Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 8A. I was re-reading in Hansard my contribution at the previous stage of the Bill when we talked about why we were dealing with personal identifiers in the way that we were, and I start today by going back over the reasons that I gave in your Lordships’ House on that occasion. We all accept that the passage of this Bill has been an enjoyable experience in terms of our ability to work together in Parliament to tackle issues of electoral administration. We all agree that our democracy is very precious and that, when looking at the changes that we might make in electoral administration, we must do so with great care. We considered personal identifiers, and noble Lords will recall either from our previous debates or from reading Hansard that we looked at two possibilities of what might be done about the issue. First, we considered whether to pilot; we talked about the possibility of piloting some form of personal identifier in up to 10 areas. There were many discussions, both in your Lordships’ House and in another place, and in the end it was felt that there were significant difficulties, which noble Lords accepted, so the idea was dismissed and removed from the legislation. We also considered the transitional arrangements and the idea that individuals could determine whether or not they wished to give additional information. I noted in my last speech on this subject that there were two significant difficulties with that proposal. The first was that it would make the form that had to be filled in potentially more difficult to understand. People would be given a choice: ““Do you wish to give this information or not? You do not need to””. We felt that that could create more difficulties for people in understanding what they were filling in. The second and significant problem with a transitional scheme is that only those people who choose to will give information. Although you may learn something about that self-selected group of people, you learn nothing about the people who do not give the additional information. Our concern is that that would lead us into difficulties in making sure that the register was as up to date and accurate as possible, and that people were not deterred from registering, which is a significant issue. We were then presented with an amendment, which originally came from all sides of your Lordships’ House but was eventually tabled by my noble friend Lord Elder, who is in his place. That enabled us, through taking forward the postal voting proposals, to have a universal test bed of a personal identifier, which would give us the opportunity to see what happens when we ask people for additional information. All members of your Lordships’ House agreed that this was a useful proposal, and from the Government’s perspective it enables us both to look at the security around postal voting, which is an issue of grave concern, and to have a real test bed around personal identifiers. I am delighted that the consensus in your Lordships’ House and outside, as we had the opportunity to discuss this at length, was that we should take this forward. The difficulty with the amendment that was presented and accepted in your Lordships’ House, but which has now returned to us from the other place, was what would happen if we made personal identifiers universal. The Government feel strongly that that must be considered with enormous care. The only information, as I said before, is experience in Northern Ireland. I shall not reiterate all that I said before, except to say that we know that there were significant issues about what happened to the numbers on the electoral register. Indeed, legislation is currently going through Parliament to deal with some of the concerns that were raised. That is the only experience that we have and it shows that there were difficulties. To move directly to a system of universal personal identifiers is something that we must consider very carefully. The Government believe that we should do so only when we have the knowledge and experience that can be given to us by the amendment that was passed in your Lordships’ House and accepted in the other place, and which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Elder, and, I know, supported and probably drafted by both the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I think that I described them as a significant trio, which indeed it is. We are in the right place in this set of circumstances to have a test bed. I say that because I believe that we should move carefully with our democracy to make sure that we do not cause difficulties by chance. Of course there are security issues about which noble Lords are worried. I reminded myself that in the Bill there are 10 ways in primary legislation and five more that will come in through secondary legislation. We need to test the effects of all the proposals. They are significant and are designed to tackle some of the issues that noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, have raised as concerns. We are also, as my honourable friend Bridget Prentice made clear in another place, keen that discussions of what happens as a consequence of this Bill do not end with the passage of the legislation. Rather, we have said that it is absolutely right for some sort of post-legislative review: the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to carefully consider the consequences of the legislation and to revisit and review how effective it has been. My honourable friend Bridget Prentice talked about the role of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, and we will be picking this matter up with the right honourable Alan Beith as chair. I would be keen to see Members of your Lordships’ House take part in that. There is no reluctance on the Government’s part to involve all parties in discussions about how this legislation works. Our democracy belongs to all of us. We would want to take that forward as quickly as possible, and we hope that it will in some way ensure that noble Lords understand the relevance and importance of this legislation, and the commitment of the Government to work across parties to determine that we have the best possible legislation in place to tackle all the issues that we have discussed at all stages. I am conscious of the amount of work that already exists for administrators within this legislation. We have had to look carefully at ensuring that the burdens that we put on them to implement everything in this legislation are appropriate. I am mindful of ensuring that we do not add to them. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about time, because there is an issue with getting this legislation on to the statute book so that we can bring in everything within it. I do so in the spirit of giving information—nothing more than that. However, it is important that, when noble Lords make decisions on this Bill today, they understand the consequences of delaying the legislation. It effectively means that measures that we would have brought in later this year will not be brought in until 2007. I have said everything that I want to say, because I am conscious that noble Lords have heard many debates on this subject. I hope that your Lordships will accept the good will and intent of the Government. We are clear that we wish to see the opportunity, through the amendments of my noble friend Lord Elder that have been accepted, to look at the question of personal identifiers. We wish to involve Parliament in the process of examining everything in this legislation, which will help to keep the votes secure and ensure that people can exercise their democratic right. I hope that noble Lords will also accept that to add something untried and untested is potentially difficult and dangerous, and could damage our democracy. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will accept the Government’s view. Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 8A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)