---

While on the subject, perhaps I may refer to individual voter registration. Although this goes wide of the regulations, the issue was raised by the Government towards the end of the Political Parties and Elections Bill in the Commons last night. Obviously that Bill will come to us in a couple of weeks’ time—I forget on which day Second Reading will take place—and it would therefore be useful if the Minister could expand on what the Government said last night about what they are proposing to do about individual voter registration. I welcome the fact that they say they can bring it forward but—this is where I suspect that both we and the Liberal Democrat Party will feel slightly suspicious—they have implied that they cannot bring it through until something like 2015 or 2016. One suspects that the Government could bring it forward a bit quicker if they really wanted to. We wait to hear what the Minister can say about that. I hope he will give an assurance that they can bring it forward earlier. If they cannot, I have a sneaking suspicion that when the Political Parties and Elections Bill goes through this House, my party and one or two others might want to bring forward some amendments that might hasten the introduction of individual data registration. We will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say.

My second point concerns data sharing. As the noble Lord will know, my honourable friend Mrs Laing raised the question of data sharing again when these regulations went through the other place. She is very concerned about that subject and has raised it on a number of occasions. Mr Wills, speaking for the Government, said in response to her:

“On many occasions, I have heard the hon. Lady refer to the perils of data sharing—she has done so again today—but I have never heard her explain the advantages and benefits that it brings”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 25/2/09; col. 12.]

4 Mar 2009 : Column GC313

Oh dear. If the Government cannot see what the potential problems of data sharing within government are, they have a great deal to learn. We have problems with data sharing in these orders—they crop up again and again in a number of measures—and if the Government cannot see what the problem is, they will have to pull their socks up and move in some way. I await the Minister’s response, particularly on individual data registration.

4.15 pm

Lord Tyler: Before I speak to these regulations, I should indicate a non-pecuniary interest: I have sat on an informal advisory committee of Peers and MPs at the Electoral Commission. Although I do not purport to represent the views of the commission, I have been involved in some of the discussions on some of the issues with which the Committee is concerned this afternoon. I, too, look forward with considerable interest to what the Minister will be able to tell us about individual registration. The Electoral Commission has been very forthright about this issue—it has not always been as forthright on others.

The Minister may recall that earlier in this Session I raised this issue on the Floor of the House. There is clearly a considerable loophole in the present law on registration in that we still have household registration which is, I fear, open to a great deal of sometimes inadvertent, but sometimes carefully planned, corruption. That is extremely unfortunate because it gives a bad impression of what is otherwise a very good system, of which we should be very proud.

There was, as the noble Lord said, some reference to this issue in the other place earlier this week. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to spell out exactly what is intended. It would be very helpful, in preparation for the Political Parties and Elections Bill coming to this House, if we had a clear idea of what was intended. If, as I read, the timescale is as leisurely as the noble Lord has just indicated, that is extremely unfortunate. After all, this issue has been around a long time; there must have been plenty of time to think through the practical implications. There is a false dilemma between trying to make sure that the register is as comprehensive as possible and discouraging illegal registration. The integrity of the register must surely be far more important than its simple quantity. Simply because a register has a lot of people on it does not necessarily mean that it is very effective or legitimate. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.

On the regulations, I believe that the Government are absolutely right to try to achieve greater consistency while at the same time ensuring that that consistency is on as simple a basis as possible. The integrity of the register relies on relative simplicity. If it gets extraordinarily complicated, we have a problem. In that respect it is right that we should go for individual registration, but in so doing we should not try to build in too much complexity because that will undermine the effective registration of our fellow citizens and therefore the integrity of the register.

In that regard, will the Minister say a little more about the issue of anonymous listing? I notice that on 25 February in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee in the other place my honourable friend Mr Mark

4 Mar 2009 : Column GC314

Oaten raised the issue of just how many people are currently applying for anonymous registration. The Minister has been kind enough to tell us that he thinks it is about 500.

I have a supplementary question. Five hundred is a small number, which implies to me that perhaps the process is too rigorous. I can think of a lot of people who legitimately should be asking for anonymous listing. Maybe it is a problem of publication or there is not sufficient publicity about the way that this could happen, but the regulations before us, and the existing regime for those who are already eligible for anonymous listing, is a tortuous process. It is quite discouraging to those who may have a legitimate request to be listed anonymously on the register. I hope that the Minister may be able to tell us whether he thinks that the present regime is over-rigorous and is therefore discouraging people who have a legitimate reason for wanting this protection of their personal circumstances.

Apart from those quick questions, I do not have any other concerns. My noble friends in this House feel, as do my honourable friends in the other place, that this is a useful bit of tidying up, and we thank the Minister for bringing it forward.

Lord Bach: I thank both noble Lords for their support for the regulations. I will be moving the second and third orders in due course, and I have been advised that I have to speak to both of them. That will happen in a minute or two.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked about anonymous registration. We think that the system is working fairly well and that people are not being discouraged. It is important that there is quite a high hurdle to get over. The order itself means that it does not have to be a police chief constable but a police superintendent, so it could be done in the local police station if anonymity is necessary. The figures were 310 on 1 December 2007 and 551 on 1 December 2008. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for this new development in the field of registration. He is right that we want to keep registration as simple as possible.

On the broader question of individual representation, I had a feeling that my right honourable friend’s intervention in the final stages of the Political Parties and Elections Bill in another place on Monday night might attract some comment today; if I had not anticipated that, I should have done. If noble Lords will forgive me, I do not think we should indulge in a long session on that; we will have plenty of time to talk about it. I trust that both noble Lords, given their parties’ positions, welcome what was clearly an important Statement by the relevant Minister about this important matter.

At Report in another place my right honourable friend set out a clear timetable for moving towards individual electoral registration. That will initially involve a voluntary scheme running alongside the household scheme from 2010 to 2015. Before and during that period, major steps will be taken to continue to build on the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the electoral register to ensure that the public and the system are ready for the change. These measures will involve some amendments to the Bill in Committee in this House. I promise both noble Lords that we will share

4 Mar 2009 : Column GC315

with them as quickly as we can the proposals we intend to put in the Bill regarding these matters, and I hope that we can discuss them before the Bill goes into Committee. The draft clauses may not be ready for a little while so I invite both noble Lords to be patient, but, as I say, we will certainly have a chance to talk about them before we go into Committee. I hope that the two noble Lords present today will be dealing with the Bill at the appropriate time.

I think that I expected a little more enthusiasm for the important move the Government have made this week. That is all I intend to say about individual registration, which has precisely nothing to do with the important statutory instrument we are debating today.

On data sharing, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that once again it was a good try, but I do not think this is an issue that affects us today. We have introduced safeguards in the Political Parties and Elections Bill to ensure that the Information Commissioner is consulted before any orders are made to enable data matching to improve the electoral register. The proposals for data matching largely mirror the scheme already in place in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord’s honourable friend in another place, Mrs Laing, brought up this issue around the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 2009 which we will come to in a moment, but all I will say is that they make provision for the Statistics Board to receive the register and do not change substantively the provisions on data sharing. It is a consequential change following the transfer of the statistical functions of the Office for National Statistics to the Statistics Board.

We have had an enjoyable ride around the issues today.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 2009

Copy of the Regulation
3rd Report from JCSI

Considered in Grand Committee

4.27pm

Moved By Lord Bach

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 2009.

Relevant Document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): These regulations, which from now on I will refer to as the Representation of the People Regulations 2009, have a link to the European parliamentary elections this year in respect of the registration of overseas Peers, but also include separate provisions relating to anonymous registration for eligible electors in any relevant election.

This statutory instrument has been subject to consultation with the Electoral Commission. The commission has advised us that it supports all of these

4 Mar 2009 : Column GC316

changes and, in relation to anonymous registration, has stated that it will ensure that vulnerable people will have better and more consistent access to the attestation process, while ensuring that the evidence required in support of applications remains sufficiently stringent. What I have to say may be part of an answer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in the previous debate.

These regulations amend the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001. In summary, they will make minor yet important changes in respect of applications for anonymous entries in the electoral register; make modifications to provisions relating to the registration of overseas Peers for European parliamentary elections, primarily to ensure consistency with other changes in electoral legislation; and thirdly, as I mentioned earlier, make provision for a free copy of the electoral register to be supplied to the Statistics Board, which now carries out the statistical functions of the Office for National Statistics.

4.30 pm

As mentioned earlier, the anonymous registration of electors came into force nearly two years ago. Applications for anonymous registration have to be accompanied by evidence in the form of, first, an attestation by a qualifying officer confirming that the safety of the applicant or another person in the applicant’s household would be at risk if the register contained the applicant’s name or address; or, secondly, that there is a relevant court order or injunction as listed in the regulations.

The amendments in these regulations make changes in respect of who constitutes a qualifying officer and the types of court orders and injunctions that may be used in evidence to support an application. First, in respect of qualifying officers, we are making changes to the level of police officer able to attest applications. At the moment, only a chief officer or chief constable can do so, which means that all applications presented at a police station have to be transmitted to headquarters for signing. This statutory instrument allows police officers of the rank of superintendent and above to attest applications. This means that applicants will, in most circumstances, be able to have the attestation undertaken at their local police station.

Secondly, the statutory instrument makes minor amendments to provide that an attestation signed by any director of adult social services or children's services in England or the equivalent in Wales can be submitted in support of an application in either England or Wales. The amendments also include any chief social work officer in Scotland within the meaning of qualifying officer. Therefore, in these respects, the amendments make the 2001 England and Wales regulations consistent with the current 2001 Scotland regulations.

This statutory instrument also amends the 2001 England and Wales and 2001 Scotland regulations to include within the meaning of qualifying officer any director of social services of a Northern Ireland health and social services board, and any executive director of social work of a Northern Ireland health and social services trust, as these office holders were previously not included.

4 Mar 2009 : Column GC317

Finally, the draft SI amends the list of court orders and injunctions that may be presented as evidence in support of an application for anonymous registration to include those made under relevant Northern Ireland legislation. This will ensure that no matter where a specified order or injunction is granted in the UK, it can be submitted in support of an application for anonymous registration.

Turning to other amendments within the Representation of the People regulations, the Representation of the People Act 1985 enables Peers who are resident overseas to vote at European parliamentary elections. The current regulations apply with modifications to certain legislative provisions for the purpose of registration of this category of elector. There are not many of them. As part of our preparation work for the European parliamentary elections this year, we identified the need to update these regulations, primarily to reflect recent changes to the system of registration for parliamentary and local government electors. In particular, the effect of an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1985 made by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 is that an oversees Peer who has an anonymous entry in the register of local government elections will not be able to satisfy the conditions of entitlement to vote at European parliamentary elections. Consistent with this, the draft SI amends the current regulations to reflect that anonymous registration does not apply to overseas Peers for the purpose of European parliamentary elections.

Minor amendments are also made to ensure that the legislative framework for the registration of overseas Peers is workable and internally consistent. We understand that the number of Peers likely to be affected by these amendments is very small. The ONS registration figures for 2008 reveal that only four Peers were registered as European parliamentary overseas electors. I do not know whether any of those have applied to be anonymous on the register but they could only have been so since 1 June 2007. Their entitlement to vote was conditional on their having been on a register in the United Kingdom in the course of the past 15 years, so I think that four probably comes down to a much smaller number.

Finally, as regards the Office for National Statistics, we are making a minor amendment to the 2001 England and Wales regulations and the 2001 Scotland regulations to provide for a free copy of the electoral register to be supplied to the Statistics Board. The regulations currently provide for a free copy of the register to be supplied to the Office for National Statistics. However, as the office’s statistical functions are now carried out by the Statistics Board, it is appropriate that the board should receive the register instead.

I thank noble Lords for allowing me the time to go into perhaps a little too much detail on this statutory instrument, but it is important that these matters are on the record. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the very kind remarks he made about my voice in the earlier debate. However, I warn him not to be too overconfident or to think that my voice, odd though it may sound at the moment, presages anything other than triumph whenever the general election comes.

Lord Henley: I admire the noble Lord’s resilience in these matters. I offer an apology in that I had assumed

4 Mar 2009 : Column GC318

that we were debating all three statutory instruments together. That is why I made my remarks about data sharing, which are possibly more appropriate to these regulations than to the preceding ones. I have nothing further to add other than that I am interested in his estimates of the number of Peers who might be affected by this measure. I think he said originally that four Peers might be affected, and then suggested that the figure was coming down to a much smaller one. I remember that a Secretary of State in the Department for Education for whom I worked said that she thought three exam boards were too many and that one was too few. However, she was not prepared to speculate on what she considered was the right figure. I wonder whether the noble Lord will speculate on what the appropriate figure—if it is much smaller than four—is likely to be. He probably cannot answer that question and I do not particularly expect one. However, if he can, I will listen to it with interest.

Lord Tyler: I will speak briefly as I hope to preserve the Minister’s voice for the final order, which I regard as rather more important. I do not think this House could ever be accused of not looking after the interests of minorities. If we are seeking to preserve the interests of four Peers who are resident in the European Union for this electoral purpose, we really are looking at the minority of minorities. Unless, of course, the Minister anticipates a large flow of Peers disappearing from this House and this country for economic or legislative reasons. If we are seeking to preserve the rights of one Peer, who presumably may have triggered this whole exercise by seeking to preserve the anonymity of his or her registration, that seems to me a great accolade that we should celebrate in this Parliament; namely, that we are prepared to look after the interests of one Peer. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister may like to comment on it. Having made that point, this is obviously just a simple tidying-up operation and I hope that we will not have to ask the Minister to use his voice at great length to explain the origin of this change.

Lord Bach: I thank both noble Lords for their firm support for this statutory instrument. I really do not want to go into the details. I am afraid that we are not preserving the right of any Peer; to make the law consistent we are saying that a Peer who found himself in the extremely unlikely position of having been on the anonymous list for local elections from 1 June 2007 would not have the right to vote in European parliamentary elections. The noble Lord tempts me to give a figure of less than four. I will: nought.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Amendment) Order 2009

Copy of the Order
3rd Report from JCSI

Considered in Grand Committee

4.40 pm

Moved By Lord Bach

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Amendment) Order 2009.

Relevant Document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

4 Mar 2009 : Column GC319

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): The purpose of this draft order is to implement without modification the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England to make alterations to the boundaries between the parliamentary constituencies of Daventry and South Northamptonshire in Northamptonshire; and Somerton and Frome, and Wells in Somerset. I hope that the Committee will consider that this is an uncontroversial draft order, but I have a feeling that my hope may not be realised completely.

The Boundary Commission for England has observed its customary rigorous and non-partisan procedures in producing its report, including wide consultation. Although there has been some opposition to the proposals in Somerset, everyone concerned has had an opportunity to put their arguments, which have, I understand, been carefully considered by the commission.

I appreciate that there may be some interest from those affected—the electors concerned as well as Members of this Committee and of the other place who represent these areas. However, I hope we can all agree that the commission has, as usual, done its work very thoroughly and that we can approve this draft order.

I shall provide some background to the commission’s report and the order. Thanks are due to the Boundary Commission for England and its secretariat for its assiduous work in carrying out this review. As always, it has carried out its duties thoroughly and conscientiously. I take this opportunity to thank the deputy chair of the commission at the time, the honourable Mr Justice Sullivan, for overseeing this work. He is no longer the deputy chair, having been elevated to the Court of Appeal, so he is now Lord Justice Sullivan. I am grateful, as I am sure are all Members, for his work with the commission over many years.

The Boundary Commission is a body appointed by statute to review parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. As well as carrying out regular reviews on all parliamentary constituencies approximately every 10 years or so, if it thinks it necessary between those reviews, the commission can carry out interim reviews of boundaries in a particular area. These might be necessary as a result of other changes, for instance to local authority boundaries or perhaps if there are major population changes in an area. The report and the draft order are the result of local authority boundary changes.

The previous regular periodical review in England was completed by the commission in October 2006. Its report was implemented without modification in the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007, which sets out the parliamentary constituencies into which England is divided. The parliamentary constituencies are described by reference to local government areas as they existed on 12 April 2005 and, of course, the new parliamentary constituencies will come into effect at the next general election.

After the commission’s report was submitted, the Electoral Commission made orders in 2006 and 2007 which altered the local government ward boundaries in the district of South Northamptonshire and in the district of Mendip in Somerset. Because those orders came into effect some months after the commission

4 Mar 2009 : Column GC320

had submitted its previous periodical report to the Secretary of State, the boundary changes were not reflected in the 2007 order. As a result, the boundaries between the parliamentary constituencies of Daventry and South Northamptonshire, and those between Somerton and Frome, and Wells do not follow the new local authority ward boundaries.

---