| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Electoral Commission's report in 2014 will be laid before Parliament. If the report features a recommendation in favour of a move to the compulsory phase and if that recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses, the Secretary of State will be obliged to make an order commencing provisions that bring the compulsory phase into effect. That ensures,
rightly, that Parliament is at the heart of that fundamental shift and that it cannot happen without Parliament's say-so.
In the event that the shift to the obligatory provision of identifiers is not recommended by the commission, or that Parliament does not approve a positive recommendation, the Secretary of State must, within a year of a negative report or within a year of Parliament rejecting a positive report, make a request that the Electoral Commission produce another report. That report would have to be delivered on a specified date at least one year and not more than two years after that request was made. Again, the report must make a recommendation, and the same process as that described above will apply to that recommendation. That time scale should enable further steps to be taken, if necessary, to prepare the system for the change.
The new clauses introduced by Lords amendments 40 and 41 provide for the obligatory provision of personal identifiers, in the event that Parliament approves a positive recommendation by the Electoral Commission. Lords amendment 40 applies the 2002 Northern Ireland model to the rest of the United Kingdom with a number of amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to enable a flexible approach to implementation, which will be appropriately tailored to the circumstances of Great Britain. For example, they will make it possible to insist on electoral registration officers using a prescribed canvass form in Great Britain, which will give added flexibility. They will amend the legislation so that the three-month residency requirement in Northern Ireland-which dates back 60 years to the Government of Ireland Act 1949-does not apply to the rest of the UK, where it is clearly not relevant. They will also provide for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations alternative evidence to be provided by those who do not have a national insurance number. Again, that will provide flexibility.
The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 41 contains broad order-making powers to allow for the transition to the obligatory collection of identifiers and for the Secretary of State to change the identifiers to be provided in the compulsory phase. It also contains, at subsection (1), transitional provision for those already on the register in the autumn of 2015. From autumn 2015, it is proposed that all new registrations-people moving house and re-registering, or anyone entirely new to the register-would have to provide the identifiers to be put on to the register. However, subsection (1) allows that anyone already on the register in the autumn of 2015 may remain on the register-subject to their meeting the existing conditions for confirming their registration to the electoral registration officer-without providing their identifiers in the 2015 or 2016 canvass. From the autumn canvass, such individuals will have to provide their identifiers in order to remain on the register. From that point, therefore, identifiers would be in place for all entries on the register.
The remaining amendments are mostly minor technical amendments that clarify the definitions used in the clauses and extend individual registration from Northern Ireland, where it is already in place, to the whole of the United Kingdom.
The process set out in the amendments is very significant, and one that we must get right. The carefully phased timetable, spanning at least seven years, is designed to
support the system and the public through the period of transition, and to prepare them as fully as possible for this radical and historic shift. If we do not get the process right, and the comprehensiveness of the register is compromised as a result, the consequences for our democracy will be serious. I know that there are those who argue that we should be moving more quickly. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has argued that consistently, and I want to spell out to her again why it is so important not to rush this process.
We know that the introduction of individual registration in Northern Ireland in 2002 led to a fall in numbers on the register. We must all learn the lessons of that experience. Under individual registration, many individuals will be responsible for their own registration for the first time, and, as I have said, that will pose considerable challenges. I want to quote briefly from the Electoral Commission report on the shift to individual registration in Northern Ireland. It stated:
"The new registration process disproportionately impacted on young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally and those living in areas of high social deprivation."
We simply must not repeat that outcome when the system is introduced in Great Britain. That is why we are proposing, alongside the phased implementation of individual registration, to take a range of steps to bolster the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register, and our understanding of registration across Great Britain.
Before I come on to those steps, I shall outline the additional practical reasons why I am fundamentally opposed to making the shift before 2015. First, the implementation of full individual registration in 2015 would minimise as far as possible the risk of implementation directly ahead of a national or sub-national poll. A dip in the numbers registered-we run the risk of such a dip occurring-ahead of any such poll would have damaging consequences for the legitimacy of our electoral processes. Individual registration was able to be implemented swiftly in Northern Ireland not least because there was only one authority there to co-ordinate for electoral purposes. In Great Britain, there are more than 400 different registration officers, each with their own processes and registers, and co-ordination on such a scale will inevitably take time.
The move to individual registration will involve a very significant change in infrastructure and processes, including new IT systems and data sharing on a national scale. We cannot rush such implementation. The current timetable will, we believe, give us time to test what works before moving to full implementation on the basis of the best possible evidence that we can secure.
Taken together in the round and given the real risk of a drop in registration rates, we need actively to move to bolster registration rates as far as possible in advance of implementation. To that end, we intend to pilot data-matching schemes with public authorities to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the register; to enable enhanced data sharing in two-tier local authorities via secondary legislation; to make it explicit in secondary legislation that the duty on electoral registration officers to register individuals applies all year round; and to consider whether more can be done to bolster the performance standards framework for EROs.
We will explore whether registration can be promoted at every point at which the individual interacts with public services. We have already started distributing leaflets and posters in citizens advice bureaux, making a training fact sheet available to CAB volunteers through their intranet system so they can better inform the public about registration. We are distributing posters throughout the network of courts across the country. We want to do more to provide people with opportunities to register to vote, and we are looking into the possibility of supplying rolling registration forms in post office branches to capture the details of eligible electors who, for whatever reason, are not on the register.
Those initiatives will inevitably take time to bed in and take effect and there may, of course, be other initiatives. We are actively exploring at the moment moves to bolster the current registration system, such as by introducing a duty to register and possibly making other changes to the current framework. The current timetable will allow us to explore all feasible options before making the shift to individual registration.
At the same time, the Electoral Commission will produce yearly reports on the health of the registration system and in 2012, crucially, we should have our clearest ever indication of registration rates, thanks to the data being collected as part of the national census. That is very important, as it will give us a crucial tool for assessing the robustness of the system.
Taken all in all, this is a massive programme of work. We are often criticised-all Governments have been criticised-for conducting major project in haste and then having to iron out the problems later, but we simply cannot afford to do that with something as important to our democracy as this historic shift. I hope that I have managed to persuade the House of the importance of the timetable. It is not a recipe for kicking the move into the long grass. What we are proposing is very clear and there is a clear end-date, subject to the tests being met-tests that I think the whole House will agree are necessary.
Before I conclude, I wish to deal with issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is sadly no longer in his place. He raised an important point about the willingness of electoral registration officers to pursue the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the register with all due diligence. I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's allegation. He, of course, will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I want to stress that the overwhelming majority of EROs-and I believe that the whole House would agree on this-and the chief executives of local authorities are dedicated public servants. They would never do anything to compromise their impartiality or the integrity of the electoral registration system, which is the foundation of our democracy. That has certainly been my experience of all the EROs I have met at the conferences I have mentioned that took place over the last two years.
I repeat that I am aware of the allegations that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd and perhaps others have made, and those allegations are, of course, worrying. I have looked into the issues and it is clear, on reflection, that the system of governance for electoral registration officers could be made more robust-no matter, as I have said, that the overwhelming majority of such officers and the chief executives of local authorities are dedicated public servants.
It is clearly vital that the public should have complete confidence in the Government's arrangements for our electoral system and the safeguards that exist at both the local and national level. The Electoral Commission agrees. I hope that my hon. Friend will gain comfort from reading Hansard tomorrow, because I can tell him that Ministry of Justice officials have begun discussions with the Electoral Commission about how the safeguards can be enhanced. I will report to the House before the end of the year on how we propose to improve the system of governance, and I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend and the House.
8.45 pm
I also hope that all Members recognise that the amendments will lead to a carefully and successfully managed transition to individual registration, ensuring that the public are well informed and the system is ready for the change. The Electoral Commission itself has said that the process of moving to individual registration must take place under careful scrutiny. It has said that this would be
"a major change to the electoral registration system in Great Britain. There will need to be detailed planning and identification of key milestones to provide the basis for moving towards implementation of individual electoral registration over a number of years, including the delivery of public awareness campaigns during any transition to a new system."
I hope that all Members will agree that this historic shift will enrich our democracy. It will give people more responsibility for their votes, and will provide an electoral registration system that more accurately reflects their lives today. However, that must be done in a way that is mindful of the need to engage the public in the process, and protects the comprehensiveness of the register as well as its accuracy.
Mrs. Laing: Conservative Members do not disagree with the Government in any respect on Lords amendment 33. It is unfortunate that, owing to time constraints, the issue was not debated on Report in the other place, but we are able to explore some aspects of it this evening.
We have already raised the working of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, and I have sought reassurances from the Minister about the data protection arrangements relating to the position of the CORE keeper. We are pleased to note that unauthorised disclosure is now to be an offence, but what security support will the Government give the CORE keeper to avoid such a breach of the rules and the legislation?
I am sure that Ministers are well aware-as are we all-of some of the dreadful data losses that the Government have suffered. The larger government becomes, the more risk there is of data losses. The information that we are discussing is very sensitive, and we are anxious to ensure that there is no chance of data loss-or rather, given that accidents happen, that the chance of data loss is minimised as far as possible. That can be done if the Government provide the right safeguards at the outset.
Can the Minister give us any more information about the timetable for the establishment of the CORE keeper, and for the CORE scheme to be fully up and running? We appreciate the importance of the anti-fraud work that it will provide. We have already debated the cost of the scheme, and I have been told that the overall cost
will probably be about £4 million. Perhaps the Minister will be able to bring the House up to date. However, we will not oppose Lords amendment 33.
Let me now deal with the really important amendments. Conservative Members are delighted that they are before us, even at this very, very late stage. We Conservatives have been calling for individual voter registration for four years and more. The Government have promised it on many occasions. This may be difficult to believe, but even on Third Reading of this Bill the Government were still only making promises and had proposed nothing substantial at all. We appreciate, however, that the full panoply of the amendments was brought forward in the House of Lords, and we are delighted to have them before our House now.
Mr. Wills: I accept that the hon. Lady has a long and honourable history of calling for individual voter registration, but I wonder whether she can recall that we always said that we were in favour of the principle of it but that there were implementation difficulties. She will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall any great clamour to improve the comprehensiveness of the register. I was aware of a lot of clamour for the measures for individual registration to be brought in, but I cannot remember her calling for the sort of measures we are now implementing to improve the comprehensiveness of the register. However, it is precisely the move towards individual registration in lock-step and coupled inextricably with measures to achieve the comprehensiveness of the register that we have now managed to secure that makes this historic move possible.
Mrs. Laing: I appreciate the points the Minister is making-and I am grateful to him for giving us Conservatives credit for having pushed for many years for these necessary amendments. He brings up the issue of the comprehensiveness of the register, but I have to say that I have never considered that anyone in this House, or anyone concerned in any way in promoting and safeguarding democracy, wishes anything other than to have a register that is as comprehensive as possible. How could anybody possibly argue that the register should be anything but comprehensive? Of course it is a sine qua non of a proper democratic system that the register should be comprehensive. If I have not argued for that feature, that is because I took it as a foregone conclusion that we all want the register to be comprehensive.
Mr. Wills: The hon. Lady raises a very important issue because that is precisely the point: she takes it for granted, but actually we cannot take it for granted, because there are already 3 million people not on the register and all the evidence is that unless we move forward very carefully further hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people would fall off the register. The move to individual registration must be conditional on the comprehensiveness of the register. We must not move first to individual registration and then hope that somehow through good luck we will get a comprehensive register. That is precisely the point.
Mrs. Laing:
But I agree with the Minister on that point, and I always have done. However, some Members on his Back Benches-sadly they are not there now, or,
indeed, on any other party's Back Benches-have sought to suggest that Conservatives for some reason do not want a comprehensive register, but that is simply not true. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put it on the record once and for all that we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register and of the system is paramount. That is one of the reasons why we will not oppose the timetable the Minister has suggested this evening. I do not intend to vote against these Government amendments because I fully appreciate the Minister's argument. I always have appreciated it, and I believe that it is right to take this matter forward carefully and step by step. None of us wants to see a system introduced that would in any way undermine the integrity of our democratic system. I know that the Minister can get quite exercised on that point, usually when he is goaded by his Back Benchers, and I will reassure him-one more time-that I agree with him 100 per cent.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): I am sorry to rain on my hon. Friend's parade, but does she accept that to delay this until 2015, which is effectively three general elections from now, does not show the sense of urgency that would be required, for example, by the Council of Europe's Monitoring Committee of one of the emerging new democracies?
Mrs. Laing: What a pleasure it is to have a Back Bencher intervene, and we all welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He makes an extremely good point. If a new system were being implemented for the first time in an emerging democracy, it would be surprising if the Government got away with saying, "Well, yes, but it will take us a good five years to implement this." My hon. Friend's point is well made, and it is one that I have made many times, as the Minister has just said. However, I balance that with the fact that the Electoral Commission, electoral registration officers and others who will be involved in the implementation of the Government's current plans are concerned that this should not be rushed, but taken step by step to ensure that the integrity of the system is protected-and not only protected, but seen to be protected, so that there is no perception of harm being done to the system.
Since the Minister and his colleagues started to take steps to implement the individual voter registration system for which we have been calling for many years, we have seen progress. What a pity it is that the Government had not started the process five years ago, because it would now have been implemented. I understand and share the Minister's concern for the comprehensiveness of the register, and that is one of the reasons why we have called for action on this matter for many years. It is a pity, as my hon. Friend will agree, that the Government had not commenced work on this project long ago. If they had done so, we would have a far better system in place for whenever the next general election may be.
I may also reassure my hon. Friend if I say that we are determined that if it appears that the practicalities to which the Minister has referred can be overcome on a shorter timetable than that currently set out, that should happen. Unfortunately, that would mean making changes in primary legislation, but I am sure that a future Government, of whatever colour, could-if it turns out to be possible-bring implementation forward sooner than the Minister currently envisages.
Mr. Wills: May I be clear about what the hon. Lady means? Is she saying that a future Government might take risks by bringing the system in just before a national or sub-national poll? Will she confirm whether that would be a consideration for her? Would it be a consideration for her that the register should be as comprehensive and accurate as possible? Would she want to take into account the results of the 2012 census, which will give us for the first time some kind of accurate indication of registration rates?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |