points. The
Minister accused me of hyperbole, but the record will show that it was
a High Court judge who came out with the only phrase that the Minister
has identified to justify the
remark. I
would also like to point out that when I opposed the poll tax, which I
did quite vigorously from the inside, I pointed out that only two
countries had oneGuinea-Bissau and Papua New Guineaand
they had widespread civil unrest and had to turn it into a hut tax,
which is a bit like a council tax. What I am trying to point out is
that I do not know the answer to the international comparison point. I
said at the time that I had not looked at it closely, but someone had
pointed it out to me that Zimbabwe has household registration and he
thought that it was probably the only country to have
it.
Mr.
Wills: Finally, you will be relieved to hear,
Sir Nicholas. If the hon. Gentleman examines Hansard
tomorrow, he will see that I was referring to hyperbole as a matter of
context as much as to the exact remark. That was the point I was trying
to make. I think he will agree, as a great expert in these matters,
that that is also
possible. I
come to the substance of the debate. The hon. Gentleman said in his
opening remarks that this is the most important proposal, and he may
well be right. The time that we have taken to discuss it and the
distinguished contributions that we have heard from the hon. Member for
Epping Forest and from my hon. Friends show how important it is to the
Committee. I hope that we can make
progress. I
shall set out broad principles that I think should underpin our
discussionalthough not at great length, you will be relieved to
hear, Sir Nicholas. The debate has raised important issues of principle
that I think everyone agrees are fundamental to the health of our
democracy. I hope that we can also agree that no party has a monopoly
on either wisdom or propriety in these matters.
I hope that
we can agree on a number of basic propositions. First, I agree with
everything that has been said on the question of fraud. We can all
agree that fraud is corrosive of our democracy and that we must do
everything we can to tackle it. That is not at issue. However, it is
also clear, and the evidence suggests it, that fraud is not systemic
and not widespread. That is completely compatible with everything that
we have heard from Opposition Members. We have heard a lot of figures
today, but research by the Electoral Commission has found 23
convictions for offences set out in the Representation of the People
Act between 2000 and 2006, with the figures peaking in 2001. However,
as I have said, we cannot be complacent about even a single instance of
such fraud.
The second
proposition that I hope we can all agree on is that democracy is
undermined when significant numbers are not able to participate in
elections because they are not registered to do so. Again, the figures
can be disputed, but it is commonly agreed that about 3
million people are not able to vote because they are not registered,
although they are otherwise entitled to do so. Having said that, we can
also agree, whatever else we may disagree on, that the electoral system
itself must be beyond partisan dispute. While elections will always be
vigorously disputed, and rightly so, the foundations of the
electoral system should not be the subject of controversy.
Securing
consensus on change to the electoral system can be challenging and we
all recognise why that is. Political parties inevitably draw support
from different parts of society and different parts of the country.
That is inevitableaxiomatic, almost. However, it inevitably
produces an asymmetry of interest from time to time in pursuing
particular solutions to problems, and we have to recognise that that is
the case.
Therefore,
however justifiable any proposal may be in its own terms, we must
always be wary of seeking to implement solutions to any given problem
and implementing any given principle if, in doing so, it creates,
however inadvertently, a biased outcome in the electoral system as a
whole.
With those
opening remarks in mind, I hope that we can also agree as a Committee,
and as a House of Commons, that any changes to improve the electoral
systemwe recognise that it needs improvement; that is
consensual between usshould be subject to four tests: that of
the level playing field, being open, being fair and being
transparent. Any
changes should always be directed towards the fundamental goal of
creating a level playing field for all democratic political parties.
Anything that undermines that principle is axiomatically partisan and
risks illegitimacy. If the securing of one principle or another, no
matter how desirable in its own right, tilts the playing field in one
direction or another, without any countervailing action, it must,
inevitably, risk that perception of
illegitimacy. The
hon. Member for Chichester made an important point about securing
consent from society as a whole. I agree with him that that is of
paramount importance. If we do not have in our minds always the need to
pursue a level playing field, we will risk the securing of that
consent. The
second, third and fourth principles are quite obvious. Any changes
should clearly aim to make the system as open as possible so that all
voters entitled to vote should be able to do
so. Any
changes should aim to make the system as fair as possible, so that all
opportunities for systemic corruption and fraud are rooted out, and
they should aim to make the system as transparent as possible so that
everyone can see that it is open and fair. I hope that we can all agree
that such transparency is the best guarantor of openness and fairness.
Whatever changes are made should therefore be made in the interest of
the legitimacy of the system as a whole and not be subject to claims
that partisan advantage is being pursued. As the hon. Gentleman rightly
said, that would damage the chances of securing consent to the system
as a whole. Whether partisan advantage is actual or perceived, we need
to be extremely
careful. 6.45
pm To
that end, having as complete a register as possible is a starting point
to ensuring in so far as is practicable that all eligible voters are
registered and able to exercise their franchise. I shall come to
individual registration in a moment, but as the Committee on Standards
in Public Life has been quoted several times and Sir Christopher
Kellys evidence mentioned, I remind the Committee of my
exchange with Sir Christopher. I asked him whether he was aware that
the Government share his committees view that, in principle,
individual registration is a good thing. Sir Christopher said,
I am. I then asked him if he recognised that we share
his worry that any moves leading to further disfranchisement would be a
serious democratic problem. I asked
him: In
moving forward on this, as everybody wants to, do you agree that it
would be a good idea to take every step we can to improve the register
as part of any process of moving towards individual
registration? He
said: There
can be no answer to that other than yes, of
course.[Official Report, Political
Parties and Elections Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2008; c.
38, Q94.] That
is why we have taken steps to improve the register.
The
Electoral Commissions role has been mentioned. I have some
interesting leaflets in front of me showing how the Electoral
Commission has been trying to improve registration. We are working with
the commission. As a consequence of the 2006 Act, we are placing a new
duty on electoral registration officers, and we have seen results in
the past year. In the past two years, the registration figures for
parliamentary elections increased by 371,000 in 2006 and 307,669 in
2007. The registration figures for local government elections also
increased by 513,054 in 2006 and 463,000 in 2007. We are making
progress and actively considering further steps. I hope to be able to
come back to the House with further proposals
shortly. Alongside
all that work on individual registration, work has begun with the
Electoral Commission and electoral administrators to examine how
individual registration may effectively be introduced, and that work
will continue. It is clearly necessary to involve parliamentarians from
all parties in that if we are to do it by consensus, and we will
introduce proposals
shortly. Some
form of consultation or legislative proposals may follow that work, but
the work itself is essential if we are to ensure that any proposals
introduced are thoroughly thought through by all those who need to
contribute. That may involve some use of pilots to identify issues and
how they can be addressed, consideration of a phased roll-out for
collection and use of identifiers and so on. I think that everyone
would agree that if we make a fundamental change to the system, we
should do so with care and caution, and ensure that we get it right.
Obviously, that cannot be achieved before the next general
election. There
has been considerable debate, as Opposition Members have said, on the
need to prepare carefully, the need for clear policy development and
the need for any subsequent legislation to be well developed. The hon.
Member for Chichester mentioned the Dangerous Dogs Act. We are all
conscious of lessons from legislation passed by all
Governmentsit is not particular to any one partythat
legislation should be thoroughly prepared and implemented in good
time. The
process will be complex; it is radical and unprecedented in this
country. At every stage, we must be sure that we are subjecting it to
the proper degree of careful scrutiny. We will ensure that it meets the
four fundamental tests that I described. It must involve a level
playing field, and be open, fair and transparent. I hope that all
parties can agree that that is the way
forward. If
I may, I shall deal with the detail of the amendments. I am conscious
that I am taking some time, Sir Nicholas, but this is fundamentally
important. I hope to secure your indulgence to explain why I must, I am
afraid, resist the amendments. That will not be a surprise to the hon.
Member for Epping Forest, but I will say why I must do so.
New clause
1as it stands and as it would be if amended under amendments
(a), (b) and (c) would require eligible electors to provide
personal identifiers when they registered to vote either through an
annual canvass or on a rolling registration form. I note that the hon.
Lady has specifically excluded voter ID cards from any such personal
identifiers. On registration, the personal identifiers to be provided
by electors would be their signature, date of birth and national
insurance number, although they could theoretically also include their
ID card.
We believe
that the integrity of the electoral system is of the utmost importance.
Of course, we recognise the benefits of electors providing such
personal identifiers, but further thought and preparation on that are
needed. As we move forward on the issue, we have to ensure that proper
work is done to explore ways to reach the significant groups and
categories of voter who have traditionally and historically been
under-registered. We have to be sure that we are including them before
there is any risk of their being further excluded from this fundamental
democratic process.
As the new
clause would not affect the conduct of the annual canvass, every
household would continue to receive an annual canvass form for
completion, but the person who completed the form would be required to
provide personal identifiers for all the eligible electors living in
their house. That might not be a problem in many cases, but I ask
Conservative Members to consider that it might be difficult to collect
such personal identifiersnow we are talking about the
detailif eligible persons were at university, on a lengthy
holiday or working
away. There
might also be difficulties for people living in shared accommodation,
who might not want the person completing the canvass form to have their
personal
identifiers. All
those issues require further careful consideration. I am not ruling out
giving them that consideration, but we are not at the right stage to
make a judgment on the new clause. I have consistently said that we
agree with the principle of individual registration, so there is no
difference between us on the principle, but there is a difference
regarding the detail of how we should bring it forward. On that basis,
I hope that Conservative Members will withdraw new clause
1. New
clause 2 would insert a new sub-paragraph in section 2 of the
Representation of the People Act 1985, after paragraph (3)(b), setting
out the information that British citizens who reside overseas would
have to provide when making an overseas declaration. Regulation 18(5)
of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations
2001 provides that an overseas elector need provide their passport
number only if they are not registered or have not previously been
registered as an overseas
elector. An
elector making a first-time application for registration must have
their application attested by another British citizen residing
overseas, who must also provide their passport number. Having passed
those strict security arrangements, the elector is not required, in
subsequent years, to hunt for their passport number or to seek another
attestation.
On Second
Reading, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) suggested
that the Bill should do more about the relatively low levels of
registration among expatriates, but a new requirement to provide a
passport number every year might deter eligible electors from
re-registering during the annual canvass. We want the registration
process for overseas electors to be secure, but simple enough to ensure
that people will register to vote. The current regulations achieve that
aim. I
understand the concerns about expatriate registration. Now that this
issue has arisen, I might copy to hon. Members the letter that I wrote
to the hon. Member for
Ludlow, with his consent. In the letter, I set out the measures that we
have taken, are taking and intend to take to increase registration
among those
voters.
|