Electoral Administration Bill

I begin by confirming to the noble Lord that the duty on electoral registration officers to maintain the register is ongoing—I think that that is what he sought from me—through the course of the year, not just at the time of the annual canvass. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the noble Lord. There is an issue of balance. As the noble Lord will know, we get the period of one year from the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001. It is in the law, in that sense. We think that that is about right. Obviously, as the noble Lord will be aware, EROs can consider whether to carry forward an elector’s entry and can do so only if there is no information that suggests that the person is no longer resident. There may be particular reasons why people do not fill in a form one year, although they have done so in previous years. They may be ill in hospital, or whatever. It is reasonable that they should have a period of grace before they are removed from the register and are therefore unable to vote in elections. The noble Lord’s point that if a household is represented by a name, that may make EROs less likely to see whether anyone else is eligible, is fair. Again, however, we can address that outside of legislation when considering issues that electoral registration officers need to take into account. When someone has not signed up for that year, that should be enough to trigger questions in officers’ minds and to get them to find out as much information as possible. As the noble Lord will again know, the register is published on 1 December. It may well not be before June that any checks are made under the amendment. Many electoral registration officers start their next annual canvass of electors in late summer or early autumn, when there is an opportunity to check the entries and to remove any for which the form has not been completed and returned. So we would not gain much by the amendment. The timetable by which electoral registration officers start their work suggests to me that we are talking of only a few weeks’ difference, no more. I think that the balance is right. We do not want to take people off the register where we have no information that they have gone—yes, they may not have filled in the form, but there is no other indication. The essence of this part of the Bill and the principles set out by the noble Lord are to ensure that we do as much as we possibly can to verify that people are there: that they are on the register when they should be and are not when they should not. Within that, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that a properly functioning system—I accept what he says about our many good electoral registration officers—will enable the right leeway to be given but appropriate intervention to be made to ensure that we have as much information as possible, including from consulting other records, going to visit and so on. I hope that we have the balance about right and that, on that basis, the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.