Political Parties and Elections Bill

Let us see how the debate goes. Perhaps we can come to a view either later this evening, if the Committee is prepared to sit later, or when we continue the debate on the next occasion we are lucky enough to meet together. For the moment, I would be grateful if I could speak just to the government amendments and then move the first one. I was saying before I was interrupted that the Electoral Commission recognises the point that we are making, which is that the scale of this change is big. It has said that individual registration, ""would be a major change to the electoral registration system in Great Britain. There will need to be detailed planning and identification of key milestones to provide the basis for moving towards implementation of individual electoral registration over a number of years, including the delivery of public awareness campaigns during any transition to a new system. There will also need to be a real effort to make sure Electoral Registration Officers throughout Great Britain have the right tools to ensure all those who are entitled to be registered to vote are helped to do so"." We agree with this analysis. I have already outlined the steps that we have taken, and are taking, to enhance the reach of the register. We can have a register that is both comprehensive and accurate, but we will deliver that only if we frame the process in a way that prepares the public for the transition to a new form of registration and do all that is in our power to ensure that registration rates do not fall—or we would have damaged the legitimacy of the electoral process and our democracy. We have brought forward amendments to put in place a statutory timetable for the introduction of individual registration; begin the roll-out of measures to prepare both the public and the electoral system for that change; and put in place a series of tests that will be independently assessed by the Electoral Commission itself to ensure that the shift can be made only once the system is ready for it. I know that there is concern among noble Lords about the timetable for the shift, which we propose should happen not before 2015 at the earliest. Let me address that point. Given the importance of safeguarding the electoral system against fraud, and the vital role that individual registration can play in achieving that, it is clearly understandable that noble Lords would be anxious to see progress made towards that end. However, as I have set out, a significant amount of work needs to be undertaken to ensure that the system is fully equipped to meet the challenges of such a shift. We know from experience in Northern Ireland that there is a real risk that numbers registered could decrease as a result of the move. Under individual registration many people will, of course, for the first time be responsible for their own registration. For all individuals, the requirement to provide additional personal information when registering will be new. We must ensure that the electorate has sufficient time to acclimatise to the new requirements. The phased approach will enable us carefully to monitor progress at each stage, including using the commission’s annual progress reports to better ensure that registration rates can be maintained during the change. It will also allow us to develop and test new measures to drive up registration rates, working closely with registration officers and the commission to determine what works best. The specific timetable set out in the clauses delivers on the phased approach. It has been developed very carefully with due regard to the magnitude of the change and the risks involved. It allows time for the detailed results of the 2011 census—which will be available in 2012—to feed into any assessments of registration rates. Importantly, it also allows us to minimise any disruption to elections. The collection of personal identifiers will begin only after the next general election, which we know must be held by June 2010 at the latest. Should the shift to compulsory provision of identifiers take place in 2015, it would take place after both the 2014 European Parliament elections and the spring 2015 elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We cannot, of course, know at this distance the timing of future general elections, but placing the potential change in this timeframe seeks to at least partially manage the risk of making a shift in the period immediately before a national or sub-national election. We regard this change as so important that we want, as far as possible, to investigate all the potential issues fully prior to the provision of identifiers becoming compulsory. The data-matching piloting provisions in the Bill are a key example of this. We intend to use the pilots to establish which public sector databases will be of most assistance to EROs in targeting people to be registered to vote. The alternative approach of rushing to implement without any evidence base would risk wasted investment. We also need to bear in mind that in Northern Ireland electoral registration has been delivered since the 1960s by a single body: in Great Britain, there are more than 400 registration officers. That has two significant implications. First, we need to ensure that each of those EROs is ready for the shift to individual registration and is performing as effectively as they can to maintain and build the register. Secondly, we need to consider how best to design the infrastructure for the validation of national insurance numbers that will need to underpin the system. For these reasons any attempts to introduce individual registration at a faster rate might risk damaging the integrity of our system. The purpose of this phased programme of implementation is to ensure that we have time to bolster, adapt and improve the current system of registration in readiness for such a fundamental shift in process. I shall now turn to the detail of the clauses. The new clause introduced by Amendment 125A provides for the voluntary collection of personal identifiers—date of birth, signature and national insurance number—from electors alongside the existing process of household registration. It makes it obligatory for electoral registration officers to take steps to obtain this information from 1 July 2010 and sets a minimum level for those steps. The new clause to be introduced by Amendment 125B contains two sets of order-making powers, which will enable the voluntary provision of identifying information to take place. The first set of order-making powers set out in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of the proposed new clause allow us to amend the identifiers collected, which might become necessary if, for example, technological advances require a different type of identifying information to be used and to make consequential amendments. This power is subject to affirmative resolution and the Electoral Commission must be consulted before it is used. In consulting the commission, the Secretary of State must seek its view on the impact on the register of the changes to identifiers in the event that provision of identifiers were to become compulsory. This is intended to act as a safeguard to ensure that any amendments to the identifying information provided would not impact negatively on underrepresented groups. The second set of order-making powers, set out in subsections (1)(c) and (2) of the proposed new clause, allow us to make supplementary provision to enable the collection of identifiers on a voluntary basis. It provides for the Secretary of State to make provision for the kinds of forms that could be used to collect identifiers, what those forms should say, how they should be kept, how data matching with the national insurance number database would work, and for the charging of fees for the provision of data. In addition, it allows us to make provision for what steps an ERO should take if he or she suspects that the identifying information provided is false. That is important in terms of enabling the system to tackle fraud. While the intention is that, during this phase, no one will be removed from the register for failing to provide, or for providing inaccurate identifiers, we will take powers to set out in regulations the steps EROs must take in the event that false or inaccurate identifier information is provided. The first set of regulations made under these powers will be subject to affirmative resolution. Subsequent regulations will be made under the negative resolution procedure because it is considered that they will be technical, such as adjustments to forms as we establish what works, and less likely to warrant a full parliamentary debate. Much legislation relating to registration is already made by order under the current system. The new clause to be introduced by Amendment 125C provides for annual progress reports to be published by the Electoral Commission between the years 2010 and 2013 inclusive. It also provides for the commission’s report in 2014, in which it makes a recommendation on the shift to individual registration, subject to the tests I mentioned earlier and the vote by Parliament on whether the shift should be made. The provision of identifiers will not become compulsory before the autumn 2015 annual canvass. This lead-in will give the Electoral Commission time to consider the full weight of evidence on the collection of identifiers to help EROs identify why certain groups might have difficulty providing them and to start addressing those problems ahead of any move to full individual registration. It is very important that those who represent hard-to-reach groups are given the opportunity to contribute to the consideration of the move to individual registration. We would expect the Electoral Commission to engage with such groups and organisations when considering comprehensiveness and accuracy, and in making its recommendations. The tests are set out in new subsections (3) and (4) of Amendment 125C. They provide that the annual progress reports undertaken by the commission must contain an assessment of the adequacy of the registration system in meeting the registration objectives and whether any changes are needed ahead of a shift to individual registration. This is essential if we are to build up a clear evidence base on the health of the registration system and its readiness to be subjected to such a significant change. The commission will then be required to produce a further report in 2014. That report will be different from those produced in previous years, in that it must contain—in addition to the assessment that I have just outlined—an assessment of whether making the provision of identifiers compulsory would help or hinder the achievement of the registration objectives, and a recommendation as to whether or not the collection of identifying information should be made obligatory. This report will be laid before Parliament and the provision of identifiers will not become compulsory unless it is both recommended by the commission and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This ensures, rightly, that Parliament is at the heart of this fundamental shift. In the event that the shift to the obligatory provision of identifiers is not recommended by the commission, or that Parliament does not approve a positive recommendation, the Secretary of State may require the Electoral Commission to produce another report at least one year—and not more than two years—after that requirement was made. This timescale should enable further steps to be taken, if necessary, to prepare the system for the change. I come to Amendments 125D and 125E. The new clauses introduced by these provide for the obligatory provision of personal identifiers, in the event that Parliament approves a positive recommendation by the Electoral Commission. Amendment 125D applies the 2002 Northern Ireland model to the rest of the UK with several amendments. In particular, first, it makes it possible to insist on EROs using a prescribed canvass form in Great Britain. Secondly, it amends the legislation so that the three-month residency requirement in Northern Ireland does not apply to the rest of the UK. Thirdly, it provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations alternative evidence to be provided by those who do not have a national insurance number. The new clause introduced by Amendment 125E contains broad order-making powers to allow for the transition to the obligatory collection of identifiers and for the Secretary of State to change the identifiers to be provided in the compulsory phase. It also contains, in new subsection (1), transitional provision for those already on the register in autumn 2015. From autumn of that year, it is proposed that all new registrations—that is, people moving house and re-registering, or anyone entirely new to the register—would have to provide the identifiers to be put onto the register. However, new subsection (1) allows that anyone already on the register in autumn 2015 may remain on the register, subject to their meeting the existing conditions for confirming their registration to the electoral registration officer, without providing their identifiers in the 2015 or 2016 canvass. However, from the autumn canvass such individuals will have to provide their identifiers in order to remain on the register and so, from that point, identifiers would be in place for all entries on the register. I have taken up the time of the Committee in describing what these clauses say because they are new and it is important that they should be on the record. In summary, what we are proposing here represents one of the most significant developments in electoral administration for many years. The intention is to make the change with care; to take time to consider all the necessary steps; and to do all that can be done to bolster the system before the transition is made. There are no guarantees and any system change on this scale is not without risks. We must take all the steps that we can to mitigate those wherever possible. We believe that this multi-faceted approach, encompassing work to improve registration rates, to build up the evidence base in this area, to prepare the public for change and to allow time to test the processes for collecting identifiers on this scale will enable us to implement individual registration in a way that supports both the accuracy of the register and its comprehensiveness. This may not be the time for the debate on these clauses to begin. I look forward very much to hearing what other noble Lords have to say in due course. I beg to move.