Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, there is nothing between the noble Lords on both Front Benches and myself in what we seek to do. I would merely argue that what we have done in the Bill achieves what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, seeks. Let me attempt to convince her of that. Clause 9 is designed to encourage electoral registration officers to maximize the number of eligible electors who register. Noble Lords will know that in the September 2005 report Understanding Electoral Registration, the Electoral Commission estimated that in 2000 there were 3.5 million people in England and Wales, which is 8 to 9 per cent of the eligible population, who were not registered to vote. The new duty clause is there to make it clear that EROs should do all that they can to tackle what we have all identified, and I think we all recognise, as the real problem—that of under-registration. Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 already requires registers to be accurate. I sought the advice of parliamentary counsel because, as noble Lords have rightly indicated, this is a clear and obvious step. Parliamentary counsel was very clear that, as a matter of law, the provision does all that is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the registers. Subsection (2)(a) requires the registers to contain,"““the names of the persons . . . entitled to be registered””." That means that if a person is entitled to be registered, his name must be on the register. If a person is not entitled to be registered, his name must not be on the register. Parliamentary counsel’s advice and legal support says that the law is completely clear on this point. Clause 9 builds on Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by requiring EROs to take certain minimum steps to ensure that eligible persons who meet the necessary requirements set out under the clause are included on registers. They already have certain powers to remove ineligible persons from the register in specified circumstances. So, for example, where the elector moves to another local authority, and where the ERO receives official notification from the elector’s new ERO that the elector no longer resides at an address in their area, he will be removed. Removal can be done via the monthly update to the register, and can take three to six weeks, as noble Lords will know, depending on what stage in the electoral cycle the decision is taken. Clause 12(5) imposes a duty on EROs to remove from the register persons who are not, or are no longer, eligible to be registered to vote. Clause 12 strengthens the ERO’s removal powers by enabling them to act upon any objections made to a person’s entry on the register, and to initiate an investigation into a person’s entry on the register if the ERO is in doubt about whether the person is entitled to be registered. We think that the combination of the new duty clause and Clause 12, linked back to Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, build the picture noble Lords seek, which is to ensure the registers are complete and accurate. The difficulty comes from looking at legislation in isolation, which is why I went back to parliamentary counsel and asked him to demonstrate to me that if you add in these new issues and areas, in a sense you have a complete picture, and not the picture that the noble Baroness fears is skewed in one direction and not the other. I was convinced by parliamentary counsel. I hope that noble Lords will accept that there is no question but that the objective is shared between us and that the noble Baroness’s concerns are of critical importance. Only those eligible to vote should be on the register. We believe that when noble Lords look back at the 1983 Act, they will see that the definitions ensure that registers are complete and accurate, which is what we all want to achieve. I hope that, on the basis that we have looked very carefully at the matter and are convinced that we now have a balanced approach, the noble Baroness will feel reassured and able to withdraw her amendment.