Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 4:"Page 1, line 13, leave out ““update”” and insert ““provide changes to””" The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. This is the first of a series that I have tabled to try to tease out exactly how the CORE, the central database, will work and what its relationship with the local electoral registers will be. We understood the Minister to say just now that the register, critically, remains a local register. That is important. There will be a centrally co-ordinated record, bringing together the local registers. But I am not sure that much of Part 1 of the Bill is written in those terms. A number of the questions that have been issued for consultation—we have all no doubt avidly devoured the consultation document while trying to get to sleep at night—are genuinely relevant and proper for secondary legislation, because they are about how the principles of the CORE will be put into effect. However, some of the questions are more fundamental. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, in that there is not enough detail on the face of the Bill for something as important as this. Some principles should be there. It is clear from the consultation—if it is a genuine consultation—that the Government have not made up their mind on important issues of principle, so it is odd that we have reached this stage in the passage of the legislation. At least we have seen the consultation document, however. When the House of Commons discussed the Bill in Committee there were strong complaints that Members had not even seen the document at that stage, so they did not know what issues they should have been talking about. We are talking about a large and complex new database that will bring together many local databases. That introduces complexity. There are issues of cost, reliability, security and, simply, practicality. Will it work? I suppose that there will be a fallback, because if it does not work the local electoral registers will still be there and the system of electoral registration and elections will not fall down. Even so, there are important questions. More details about the relationship between the local registers and the national record, the CORE, still need to be teased out. At least we have the consultation document, which gives us some ideas of the questions that we should be asking here—we can use it as a crib, which is helpful. There are three fairly simple amendments here and one which relates to an important issue of principle. It would be helpful to have some reassurance on that from the Minister. The first relates to the wording of Clause 1(3)(b), which states:"““A scheme must require the ERO . . . to update the information””." That means, ““send updated information to the central register””. There is a hint in that as to where the responsibility lies. It seems that updating information on the register will be a local activity and need; then it will be a matter of sending the changes to the national database. That may be nitpicking, but it was the first instance when I was not sure of the primary level for collection of information. Amendment No. 14, which refers to subsection (11)(d), is about the definition of specified electoral registration information. Specified electoral registration information is central to the whole concept, because it is the information that the electoral registration officers will have to send to the national database and the keeper of the CORE. The first three definitions that are set out in the Bill are fairly obvious: the register of electors for any election; any list or other record relating to such a register which the ERO is required or authorised to keep; and any other information relating to a person who has an entry on such a register which is required for electoral purposes. Those are all matters which clearly relate to the elections. Paragraph (d) refers to,"““such other information as the Secretary of State specifies being information which he thinks is necessary or expedient to facilitate the effective operation of the scheme””." That seems to be the sort of catch-all phrase which ought to be questioned whenever it comes in legislation before this House. I do not know what it means. I have read the explanations which have been sent out and I still do not know what it means. It could mean anything and everything. Will the Minister explain exactly what it intimates? She has just referred to the need for legislation to be clear and understandable, but this is not. Amendment No. 7 relates to subsection (6)(b), which also refers to information which is not specified electoral information. The rest of the subsection refers to specified electoral registration information, but this paragraph states that a scheme may,"““specify how other information required (by or under any enactment) to be kept in connection with the information is to be recorded and stored in that form””." What is that information? I do not understand what information is referred to in that paragraph. It seems to be a catch-all provision which allows almost anything under the sun to be put on the database. If we are setting up big new databases, we need to be clear about what will go on them and to what use they will be put.       The final amendment in the group, Amendment No. 15, is more substantive. It comes down to the question of which is the definitive register. Is it the local register or is it the national register? I hope that the amendment will give the Minister the opportunity to make it clear that it is the local register. The amendment suggests that the following new subsection be added to the clause:"““In any case where there is a difference between the information contained in the electoral register maintained by the ERO””—" that is, the local register—"““and that held by the CORE keeper””—" that is, the national record—"““the former shall be regarded as being definitive””." I think that we can all think of instances where there might be differences. We are talking about complex computer systems which might go wrong. It is no good saying that they will not. They might go wrong at local level; they might go wrong at national level. There might be problems in the transmission of the information; there might be a breakdown in the transmission of the information. It was suggested during the consultation that information will be sent daily, but that may not be possible or it may not happen. Even if it is sent daily, a delay could have an effect. One can think of other purposes for which the register might be used; for example, for running elections, or legal challenges and other investigations. There is the question of access by the elector. The elector might find discrepancies between the information about him that is held locally and that which is held nationally. Clearly, he would complain about that. Which register is definitive at any given time? That is a critical question. I think that the Minister has already said that it is the local one, but the purpose of tabling this amendment is to enable her to state clearly that, if there is a discrepancy, in all circumstances the local register prevails. I beg to move.