I beg to move amendment 39, page 21, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 35, page 21, line 23, leave out—

‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.

The amendment makes registration officers subject to the test of taking ‘all steps that are necessary’ under section 9A of the 1983 Act, in respect of their new duty: ‘securing that persons who are entitled to be registered in a register (and no others) are registered in it’.

Amendment 37, page 21, line 26, at end insert—

‘(4) In subsection (2), after paragraph (e), insert—

“(f) reporting to the police any suspicion he might have that an offence had been committed relevant to the integrity of registration and absent vote applications.”.’.

Amendment 40, page 21, line 26, at end insert—

‘(4) At the end of subsection (3) insert—

(4) If the Electoral Commission judges that registration officers have not taken all necessary steps as outlined in this section, the Electoral Commission shall have the power to intervene.”.’.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.

The Opposition have tabled the amendments because we are concerned about the schedule. Like the Electoral Commission, we are concerned about the watering down of the responsibilities of electoral registration officers. We think it is important that the Bill clearly defines the role of EROs in individual electoral registration and afterwards.

Amendment 37 seeks to redress what the Opposition see as a deficiency in the law—there is a lack of powers vested in EROs to detect and investigate electoral fraud, so allegations of offences under electoral law should be made to the police. That leaves a large gap in the powers of EROs. The amendment would, for the first time, place a duty on EROs to report to the police any suspicions that an offence might have been committed.

That is important. The Government have said time and again—incorrectly—that the Opposition are concerned about completeness and nothing else. We are concerned about completeness, but we are also concerned about the accuracy of electoral registers. The surest way to detect and act upon alleged fraud is for the individuals responsible for the administration of the process of registration to have a power vested in them—a duty upon them—to say that they are concerned about something. If they, as the experts, are concerned, they would have a duty to pass that information directly to the police, who would then act. We think, then, that the amendment addresses a gap in the current legislation and the Bill.

I support the amendment. Locally, EROs might be faced with competing local interests and not wish to offend a particular group, which is why this is extremely important. If there is a duty on them, they will have to act when allegations are made or serious offences committed. If they do not have a duty, they will tend to want to retain the status quo in order not to upset anybody.

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. In a sense, the amendment would remove the discretion that EROs might feel they have and which often places them in an invidious position. As I have said, it is important not to exaggerate the occurrence of fraud, but if EROs have genuine concerns, they should have a duty to pass that information on to the police.

I support what my right hon. Friend Keith Vaz said. This matter is incredibly important at a time of resource restraint in local authorities. When resources are tight, there is always a tendency to defer decisions, but if EROs were required to act under the legislation, they would have to do so, and would be unable to cite resource difficulties as an excuse for not taking action.

Yes, that is another good point. We all recognise that cash is short for local authorities. Indeed, we have highlighted during the passage of the Bill our particular concern that local authorities might not place the necessary emphasis on the registration process because of competing financial demands from other departments, which further reinforces my point that it is reasonable to place this statutory responsibility on EROs. Were they, in the course of their work, to come across a matter of genuine concern, they would not have to make a subjective decision about whether the matter was worth pursuing, but instead, if it was a serious concern, would have to pass it directly to the police, who would then investigate and consider the appropriate action to take.

Amendment 39 seeks to address the Electoral Commission’s concern that schedule 4 waters down the provisions in the Representation of the People Act 1983 requiring EROs to take all necessary steps in carrying out their duties. We are particularly concerned about door-to-door canvassing. As our debate the other day highlighted, this is an important area. We can talk about the introduction of new technology, which is to be welcomed, and about the importance of providing accurate literature and regular mailings, but, at the end of the day, the door-to-door canvass is vital and an essential part of the armoury of individual EROs in moving towards as complete a register as possible.

I am sure that Mr Williams will speak to his amendment 35, but I would say in passing that we have a lot of sympathy with the point behind it and, I am sure, the other points he will make in a moment.

Amendment 40 relates to amendment 39 and aims to give effect to our request to give the Electoral Commission the power to intervene where EROs are not performing to a sufficiently high standard. This is an important amendment because it is vital that best practice be promoted, enhanced, defended and maintained whenever possible.

We all know that with a new system like this one, there will be tremendous pressures on EROs. That is why we said in Monday’s debate that the issue of funding was so important—not just for providing new equipment and facilities, but for training as well, so that EROs have the skills and competence necessary to achieve the best standards. We also think it important to ensure that the Electoral Commission has a specific role to make sure that those standards are maintained.

I again endorse again what my hon. Friend says, as we all have experience of turning up to counts and meeting electoral registration officers and others involved in the process, some of whom, to be perfectly frank, do not have the training and experience to deal with these situations. Amendment 40 would not only enable the sharing of good practice, but would ensure that if people are perhaps not doing their jobs as effectively as they could, the commission would at least have the power to try to put things right.

Yes, my colleague makes a very astute point borne out of his own experience. All of us who have been involved in democratic politics for a number of years can testify to that. The standard of EROs’ work varies enormously, so we need to ensure that everything possible is done to secure higher standards to reinforce the democratic process. Giving the Electoral Commission a key role and a key power in this respect will be important both for building up confidence and for ensuring that the system is as effective as possible.

Is it not the case that the Electoral Commission already has the right to evaluate how well electoral registration officers are carrying out their duties, but that it is not allowed as of today to intervene where poor practice is standard? The amendment would deal with that problem and give the Electoral Commission the opportunity to put right what they can see as going very wrong.

That is indeed correct. We have expressed on a number of occasions in Committee our worry that the Government do not recognise the important role that the Electoral Commission must have in a number of important respects. There is a weakness in the legislation as drafted, particularly regarding the role of EROs. This amendment is designed to plug that gap and make sure that the absolutely central role that the Electoral Commission has to play is built directly into the Bill, particularly in respect of the standards we believe it necessary for EROs to achieve in the furtherance of their duties.

I shall address my brief remarks to my amendment 35. It is a probing amendment, whose purpose is to raise and discuss concerns that have already been expressed about the duties of electoral registration officers. A constant theme running through all our Committee discussions so far has been the capacity of EROs to deliver their duties responsibly and effectively to ensure both the accuracy and completeness of the electoral list.

On Monday, we discussed the different approaches taken by local authorities and the need for some measure of standardisation—in the invitations sent out to encourage people to register, for instance. Local authorities have acted in different ways, but it is important to maintain the obligation on all EROs across the country to get everyone entitled to register to do so. I think all parties are agreed on that objective, but there has been some concern that the Bill as it stands will not achieve it. The Electoral Commission, among others, is concerned that schedule 4 will “dilute”—its word—the current responsibilities and requirements of EROs. That is particularly worrying given the findings of the Electoral Commission’s “Report on performance of Electoral Registration Officers” in Great Britain, published in June 2012. As was mentioned by Wayne David, it expressed particular concern about the issue of house-to-house inquiries, stating:

“ Currently, section 9A(1) requires an ERO to take ‘all steps that are necessary for the purpose of complying with his duty to maintain the register under section 9’.

Section 9A contains a list of non-exhaustive steps which include, on occasions, making more than one visit through house-to-house inquiries.

The Electoral Commission feels that the duty in its current form works well and is an important tool in ensuring that EROs do all the work that is necessary to guarantee accuracy and completeness, including the conducting of house-to-house inquiries when, critically, other methods—we have heard a great deal about, for instance, data-matching pilots and aspirations for online voting—have not yielded the appropriate information. The commission remains baffled by why the Government would want to change the present arrangement.

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case—so powerful, indeed, that we hope that he will press the amendment to a vote, but if he does not do so, we will.

After the Committee has heard my reply.

As my hon. Friend says, we must hear what he has to say on the subject first. His intervention is timely, as I am now moved to speculate on what he may say.

Schedule 4(6) adds to section 9A the words

“and for the purpose of securing that, so far as is reasonably practicable, persons who are entitled to be registered in a register (and no others) are registered in it”.

I know that the Government are content with that, feeling that it strengthens the responsibilities that EROs already have, but what risk, I ask my hon. Friend, does the change pose to the accuracy and completeness of the register? I feel that my amendment 35, which deletes the phrase

“so far as is reasonably practical”,

buttresses the obligation of EROs to secure persons who are entitled to be included in the register.

Let me reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly—for he is my friend—that mine is a probing amendment, and that, as I said at the outset, I am seeking to clarify these matters for the benefit of those of us who have discussed their concerns with the Electoral Commission. Certainly there is no good reason to reduce the duty imposed on EROs, and, if anything—given the tone of our debate and the cross-party aspiration that has been expressed—we should be enhancing and strengthening it. I should be grateful if the Minister explained the reasoning behind the changes in the Bill, and how they would affect EROs’ current obligations.

It seems to me that the Bill in its current form has the potential to weaken the principle of maximising registration, which would undermine what the Government are attempting to do. I do not believe for a moment that that is their intention, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

We have heard from other Members about the expectations that we have of EROs, and the performance standards that are used to assess their role. Let me refer again to the Electoral Commission’s report. Performance standard 3 refers to

“house-to-house enquiries to ensure that all eligible residents are registered.”

Although the Electoral Commission observed that progress had been made—

“the number of EROs who reported meeting or exceeding this standard increased between 2008 and 2010”— eight EROs did not meet the standard. The commission stated that it had been able to contact them and remind them of their responsibility to “take all necessary steps”. It also stated that in 2011, for a range of reasons, it had heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that a greater number of EROs might not have met the standard in that year, and might not have taken “all necessary steps”. That prompted it to do some research. It contacted EROs and asked them whether they had carried out a personal canvass of all non-responders, and 58 replied citing budgetary restraints and rurality.

There is clearly continuing concern about house-to-house inquiries. The Electoral Commission is worried enough about the present set-up and the present wording of the legislation, but it fears that the position could worsen as a result of the new wording.

It is obvious from the attendance in the Chamber that the issues we are discussing are hardly setting the heather alight, but they are nevertheless important in the context of the relationship between central and local government. I think that Members in all parts of the Committee agree that there has been substantial consultation on the Bill, and that many key stakeholders—not least the Electoral Commission—have had an opportunity to draw on real-life experience for their prognostications and recommendations. However, I think that the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) risk changing a permissive, directional approach from the centre to the Electoral Commission vis-à-vis electoral returning officers to a much more oppressive approach, which would not take into consideration the differences that exist throughout the country in districts, boroughs and cities.

I think that had the Government not taken account of the experience of May 2010—for instance, the performance of EROs at polling stations and the administrative arrangements that caused difficulties in areas such as Sheffield and Hackney—it would have been fair to comment on their performance with regard to registration. However, the Bill does take account of that experience, not least in clause 17, which refers to the

“Inadequate performance of returning officer”.

One of the problems of being too prescriptive and draconian, and including in legislation what is effectively a direction to EROs, is that it fetters their discretion and allows central Government, through the Cabinet Office, to instruct them to do things that may not be appropriate in their areas. The data-matching projects are a good example. In my constituency, there were high levels of registration during our pilot project for the Electoral Commission because there was a very thorough door-to-door canvass. However, it should be borne in mind that the actual matching to the DWP and other databases was only 54% in Peterborough, and that it may be significantly higher in other parts of the country.

I think that it would be wrong to instruct electoral registration officers, who are typically chief executives or borough, city or district solicitors, that the fall-back position should be that they are not doing their job properly and not adhering to the existing legislation. The Bill in its present form recognises that it is imperative to maximise the number of people on the electoral register—and we all welcome that because we believe that it is important to democracy and future civic engagement—while also giving discretion to individuals at local level.

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is it not important for the Electoral Commission, which will carry out these functions, to be both an independent body and a great repository of expertise in these areas? If that were the case, it would take into account local circumstances, and it would not act in a draconian manner.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the Electoral Commission commissioners, but we are in danger of overlooking two key facts. One is that EROs are ultimately responsible to those who are locally elected to direct their work and to have oversight of their effectiveness in their role—the leader of the council, perhaps, or the cabinet or the appropriate committees. That explains the importance of clause 17. Secondly, as ever in politics and governance, if we do not attach a price tag, it is likely that we will not get the desired end.

The measures in these amendments would be resource-intensive and would impact directly on the other local authority budgets. Ultimately, it is for the local authorities, and EROs guided by elected members, to make the value judgments that they see fit in regard to registration. They will clearly want to perform as well as neighbouring boroughs, districts and cities, and their performance will be compared on a nationwide basis by the Electoral Commission. My objection to this aspect of these amendments is that it would be unnecessarily draconian for the legislation to direct in a catch-all way. The current system is right in this respect.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that where the Electoral Commission feels an ERO has done the job effectively but is resource-constrained, it would be appropriate for the Electoral Commission and the ERO to refer that to the political leadership of their borough for proper discussion?

I agree, but there are existing checks and balances if the system does not work. I referred earlier to the situation in Sheffield, and in particular Sheffield, Hallam, the Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency. That was not just swept under the carpet. That was a very serious issue of people feeling they had not had the opportunity to take part in a vote and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it resulted in a full, open, transparent inquiry by the Electoral Commission, and lessons have been learned. There is room for discretion within a permissive approach, but the amendments do not propose that.

I am always slightly wary of dismissing legislation that says, as schedule 4 does,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

That is the language of consensus, reality and pragmatism—the language of a practical approach. To disregard that and be overly-prescriptive would be a mistake. For that reason, if this amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall vote with the Government. I hope the Minister makes it clear that this amendment is unnecessary and the Bill’s current wording is appropriate.

It is a pleasure to return to this Bill under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.

I am grateful to Wayne David and my hon. Friend Mr Williams for their amendments and the manner in which they discussed them. However, the hon. Gentleman’s revealing that he intends to vote for his amendment irrespective of my response does not give me a great incentive to try to persuade him—but my hon. Friend has a more open mind, and I know will listen carefully to what I have to say.

I have to say that I have made an assumption on the basis of what has happened so far with this Bill. I very much hope the hon. Gentleman proves me wrong, but I do not think he will.

And on the basis of the way we have conducted our business in this Committee so far, I have also made an assumption about the hon. Gentleman. Let us leave it at that.

On amendments 39 and 35, it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion to learn that I shall repeat what the Minister with responsibility for constitutional reform, my hon. Friend Mr Harper, said in an earlier debate on this measure: far from diluting the requirements on registration officers, under the new registration system we are strengthening the existing duties.

This Bill amends the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I accept that it can be a little difficult to follow how one qualifies, and relates to, the other. I shall try to explain that, therefore. The Bill sets out new requirements on registration officers, amending the previous legislation. My audience’s eyes will glaze over if I mention too many related sections, but one of the duties under section 9A of the 1983 Act is that the register must contain those who appear to the registration officer to be entitled to be registered. That presents a problem under the new system, because we do not want registration officers to confine their efforts simply to those who appear to be entitled to be registered; we want them to go out and seek out people, because we want the register to be complete. The duties are now expanded, therefore, so the registration officer has to go out and find people who are not on the register, and of whom he is not aware, and then include them on it. Therefore, a different process is engaged. At present, the provision in question also ignores the fact that there must be an application for registration before a person is added to the register. It is a key point that, at the application stage, the electors will be verified.

Those two important parts of the new system must be included in the new legislation, which is why the Bill amends section 9 to ensure that the description of the register in respect of individual registration is accurate. The register is to contain only those people who are “entitled” and have been through the application system. It also amends section 9A to make it clear that registration officers must do more than just take the specific steps laid out in the legislation in a tick-box manner and include in the register those people who made an application. Those requirements will remain, and must be fulfilled, without exception, but the Bill adds an express general duty to take all other

“necessary steps…so far as is reasonably practicable” to compile as complete and accurate a register as possible.

The qualification of “reasonably practicable” applies to the standard of completeness and accuracy of the register that must be reached. It must be as complete and accurate as is “reasonably practicable”, which is a very high level, but there is an acceptance of the fact that no register will be absolutely perfect. It would not be right to set out in legislation a requirement for registration officers to achieve an unreasonable or impracticable level of completeness. However, the steps the ERO must take are not qualified. EROs must take all the necessary steps to achieve a register. That is not qualified as being steps that are “reasonably practicable”; they must take all the necessary steps to provide a register that is as complete and as accurate “as is reasonably practicable”.

I have a simple question for the Minister: would it be “reasonably practicable” not to carry out a door-to-door canvass where a significant number of electors were estimated not to be on the electoral register?

No, it would not. The steps that an ERO needs to take will be set out both in the guidance from the Electoral Commission and in the secondary legislation. Those steps will be a duty upon them; it will not be about doing this if they get round to it or if they feel it would be a good idea. There will be a basic level of steps that they must take. All we are doing with this “reasonably practicable” qualification is saying that, despite their best endeavours, EROs are not going to achieve a perfect register, because no one in any constituency in any country in the known world has ever produced a register that is absolutely accurate and perfect. However, EROs must do everything they can to make it is as near to that as possible by taking all reasonable steps.

The Minister is making a strong case. Is not the corollary of these amendments that, if we disregard the practicability of the efforts by the EROs to put this register together, compiling a register would be exactly the same, and would be seen as such, in Colchester, a constituency made up of one town in a compact urban area, as it would be in Orkney and Shetland, a constituency of many islands? It simply is not practical to regard the constituencies as being the same for the purposes of compiling a register.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He sets out why we must avoid being too prescriptive: we want EROs to do a variety of different things in different places to achieve their objective.

Mr Love asked whether there is a minimum that is required. I can tell him that there is. Our draft regulations will set out what the EROs must do to encourage applications to register to vote. That will include, as a minimum, the sending of an invitation, of two reminders and of a canvasser to encourage an application. There is no question of our watering down the duty of EROs; we are simply recognising that even at the end of all that, because of the change in the way in which this section is constructed by the amendment of the original Act, EROs will not have a perfect register. However, they must have as near to a perfect system as possible for getting to the perfect register.

With all due respect, what the Minister is saying is about as clear as mud. As I understand it, the Government are trying to say that this is merely a technical amendment. We are saying that the whole issue of a door-to-door canvass is extremely important, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? We should keep it as it is.

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot understand the point I am making, because I thought I had set it out clearly. I am not sure that I can find an alternative construction that might make it easier for the hard of understanding. What he asserts to be a dilution is not a dilution because it applies to a different process. The use of

“so far as is reasonably practicable” is a qualification of the completeness of the register, not of the system the EROs use to get there, where they must take all the steps required, and others, in order to achieve an accurate and complete register. I think that that is sufficiently clear and that members of the Committee will feel it is sufficiently clear. However, as he stated that he was not going to be satisfied by my explanation even before I gave it, I am not entirely surprised that he finds that difficulty now.

The Minister says that the things that the ERO will need to do will be set out in the regulations. Will those matters also be subject to the test to which Mr Jackson referred—the financial wherewithal necessary to carry this out—or can that be judged under the criteria the Minister has just suggested?

I am in danger of straying into a different part of the legislation here, because that requirement is already in place. One of the things that concern many of us is the difference in performance of some authorities in carrying out what is clearly their duty. The returning officer and the ERO have a statutory duty to carry out their duties effectively. If they are not given the resources by the local authority concerned, they must insist that they have those resources. There is also a back-up provision for the Electoral Commission to take a view on that and report the matter to the Government where there is a deficiency—so the apparatus is in place. Given the new responsibilities that EROs have and the transition funding that they will receive as part of the process of implementing this Bill, I hope that they will be a little more forthright in saying when they are being starved of funds. I must say that there is no direct correlation between the EROs who have more than adequate resources to do their job properly and those who do not, and the relative financial solvency or otherwise of the local authority; it is often a matter of political will as to whether this is seen as a priority.

indicated assent .

I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that point.

May I just deal with the other two issues raised in the amendments? Amendment 37 deals with the reporting of suspicions that an individual had committed offences relating to electoral fraud when submitting either a registration or absent vote application. Again, nobody would quarrel with the purpose of that. Perhaps I should say the “purported purpose”, as we never know exactly what the purpose of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly is because he does not provide an explanatory statement, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. I accept that the purported purpose is a good one.

Let us be absolutely clear that there is a need for EROs to refer to the police any suspicions they have on registration and postal vote applications that they receive, and that is set out clearly in the guidance issued to them by the Electoral Commission. The hon. Member for Caerphilly will have looked at that, and he will know that paragraph 3.37 of the Electoral Commission’s “Managing electoral registration in Great Britain” guidance clearly states:

“Any issues concerning the integrity of the registration process should be reported”— by the ERO—

“to the police immediately.”

In addition, the Electoral Commission has worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers to produce guidance for EROs, returning officers and police officers on identifying and responding to allegations of electoral fraud associated with the registration and postal voting process. In exercising powers under section 9A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission has also set out a specific performance standard on integrity—performance standard 4— which EROs need to meet on maintaining the integrity of registration and postal vote applications. In order to meet that performance standard, EROs are required to establish and maintain contact with their local police—a single point of contact—and ensure that any suspicions arising from registration and postal vote applications are reported to them immediately. EROs are already assessed on their compliance with that standard by the Electoral Commission, so putting in place this statutory requirement would be otiose in those circumstances. If the question is whether they are doing that, the Electoral Commission’s report is encouraging. EROs appear to be making significant progress in the completion of the integrity performance standard.

The figures in the report on the performance of electoral registration officers in 2011 show that 260 EROs, or 68%, met the standard, whereas 116, or 31%, performed above it. Those who are mathematically gifted will work out that 68 plus 31 is 99, which leaves only 1% of EROs—only four—who did not meet the standard. Why not? They did not provide sufficient documentation to the Electoral Commission about the work they had done—they had done it—to take matters forward with the police. The Electoral Commission has give a strong bill of health to the steps taken by EROs of their own volition and with the support of local authorities, as Mr Jackson said, to do the job with which they are entrusted and to report their suspicions.

I concur warmly with the Minister. My experience of living through Operation Hooper, which was the postal vote fraud investigation in Cambridgeshire arising from the June 2004 local and European elections, puts that sharply into perspective. It is important that there should be no perverse incentive that means that electoral registration officers do not to take action because of the resource implications. Hooper cost the Cambridgeshire constabulary a huge amount of money, which has never been recouped by the constabulary or by the city of Peterborough, and the Minister should be mindful of that.

I absolutely agree. There should be no constraint on dealing effectively with attempted or actual fraud in the electoral process. EROs should be confident not only that they have the capacity to act but that the police will engage with them. That is why the work between the Electoral Commission and ACPO is so important.

I hear what the Minister says about the reports produced by the Electoral Commission, but that is all in the past. We are talking about a transitional system and an entirely new system. Our contention is that EROs should have greater responsibilities to ensure that they take that aspect of their work very seriously and that there is a need for a stipulation to that effect on the face of the Bill.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the Electoral Commission’s most recent report from 2011, which is really not that long ago, expresses the strong view that EROs understand their responsibilities in this area perfectly well. It is by no means clear that a statutory provision would make one jot of difference. From a jurisprudential point of view, I do not think it is very easy to establish that someone has failed to report a suspicion. If they have documented it, they are likely to report it, and if they have not I would like to see the process by which one could establish that a suspicion had formed in their mind.

There are difficulties with the proposal from the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but I do not think we are talking about a major difference of opinion. We simply think that the Electoral Commission has taken and will continue to take the necessary steps, that EROs are responding positively to that and that we have a much more satisfactory arrangement now than we would have had a few years ago. That is partly thanks to the work of the previous Government in introducing the provisions that gave the Electoral Commission the standard-setting duties it now has.

Finally, let me deal with the proposal to give the Electoral Commission powers of intervention. The amendment is not clear. I do not want to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but it is a curious provision in an Act of Parliament to give a power of intervention without stating what that power is. The proposal raises a serious point about the role of the Electoral Commission. We think that the fulfilment of the requirements set out in section 9A of the 1983 Act plays a vital role in improving the completeness and accuracy of our electoral registers. We are committed to achieving that, but giving the Electoral Commission powers to intervene when that is not being done would be a significant change to how it operates. It already has powers to set and monitor performance standards for electoral services, which is what we have just been discussing, and it does it very well, measuring the performance of EROs against those criteria. A failure to meet those standards might suggest a potential failure to meet the duty set out in section 9A of the 1983 Act, which is absolutely right.

Under the 2010 Act, the Electoral Commission was given a central role because of the critical importance of the introduction of individual electoral registration. Amendments have already been made to downgrade the role of the Electoral Commission. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that we need an independent body with expert witnesses in its membership to ensure a smooth transition to individual electoral registration?

I absolutely agree. The Electoral Commission plays a hugely significant role and will continue to do so, setting out and monitoring the performance standards. It is also helping through its new responsibilities to ensure that EROs do their job. When there are concerns about the EROs’ performance as regards this duty or any other, the Electoral Commission has a power to intervene by making a recommendation to the Secretary of State or the Lord President of the Council, who has a power of direction to require registration officers to comply with the directions on discharging their functions. It goes further, because in addition it is an offence for a registration officer to breach their official duty without good cause. If prosecuted and found guilty, a registration officer can be fined up to £5,000. I believe that that system has so far worked well as regards any registration officer who was found to be in dereliction of his duties. I cannot see any need to change that or for any specific provision to be made about the discharging of those duties under section 9A.

We want the Electoral Commission to play a key role in monitoring how registration officers implement their policies, including their fulfilment of section 9A duties. The Secretary of State or the Lord President of the Council would as a last resort retain the ability to issue formal directions to a registration officer if they were in breach of their legal responsibilities. I hope that those detailed explanations of the Government’s position mean that the hon. Member for Caerphilly and others will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

I heard what the Minister said. I was not entirely convinced by his arguments, but there was some reassurance on some points, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I understand, Mr Williams, that you do not wish to move amendment 35.

indicated assent.

The Chairman:

I call Wayne David.

As I indicated earlier, we feel that this is a very good amendment on an extremely important issue, so we would like to move it.

Amendment proposed: 35, page 21, line 23, leave out ‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.—(Wayne David.)

The Committee divided:

Ayes 188, Noes 266.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.