| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 pm
Mrs. Laing: I can assure the Minister and the House that any future Conservative Government would never take risks with the democratic process. They would take absolutely no risks with the integrity or comprehensiveness of the register or with its accuracy. I take the Minister's point about the 2012 census. At that point, when we have the results of that census, the Electoral Commission can consider those results and weigh up the work that it and electoral registration officers will have been doing by then and it might well be possible to make judgments. I also agree with the Minister that it would be difficult to introduce a new system shortly before a general election. There should be other ways of testing the system along the way to ensure that the accuracy, integrity and comprehensiveness of the register and the system are always utterly watertight. I hope that that reassures the Minister on that point.
I was about to say that it is unfortunate that although these matters were properly considered in another place, this House has not had a chance to examine the Government's proposals. To be fair to the Minister, however, we discussed the principle of individual voter registration in Committee. As a result of the amendment tabled in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we were able to examine that issue and ensure that the principles of individual voter registration were properly examined in this House. I see no dissent around me. We are all agreed that the current system is part of an antiquated electoral system that depended on the pater familias of each household determining who within that household should have a vote. That, along with many other aspects of our electoral system, is old-fashioned, outdated and no longer reflects the way in which Britain in the 21st century ought to be governed. We are very pleased that we are taking these matters forward this evening.
There have been many criticisms, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) alluded, of the way in which matters are currently conducted within our electoral system. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves, at this stage in the development of our democracy, with such an old-fashioned system of registration. However, may I ask the Minister what steps he has taken with the Electoral Commission and electoral registration officers to ensure that in 2010, when they have to start this process, there will be no more delays?
The Minister clearly has milestones in mind. Will he undertake to report to the House on progress, so that we can tell whether the momentum that he has now built up and the enthusiasm that he has instilled in his fellow Ministers still exist and that matters are properly moving ahead? I am sure that he will be the first to say that there has been delay on this issue over the years. Now that we have got to this point of enthusiasm and
unanimous support in Parliament, I hope that he will not be deterred in the work that he has begun, because the bureaucratic side of the implementation of such a system can sometimes hinder its progress. We are all agreed in principle, so let us ensure that the practicalities do not stop us.
I hope that the Minister will consider a few other issues when he considers registration generally. Service registration is uppermost in our minds. Will he undertake to look again at the disgraceful disfranchisement of servicemen and women who are in theatres of conflict over recent years? According to the latest figures, possibly only 65 per cent. of service personnel are registered. At a time when people are daily risking and losing their lives in the service of this country, it is simply not right that the Government's change to the rules on service registration has made it more difficult for people in the armed forces to register. Surely it should be made much easier for people in the armed forces to register.
I agree entirely with the Minister about people who are in vulnerable situations-he mentioned the low registration among people who have problems with literacy and among certain communities in our country-but does he agree that, whatever steps we as a Parliament take, people who are serving in the armed forces and their families should be helped to register, not deterred from registering?
The Government have agreed to increase by order the renewal period for registered service personnel to five years. Again, we have brought up that subject more than once over the past year or so. We strongly welcome the fact that the Government have indicated that they will take steps, but when will the Minister introduce that order? I can assure him and the House that, when he does introduce it, we will support it and help service personnel to register properly to vote.
I am pleased that the Minister proposes to make progress with voluntary registration in the first instance. Again, will he undertake to report to the House on how voluntary registration is working and, likewise, on the voluntary provision of personal identifiers?
All those elements are important in undertaking this difficult enterprise and in ensuring its success, as are the reports of the Electoral Commission. Will the Minister undertake to return to the House to allow it to discuss the Electoral Commission's reports, so that we might know how the enterprise is progressing and what more hon. Members on both sides of the House can do to make sure that this vital change in the very basis of our democratic system is introduced as soon, as accurately and as comprehensively as possible and to ensure the integrity of the system?
Normally, at this point, Government Back Benchers jump up to challenge the Opposition's bona fides. I find that I am trying to play both parts here, since no Government Back Bencher- [ Interruption. ] I beg the Minister's pardon; his Parliamentary Private Secretary is present. No other Government Back Bencher is present in the House. I would not like it to be thought that Conservative Members had done anything other than won the argument. If I were to be challenged on the point, I would say yet again that our top priority is the integrity of the system, and the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register, and we will do all that we can to help the Government to introduce this vital new system, which we have supported for many years.
David Howarth: There are two sub-groups in this group of amendments. The first is about the CORE scheme and setting up a body to run that scheme, and the second is perhaps the politically more important problem of individual registration. I should say at the outset that in general terms I support what the Government are doing and have no intention of calling a Division on any of these matters. I am very pleased that the Government have made considerable progress on individual registration.
On the matter of who is to run the CORE scheme, I suppose that it might be thought a little awkward that, at a time when all political parties are saying that there are too many quangos, we propose to set up another one. However, I understand the motive for doing so. It is agreed in all parts of the House that the Electoral Commission needs to focus its activities and certainly should not be taking on new ones. My only concern, which I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, is that the proposal simply sets up the mechanism for transferring the function to a new body, and it does so in general terms, so that the new body could be almost anything-a corporation sole or another public authority. All the good things that the Minister rightly mentioned about the need for security and independence are not provided by the proposal; they are simply his intention. I have a slight worry that yet again what we are putting in statute is simply a mechanism and, in future, some other Government might use that in a way that the current Minister does not intend. I cannot see many sinister uses to which the provision might be put, but I want to put it on the record that the way in which the matter is being dealt with is not ideal.
The point about the second, crucial matter of individual registration, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made several times, is that if it is done properly it is not a threat to the comprehensiveness of the register. The Minister also made that point. It increases the integrity of the register and that of the elections themselves. The validity and credibility of democratic elections depend both on the register being comprehensive and on its having a great deal of integrity. If the register is not comprehensive, it is not the electorate who are making a choice but some subset of the electorate. If it is not secure and we cannot be sure that the people whose votes are being counted are electors, that people are not voting more than once or that there is not fraud going on, equally there is a threat to democratic credibility. We need both comprehensiveness and security, and I am pleased that the Minister intends the approach that he has chosen to produce both.
I am delighted that the Government have moved such a long way from their starting point, which can be characterised as them saying, "Well, there are risks in doing this, so we shouldn't do it." There are always risks, but the point is to minimise them and move forward in a way that should produce a good result all round.
9.15 pm
I have two further points to make. On the first, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is not here, because he made some serious allegations, at the start of the day, about an unnamed
Liberal Democrat council leader. It could have been any one of three people; he did not specify who it was. The hon. Gentleman said that that person somehow took the view, on behalf of my party, that it would be in our interest if the register were not comprehensive. A short reflection on the situation in my constituency should have made the hon. Gentleman realise that that could not possibly be so. The Minister listed the groups of people who, in an exercise of individual registration, are at risk of being removed from the register wrongly, or of not getting on to the register in time, and at the top of that list are students and young people. If Members think about the interests of my party, it will not take them long to realise that a change in the system that removed from the register large numbers of students and young people would not necessarily be to our advantage.
Mrs. Laing: It would if those young people were Conservative or Labour voters.
David Howarth: All that I can say to the hon. Lady is that that is not our experience. The fundamental point-the point of fairness-is very clear. There needs to be a process of voluntary identifiers. It should be tested, and any distorting effects should be corrected. After that, the system should be made compulsory. That is what the Government are proposing. The only disagreement is about the time scale, and how long the process should take. I accept what the Minister says-that there are various important milestones, that we should not rush the process and that we should not take any risks-but as I understand it, in the House of Lords, the proposal was not that the timetable should definitely be shorter. It was simply that, if the Electoral Commission were of the opinion that the move to compulsory registration could take place earlier than 2014-15 without the risks that the Minister mentioned coming into play, there should be a power to allow that to happen.
I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register. All that was suggested was that there be a careful process by which the timetable could be shortened if that turned out to be a safe thing to do. One can imagine circumstances in which that would be the case. A system using the three identifiers that have been suggested-the signature, the national insurance number and the date of birth-might turn out to work well, and there might be no need to use any other identifiers. The problem of the reduction in numbers on the electoral register might turn out to be manageable in a shorter period, with the result that there was no need for any further experiment. At that point, one can imagine the Electoral Commission saying, "This is all working very well. We can take a year or 18 months off the timetable." That was all that was being proposed; nothing of the risky nature that the Minister suggested was put forward. When the move to compulsory registration is made, either through the Government's present scheme or through the scheme as it emerges under a future Government, I do not think that we will be in any danger of taking excessive risks.
I have only one other point to make, and it could be made on a whole range of Lords amendments before us. I am slightly worried about the breadth of the order-making power in Lords amendment 38. That order-making
power allows the Government to vary the kinds of identifier that might be required-or asked for, in the voluntary part of the process.
The Minister said that there might be technological changes that bring in other opportunities. I am worried that those technological changes include ID cards. One of the problems with the ID card scheme is that Ministers say, "We have no intention of bringing it in compulsorily," but it turns out that their version of "voluntary" includes such things as getting a passport, as if the right to travel abroad were simply a matter of discretion or, as the proposal appears to allow, voting. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government do not see requiring the use of an ID card as part of a voluntary identifier scheme.
With that caveat and with some disagreement with the Government on the absoluteness of their attachment to the 2014-15 timetable, I am content with the amendments proposed by the House of Lords.
Mr. Chope: I shall say a few words about the timetable relating to individual voter registration. I have taken an interest in the subject over the years, and have had conversations with the Electoral Commission. We all know that the Electoral Commission was extremely frustrated by the way in which the Government seemed to be blocking its suggestions that moves were needed towards individual voter registration.
To put the matter in context, at the end of last month I was a monitor on behalf of the Council of Europe at the general election in Albania. One of the polling stations that I visited was in quite a large town-not Tirana, but probably the second or third largest town in Albania. While my colleague and I were making it clear that we were monitoring the voting process, a woman came up to us. She was hysterical-that is an accurate way to describe it-because she said that her son, who had died three or four years previously, had been put back on the register by the Government.
That is the allegation that the woman made. For her, that was part of a conspiracy. She thought that it was the means by which the Government were putting people on the register and, knowing that they would not be able to vote, using their nominees to vote for them. This is a serious matter. That little cameo illustrates how seriously it is taken in an emerging democracy. In the course of monitoring that election, I said to some of our Albanians, I hope not too condescendingly, "Well, you are only a relatively young democracy." The response I got was, "No, we are a very old democracy. We've been going at it for over 18 years."
Given that the Electoral Commission had been requesting the move to individual voter registration for some time, and the fact that we have had experience of what can be achieved in Northern Ireland, I am not satisfied that we need to wait for two more general elections before we can implement the measure. That seems to be the effect of what the Minister is suggesting. I accept that it is too late to introduce individual voter registration for the next general election, which I hope will be even sooner than the Government fear it will be. However, I do not give up hope that we might be able to introduce individual voter registration in the general election after next.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is the Minister charged with that, she will take it on her shoulders to ensure that, as an incoming Government, we accept that where
there's a will, there's a way, and that there is a strong will on the part of the British people and among most Members of the House of Commons to have a better system. That system will incorporate the principles embodied in individual voter registration. We may want to wait until the 2011 census, but is that absolutely essential?
Individual voter registration could be linked to the issue of individual voter apathy. My 19-year-old daughter is now on the electoral register, but she did not put her name on it; I did. If the question of whether she wanted to place her name on the electoral register had been put to her, it would have raised her awareness and the issue of responsibility. We in this House often bemoan the low participation rate of relatively young voters in our electoral process, but that may be because we are too patronising. We say, "There's no need for you to register yourself, sonny; we'll deal with that." Then, we present them with the fait accompli close to the election and ask, "Are you going to go out and vote?"
Contrary to some of the concerns that Government Front-Benchers have expressed, I think that there could be a significant positive to the process. We would be promoting individual responsibility among young adults, so that they were more aware of the issues involved in participating in elections and in our democracy.
I hope that nothing my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest has said today from the Opposition Front Bench will preclude an active campaign by an incoming Conservative Government to try to accelerate the process so that we can have individual voter registration at the general election after next.
Mr. Wills: We have had an extremely interesting exchange of views, and I am grateful for all contributions to the debate.
I shall briefly address some of the concerns that have been raised. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) rightly raised the importance of data protection and data security in the CORE project, and, on that, I absolutely agree, which is why the Information Commissioner will be consulted on it. The hon. Lady asked about the timetable, and we are actively looking at that. Indeed, we need to ensure that it is the most appropriate way forward. It is an opportunity to ensure that we are ready when the time comes, but we are looking at it.
The hon. Lady mentioned the cost of the CORE system. To date, the figure is £3.7 million, and the great bulk of that money has been spent on grants to local authorities to standardise the format in which data are collected and stored. That work is important and it makes the data much easier to use generally, so, whatever happens to the CORE project, we believe that it will have been money well spent on improving the electoral system.
I was grateful for what the hon. Lady said about the timetable for the move to individual registration. She asked us to come back to the House regularly to report on its progress, and I am happy to give her that reassurance. That is precisely why we have asked the Electoral Commission to produce annual reports. It is important that the whole process be scrutinised, and every Member will have important personal and constituency experience to contribute to the process. In the past and today, the
hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has given us his experience from his rather special constituency, but every constituency is special and there will be lessons that every Member can teach us as we move forward. This Government certainly want to learn those lessons. We welcome the scrutiny and transparency that the hon. Member for Epping Forest advocates, and we intend to have that. I am grateful to her for supporting the process.
The hon. Lady raised also the important question of service registration, and I agree with everything that she said about that. She will recall that we discussed the issue in Committee. As she mentioned, we have already agreed to raise from three to five years the service declaration period for members of the armed forces. We will introduce that as soon as possible, and we recognise its importance. Ministry of Justice officials will meet Ministry of Defence and Electoral Commission officials to review the information campaigns that have run since 2005. They have seen significant improvements in registration, but not enough, and I share her concerns about the matter. We need to do everything that we can, and we will continue to do so. I remind the hon. Lady that in Committee I said that hon. Members on both sides of the House who had significant garrisons in their constituencies could come to see me with their own suggestions. So far, not a single one has taken advantage of that opportunity. I repeat the invitation, and I am sure that she will do her best to publicise it. We want to get the issue right, and we will do everything that we can to do that.
9.30 pm
The hon. Member for Cambridge raised a point about there being another quango, and I understand what he said. As I have already said, I hope that he will be reassured by the fact that the measure will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and that both the Information Commissioner and the Electoral Commission will have to be consulted.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is not here; the hon. Member for Cambridge made some comments about him. In my hon. Friend's defence, I should say that he is concerned about the robustness of the governance system. He was using an example; we could find others if we trawled through our own experiences. His main concern, I think, was one of principle about the system of governance. As I said, we are considering that issue, notwithstanding the fact that the great majority of electoral registration officers in local authorities run by all parties behave with complete propriety and are jealous guardians of the integrity of the system.
The hon. Gentleman raised again the worry about the power to change the identifier. I can only say to him again that we intend to use dates of birth, signatures and national insurance numbers, which cover the great majority of the eligible population. However, it would be unwise and imprudent of us not to allow some flexibility in the system. Who knows what the future may hold?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |