Electoral Administration Bill
2:58 pm
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"( ) A CORE scheme may make such modifications of the regulations mentioned in subsection (2) in their application to a CORE keeper or the information kept by him as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate."
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Amendment No. 1 responds to concerns raised in Grand Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is not able to be in his place today, that the regulations governing the publication and supply of information kept on CORE to bodies such as political parties might differ greatly from those which apply to electoral registration officers when they publish and supply such information locally. As I made clear in Grand Committee, CORE will not change the information that is held on electoral registers or the persons and organisations to whom it may be published or supplied; it simply creates a central point of access. I therefore agreed in principle with the point made in Committee that the regulations that apply to EROs publishing or supplying information should also apply to the CORE keeper.
However, I also made it clear that some flexibility was needed to ensure that, for example, the CORE keeper was not required to keep a copy of the full register available for public inspection. The amendment retains that flexibility but also seeks to ensure that we more clearly set in law the principle that the regulations governing CORE will be the same as those which apply to EROs.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also respond to issues raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The noble Lord was concerned that, as drafted, some of the security measures included in the CORE provisions might call legitimate acts into question rather than focusing on fraudulent activity. Specifically, he was concerned that large households with a number of postal voters, such as student halls, would be flagged up as potentially fraudulent. He argued that CORE should instead focus on, for example, instances where large numbers of postal votes have been redirected to an alternative address, as it is in such circumstances that fraud is more likely to be involved.
The noble Lord was also concerned that the Bill's existing provisions would flag up legitimate instances of a person voting as another elector's proxy. He argued that CORE should instead focus on fraudulent acts of double voting. My amendments tighten up the Bill to respond to these concerns. I hope that they will gain support on all sides of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 3, line 18, after "same" insert "redirection"
Page 3, line 20, after "once" insert "(other than as proxy)"
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
"(13) A redirection address is an address in respect of which the person is not registered."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"SAFEGUARDING CORE INFORMATION
Correspondence, electronic or otherwise, is prohibited between the National Identity Register and any CORE scheme."
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will remember the recent passage of the Identity Cards Bill. The purpose of this amendment is clear. It will ensure that the identity cards register, so eloquently opposed in this House and in another place by my noble and right honourable friends, would not be able to correspond or communicate with the online record of electors.
I am sure that some noble Lords will have followed the ID cards debate and the following questions carefully. They may therefore be surprised that I have tabled this amendment at all. On
"There is currently no proposal for these specifications to provide for two-way data-sharing with the proposed identity cards register".—[Hansard, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1595W.]
However, on
"as an adult population register . . . this should be implemented through the identity cards scheme on the basis that the scheme eventually becomes compulsory".—[Hansard, 18/4/06; col. WS 134.]
It is my understanding that it is not currently compulsory to hold an ID card and that that provision will only apply after 2009—let us not forget that from
We wonder what other plans the Government have for the ID cards scheme. We learnt from the Sunday Times on
I remain anxious about the safety and the sensitivity of information that will be kept on CORE. It will contain a record of where one is registered to vote, and it is my understanding that there could also be a record of the marked register of postal votes. I hope that, now that we are to have CORE, once it has been established it will be a success. It would be devastating if it were to fail and adversely affect the democratic process. The potential vulnerabilities of CORE are clear. We had a full and interesting debate on the fraud implications of having an online record of electors. Noble Lords will recall the statistic from the Financial Services Authority, which tells us that fraud is rising by over 300 per cent a year.
Despite a long debate in Committee, we have not yet heard from the Minister exactly how the CORE electoral scheme is to be run and what safeguards against fraud will be in place in whatever structure is adopted from the two models that the noble Baroness suggested at that time. Will there be one centrally run scheme for the whole country that takes information from local authorities, or will there be a comparative network between authorities?
The consultation period on this ended on
This amendment is tabled in a protective spirit—not only to protect electoral information on the register, but to prevent links being made between data that could pave the way for compulsory voting or compulsory ownership of an ID card in order to vote. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, to the Identity Cards Bill stood in the way of compulsory ownership of a physical ID card. But it is not difficult to imagine, in a few years, an elector being informed that he is not allowed to vote because he does not possess an ID card. More important, the vulnerability of the combined information on the CORE and the ID registers will pose a serious risk in terms of identity theft and fraud. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that such connection will be prevented in the interests of data security or that proposals for data sharing will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
It is also my understanding that the Home Office is the only department to produce costings for the identity cards scheme. Can the Minister inform the House, following the consultation, whether CORE and the NIR will link up and, if so, can she give an indication of the costs? In the event of data sharing between CORE and the ID register, which we are all trying to prevent, can the Minister state that the correspondence of information will not be used to penalise individuals in respect of voting if they have failed to keep up to date on the ID register? Would an individual be given notice that the information held on him on either register would be linked up?
My noble friend Lord Northesk raised this point eloquently in the Committee stage of the Identity Cards Bill. He said that,
"one possible reason for the provision"—
that is, to register facts on an individual without his knowledge or consent—
"might be to facilitate the merging of data on to the register from already existing government databases".
My noble friend went on to say that such a linkage would be,
"wholly antipathetic to individual privacy rights".—[Hansard, 16/11/05; col. 1691.]
What is more, the link between CORE and the NIR would operate immediately after designation of passports.
The information to be held on all these systems is highly sensitive. We have learnt that the NIR, the system for passports, can include not only biometric data but also health records. We need an assurance that there will not be a link-up between these systems and, in particular, that CORE will not be able to be interrogated on behalf of the other systems. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
My Lords, I do not see how there cannot be at least a one-way link. If you are trying to establish someone's identity and whether they have the right to vote, you will want to interrogate the national identity register once it is complete and compulsory. It will be a jolly good way of knowing whether someone is who they say they are and whether their claim to be allowed to vote should be taken at face value. Given that under the national identity regulations there will be enormous fines for giving false information about where you live and your main address, the national identity register will, it seems, become the main source of information for who should be on the register. It will be used by local authorities and others to pinpoint who should be on the register in their campaigns for inclusion.
On postal voting fraud, I should have thought that, when it is complete, the national identity register will be an essential source of information for drawing the attention of electoral registration officers to likely fraud, because it will be such a complete, accurate and up-to-date database—ha ha. We shall see—it is supposed to be. So the flow of information from the national identity register into CORE seems essential, although I agree with my noble friend that what exactly happens should be under parliamentary control. I share her concerns about the flow of information in the other direction. We should not share electoral information with other systems through government, except under extremely tight control.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for raising this important issue. I will begin by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In his speech, there was a lot of "could", "should" and "might be". One of the critical issues that the noble Baroness rightly described in the amendment is that we should move away from "could", "should" and "might be" to being as clear as possible. I will deal with her questions as best I can and then talk about the specific details of the amendment.
The noble Baroness is right that we have the responses to the consultation. I do not yet have a definitive statement from my honourable friend Bridget Prentice, who is the Minister responsible, on whether we should be looking for a gradual implementation or going for what one might describe as a "big bang" effect, but it is worth remembering that many registers are held electronically. Noble Lords accepted in Committee that what I was describing was not at all something that removed the power from the local level—that is the critical place where the register is held—but something that enabled the merging of these address books, if I may describe them like that, so that it would be found more valuable for the political parties, in particular, to access.
There is no plan at this stage to go beyond that. The noble Baroness rightly raised both in Committee and in your Lordships' House today the issue of making sure that if we were to move further than that—for example, people checking that their entry was correct online—we would have to tackle fraud absolutely. Indeed, she gave the figures for the concerns of the Financial Services Authority on fraud, which we take seriously. I completely accept that point. In Committee, we talked about the possibilities of CORE. I accept that we cannot move in any direction that would enable people to use it fraudulently. However, it is meant to be a tool that is useful to, for example, the political parties and the Electoral Commission. That is how we should think about it.
When it comes to how to consider the national identity register, I understand very well from having followed the debates in your Lordships' House and another place not just people's sensitivities about this database, but—if I might say from my experience of other legislation in which I have been involved—the general concern that data are protected properly. I am the Minister with responsibility for data protection, so I, too, take that matter seriously. The noble Baroness is right to say that one should not be able to use the register differently without parliamentary scrutiny. For example, if one wanted—I stress "if"—in the future to use the identity register to look at security checks to help to spot fraudulent or duplicate entries, one could do so only after we had followed the affirmative order procedure outlined in the Identity Cards Act as it currently stands.
I have checked through all the possibilities that I could think of in relation to how we might link up the registers. None of them could be done without the affirmative regulation procedure. I would like to take a step further, if I might, but I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House, for I cannot do that without going back to my colleagues in the Home Office. My personal preference would be to accept the amendment, because I can see that the noble Baroness is seeking to make sure that, if we were to move in this direction, we would do so by using legislation appropriately. Noble Lords will know that there is further legislation that would need to come in.
I cannot do that today because I would need to go back and confirm that point with colleagues. If the noble Baroness were willing to withdraw her amendment on the basis that we would have a discussion between now and Third Reading, my commitment would be that of course she should be allowed to bring it back if she felt it appropriate and if I had not resolved the issue. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her response and for her offer of further thought on the subject. I am bound to say that we are a long way through the process on this Bill and this issue has been around since Committee. While I always accept that the noble Baroness will do what she says she will do, I am going to try to make sure that we get this provision into the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanningfield (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 2, leave out "may pay grant" and insert "must make sufficient financial provision available"
Lord Hanningfield (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, we debated these precise amendments in Committee and our position remains unchanged. Our concern with the funding of the CORE scheme was that local authorities were to be put under undue pressure to meet the cost of the scheme and, as a result, could be faced with making cuts in other services to finance it.
As a background to the financial decisions to be made, the Minister informed us that models 4 and 5 in the appendices of the consultation paper were chosen as the basis of the CORE scheme. Does that mean that both models will be used, or will DCA choose between them? This has serious implications for security, as I mentioned in our earlier debate. After the Minister referred those models to us in Committee, I looked in detail at the useful diagrams of models 4 and 5 and I remain concerned about some areas.
In model 4, the central integrity reporting repository, which I take to mean the central bank of data, would send electronic messages to local authorities if information was duplicated. I would not argue with the principle of lessening duplication on the electoral register, but I was concerned to read the following statement:
"If a registering elector's details share sufficient similarity to an elector already registered in another locality, the Central Repository would trigger a warning if the elector is supposedly registering for the first time, or trigger a message to the old [local authority] that the voter is now registered in a different [local authority]".
I am concerned about the potential for error in that statement. Two individuals could have very similar details, yet one could be struck off the electoral register automatically due to an overall similarity. The problem with leaving the integrity of the electoral register to a machine is that decisions are made rapidly and automatically and require a duplication of effort if the local authority personnel also have to manage the data. Moreover, the concluding sentence of the description of model 4 states that the database would not have complete integrity, as not all discrepancies will necessarily have been resolved. What is the point of having a central system at all?
The central registry system in model 5 would ensure that discrepancies are resolved before they are officially recorded there, but that central system would be vulnerable to fraud. Where would the funding come from for the extra local authority staff needed to support the system?
My objections to the scheme are based purely on the spirit of the protection of data. As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has stated, we are supportive of creating a CORE scheme in terms of what can be achieved, but I remain unconvinced that any of the schemes proposed will be robust against fraud. In that sense, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which would ensure that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to each stage of the CORE scheme.
I have described the background and will move on to the substance of my amendments. They will ensure that sufficient financial provision is made available to local authorities to implement the scheme. Perhaps those words are too broad but they were intended in the most frugal sense. The scheme should be sufficiently funded so that it does not fail, but not in excess of absolute necessity. That provision would be made following the assessment of costs. While the amendments would not write a blank cheque for the CORE scheme, they would ensure that there is not another situation like the recent council tax revaluation computer scheme which has accumulated substantial costs but is still not yet up and running.
I confess that I am still a bit confused by the Minister's comment in Committee that £10 million was the cap for setting up the scheme, because that was the amount available. But she went on to say that she would not rule out looking at the matter again. If, when the scheme was being set up, something emerged that might clearly be of additional benefit, it might cost more. I stated in Committee that Essex County Council, of which I am leader, had to find several hundred thousand pounds more to run last year's elections. That is just one local authority, and I am concerned about local authority services overall.
A few more figures were presented, but again I struggle to see exactly where they are going. I am sure the noble Baroness will be able to provide more clarity. Let me suggest my understanding of the funding proposals. Of the £20 million needed to set up the scheme, £17 million represents additional costs to local authorities. I understand that they will be provided to implement the scheme. Even though we do not know what the secondary legislation measures might be, the remaining £3.8 million or so will be given to local authorities if necessary. Overall, in England, the scheme looks set to cost, at the very least, £30 million. That is not to mention the £1.2 million which has already been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, and the £2.9 million transferred to Scotland, where almost £5 million is therefore in pre-emptive funding.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 would ensure that there was proper financial consultation under the Bill to ensure that the base cost does not accumulate over time. Amendment No. 11 would ensure that the orders made under subsection (1) were made only under the terms of subsection (1) and would restrict the broad legal application to the power to make a different provision for different purposes. I hope that these amendments are clear to the Minister, even if they are complicated in their presentation. I think she knows what I mean by them, however. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I appreciate entirely that he speaks with great authority from his position as leader of a local authority. Indeed, I understand the issue very well. There is a genuine concern for the noble Lord and those involved in local government to ensure that this scheme is funded properly, and that they do not find themselves with a need to find consequential funding. That could, as the noble Lord rightly indicated, have an impact on services available to local people. In a nutshell, that is what I see lies behind the noble Lord's specific amendments.
As I indicated, although the consultation has closed, we have not yet decided on the model. The noble Lord made very important points about the critical nature of electronic data being held centrally; about making sure that the models themselves were proofed against fraud; and making sure that the systems work effectively. I will ensure that those are fed into the discussions on the consultation. It is important that we keep noble Lords who have been involved in this legislation absolutely up to date with the thinking as we develop CORE, for the expertise is clearly in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will know that in Committee we talked about some of the funding questions. I will just run through them so that they are on the record, on Report, in your Lordships' House. However, it is against the principle which the noble Lord rightly identified of wanting to ensure that we fund CORE properly so that it is dealt with as a separate item and is not a drain on resources from local government.
I will run through those issues because in Committee we talked more generally about the Bill costs. We estimate the cost of implementing the measures in England and Wales to be about £20 million. As the noble Lord indicated, most of this, £17 million, represents additional costs to local authorities. An additional £3.8 million will be made available to local authorities for the cost of the secondary legislation measures. Some £19.9 million has been transferred into revenue support grant to cover the new burdens imposed on local authorities by the measures and by the secondary legislation package. An additional £1.2 million has been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales for the implementation of the measures there.
The noble Lord knows well the Government's policy on ring-fencing. We will not be ring-fencing this. We recognise that it is important that returning officers and registration officers receive adequate funding to enable them to implement the measures. Clause 63 provides for the Electoral Commission to collate centrally information from local authorities on their spending on elections and registrations. It is the first time that information will be collected in such a way and it is an important part of ensuring that we develop policy appropriately in future. Incidentally, the Scottish Executive have £2.9 million in Barnett consequential, for the implementation of those measures which extend to Scotland. The point about CORE, as I indicated, is that it brings together information in order to make it easy for the organisations which are allowed to access the 400 or so separate electoral registers. As I indicated, that is supported by all the political parties.
As the noble Lord has indicated, each electoral registration officer will need to provide CORE with data output in a consistent format. Since 2004, we have supported implementation with funding of about £1 million to third-party software vendors and individual electoral registration officers to ensure that their systems can output data in the agreed standardised output format—which is electoral mark-up language, I am told.
We have also sought specialist advice from the Office of Government Commerce on ensuring that we have the appropriate governance, assurance and procurement arrangements. As noble Lords will know from Committee, £10 million of capital modernisation funding has been approved for CORE, although the procurement approach will include a market sounding phase to test the preferred approach to procuring and implementing CORE and to refine the cost estimates. We are committed to continuing to support CORE when it is fully implemented, including funding new burdens. I have made that as clear as I can for the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
I want to make a further point, which I hope will also provide reassurance for the noble Lord. We do not expect any aspect of CORE to be burdensome to electoral registration officers. They will continue to collate their registers and publish them monthly. The difference will be that, as well as publishing the register locally, they will provide an update to the CORE system. That should be as simple as a few mouse clicks or an automated system. Therefore, we do not anticipate there being an administrative burden, which, as the noble Lord will be the first to say, we need to consider in cost terms apart from anything else.
As I have indicated, we have set money aside in the Bill for local government and for CORE, and we do not see the scheme being administratively burdensome in any way. I have also indicated that, should there be additional costs because of changes that might be made, we will fund them. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will have a smile in his heart in recognising that this is not in any way meant to be burdensome, financially or administratively, to local government, and that is our commitment. We anticipate this being a useful tool that political parties and the Electoral Commission will find of great value.
Lord Hanningfield (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. I was reassured by the fact that she said she would take back some of the information that I gave about data protection and by what she said about the way that that would be handled. Clearly we need to consider that and it needs to be part of the consultation process.
On local government funding, we just have to wait to see what happens. The Government have provided the money but often, whatever the intentions, things turn out to be more expensive. I will remember the words that the noble Baroness used. I think that she referred to possible "additional costs". She is nodding her head. I am not sure whether the nod of a head goes into Hansard but at least I have mentioned it, so that should suffice. Therefore, if the scheme did turn out to be much more expensive than everyone claims, local authorities should be recompensed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
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."
Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
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."—[Hansard, 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.
Lord Hanningfield (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Norton. This fits in with the earlier part that I talked about in my amendment, and I hope the Government will support the comments that my noble friend has just made.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for his well targeted amendment. As he indicated, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee. I said then that I agreed with the spirit of the proposal, but I felt that the requirement for a formal evaluation was perhaps disproportionate, given that the CORE scheme orders will already be subject to affirmative resolution. Yet, since I said that I agree with the spirit of the proposal, and since the noble Lord has brought this forward again—I have had the benefit of discussing it with him as well, for which I am grateful—perhaps I may suggest a compromise.
As the noble Lord knows and has indicated, under Section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Secretary of State has the power to direct the Electoral Commission to produce a report on any subject. If the noble Lord were willing to withdraw his amendment, I could give a commitment that if an incremental approach is taken to implementation we will ask the commission to publish an evaluation of the initial scheme before we bring any subsequent order before Parliament. I think that that meets the noble Lord's objective. I hope he will accept that my commitment is made on behalf of the Government—we will do it—and so will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
My Lords, making an amendment to the Bill is a means to an end; a ministerial statement also is a means to an end. The end in this particular case is ensuring that the initial CORE scheme is subject to a thorough review. I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances and constructive response and for putting it on the record. I am content that it serves to meet the goal that we share. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) removing individuals from the electoral register who are no longer eligible to remain on the register"
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, this is a small part of an electoral registration officer's duties, but it is important to try to make it clear in the Bill that electoral registration officers have a duty to ensure that individuals who are wrongly on the register are taken off. It was painfully obvious at the recent local government elections that there were people on the register who should not have been. When inquiries were made into where they were, people said that they had not lived there for years. It is important from a number of points of view. There is endless possibility for fraud if information about elections and electoral numbers is being delivered to people who are no longer there and somebody knows they are no longer there. Although people may have died, for example, some time before, they are still on the list and their families are approached. It is also important that one has a proper idea of how many electors are entitled to vote.
For all those reasons, we believe that it would make sense for the electoral registration officers to have a duty to ensure that the register is as up-to-date and accurate as it can possibly be, by which we mean taking off those who should not be on the register. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Lord Chancellor), Constitutional Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, this is a small but sensible amendment. In my experience when canvassing with names of people, one frequently finds that when one knocks on the door the people turn out to have left two or three years before, because the tendency of returning officers is, if no form is returned from a particular house, to leave people on the list on the assumption that they may have failed to return it rather than that they have moved.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
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 maximise 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—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, builds 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.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Who am I to argue with parliamentary counsel? There seems to be quite a bit of flexibility in what electoral registration officers do. Some are tighter than others in trying to ensure that their electoral register is accurate. It may be that the ones with the greater flexibility are the ones who are causing us the most concern. However, as the Minister has reassured me and as we now have that in Hansard, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Garden (Spokesperson in the Lords, Defence; Liberal Democrat)
moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"PROVISIONS AS TO MEMBERS OF FORCES AND SERVICE VOTERS
(1) Section 59 of the 1983 Act (supplemental provisions as to members of forces and service voters) is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) For subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) Arrangements shall be made by the appropriate government department for securing that (so far as circumstances permit) every person having a service qualification by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of section 14(1) shall—
(a) have an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights conferred on him by this Act in relation to registering to vote, and in relation to voting in person, by post or by proxy;
(b) receive such instructions as to the effect of this Act and any regulations made under it, and such other assistance, as may be reasonably sufficient in connection with the exercise by him and any wife of his or, as the case may be, by her and any husband of hers, or by any civil partner, of any rights conferred on them as mentioned above; and
(c) have a record maintained by the appropriate government department of his or her electoral registration option updated on an annual basis.""
Lord Garden (Spokesperson in the Lords, Defence; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, it is with both surprise and regret that I find myself moving this amendment. I had expected that, by now, the Government would have had a well considered new clause on service voters. That is certainly what we had been led to expect during the past year.
I have spoken of the problems of registration and voting for members of the Armed Forces and their partners on many occasions. Following the problems during the last general election, I drew your Lordships' attention to the matter in a debate on the electoral system on
Whereas in the past registration had lasted until the service voter notified a change in circumstances, under the new legislation, annual registration was required in line with civilian practice. The itinerant lifestyle of the Armed Forces made that difficult in practice and, anyway, the majority of those in the services were unaware of the implications of the change. I also drew attention to the effect of the extension to the postal voting system. Even those in the services who register continue to have a problem with obtaining postal ballot forms in time to complete and return them when they are serving overseas. Again, the chance to vote is lost if they have not appointed a suitable person as a proxy.
I have been in many meetings with the Electoral Commission, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, electoral registration officers and unofficial representatives of the services during the past year. Everyone has said that they recognise the problems and that something must be done. While she was responsible in this area, Harriet Harman said that there was to be "zero tolerance" over this issue. That reflected the Prime Minister's earlier statement on the Jeremy Vine BBC Radio 2 show on
I have raised the issue at Second Reading and in Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her support at every stage. I have consulted her Bill team, who have also been extremely helpful. Yet, here we are at Report. The Minister has indicated that there remain some problems with both my amendment and Amendment No. 15 in this group, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, which specifically considers ways to strengthen the registration system and has my support.
We are more than a year on from the last general election. More than 250,000 voters—those in the Armed Forces and their partners—have problems in registering and, subsequently, voting. Problems have continued in the recent local elections. In answer to my Written Question, the noble Baroness told me on
The Ministry of Defence did a survey on service voting as it had promised to do. The results have been available to it since March, but in answer to my questions, I am told that they are still being analysed, so we do not have the benefit of them.
My amendment would put the onus on the Ministry of Defence to manage this problem. Only it knows where all its personnel are located, both permanently and temporarily on deployment. Only the Ministry of Defence has the logistics to ensure that, once registered, its personnel can get voting papers to and from electoral registration officers in time for their vote to count. Only the Ministry of Defence can monitor the success of our efforts. The three strands of the amendment put the onus on the MoD for making registration easier, making voting possible and monitoring the effectiveness of the system. I was pleased to see that the Electoral Commission, in its helpful notes to today's debate, has supported my amendment and stated that whatever we do about registration, the need for indexing—as I have called it—to monitor effectiveness will be an important element of it.
Deployed service is much more frequent now than it was in the past. We should remember also that service men and women who do not go on the register and are stationed overseas have no Member of Parliament whom they can call their own when they are in difficulty.
This lack of government progress in an area where there is cross-party agreement, support from the Electoral Commission and a clear need for action is a puzzle to me. I hope that the Minister is now ready to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will understand that there is not a tissue paper's thickness between me and the noble Lord, Lord Garden on this issue. Indeed, we jostled to be first on the Marshalled List to move the amendments. He won this time, but may not do so on another occasion. I joke only about that, because this is a very important issue to which we return.
I acknowledge the discussions that the noble Lord, Lord Garden, has had and the work that he has done, but I remind the House that when the Bill started in the House of Commons it was Members of my party who started the attack on the fact that service voting was a shambles. We received assurances from the then Solicitor-General, Harriet Harman, that this matter would be looked at. She accepted that there was a problem and hoped that things could be put right in the House of Lords. That was the situation as the Bill left the House of Commons.
We are now on Report and we are still without anything from the Government that suggests that we are likely to achieve what I know the Minister is now utterly convinced that we will achieve one way or another before this Bill leaves this House; that is, the measures which we are putting forward today in both these amendments. The two amendments are companionable and fit together to ensure, first, the proper registration of service voters and, consequently and secondly, a proper system to enable service voters to vote.
It is the fault of the Representation of the People Act 2000 that what was a perfectly well tried and tested system of service voting came unstuck. The amendment would have that Act overturned to enable us to return to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which placed a duty on the appropriate government department to ensure that members of the Armed Forces were given an effective opportunity to exercise their right to vote. You cannot exercise your right to vote if you are not registered. If you are being moved around the world, from one place to another, and you do not know from one year to the next where you are going to be, it is exceedingly difficult, unless somebody helps you, to have an effective opportunity to exercise your vote because you are not registered.
So, we are far down the line now. Amendment No. 15 is tabled in conjunction with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, who rightly stated in Committee that these are not either/or amendments. They work entirely in tandem, as I have said, which is why there is not a tissue paper between us.
We should notice that the number of service personnel registered has fallen by 120,000 since the 2000 Act. There were 140,000 service voters registered, but at the 2005 election—as far as anyone knew, given the way that registrations are now spattered around the place—only 25,000 members of the Armed Forces were in a position to vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Garden, has stated, the explanation of how they should have been able to vote arrived, together with the leaflets and their postal votes, within 10 days of voting taking place. That was far too late for anybody to do anything about it, so there was complete disenfranchisement of our service personnel. If we can get such personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan to defend democracy in those countries, then there must surely be a way to enable them to take part in the democratic process.
There is a mismatch between the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which was responsible for the Representation of the People Act 2000, and the Ministry of Defence, which has decided that it is just an ordinary employer—and, as such, has no responsibility to ensure that its personnel are registered. Since members of the Armed Forces relinquish a proportion of their civil liberties in order to establish democratic rights overseas and defend liberties at home, it is ironic that they should be the single most disenfranchised group at the last election.
I know that the Minister has made efforts to persuade the Ministry of Defence to achieve the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and myself. Like the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I am extremely disappointed that today we have only a wimpish amendment from the Government to extend the registration of service voters from one year to five on an ordinary register. We need more than that; a proper amendment, to bring us back to where we all know we ought to be. Service voters ought to be guaranteed the right to vote by their employer, which is the country.
Lord Astor of Hever (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I support these amendments on which the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and my noble friend Lady Hanham have spoken eloquently. As per my noble friend, this really is an important issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said, after the fiasco of the last election—where almost 200,000 service men and women were denied the chance to vote—the Prime Minister promised to rectify an obviously failing system. Yet we still await any progress on that. That is a betrayal of our Armed Forces and I hope that the Minister will give a clear assurance that the Government really are taking this point seriously.
Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench)
My Lords, I add my support to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden. I speak as a former Adjutant-General, where I was head of personnel to the Army. In that post I was responsible for personnel matters including the registration of people for election. All I can say is that up until then we were concerned that the difficulties being put in the way of service men made it virtually impossible for them to vote, and that we were pleased about the progress being made to enable them to do so through the use of proxy and postal voting. It was therefore disappointing to see that what we had achieved had been reversed. While I was in post, we proposed that the measures now being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, should be implemented by the Ministry of Defence. They would aid the whole process of registration and it was perfectly possible to do this within the chain of command operated by the Ministry of Defence. No other ministry needed to be involved.
I hope very much that the Government will accept these amendments, thus enabling the effective enfranchisement of service men in the future.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Conservative)
My Lords, we still have to come to postal voting, about which Her Majesty's Government are obsessed, but the weaknesses of which were further exposed in the local government elections held a week and a half ago. I declare a forward interest in that matter as a voter in Tower Hamlets and, I have to say, as a voter in person. Sixty or so years ago, the then Home Secretary Herbert Morrison went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that British service men abroad were able to vote in the 1945 general election, so much so that although polling day was
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, not only do I carry the responsibility, I totally accept it, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would expect. I also accept that this and previous Governments have expected a huge amount from our armed services. They have risen to all the challenges they have been given and I pay tribute to them. Lastly, I accept the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, arising from his own experiences, and those so passionately expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I heard her interview on the radio this morning and I pay tribute to her comments.
We are all searching for a way through this and I accept the principles also set out by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Astor of Hever: it is important to ensure that our service personnel, wherever they are, are registered to vote and thus able to exercise their right to do so. There is not a tissue between the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, as there is not a tissue between noble Lords and myself on this. However, it is for me to find a solution.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the figures cited today. I want to correct the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on the figure of 120,000 only because it is important to make the point. While the figure is right, the reason for the fall is that the 2000 Act enabled people to register without making a service declaration. That is why the figure has dropped quite considerably. I hasten to add that I do not seek in any way to diminish the problem, but it is important to know precisely where figures such as this come from.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, spoke with passion on Amendment No. 15, but she will recall that the arrangements are the result of the recommendations of the Howarth all-party working group. It concluded that the old system had resulted in low registration rates and led to service personnel becoming disassociated from the constituencies in which they were registered, which in effect reduced the likelihood that they would vote. The group further pointed out that electoral registration officers faced problems in identifying and communicating with service personnel; that it led to inaccuracies in the electoral register; increased the likelihood of electoral fraud and unjustifiably inflated the register in those areas. In Committee I pointed out that in Westminster, for example, 90 per cent of service personnel who registered decided to do so as ordinary electors, because if they register as service declarants, they do not enjoy the benefits of ordinary electors, such as receiving credit or obtaining a car parking space, which in parts of London is very important, particularly for those with families.
I am not inclined, whatever we decide, to go back to that. The Howarth group, which was all-party, said decisively where the problems were. I completely understand that the noble Baroness would say, "That is fine and dandy, but what you have now will not do". I accept that, but I do not want to go backwards. I want to find a way through. Noble Lords are absolutely right to say very firmly, but with characteristic grace, that we have been talking about this for far too long. Here we are, on Report in your Lordships' House, and I do not have the ability to fulfil the requirements.
I withdrew the government amendment that the noble Baroness referred to because I want to put a proposition to your Lordships' House. I hesitate to do so, because I have already proposed this once to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and she quite rightly said, "Well, that is all fine and dandy, but I am going to vote in any event". I will try my luck again, because the situation is a little different. We have a new Secretary of State for Defence. He has asked me to come and meet him. I have a date to see him in my diary for next Tuesday. He is away this week, on his duties, and therefore could not see me. He has indicated that he would like to see me.
I will put on record the particular form of words for what I said I would do. We remain concerned that service personnel are not being registered to vote. I have recently raised this issue with the new Secretary of State for Defence. He is committed to exploring this. I am going to meet him to discuss the issue further after today's debate, with a view to coming back to the House on Third Reading with a workable solution, which will address the concerns of noble Lords.
I know that noble Lords quite rightly feel that we are late in the day for achieving this. I have to do this in the spirit of enabling my right honourable friend, the new Secretary of State for Defence, to consider this issue again. He has indicated that he is fully willing to do so with me. I want to enable him to fulfil that commitment to me.
I need to bring forward a workable package of amendments. The noble Baroness described the amendment that I withdrew as "feeble" or something similar. I take her point, because on its own it goes only a little way and by no means does anything very constructive. However, if I can I would like to bring it back as part of a package, because everyone accepts that that is what we should do.
Lord Garden (Spokesperson in the Lords, Defence; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I heard the Minister's assurance that there is to be a discussion with the new Secretary of State for Defence about the registration issue. Could she confirm that it will also be about the voting issue, which is separate and different?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, it will be about all the issues raised in all the amendments before your Lordships' House today. My ambition is that we will be able to find a workable solution that meets the criteria that noble Lords have set for me in the amendments and in the debate. If I am not successful in doing that, I am quite sure that these amendments will appear on Third Reading and noble Lords will test the opinion of the House, which will make its own decision.
Lord Goodhart (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Lord Chancellor), Constitutional Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I must ask one practical question. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Given that the discussion will not be until next Tuesday, which I think is the day that we are due to have Third Reading, according to the present programme, is the Minister proposing therefore to defer Third Reading? If not, what happens if the noble Baroness gets the go-ahead in principle, but the amendments are not ready at that stage?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, I have no date for Third Reading. The noble Lord, as always, is ahead of me. Clearly I cannot allow that situation to arise. My commitment is that I will either have come up with a workable solution and appropriate amendments by Third Reading or I will not. Noble Lords will know in plenty of time to table their own amendments. I apologise that I cannot be more specific about dates, but I do not have those dates at this stage.
The basis upon which I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments is an understanding that I wish to have one more discussion with the new Secretary of State for Defence. He is perfectly willing to do that and either I will have addressed this issue to your Lordships' satisfaction or your Lordships will tell me your own satisfaction.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, returning to the question of timing, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, I think Third Reading will be on
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, it is for your Lordships to determine what you wish to do. I have made it clear that I shall ensure there is enough time. If that means that I have to move my meeting, I will do so. I do not have a date for Third Reading. I will ensure that your Lordships' House is informed properly before I do anything. If the date for Third Reading is that day, I will ensure that my meeting is brought forward to accommodate your Lordships.
I very clearly wish to address this problem—as the Government and I have indicated—and it will be for me to worry about timing. I will ensure that I do this in time for noble Lords to be informed of what is happening. I have no desire at all to do anything that could be seen as either bouncing your Lordships' House or failing in my obligations. I simply would not do that. I will ensure that the timings work and that I get proper information on this to the House—and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, in good time for them to determine whether I have found a solution or whether they wish to table amendments. I will guarantee to do that. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Garden (Spokesperson in the Lords, Defence; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who, as always, has been very gracious in trying to move the business forward. This issue is of such major importance that I do not want to play with it if there is any prospect of arriving at a workable solution. I do not claim enormous expertise or that I have drafted my amendment exactly right, and I can see that little parts need to be joined up.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his intervention. We had not spoken before but, from his experience as Adjutant-General, he has given me great encouragement that my indexing and monitoring system is practical and possible. That is very useful. I am also encouraged that not only is there a new Secretary of State for Defence but there is a new junior Minister in Mr Tom Watson, who wrote an extraordinary pamphlet for the Fabian Society in 2000 about the importance of everyone voting and how it should be made compulsory. So I think we may have friends in the areas where life has been difficult in the past.
Because this issue is so important and because of the assurances given by the Minister, even at this eleventh hour I should like to wait to see whether we can get a perfect solution that we all agree on and that will hold when the Bill goes back to the other place. That is very dear to me and I do not want to go fast and lose it at the last moment. Under those circumstances, with the assurances the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment until Third Reading.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 14, leave out "as may be prescribed" and insert "prescribed in subsection (9A) below"
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, in Committee, the Minister provided an interesting answer to the question of anonymous registration, and I have had time to think about it. The amendment was tabled at that stage to clarify that on applying for and failing to achieve anonymous registration, an individual would not immediately be excluded from the register. The Minister also gave an indication of the kind of evidence that would be accepted to prove an individual's vulnerability. Having considered that evidence, I feel that our amendment would achieve exactly what the Minister set out. She mentioned a signed statement from a police officer, an injunction or non-molestation order. All those come under the description of possible evidence described in new Section 9A. The amendments would also insert a provision into the Bill to make it clear to those applying for anonymous registration that, were their application to fail, they would not face automatic inclusion on the register but would be entitled to apply to count on the register in the normal way, should they so wish.
I do not wish to press the amendments, but it seems sensible to include a provision for specific evidence to be brought forward. I am also interested to hear what the consultation procedure has produced, as this was an important part of civil protection. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these important issues. In reality, the only difference between the noble Baroness and me is the question of where we put this—in primary or secondary legislation. The critical factor for the Government was to make sure that we had the flexibility that secondary legislation gives us to be clear about what kind of evidence ought to be available.
Noble Lords who were present in Committee or who have had the benefit of reading Hansard will know that the purpose of anonymous registration is to protect vulnerable people whose safety may genuinely be at risk if their address were made public. It is not an ex-directory system; people cannot say, "I do not want to be part of it, I wish to opt out". It is specifically for those in danger. We have indicated—Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate to the evidence that a person must provide—that we want to ensure that an independent witness or official body will support the fact that the individual may be in danger. We agreed that an applicant must provide evidence in support of an application and that the evidence has to be provided by a body qualified to attest that an applicant's safety is at risk. As I have indicated, we want to keep the flexibility in determining what evidence is sufficient to support an application by affirmative order, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny and flexibility in the evidence that can be prescribed.
We have no desire to do anything other than debate the issues fully, but we want to be flexible about what they might be and recognise that circumstances may change. For example, one of the groups that we are in the middle of consulting is the Network for Surviving Stalking. We do not have any results of consultation yet, but I am keen to keep the noble Baroness in touch with what comes forward long before we get to the point of putting down any regulations. It is not that many years since stalking was not something that was described or thought about as a particular issue. It has become an issue, certainly in the past 20 years, during which we have, in my experience, taken it much more seriously and recognised it as a genuine problem. Having the flexibility in regulations would enable us to think about people who could be at risk in particular circumstances and think about who could provide evidence.
We are talking to Refuge, Women's Aid and other bodies that deal with victims of domestic violence. There will be issues relating to the police and the protection of those who are served with an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or a non-molestation order granted under the Family Law Act 1996. Signed statements from police officers would be the kind of evidence that we are describing.
We hope that we will be able to pass the regulations and implement anonymous registration shortly after the Summer Recess, when we will be able to be clearer with the noble Baroness and noble Lords about exactly what type of evidence we wish to bring forward. It will be evidence that noble Lords will identify with quickly and understand to be of great importance. The secondary regulation part of it enables us to be flexible and perhaps to bring in other bodies that may be able to provide verification or indeed recognise circumstances of particular groups of people or individuals whom we are unaware of at the present time.
Amendment No. 17, as the noble Baroness will be aware, requires a registration officer to register a person in the usual way if their anonymous registration application fails. Although I can see what the noble Baroness is trying to get to, in Committee I tried to indicate why we felt that we had to oppose the amendment. Because the scheme is designed to protect the vulnerable whose safety may be at risk if their name and address were to be included in the event of their application failing, I do not think that they would apply in the first place. Under the present scheme, people would apply for anonymous registration, and, if we felt that they did not warrant it, they would then be invited to register as normal. If we were to say, "If your anonymous registration fails, we will register you regardless", that would probably deter people who would not fail because their case would be so clear-cut. If the individual was a victim of violence or intimidation, we would risk the possibility that they would not take the risk of being put on in other circumstances. It is difficult for us to do that because it would be an undesirable outcome. It is better that, if someone's registration fails, they are sent the annual canvass form in the normal way in due course, which will be their method of registering.
I can see the principle behind the noble Baroness's suggestion, but I hope that I have explained why we would prefer the provision to be in secondary legislation and why we would be nervous about the automatic transfer across. It would deter from registering people who are victims and whom we should do all that we can to encourage to participate in our democracy.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said at the outset, I did not intend to press the amendment but wanted to hear the Minister's response. I accept that this will be done under secondary legislation.
The noble Baroness spoke about the intention for registration and said that if an anonymous registration was opposed, that person would be invited to register. That is sensible, because then the choice is theirs. They can choose whether to register or, presumably, they can make another application for anonymous registration.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply; I am satisfied with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Lord Chancellor), Constitutional Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"MANNER OF VOTING OF PATIENTS DETAINED IN MENTAL HOSPITALS
Omit paragraph 2(6)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000 (c. 2) (absent voting in Great Britain)."
Lord Goodhart (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Lord Chancellor), Constitutional Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, in view of the amendments in this group that the Government have tabled, it is not my intention to move either Amendment No. 22 or Amendment No. 23.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 24:
Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"REGISTRATION: POSTAL VOTING
(1) The provisions in section 13 shall apply in the first instance to those registering for either a postal or proxy vote subject to subsection (2).
(2) Until and unless the electoral registration officer is satisfied that the requirements of section 13 can be met by the electorate, those requirements shall not extend to persons voting in person at the polling station.
(3) An elector may only be added to the register as a postal or proxy voter if he has met the requirements of section 13."
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, there is probably an overlap between this group of amendments, which is enormous, and the following group. In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak to my amendments in the group and see how it goes, as we are in an interesting situation.
The amendments are rather mixed, and I do not intend to spend too much time going through them. I think that there has been a mistake with a few of them: Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 appear to duplicate Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, so I shall not move one pair. Due to the consequences of the Government's position on clause stand part, I am afraid that the thrust behind this group of amendments has disappeared. However, I would like to speak to them to debate the issues that would have been addressed were Clause 13 to survive.
There is the welcome addition of Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, which is why there is an overlap between the groups. That amendment proposes having personal identifiers on all postal votes; it would be a positive addition to the Bill, but we are not sure that it goes far enough. A few amendments in the group are covered by Amendment No. 26, and I shall not move them. Amendment No. 29 would ensure that the Secretary of State would not have the power to repeal provisions made for personal identifiers. That worry has now disappeared, so we will not be pursuing the amendment. The aims of Amendments Nos. 30, 33 and 88 have been achieved by the noble Lord's proposals. The rest of the amendments in the group stand.
Amendment No. 31 comes back to the discussion that we had in Committee with regard to electors who do not correctly answer the questions put to them at the polling station. Under this proposal, they would be provided with a tendered ballot paper that would allow their vote to be counted only where the result is so close that it is considered a dead heat. Amendment No. 31 would leave out that provision so that, if an elector provided the wrong answer to a date of birth question, for example, they would not be allowed to vote. The amendment was tabled in order to ensure that there was no way that anyone could steal another's vote, even if it was only a tendered ballot paper. After further consideration, I think that it comes down to the question of whether tendered ballots are correct in principle. It is easy to imagine a situation where the electoral register has registered a date of birth incorrectly, which would result in a voter being disfranchised were it not for the tendered ballot as a last resort.
The question posed by the amendment is "Do we give people the benefit of the doubt and allow them to use a tendered ballot, even though there is a strong possibility that they may not be the person that they claim to be, or do we crack down completely on fraud and state that it is a civil duty on an individual to ensure that their details are correct on the register?". I am tempted to err on the side of caution, but that may be tested on hearing the Minister's response. I apologise for that preamble to the main point of the amendments.
Amendment No. 24 would introduce personal identifiers on all postal and proxy votes and come with a proviso. The electoral registration officer would have a duty to consider the effect of personal identifiers on the electorate in subsection (2), which is a position that we are prepared to take if the amendment to which we will come later, on all-out individual registration, is not accepted.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 96 would introduce national insurance numbers into the requirements for registration for postal voting, while Amendment No. 28 would include personal identifiers as a requirement for registering to vote in the normal way. Amendment No. 28 is intended to have the same effect as adding in national insurance numbers to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, but we were keen to table as early as possible and decided not to table more amendments at the same time.
It is a point about which we on these Benches feel strongly. Noble Lords will recall the discussion in Committee on national insurance numbers. In our meetings since Committee, the Minister has said that it might be worth talking to the Electoral Commission on the matter. Northern Ireland has tried and tested the use of national insurance numbers, and it has been a great success, so I wonder whether the Minister has any further thoughts on potential consultation.
We had a long discussion on signatures in Committee. I suggested that they were not robust in and of themselves. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Elder, has seen fit to introduce both signature and date of birth in his amendment. It is important that both of those should be there. However, we still feel that because national insurance numbers are used by anyone who claims benefits, student loans and so on they would be a useful addition.
I would like to make it clear that using identity cards for registration purposes and using national insurance numbers are different proposals, and I would not advocate the use of the former. National insurance numbers already exist and are in use. Most important, they do not represent biometric data, so they would not be the intrusive information contained on the ID cards. The crucial point is that they are already in circulation for a number of bureaucratic functions and they are entirely unique.
I am raising in the amendments the possibility that the use of identifiers in postal votes should ultimately be extended generally by order and that we will be considering further the use of national insurance numbers, but that will possibly come later with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elder. I beg to move.
Lord Boston of Faversham (Crossbench)
My Lords, in view of the groupings and notwithstanding the helpful indications given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about some of her later amendments, I must point out to your Lordships at this early stage that, if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 29 or 30, and if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 35.
Lord Goodhart (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Lord Chancellor), Constitutional Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, Amendments Nos. 25, 41, 95, 119 and 124 in this group stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard. With the leave of the House, I will speak to all of them. In doing so, however, it will also be necessary for me to discuss some issues relating to the next group, which includes Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 and 121 in our name.
The Government are now substantially altering their original position on this part of the Bill. Their position was that Clause 13 provided for what is a form of individual registration, because each elector had to provide personal identifiers—their signature and date of birth—before they could be entered on the register. We agreed that it was not necessary to include national insurance numbers as personal identifiers. We accepted that there were special reasons that made it appropriate in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain.
The Government originally made it clear that Clause 13 would not be brought into effect without piloting, as provided for by Clauses 15 to 18. We were unhappy with these proposals in two respects. First, we believed that individual registration, or at least household registration forms signed by each member of the household who was being registered, were essential and should not be delayed pending pilots. We therefore objected to the proposal for pilot schemes, which might take some years to evaluate. The pilots have in fact now disappeared. However, we recognised that some delay was necessary before individual registration for everyone involving personal identifiers could be brought into force. We therefore pressed for transitional arrangements, as proposed by the Electoral Commission, requiring applications for postal or proxy votes to contain identifiers before it was possible to roll out Clause 13 in full.
The Government have now dropped Clause 13, and have therefore eliminated from the Bill any provision bringing in individual registration with personal identifiers for all electors. That remains a matter of concern to us. If, as I understand they intend to, the Government accept the noble Lord, Lord Elder's amendment, they have also agreed that applicants for absent votes must provide personal identifiers. The Government have therefore in effect accepted the transitional arrangements but removed the objective for which the transition was originally proposed: that is, registration with personal identifiers for everyone on the register. Under this Bill, it will be registration only for those who apply for absent votes.
We therefore have one step, in the removal of the proposal for pilot schemes, in the right direction, and one step, in the removal of Clause 13, which we see as being in the wrong direction, because it means that further primary legislation will be necessary before it is possible to bring into effect the provision by all people on the electoral register of personal identifiers.
There is no doubt that electoral fraud has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. There were serious problems, which we are all aware of, in the local elections in 2005, and there have been a number of allegations of fraud in this year's local elections, though investigations into those are still ongoing.
Postal voting is the most obvious source of fraud, and requiring personal identifiers will diminish it. It is not the only cause of fraud, though. For example—and there are a number of other ways of doing this—it is possible to register imaginary people as living at a particular address, and then get someone not on the register in that district or constituency to cast a vote in their name at a polling station. Requiring personal identifiers would not make that impossible, but would make it easier to detect and would deter it.
We would therefore have preferred to keep Clauses 13 and 14 on the face of the Bill, while removing Clauses 15 to 18, but to add our own amendments to create the transitional arrangements as proposed by the Electoral Commission. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Elder, supported our Amendment No. 41, but has now produced in his own name Amendment No. 26, which leads to the next group and which would require personal identifiers to be given when an absent vote application is made.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, would be entirely appropriate, as the Bill abandons the concept of personal identifiers for all registered electors. However, we are seriously concerned about the abandonment of the general requirement for personal identifiers. We have not been consulted by the Government on that, and I would like to know why. If there is no satisfactory answer, we may move our own amendment. If we are satisfied with the Government's answer, we will support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, and the government amendments in the following group.
I should add that Amendment No. 95 is independent of the other amendments in this group. Clause 37 inserts a new rule into Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which requires a postal voting statement to be in the prescribed form, including a provision for the form to be signed. Surely, it should also include, as Amendment No. 95 proposes, the voter's personal identifier and the voter's date of birth.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness is surprised by the fact that I have received no element of consultation on this, but I can assure her that I have not. It is possible that it was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and, as a result of his attendance at a conference abroad, failed to get through to me, but it certainly did not reach me.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Conservative)
My Lords, courtesy of the Sunday papers, I have learnt in the past 24 hours that the former chief executive of Birmingham, where fraud in electoral matters was widespread in the course of the past couple of years, has now become the director of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
I am conscious that I may be unduly subject to ad hominem or ad mulierem arguments. However, as an inner-city MP, I had experience of that directorate for four awful years between 1997 and 2001, first with a Minister who left the Government, after which I had zero confidence in the Minister who succeeded him; and, secondly, in the new Parliament, with the Prime Minister running out of confidence in that Minister's successor, who had to leave the Government in the same way. I was immensely relieved when Mr Desmond Browne MP was then given the responsibility to the House on behalf of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and I am delighted at his subsequent rapid promotion in this Parliament, first to Chief Secretary and now to Secretary of State for Defence.
What we debated at Second Reading was such an awful story, in the context of the Bill, that one could not help feeling that anything would be better. I have been delighted by the insistence from those on these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches on the proposed improvement in terms of the next set of elections. I have referred to my attitude to the right honourable Desmond Browne MP, as he now is. As demonstrated on a series of occasions, even in the conduct of this Bill, I have great respect for the Minister and I retain the confidence that she will see intelligent reason in at least some of the heterogeneous amendments in this group.
Lord Elder (Labour)
My Lords, I rise somewhat tentatively, because these two groups of amendments seem to be coming together and it seems appropriate to speak to Amendment No. 26 now, but if any noble Lord wishes to stop me, perhaps this would be a good time to do so. Some helpful things have been said about my Amendment No. 26, so perhaps I should proceed.
My amendment seeks to resolve serious questions that have arisen on the integrity of the absent voting system. We all accept that they must be resolved. My amendment proposes two identifiers and I happily accept that case—signature and date of birth—attached to every application for postal, proxy and proxy postal votes. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the amendment deal with absent voters for a definite or indefinite period, for a particular election and for proxy postal votes. The requirement for an applicant to provide a signature if there is any disability or inability to do so is dispensed with, and EROs are required to keep such records for checking them against actual votes.
Subsection (4) deals with circumstances where new signatures are required, whether as a result of a change of name or change of signature over time, and sets out the circumstances in which the identifiers can be made available to others—notably to other EROs and to candidates and agents in elections, to help them inspect the evidence in the event that votes are disputed with the returning officer.
The separation of absent voters as an issue from the more general question of individual registration is the right way forward. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, and, to some extent, he was following the line of argument originally used by the Electoral Commission, which, more or less, was that the clearing up of postal votes could be achieved only if there was individual registration across the whole country. I never believed that that was the case and this is a more sensible way to proceed. It is the question of postal voting that needs to be resolved. There have been no corresponding doubts about the validity of voting at polling stations.
In the mean time, there will quite enough for electoral registration officers to do as regards CORE, the other changes in the Bill—such as setting performance standards for EROs—and with the nationwide introduction of individual registration for all absent voters. It is not appropriate or sensible to pile too much by way of new responsibilities and requirements on people and changes such as individual registration should be introduced gradually and more sensibly. I have always imagined that the Electoral Commission, following this change in postal voting and the other changes in the Bill, would want to reflect—and should reflect—on what that would mean for future registration. I would expect the commission to come back with further recommendations. It might then look at the best way of introducing individual registration—I do not know and I would not wish to prejudge that, but Amendment No. 26 would provide the right degree of scale and evidence on which the commission could make further recommendations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, the proposals concerning absent voters were much discussed in Grand Committee and there was general support for them. I appreciate that she and some of her colleagues wish to add a third identifier. I do not agree with that, although I know that the Liberal Democrats very much wanted to fit that in, so that postal voting would be one of the outcomes of individual registration rather than an end in itself. Despite that, I hope that there is general agreement on the need to clear up the biggest single problem in terms of perceptions of honesty and integrity in the system—which, I believe, my amendment would achieve. In due course, we may see what the Electoral Commission might say.
My final point in relation to future developments, if my amendment is accepted, is that it is important that, whatever the future government regulations will be as to how many votes should be checked, it should be done evenly across the whole country. I have no doubt that it should be done at a 100 per cent level to start with. If there is a decision to reduce that, it should not be targeted at constituencies where there are doubts, but be carried out absolutely fairly and absolutely across the whole country.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, I am possibly replying to two groups at the same time or possibly not.
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, we now have the confusion that I thought we were getting into; the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that we moved all these amendments together. Perhaps it would be helpful if I responded to the amendments that I have spoken to and took out the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elder. It might be helpful to the House if I indicate at this stage that we are perfectly in agreement with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder. It moves us a long way forward, in that we now would have two identifiers on postal or proxy voting. This does not mean that I might not come back to the situation on national insurance numbers at another stage.
However, for today's purposes, there seems to me to be agreement that it is important that there should at least be identifiers of a signature and a date of birth. That is one of the stumbling blocks that we have all seen in this part of the Bill. I am happy to accept that that is the situation. If I try to push it a bit further at the next stage, that is up to me. We have moved a long way down the road with this amendment. I am glad that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder—and my amendment at an earlier stage—were sufficiently coherent to have been able to do that.
A number of the other amendments, which I have tabled, are on national insurance registration, but I will not bother with those again today. For the others, I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for helping to resolve this. Confusion is not involved; it is simply that there is a big debate to be had. I want to say a couple of things for the benefit of any noble Lord who, perhaps, was not around in Grand Committee, and who is possibly slightly confused about what the different issues are. The principle addressed by the Bill, and in the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, is about how one uses personal identifiers—which could be signatures or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, proposed, national insurance numbers—to enable us to tackle this fundamental problem of fraud. A number of ways of doing this have arisen in our deliberations, as have a number of ways of how we test or roll out these ideas.
Noble Lords will know that the Government's position was that we felt very strongly about the impact of putting a personal identifier across the board for the registration of voting, having consulted with a range of people, particularly those in another place who are elected and who understand the issues well but also many others. There was a genuine concern that, unless remedial action was taken against it, we could find that the numbers of those who would register would fall. That is not something we wish to see happen in a democracy. The Government's original answer was to pilot it to see what they can find out. Noble Lords will know that there were many debates about how one got the right kind of pilot in the right kind of area to get a genuine reflection of what would happen if there was a national rollout. There were great difficulties—I will not go into the detail—which noble Lords explored fully in Grand Committee.
The other proposal from the Electoral Commission, supported in your Lordships' House, was the idea of the transitional system. That was, essentially, a voluntary system, where you could choose to put down your personal identifier. I have always felt a difficulty with that because, as it is voluntary, you cannot test it; those people who are quite comfortable with putting down additional information will do so, while those who are not will not. Also, at a time when we are trying to simplify the process—not least for the forms that people receive—we would have the situation where, instead of saying on the form, "Please fill in the following information", it would say, "Please fill in the following information, but not if you do not want to". It did not actually get us very far. I feel very strongly about this—it involves genuine, proper research into understanding what people do. The only argument for it would be that people might get used to it. The people who might get used to it, however, are those who would do it anyway. It does not give us what we really need.
In all our discussions, we return time and again to the critical issue of postal voting. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, again raised this issue with us today. I know that there is great concern right across the House about these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, tabled his amendment, which I know is an amendment that transmogrified from that of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—he is not with us today as he is visiting exotic places, I understand—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. This is, in a sense, a collective amendment. I hope that my noble friend will not mind my saying that, but it is based on what has been done across all the political parties in the best tradition of our parliamentary system.
The amendment is of great interest to us. We have discussed it with the Electoral Commission and have also had the benefit of discussing it with noble Lords. It tackles the question of postal voting by putting in additional safeguards. I agree with my noble friend that, to begin with, the system should be checked 100 per cent but, if it becomes obvious that we do not need to do so in the future, we should have the capacity to reconsider that and save electoral registration officers time and energy. But certainly we must begin the process from that presumption. The amendment gives us a fantastic test-bed in looking at how personal identifiers work in a particular way and then looking at the system again.
So, in responding to that point and to the large amount of criticism surrounding the pilot schemes, we accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Elder. We know that there is a great deal of support for the amendment in your Lordships' House and we recognise that it should be seen to be accepted by Parliament, as opposed to merely the Government. The system should be evaluated properly as it has the potential to tell us about the use of personal identifiers. We need to address how to tackle registration if people are concerned or confused about what they have to do, and the amendment would enable us to move forward in the right and appropriate way. As this issue is so important, we felt that that was how it should be pursued. We would be able to come back at another stage with further legislation, if appropriate, to bring in any schemes that we felt were right and proper. That is where we have got to in approaching this matter.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—he is right to say that I did not discuss these issues with him properly. I hope he will accept that I discussed them with his noble friend Lord Rennard on a number of occasions before I realised that he would not be present for this stage of the Bill. However, I did not do what I should have done, and which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will accept I usually do—that is, to pursue them with him. I think that his noble friend will agree that I tried to go through these matters in detail; none the less, it is not good enough and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
That is the basic principle behind these groups of amendments. The noble Baroness has indicated that she will not pursue the issue of the national insurance number at this point, so I shall not go into why we think there would be difficulties with that. We can refer to that issue on another occasion. I hope that I have identified for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the approach that we have taken and our reasons for following this route. I genuinely believe that, by accepting the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Elder—if your Lordships agree to do so—we will have done something extremely important in dealing with fraud in an area where people are greatly and rightly concerned. I know that the Electoral Commission will, with our support, consider the information very carefully to ensure that in future we can come back to the very important issue of personal identifiers and deal with it properly in legislation before your Lordships' House, if that seems to be the right thing to do.
Lord Goodhart (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Lord Chancellor), Constitutional Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, first, she has no need to apologise to me—I am afraid that there was a failure of communication at our end. Secondly, has she considered our Amendment No. 95? It is a free-standing amendment and it seems to have merits, even if the rest of our amendments in this group are abandoned.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, would the noble Lord do me the honour of explaining again what Amendment No. 95 seeks to achieve before I attempt to dig out the information from hundreds of pages of briefing?
Lord Goodhart (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Lord Chancellor), Constitutional Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, Amendment No. 95 is an amendment to Clause 37, which says that, under new rule 24 of the 1983 Act, the returning officer issues,
"to those entitled to vote by post . . . a ballot paper . . . at an election held in England and Wales or Scotland, a postal voting statement in the prescribed form".
Subsection (3) then states:
"The prescribed form shall include provision for the form to be signed".
Our Amendment No. 95 says that not only does it have to be signed but the elector's date of birth has to be stated. There would thus be a second check on the second personal identifier as well as on the first.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and apologise to him because, having put the groups together, I have confused myself. I have had a note about the person providing a date of birth on declaration of identity. The answer is that our Amendment No. 94 provides for this, too.
Lord Boston of Faversham (Crossbench)
My Lords, this is not an intervention, which is not allowed. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, say anything in reply to Amendment No. 24?
Baroness Hanham (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
My Lords, I apologise that the Deputy Speaker had to rise to his feet. I am now completely confused as to where we ought to be. It would be sensible to go back to Amendment No. 24 and the group which I moved. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Elder, has proposed. I may well return to some of the other amendments in due course, but am grateful to the Minister for her responsive reaction to what, as she said, was an extremely important debate in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 24.
Lord Elder (Labour)
moved Amendment No. 26:
Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"ABSENT VOTING: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS
(1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000 (application for absent vote for definite or indefinite period)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
(c) after sub-paragraph (7) insert—
"(8) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability.
(9) The registration officer must also keep a record in relation to those whose applications under this paragraph have been granted showing—
(a) their dates of birth;
(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (8) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures.
(10) The record kept under sub-paragraph (9) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
(2) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule (application for absent vote at particular election)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
(c) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
"(5) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability.
(6) The registration officer must keep a record of those whose applications under this paragraph have been granted showing—
(a) their dates of birth;
(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures.
(7) The record kept under sub-paragraph (6) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
(3) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule (application for proxy postal vote)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (5)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
(b) after sub-paragraph (10) (as inserted by section 38(6)(b) of this Act) insert—
"(11) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (5)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability.
(12) The registration officer must also keep a record in relation to those whose applications under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b) have been granted showing—
(a) their dates of birth;
(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (11) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures.
(13) The record kept under sub-paragraph (12) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
(4) After paragraph 7 of that Schedule insert—