Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 12:"After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—" ““CORE SCHEMES: EVALUATION (1)   The first CORE scheme (the initial scheme) to be established under section 1 shall be subject to evaluation by a body designated by the Secretary of State. (2)   The body designated under subsection (1) shall make a report to the Secretary of State. (3)   No order for a second CORE scheme shall be laid before Parliament unless accompanied by a copy of the report made under subsection (2). (4)   For the purposes of subsection (1), the Electoral Commission may be designated as the body to undertake an evaluation.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to provide that, after the introduction of the first CORE scheme, no further scheme shall be introduced until the first has been evaluated and that evaluation has been laid before Parliament. I cite in support of the new clause the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. At Second Reading, he said, in respect of the introduction of personal identifiers:"““On an issue of this importance, evidence is required.””—[Official Report, 13/2/06; col. 1019.]" I see no reason why the same principle should not apply in respect of CORE schemes. Indeed, the case is even stronger because we already have some evidence on the usage of personal identifiers, whereas we have no evidence at all on the use of CORE schemes. Clearly, the use of such schemes is important. As we have just heard, rolling them out will incur cost and it is important that it is done as efficiently and effectively as possible, with security not being compromised at the expense of convenience. Given that, I think that the need for an evaluation of the first CORE scheme is compelling. As the Bill stands, consultation will take place with the Electoral Commission and other bodies before a scheme is introduced or varied, but there is no requirement for a dedicated study of whether the scheme has actually worked in the way that is intended. When I pursued this issue in Committee, the Minister said that Parliament would have to approve an order before a second scheme was introduced, and that Members would expect the Government to come forward with a review. I am sure that we would. But a review can encompass anything from a short in-house commentary to a thorough external review by experts. Parliament will have to approve each CORE scheme, and it is important that the decision we take is an informed one. We therefore need to make clear that there should be an evaluation by a designated body. The new clause thus places in the Bill a requirement for an evaluation of the first CORE scheme by a body designated by the Secretary of State. The body will make a report to the Secretary of State and no order for a second scheme will be laid before Parliament unless accompanied by that report. The clause also provides that the Electoral Commission may be designated as the body to undertake the evaluation. I appreciate that the commission may also be designated as the CORE keeper. In Committee I sought to exclude it from being a CORE keeper so that it could be the body that undertakes the evaluation. However, I am advised that it would be possible for the commission to assume both roles without creating a conflict of interest, since it could commission an evaluation. It is worth stressing that the new clause requires an evaluation of the initial CORE scheme and not of subsequent CORE schemes. Reviews of subsequent schemes may be helpful but they are not required by the clause. It therefore imposes no excessive or continuing burden and it impacts at the point where an evaluation is likely to be most useful. If there are problems with the initial scheme, they can be picked up and corrected before a second is introduced. If we are to move beyond an initial scheme, then Parliament is entitled to a detailed report on how that scheme has worked. On an issue of this importance, evidence is required. I beg to move.