Political Parties and Elections Bill

As I said, our view is that the identifiers should be a national insurance number, a signature and date of birth. We believe that that is appropriate, but things change and it is important for the Government of the day to have a power to respond to, for example, technological changes. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman enough reassurance to support the Government on the amendments. As I have said, the power to make regulations is potentially significant. Therefore, we have taken particular care to have regard to the comprehensiveness of the register and the effect that any change in the identifiers might have on it. Our view is that there are considerable challenges and we do not want to make them worse. Therefore, in consulting the commission, the Secretary of State must seek its view on the impact on the register of changes to identifiers in the event of the provision of identifiers becoming compulsory. That is intended to act as a safeguard, ensuring that any amendments to the identifying information provided would not have a negative impact on groups that are already under-represented. The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 38 would also provide a power to make consequential amendments to the provision inserted by Lords amendment 37. In addition, subsection (1)(c) of the new clause provides for regulations to make supplementary provision to enable the collection of identifiers on a voluntary basis. The specific matters that can be included in regulations made under that power are listed in subsection (2) of the new clause. Subsection (2) would provide for the Secretary of State to make provision for the kinds of forms that could be used to collect identifiers, what those forms should say, how they should be kept and how data held by the authority responsible for the national insurance number database could be shared with electoral registration officers or the CORE keeper, as well as the charging of fees for the provision of data. The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 38 would make it an offence for an electoral registration officer to share information other than for specified purposes. In addition, the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 38 would allow us to make provision for what steps an electoral registration officer should take if he or she suspected that the identifying information provided was false. That is important in enabling the system to tackle fraud. Although the intention is that no one will be removed from the register in that phase for failing to provide identifiers or providing inaccurate identifiers, we will take powers to set out in regulations the steps that electoral registration officers must take in the event of false or inaccurate identifier information being provided. The first set of regulations made under those powers will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as will any subsequent regulations that amend the preceding clause, which sets out the obligation for electoral registration officers to collect personal identifiers on a voluntary basis. Subsequent regulations that do not amend the provision relating to the voluntary collection of identifiers and seek only to make supplementary provisions will be made under the negative resolution procedure. That is because we consider that such regulations will be technical—for instance, adjustments to forms, as we establish what works—and less likely to warrant a full parliamentary debate. Hon. Members will be aware that much legislation relating to registration is already made by order under the current system. The Electoral Commission must be consulted before regulations can be made using those powers. In consulting the commission in respect of regulations that seek to change the personal identifiers, the Secretary of State must seek its view on whether any such amendments to the identifying information would have a negative impact on under-represented groups. The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 39 would require the Electoral Commission to keep the voluntary phase under review and would provide for annual progress reports to be published by the Electoral Commission. It would also require the commission's report in 2014 to include a recommendation on whether the evidence supported a shift to the compulsory phase of individual registration. The reports must assess the progress of the voluntary phase against the tests set out in subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 39. Which tests have to be applied will depend on the year in which the report is submitted. Under subsection (3) of the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 39, each report, irrespective of when it is submitted, will contain an assessment of the adequacy of the registration system in meeting the registration objectives and an assessment of whether any changes are needed ahead of a shift to individual registration. That is essential if we are to build up a clear evidence base on the health of the registration system and its readiness to be subjected to such a significant change. In addition, it is important that those who represent hard-to-reach groups are given an adequate opportunity to contribute to the consideration relating to the move to individual registration. We would therefore expect the Electoral Commission to engage with such groups and organisations from the outset in considering the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the register and in making its recommendations. In 2014, the commission's report will be different. In addition to the assessment that I have outlined, that report must contain an assessment as to whether making the provision of identifiers compulsory would help or hinder the achievement of the registration objectives and a recommendation as to whether the collection of identifying information should be made obligatory. It may help the House if I briefly clarify what the registration objectives are, as set out in subsections (8)(a) to (c) of the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 38:""that persons who are entitled to be registered…are registered…that persons…not entitled to be registered…are not registered…and…that none of the information relating to a registered person…is false."" Those objectives mirror the definitions already used to provide for individual registration in Northern Ireland and are designed to ensure that the register is both comprehensive and accurate. The Electoral Commission's report in 2014 will be laid before Parliament. If the report features a recommendation in favour of a move to the compulsory phase and if that recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses, the Secretary of State will be obliged to make an order commencing provisions that bring the compulsory phase into effect. That ensures, rightly, that Parliament is at the heart of that fundamental shift and that it cannot happen without Parliament's say-so. In the event that the shift to the obligatory provision of identifiers is not recommended by the commission, or that Parliament does not approve a positive recommendation, the Secretary of State must, within a year of a negative report or within a year of Parliament rejecting a positive report, make a request that the Electoral Commission produce another report. That report would have to be delivered on a specified date at least one year and not more than two years after that request was made. Again, the report must make a recommendation, and the same process as that described above will apply to that recommendation. That time scale should enable further steps to be taken, if necessary, to prepare the system for the change. The new clauses introduced by Lords amendments 40 and 41 provide for the obligatory provision of personal identifiers, in the event that Parliament approves a positive recommendation by the Electoral Commission. Lords amendment 40 applies the 2002 Northern Ireland model to the rest of the United Kingdom with a number of amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to enable a flexible approach to implementation, which will be appropriately tailored to the circumstances of Great Britain. For example, they will make it possible to insist on electoral registration officers using a prescribed canvass form in Great Britain, which will give added flexibility. They will amend the legislation so that the three-month residency requirement in Northern Ireland—which dates back 60 years to the Government of Ireland Act 1949—does not apply to the rest of the UK, where it is clearly not relevant. They will also provide for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations alternative evidence to be provided by those who do not have a national insurance number. Again, that will provide flexibility. The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 41 contains broad order-making powers to allow for the transition to the obligatory collection of identifiers and for the Secretary of State to change the identifiers to be provided in the compulsory phase. It also contains, at subsection (1), transitional provision for those already on the register in the autumn of 2015. From autumn 2015, it is proposed that all new registrations—people moving house and re-registering, or anyone entirely new to the register—would have to provide the identifiers to be put on to the register. However, subsection (1) allows that anyone already on the register in the autumn of 2015 may remain on the register—subject to their meeting the existing conditions for confirming their registration to the electoral registration officer—without providing their identifiers in the 2015 or 2016 canvass. From the autumn canvass, such individuals will have to provide their identifiers in order to remain on the register. From that point, therefore, identifiers would be in place for all entries on the register. The remaining amendments are mostly minor technical amendments that clarify the definitions used in the clauses and extend individual registration from Northern Ireland, where it is already in place, to the whole of the United Kingdom. The process set out in the amendments is very significant, and one that we must get right. The carefully phased timetable, spanning at least seven years, is designed to support the system and the public through the period of transition, and to prepare them as fully as possible for this radical and historic shift. If we do not get the process right, and the comprehensiveness of the register is compromised as a result, the consequences for our democracy will be serious. I know that there are those who argue that we should be moving more quickly. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has argued that consistently, and I want to spell out to her again why it is so important not to rush this process. We know that the introduction of individual registration in Northern Ireland in 2002 led to a fall in numbers on the register. We must all learn the lessons of that experience. Under individual registration, many individuals will be responsible for their own registration for the first time, and, as I have said, that will pose considerable challenges. I want to quote briefly from the Electoral Commission report on the shift to individual registration in Northern Ireland. It stated:""The new registration process disproportionately impacted on young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally and those living in areas of high social deprivation."" We simply must not repeat that outcome when the system is introduced in Great Britain. That is why we are proposing, alongside the phased implementation of individual registration, to take a range of steps to bolster the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register, and our understanding of registration across Great Britain. Before I come on to those steps, I shall outline the additional practical reasons why I am fundamentally opposed to making the shift before 2015. First, the implementation of full individual registration in 2015 would minimise as far as possible the risk of implementation directly ahead of a national or sub-national poll. A dip in the numbers registered—we run the risk of such a dip occurring—ahead of any such poll would have damaging consequences for the legitimacy of our electoral processes. Individual registration was able to be implemented swiftly in Northern Ireland not least because there was only one authority there to co-ordinate for electoral purposes. In Great Britain, there are more than 400 different registration officers, each with their own processes and registers, and co-ordination on such a scale will inevitably take time. The move to individual registration will involve a very significant change in infrastructure and processes, including new IT systems and data sharing on a national scale. We cannot rush such implementation. The current timetable will, we believe, give us time to test what works before moving to full implementation on the basis of the best possible evidence that we can secure. Taken together in the round and given the real risk of a drop in registration rates, we need actively to move to bolster registration rates as far as possible in advance of implementation. To that end, we intend to pilot data-matching schemes with public authorities to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the register; to enable enhanced data sharing in two-tier local authorities via secondary legislation; to make explicit in secondary legislation that the duty on electoral registration officers to register individuals applies all year round; and to consider whether more can be done to bolster the performance standards framework for EROs. We will explore whether registration can be promoted at every point at which the individual interacts with public services. We have already started distributing leaflets and posters in citizens advice bureaux, making a training fact sheet available to CAB volunteers through their intranet system so they can better inform the public about registration. We are distributing posters throughout the network of courts across the country. We want to do more to provide people with opportunities to register to vote, and we are looking into the possibility of supplying rolling registration forms in post office branches to capture the details of eligible electors who, for whatever reason, are not on the register. Those initiatives will inevitably take time to bed in and take effect and there may, of course, be other initiatives. We are actively exploring at the moment moves to bolster the current registration system, such as by introducing a duty to register and possibly making other changes to the current framework. The current timetable will allow us to explore all feasible options before making the shift to individual registration. At the same time, the Electoral Commission will produce yearly reports on the health of the registration system and in 2012, crucially, we should have our clearest ever indication of registration rates, thanks to the data being collected as part of the national census. That is very important, as it will give us a crucial tool for assessing the robustness of the system. Taken all in all, this is a massive programme of work. We are often criticised—all Governments have been criticised—for conducting major project in haste and then having to iron out the problems later, but we simply cannot afford to do that with something as important to our democracy as this historic shift. I hope that I have managed to persuade the House of the importance of the timetable. It is not a recipe for kicking the move into the long grass. What we are proposing is very clear and there is a clear end-date, subject to the tests being met—tests that I think the whole House will agree are necessary. Before I conclude, I wish to deal with issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is sadly no longer in his place. He raised an important point about the willingness of electoral registration officers to pursue the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the register with all due diligence. I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's allegation. He, of course, will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I want to stress that the overwhelming majority of EROs—and I believe that the whole House would agree on this—and the chief executives of local authorities are dedicated public servants. They would never do anything to compromise their impartiality or the integrity of the electoral registration system, which is the foundation of our democracy. That has certainly been my experience of all the EROs I have met at the conferences I have mentioned that took place over the last two years. I repeat that I am aware of the allegations that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd and perhaps others have made, and those allegations are, of course, worrying. I have looked into the issues and it is clear, on reflection, that the system of governance for electoral registration officers could be made more robust—no matter, as I have said, that the overwhelming majority of such officers and the chief executives of local authorities are dedicated public servants. It is clearly vital that the public should have complete confidence in the Government's arrangements for our electoral system and the safeguards that exist at both the local and national level. The Electoral Commission agrees. I hope that my hon. Friend will gain comfort from reading Hansard tomorrow, because I can tell him that Ministry of Justice officials have begun discussions with the Electoral Commission about how the safeguards can be enhanced. I will report to the House before the end of the year on how we propose to improve the system of governance, and I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend and the House. I also hope that all Members recognise that the amendments will lead to a carefully and successfully managed transition to individual registration, ensuring that the public are well informed and the system is ready for the change. The Electoral Commission itself has said that the process of moving to individual registration must take place under careful scrutiny. It has said that this would be""a major change to the electoral registration system in Great Britain. There will need to be detailed planning and identification of key milestones to provide the basis for moving towards implementation of individual electoral registration over a number of years, including the delivery of public awareness campaigns during any transition to a new system."" I hope that all Members will agree that this historic shift will enrich our democracy. It will give people more responsibility for their votes, and will provide an electoral registration system that more accurately reflects their lives today. However, that must be done in a way that is mindful of the need to engage the public in the process, and protects the comprehensiveness of the register as well as its accuracy.