Electoral Administration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 15 November 2005.

Standing Committee B

(Except clauses Nos. 9 to 18; any new clauses or new schedules relating to part 2 or part 3 of the Bill; any new clauses or new schedules relating to the procedure to be followed at an election on the death of a candidate; and any new clauses or new schedules relating to candidates standing in more than one constituency at an election.)

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are in the Room. I also remind Members that adequate notice of proposed amendments should be given, and that, as is the normal convention, my co-Chairman and I will not, as a general rule, call starred amendments. Will Members please ensure that pagers and mobile phones are either turned off or in silent mode during Committee sittings?

Our first business is to consider the programme motion, debate on which may last for up to half an hour.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during the proceedings on the Electoral Administration Bill, in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 15th November, the Standing Committee shall meet at:

(a) 4.00 p.m on Tuesday 15th November,

(b) 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 17th November,

(c) 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 22nd November,

(d) 9.00 am and 1.00 p.m on Thursday 24th November;

(2) the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 8, Clauses 19 to 66, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 67 to 71, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m on Thursday 24th November.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. Issues of electoral administration are close to all our hearts. I know that barely a waking moment goes by in which you do not think about achieving a complete and accurate register in Knowsley. There are keen volunteers on both sides of the Committee who are well experienced in these matters and who will bring to bear their experience of electoral administration in their constituencies.

On Second Reading, we said—we shall keep true to it—that we in the Department of Constitutional Affairs are simply custodians of this issue for the House; we do not regard it as a totally owned issue. We will be open-minded. If Back Benchers from either side of the Committee table amendments that make sense and support them with strong arguments, we will accept them. We will listen to the argument and make our case.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. I am sure that the Committee will be a constructive one. We had a good debate on Second Reading. There are certain matters upon which the Opposition disagree with the Government, but they are not enormous. I look forward to dealing with those matters in Committee, and I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will listen to arguments from both sides, as she kindly and courteously said that they would. Likewise, I hope that we will achieve a degree of consensus by the end of the Committee stage, because as the Minister said, the general purport of the Bill is good and necessary, and close to all our hearts. I support the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. I have served under your chairmanship on long and complex Bills, but I hope that this Committee will be a shorter affair. I see no reason why the Committee should spend a great deal of time on its deliberations, although there are important matters to consider. We must deal with those expeditiously—thoroughly, but without unnecessarily prolonging the time that we spend here. I am happy with the programme motion and look forward to consideration of the many important amendments before the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Before we commence our consideration of the Bill, I remind Members that parts 2 and 3 have already been considered by a Committee of the whole House, and that this Committee may not rehearse matters that have been discussed in the Chamber. I shall be vigilant, as will my co-Chairman, to ensure that debate does not stray into those areas.

Clause 1 - CORE schemes: establishment

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, after 'may', insert

', pursuant to consultation with all affected political parties,'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 36, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

No. 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert

', and

(c) require the CORE keeper to maintain the information securely to protect the integrity of the information from non-specified third parties.'.

No. 43, in clause 6, page 5, line 42, at end insert

'; and

(e) affected political parties.'.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Part 1 concerns the co-ordinated online record of electors—the CORE scheme. In principle it is a good idea, but we have concerns about it. Amendment No. 35 would alter clause 1 so that it would read, ''The Secretary of State may, pursuant to consultation with all affected political parties, by order make provision for the establishment of one or more schemes (CORE schemes) in connection with the keeping and use of specified electoral registration information by a person designated by a scheme (the CORE keeper).''

The consultation process is important; those who administer the schemes will learn from them as time goes on. Indeed, it is hard to imagine why there should not be consultation on such a matter. The whole point of the Bill is to achieve consensus on how we deal with electoral administration. As the Minister has said previously, as the matter affects all relevant political parties, and we should therefore achieve some sort of consensus, a consultation process would be a good first step. Without consultation, how can it be known whether there is consensus?

Amendment No. 36 would strengthen the clause. Clause 1(3) refers to a scheme that ''may'' require an electoral registration officer to provide the CORE keeper with the information and to update the information. It is hard to understand why the Bill should leave that as an optional extra. If we consider that the electoral registration officer should do certain things, why should the Bill say that the scheme ''may'' require it? Surely the scheme must require it. Whether it is required should not be left open to discussion. That is why we consider that the word ''must'' should replace the word ''may''.

Likewise, amendment No. 37 refers to subsection (6). We suggest that an additional paragraph (c) be inserted to

''require the CORE keeper to maintain the information securely to protect the integrity of the information from non-specified third parties.''

We do not mean to challenge what the Government propose; the amendment is intended to enhance the Bill. It is surely necessary that the information garnered be maintained securely—the electoral register contains sensitive information—and the integrity of the information should be protected from non-specified third parties.

Amendment No. 42 refers to—

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. Amendment No. 42 is to be taken under clause 2.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Hara; I meant to say amendment No. 43, which is included in the group, although it refers to clause 6. It is similar to amendment No. 35 in that it refers to ''affected political parties''. I presume that is why they are grouped together. Having made the point on amendment No. 35, I need not repeat myself.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. Amendments with a similar purport that refer to later clauses but are included in an earlier debate are taken as read when we come to those later clauses. I sympathise with the hon. Lady, because the CORE scheme is dealt with in a number of clauses; it is therefore difficult not to stray. Indeed, when the Minister responds to the debate, she may wish to stray across the whole group of amendments—and I may allow her some discretion, as that may be easier than having repetitious debates on later clauses. We may as a result be able to shorten debate on stand part, but we do still have that opportunity for debate.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, for that extremely wise guidance.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

I am allowed to pontificate.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Pontification is a very important part of the Chairman's role.

I welcome the establishment of a co-ordinated online record of electors. Providing a degree of consistency in the provision of information, and enabling that information to be co-ordinated, will be of considerable benefit to political parties. It is a significant step forward. It will also allow for future experimentation in electoral administration practices if we have consistent arrangements across the country; for that reason, too, I welcome what is proposed.

I hope that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) will all prove to be otiose.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

That is a big word.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I apologise if the word was too long for the hon. Gentleman; I thought that it was fairly short. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that many of the matters covered by the amendments are axiomatic—another long word—within the Bill.

I raise my eyebrows slightly at the idea of an ''affected political party''. I hope that we always eschew affectation. Indeed, I wonder whether we should concentrate on ''all registered political parties'' or none. It is hard to see which parties will be affected by electoral registration and which will not. I suggest that the amendment could be better worded.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he is creating a synonym. If all political parties are affected, as he suggests, that is perfectly consistent with the amendment, which says, ''all affected political parties.'' If he suggests that that means all political parties, so be it. That is perfectly consistent.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not want to enter into an etymological debate, because it is not worth spending that much time on the amendment. As I said, I simply seek assurance from the Minister that the content of the amendment is a matter of course.

Amendment No. 36 is the perennial ''may'' to ''shall'', or ''may'' to ''must'' debate. The Government's intention behind the clause is very clear. Indeed, it would be remarkable if they set up the scheme but then decided not to take the necessary steps to enable the electoral registration officer to carry out the work involved.

I am not absolutely clear how amendment No. 37 would affect the provision in subsection (6)(b), which already provides for a specification of how information is to be recorded and stored. It is implicit that the subsection provides for security of storage to prevent unauthorised use, but if the Minister assures the Committee in that respect, we will have done our duty in bringing it to the Committee's attention and we need not pursue the matter further.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

Before I discuss the amendments, it would be helpful if I gave a very brief overview of the structure of part 1, which contains clauses 1 to 8. These are eight clauses of primary legislation, and I assure the Committee that there will be detailed consultation thereafter, followed by regulations. We are really discussing only the overall framework at the moment. There will be very detailed discussions at consultation, followed by regulations.

Part 1 is designed to provide the powers necessary for the Government to establish a CORE scheme, which is intended to be an arrangement whereby a record of the information currently held only by several locally based electoral registration officers can be consolidated at one central point. Several benefits are to be gained from having a central register of electoral registration data. In particular, a consolidated record allows data to be matched across otherwise separate electoral registers, which can help to identify where individuals are registered wrongly, in more than one place.

Clause 1 provides the key set of enabling powers that allow the Secretary of State to provide by order for the detail of how a CORE scheme should work, particularly in relation to the types of information that local electoral registration officers will be required to send to the CORE infrastructure, the timing and the manner in which such information must be sent, and the manner in which the body responsible for operating the central CORE infrastructure, who will be called the keeper, must hold the information.

Clause 2 lays the foundations for the rules, which will have to be detailed, on how the personal data that CORE will hold can be used. They include the rule governing the persons to whom access to the information is to be provided, and under what circumstances. Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to make the grants to the CORE keeper necessary to meet the cost of running the scheme. Clause 4 allows the Electoral Commission to be appointed as the CORE keeper, if that is what is decided.

Clause 5 makes a range of supplemental provisions for what issues may be covered in the detail of a CORE scheme, such as handling payments between a CORE keeper and an electoral registration officer, and the ability to provide an alternative personal identifier in place of a signature if the latter would otherwise be required for electoral registration purposes.

Clause 6 sets out the procedure for making a scheme order. Clause 7 allows an electoral registration officer to make use of information received from a CORE keeper in the performance of his or her duty. Clause 8 is merely an interpretation clause.

This part of the Bill does not seek to establish the details of how a CORE scheme will work. We do not believe that primary legislation is the appropriate vehicle for that. We intend to consult shortly. I would like to be able to produce the consultation paper before Report. I do not want to do the dance of the seven veils in this Committee, so I apologise that we do not have the consultation document ready. It would have been helpful for hon. Members if they could have seen the extent of the detail and the wide range of issues that will be included in it.

I apologise, but because that document has not been signed off, I cannot yet share it with the Opposition. It is detailed and has many exciting organograms—which I am holding up now to show to hon. Members. Nothing will not have a picture attached. The issues are technical, but they will be fully consulted on. I have the consultation document with me; no doubt before it is issued it will grow, but this is how much it weighs at the moment.

We will consult shortly on our detailed proposals, and I hope that the consultation document will be in hon. Members' hands before Report. The debate on the amendments will allow us to be absolutely sure that we have included in the consultation paper all the issues flagged up by hon. Members.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept the Minister's apology, and I am sure that it is not her fault that the consultation paper is not available for the Committee to consider. However, I want to put it on the record that that makes the consideration of the Bill less relevant than it would have been had we had that paper in front of us. The Government are asking the Committee to agree to part 1, and the Minister has adequately explained its intentions, but the point of what she has just said is that there will be a consultation on the consultation paper. As she has graphically explained, that paper contains an awful lot of information. What we are discussing this morning simply gives life to the consultation, and is pretty meaningless without it, and so I would like it to be noted that the work of the Committee is incomplete.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

What we are doing this morning is simply agreeing the principle of having a CORE. That is all we are doing, and I hope that this morning I can assure hon. Members that there will be detailed consultations, which will come back to the House. I assure hon. Members that we will ensure that any issue that they want to raise will be put in the consultation paper. Of course, I appreciate that hon. Members do not know what is in it, so raising what is not in it may be—perhaps I will move swiftly off that point. There will be an extraordinarily comprehensive consultation paper, and then regulations. The subject will return to the House. If, inadvertently, something that hon. Members want to include in the consultation document is not there, there is no reason why Members should not put forward their views at that point to be considered for inclusion in the regulations.

We are not pre-empting the regulations; it would not be right for this Committee to do so. The regulations will follow the consultation. We are simply agreeing the skeleton. I assure the Committee that we will have full consultation before we get to the regulations that will put the flesh on the bones of the skeleton. There will be another parliamentary opportunity, as I am about to explain.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 43 would require consultation with all affected political parties before the Secretary of State could lay regulations. They are unnecessary, because the regulations containing the details of CORE schemes will be made by affirmative order. Hon. Members will debate the detail and locations of the schemes and they will go ahead only with parliamentary approval. That is the next stage.

As I have said, the Department is about to start a full formal consultation on the national access arrangements to be taken forward by CORE. That will, of course, provide all interested persons, including political parties, with the opportunity to participate in the putting forward of the detailed regulations in the design of CORE. Finally, amendment No. 35 is broadly worded, which might be problematic in practice when attempts are made to distinguish between an affected political party and something that is not an affected political party. I know that that is a minor point—probably just a drafting point.

Amendment No. 36 would make it a requirement, rather than a possibility, that a CORE scheme should specify the times at which and manner in which an ERO should provide information to a CORE keeper, and subsequently update it. The timing and manner of the provision of information between an ERO and a CORE keeper will be fundamental to the achievement of a properly functioning CORE system and the realisation of most of the key benefits. Therefore, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which we should not want to specify such matters in a CORE scheme. That will happen under regulation. Accordingly, we are sympathetic to the purpose of amendment No. 36, and want to give it further consideration before Report. I therefore ask that it not be pressed to a vote for the time being.

Amendment No. 37 would provide specifically that a CORE scheme could require a CORE keeper to maintain the information securely, to prevent its being accessible to anyone but authorised third parties. Of course, we accept the principle behind the amendment, that personal data should be protected from unauthorised access by those responsible for holding the data. However, existing legislation dealing with data protection will already provide adequate safeguards, in relation to the responsibility that is given to the CORE keeper for protecting the data from inappropriate access.

In addition, part 1 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to deal with detailed questions on the securing of data beyond the data protection issues. For example, clause 1(6)(a) allows the Secretary of State to specify an electronic form in which the CORE keeper must maintain the information. That power can be used to specify that the software must comply with a particular set of technical security standards or protocols. I hope that on that basis and with those assurances the hon. Lady will agree not to press the amendments.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

My mind is now a little clearer. I am one of those elderly people who hark back to the A, B and C lists, and the ability to scrutinise matters relating to the register. I think that the Minister has set my mind at rest about whether the consultation document and the regulations will allow us to go into such detail in scrutiny. If an assurance is being given that that is so, I am more than happy, at this stage.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept the Minister's explanation, and do not want to take up the Committee's time further on this matter. It was important to explore the issues. Now that we have done so and heard the Minister's reasonable explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Use of CORE information

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg to move amendment No. 40, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert 'in an individual constituency;'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 42, in clause 5, page 5, line 40, at end insert—

'(11) A CORE scheme shall make provision to allow registered political parites full access, without charge, to information controlled by the CORE keeper. Access to information shall be governed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41).'.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The Minister has already outlined the intention behind clause 2. The amendments are probing. Amendment No. 40 relates to clause 2(6), which states:

''These are the circumstances . . . the same person acts as proxy for more than two electors''.

The amendment suggests adding the words ''in an individual constituency'' at the end. Perhaps the Minister can explain the matter further, because there is a difference between a person acting as a proxy for two electors in one constituency and for more than two electors in several constituencies. If the amendment is not accepted, there could be a loophole in the legislation, and the amendment is intended to close that loophole before it even opens. Acting as a proxy is a serious matter, because if someone who worked for or represented a political party was allowed to be proxy for large numbers of people in different constituencies, which is quite possible, they would hold an awful lot of power over voting.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It seems to me that the hon. Lady's amendment would do the reverse of what she is saying: it would create the possibility of a peripatetic proxy wandering around the country. Under the wording in the Bill, however, that would be reported as part of the CORE procedures.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, but, as I said, this is a probing amendment. It is necessary to explore the issue a little further, and I thank him for assisting in that exploration.

Amendment No. 42 deals with a similar situation. We suggest including a further condition in the procedure for CORE schemes under clause 6(4), which states that the Secretary of State must consult

''the ERO who acts for each area proposed to be specified in the scheme''.

The amendment therefore states:

''A CORE scheme shall make provision to allow registered political parites full access, without charger, to information controlled by the CORE keeper. Access to information shall be governed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41).''

It is important that registered political parties have access to the information held by the ERO, no matter how that information is held. We tabled the amendment to explore the issue further, and I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to assist in that exploration.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

First, I submit a grovelling apology for having turned up a little late. My colleagues and I were puzzled by amendment No. 40 and the concept of the peripatetic proxy, and we still are, to some extent. The amendment would not be helpful in reducing fraud, and would not achieve very much.

However, we welcome amendment No. 42 as it stands and as it sounds, although we are bit puzzled by the reference to ''parites''. I do not know whether those are a cross between parties and parasites, but there certainly needs to be some textual tidying up.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Obviously, there is a typing error: the word ''parites'' is clearly meant to be ''parties''. Can we take that as read, Mr. O'Hara?

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

The Chairman had already taken it as read.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I am grateful for that clarification. To some extent, amendment No. 42 embodies what we all recognise to be good practice these days. Most of us have harmonious relationships with EROs. One or two of them can, at times, be curmudgeonly and unhelpful, but by and large they are helpful. The amendment seems, to some extent, simply to exemplify what we take to be good practice. The difficulty in putting it on the statute book is that it needs a certain amount of tidying up and clarification, because it raises the possibility—God forbid—of political parties making unreasonable demands from time to time.

The amendment uses the general word ''information''. Presumably, some of the information held by EROs includes the reasons why some people do not feature on the electoral register at all, which may be to do with personal circumstances, criminal factors and other such considerations. However, in terms of the spirit of the amendment, I do not think that it could do much harm. Indeed, it might well do some good for seasoned operators such as those assembled here.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

Amendment No. 40 seeks to bring the clause more into line with the existing restrictions on proxy voting set out in paragraph 6(6) of schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000, which states that the same individual may not vote as a proxy for more than two electors in the same constituency at a parliamentary election, or the same electoral area at a local election. Exception is made where the proxy and electors in question are close family members. The amendment refers only to the circumstances in a constituency, whereas the 2000 Act restriction also applies to local elections. The amendment would therefore inappropriately limit the information that a CORE keeper should send to an ERO, although I am sure that that was not the intention.

The intention is that a CORE will serve, in the first instance, as an early warning device to identify where proxies have been appointed and are at risk of infringing the restriction on voting in that capacity. As we propose in the forthcoming consultation paper on CORE national access arrangements, the CORE record could use information from absent voters lists, which are maintained under schedule 4 to the 2000 Act, to identify where individuals who are appointed as proxies have the potential to infringe the restriction were an election to occur.

Perhaps I can make an offer at this point. When the Bill was published, we held a meeting in Portcullis House to give hon. Members the opportunity to discuss it with officials, because a lot of it is quite technical, and there is no reason why Members should not have direct access to officials. The meeting was useful because as a result of Members asking the officials questions and clarifying their understanding they did not take issue on points simply because they did not understand them rather than because they disagreed with them.

I am wondering whether I should make an offer on the consultation document—that when we produce it, which will, I hope, be before Report, we should convene again in Portcullis House, at a meeting open to all Members of the House, with a team of the extraordinarily expert officials that we have in the DCA, at which people can go through the document. Where there are points of substance, they will have the opportunity to raise them in the debate on the regulations, but where the points are not of substance, they will know that they are not. If points of substance that we did not consider are raised at that point, we may be able to cover them in the regulations.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for that extremely helpful offer, which we shall certainly take up.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I, too, thank the Minister for that offer. It is an extremely good idea, as there will be both points of substance and misunderstandings, and it is important that we should clarify the difference between them, argue the former and discard the latter. Such a meeting with officials would be both welcome and valuable.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

I shall take that forward, then.

The idea is that the CORE would provide an early warning via the absent voter list. That would serve as a trigger to EROs to contact such proxies—and the electors by whom they were appointed—directly, in order to improve their awareness of the proxy voting restrictions, and to ensure that they knew what they were not supposed to be doing, or to check that they were members of the same family.

Post-election, there could be a more focused local check, using marked registers showing whether such proxies had breached the statutory restrictions. Generally speaking, we believe that prevention by early detection of risk on the basis of absent voter entitlement lists is desirable.

The purpose of Amendment No. 42 is to ensure that a CORE scheme includes provision to allow registered political parties free access to the information controlled by the CORE keeper. We agree with the general principle that political parties should not have any lesser access to electoral registration information from CORE in future than they currently have in relation to electoral registration officers. However, we believe that the effect of the amendment would go beyond merely replicating the access that the parties have to the information held by an ERO. Additionally, the Bill contains provision for a CORE scheme to specify to whom information held in CORE may be provided and on what basis, and in our view the scheme is the more appropriate place in which to specify such details.

The existence in future of two potential sources of the same information—the ERO and CORE—makes it reasonable to consider whether data users should be able to approach either or both for that information. For example, it might be appropriate to prescribe that big national users, such as large political party headquarters, should be able to obtain the information only from CORE, while small local bodies—for example, local branches of parties and candidates—should be able to obtain the information only from a local ERO. Similarly, the technology likely to be employed for CORE could allow much more efficient access for data users, including potentially active electronic access directly to CORE rather than passive receipt of copies of information.

Access to the information held by CORE, in particular for large users of the data, is addressed specifically in the consultation paper, which we will discuss with hon. Members. The amendment would negate any such detailed consideration of those issues, as it would instantly require the provision of access to CORE information for all registered political parties, some of which are very small.

We are also concerned that the wording of the proposed amendment—particularly ''full access''—would extend the access beyond that which parties have in relation to an ERO. While the proposed amendment purports to cross-reference this to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we do not believe that such a reference would be sufficient to contain it. Instead, we propose to use provisions already in the Bill to specify in a CORE scheme the details of how access to information for political parties should operate with regard to the data held by a CORE keeper, or the marked registers that might in due course be held by CORE on behalf of EROs. We believe that secondary legislation is the most appropriate place in which to address detailed rules that properly specify the extent and nature of such access.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I appreciate the Minister's long explanation. However, once again it is difficult for the Committee to discuss the full effect of what is before it without access to the consultation paper. I understand and appreciate the Minister's offer of a consultation meeting between officials and not only members of this Committee but any Member of the House. However, it is difficult for us to do the work that we are here to do now—to consider this part of the Bill in detail.

I appreciate, too, what the Minister has said about who the CORE keeper should be, and in what circumstances. Will she explain further the thinking behind the difference in the access to the information allowed to a national political party and that afforded to a smaller organ of that party, such as a constituency party? Access to the electoral register is an important tool in political campaigning, and I agree with the Minister that it has to be carefully guarded.

Will the Minister explain further how the Government envisage the role of electoral registration officers developing given the new duties that the Bill places on them? Will she also explain further how access will be offered and regulated? The way in which information is held on CORE is also important. It must be secure but at the same time available to those to whom it ought to be available, and not available to those to whom it ought not. That may be stating the obvious, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained further.

I would also be grateful if the Minister explained another issue further, but she cannot. I really want her to explain how the regulations in relation to this part of the Bill will work when they are implemented, but I appreciate that she cannot give me a positive answer because the regulations cannot be discussed this morning. I do not want to be repetitive and take up the Committee's time, but that makes it difficult to discuss the matter with any real meaning.

I appreciate that it is not the Minister's fault that the regulations are not available, but why are they not? If it is taking longer than the Government expected to compile them, why did we not simply postpone the Committee stage? It would have been perfectly possible for us to hold this sitting next week or the week after, at which point we would have had and considered the regulations and could have had a constructive discussion. I appreciate that I am asking questions that the Minister cannot answer, but the situation is frustrating.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I express my concern at the points my hon. Friend has made about the consultation document. I recognise how difficult it is for the Minister not to have the document, which is a vital piece of information that would have cleared up a number of the issues that we have started discussing. Sadly, we cannot clear those issues up, because we do not know what is in the document.

I am concerned that there may be some hint of what is in the document in the Minister's comments, but we are unable to confirm that. Her comments therefore present us with questions, which we will duly ask, and I have no doubt that we will be told that the points are dealt with in the document and that we will have to wait for it. That makes this whole process difficult.

I have two concerns. The first relates to the Minister's comments on segregating the distribution of information, which seems quite a fraught point. She suggested that national political organisations would be able to gain information from CORE, but that local political organisations should get information from the electoral registration officer. However, some of the questions that will pose themselves will be inter-constituency, inter-area questions, and we will have real difficulty dealing with those questions if information distribution takes the strata form suggested by the Minister.

My second cause for concern relates to my general point that scrutiny of the electoral register is vital to the whole process of good election conduct and to assuring the voters of this country that the electoral administration undertaken on their behalf is good. I was particularly concerned about the concept that the question of anonymity could be denied scrutiny.

I understand the Minister's perfectly fair reason for including the clause on anonymity. Of course we need to protect as far as possible people who are open to danger and abuse, but I see no reason why recognised, credible people should not be able to see the information held by CORE under some legal prefix that forbids them from disseminating it further. That would make the situation more open. There is no doubt that the anonymity clause gives rise to concern.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman referring to the anonymity clause on the Floor of the House.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

He did.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

It is undesirable—indeed, out of order—to refer to it again in Committee.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I take your guidance, Mr. O'Hara.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

I return to the framework. In essence, the Bill is asking the House to decide whether it wants a CORE. I assume that we all believe the answer to be yes. The question is how we determine its operation. Do we want to do so under primary legislation, or is it better suited to regulations? I believe that this is a classic case of the need to take powers, to consult in detail and to return the matter to the House in regulations.

At the start of this part of our discussion, I thought that it would probably have been a very bad idea to have got the consultation paper ready, because we would have discussed all the issues raised by the consultation paper, even though we are not here to discuss the regulations. I ask hon. Members to consider the concept that this is not a late consultation paper on primary powers. We are not consulting on the primary powers. The powers are simply a framework. They are as they are. This is an early consultation paper on secondary powers.

We need to consult on whether we want everyone to have access to the information held by the ERO and that held by CORE, because the question relates to access that should be governed by detailed regulations about how the CORE scheme will work.

Again, I recommend the overall framework. We are going the right way about this, and I have decided that it would not have been a good idea to have got the consultation paper ready. Even with your iron chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara, it would have been very difficult not to get into a detailed discussion of all the questions and answers in the consultation document.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The Minister may be right, but do we have her undertaking that at the appropriate time the regulations resulting from the consultation will be laid before the House in the usual way, in a delegated legislation Committee, and that we shall then have the opportunity to discuss them in great detail?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

I can give that assurance, and do better. We shall have detailed consultations when the consultation paper is published. We shall have two further bites of the cherry on the matter of the detail. We shall welcome the proposals that the consultation paper will give rise to. We have no hidden agenda. We just want to get things right, and we appreciate that we will be helped in that by as much input as possible from hon. Members. That is what we shall arrange.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept the Minister's assurances and look forward to further discussion in different forums in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - CORE scheme grants

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Why, given that the clause is concerned with, effectively, a governmental structure—one necessary for the proper administration of the electoral system—is there a need for subsection (4), which provides for

''conditions as to the circumstances in which the . . . grant is to be repaid''?

Presumably, in this instance, it would be repaid by the Electoral Commission, if it was the commissioning agent, or by individual returning officers, further down the track. I can understand that the issue might arise if criminal fraud were involved, but I believe that that is taken care of in other ways. Why does the Minister think that there is a need for conditions for the repayment of the grant necessary for setting up the CORE provisions?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

Probably there will not be a need for it, but I am confident that if we had not included it the hon. Gentleman would have tabled an amendment to investigate what would happen if, after having been given all the relevant money, the keeper were to be dissolved, or became unable to perform its functions, and it was desirable to appoint another keeper. The subsection is just a matter of thinking of all eventualities. We do not expect it to be needed. We expect that the arrangements, as with all the Government's computer programmes, will go swimmingly. It is sensible, in using substantial amounts of public money, to make sure that if those to whom a grant is made cannot perform the duty in question, or if circumstances change, the money can be retrieved.

I assure hon. Members once again that the matter will be subject to consultation through the consultation document. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his probing question, which we shall discuss further when we come to consider regulations.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am not absolutely sure that I should necessarily table an amendment on the effect of the subsection, because the CORE keeper is, by definition, a public body. It is set up by statute and is entirely within the control of the Government. Therefore, any circumstances in which it could go bust or otherwise fail to perform its functions would seem to amount to an indictment of the Department and the Government, rather than anyone else. Does a similar arrangement exist between the Department for Constitutional Affairs or the Treasury? Is it a condition that the Department for Constitutional Affairs should repay its Treasury grant if it fails to meet expectations?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

I would not want to stray into answering that question, for many reasons. I can give the Committee some more science on the point; the provision for grant repayment is a reminder that we have to cover for every eventuality.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The Minister would not expect me to pass over the fact that this part of the Bill authorises the expenditure of taxpayers' money without questioning her on how and to what extent that money is to be spent. I have several questions.

First, the Secretary of State ''may pay grant'' to a CORE keeper. Will that grant replace other Government money now being spent in that area of administration, or is it new expenditure? I ask as I genuinely do not know the answer.

Secondly, will the money that the Government spend on behalf of the taxpayer for that purpose no longer be spent, or will that pot of money be added to the additional funding being made available under clause 3(3)(1)? In other words, is it new money or replacement money? It is the essential duty of the Opposition to safeguard taxpayers' money from a Government who like too much to spend it. On the other hand, it is certainly not wrong or a misuse of funds to spend taxpayers' money on the further enhancement of our electoral system and the workings of our democracy. Nevertheless, the Committee deserves further explanation.

Thirdly, the grant is to be paid by the Secretary of State to a CORE keeper, so it could be paid to the Electoral Commission. If so, will the commission be given more taxpayers' money to do the work that it already does, or are we authorising the Government to increase the amount being given to the commission because it is to be given further powers and duties; or does it represent a change to the way in which the commission works, and will it receive the same funding?

My concern, as ever, is that we pass legislation in all innocence, believing the Government's assurances that it is necessary whatever the purpose might be. We unanimously agree that the general purpose of the Bill is good, because it will enhance the way in which elections will be undertaken and therefore enhance and protect the democratic process. That is all very worthy. However, we so often find that we, as representatives of the taxpayer, have somehow, wittingly or unwittingly, authorised the expenditure of taxpayers' money where it is not absolutely necessary. Given that the Treasury holds one pot of money for all purposes, we should always remember that if taxpayers' money is spent on such purposes, it cannot be spent on hospitals, schools, social services departments and so on.

When we argue that cuts have been made in one area or another, we have used taxpayers' money for another purpose. I will not stray into a general consideration of such matters, but restrict myself to considering whether this is necessary expenditure.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

As I mentioned on the Floor of the House, statistics on how much is spent by local authorities are not collected centrally. I have some figures for Wales, which illustrate how little is being spent on registration and electoral matters. For a council such as Swansea, the figure was 52p in 2001, 55p in 2002 and 70p in 2003. Those are piffling amounts—[Hon. Members: ''Per elector.''] Yes, per elector. If money is to be spent centrally or locally, I believe as a democrat that this is a wise and just way of spending taxpayers' money.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important information. We discovered that those in Wales are frugal in their expenditure on electoral matters, and rightly so. It is hard to work out—I cannot immediately do the arithmetic in my head—what those figures mean. I could do it if I had the numbers, but I do not know how many electors there are in Wales.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

Fifty eight thousand, nine hundred and seventy six.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I will happily give way to the Minister, if he wants. However many there are, I am sure that it is a bargain that the registration of each elector in Wales costs only that.

The real point is that, if the Committee gives the Secretary of State the power to

''pay grant to a CORE keeper towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by him in connection with the exercise of his functions under the scheme'',

is that new money or a replacement for old money? It is important to keep track of where public expenditure is growing. This is a part of public expenditure. I accept what the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said about the ''piffling'' amount. It certainly is not a large amount of money, but that is not my point. Whoever it was who said that if one looks after the pennies the pounds take care of themselves—I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree—

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Was it Charles Kennedy?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend says it was the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy). I am sure that it was somebody with far greater wisdom in such matters and a long time ago. I remember my grandmother saying it, and I do not think that she made it up.

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

I think it was Harry Lauder.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Harry Lauder did say most things. For the benefit of those members of the Committee who do not know of Harry Lauder, he was a great celebrity in Scotland whose poetry and songs encompassed most matters.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. The hon. Lady is straying beyond the terms of reference and, dare I say it, has been repetitious in her remarks since the intervention.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Hara. You are quite right to halt me in my tracks as I try to keep right on to the end of the road. It is difficult to see how we could discuss the songs of Harry Lauder in the context of the Bill.

It has been said—by whoever it was—that if we look after the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves. I accept that this may be a small public expenditure, but many small amounts add up to large amounts.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

The hon. Lady says that these amounts are small. What amount per elector does she think it would be reasonable to spend on registration for electoral purposes?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

That is a reasonable question, but people who know me would never ask me such a question. This is not my subject. I always manage to spend far more money than is reasonable in any area. However, in all seriousness, if some 60p per elector is spent at present, and if that produces a good, efficient, safe and workable system, that amount is probably about right. I question the need to spend more if the amount that is spent now produces a good system. However, if our deliberations were to show that the current system is not good enough and does not produce safe election results—by that I mean results in which everyone concerned can have confidence—it would be necessary to spend more.

Chris Ruane rose—

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I have the highest regard for the hon. Lady, but, before she takes another intervention, I should tell her that she has made her point at least three, if not four, times.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

The hon. Lady says that if the money that is being spent at present is producing results, that should be good enough. I analysed Welsh expenditure in the 22 authorities and coupled it with registration rates. The analysis shows that those authorities that spend less on registration—I listed the figures in descending order—have lower registration results. The figures are available for the hon. Lady to study. There are no figures for England, and I do not know about Scotland. However, there are figures for Wales, and, if they are the only data available, we should consider them seriously.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He suggests that more people will be on the electoral register, and that more of our citizens will have the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights at the ballot box, if we spend more money. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point.

I simply wish to know whether this is new money—extra money—and to be absolutely certain that the Committee will not allow taxpayers' money to be spent unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I too wish to speak about money. One reason why electors send us to this place is so that we can ensure that care is taken in the spending of their money and that expenditure is properly scrutinised.

I preface my remarks by saying that I am a local councillor. As I understand it, this is the only part of the Bill that deals with costs. I say this with some trepidation on the basis that you might rule me out of order, Mr. O'Hara—I hope that you will forgive me—but it is always made clear in my county council that any proposal that involves the spending of money must be introduced along with some concept of the cost. I therefore assume that the same happens in this place. The Minister might be kind and tell us, in round figures, how much the creation of a CORE register will cost.

Wearing my second hat, I have said before that my business is building databases; I would not dare to say it now. A massive database is being built and the cost of such an exercise is immense, as the Government know, to the taxpayer's cost, with regard to other activities. What work has been done on the exercise, and does the Minister have any idea of its cost? I agree with the concept of CORE but we should make a decision on the basis of the cost to the taxpayer.

I acknowledge the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd's point about the cost per elector at ERO level. I appreciate that there is a differential between the efficiencies of one ERO and another and that is often related to the quality of grant and the expenditure control of a given local authority and I accept that we must try to eradicate it. But before we say yes to a particular concept, we should at least have some idea what it will cost the taxpayer and how it will be done. We must understand the difficulties involved in putting such a database together. I should be grateful if the Minister included a response to those thoughts in her reply.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

Setting up a new system, for which we are asking the Committee's support, must be paid for. However thrifty the Electoral Commission is with its resources, we would be astonished if it already had enough in its budget to set up the system. Therefore, the initial implementation of CORE national access has been allocated £10 million from the capital modernisation fund, which is a Treasury grant. Thereafter the CORE scheme will require ongoing running costs to be met. The financial provision proposed in the Bill is necessary to allow appropriate funds to be made available to CORE keepers to enable them to perform their statutory duties to maintain the CORE scheme efficiently and effectively. The point about grants in clause 3(4) is that if they can do the work for less money, they can repay part of the grant. It is part of the proposal's flexibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd made a very important point. With respect to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, as my hon. Friend has information for Wales that we do not have for England, we do not know whether they are being frugal in Wales. My hon. Friend seems to have established that the more that is spent per elector the more secure the register is and the more it is proof against fraud, because money is spent ensuring that there are no multiple registrations. The more complete the register is, the fewer people are left off and not allowed to vote.

The Bill introduces transparency to enable us to consider the important value-for-money issues that Opposition Members raised. Previously, neither the House nor individual Members were able to know how much was being spent and to what effect.

This has been an important debate on what is being spent on democracy and what we are getting for that money.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Given that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd eloquently proved that in Wales it has been possible to collect the information necessary to make a judgment on these matters and to work out the efficiency, should not that be done in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister undertake to do it?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

That is exactly what the Bill enables us to do, and we will discover that different amounts need to be spent in different areas. In areas such as my own in Camberwell and Peckham, there is a highly mobile population, with many young people, many people living in rented accommodation and many people from the new Commonwealth, particularly Africa. In such areas, we must invest quite a lot to ensure that the register is complete, accurate and up to date. On the other hand, in areas such as Somerton and Frome, where I imagine more people are owner-occupiers, fewer are from the new Commonwealth and fewer are under 50, it is probably not such a difficult exercise.

The CORE budget is £10 million initially. That money will be spent according to the way in which the House wants the project to be designed and approves in regulations.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

The Minister's point is fair and reasonable, but again the cost of ensuring that scrutiny can take place is higher in areas where there is more movement in the way that the Minister described. Will the Minister take that into account when we discuss grants for local government?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

We are dealing here with the grants to the CORE keeper. The CORE scheme may take some of the burden off individual electoral registration officers, because people can get the national picture from the national CORE scheme instead of having to ask each registration officer. Therefore, responsibility for some actions may be shifted from local to national.

Elsewhere in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know, other duties and responsibilities are laid down on electoral registration officers. For those general duties £17 million is made available, but for the CORE scheme the initial allocation from the Treasury's capital modernisation grant is £10 million.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

In my view, £10 million divided by 44 million or 46 million electors is money well spent. If the money is used to create an accurate central database whose information can then be disseminated, especially to the poorer local authorities that have difficulty in getting up-to-date register lists, it will be money well spent; £10 million to run a democracy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Electoral Commission

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Once again the provision refers to Wales. I am glad that we are considering Wales in great detail, as the administration of democracy in Wales has been a key part of our deliberations for many years.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I would hate the hon. Lady to misdirect her comments. The provision merely happens to lie in the Bill after the section that refers to Wales. The clause is not specifically about Wales.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which, as usual, is perfectly reasonable. I appreciate that the clause does not refer specifically to Wales; I was merely taking the opportunity to compliment those who deal with electoral administration in Wales. They had to administer one of the closest results of any recent democratic exercise undertaken in the United Kingdom; namely, the referendum on the Welsh Assembly.

I was about to say that that referendum is a very good example of why it is important that the rights systems are in place, and that they are financed in the right way and use the best modern technology that is available. When a result is so, so close, and it affects many people and the governance of a large part of the United Kingdom—

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I have the amount spent per elector for Wales for the past 10 years in front of me. In 1998, the year in which the referendum was held, 17p per elector was spent. This year it is £1.25 per elector. Such a small amount was spent that the result of the referendum may have been down to an inaccurate register.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Another excellent point by the hon. Gentleman. Had Wales spent more, it might have got a better result. Mr. O'Hara, I may not be allowed to say that.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. An incidental reference is made to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales in the clause. I ask the hon. Lady to come to order.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I do not intend to try your patience further.

When does the Minister propose to make a decision on whether the Electoral Commission should be a designated CORE keeper? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk raised the following point earlier in a completely different context. Does proposed new section 20A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 mean that the Electoral Commission will be the CORE keeper for all purposes, or are we still talking about the Electoral Commission being the CORE keeper for national matters but not the CORE keeper of information in individual constituencies or districts?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

I hope that I can assist the hon. Lady by saying that, during the consultation and before we introduce regulations, the House must consider, among other things, whether to establish CORE through a big bang, where suddenly it is all over the country in one go, or to introduce it in a couple of regions and build it up. If we build it up, it might be sensible for one of the electoral registration officers in that region to be the CORE keeper for that regional roll-out.

Other countries that have a national register, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, use their electoral commissions. Proposed new section 20A makes it possible for the commission to be a CORE keeper at national level, but it is just a possibility. We do not rule out, as the national scheme builds up, transitional CORE keepers, who might be well-experienced registration officers in particular regions, starting the CORE ball rolling.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

For certain members of my party, including myself, the word ''regionalisation'' sends shivers up and down our backbone. I want to be assured that the matter is in no way related to the whole concept of a united Europe.—[Interruption.] I said it sent shivers up and down my back. Secondly, as to the term CORE keeper, which has a Harry Potter connection in a sense, will the Minister be kind and explain what sort of establishment she feels might constitute the CORE keeper's office?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

The flexibility in allowing designation of CORE keepers is due to the argument that can be made, on which we shall want to consult, for a staged approach to implementation. The CORE keeper might, ultimately, look pretty much like the Electoral Commission. That is what it looks like in other countries. When the national scheme is ready, that becomes one of that body's responsibilities. I should like to empathise with the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who is obviously having panic attacks about Europe, but his point has completely passed me by. I do not see how what he has been saying has anything to do with Europe.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. Part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions is in clause 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - CORE schemes: supplemental

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

We are making progress, and I am grateful to the Minister for answering so many intricate and difficult questions this morning. In doing so, she gives us more confidence in our understanding of how the proposed schemes will work. As I said, it is important to reach some kind of consensus. The Bill is not like other political matters. If we do not have consensus about how our democracy works, and, as a result, we do not have confidence in the electoral system, that undermines the validity of elections. I do not suggest that we are at that stage now; most Members of the House have confidence in the electoral system, and we have debated it at length many times over the years. However, it is important that we investigate the matters in intricate detail.

I still believe that the system in Britain is one of the best in the world. I felt almost personally insulted when, as happened a few months ago, some of the ways in which our electoral system was administered were referred to very critically as akin to those of a banana republic. Such remarks are not good for democracy in Britain. That remark was made perfectly reasonably, and many of us agreed with it. We cannot have such occurrences, because confidence in the workings of our democracy is basic to the working of our society and country.

Clause 5(1) provides that a CORE scheme

''may make provision as to circumstances in which a payment is to be made—

(a) by the CORE keeper to an ERO whose area is specified in the scheme;

(b) by such an ERO to the CORE keeper.''

I wonder why. I should like to know specifically what the Minister of State envisages—[Interruption.] This is the crux of the question. I entirely understand if the Minister of State is not paying absolute attention to every word of my preamble—

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I am absolutely confident that the Minister of State is seeking confirmation of the answer that she is going to give.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Of course. My preamble was entirely intended to compliment the Minister of State on her answers to our intricate questions this morning, but I must not repeat that point. I am fully aware that I must not be repetitive, so I thought it important to seek my moment to ask my question. Why would it be necessary for the CORE keeper to pay the ERO, and for the ERO to make payment to the CORE keeper? There is probably a simple answer to that question, but I would like to have it.

Clause 5(2) states that

''A CORE scheme may make provision

(a) as to circumstances in which the CORE keeper and such an ERO may agree that functions of one of them may be exercised by the other;

(b) for functions of the CORE keeper to be exercised by such an ERO;

(c) for functions of such an ERO to be exercised by the CORE keeper.''

In what circumstances does the Minister of State envisage that those functions would be exercised either by the ERO or by the CORE keeper and vice versa? Similarly, clause 5(3) states:

''A CORE scheme may make provision as to—

(a) the circumstances in which the CORE keeper may make a charge for the provision of services or information to any person;

(b) the level of any such charge.''

That is an important provision because, quite rightly, the electoral register is used by many organisations. We all get junk mail, which is relevant to this point. I get sacks full of junk mail every week, which is partly due to the fact that I sometimes buy things and give my address in order for those things to be delivered. Therefore, one's name, address, postcode and so on, and apparently one's tastes in everything from kitchen equipment to baby clothes, are recorded in a database somewhere so that one can be bombarded with more junk mail enticing one to buy more goods.

It is sometimes difficult to imagine how a mail order company gets the name, address and details of a particular person. Often, it has been able to do so because it can buy the electoral register. There is nothing wrong with that because it is public information; I am not criticising that. However, the provisions envisage circumstances in which the CORE keeper may make a charge for the provision of services or information to any person.

Referring back to our previous discussion on clause 3 about the way in which taxpayers' money is spent in the administration of the electoral system, can taxpayers' money be recouped if the information held either by the ERO or the CORE keeper is used by an outside body for commercial purposes? I am only asking this question, not stating a preference or principle, but is there a possibility that a CORE keeper, an ERO, the Electoral Commission, the Department for Constitutional Affairs or any other spender of public money might recoup that money from those that use the information thus gathered for commercial purposes?

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

The Minister is aware that the clause deals with the relationship between the CORE keeper—I still see him in a pointed hat—and the electoral registration officer. It suggests a sizeable change in the command structure and independence of the electoral registration officer. I am not arguing that that is necessarily a bad thing. The differences in performance and ability of our electoral registration officers is one of the problems that we must deal with quickly. However, I want an explanation of how the relationship between the CORE keeper and the electoral registration officer will work, whether there are any authoritative channels that impact on local decision making and whether the CORE keeper will again have an input on scrutiny. As the Minister knows, I believe that scrutiny, particularly local scrutiny, is an important way of keeping the electoral register as shining white as possible. It is one of those matters that we have given way on and forgotten in recent years.

I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain more about the relationship between the CORE keeper and the electoral registration officer, tell us whether there will be direct managerial responsibilities and explain how that might help local scrutiny of the electoral register.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I should like the Minister to elaborate a little. Clause 5(6)(a) refers to

''section 10, 10A or 13A of the 1983 Act (maintenance of registers)''

and paragraph (b) refers to

''Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act''.

How do the two inter-relate and how will the information that will be required fit in?

Clause 5(8) states:

''The Secretary of State may provide to a CORE keeper such facilities and equipment as he thinks are necessary or expedient''.

Could the Minister go into more detail about that? We have spoken about the cost of the CORE keeper, the necessary infrastructure and the inter-relationship with EROs and district borough councils, but could she go into more detail about the facilities and equipment? Conservative Members are concerned, as ever, that any new initiative should provide value for money and should not be an excuse simply to spend taxpayer's money unnecessarily. When creating a new organisation, commissioner, tsar or head of a new body there is always a tendency to introduce facilities that are not just effective and efficient but sometimes very much over the top in terms of manning, office equipment and other assets. Could the Minister elaborate on that point and answer my question on clause 5(6)?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

At the moment, for users who would normally be expected to pay for copies of the register, there is a charging structure. We expect that a charging structure will need to be established for on-line access. The reasons for the charge, and its level, are likely to be similar if not identical to the current arrangements for sale of the register by local EROs. However, a national electronic register is a different beast. One could read across the charging principles, but not the charging practicalities because one would be dealing with something different.

The question on which we must seek views is how such charging arrangements should operate; for example, whether there should be a general licence fee or a charge per access. People will need to think about the proposal that authorised bodies should be granted direct access and, if so, about what the charging structure might be and how it might work for those who would normally be expected to pay for copies of the register.

On payments from CORE to the ERO, there is a question about whether the proceeds from the sale—that will depend on the charging structure, which, as yet, has not been established at CORE, national level—would need to go back to the electoral registration officer who collected the information. Again, there is simply a power to provide for that to happen; otherwise, we might have a situation in which electoral registration officers were collecting all the information and piping it up to CORE at national level, and CORE was selling it, but the electoral registration officers were not getting any of the benefit. The Bill simply provides the framework for an opportunity to decide those arrangements after consultation and by regulation.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

Will the Minister give way?

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

Perhaps I could just finish this point, because I have to hang on to my chain of thought when I am talking about computers. The hon. Gentleman does not have that problem.

As hon. Members will know, it is envisaged that electoral registration officers at local level will collect the information and feed it through to CORE at national level. It will be possible for people not only to obtain that information nationally, but to check information about themselves online and ensure that it is right. In the future—I rather hesitate to mention this—it might be possible to have data-sharing between the national online register and, for example, the DVLA, if the House so decided. That is quite far into the future, but a national online scheme could do different things from local registration officers, and the point is to have the right relationship between the two.

Therefore, we are thinking about a charging regime that fits into an electronic context. I am told by my very expert officials—I am plunging from my area of expertise into that of the hon. Member for Northampton, South—that all we can say with absolute certainty is that a ''wet'' signature clearly will not work. On that point, perhaps I can conclude my comments.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I am not sure what a wet signature is, quite frankly.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

It is not an electronic one.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

Now I understand; the Minister is very kind.

The Minister talked about providing information online and I shall again interject a little background. Some time ago, I founded a company that does exactly that for the pharmaceuticals industry. The company, which is no longer mine, charges pharmaceutical companies a great deal to be online, and it is necessary to make such charges because the information is updated regularly. Nothing is more worthless than outdated information, and the Minister will know that information degrades quite quickly; perhaps by up to 15 per cent. a year compound, a sizeable change. In that respect, has she had any thoughts about online updating and about how we might carry it out?

Secondly, online access provides a sizeable opportunity for income streams, which should help the process of electoral registration. However, it also presents sizeable dangers, because once we provide access to online information, we also provide the ability for that access to be used in ways for which the Minister might not care. I am sure that the consultation document will help us on this important point, but I wonder what thinking has been done on ensuring that online data are used for the purposes that the Minister prescribes, that data are not disseminated more widely than prescribed, and that the data are properly paid for. I am not arguing against the measure, but I ask the Minister whether she has thought about that and whether she can tell us a little more.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

In a way, we touched on that matter during debates on earlier clauses. The measure will be subject to the Data Protection Act. Additionally, through regulations, there will be provision for regimes on the software protocols that could create additional certainty. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that to have confidence in a national register, it must be kept up to date. No one believes that there will be a one-off creation of the register, and then it will be left untouched. There will be variations among areas; some areas have a very high turnover, and some have hardly any.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Northampton, South, it does not appear that there is any offence of unauthorised access to the CORE register, nor of unauthorised tampering with it. Has that been considered and rejected, or simply not thought of? There ought to be a specific offence relating to the CORE register, rather than a reliance on the generality of election law to provide for the integrity of that register.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

Some registers held by an electoral registration officer at local level are already online, although some are held on paper. We expect that, in running a procurement exercise—one would expect a project of this size to entail that—we shall be able to learn from initiatives that are advanced in states in the US that employ state-wide voter-registration databases. We can also learn from other countries that hold central electoral databases in assessing what facilities are necessary.

In relation to offences, clause 2(2) provides specifically for regulations, including offences, to apply to CORE data, just as they do to data held by electoral registration officers.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is a little unusual to introduce offences under regulation, rather than by primary legislation. I ask the Minister to consider whether it might be better to include that in the Bill. I do not wish to press the Minister unduly on that matter, but I am not sure that it is entirely satisfactory for offences to be brought in through secondary legislation.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

It is not the case that the offences would be brought in through secondary legislation. Rather, the scope of the offences would be extended. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I will look at the matter.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

Open access, albeit prescribed, is still at risk of corruption by people who wilfully wish to cause damage. Of course, there any many abilities to protect against that, but people will get around those measures. Can the Minister provide some details on security in the consultation document so that we might pursue that matter more thoroughly? That is a matter of concern to all of us, which goes to the very heart of our democratic processes. We must scrutinise that area very carefully and perhaps employ some expert advice in doing so.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

Confidence is important, so questions of security and privacy must be highlighted. We might assist hon. Members in finding their way through this with a couple of sheets of A4 showing all the provisions that will secure the integrity of the register and the privacy of individuals. It is worth putting the spotlight on that separately, and we undertake to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - CORE schemes: procedure

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

May I ask the Minister what is meant by subsection (5)? It seems odd that the power to make a variation that terminates part of a scheme put in place by statutory instrument following consultation should not itself be subject to consultation. I would expect the Secretary of State to take the advice of the Electoral Commission and other bodies before making a variation that deletes part of the scheme just as for a variation that increases the scope of the scheme. I am at a loss to understand why subsection (5) is in the clause.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Clause 6(4) rightly states:

''An order establishing or varying a CORE scheme must not be made unless the Secretary of State first consults—

(a) the Electoral Commission;

(b) the Information Commissioner;

(c) the ERO who acts for each area proposed to be specified in the scheme;

(d) the ERO who acts for an area the specification of which the Secretary of State proposes to remove from the scheme.''

That is all perfectly reasonable, and we have no objection to it, but why should not there be consultation with the political parties? They know how the register works and are aware of what is and is not working correctly in an area.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to something that we shall deal with later.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

In answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the clause provides for one exception to the requirement to consult before making an order, where the effect of the order is to terminate part of a scheme only. The thinking behind that exception is that a particular responsibility of a CORE keeper under a scheme may not be working as envisaged, and that it may be necessary to terminate that aspect of the CORE keeper's responsibilities as quickly as possible to limit the negative impact.

In response to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, the proposed consultees in paragraphs (a) to (d) are statutory creatures; political parties are not in quite the same category. Of course, it goes without saying that political parties will be consulted all the way along, but it is just the statutory creatures that are laid out by way of consultation.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I stand corrected regarding my previous advice to the hon. Lady. I am getting my amendments out of order; she referred to an amendment that has already been debated.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Hara. I appreciate that amendment No. 42 touched on this issue, but we did not discuss it at that point. The Minister has given me a good explanation.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Yes; of course, it is not in order to reopen the debate.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg your pardon.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Kevin Brennan.]

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock till this day at Four o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Electoral Administration Bill

Clause 19 - Review of polling places

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 19, page 18, line 36, at end insert

', except that such a notice may not be made in the period of three months before an eletion the date of which is prescribed.'.

Following this morning's correction, and to avoid any confusion, the word in the second line, which reads ''eletion'', is not supposed to be ''deletion'', ''delectation'' or ''electrification'' but ''election''. That is what was intended.

I have some general points to make about clause 19, which deals with the review of polling places, and a precise point, which is made by amendment No. 3, that it is not only inconvenient but inconsiderate to the electorate to make alterations to polling districts in the weeks immediately preceding an election whose date we know.

We generally have our suspicions about when a general election is likely to be called, but it can be called at any time, so no statutory protection can be given before it is held. We do, however, know perfectly well when municipal elections, European elections and mayoral elections will be, as they are on a fixed term. The confusion inherent in a change to the polling district, and therefore to the polling station at which the electorate are required to attend to cast their votes, is not in interests of the electorate. The change might also affect the candidate, such as a sitting councillor seeking re-election whom they want to support in that election. All those confusions are inevitable if there is a change, but they are avoidable in the immediate run-up to an election. I hope that I have made a sensible suggestion that simply offers protection against such confusion and ensures that our elections are administered well.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I have nothing to add to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, other than to say that what he said was thoroughly sensible.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

In his preamble, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to some extent answered my objection to amendment No. 3, which is that part 4 relates to parliamentary elections whose dates are not known. The amendment seeks to prevent the electoral registration officer from changing polling districts in the three months before an election, the date of which is known in advance. Clause 19, however, relates to parliamentary elections, the dates of which are generally not known three months in advance, so the amendment would not work.

I am sure, however, that we all have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. It would be very confusing to candidates, to party workers and others, but most of all to the electorate, if polling districts were changed willy nilly very close to an election.

The alteration to the polling district will take effect only once the electoral registration officer has published a notice stating that he or she has made all the necessary adaptations. In practice, a registration officer would be bound to use his or her discretion in publishing such a notice when he or she knew that an election was pending. I have an enormous amount of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. He is very obviously sounding a common-sense note when he talks about making such changes too late. Unfortunately, as I said, the amendment would not have the intended effect in part 4. With my assurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not entirely agree that the amendment would not have the effect that the Under-Secretary suggests, because the polling districts are used not only for the parliamentary elections but for other elections. [Interruption.] They are not necessarily used for other elections, but they frequently are. There is coterminosity between the polling districts and the district council wards in England, for instance, so an amendment to one will produce a consequent amendment to the other. Although we are considering polling districts at parliamentary elections, there is a contingent consideration in relation to the fixed-term elections that take place within the same polling districts.

That can be dealt with by guidance to electoral registration officers. If the Minister would accept that principle—he is nodding from a sedentary position, so I believe that he does—perhaps he could issue clear guidance to electoral registration officers, in which case we do not need to pursue the amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I wish to raise two points. First, I want to be clear what proposed new section 18B(5) means, because I have looked at it and construed it in various ways, and I still do not understand it, although I am not particularly stupid in such matters. Perhaps the Minister can help me.

''If no polling place is designated for a polling district the polling district is to be taken to be the polling place.''

What does it mean? Will we have one big polling station that covers the whole district? Can one cast a vote wherever one happens to be, in the street? I honestly do not understand it, but I am sure that it means something, and the Minister will be able to help me, but at the moment I am struggling.

The second point is more general. There is a degree of confusion in the terms. The word ''area'' means different things in different parts of the clause. That is not particularly helpful. On some occasions it is used to mean an electoral district, and on others it means something wider. In other instances, it appears to mean the building in which the polling takes place. If others are to construe what is proposed, it is not helpful for terms to change their meaning within a single section. I have not proposed an amendment at this stage; I simply put it to the Minister that he might like to consider whether the wording can be tightened a little, so that we are clear whether we are talking about a polling district, a building in which a polling station is situated or some other area. At present, the drafting looks slightly sloppy.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I would like to draw attention to one aspect of polling districts that has not been addressed in the Bill, and in respect of which the Conservative Opposition proposed an amendment that was not selected—for all the right reasons, I am sure, Mr. O'Hara. We believe that fairness in the electoral system would be appropriately addressed at parliamentary polling district level. Votes in different parts of the UK have significantly divergent values because of the enormous variation in the sizes of constituencies. The current boundary commission review proposes constituencies of widely differing sizes—from Hackney, South at 57,000-odd to Banbury at 78,000 and the Isle of Wight at 103,000, with a general over-representation of urban areas. In the 2005 general election, across England the average electorate in seats that elected Labour MPs was 67,592, compared with 73,004 in Conservative seats. The average number of votes cast for the winning party in England was 18,833 in Labour, seats compared with 22,763 in Conservative seats.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the disparity between the size of seats. The Isle of Wight is a perennial problem, and I do not think that there is an easy answer. However, will he accept that Members of Parliament represent not only numbers of electors but numbers of citizens—souls—within their constituency, and that under-registration in many urban areas is a factor that has to be taken into account, as well as the number on the roll?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but if under-representation has to be taken into account, the disparity is arguably much greater than the figures that I give.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

The figures that we have been given by the Electoral Commission suggest that under-representation involves between 3.5 million and 4 million people nationally, which equates to about 5,000 or 6,000 per constituency. Their backgrounds are low-paid, unemployed, in social housing, black and ethnic. There are far more of them in Labour seats than in Conservative seats. If the Bill is successful and we get those people back on the register, the skew will be ironed out.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am in no way arguing about the financial backgrounds of people who are entitled to vote; I am talking just about the numbers. As far as I know, everybody in the country has the right to vote, whatever their background. I will push on.

We believe that there is a strong case for ending the wide disparities in the size of parliamentary constituencies by introducing a fixed electoral quota, which would be devised, broadly, by dividing the electorate by the number of seats. That would allow for only a small margin of difference, to avoid splitting local government wards. Correspondingly, boundary commission regulations should be amended to ensure that maintaining an equal quota has the rule of priority over other considerations. The boundary commission chooses not to cross county boundaries, but it will cross London and unitary boundaries. That creates an urban bias in the system that makes rural constituencies much larger.

There could also be a more up-to-date review of the size of electorates towards the end of the boundary review process, to avoid determining the size of constituencies on the basis of electoral data from the start of the review, which would subsequently become heavily out of date.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

How will the new system affect seats in Wales that are traditionally and historically smaller, going back 300 or 400 years?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The size of the seat, not the traditional boundary, would become the predominant factor, as is the case in London.

We believe that a fixed quota would be a fairer system, as it would ensure that each elector had the same level of parliamentary representation. Although there is a separate argument for reducing the number of MPs in the House of Commons, a fixed quota can be introduced while maintaining the existing size of the Commons. If there were a wish to provide additional representation for constituent parts of the UK, such as Wales and Scotland, that could be done transparently and explicitly by setting a lower electoral quota for constituencies in those designated parts of the United Kingdom.

I raise this issue now with a view to returning to it on Report, because we believe that it deserves full and proper attention. Will the Minister comment on what progress is being made, and what proposals he may have to correct the inequalities?

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I support my hon. Friend's point about the size of the electorate. I represent the largest electorate in mainland Britain, I think—although the Isle of Wight, with more than 90,000 electors is bigger. It is a difficult task to service those electorates in terms of the social aspects of our work.

My concern is specifically about proposed new section 18B. Electoral registration officers sometimes do not get around to establishing some polling places until a general election is called, or they use an old list and find that it is redundant and they need to make replacements. That often happens. As a former agent, I was often involved in discussions with electoral registration officers on the siting of polling places in such circumstances. The guidance notes that the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs referred to this morning may cover that point, but it would be helpful to discuss the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who seems to be responsible for the Committee at present. Electoral registration officers used to hold negotiations and discussions with local parliamentary parties and political organisations on the siting of new polling stations. I wonder whether such guidance could be given, as the siting of polling places is a vital part of our democratic process.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I apologise in an even more grovelling fashion for arriving late, Mr. O'Hara. [Hon. Members: ''Again!''] You could say, ''Don't make a habit of it,'' but clearly I have.

In passing, may I comment on the previous comments about establishing constituencies strictly on the basis of arithmetical accuracy? That is an important criterion, but it should not be the sole criterion, as we would end up with some oddly shaped constituencies. For example, to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to represent an even bigger area in order to incorporate the relevant population numbers might be asking a little too much. However, that was not really what I wanted to bring to the attention of the Committee.

New section 18D will allow for reviews of polling districts to take place by petition of 30 electors. They can go to the Electoral Commission and demand or appeal for that to be done. I am not clear about the criteria upon which such an appeal can be lodged. The presumption always seems to be that a petition, or some kind of appeal, can be made if it is transparently the case that polling places are inadequately distributed around the constituency because of, for example, a poorly functioning local authority. That is a fair understanding, but I also want to raise another issue about which I have some knowledge: inequity of access.

Sefton borough, in which I live, is made up of an amalgam of different boroughs with different histories. In the Bootle constituency, which is in the southern part of the borough, there are almost twice as many polling stations as there are in my own constituency of Southport. The reasons for that are entirely historical; that is how it has always been. Perhaps there is some sociological argument to the effect that people in Southport could be expected to have cars and therefore to travel further, whereas in the past people in Bootle might not be expected to have their own transport. But things have moved on a little. For example, pensioners without their own transport in the northern part of the borough would be in exactly the same position as pensioners without their own transport in the southern part of the borough, but statistically, they always have to go further.

If there is that kind of inequity in the provision of polling places and stations in constituencies served by the same electoral officer, are there grounds for making a plea to the Electoral Commission? If there are, I would like to do that.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Before I call the Minister, may I point out that some discussion in that short debate referred to amendment No. 44, on numbers of electors, which is outwith the scope of the clause? The Minister might wish to bear that in mind when responding.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

I am very happy to bear that in mind, Mr. O'Hara. I had a well-prepared brief on the amendment of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). His amendment was not selected, but he made a speech anyway, and I admire his ingenuity in so doing. His case was effectively demolished in interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, so I need not stray down that line. We have not yet discussed access for people with disabilities, which is a big issue. I shall deal with it shortly.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—which I now know rhymes with ''doom'', so I can pronounce it properly—asked a couple of questions about the wording, one of which was about the apparent dual use of the word ''area''. In proposed new section 18B(4)(a) it is, I think, reasonably clear that the area in question is the local authority area, because the provision sets out a duty of the authority. However, I undertake to scan the provisions thoroughly to make sure that they contain nothing confusing. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

As to the Delphic wording of proposed new section 18B(5), I double checked in my notes, which tell me:

''New subsection (5) specifies that if there is no polling place allocated, then the polling district is to be the polling place.''

That sheds a huge amount of light on the matter. I must be even thicker than the hon. Gentleman. I have sought inspiration subsequently, but with each new wave of inspiration my comprehension has receded. I think that this will be the first occasion—I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is not here to see it—on which I shall have to undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot undertake that he will understand my letter, but rather than attempt an explanation that would take us further into the realms of ignorance, it would be better to clarify the matter in that way.

From what I understand from my notes, I think that the provision is about common-sense arrangements, to deal with peculiar circumstances in very rural and sparsely populated areas, or places where there are blocks of flats that might be whole polling districts—but I said that I would not go down that path.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon spoke about entitlement to vote. Of course everyone is entitled to vote, but not everyone is registered to vote. That is in large part the point of the Bill. We want to ensure that a person who is entitled to vote is also registered. If, in some of the discussions on themes to which I shall not return, the hon. Gentleman bore that distinction in mind, it might have clarified for him why I would have recommended that the Committee reject his amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Of course it is important to get people registered. However, is not it also important that once they are registered, their votes should not be worth less than other people's?

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I must give a ruling: amendment No. 44 was not selected, because it was outwith the scope of the clause.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), one will not, under the Bill, need 30 electors to bring a formal complaint. Anyone can bring a complaint and raise the relevant issues. If there is inequity of access, as the hon. Gentleman says, the solution must be decided locally, by those with local knowledge. The clause allows for a much more open discussion and dialogue between individuals with a point to make and the returning officers who make the decisions.

We want to make the process more transparent, so that it is easier for people to intervene on the issue that I shall now discuss—access to polling stations—and on the broader access issue of where people live. Clearly, if many people once lived in a certain part of town in high-rise flats, but those were later knocked down and no one lives there now, it is daft to persevere with having a polling station there. A systematic review of such matters, to which anyone could contribute, would be an improvement.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Hypothetically, if the issue were discussed at local level but the outcome was seen as inappropriate or contestable by a community that felt badly treated because it did not have the right number of polling stations for its population—if those facts were stated plainly, but there was no agreement—could an appeal be made to the Electoral Commission?

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

The straightforward answer is that I do not know. I hope to return to the subject later.

We are trying to ensure that people have the chance to put their case and have their questions are answered. Paragraph 7 of proposed new schedule 1A to the 1983 Act states:

''On completion of a review the authority must . . . give reasons for its decisions in the review''.

It also has to

''publish such other information as is prescribed.''

I hope that that will go some way towards alleviating or ameliorating the situation.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

Will the Minister respond to a point that I raised earlier? When organising elections, there is often no time to review election law, as such considerations arise too late in the process. I asked whether the Minister would use the guidance notes to allow electoral registration officers to do what they used to do, and have urgent discussions with local political parties over the siting of polling stations if necessary immediately prior to an election.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

Paragraph 6 of proposed new schedule 1A states:

''Representations made by any person in connection with a review of polling places may include proposals for specified alternative polling places.''

It is clear that ''any person'' will include political parties. We are opening up the process beyond political parties. We do not use the words ''political parties''. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.

Mr. Binley rose—

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

We are making heavy weather of what I think is a fairly straightforward point.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

It is not.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

I think it is. I shall give way for the last time.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I thank the Minister for giving way, but this is not a point of little interest. What I described happens regularly. I was an election agent for 12 years—I was proud of the fact—and I remember that we often needed to find a polling station in a rush. In a good area, the electoral registration officer would do that in consultation with the political parties, but it did not happen in areas where practice was not as good as it ought to be. I seek guidance for electoral registration officers, so that they can pursue such a policy. Good geographical access to a polling station is a vital part of the democratic process.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

I can do no more than draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Bill says that individuals are allowed to make representations. He is talking about emergencies, so I assume that he is talking about by-elections.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

No, no.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

I cannot understand why an election should be treated as an emergency. Perhaps that is why we disagree. There is a clear, transparent process. We set out in detail how consultation should take place. Representations can be made by ''any person''; we do not have to rely on the artificial trigger of 30 people complaining about something before it is taken seriously. The results of such reviews have to be published.

Another issue that came up on Second Reading was access for disabled persons. We are allowing representations to be made by anyone who has sufficient interest in the accessibility of polling places in the area to disabled persons, or has particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for disabled persons, including disability groups. The disability group does not have to be in the local authority area or polling district in order to make representations. It could make representations from a central standpoint.

All polling places and stations should be accessible to all voters. However, the service providers, including public authorities such as councils, do not think that the duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which from 1 October 2004 imposed a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the physical features of buildings if disabled people would otherwise find it impossible or unreasonably difficult to make use of services, apply to electoral services. That revision of current legislation reinforces the duty of local authorities to consider people with disabilities. The Bill sets it out in clear English.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Minimum age

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 20, page 22, line 5, leave out 'nominated as a candidate' and insert 'elected'.

We do not often have the privilege of amending an Act from 1695; it is a welcome departure. To add to the gravitas of the situation, we are also amending the Union with Scotland Act 1706, so these are momentous matters.

I seek to add a degree of consistency. There is no doubt about this matter in the Bill, which states:

''A person is disqualified for membership of the House of Commons if, on the day on which he is nominated as a candidate, he has not attained the age of 18.''

That is admirably clear, and everyone understands it. It is a change from the 1695 provision, but that is not unreasonable as times have changed. The relevant section in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 is entitled

''Infants not to be elected.''

Few people nowadays would describe a 20-year-old as an infant, but that was the appropriate description in 1695. I shall not attempt to reflect in my speech the spelling of the 1695 Act. It says that

''noe person hereafter shall bee capable of being elected a member to serve in this or any future Parliament who is not of the age of one and twenty yeares and every election or returne of any person under that age is hereby declared to bee null and void And if any such minor hereafter chosen shall presume to sitt or vote in Parliament hee shall incurr such penalties and forfeitures as if hee had presumed to sitt and vote in Parliament without being chosen or returned.''

The relevant wording of the Union with Scotland Act 1706—

''none shall be capable to elect or be elected''—

shows that the moment of election is the relevant time. That is also the test in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. As I read it, holding an office of profit under the Crown or a position on the list of disqualifying positions—positions that prevent one from serving as a Member of Parliament—stops one not from being nominated but from assuming the position of a Member of Parliament. Such legislation stops one taking one's seat in the House.

Jim McGovern (Labour, Dundee West)

Under the hon. Gentleman's formulation, would anyone of any age be able to stand as a candidate and simply be unable to take their seat if they were successful?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Strictly speaking, that is the state of the law. I have just read out part of the 1695 Act, which is the current state of the law. It clearly says that someone may not be elected unless they have reached ''one and twenty yeares''. Currently, one has to be 21 to be a Member of Parliament, but the Government propose that that age should be 18. All we are considering is the date on which that applies, but the date is construed differently for different elections. There was a dispute in the European parliamentary elections about whether the nomination of a candidate whose 18th birthday fell between the point of nomination and the point of election was valid.

Different rules apply to different elections in what we expect to be a common electoral process. My question is simply this: does the Under-Secretary agree that it would be better to decide what the relevant date for these purposes will be and better for the date to be consistent throughout legislation and across elections? It is not consistent at the moment, so will the Under-Secretary explain why not?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

We welcome clause 20, which reduces from 21 to 18 the age qualification for membership of the House of Commons, for membership of a local authority and for election as mayor or assembly member of the Greater London Authority. The clause will require that the candidate is 18 on the day of nomination, or 18 on the day of the poll in the case of a local authority election or an election to the GLA when the election is not preceded by nominations. In a democratic system, it is only fair that all who are eligible to vote are also eligible for election.

The amendment seeks to change the qualifying time so that the candidate must be 18 by the day of election rather than by the day of nomination. Apart from the fact that the amendment seems to be a keen attempt to grab a few more weeks for 17-year-olds, will the Under-Secretary say whether it would pose any mechanical problems in the event of the election date not being fixed?

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

I rise to speak knowing that I have rather more knowledge of House of Commons disqualification than do most hon. Members, having been the victim of one such disqualification that required primary legislation in the rather anxious weeks before the 2001 election before I could stand.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly highlights several discrepancies. Some disqualifications allow one to stand for election but do not allow one to take up one's seat. The ones that debarred me were precisely those; they were statutes relating to membership of the House of Commons, which presupposed that people did not have to stand for elections. Subsequent electoral law never took that into consideration, so it was perfectly valid for me to stand for election and to be elected, but I could not have taken up my seat. That, however, is not the precise issue that we are debating.

I echo the objection expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) when I say that we do not want someone who is 14 when nominated and at the time of the election having to wait until they are 18 before they can take their seat. After all, there is no axiomatic link between someone being elected and taking their seat. It would be perfectly possible for Sinn Fein Members who were elected months ago to take their seats at any time, so we must be careful about legislating when such gaps exist.

The Bill is trying to do precisely what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has asked us to, which is to harmonise and standardise the arrangements. The arrangements, as they apply to local and GLA elections, already make it clear that candidates must have reached the minimum age by the time when they are nominated. Clause 20 clarifies the fact that the age disqualification is linked to the day on which the candidates are nominated at parliamentary elections.

One can pick either the day of nomination or the day of the election because the day of nomination is 11 days before the day of election. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, because one will know the day of the election by the day of nomination. The matter is therefore not technically difficult. It is simply a question of which day one picks. I am attracted to the idea that we would maximise the ability of someone to stand at election if, during those 11 days, the candidate had a birthday and would otherwise be debarred if they turned 18 between the day of nomination and the day of the election, but if the amendment were adopted, we would end up with a discrepancy between the law as it applies to Westminster and the law as it applies to the GLA and local elections.

There are other issues relating to non-contested elections, in which the day of nomination is in effect the day on which the person is elected. Overall, we are trying to do what the hon. Gentleman wants us to, which is to standardise the arrangements. The Bill makes a change from the historical precedent, but we are standardising towards the status quo for the GLA and local elections. I think that his overriding aim is for clarity and standardisation and hope that with that reassurance he will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful. I have been misinformed because I was advised that the qualifying date for local elections was the date of taking one's seat rather than of nomination. The Minister clearly has better advice, and I applaud his desire to standardise. I have a gentle suggestion: he might, given his experiences, consider amending the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to bring it in line, so that it is clear that the relevant date for disqualification is the point of nomination.

I was not in the same position as the Minister, because, as he says, he had to have a change of primary legislation to allow him to stand successfully for election to the House. However, I was a member of the Audit Commission prior to my election in 1997, and I had to stand down because that was an office of profit under the Crown and part of the list of disqualifying posts. That gave me some nervousness about whether I was getting my resignation in at the right time and whether it would be accepted by the commission, or by the Secretary of State who controls it, so as not to provide any bar to my being elected as a Member of the House.

Simply bringing everything into line would be desirable. That is clearly what the Minister has in mind, and I ask him to consider whether a subsequent amendment might be in order to the measure that he so fondly remembers to make sure that everything is pointing in the same direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Nomination procedures

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 22, page 24, line 18, at end insert—

'(7A) In rule 7 (subscription of nomination paper), in paragraph (1), for the word ''eight'' substitute ''one hundred''.'.

This is a probing amendment. It relates to perhaps one of the more controversial elements of the Bill, controversial not least with the Minister's hon. Friends—the reduction in the deposit required for parliamentary elections. A robust argument about that took place on Second Reading, because a significant number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wondered whether it was sensible or would open the door to more fringe and extreme candidates. It is an area in which we must balance concerns about the barriers to participating in the electoral process that might be put in the way of smaller parties against our wish to ensure that the electoral process is not trivialised, exploited or made to produce perverse results, through the prominence of parties that operate undemocratically.

The Government appeared on Second Reading to be a little lukewarm about their own proposals. It seemed to me that they were not entirely convinced about their proposal to reduce the deposit. I tabled the amendment as an alternative way to achieve some of the objectives of those who objected to the reduction in deposit—by increasing the number of subscribers. That would at least have the benefit of providing that, with a smaller financial requirement, candidates should be able to give a more obvious demonstration of electoral support in the constituency, by providing an increased number of assenters.

There is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposal in my amendment. Although the Electoral Commission does not support it. It does not believe that the number of assenters is a sensible determinant. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I wanted to offer the opportunity to consider it. I am, at best, agnostic about the Government's proposal to reduce the deposit, although I do not believe that financial constraints are the right way to discourage fringe candidates, as they also entail the disadvantage of discouraging small parties from participating in elections. I am, I hope, a good democrat. Plurality is better than monopoly in such matters.

Nevertheless, there are arguments to suggest checks and balances. My amendment would be one way of dealing with the matter. I should like the Minister's comments, during which he may say that he is not inclined to pursue the reduction in deposits in any case. A significant number of hon. Members of all parties would be relieved about that and would feel that the Government were taking the right approach. I am satisfied to wait for the Minister's response.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The amendment would increase to 100 the number of people subscribing to a nomination paper from the current provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983. It would require candidates to obtain 102 subscribers, including a proposer and seconder, to validate their nomination, rather than 10, including a proposer and seconder, which is the current requirement.

We note, as did the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, that the Electoral Commission does not support the amendment. The commission recommended two options to improve the deposit and subscriber system in its 2003 report ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom''. Both options recommended the abolition of the current subscriber system, following extensive review and consultation. We are in favour of maintaining deposits as a barrier to nomination in elections. We shall discuss that later. The greater the number of subscribers required at the point of nomination, the greater the barriers to participation in the democratic process and we must be careful to maintain the correct balance.

The amendment goes too far. Where candidates seek to represent, and have been selected by, registered political parties, the additional requirement to provide a list of subscribers is particularly unnecessary. Obtaining 100 signatures on a nomination form would be a time-consuming operation and for some candidates potentially very difficult or even impossible. The requirement to obtain signatures does not represent a true test of electoral support, and acquiring signatures is arguably more a test of administrative competency than of electoral support. In addition, requiring a substantial number of subscribers can significantly increase the administrative burden on returning officers as they have to verify all signatures for each candidate.

It also seems unlikely that the 100 signatures would prove a genuine barrier to extremist groups. Indeed, extremist groups would often be the most able to rely on a small but sufficient number of dedicated supporters to meet such a requirement. Equally, it seems unfair to genuine, mainstream candidates who may not be well resourced—some of them may have few active local supporters to count on and yet may still gain large numbers of votes—to force them to spend time collecting these signatures rather than allowing them to devote all their efforts to the real democratic business of an election, meeting and persuading those who are not already their supporters. Given the existing deposit rules, which we support, the extra burden would be unnecessary and probably ineffective.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

Ten candidates stood in my constituency when I was elected. I am a little concerned about this matter but I am not sure that the amendment would solve the problem.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am not, either.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

No, I didn't think you were. It seems to me there is a balance between protecting a democratic right and allowing genuine candidates to take part irrespective of the size of the support for the position they represent, and protecting the democratic process from those who wish to use the election for their own rather spurious ends. I cite a case in the election before last in Northampton, where a candidate sponsored by the Daily Star ripped off her plastic nurse's uniform at the count and whose photograph appeared in that paper.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Dreadful.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

You say dreadful—

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

It is dreadful.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

It was not very pleasant at 3 o'clock in the morning, but my point is that we all want to protect the democratic process from that sort of activity so we must strike a balance between the need to open up democracy and the need to protect it. We need to give more thought to the matter.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

At my first election, Screaming Lord Sutch and Miss Whiplash were candidates.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was quite candid in introducing the amendment. Essentially, he said that there was a possible quid pro quo, but as he was not sure whether we would do the pro quo he was not certain how robust the quid would be. I do not want to pre-empt it, but I shall listen carefully to the debate on the next amendment to see whether it is as robust as it was on Second Reading. In that debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House clearly stated, with great vociferousness, that people did not want the threshold at which deposits were lost to be reduced from 5 to 2 per cent.

Given that the hon. Gentleman is allowing the debate on this amendment to be a possible exploration of the following amendment, I think the hon. Member for Huntingdon dealt with the case very well. There are practical issues involved but they are not insurmountable. It is not beyond the wit of an intelligent election agent to manage such things, nor is it beyond the wit of a good ERO to check them, but it is another burden and it adds to bureaucracy when we want to remove it. However, as I said, the problems are not insurmountable and if we were wedded to the principle they would not, in themselves, be sufficient to deter us.

I like the second argument made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the true test of whether someone has local support is whether they get votes. Of course, that can only be gauged after the ballot, but the amendment would insert an additional, slightly artificial hurdle before the ballot, testing whether an individual has local support. The test of whether an individual has local support should come on polling day. I think that is the principle that the hon. Gentleman was outlining.

I have noticed in the Committee that the Electoral Commission is often prayed in aid of whichever side happens to agree with it on an issue. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome who said that the commission did not agree with the proposal. Indeed, it wants to go in completely the opposite direction and do away with the system altogether. That is the position for election to Scottish Parliament: there is a self-nominating procedure in which no assenters or subscribers are required. I understand that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are entirely happy with that system.

We are keeping the situation that we have had in this country for a long time, in which there is some sense of one having to do a bit of work rather than just sitting in London or wherever, and declaring one's self to be a candidate all over the place, in every constituency, without making any effort. We balance that against the two factors that I mentioned: the practicalities, which could be overcome, and the principle, which may not be the biggest principle in the world. Taken together they mean that the case presented by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is not strong enough for us to move to the position that he outlined. I entirely accept the spirit in which he moved the amendment: as a probing amendment to open the debate—perhaps in advance of the discussion that we are about to have on the next amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Minister for the level-headed way in which he responded. In my defence, I must say that I was not to know when I tabled the amendment that there would be a subsequent amendment and, therefore, debate. I simply felt that the matter could properly be put before the Committee so that we could debate something about which people are concerned.

Personally, I take an agnostic view on the threshold. I am willing to be persuaded either way, but simply am not convinced that reducing the threshold is the right way forward. Neither am I convinced that putting a financial barrier—that is what it effectively is—to standing for election is the right way to do things, especially considering that the amount of the deposit is insufficient to deter those for whom the main purpose of standing is to engender publicity or commercial benefit, but enough to deter some small parties which would struggle to meet the requirement.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. The hon. Gentleman anticipates the next debate.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I must be careful not to do so, Mr. O'Hara, but you must appreciate that there is a clear link between the two. My proposal is an alternative to the current position on the deposit threshold and the Government wish to reduce it. The hon. Member for Huntingdon said that he was worried that getting 100 signatures would be a terrific barrier to those parties which are not well funded. Obviously, he thinks it would be quite easy for poorly resourced parties to secure £500, whereas getting 100 signatures would be much more difficult for them. I am not sure that I entirely agree with him, but I must not pre-empt the next debate.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Of course, we always look carefully at what our colleagues north of the border do on these matters. They are normally entirely right, I am sure, with the solutions that they come up with in conjunction with their coalition partners in the Scottish Executive.

My last point is that I made it very plain that the Electoral Commission did not support it, because the Electoral Commission is the one firm rock that we have to cling to in cases of dispute. It provides a useful form of arbitration, so I do not claim its support when it is not given but make it plain where we are at variance with its opinion. That is something that the Committee should use as its touchstone throughout these considerations. Where there is doubt, I will tend to support the view of the Electoral Commission because it was set up precisely to give advice. That is a sensible way forward and something that was not followed by some of the Minister's predecessors in previous legislation—to their cost and that of the electoral system. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 46, in clause 22, page 24, line 33, leave out section (9).

Subsection (9) amends rule 53 of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act, which deals with parliamentary election rules, reducing the proportion of votes that a candidate at a parliamentary election has to poll in order not to forfeit his deposit. Currently he has to poll 5 per cent.—one-twentieth—of the votes cast; the subsection lowers that to 2 per cent., or one fiftieth.

Deposits for Westminster parliamentary elections were introduced in the Representation of the People Act 1918 following a number of candidatures that were regarded as frivolous. There was no full parliamentary debate on that aspect of the legislation because all the main parties represented at the time supported the initiative. The 1918 legislation allowed election costs to be met for the first time by central Government. Previously, candidates had met costs collectively, so the deposit acted as a safeguard against candidacies that had no realistic chance of success but which nevertheless added to the complexity of the process. The requirement for deposits and subscribers has therefore been in force since 1918 for all elections in the UK except for local government, parish and community council elections.

The threshold set by the 1918 Act was put at one eighth of votes cast. In 1982, the Select Committee on Home Affairs Committee conducted an inquiry into electoral law, which concluded that the deposit should be raised to the more realistic level of £1,000. However, the Committee had difficulty in agreeing a threshold for forfeiture. Legislation followed in the Representation of the People Act 1985 and the deposit was increased to £500 with the threshold reduced to one twentieth, or 5 per cent. A Home Affairs Committee inquiry in 1997–98 recommended increasing the level to £700, with indexation to follow after the next general election. However, that was not accepted by the Government.

My point is that all previous moves have been to make the threshold higher. Suddenly, with this Bill, the position is being reversed, and we are extremely concerned that reducing the threshold will give a major boost to extremist parties such as the British National party, which benefit from the freepost electoral addresses and election broadcasts. As members of the committee know, all candidates in parliamentary elections receive a freepost mailing to each elector. That is worth some £10,000 to £15,000 in free postage.

In addition, parties can be eligible for party election broadcasts on television and radio. In fact, BBC rules allow a party election broadcast across Great Britain if a party nominates in one sixth of all British seats. Ofcom rules for commercial television state that in order to qualify, parties must contest one sixth or more of the seats up for election, with the four nations of the UK considered separately. If candidates are nominated in one or two constituent parts of Britain, their parties will be offered broadcasts on ITV in the appropriate nations. Parties qualifying in all three nations are also offered Channels 4 and Five as well as national commercial radio. One sixth of the seats in England are currently equivalent to 88 constituencies.

To illustrate the point, in the 2005 general election, lowering the threshold to 2 per cent. would have saved the BNP £36,500, equivalent to allowing it to nominate candidates in a further 73 constituencies. The 5 per cent. threshold is there to deter frivolous and extreme candidates who might otherwise use elections as a form of self-promotion. If these provisions had been in place at the last election, the major parties would not have been significantly affected by the change. The principal beneficiaries would have been parties such as the BNP who do not command popular support and should not be encouraged to peddle their propaganda.

A further problem with the subsection is that a 2 per cent. threshold would be inconsistent with the 5 per cent. minimum share of the vote necessary to gain representation, which is in use in the additional members system of proportional representation in Britain. At a time of growing concern about the rise of extremist parties, it somewhat beggars belief that the Labour party wants to lower the hurdles for the far left and the far right to receive freepost mailings and election broadcasts in parliamentary elections.

In our free democracy, allowing extremists to run for election is a necessary evil, but checks and balances should exist to prevent the system of free mailings and broadcasts from being abused. That is exactly what the threshold of 5 per cent. does. Lowering the threshold will help the likes of the BNP spread its propaganda courtesy of the taxpayer, despite the fact that its views do not carry mass public support.

Notwithstanding what I have said in relation to lowering the threshold and to deposits, we welcome the provision in subsection (5) to allow candidates to pay their deposits by credit or debit card.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

I do not believe that the threshold for returning and losing deposits should be lowered from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. It is strange that the Electoral Commission has suggested it. The aim is to encourage the participation of candidates, and that is desirable, but the provision sends out the wrong message, and, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, it may have some perverse and unwanted effects.

The provision would encourage frivolous candidates, of whom we have heard an example. We must take account of the fact that a parliamentary election entails free post, which can have considerable commercial value. It also entails television and media publicity and publicity at the count. It is a substantial attraction and benefit to single-issue candidates, extreme candidates and frivolous candidates with a self-promoting, commercial interest.

We must take those factors into account because an increasing number of frivolous, self-promoting and commercial candidates at elections helps to contribute to the apathy and distrust that we want to resist. In this Bill we are working to get rid of that, and unfortunately every time a number of people at elections contest for frivolous or self-promoting reasons, it says to the electorate that the candidates are not taking their candidacy seriously. We should work in the opposite direction and try to ensure that only serious candidates stand.

The overriding reason why we should resist the Electoral Commission's proposal is, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the undesirable effect it will have of encouraging extremist and undemocratic parties. At the last local elections, the BNP stood in many more local authorities—certainly in the north-west—and in many more wards in those local authorities. In those circumstances, it is just a question of getting people to subscribe and put forward their names. I should not want to encourage such parties any further, and if the deposit and its loss are barriers to them, we should keep those barriers. That is a strong reason. We do not want more BNP candidates having their odious message delivered to more households. The Bill is not right on this point. It has come about for a good reason but would have perverse effects.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and myself are the only people who are familiar with the Liberal glee club at the end of every party conference. There used to be a song called ''Losing Deposits'', which was set to the tune of ''Waltzing Matilda'', sung with sad irony by many members at one stage. It seems far less relevant these days, but I guess I might declare an interest.

We agree on the objectives of the system of deposits and forfeiture. The objectives are clear: to encourage serious candidates; to discourage extremists and frivolity; and to ensure that the electoral process does not unduly subsidise those people who have no representation nor support. What is at issue is not the system but whether the way in which the system is pitched in terms of percentages and the size of the deposit will do just that. I get the sense from everybody who has spoken so far that we have some disagreement with the Electoral Commission on this and do not think the system that it is recommending will have the beneficial effects that I am sure it would endorse. We do not have clear evidence that it necessarily agrees with our objectives. However, if our objectives are to discourage extremist candidates from participating, to discourage frivolity and to encourage serious candidates who stand a realistic chance of winning, while not making the process onerous or giving a subsidy to people who are standing for some vexatious purpose, we must consider what is in the Bill and support an amendment such as this one.

Jim McGovern (Labour, Dundee West)

I totally understand why there is so much opposition to reducing the level at which the deposit is forfeited. The British National party and other right-wing groups have used elections to spread hate, bigotry and distrust in the communities in which they operate. They exploit the fears and insecurities of those who feel that they have had a raw deal from society and allow the prejudices of a racist few to infiltrate other sections of our society. I am firmly against the BNP, but it is right to let the party stand in elections. More than that, I believe that it is a fundamental right of any party in society to stand up and speak for the people it feels it represents.

The BNP may be despicable, but it represents a group of people who feel disenfranchised. Often people vote for the BNP and other right-wing groups because they feel that they have had a raw deal from society. What greater challenge is there to us as democrats than a party exploiting disillusionment? We should be engaging with such people, not removing them from the political process. This country has laws that prevent groups such as the BNP from inciting racism or provoking violence. During a previous election—in 2001, I believe—the BNP's advertising was banned from the TV airwaves because it was so offensive. That was entirely right and proper.

However, if a party follows the rules of a democracy and seeks to gain people's votes, why should it not play the game? I say to those who seek to limit the BNP simply through increasing the level at which it can claim its deposit that, if we do not think it should fight elections, we should ban it totally, add it to the proscribed list and be done with it. If we think that it deserves to have a say in the greater scheme of things, we must let it participate fully. Unfortunately, that means allowing it to have its deposit back if it attracts any degree of support.

The BNP dominates this debate, but it should not. The path of democracy does not run smooth—that much is obvious from the party's success—but many other people attempt to find a role in the political process and find their way somehow blocked. We should lower the threshold, as pluralism is vital to the good operation of democracy. If we encourage people to stand in elections, we encourage them to put their issues, topics and concerns on the agenda. We encourage important debates that involve, for example, protests against a school closure, or a community who feels it is getting a raw deal from the Government and wants a local non-party representative, or a group of people who want to raise a specific issue. Such people are vital to us as politicians and to the political discourse of this country.

A party called the Publican party stood at the last election in Inverness. Its main issue was a belief that people should be able to smoke in pubs. It was incredibly unsuccessful—in fact, I believe that it would have lost its deposit even with the 2 per cent. boundary—but the panel had to address the smoking issue at every hustings in the constituency. A group of publicans put their issue high on the agenda.

I understand that there are many ways to get an issue addressed at election time, but it should not be the job of MPs to remove any of those methods. If people care enough about an issue, a political ideology or a community, we should be begging them to take part in elections, not slamming the door on them by making them pay a hefty deposit that they probably will not get back.

I understand the concerns raised by Opposition Members and, indeed, by my hon. Friends. However, the BNP will not go away if we take its deposits. We must stand up and be counted, debate the issues until we are blue in the face and, more importantly, win the argument. The rise of the BNP is a useful reminder that there are still issues to address and battles to fight. We should not be afraid of that but should, in fact, embrace it.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

It is not the raising of a deposit that matters but the danger of losing it that gives pause for thought—and so it should. The argument that we have just heard suggests that there should be no deposit at all. I argue that the deposit should give people pause for thought and make them consider whether the election is worth fighting, and certainly whether it is worth fighting from a frivolous point of view. Some people might think, ''Let's get involved in the election for a lark.'' No one can tell me that that does not happen, because a number of us have seen cases in which it has. I fear that the argument that we have heard is an argument for no deposit at all. I argue that there should be a deposit, that it should give people pause for serious thought, and that it should be of enough consequence to achieve that objective. I therefore support the amendment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First, I apologise to you, Mr. O'Hara, and to other members of the Committee. The business managers of the House have managed to place me on two Committees at the same time and I have not quite succeeded in separating myself accordingly.

I have some experience of the issue that we are discussing, and not just in relation to Sinn Fein involvement in elections in Northern Ireland. Whatever one might think of the BNP, Sinn Fein or any other political parties, the reality is that it is probably better that they put themselves before the people, get the verdict of the people on their views and, if necessary, have their views exposed to public ridicule than it is for us to attempt to use electoral law to ensure that they cannot do so.

The provision that concerns me much more is the one relating to frivolous candidates. Over the past 25 or 26 years in the House, I have fought a variety of salesmen—some who wanted to sell televisions and some who wanted to sell car exhausts—who found it worth while putting their name down for election so that they could get free post and other electoral benefits and sell their wares. We have not yet been able to deal appropriately with frivolous candidates but we should keep trying to discourage them, and I suspect that the only way to discourage the kind of candidate that I have described is to require a deposit that makes it less profitable for them to use the electoral system as they do at present. However, electoral law should not be twisted to prevent people from receiving a democratic verdict on their views, no matter how repulsive those views may be.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

My first reaction on considering the clause was to support it because it would allow people to engage in the electoral process far more easily. When I stood in the 2001 general election, the Church of the Militant Elvis also put up a candidate. Despite its name, it provided lively and informed debate about political issues. I was therefore minded to support the clause. However, I have listened to the debate, particularly the contributions from the hon. Member for Huntingdon and from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and I feel very strongly about what has been said about the BNP and other extremist groups that use the publicity and the free post to get their message across. That concerns me greatly, and I think that we should stick with the 5 per cent. threshold. I support the amendment.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

This has been an enlightening, interesting and thoughtful short debate on an issue that, although itself narrow, introduces the much broader concepts of access to elections and democratic participation. The amendment would remove the reduction in the threshold for the forfeiture of deposits at parliamentary elections from 5 to 2 per cent. and would keep the deposit at 5 per cent. The proposal to reduce the threshold came, as several hon. Members have said, from a recommendation by the Electoral Commission in its report entitled ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom''.

The commission originally proposed two options for the deposits and subscribers system. The first option was to abolish that system outright—a point that I think the hon. Member for Huntingdon made. The second option was to reduce the threshold to 2 per cent. of the vote and standardise the deposit at £500 for all elections. The aim of the proposal was to make the electoral system more accessible for smaller parties and encourage a wider range of such parties, and genuine independent candidates, to engage in the democratic process.

I am sure that we all sympathise with that principle. We have spoken about the principles of accessibility and participation in the election in terms of how they apply to voters; they should also apply to those who wish to take part in the election by standing in it, not only to those who participate by voting.

On Second Reading, I said that the will of the House was clearly expressed and that, with one or two exceptions, there was near universal disapproval of this aim. I gave an undertaking that we would clearly establish whether that view would carry on during the discussions in Committee. The discussion during the past 20 minutes or so has shown clearly that it has carried on. I shall briefly characterise my canvassing returns to make sure that I have them right The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that he was agnostic on the proposal; the hon. Member for Huntingdon was clearly against the reduction from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent., as was my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley. I shall characterise the position of the hon. Member for Southport as ''weak against''; he certainly was not in favour.

The only dissenting note came from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, who made a principled speech that addressed some of the issues of participation that I have just mentioned. He is absolutely right. The course of the debate has allowed us to focus on two separate issues—first, that of extremist parties, which are well organised and sometimes well financed. They have a hateful dogma and agenda, but, as in the famous maxim, we defend their right to make their case, as long as it does not incite violence.

In a sense, my hon. Friend was arguing for the removal of deposits altogether; that was the logic of his position. I understand entirely where he is coming from and have a great deal of sympathy with his point. The way to deal with the BNP and any other extremist party, whether of the fascist or fundamentalist intolerant religious variety, is to deal with them on the substance of the argument—to take on their arguments and defeat them, not go about erecting some procedural fix to prevent them from making their arguments. Sure as eggs is eggs, they would simply use that as a martyrdom issue and say that they had been excluded.

My hon. Friend is right to say that whatever we do with the deposit, such people are not going to go away, and we must not imagine that they are. That does not mean that we should lower the deposit, but that we must be realistic about the outcome. Whatever we do with the deposits, those vile people will not go away. We have to take on the argument where it is made and address the underlying reasons why such people get support from those who might otherwise not be tempted to support them. That is a much broader issue than is raised by the amendment. However, my hon. Friend was right to make his argument.

The hon. Member for Northampton, South was against the reduction and made a strong case. That brings me to the second of the two broad categories that I was talking about—frivolous candidates. That distinction was also made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). We have to take seriously the issue of frivolous candidates—the owners of local pizza restaurants and so on—using an election to get free publicity and monitor it to ascertain whether it is becoming a weed in the democratic garden. The Daily Star, which was mentioned earlier, would of course be able to afford a deposit of 5 per cent., and would not mind losing it; it is a wealthy organisation owned by a very wealthy individual. No deposit would stop that kind of high-profile candidate. Frankly, we will have to live with that; I am not sure that we can do an awful lot about it.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Sometimes, such organisations put up candidates all over the country; the £500 adds up by the time they get to seat No. 650.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

I suppose that such practice is regarded as a cost-benefit analysis for the newspaper. To an organisation that has millions, the decision to spend £500 on 100 constituencies might be a price worth paying, if it receives x amount of free publicity.

We would not deal with the frivolous, well-financed, corporate candidate by changing levels of deposit or the level at which people retain their deposit or otherwise. We are now deciding whether a move from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. would be a good or a bad thing, for all the reasons that have been suggested. Different countries have different approaches to the matter. Yesterday I was with a group of Turkish Members of Parliament. Under the Turkish proportional system, there must be a 10 per cent. of the vote threshold before a party can have an MP, which means that only two parties have MPs. However, when those MPs get into Parliament they defect and set up their own parties, because they have access to state funding that can make them well off. The group explained that although the 10 per cent. order was designed to avoid a proliferation of parties, it did not work because once in Parliament, the Members set up their own parties to get around the problem. I am not aware that any country has found a perfect solution to deal with such problems. We will just have to deal with frivolous, well-funded, corporate candidates.

Let us consider the other frivolous candidates, who simply use the election to gain publicity for an entirely bogus or worthless cause. The 5 per cent. or 2 per cent. issue may make a difference to them, and to that extent, we should think seriously about it before we make such a move. For those reasons, and for the reasons that I gave on Second Reading, it is clear that it is not the will of the House to proceed with the 5 to 2 per cent. reduction.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position simply to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. Without wanting to lift the curtain on the magic by which such matters are decided across Government when a change of that nature is being considered, I can give him a clear undertaking that we shall come back, having been through the process and having reported back on the clearly expressed view not only of the Committee but of the House on Second Reading—when many speeches were made by hon. Members who are not here now—that it is not desirable to reduce the deposit from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not push his amendment to a vote, because I would have to urge my colleagues to resist it, for the reasons that I have outlined. I assure him that we shall return to the issue on Report.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The debate has been helpful and interesting. I thank the Minister for agreeing to return to the subject at a later stage. I shall not go through all the contributions that have been made, but I want to pick up a few points. The hon. Member for Dundee, West made some important points. He said that we needed to find ways in which to raise participation. I agree. He said that we needed to engage with those who are disaffected by the political process and might join extremist parties. To a degree, he is right. However, I do not believe that the way to do that is to give extremists carrying a tiny percentage of the vote the right to have access to taxpayers' funds.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East made an important contribution to the debate. He said that there is an increasing tendency for commercial salespeople to use the electoral process as a way in which to receive publicity for their businesses. There seems to be an increasing tendency for single-issue lobbyists, who have no intention of representing the constituency as a whole, to use the election as a podium to promote their single-issue policies. If we removed or reduced the deposit level, those people, in particular, would be encouraged to stand for election.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs made it clear that the amendment was an important point of principle for the Conservative party. I shall therefore ask for a Division, although I acknowledge that the Minister has said that he will return to the issue later.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Clause 23 - Description of independent candidates

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 23, page 25, line 3, leave out 'Scotland'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in clause 23, page 25, line 7, at end insert—

'(c) in relation to a candidate standing in an election in Scotland, it consists of the word ''independent'' or the word ''Neo-eisimeil''.'.

No. 21, in clause 23, page 25, line 43, after 'Wales' insert 'or Scotland'.

No. 22, in clause 23, page 25, line 45, after 'or' insert 'Scottish Gaelic or'.

No. 23, in clause 23, page 26, line 35, leave out 'Scotland'.

No. 24, in clause 23, page 26, line 38, at end insert—

'(c) in relation to an election in Scotland ''IND/NEO-E'' or, if the candidate so requests, ''NEO-E/IND''.'.

No. 26, in clause 23, page 26, line 45, after '''ANNIB/IND''', insert '''IND/NEO-E'' and ''NEO-E/IND''.'.

No. 25, in clause 23, page 26, line 45, leave out 'and'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil). I entirely understand why he wished to have it moved because the clause is relevant to his constituency and a few other others in Scotland. It is right that the Committee should consider his amendment and that the Minister has the opportunity to argue against what he proposes, if, indeed, the Minister intends to oppose it. The purpose of the amendment is clear. It is to put Scottish Gaelic, for those who speak the language, on an equal footing with Welsh. In clause 23, an independent candidate in a Welsh constituency can be described as ''Annibynnwr'' in Welsh rather than as ''Independent'' in English.

I add in parentheses that that might cause some confusion in principally Welsh-speaking constituencies, because I understand that ''Annibynnwr'' is a commonly used abbreviation for Annibynnwr Cymru, which is the Welsh Congregationalists Union. The Minister should be aware of, and perhaps address, the prospect of confusion arising.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

The chief executive of Denbighshire county council has written to point out that the terminology in the Bill is incorrect. The word that needs to be replaced is ''Annibynnwr'', as a description of an independent candidate in Wales. That should be ''Annibynnol'', in line with all the other electoral registration, whereas ''Annibynnwr'' is a member of an independent chapel.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, representing as he does a Welsh constituency. Although my proud boast is that I was born 25 miles from Cardiff, it was a rather wet 25 miles, and we are the Celts who could not swim.

That is a diversion from the point that I am trying to make, which is that Gaelic is a language spoken by not a huge number of people resident in Scotland, but by a significant number particularly congregated in one or two constituencies on the west coast. It is recognised in the name of the constituency, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, which used to be, as those who served in previous Parliaments will know, the Western Isles. It is no longer described as the Western Isles, but is described in Gaelic to reflect the preferences of the population in that area. The point that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar is making is that, although Gaelic does not have the same statutory protection as Welsh, nevertheless, for clarity of purpose, for a candidate standing in a constituency in which Gaelic is the principal language of everyday conversation, at least amongst a section of the community, it would not seem unreasonable for Gaelic to be given the same position as Welsh in Wales. Having already expressed my concerns about ''Annibynnwr'', I have insufficient Gaelic to know what the word for ''Independent'' is. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain, if he wishes to resist the amendment, why it is appropriate to do so. Perhaps he may not and suggest that it should be pursued, possibly in consultation with the Scottish Executive and his Department.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing these issues to be discussed in Committee. I shall deal with them in turn. On the issue of the apparently wrong Welsh word, we had a long discourse on that from the hon. Gentleman who speaks for Plaid Cymru on these matters. I have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West by telling him that I told the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales—I even got that pronunciation wrong—that I had enjoyed his discourse. He told me that he is the author of a Welsh language dictionary, to which I said that I thought that he sounded as if he had swallowed it before his talk, interesting though it was. I am simply in no position to adjudicate. I realise that when Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box, they are the fount of all wisdom. Alas, this issue is not something on which I can give a definitive assurance. Suffice it to say that the issue has been drawn to our attention, both by the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading and by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. I thank my hon. Friend and his chief executive for bringing it to our attention. Clearly, we want to get the words right and, in a sense, what matters is getting the words right on the ballot paper. If—I had better not use caricatures—there is an agreement after that discussion, however long it may take, that we need to replace one word with the other, we shall certainly seek to do it.

The amendments would allow the Scottish Gaelic words contained in them to be used as the counterpart for ''independent'' on nomination forms and ballot papers at parliamentary elections. I appreciate why hon. Members are using this opportunity to promote the use of Gaelic language. There has been a boom in Gaelic language education and a general reawakening of interest in the language, which the Government fully support.

The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, an Act of the Scottish Parliament, recognised that by providing for the establishment of a body, Bord na Gaidhlig, to promote the use and understanding of the Gaelic language. Indeed, I met the new chairman of the bord last weekend in Inverary. He is certainly undertaking his role with great vigour and vim. The Act enables the bord to require certain public bodies to prepare and implement plans that will set out how they will use the Gaelic language in the exercise of their functions. However, limitations are placed on the bord. It cannot require any reserved public body, or any body undertaking reserved functions in respect of those functions, to prepare and implement such plans. The conduct of parliamentary elections in Scotland and the franchise for all elections are reserved matters, so such plans cannot be required in respect of those issues. The Scottish Act does not provide for forms and so on to be provided in Gaelic, although some public bodies may plan to make their forms available in Gaelic.

The provisions in clause 34 that enable returning officers to provide information and so on in languages other than English and Welsh will allow them to provide such information in Gaelic. In some areas of Scotland returning officers will probably wish to make use of such provisions. In other areas, perhaps the vast majority, it is unlikely that there will be a great call for them. The clause will not relate to nomination forms or ballot papers, as they are specified in legislation and can only be in English or Welsh. The reason for that is a much bigger issue about the relative use and wide-spokenness, if that is a phrase, of Welsh and of Gaelic in Scotland.

According to the 2001 census, there are 582,000 Welsh speakers in Wales out of a total population of 2.9 million. In comparison, there are 58,600 Gaelic speakers in Scotland out of a total resident population of just over 5 million. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was correct to say that the latter are disproportionately resident in a couple of small areas, but given that the provision would apply not in a small area but across Scotland, we are not persuaded that there is a case to be made for the use of Gaelic language on nomination and ballot papers. I therefore encourage the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the hon. Members in whose names the amendment stands, to seek to withdraw it.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Minister for setting out his reasons for resisting the Gaelic amendments. If a candidate wishes to describe himself by means of a Gaelic language in an area that is principally Gaelic speaking, it does not seem necessary for there to be an impediment to that process, given that it is a native language of these isles, but that can be debated on another occasion. I am grateful for the clarity of the Minister's exposition.

As regards the Welsh issue, I simply say to the Minister diolch yn fawr, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 23, page 25, line 8, leave out subsections (3) to (9).

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 48, in clause 23, page 25, line 13, leave out 'to be likely'.

No. 49, in clause 23, page 25, line 15, leave out

'it is not likely to'

and insert 'will not'.

No. 50, in clause 23, page 25, line 22, leave out 'be likely'.

No. 51, in clause 23, page 26, line 23, at end insert—

'( ) If the returning officer thinks that the description on the nomination paper of a candidate whose description is not authorised as mentioned in rule 6A(1) or (1B) is misleadingly similar to a ''registered description'', as detailed in section 28A or 28B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, he must, as soon as practicable after the receipt of the non-authorised description, give his decision on its validity.'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

At first sight this looks like a wrecking amendment. It is not intended to be. It is a probing amendment. The clause describes a process by which independent candidates can affix, within the description on the ballot paper what is essentially a political message about what they are standing for. Many people say that if someone has a political platform, unless they are absolutely alone in that view, it is perhaps better to form a political party to espouse it. The registration process for political parties is not difficult. If they want to be described as independents, they should be independent rather than use the ballot paper to promote a political platform. That is the position we have taken for some time. I would not go to the stake on it, because I can see that there are instances where a local issue is relevant to the candidacy of an independent candidate.

There are perils in allowing such descriptors to be placed on the ballot paper, not least the concerns, which I know the hon. Member for Huntingdon will want to explore, about terms that might cause confusion with a registered political party standing in the same election. As I say, an independent is an independent. Some independents are more independent than others, as we all well know, not when standing for parliamentary elections but in some local government elections. If we accept the fact, as we should, that some people do not wish to be tied to a political party or a party position, that should be taken at face value in the description used on the ballot paper.

My request, through the amendment, is for the Minister to explain why he believes it appropriate for independents to provide a slogan on the ballot paper when registered political parties are generally restricted to their name and logo. It seems an unfair advantage.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

We share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Independents are by definition just that. They are separate and unaligned to any organisation or pressure group. If candidates wish to run under a particular banner, they should register as a political party and be subject to the same public scrutiny and accountability that registered parties face under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, such as the publishing of their accounts. It cannot be of service to the important role of independent candidates in our democracy for their independence to be eroded by descriptions of a partisan nature, or for special privileges to be bestowed on them that are unavailable to political parties. We support a lot of what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said on that.

Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 are essentially probing, intended to draw attention to the need for the clause to operate with certainty and to identify some of the problems that could arise if it were applied inconsistently. We want to add certainty to a vague clause that could lead to inconsistency. We understand that each decision will need to be made case by case, but that does not mean that there should be inconsistency of application to similar cases. Returning officers will operate under guidance issued by the Electoral Commission, and that is most welcome.

There is no need to include such phrases as ''to be likely to'' in subsection (3). Such phrases introduce a large objective element to the decision.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

Subjective?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank the Minister—''subjective'' rather than ''objective'' is correct. In whose opinion should it be likely? If returning officers are to make such a decision, and if that decision has to be based on Electoral Commission guidance, it should be made clear and certain that that is the case. That would ensure that the commission guidance was more strictly applied. Additional legislation may be needed to ensure consistency between all returning officers when it comes to deciding whether there is a conflict.

The Bill gives returning officers authority without consultation, provided that they have regard to guidance from the Electoral Commission. We wonder whether that will be sufficient. For instance, the Bill states that descriptions should not be the same as the description of another candidate and should not be

''likely to lead electors to associate the candidate with a registered political party''.

That seems vague. Once again, is ''Independent Left'' acceptable? Is ''Independent Labour'' misleading? The final decision would depend on the opinion of the returning officer, and there would thus be no consistency among constituencies or council areas. What opportunities would be available for other candidates or electors to contest the judgment of the returning officer? Does the Minister agree that the clause could be seen as vague and that such vagueness could lead to problems?

Subsection (4) would amend rule 12 in the 1983 Act so as to require the returning officer to inform a candidate if he considered that the candidate's desired description was ''misleadingly similar'' to that of another candidate. Amendment No. 51 would extend the requirement on the returning officer to include informing a candidate if he considered that the candidate's desired description was

''misleadingly similar'' to a 'registered description', as detailed in section 28A or 28B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000''.

The amendment would therefore help to protect registered descriptions that political parties wished to use on nomination papers, and we believe that it is a sensible extension of the requirement on the returning officer. Will the Minister explain why something of that sort was not included originally?

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Amendment No. 6 may seem harsh. We need a change in the law not least because of the famous time when a candidate took votes from the Liberal Democrats by describing himself as a ''Literal Democrat''. After the various processes of judicial appeal, that situation was upheld.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the other famous incident, when Rod Richards' opponent in Clwyd, West called himself the ''Conservatory'' candidate?

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

It is such cases that obliged those standing for election to nominate a party. I am relaxed with the idea of independents forming, almost ad hoc, whatever party they choose. I once ran against a candidate standing for ''Your party'', but it was confusing when canvassing because people would always say, ''We're voting for your party''.

Independents can use almost whatever epithet they choose—the regulations do limit what can be chosen—and they do not seem to be precluded from using the campaign theme of the moment. They can almost turn the election into a referendum. For instance, if candidates who described themselves as ''Stop the Iraq War'' were standing at a particularly volatile time, people might take their candidature as a verdict on the war rather than a question of who would most properly represent them. With that advantage, it is only to be expected that mainstream political parties would wish to describe themselves and their stand in a fuller and more explicit way.

Other issues are involved. For instance, proposed new section 6B(3)(d) says that the returning officer must decide whether a description is offensive. I can imagine that that would lead to some fine judgments. If a candidate chose to describe himself as an ''anti-corruption'' candidate—I do not see why he should not do so under existing legislation—would it be offensive to the other candidates standing against him? Would they be thought of as pro-corruption candidates? The returning officer has to make such judgments.

Allowing candidates to be independent and giving them the use of a pile of descriptors, so long as they do not confuse people about whether they are members of a different party, still puts the returning officer in a difficult situation, and different returning officers in different parts of the country will make up their minds differently. However, it will not be universally incontestable, so it may be simpler to stay with the status quo.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

The provisions that will allow independent candidates to use a description on their nomination and ballot paper are based on the Electoral Commission's recommendation in its report ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom,'' which was published in June 2003.

Perhaps I might outline some history. Between 1969 and 2001, all candidates standing for election in the UK were entitled to use a description, until a change introduced in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which restricted independent candidates to using the description ''independent'', or none at all. The only exception is, as we know, Mr. Speaker, who is entitled to use the description ''The Speaker seeking re-election''. The Government's provision will change the current situation, whereby candidates who represent political parties can use a description on their nomination paper and, thereby, on the ballot paper, but independent parties cannot. It will create, essentially, a level playing field for all candidates who want to participate in the democratic process.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

That bears precisely on the argument that I was trying to put, although the hon. Member for Huntingdon put it rather better: fundamentally, if candidates are allowed an epithet, or some kind of description, they have an advantage that the simple words ''Labour'', ''Conservative'' or ''Liberal Democrat'' will not confer, because they can identify themselves with something that may be the main theme of the election.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

That will be so only if the candidates for the political parties choose to describe themselves as, for example ''The Labour party candidate''. They choose to do that, but they do not have to. They can use another message if they want to. That is the point. Independent candidates cannot include a description, but we can. The current position is that we tell them that what is good enough for us is not good enough for them. I am not entirely sure that the change is a particularly big step forward.

Clause 23 provides additional protection for political parties, ensuring that, when using a description, independent candidates cannot do so misleadingly. It sets out the requirements to which an independent candidate must adhere, when providing a description at nomination. That was not the case under the previous regime for candidates' descriptions, before 2001, when independent candidates could use any description they wanted. We are not returning to the free-for-all of the past; the matter has been clearly prescribed.

Clause 23 states that it would be a matter for the returning officer, having regard to any guidance issued by the Electoral Commission, to decide whether a description proposed by an independent candidate would be permissible. We are laying down guidelines in statute. Some will be issued by the Electoral Commission, and the returning officer will have some discretion. We are including significant safeguards.

Amendment No. 6 would remove the provision allowing independent candidates to use a description on their nomination paper. The Electoral Commission consulted widely on that. There was genuine, widespread support among local authorities, political parties and others for liberalisation with respect to the candidates' descriptions. However, numerous responses pointed out that, if more than one independent candidate stood for election in the same constituency, the candidates and the electorate would be disadvantaged by the confusion arising from the general use of the term ''independent''.

There are, then, good arguments for allowing an independent candidate to use a description on the nomination paper and the ballot paper. In many cases, more than one independent candidate will stand in a constituency, and the use of a description will enable voters to distinguish between the candidates. Effectively, that will mean that they will not be able to use the same description as another, apart from the word ''independent''. Nor will they be able to use a description likely to confuse an elector, lead an elector to associate the candidate with a registered political party, or mislead an elector as to the effect of their vote. For example—to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Southport—no independent candidate would be able to adopt a description like ''Literal Democrat'' as happened in the past.

As I have said, we are trying to create the right balance between avoiding confusion for voters and facilitating the participation of all candidates, irrespective of whether they belong to a registered political party—and registered political parties do not own democracy; we may all belong to them, and view them as the best vehicle for achieving change in society, but we should not think of them as the only route into the democratic process.

Independents have a long-standing place in the political system and have traditionally been an important force in local politics and elections. I see no good reason for an independent candidate not to enjoy the same privileges as those afforded to candidates who represent political parties with respect to the inclusion of a description on a nomination form.

Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 would change the requirements by which the validity of an independent candidate's description is determined. Those requirements are set out in clause 23(2). They state that the description should not be likely to confuse an elector by being so similar to a registered description or the description of another candidate as to be likely to confuse an elector. The description should also not be likely to lead electors to associate the candidate with a registered political party. Moreover, the description should not be likely to mislead a voter as to the effect of their vote, or to contradict or hinder an elector's understanding.

I fully understand the position of the hon. Member for Huntingdon as to the word ''likely'' introducing a subjective element. However, I am struggling to understand how else the objective can be accomplished because one cannot prove definitively, beyond a reasonable doubt, at the stage that the nomination papers are introduced, that the description will mislead. The only way one could discover whether it would mislead would be to hold the election and to find out afterwards whether people were misled or not. That would be quite a risk to take with as important a process as voting.

On balance, it is best to allow a degree of subjectivity, subject to the guidelines that I mentioned, the provisos in the Bill and the guidelines from the Electoral Commission. That will allow a degree of discretion to the local returning officer to say, ''I am sorry, but I think that that is likely to mislead.'' I take the hon. Gentleman's point: at that stage it will be impossible to prove one way or another. The only way to prove that definitively would be to wait until someone had been misled, by which time the damage would have been done. People will have the opportunity under the provision of other clauses to come up with another name and submit a form that will pass muster.

Amendment No. 51 is modelled on the provision in clause 23(4), which requires the returning officer to make a decision as soon as practicable after the submission of a nomination paper if it is misleadingly similar to that of another independent candidate. That would have the effect of allowing an independent candidate to resubmit their nomination form, which is a good thing.

Clause 22(7) amends parliamentary elections rule 12(3A) to specify that if a returning officer decides that a candidate's description is likely to confuse or wrongly lead electors to associate the candidate with a registered political party, and is so invalid, the returning officer shall make a decision as soon as possible after the delivery of the nomination paper. The candidate would, therefore, be able to resubmit a nomination paper, assuming, of course, that there was enough time. The serious matter raised by the tabling of amendment No. 51 is addressed by a previous measure. However, we fully sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The Minister spoke of a level playing field with regard to descriptions for parties. If a Labour party candidate wishes to flesh out precisely the kind of politician he is, and describes himself as a ''Labour party anti-corruption candidate'' or the ''Labour party candidate fighting for Camberley'', is that allowed in the same way that independent candidates can add that kind of information about themselves?

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

I understand that those matters must be agreed at a higher level, but I shall take guidance on that. The description must be registered. At the last Scottish Parliament election, a Scottish Socialist party candidate stood as ''Scottish Socialist Convener Tommy Sheridan'', as he was better known in the party. He was subsequently sacked as convener, so presumably he will have to re-register for the next Scottish Parliament elections.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the Minister. He has finally touched on the difficulty. Without wishing to pre-empt our debates, clause 47 limits the number of descriptions that a political party can have. It would be impossible for a candidate standing on behalf of a political party in a particular constituency to say that he was in favour of saving the local hospital, for example, but an independent candidate would be able to make precisely that claim. Such an issue might be the most important in that election campaign. I do not think that we have the equity that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

It saddens me that such a profoundly liberal gentleman as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is taking such a heavy-handed approach to independent candidates. Registered political parties will be able to register up to five descriptions and they can choose which descriptions they have. An independent person can register, or submit, one description for use on the ballot paper. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are entirely valid. It could be argued that the name ''Liberal Democrat'' sends out some political message, as does the word ''Conservative''.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Because it is the name of a party.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

But it presumably is not just the name of a party; it is the philosophy underlining the party. It could be argued that the hon. Gentleman's party gets two bites of the cherry by having it in the name and also having one of five descriptions.

We have to keep this in context. It is confusing if people are just registered as independents and are not allowed to differentiate themselves from other independents on the same ballot paper. The provision aims for clarity. It will allow independents to differentiate themselves from each other and to use descriptions of themselves in the way that registered political parties do. I cannot understand what the big fuss is about.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I am concerned. If I wanted to stand as a ''Conservative against the sustainable communities project'' in my constituency, I assume that that would be disallowed because it would not be one of the registered five slogans that my party might choose nationally. If, however, an independent stood as an ''Independent against the sustainable communities project'', that would be a powerful message in my constituency. Let us consider the number of electors who read our literature—we are talking about being inclusive. We like to think that every one of those electors reads our literature from beginning to end. The truth is—all research tells us this—that few do. That is one of the problems we face. The ballot paper therefore assumes greater importance.

The Minister has misunderstood the point made by Opposition Members. Will he at least tell us that he will rethink his position in the light of those statements? There is a built-in bias, in view of the example that I have just given.

David Cairns (Labour, Inverclyde)

Mr. Speaker—

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I appreciate the promotion.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.