Electoral Administration Bill

I rise to speak to my two amendments—Amendments Nos. 120 and 121—which I think complement nicely the amendment moved by my noble friend. I disagree with him in just one respect—I do not think that this matter is small fry. This set of amendments is important in terms of what the Bill seeks to achieve. The Bill has three key objectives. The first is ensuring that everyone is able to vote. To contribute to that process, registration officers are empowered to take certain steps to maintain the register. Registration is a necessary but not sufficient condition for voting. Those who are registered have to make the effort to exercise their right to vote. As we are acutely aware, not all those who are registered make that effort, so this clause is designed to encourage electoral participation. Under subsection (1), an electoral officer may take such steps as he thinks appropriate to encourage the participation by electors in the electoral process. The goal is laudable and, given that, I query why local electoral officers are given discretion as to whether they should take steps to encourage electors to vote. The danger is that those who will take steps to encourage participation are the ones who need the least encouragement. Why should encouragement to participate be confined to particular areas? If there is to be selective encouragement, it should most obviously be concentrated in areas with the lowest turnout. However, as this clause is drawn, there is no guarantee that that is where it will be concentrated. Given the purpose of the Bill, I think there is a compelling case for requiring electoral officers to take such steps as they think appropriate to encourage participation. The steps may not need to be extensive in some areas, but it is important that electoral officers are conscious of the need to encourage participation. Subsection (2) requires a local electoral officer to ““have regard to”” any guidance issued by the Electoral Commission. I think that that makes much more sense if subsection (1) imposes a requirement to take steps to encourage participation. This matter has been discussed in the House before, and I prompted the earlier response from the Minister on Amendment No. 117 to show that in law it is a very soft provision. As the clause stands, an electoral officer may read the guidance issued by the Electoral Commission but decide not to take any steps to encourage participation. If electoral officers have a statutory requirement to take steps to encourage participation, they are more likely to act on the guidance. I see no reason, therefore, why there should not be a requirement for electoral officers to take such steps as they think appropriate to encourage participation. One possible concern for electoral officers in taking steps to encourage participation is that they may not be reimbursed for expenditure incurred in doing so. Subsection (4) provides that the Secretary of State may reimburse a local electoral officer in respect of expenditure incurred by the officer for the purposes of this clause. The Secretary of State may reimburse them, but is not required to do so. Given the pressures under which electoral officers already have to operate, I do not see that there is much justice in requiring them to encourage participation and then not reimburse them for the costs they have incurred. They need some certainty, otherwise they may be very hesitant to do the very thing that we wish them to do. If the Secretary of State is concerned they may incur unnecessary or inappropriate costs, then one answer would be to provide that the Secretary of State shall reimburse electoral officers if they have complied with the guidance issued by the Electoral Commission. There is, in any event, a regulation-making power under subsection (5), so this amendment is not creating an open-ended commitment as far as the Secretary of State is concerned. I certainly think that we need to introduce more certainty in this subsection if electoral officers are to take substantive steps to encourage participation. Otherwise, the danger, as the clause is drawn, is that they will play safe and do very little—certainly very little that entails expenditure. My two amendments are designed to give the clause teeth to ensure that electoral officers take steps to encourage participation—the very thing that the Bill is designed to achieve.