Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister has frequently tried to place the Bill in the proud lineage of great reforms that led to the introduction of universal suffrage in Britain. I quote from his ““new politics”” speech, delivered in May last year: "““I’m talking about the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great reforms of the 19th Century. The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832””." In the same speech, recalling the ““anger and disappointment”” felt by thousands of people who were turned away from the polling stations on general election night, he declared: "““You must be confident that, come polling day, your voice will be heard … Under this government’s plans, you will””" However, we know, as the Committee has heard before, that as a result of gaps in our electoral register, many millions of people are going to be denied a voice—indeed, any acknowledgement of their existence—in the two central proposals contained in the Bill. The Government are fond of saying that this Bill is underpinned by the principle of equality, but you cannot get equality on the electoral playing field on the basis of a grossly unfair or unequal register. This is particularly so in respect of the proposed boundary changes, which are to be drawn on the basis of the December 2010 register, from which it is agreed that upwards of 3.5 million eligible voters are missing. Putting that problem on one side, I think that the problem of underregistration also has a significant bearing on the referendum on the alternative vote, which is the subject of Part 1 of the Bill. As we are well aware, the Government intend that the referendum will be held on 5 May next, which, in our view, would be an unsuitable date. Even if the referendum goes ahead on that day, the referendum will at least be contested on a marginally more up-to-date electoral roll than that to be used for the boundary changes, if for no other reason that there is still time to put missing people on the register. If the referendum was not going to be held so soon, this would allow even more time. Happily, the Bill provides for that eventuality. Following the Committee’s acceptance of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker, the Bill will not actually require a referendum to take place until October of this year. We believe that that extended deadline provides an important opportunity for the registration problem to be properly addressed and sufficient leeway for the acceptance of Amendment 102. Amendment 102 is concerned with the commencement of Part 1 of the Bill. If accepted, the amendment would require the Electoral Commission to certify, "““that every local authority has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible””," before the AV referendum is held. The amendment would not require a certain percentage of eligible voters or resident adults to be registered. In previous debates, that was felt to be an unreasonable target. Indeed, there was some disagreement about what the right percentage target would be. The amendment would simply impose on the Electoral Commission a requirement to judge whether local authorities are doing all that they reasonably should to ensure that as many people as possible are registered to vote.