Mr.
Djanogly: To put the Minister right, one reason that the
Government have previously given for not pursuing individual voter
registration was the problem of overseas voters. New clause 2 is an
attempt to address that problem. It is meant not to encourage overseas
voters, but to get around the problem that his Department raised a few
months
ago.
Mr.
Wills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those
remarks, and for the constructive spirit in which he intervened and in
which the new clause was tabled. We are willing to look at the issue in
connection with everything else. This case was raised specifically on
Second Reading. It goes to our concern about constantly improving the
register, including for expatriates. We want to do that and, with the
consent of the hon. Member for Ludlow, I will copy my letter to him to
all members of the
Committee. I
come rapidly to new clause 7, which would reverse the current
arrangements by requiring electors proactively to state on a canvass
form or individual rolling registration form that they wanted to be
included in the edited register. It would effectively introduce the
need to opt in. Members of the Committee will know that the Government
asked Dr. Walport and Mr. Richard Thomas to undertake an
independent review of the framework for the use of personal information
in the public and private sectors. They produced a report on 11 July,
and recommendation 19 of that report called for the edited version of
the register to be abolished.
We understand
the concerns about the sale of personal details through the supply of
the edited register. It is a sensitive matter and often goes to the
heart of how people feel that our democracy should operate. However, it
is complicated. There are issues for the British economy as a whole,
and for businesses, charities and the general public. We intend to hold
a consultation on those issues and to set out the problems, while
recognising what Dr. Walport and Mr. Thomas
recommended and acknowledging that there is widespread public concern
about the issue. We will then proceed accordingly. I hope that hon.
Members agree that we should wait for the results of that consultation
before deciding how to move forward on the issue.
Finally, new
clause 8 would strengthen the security of the voting process at polling
stations. Of course, we take the integrity of that process extremely
seriously, and we see some merit in the new clause. Over recent years,
we have introduced measures to address issues of secrecy and security,
which, together with other factors such as more robust sentencing of
convicted fraudsters, are having an effect—we can see the
results. Allegations of fraud have reduced over recent years and the
Electoral Commission has acknowledged that the identifiers used in
postal voting, for example, have had an effect in reducing those
allegations. In its 2007 report on local government elections in
England, the Electoral Commission found
that “the
volume and scale of offences are both considerably down on
2006.” It
continued: “The
low level of reports and allegations of offences this year is
encouraging.”
As
I have said, any perception that fraud is widespread is not supported
by the facts. Voting at polling stations has traditionally been
conducted without the need for personal identification to be produced,
but it is an offence to attempt to vote in place of another
elector—the offence is personation, as you are aware, Sir
Nicholas. Staff at polling stations are given training and guidance on
how to spot people who attempt to cast fraudulent
votes. Any
proposal to require voters in polling stations in Great Britain to
produce ID as envisaged under the new clause would need to be
considered carefully. The new clause provides for a wide range of
potential documents, but it is not inclusive. We would need to consider
what the practical implications of the proposal might be and what
barriers it might present to voting at elections, particularly as the
requirement to produce evidence of identity would be a significant
change to the electoral system.
I reassure
members of the Committee that we are constantly examining ways to
strengthen the integrity of our electoral system. That is in
everybody’s interest. We will keep the matter under review and
explore the options for ensuring that votes in polling stations are
cast safely and securely. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member
for Epping Forest will withdraw the new
clause.
Mrs.
Laing: I thank the Minister for the constructive way in
which he approached the new clauses, which were tabled to help the
Government—that was the whole point. I am pleased that, at the
end of this long and sometimes heated but very constructive debate, we
find that, on both sides of the Committee, there is a large element of
agreement in
principle. 7
pm When
the Minister said that he would come back to the Committee or the House
shortly on some of the issues that he mentioned under new clause 1, did
he mean before the next stage of the Bill, or at some time in the
future?
Mr.
Wills: I used the word “shortly”
advisedly.
Mrs.
Laing: That is fair enough. I will not push the Minister
any further at this late hour. There is quite a difference between
coming back during the passage of the Bill and coming back at some
stage in the future, but I appreciate that he has a lot to think about
after today’s
debate. As
far as new clause 8 is concerned, the Minister has agreed in principle
to look at matters and I am pleased about that. The same goes for new
clause 7, which is about abolishing the edited register
completely—I appreciate that the Information Commissioner is
looking at that. We are looking at it too and it needs further
consideration. New clause 2 was intended to be helpful and I am glad
that it has been taken in that spirit. I shall not press new clauses 2,
7 and 8, but new clause 1 is such an important matter of principle that
I shall have to ask the Committee to divide on
it.
David
Howarth: I hope that the hon. Lady will move her
amendments (a), (b), and (c), because if she does not, we will not be
able to vote for them.
Mrs.
Laing: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for
Cambridge.
The
Chairman: Order. May I advise the hon. Lady? If she seeks
to move her amendments (a), (b) and (c), as has been suggested by the
hon. Member for Cambridge, unfortunately I have to put it to her that
the new clause must be read a second time, but she has already asked
the Committee not to press the new clause.
Mrs.
Laing: On new clauses 2, 7 and 8, the Minister has been
helpful and constructive, but new clause 1 is so important that I would
like to divide the Committee. I understand the point made by the hon.
Member for Cambridge, who, as I said before, is a better academic
lawyer than me by a long way. Amendments (a), (b) and (c) must be in
new clause 1 in order for it to make sense. However, I do not want to
cause too many Divisions.
The
Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Cambridge wishes
to support new clause 1 he should vote for it, hoping that it will get
through. If it does, we can then put amendments (a), (b) and (c). That
is advice, not guidance.
Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
10.
Division
No.
6] Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
14Moratorium
on electoral modernisation
pilots ‘No electoral
modernisation pilot scheme which uses electronic voting and electronic
counting systems under section 10 (pilot schemes for local elections in
England and Wales) of the 2000 Act shall be commenced for a period of
five years beginning on the day on which this Act is
passed.’.—[Mrs.
Laing.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mrs.
Laing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to
discuss
New clause
15—Review of electoral modernisation
piloting ‘(1) The Secretary of
State shall appoint a Committee to conduct a review of electoral
modernisation piloting. (2) The
Secretary of State shall appoint no fewer than five and no more than
ten members of the Committee, who have, in the opinion of the Secretary
of State, relevant knowledge and experience.
(3) The Committee shall complete the review and
report to the Secretary of State no later than five years after the
commencement of this Act. (4)
The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament
as soon as is reasonably
practicable.’.
Mrs.
Laing: The new clauses propose a moratorium on a review of
electoral modernisation pilots. The point is that it is wrong for the
Government to continue to bring forward gimmicks to try to encourage
people to register, to vote and take part in the democratic process.
Gimmicks are wrong. Those who are looking at electoral reform need time
to consider the sort of matters that we dealt with in the last group of
amendments. That is why we have proposed a moratorium on electoral
modernisation pilots and review of them.
One need look
no further than last year’s Gould review of the Scottish
elections, which came up with so many criticisms of the system that was
piloting electronic voting and counting. For the sake of time, I will
give just one example. In Airdrie and Shotts, Labour’s majority
of 1,446 was less than the 1,536 rejected ballots under a very
complicated system. Our electoral and voting systems must be simple,
straightforward, and understood by every member of the electorate and
all the candidates. It is wrong to mess about with gimmicks, saying
that they are to modernise the system. The system does not need to be
modernised in that way. It needs to be reformed in the way we have
discussed.
Mr.
Wills: Having achieved a large degree of consensus on the
principles on which we should move forward in reforming our electoral
system, it saddens me to have to resist the new clause. It is entirely
unnecessary and would fetter our attempts to make our democracy more
accessible and improve the efficiency of electoral administration. That
is not an alternative to the sorts of reforms that we were talking
about earlier—it is something that we should be considering
anyway.
As it
happens, the Government have no plans at present to conduct further
pilots at this stage, and none was conducted in 2008. None the less, it
would be wrong to place a limit on the Government’s ability in
future to test pilots promising new technologies or new techniques.
Governments must be free to investigate possible innovations and pilots
when appropriate. Pilots allow for new technologies to be tested in
controlled environments and in real-life situations. Incremental
testing over time permits issues to be identified and solutions to be
adapted as a consequence, with retesting to prove that the issues have
been resolved. That is a matter of prudent process, and to fetter it in
such a way is quite wrong. If new clause 14 were to be approved, it
would only prevent piloting from taking place from under the provisions
of the Representation of the People Act. It would do nothing to prevent
the London mayoral and assembly elections from being electronically
counted again, as they were this year, or Scottish local authorities
from continuing to count their elections electronically. It would serve
only to prevent the Government from taking the lead, as they should, in
improving electoral
administration. New
clause 15 would establish a committee to review electoral modernisation
piloting. Well, sometimes committees are a very good idea, but it is
difficult to understand what value that committee would bring
over and above the rigorous processes that are already in place to
ensure effective oversight of the piloting process. The Government take
into account the concerns of electoral administrators, local
authorities and the Electoral Commission. To date, all the electoral
modernisation pilots have been overseen by project boards and programme
boards with the involvement of the Electoral Commission, the
Association of Electoral Administrators and others. All those different
perspectives and insights from outside the Ministry of Justice and the
Government have therefore informed and underpinned the piloting
programme. That the boards are not currently meeting reflects the fact
that no pilots are planned, but the intention is to restart that
process if we were to resume pilots. We proceed
with pilots only following consultation with the Electoral Commission.
All pilots are evaluated after the event by the local authorities that
ran them, and by the Electoral Commission. The commission’s
recommendations are taken into account when considering further pilots
and moving forward. We already receive expert advice on piloting
programmes, and we are considering whether to establish a panel of
recognised and respected experts from the academic, technical and
electoral administration fields to advise on policy, technical issues
and testing and, indeed, what we should be piloting, should we decide
to do so in the future. With a combination of such issues, there is no
need for the new
clause. It
is worth pointing out that we in the UK are far from alone in piloting
new systems in electoral administration, and testing their benefits.
Many countries do so. We have heard about international comparisons,
and I can give some to the Committee. Australia has piloted e-voting
for specific groups, such as service personnel on deployment, which I
know will be of interest to the hon. Member for Chichester. The system
has been piloted for visually impaired voters. Other countries have
made e-voting more generally available, and some have rolled it out
more widely following pilots—in Estonia, for example. Others
have decided to discontinue e-voting following problems that led to a
loss of public
confidence.
| 
