Electoral Administration Bill

I have listened carefully to the arguments and begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Garden, that any reference to a terrier was meant in an entirely complimentary way. He has taken up this issue and it is because of him that we have been able to do a lot of work behind the scenes with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is correct to point out that we have to work closely with the ministry to enable us to resolve this issue, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garden, referred to the commitment of the Department for Constitutional Affairs to reach that end, whatever it may be. I would have preferred to table amendments myself today, but I cannot, so I want now to go through the amendments before us and express my views. As a consequence of that, and in recognition of the strength of feeling among noble Lords, I hope to be able to continue the dialogue that I and my officials are already engaged in with the Ministry of Defence in order to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. My right honourable friend Harriet Harman made the position clear in another place. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor feels that we should do this, as do colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. The issue with which we are grappling is more what the solution should be and how most effectively to deal with the problem. In the context of paragraphs (a) and (b), the noble Lord, Lord Garden, knows that they are already set out in the 1983 Act and that they still stand. Paragraph (c) is new. I would like to raise an issue with the noble Lord in relation to the Ministry of Defence: this goes beyond what the ministry would consider to be its duty as an employer. As he has identified, the provision has resource implications. There is also the consideration that we have to be sensitive. While the noble Lord will probably disagree with me, I believe that we have to consider the role of government departments in intruding into the private lives of service personnel, their spouses or civil partners in terms of how we view our democracy and voting. We have to be sensitive and make sure that we get the balance right. I know from both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we have identified two problems related to the registration of service personnel. Using the word in its best sense rather than its negative sense, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that significant numbers of service personnel are not registered to vote. There are concerns that the changes made in 2001 may have had an impact. There is, too, a possible proposal which the noble Lord and I have briefly discussed about an enabling power that would allow us to consider the period for which a service declaration remains in force. Currently it is, I think, 12 months. It could be lengthened to three or perhaps five years. I take the point pressed by the noble Lord and backed by the noble Baroness that any enabling power raises questions about timetabling. Regardless of what happens in Committee today, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will take a view on these matters. I appreciate that and always abide by its considerations. So I make a commitment that, if I can later propose anything of an enabling nature, I shall also propose a timetable. If we were to introduce enabling powers, noble Lords would have to feel confident that we would not let such powers sit there for a long time while doing nothing with them. If we do such a thing—if we feel that that approach is appropriate—I commit to bringing a timetable with it. I do not suggest that noble Lords would have to accept that timetable, but I shall provide it. The other problem is the method of voting for members of the armed services overseas. There is the question of providing enough time for ballot papers to be received and returned. Appointing proxies may not always be popular with all service personnel for various reasons. It is perhaps worth saying that action has been taken to ensure that service personnel are aware of the voting and registration procedures. We have done that in liaison with the Electoral Commission. A publicity campaign has involved electoral registration forms being distributed to all members of the Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces have introduced structural changes to maximise electoral registration. That means that we now have an officer in each unit—I am sure that the noble Lord is familiar with this, but it is worth saying for the benefit of the Committee—who has been given responsibility for electoral registration and acts as a contact point for all service personnel who want to register to vote. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that those steps, which may be small in his terms, are none the less important. He also knows that a survey is being conducted at the moment among service personnel. The findings of the survey are apparently expected in March. That will give us some information—I appreciate, only some information—to measure registration levels among service personnel and to consider the success of the publicity campaigns on the way. I entirely understand the pressure from your Lordships’ House, from another place and from outside for us to take further action. As I said, we are in discussion. I have noted what noble Lords have said and am very concerned that we should try to address the problem by the next stage of the Bill, simply because, if we do not, I fear that noble Lords will. That is a critical point. I turn to the specific amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The first concerns her proposal for the role of the Lord Chancellor. I am very interested in that and shall take it away, because one question is where the duty will fit—and it may well be with my noble and learned friend. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. However, I want to talk a little about the pre-2000 Act position, because I know that there are those who feel that a simple solution is to revert to that. I am concerned to clarify some of the problems with the old system, so that, when noble Lords consider what they want to propose, that has been addressed. Members of the Committee will know that when my right honourable friend George Howarth set up a working group—known as the Howarth working group—it recognised that the old system had low registration rates and that there was a problem with service personnel being disassociated from the constituencies in which they were registered. It also concluded that electoral registration officers had problems identifying and communicating with service personnel both during their careers and after they left the service, which led to some of the inaccuracies in the electoral register. That had the potential to increase the likelihood of electoral fraud and, in some areas, could unjustifiably inflate the numbers on the electoral register. Proposed new subsection (1) would limit the choice of service personnel by only allowing them to register by a service declaration. Let me cite one example. Of the service personnel resident in Westminster who chose to register, 90 per cent chose to do so as an ordinary elector, rather than through a service declaration. That suggests to me that it might be a difficult or retrograde step to revert back to the previous system. The approach that we adopted in 2000 was to mainstream the registration of service personnel. Of course, the Act did not abolish the facility for personnel to register by way of service declarations, but the small example of Westminster indicates that, given the choice, many service personnel may prefer to register where they are resident. I am not wedded or drawn to the idea of reverting back to the previous position. Subsection (2) would repeal Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act 1983—I think that that is an error.