Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 31:"Page 4, line 10, at end insert—" ““(5)   The amount paid under this section must not in any year exceed such amount as is determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. (6)   The power to make regulations under subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, grouped together, are my contribution to achieving some greater clarity in the CORE scheme. In light of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was saying a few moments ago, I suspect I might find him an enthusiastic support of Amendment No. 31. He may feel that the Minister’s response to the last group of amendments reinforces the case for it. In terms of what can be achieved, I am supportive of creating a CORE scheme. Like other noble Lords, my concern is with implementation. This Bill creates the power to introduce CORE schemes, but, as we have already discussed, the provisions are drawn in broad terms. The Minister is vested with significant powers. As has been said, it is difficult to get a sense of what a scheme will entail. Given the problems already encountered with the introduction of online schemes and databases, we need some degree of reassurance. We need to be sure that the schemes will work effectively and efficiently. The two amendments are designed to address those concerns in different ways. I will focus particularly on Amendment No. 32. Amendment No. 31 provides that the Minister must introduce regulations to govern the amount that may be paid in grant in any one year to a CORE keeper. Some of the amendments we have just discussed come at it from the other direction, ensuring that the funding is sufficient. My amendment comes at it from the direction of ensuring that the commitment is not unlimited. Clause 3 provides rather open-ended powers to the Minister to make such grants. The Minister has provided the figure. I have no objection to it; it strikes me as rather modest. As a matter of principle, however—I think that this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was getting at—it should not be open-ended. This amendment makes provision for regulations governing the allocation of grants, and ensures that they are subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is designed to address the point that the noble Lord was getting at. Amendment No. 32, the new clause, constitutes the main step, as I see it, that is designed to ensure we have a much clearer idea of what a CORE scheme will entail. Given that the Government want to proceed by way of pilot schemes for the use of personal identifiers, I see no reason why a similar approach should not be adopted here. As the Minister explained in the other place, one can have a ““big bang”” approach or roll out CORE schemes on a regional basis. The case for the latter—in effect a form of piloting—is much greater in this case than for personal identifiers. There is still a lot to be decided about the CORE scheme. That is obviously borne out by the fact that consultation is taking place on what data will be placed in CORE. We need to know how the scheme will work. There is still a great deal to be tested. I appreciate that, as the Minister has said, under Clause 6, an order establishing a CORE scheme cannot be made until the Secretary of State has consulted the Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner and relevant electoral registration officers. The Minister may say that this is sufficient; there may not be a pilot scheme, but there will be consultation. However, there is no requirement for an evaluation of a CORE scheme. What this new clause does, therefore, is to ensure that the first CORE scheme is subject to evaluation. A second scheme cannot be introduced until the first has been evaluated by a body designated by the Secretary of State. If the Government adopt a big bang approach, then there will be no second scheme. However, if an evaluation identifies serious problems, the Secretary of State can use his powers to change the scheme. If it is a regional roll out, which I think is more appropriate—the Minister has indicated that that is the intention—then the evaluation of the first scheme will inform the designation of subsequent schemes. The new clause provides that the body designated by the Secretary of State may be the Electoral Commission. If the commission is so designated, then Clause 4 has to come out of the Bill, since it would entail the commission being in a position to evaluate a scheme that it is responsible for administering. The Minister will make, and has already touched upon, the point that other countries with a national register effectively use their electoral commissions as the CORE keepers.