Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 6:"Page 4, line 2, leave out ““may pay grant”” and insert ““must make sufficient financial provision available””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated these precise amendments in Committee and our position remains unchanged. Our concern with the funding of the CORE scheme was that local authorities were to be put under undue pressure to meet the cost of the scheme and, as a result, could be faced with making cuts in other services to finance it. As a background to the financial decisions to be made, the Minister informed us that models 4 and 5 in the appendices of the consultation paper were chosen as the basis of the CORE scheme. Does that mean that both models will be used, or will DCA choose between them? This has serious implications for security, as I mentioned in our earlier debate. After the Minister referred those models to us in Committee, I looked in detail at the useful diagrams of models 4 and 5 and I remain concerned about some areas. In model 4, the central integrity reporting repository, which I take to mean the central bank of data, would send electronic messages to local authorities if information was duplicated. I would not argue with the principle of lessening duplication on the electoral register, but I was concerned to read the following statement:"““If a registering elector’s details share sufficient similarity to an elector already registered in another locality, the Central Repository would trigger a warning if the elector is supposedly registering for the first time, or trigger a message to the old [local authority] that the voter is now registered in a different [local authority]””." I am concerned about the potential for error in that statement. Two individuals could have very similar details, yet one could be struck off the electoral register automatically due to an overall similarity. The problem with leaving the integrity of the electoral register to a machine is that decisions are made rapidly and automatically and require a duplication of effort if the local authority personnel also have to manage the data. Moreover, the concluding sentence of the description of model 4 states that the database would not have complete integrity, as not all discrepancies will necessarily have been resolved. What is the point of having a central system at all? The central registry system in model 5 would ensure that discrepancies are resolved before they are officially recorded there, but that central system would be vulnerable to fraud. Where would the funding come from for the extra local authority staff needed to support the system? My objections to the scheme are based purely on the spirit of the protection of data. As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has stated, we are supportive of creating a CORE scheme in terms of what can be achieved, but I remain unconvinced that any of the schemes proposed will be robust against fraud. In that sense, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which would ensure that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to each stage of the CORE scheme. I have described the background and will move on to the substance of my amendments. They will ensure that sufficient financial provision is made available to local authorities to implement the scheme. Perhaps those words are too broad but they were intended in the most frugal sense. The scheme should be sufficiently funded so that it does not fail, but not in excess of absolute necessity. That provision would be made following the assessment of costs. While the amendments would not write a blank cheque for the CORE scheme, they would ensure that there is not another situation like the recent council tax revaluation computer scheme which has accumulated substantial costs but is still not yet up and running. I confess that I am still a bit confused by the Minister’s comments in Committee, when she stated that £10 million was the cap for setting up the scheme, because that was the amount available. But she went on to say that she would not rule out looking at the matter again. If, when the scheme was being set up, something emerged that might clearly be of additional benefit, it might cost more. I stated in Committee that Essex County Council, of which I am leader, had to find several hundred thousand pounds more to run last year’s elections. That is just one local authority, and I am concerned about local authority services overall. A few more figures were presented, but again I struggle to see exactly where they are going. I am sure the noble Baroness will be able to provide more clarity. Let me suggest my understanding of the funding proposals. Of the £20 million needed to set up the scheme, £17 million represents additional costs to local authorities. I understand that they will be provided to implement the scheme. Even though we do not know what the secondary legislation measures might be, the remaining £3.8 million or so will be given to local authorities if necessary. Overall, in England, the scheme looks set to cost, at the very least, £30 million. That is not to mention the £1.2 million which has already been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, and the £2.9 million transferred to Scotland, where almost £5 million is therefore in pre-emptive funding. Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 would ensure that there was proper financial consultation on the face of the Bill to ensure that the base cost does not accumulate over time. Amendment No. 11 would ensure that the orders made under subsection (1) were made only under the terms of subsection (1) and would restrict the broad legal application to the power to make a different provision for different purposes. I hope that these amendments are clear to the Minister, even if they are complicated in their presentation. I think she knows what I mean by them, however. I beg to move.