Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert—" ““(   )   A CORE scheme may make such modifications of the regulations mentioned in subsection (2) in their application to a CORE keeper or the information kept by him as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Amendment No. 1 responds to concerns raised in Grand Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is not able to be in his place today, that the regulations governing the publication and supply of information kept on CORE to bodies such as political parties might differ greatly from those which apply to electoral registration officers when they publish and supply such information locally. As I made clear in Grand Committee, CORE will not change the information that is held on electoral registers or the persons and organisations to whom it may be published or supplied; it simply creates a central point of access. I therefore agreed in principle with the point made in Committee that the regulations that apply to EROs publishing or supplying information should also apply to the CORE keeper. However, I also made it clear that some flexibility was needed to ensure that, for example, the CORE keeper was not required to keep a copy of the full register available for public inspection. The amendment retains that flexibility but also seeks to ensure that we more clearly set in law the principle that the regulations governing CORE will be the same as those which apply to EROs. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also respond to issues raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The noble Lord was concerned that, as drafted, some of the security measures included in the CORE provisions might call legitimate acts into question rather than focusing on fraudulent activity. Specifically, he was concerned that large households with a number of postal voters, such as student halls, would be flagged up as potentially fraudulent. He argued that CORE should instead focus on, for example, instances where large numbers of postal votes have been redirected to an alternative address, as it is in such circumstances that fraud is more likely to be involved. The noble Lord was also concerned that the Bill’s existing provisions would flag up legitimate instances of a person voting as another elector’s proxy. He argued that CORE should instead focus on fraudulent acts of double voting. My amendments tighten up the Bill to respond to these concerns. I hope that they will gain support on all sides of your Lordships’ House. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.