Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 90A:"Page 16, line 26, leave out from ““(2)”” to end of line 28." The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 90A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 90B, which is in the same group, although they are about different issues. Amendment No. 90B draws attention to what seems to be a particularly extreme example of catch-all legislation. I propose to delete subsection (7), which states:"““Rules made under any enactment relating to elections or referendums may make such provision as the person making the rules thinks appropriate in connection with any provision made by an order which includes provision mentioned in subsection (2)””." Subsection (2) states:"““An order made by the Secretary of State under section 72(2) for the purposes of the personal identifier provisions may include such provision as he thinks appropriate for modifying or disapplying . . . any of the personal identifier provisions . . . provision made by or under any enactment relating to elections . . . or referendums””," which seems to cover everything. I do not understand, if the catch-all powers in subsection (2) are required, why they have to be increased and doubled up by the powers in subsection (7). That seems extraordinary. Perhaps the Minister can find out the answer to that. The more substantive amendment is Amendment No. 90A. I do not understand what the provision means, so I partly tabled it to find out what it means. Equally, in so far as I do understand it, I am not sure that I agree with it. I looked in the excellent Explanatory Notes, which state:"““Subsection (4) provides that a commencement order made under subsections (1) and (2) may exclude any local government area (e.g. a parish or community) from using personal identifiers at the conduct of local elections. This would mean that although personal identifiers will still be collected for the purpose of registration, the question provided for by clause 15(3)(b) (‘What is your date of birth?’) to be asked in a polling station prior to an elector being provided a ballot paper need not be asked””." The suggestion is that in certain local elections the personal identifier provisions, which will apply to other elections there, will not be asked. If there is an election for the district council, a parish council or a town council, if that is disapplied it will not have to be applied during that election. If that is what it means, I do not understand why the provision is being made. Apart from anything else, it will cause problems if there are elections on the same day. Most parish, town and community elections are on the same day as elections for local authorities in an election year. Sometimes in the case of a by-election they will not. In almost all cases where parish council elections take place, it is a double election and people go into the polling station and vote for the district or borough councillor and the parish councillor at the same time. Why are we disapplying one and not the other? That seems very odd. The way that it is written does not suggest that it can just disapply for one by-election if there was a one-off parish election; it would be for that local authority generally. I do not understand what it means or how it would work. More particularly, I do not understand why it is needed or why it should happen. If we are having a system of personal identifiers, and people become used to it, so that when they go to the polling station or get their postal vote they have to sign their name and provide their date of birth, why should that not apply to all elections that take place in that area? Not to do so seems to be a recipe for confusion. This is a probing amendment. I beg to move.