Political Parties and Elections Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 November 2008.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Clause 12

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 10, line 20, leave out from ‘shall’ to end of line 26 and insert

‘amend the electoral register by means only of an additional entry at the end of the appropriate section of the register, until the appropriate publication date of an election.’.

This is a fairly uncontentious part of the Bill. The clause is perfectly reasonable and we do not argue with it but, as I have said several times during our proceedings, the problem is that of clarity. An anomaly in the clause could cause considerable problems and even disfranchise people if an election were held during the latter half of the year during the canvass period. The amendment is therefore intended to clear up the anomaly. It is technical, and I say at the outset that it is of a probing nature and if the Minister can convince the Committee that the anomaly can be dealt with in another way, possibly by a Government amendment, which would deal with matters more efficiently, I would be delighted to withdraw it.

While we welcome the intention to make it easier for people to register to vote, the anomaly arises whereby the voting ability is adversely affected between July and December in respect of people who are new to an area and therefore new to an electoral register because of rolling registration. As I am sure all members of the Committee know, the annual canvass of electors is conducted during the autumn and is compiled on the basis of residents at an address on 15 October in a particular year. The new register must be published by 1 December.

For example, during the autumn of 2007, there was considerable speculation that there might be a general election. It is not for me to commiserate with Ministers that there was no such election. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members seem happy about that, while others seem sad. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wirral, West says from a sedentary position that I have not seen the polls. I am sure that such matters are outwith the scope of the amendment. However, I have seen the polls and I am quite happy with them.

During the early autumn of last year, when making concrete plans for a possible general election, the electoral administrators were faced with the real possibility of an election taking place during the annual canvass period. There was much concern among them about whether a general election held before 1 December 2007 would use the register drawn up in October 2006 with the rolling register additions made during the year, or whether the 2007 canvass information could be used. I hope that I am being clear, but if I am not, it is because the whole situation is not clear, which is the very point that I am making.

The Electoral Commission subsequently, and quite rightly, issued guidance to electoral administrators, which stated that the 11-day rule for registering to vote before an election did not apply to the annual canvass. In other words, electors may have completed canvass forms, but they would not be added to the register until the new one was published in full by 1 December 2007. This meant that any elector not on the old register would have had to register by rolling registration by 17 October 2007 in order to vote at a general election held on 1 November 2007, or he or she would have been disfranchised. I am not concerned about 2007—that has been and gone, with no election—but this could happen in any future year when there might be a general election during the latter half of the year.

Electoral registration offices were advised by the Electoral Commission last year to use the information about new voters on return canvass forms to contact those new voters and ask them to fill in a rolling registration form. As long as this was done by 17 October 2007, they would appear on the register and would have been able to vote at an election on 1 November 2007. I am sure that the Committee will well understand that this is causing a lot of confusion. An electoral system which is not definite and which has any area of doubt in it is not a fair electoral system. In a close election that could cast doubt upon the very legitimacy of a Government. We do not want that in the United Kingdom; we need a system that is absolutely watertight, so that people know that when they have an entitlement to vote, they know how to vote, when to vote and that if they are on the electoral register then they are on the electoral register.

Under the current system, people may or may not be on the electoral register, which also produces an enormous burden upon the administrators who look after the practical workings of a general election. I say general election, because most other elections are on a specific date, when we all know well in advance that there will be an election on 4 June or 3 May. That is not a problem because the former register would have been in force from the previous 1 December and all electoral registration officers and anyone else concerned with elections would know for months that they were heading towards an election. However, with a general election, we sometimes only know for three weeks. To have this scramble to ensure that the right people are registered in the right place during the three weeks of a general election campaign puts the entire process into doubt. It is that doubt in the process that Opposition Members are constantly trying to avoid.

I am not making any party political points in my remarks about clause 12—this is nothing to do with party politics. When other parties look at the problems that might occur, they will find the same as I have in looking at this. The statistics show that, had there been an election last November, something like 1 million people could have been disfranchised. That is a very worrying situation. Electoral registers are updated by the process of rolling registration, which allows electors to go on or off the register as they actively ask the council to change their details. That is quite right—we have always supported rolling registration because it produces a more up-to-date and, therefore, accurate register. The problem that occurs, specifically for an election in the autumn of any year, is that while residents may be under the impression that their new details are on the register, they will not be if there is an election in November. If they take the additional step of filling out a rolling register update, they will not be able to vote in their previous constituency either, so people will fall between two stools if they try to do the right thing.

The people who will be most adversely affected are those who have recently moved home and students, who frequently move. Almost every year, students move from one address to another. Imagine the upheaval for someone who is in charge of a student house and who therefore has to fill in the details of some 20 or 25 students who move in or out every October. If there was a general election in a November, we might find that the wrong people were registered and that the right people did not get a vote at all. That matters because a few hundred votes here or there in a university town could decide the outcome of an election, and therefore it is a matter of great concern. I can see a particular hon. Gentleman who represents a university town grumbling in the wings, and quite rightly so. If the hon. Member for Cambridge comes up with a better solution than my amendment for getting round the problem, I will gladly support him.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. The hon. Member for Cambridge is very much in the Committee; he is not in the wings.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg your pardon, Sir Nicholas. I almost said that the hon. Gentleman was to my left. I meant that geographically. I tried to avoid using the phrase “on my left”, just in case metaphorically and politically he is not, because I am not sure about that.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I am.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confirming that he is on my left, which is quite likely. He is both geographically and politically on my left and not in the wings at all. I do apologise to him.

I return to my concern, which was expressed publicly and vociferously by John Turner, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, who warned of the worst logistical challenge in living memory for electoral administrators. In an interview on the BBC’s “Politics Show” on 30 September 2007 he said:

“nobody sitting in my place could guarantee that it will be less than trouble-free, and the real problem is that we could run into uncharted water in terms of these problems that we’ve just been talking about.”

What he had been talking about was the effect of the rolling register. We have also been warned by others who are involved in the running of elections that clause 12 could inadvertently cause an enormous problem.

The last thing that we want in Britain is the hanging chad situation that they had some years ago in the United States. Surely, we want respect for our electoral system, and we do not want challenges to be made to the outcome of elections. We also need certainty. It is perfectly possible that the hon. Gentleman, for example, might win or lose his election in a university town by some 100 or 200 votes.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Unlikely.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

It may be unlikely, and I will not upset the hon. Gentleman with possible predictions—in any case, I am not in any position to make such predictions—but it is technically possible. It is also technically possible that the hon. Gentleman might hold the balance of power in this place. There might be equal numbers on either side of the House apart from the hon. Gentleman. What if there was a challenge to the outcome of his election? I use the hon. Gentleman only as an example, because, sitting as he is to my left, he is a winning example. However, there are many such seats throughout the country, which could mean, if the outcome of an election was uncertain, the outcome of the entire general election could be uncertain. We have been warned about that in advance, so we must take that into consideration now.

The problem is in the renumbering of the register. What happens is that electoral registration officers renumber the register, therefore creating uncertainty. Of course they renumber the register when they produce a new register; that is perfectly reasonable, logical, essential and part of a process. However, what if they do that in the last 11 days before polling day? Political parties carrying out canvassing will not be able to match up the numbers on the previous register with the numbers on the register on polling day, but that is a side issue which may concern us as prospective candidates in elections and is not my main concern. My main point is that there is a danger that polling cards, for example, which have been issued prior to the 11 days before the election, will have a different number on them for some electors—those whose numbers have changed because someone has been inserted into the register. Therefore, when polling cards have already been sent out with one number on them, if there is a new register in front of the electoral registration officer or polling clerk on the day of the election, the number might be different. If the Minister tells me that that is not the case, I shall be delighted, but it looks to me as if it is.

Another thing that I am concerned about is the importance of checking where donations are coming from, which we have talked about for many hours during the passage of the Bill. One of the ways of checking whether a candidate can accept a donation from any particular person is by checking whether that person is registered on the electoral roll. A candidate has to be pretty sure when someone wants to give £500. We all have to stop and think whether we can accept the money, and one of the ways of checking is, of course, whether that person is on the electoral register. If the person is, prima facie, a candidate may say, “Right, that’s great, this person is in a legitimate position to give us this money. That is fine, we have checked it.” If there is any doubt about the electoral roll itself, that puts all of that checking into doubt as well. Once again, all I seek is clarity. The Bill already imposes—quite rightly—considerable duties on candidates, agents and volunteers to check donations, to ensure that everything is absolutely correct with accepting donations. If we start messing about with the electoral register in the last 11 days before an election, it puts all of that into doubt, which is a matter for great concern.

Amendment No. 17 requires the electoral registration officers to amend the register to take account of new voters. We want to make sure that everyone who has a right to vote is given that right in practice, so of course electoral registration officers should go ahead and amend the register to take account of new voters, but those new names should be put at the end of the register.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Has my hon. Friend seen anything in the Committee’s documentation on electoral registration officers asking about this issue? Where are they coming from?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. We have received evidence from electoral registration officers that they are worried about the matter and the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators has warned of the worst logistical challenge in living memory if matters were all to go wrong. We do not want the process to go wrong. The point of amendment No. 17 is to identify a possible loophole in the Bill and to help the Government to overcome the problems. The practical result of the amendment would be that the electoral registration officer would put the new names at the end of the register, thereby avoiding the need to renumber it until the next month, and following a general election.

I have proposed how the problem could be obviated. There could be a much cleverer or more practical way of getting round it. If the Minister and those immersed in the Ministry of Justice who know exactly how the system works can come up with a better solution than the amendment, I shall be delighted because it is merely my quick attempt to highlight the problem and suggest a way in which it might be put right.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Good morning to you, Sir Nicholas, and to members of the Committee. I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Government for clause 12. It attempts to resolve a problem which, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, affects a number of places, especially university towns, by changes in the electoral register in the canvass period in two respects: first-year students might not be on a register, and second and third-year students will have changed address, as a result of which there will be terrible confusion about where their polling card should go.

There is not a problem in the clause but, if there is, I am sure that the Minister will deal with it. However, there is a problem with the amendment, which is that it would remove the words

“shall take effect as from the beginning of that day”

from proposed subsection (6). Without those words, there would be a fundamental problem in the Bill.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. The hon. Member for Epping Forest rightly drew attention to misuse of the rolling canvass. I congratulate her on investing the clause with the significance of the highest order that few of us might have guessed before she started her remarks. She has raised real issues, but it is precisely those matters that the clause is designed to address. The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether the electoral administrators had been consulted. Yes, they have, and so has the Electoral Commission. All agree with our approach, which is that the provision will reduce its administrative burden in the event of an election being called during the canvass period.

Incidentally, the hon. Lady keeps referring to John Turner and his nightmare. That was hypothetical and would happen only if administrators had to issue rolling register forms. They will not do that, so she will be relieved to hear that nightmares are off the agenda. She asked whether the elector’s number will change when the register is republished in December. Yes, it will at that point, but it will not change when the notice amending the register is published. She made a specific point towards the end of her remarks, which I will address in some detail because it is important. It relates to the concern that clause 12 could result in a mass of new people being added to the electoral register shortly before an election and therefore it would be difficult to scrutinise their applications. That is a valid concern. However, in resisting the amendment, I hope to be able to demonstrate to her, and the Committee, that appropriate procedures are already in place to allow applications for registrations to be scrutinised by the public. I hope that in doing so, I shall bring the clarity that the hon. Lady seeks.

It is important that, in addition to the checks being made by registration officers, members of the public and parties can check a person’s eligibility to register—to help prevent fraud, among other things. At present, the provisions set out in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 provide a means for an elector’s eligibility to register to be scrutinised. Regulation 27 provides that an elector registered in the area of the local authority may make an objection to a person’s registration, whether before or after that person has been added to the register. Regulation 28 provides that an application for registration, including one made on a canvass form and any objection to a person’s registration, shall be made available for inspection at the registration officer’s premises, until the application has been determined. Regulation 29 sets out the procedure that must be followed by a registration officer when he or she determines applications for registration, or objections to a person’s registration without a hearing. Under this regulation, each registration officer is required to keep a list of all the applications for registration that still have to be determined. While there is no obligation to do so, in practice, each registration officer compiles this list by reference to the street name and the ward of the registrant and allows members of the public, or political parties, to inspect it, together with the registration applications.

Once an application for registration has been determined, clause 12 requires the registration officer to add new electors to the appropriate section of the register by the publication of a notice, which then becomes part of the register. It contains the name, ward, street and house number of each new elector, or person, removed from the register. That notice is published five days before the poll; it is available to political parties to inspect, or they can request that they be supplied with a copy. It is therefore already possible for members of the public and political parties to scrutinise applications for registration made before the poll.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Is it not currently the case that political parties are given a copy of the new list? Is the Minister now saying that they will have to request a copy?

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

It is absolutely the case that they will have to request a copy if they so wish, but it is readily available. I am not sure that that is an additional burden on the volunteers with whom we have been so rightly concerned throughout these proceedings.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Would that be at nil cost to the candidates?

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

No, it will not be at nil cost but it would be at a marginal cost. [Interruption.] I stand corrected, it will be at nil cost to the candidates. In other words, the costs would be borne by the electoral registration officer.

It is possible for these applications already to be scrutinised. It is also possible to see which new entries have been added to the register for the election by looking at the published 13BB notice. As mentioned, this amendment would also delete proposed new section 13BB(7) to the 1983 Act, which serves a useful purpose. It is quite feasible that an election may be called late in the canvass period, where registration officers have completed their annual canvass and wish to bring forward the publication of the register from 1 December to coincide with the poll. Deleting this subsection would leave the effect of the provision unclear and may mean that registration officers will not be able to deal with canvass forms in the usual manner, which is the quickest way of compiling the register.

We need to get the right balance between enabling as many people as possible to register to vote and being able to check that those who register are eligible. We believe that the current arrangement for making a list of applications and objections available for inspection and publishing a list of changes to the register achieves this end. I hope that in the light of that explanation the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank the Minister for his explanation. My reason for tabling the amendment has always been clarity. I am pleased by his explanation to the Committee this morning. We certainly welcome clause 12 in general, but I was concerned about the renumbering issue in particular. I would like him to confirm that I have got the following right: the register will not be renumbered during the month before an election if it falls within the canvass period. Given his undertaking that that is the intent of the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

There is another area of considerable concern, to do with the way in which electoral registration takes place. It comes within the scope of clause 12 and concerns service voters—serving members of Her Majesty’s forces, many of whom are now on active service in dangerous places. Before 2000, members of Her Majesty’s forces could register once in order to exercise their vote and their registration was valid for the whole time that they served in Her Majesty’s forces. Those service voters, and the members of their families who travelled with them, would move around the country and around the world because of the duties they undertook. When I say service voters, I am not speaking of serving people only, but of their families as well. Before 2000, being registered to vote was not an additional concern for someone in Her Majesty’s forces.

In 2000, the Government disfranchised thousands and thousands of people serving in the forces by making it compulsory for them to register every year. Unsurprisingly, as people were taken up with their duties on behalf of Her Majesty’s forces, sometimes they forgot to re-register. If someone is in a combat zone, I do not suppose that it is at the top of their list of concerns to think, “Oh goodness, it’s 15 October, I’d better register again to vote.” As we all know, there are other pressures on serving officers and their families.

In the Electoral Administration Act 2006, after we complained bitterly about the situation, the Government finally conceded that registration should be necessary by members of Her Majesty’s forces every three years only. The way in which clause 12 deals with how the canvass is done and registration is carried out will keep the provision that people have to register every three years. When hundreds of our servicemen and women are risking, and giving, their lives for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country by fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world, putting on them the burden of having to register every three years is wrong. Those people are literally risking, and giving, their lives for the very democracy that we are talking about, but they are often not able to take part in the democratic process, because they are disfranchised by the bureaucracy of having to register again and again. That is wrong, and the Government have an opportunity to put it right.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

This is an issue that I am extremely concerned about, and have been for several years. Clearly, the only issue that we should and can address today is the relationship between clause 12 and the methods that the Government have already put in place to try to ameliorate the problem. However, they have not fully ameliorated it, so I am not convinced. I want to know from the Minister—we shall find out—how much thought has gone into the relationship between clause 12 and the largely consultative, ad hoc measures for addressing the effective disfranchisement of a large proportion of our service voters.

It is important to explain and rehearse how we got into this mess, otherwise we shall not be clear on how or whether clause 12 can get us out of it. The problem all arose because, inadvertently, as a consequence of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, thousands of service voters—probably a third to half of them—and their families were removed from the register. They thought that they had been registered for the whole period of their service, which is what they were told when they joined, but they then discovered—a few of them, much later—that PPERA had disfranchised them. Their enfranchisement no longer applied, without there being any notification or information about how to get back on the register.

As a matter of fact, I was the one who uncovered the situation. At the time, I had two bases in my constituency, and I asked my returning officer in Chichester, casually, about the registration figures. He said, “Well, on Thorney island there has been a drop in registration.” I said, “Oh. By how much?” He said, “Forty-seven per cent.” About half those on the island, who are almost all service voters and their families, had been taken off the register. I raised that with the Government and the Electoral Commission, but I am afraid that I got dilatory responses.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to make his point, but it goes rather wider than clause 12, which deals with registration during the canvass period. However, I understand the importance of his point, so I shall use my discretion.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

Thank you very much, Sir Nicholas. It will be of particular concern to a large proportion of our service voters if they can have some assurance that this change will not inadvertently lead to another ill effect, as yet not thought out—I have not thought it out—just as no one thought out the effect of PPERA.

I could not persuade the Government to do anything about service voters before the 2005 election. The Ministry of Defence has to shoulder some responsibility for this, because the Department was aware of the situation but did nothing about it. In the Department’s defence, it was fighting a war, so one might argue that it had more important things on its mind—that is what the Ministry of Defence would argue.

Taking to heart your strictures about ensuring that my remarks are pertinent, Sir Nicholas, this is my last general point. It is particularly ironic that, as a country, we expected members of our military to put their lives at risk to extend democracy in countries such as Iraq while we were neglecting to ensure that they could vote in a general election. Furthermore, in that general election, the biggest single issue was the war in Iraq. That was absolutely extraordinary.

My questions to the Minister come in several parts. First, since he took office, has he examined the schemes that have been put in place to ameliorate the problem? I shall give time for the officials to prepare an answer. I understand the position, and I apologise to him for not telling him in advance what matters I intended to raise with him, as I can see from how he is scribbling that he regards them as important. Is he up to speed with knowing what has been done since I raised the matter previously? A number of us made a lot of noise about it in the House. Is he confident that the existing service register is functioning properly? What estimate does he have of registration as a proportion of the total service vote?

Given what the clause does to the rolling registration period, my second question concerns the effect that it will have on the level of service registration. Has it been taken into account? Have there been any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about it? Are we confident that it will have no ill effects?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, or whatever the phrase is. Everyone thought that PPERA would be all right, but it had the dramatic consequence of perhaps taking 100,000 service voters off the register. The effect of the clause will not be remotely as bad as that, but I am worried that the suspension of rolling registration embodied in it might inadvertently generate some ill effects for service voters.

Is the Minister ready to answer the questions? It seems as though he is getting near that point, so I shall gladly allow him to respond.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I will come to the points about service voters in a moment because, although they are slightly beyond the scope of the clause, I recognise their importance. The hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Chichester have described graphically the importance of such matters to those to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. I shall do my best to answer the specific questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. Before I do so, however, we must be clear about the overall purpose of the clause. It is designed to address a set of issues, which over the past year have become particularly clear to each member of the Committee.

The annual canvass of electors takes place each year from early summer to late autumn, and the purpose of the clause concerns the circumstances if an election were called during the annual canvass period. That is not common in recent history, but, as the hon. Lady tried to persuade us, we can never be certain of anything in this life. We need to be prepared for all eventualities. If an election were called during that period, a new application for registration recorded on the canvass form would result in eligible voters being added to the register for the poll. At the same time, administrators would be required to remove non-eligible electors from the register.

As the law stands, if an election is held during the annual canvass, the register can be amended in response to applications for registration made on an individual rolling registration form up to 11 days before the election. However, administrators may register only electors who complete and submit a canvass form on the publication of the revised register at the conclusion of the canvass, which may be after an election. An application for registration cannot be accepted even where there is clear evidence that a new elector or electors have moved into the household from which the form has been returned. The Government want to do everything we can to ensure that eligible voters are on the electoral register and have their say at the ballot box. The clause helps to achieve that aim.

On the potential disfranchisement of service voters, our proposed measures should—I say, “should”—help service and other voters who would otherwise be caught by the existing situation. My general response to the concerns raised is that we hope and expect the Bill to be of benefit. No one can rule out unforeseen consequences—the hon. Member for Chichester spelled out the risk—because they are, by their very nature, unforeseen, but we are sensitive to the issues.

The hon. Gentleman’s first question was about whether I have got fully up to speed on the issue since taking office. I took on responsibility for this area about three weeks ago. Am I as up to speed as I would have been had I been in post for a year? Probably not, but I am reasonably up to speed and I hope that I can give him some reassurance. If, however, there are issues that we cannot address in Committee—

Mr. Tyrierose—

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I recognise the importance of the issues, so I am happy to address concerns on the margins of the Committee and then write to all members of the Committee. I shall address some of the other concerns in a moment, but I am happy to give way.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

If the Minister is going to come to those issues, I am sorry to have interrupted.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

If I do not fully answer all the hon. Gentleman’s questions now, I will be happy to give way again.

I say straight away that there is a problem in identifying the degree of disfranchisement among service voters. That is partly because some of them are registered at their home address, which is sometimes difficult for electoral registration officers to determine. That is not for a second to query that there is an issue. I have no reason whatever to dispute the evidence given by the hon. Member for Chichester on the level of disfranchisement in his constituency, but I merely point out the fact that it is sometimes difficult to determine.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

I hope the Minister will not mind if I interrupt a few times to make suggestions. I put to him the thought that I have been begging to have him place on the issue for some time—a commitment to undertake a regular survey of a proportion of service voters to establish the level of registration in relation to the rest of the population. That should also include the families. If it were done, we would have a yardstick—a measure.

Even if the survey did not provide entirely accurate information, even the level of change would give us a high degree of information about whether the Government’s measures were working and how deep the problem that we have identified since the introduction of PPERA remained.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before the Minister replies, I must remind the hon. Member for Chichester that I used my discretion earlier. I shall continue to chair proceedings with a light hand, because I know how strongly he feels, but once again, this point, in the general sense in which he is raising it, goes much wider than the clause we are debating.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I accept your strictures, Sir Nicholas, but I hope that you will also extend a similarly light touch for a few sentences during which I shall address the general concern here.

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible suggestion and I am happy to carry it forward. He may be aware—I hope he is—that Ministry of Justice officials regularly hold round-table discussions with the Ministry of Defence, the Electoral Commission and others about how best to tackle the issue. There are regular drives to try to increase registration among service personnel, encouraging them to register.

I recognise that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made the important point that service personnel are often engaged in arduous, difficult and dangerous circumstances serving our country. In such circumstances, it is perhaps an unnecessary burden on them to have to remember to register and to feel obliged to do so when they have other things on their mind—that was her expression, I think. I understand that, but it is open to service personnel to appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf. That may or may not be considered satisfactory in individual circumstances, but it is available to them. It can continue indefinitely, although there are certain restrictions.

I hope that I have said enough in those few words to reassure hon. Members that we take the issue extremely seriously, as do the Ministry of Defence and the Electoral Commission. That is not to say that there is no room for improvement. I am happy, in my ministerial capacity, outwith the Committee’s remit—

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I will in a moment, but I want to give this assurance before I return to the substance of the clause. I am happy to carry on a dialogue with all hon. Members who are concerned about this issue and who have service personnel in their constituencies to ensure that we get it right. It is an important matter and we want to address it clearly.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

I met the Minister before he took office, so I know that he will take the issue seriously and look at it carefully. He has had only a few weeks to start thinking about it, and perhaps asking him to be up to speed was not quite the phrase that I should have used on the spur of the moment. The key issue with respect to the clause is whether there has been any consultation. Has there been any consultation with the Ministry of Defence? Has there been any consultation to try to establish what effect this will have, if any? That is a relevant question for him to look at, and if he said a few words about that I would be grateful.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

As I said in my opening remarks, we expect that the clause will help service personnel and others who will experience problems before it is brought into effect. We expect that to happen. The hon. Gentleman has made valuable suggestions for how we can improve levels of registration and ensure that, subject to the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady, service personnel are not disfranchised. We will do everything we can. We think that the clause will provide a significant improvement in circumstances should an election be held during the annual canvass period and I hope that the Committee will judge that it should be part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. I support clause 13. It will make for a more streamlined administration if the European elections are run by local authority returning officers. If those elections were run under parliamentary boundaries, the returning officers would be operating outwith the area or the council in which they are senior officer. The proposals make sense and it will make for a streamlined administration if the elections are run based on local authority boundaries. However, I want to raise a concern in relation to Scotland and Wales. I understand that this year, the clause will impact in Scotland and Wales only. As a result of the order that has already been passed to change the council elections in England to the same day as the European election, council returning officers will run the European elections in England. In Scotland and Wales, however, the present rules state that the returning officers for parliamentary constituencies run the elections.

The Electoral Commission has expressed concern that, as the Bill may not receive Royal Assent until March, the change will happen within only two or three months of polling day. The commission has always expressed the view that changes in legislation that affect elections should be put in place at least six months before the election date. Returning officers in Scotland and Wales have also expressed concern that if the change was to come into effect in March there might not be enough time, because preparations for the European elections will already have started.

I want to ask the Minister what his intentions are for bringing the clause into effect. Will he take the advice of the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators in Scotland and Wales, and not bring the clause into effect for Scotland and Wales until after this year’s European elections?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Admirably succinct.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has just expressed most of the concerns that I would have expressed, having also discussed the matter with the Electoral Commission. When the Electoral Commission comes forward with concerns, we must take it seriously—it is not doing so for any reason other than to try to make the system work better. Although I understand what clause 13 says and what it brings about, I cannot quite understand why the Government are bothering to make this change to a system that appeared to work perfectly well before. Is this because the Government have been told by the European Commission that this is the right thing to do in respect of European elections? [Interruption.] The Minister indicates that that is not the case. I accept that and will put that to one side. I am delighted, because in the United Kingdom we are perfectly capable of running our own elections the way we always have done, without any interference from those who sometimes think that they know better. However, it still puzzles me why this is necessary.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I can give the hon. Lady an example of an occurrence in my own constituency during the last local and Scottish elections. The postal votes are sent out by the returning officer, but because the Scottish parliamentary constituency and our local council constituency areas did not match up, it meant that returning officers were returning postal votes to a different local authority area from that in which they operated, which caused some confusion. This new clause will streamline that process.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I remember vividly the debate that we had in the Chamber about coterminosity. Members of the Committee who have never paid any attention to the workings of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish electoral issues will wonder what on earth I am talking about. Opposition Members warned that creating boundaries that are not coterminous would cause confusion at election times. At that point, we were talking about the non-coterminosity—it is getting worse. [Interruption.] The lack of terminosity, if the hon. Gentleman accepts that term, between Westminster constituencies and Scottish parliamentary constituencies is bound to lead to some confusion.

According to the hon. Gentleman—he is absolutely right—the lack of terminosity between the European boundaries and the local authority boundaries, which is, to some extent, inevitable, is causing a problem. I accept that and I accept that the problem should be put right. However, the Electoral Commission has concerns, as the hon. Gentleman has also expressed, about the possibility of this part of the Bill coming into effect a very short time before the forthcoming European elections. I share that concern and I therefore wish to express it on behalf of Opposition Members. I am sure that the Minister will have an answer to that, so I shall allow him to give us that answer.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. I was not going to make any remarks on this particular clause until I heard the curious remarks made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute about the commencement of this clause. We need to hear from the Minister that there is no intention whatever of commencing this clause prior to the European elections in 2009, as we would be in a very curious situation whereby it would have different applications in Scotland, Wales and England. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are no local authority elections in Scotland in June, so there is no order on the Table that would combine local authority and European elections in Scotland or Wales. In Scotland, under existing guidelines, matters would still be determined in accordance with Westminster constituencies. I am not too worried about that because it is always good to have a snapshot of how well we are doing in our constituencies when it comes to European elections, but I am concerned about coterminosity in such matters.

It is worth while pointing out that Scotland is one region, according to European elections, and that it is not broken down into Scottish Parliament or Westminster constituencies. It would therefore be of benefit for matters to be determined on a local authority basis so that they would be clearly understood. I hope that the Minister agrees with the Electoral Commission that no new measures should be put in place six months before an election, and that we can have a guarantee that there is no intention of the clause commencing before the European elections next year.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

May I first clarify matters? When the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire referred to Scotland as a region, is that how he sees the position?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire)

It is an electoral region for European elections. That is not my definition, but the definition that has been given.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am delighted to have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity for clarification.

I wish to make some general remarks before I deal with the specific concerns that have been raised. The purpose of the clause is to substitute a new definition of “local returning officer” under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, so that the local returning officers for European parliamentary elections held in England, Wales and Scotland are returning officers for local authority elections in those parts of the United Kingdom rather than the returning officers for the United Kingdom parliamentary elections.

That change, together with a subsequent change in secondary legislation made under the 2002 Act, will enable future European parliamentary elections to be administered on a permanent basis by local authority returning officers along the lines of local authority areas, which will assist in the effective administration of European parliamentary elections. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who I am sure will be fascinated by such matters, that such a change was not suggested by the European Commission, but by election administrators. They welcome the change because it will ease the complexities in running European elections and will provide certainty in their planning. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute gave a good illustration of that.

In response to concerns raised by various people, including members of the Electoral Commission, we cannot be certain at this stage exactly when the Bill will receive Royal Assent. We certainly cannot be certain that it will receive it in time for the provision on boundaries to be implemented for the European elections on 4 June 2009. We have therefore been exploring other options. After consultation, we decided to exercise powers under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and to make an order that will move the date of local government elections in England in May 2009 to the date of the European elections in June 2009. That order has now been made, after debates in both Houses.

Under that order, we have made the necessary modifications to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, and the regulations made under that Act, to enable the European elections in England 2009 to be administered on local government boundaries. There are no scheduled local government elections in May 2009 in Scotland and Wales, nor are there any powers to refine the definition of “local returning officer” under secondary legislation so that European elections in Scotland and Wales are run at a local level by local authority returning officers. We are exploring with colleagues in Scotland and Wales whether it may be possible to deal with the issue within the existing legislative framework, but I assure the Committee that we shall not commence the clause in 2009 for the European elections. However, the change will provide certainty on the issue for the future European parliamentary elections, and I hope that the Committee will support it.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before we come to the Government new clauses, I remind the Committee that we are scheduled to conclude our deliberations on the Bill at 4 o’clock on Thursday, which leaves approximately nine hours of further debate, if we work to the normal hours of a Public Bill Committee. I am entirely impartial, but I feel from time to time that it is helpful to remind the Committee of the programme motion and of the timetable. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful to hon. Members for that indication of support.

New Clause 17

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 127.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I shall be brisk. The purpose of the new clause and the amendment is to transfer responsibility for storage and provision of access to UK parliamentary election records and documents in Scotland, including the marked register, from sheriff clerks to the parliamentary returning officer. The overall aim of the provision is to improve access to the documents, particularly for parliamentary colleagues.

After a Westminster election has been contested in Scotland, election material, including the marked register, is sent by the constituency returning officers to a local sheriff clerk for safe keeping. The sheriff clerk is obliged to make some of the material available for public inspection and to destroy all the material after a year, unless otherwise ordered. However, there have been difficulties with the current arrangements, including around access and the fees to be charged, and sheriff clerks’ offices do not feel that they are set up to carry out those functions effectively.

The change will bring Scotland more into line with the position in England and Wales, where local authorities, through electoral registration officers or acting returning officers, are responsible for those functions by virtue of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, as well as for existing arrangements in Scotland for local government and European election records.

The new provision has the full support of stakeholders in Scotland, including electoral administrators, political parties and the Electoral Commission.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The new clause seems perfectly reasonable, but I always have to question Ministers when they say, “Such and such a measure brings Scotland more closely into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.” As a principle, I do not see why Scotland has to be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I was not suggesting anything other than that the people in Scotland have asked us to do this and we are responding to their wishes.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank the Minister for that explanation, which I entirely accept.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

That is what they said in 1707.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

If my hon. Friend mentions 1707 in the same vein, I understand why. I was merely suggesting that sometimes it would be good if the rest of the United Kingdom came into line with Scotland, which has an excellent legal system and many other excellent institutions.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I cannot resist asking the hon. Lady whether she believes that that should also be the case for local government electoral systems.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks the question, but in that it would not be best for the rest of the United Kingdom to come into line with Scotland. I was thinking more along the lines of the excellent Scottish legal system, which is based on extremely good principles that have lasted many centuries—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I am not allowing this debate. Please let us concentrate on the Government new clause.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

On the Government new clause, I give way to the Minister.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am afraid, Sir Nicholas, that I was about to divert from the new clause.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am glad you did not.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

We support the Government new clause, with the caveat that, as a principle, it is not always right to bring Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, just for the sake of it. I declare an interest and admit a bias, as I am a Scots lawyer. That is the problem. Having made my small protest on principle, I accept that this is something that the electoral administrators and others in Scotland have asked for. It makes perfect sense and we support the new clause.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I, too, support the new clause. To make a more streamlined administration, it makes sense that, if a returning officer is in charge of all aspects of an election, he or she should also be in charge of what happens to the documents after polling day.

The Minister referred to problems of access with the sheriff courts and with fees. I can confirm those, having experienced similar problems. The new clause, combined with an order passed recently on the fee structure, will improve the administration. I have one question for him: is it the Government’s intention to introduce legislation so that documents are dealt with in the same way after Scottish Parliament elections?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire)

I very much agree with the new clause. Historically, the sheriff clerk has looked after the documents because he was given the task of ensuring that the electoral register was compiled. There is a good case for saying that that task should be returned to returning officers and local authority chief executives. That is what we want in Scotland and it is something I particularly support.

My question for the Minister is along the same lines as the question asked by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute: what happens to the Scottish Parliament? As far as I understand it, an amendment would have to be made to the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007, so that the practice could be introduced for the Scottish Parliament as well. That prompts the question, why is Westminster making these tinkering amendments to Scottish elections? We have had the Gould report in the last few months, which addressed the biggest post-war electoral disaster—

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The SNP won.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire)

About 147,000 voters were disfranchised. I am disappointed at the hon. Gentleman’s flippant remark.

Almost 150,000 people were disfranchised during the Scottish Parliament elections. That suggests to me more than anything that the powers and responsibilities for arranging Scottish elections should be returned to the Scottish Parliament, instead of having these little orders coming through Westminster to ensure that we are up to speed on new electoral law. I want the Minister to confirm that there will be an opportunity for local authority chief executives in Scotland to be responsible for the Scottish Parliament elections, as well as for the Westminster elections.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

I have one brief point to make. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, we are talking about the storage of election material—if there is a row, we will have something to refer to afterwards.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

And access.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

And access, indeed.

We are changing the norm only with respect to Scotland. I do not want to detain the Committee, but I have thought for a long time about the access provisions in England and Scotland—we have been discussing bringing Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom—and wondered whether the arrangements that we have for the rest of the United Kingdom are the right ones. I raise that in the context of what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest referred to earlier—the so-called hanging chads issue.

Will the Minister consider taking a look at the so-called sunshine provisions that operate in a number of states in the United States? Those provisions enable a much higher level of access to information than is available under most UK law, and they can provide a high level of reassurance about the integrity of an election result. I do not know whether that was considered in the Gould report, because I confess that I have not read anything other than summaries of it, but I suspect that it may have been alluded to as part of that advice.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

In relation to the points made by the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute and for Perth and North Perthshire, the intention is to make similar provision for Scottish Parliament election records and access through Scottish secondary legislation. I understand that that is likely to be the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010. The intention is also to apply revised access provisions as provided for under sections 42 to 44 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006.

I will resist the temptation to pursue the other points raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. With great reluctance, I restrain myself on that, but I am sure that we shall return to the subject.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester, I am ideologically disposed towards sunshine and am happy to consider the matter. If I may, I shall investigate further and write to him, as I think that it is slightly outside the Committee’s remit, but I am interested in what he has to say.

New Clause 18

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a), at end of new subsection (4)(a) insert

‘from a list of up to three persons who are not disqualified to serve as an MEP and whose names and electoral numbers had been submitted along with the nomination papers of the previous MEP at the previous election.’.

Amendment (b), in new subsection (4)(b) leave out from ‘apply’ to end and insert

‘, by the highest ranking person who is not disqualified to serve as an MEP and whose name and electoral number had been submitted on an ordered list of up to three persons along with the previous MEP’s nomination papers at the previous election.’.

Government amendment No. 128.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

The new clause facilitates reform of the system for filling vacant European parliamentary seats in Northern Ireland. It is important because Northern Ireland does not operate a party list system. Under section 5 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, vacant seats can be filled only by having a by-election.

European elections in Northern Ireland are held under the single transferable vote form of proportional representation. Concerns have been raised with us that a by-election under that system has the potential to provide for the disproportionate representation of certain parties. That is a particular issue in the context of Northern Ireland, where proportionate representation is of real importance.

The Northern Ireland political parties and other interested groups expressed concerns about the current system and requested that the Government explore options for reform. That is why we have introduced the new clause. We have consulted all the relevant parties. They are all content with the proposals. We have consulted the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, who is also content. We therefore believe that people are generally content with the proposals.

Earlier this year, the Government proposed that the nominating officer of the political party in whose name the Member of the European Parliament stood when elected should be able to nominate a replacement to fill a vacant European parliamentary seat. Generally, electors vote for representatives of political parties because they support the party’s position on certain matters, in line with the party’s manifesto. However much we as individuals would all like to believe that that was otherwise, we generally accept that it is the position. Therefore, should a vacancy arise, it makes sense for that party to decide who should fill the seat.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister seems to think that the choice of electors would be the same two years on. It may be different. What is he doing about that?

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I will come to precisely that point. There is no perfect system in such a circumstance, and I stress that it is relatively unlikely that a vacancy will arise. It is possible, but most of the time Members of the European Parliament see through their full term. As we may see in further debate on the issue, the alternatives also create problems in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

It makes sense for the party to decide who should fill the seat. Under that system, Members of the European Parliament who did not belong to a political party when elected could submit a list of substitutes when returned, which could be used to fill the seat and could be modified as necessary.

The proposals were the subject of a full public consultation, and they received strong support among the Northern Ireland parties and other interested groups, so new clause 18 amends section 5 of the 2002 Act to add proposed new subsection (4), enabling regulations to be made that provide for the nominating officer of the relevant political party to nominate a replacement Member of the European Parliament in the event that a European Parliament seat held by that party becomes vacant.

I should point out to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight the fact that in a democratic system voters elect Members of Parliament or Members of the European Parliament for the full term. What he suggests would in some sense compromise that principle. I recognise that the issue is difficult, and can be debated either way, but I ask him to reflect on that fundamental democratic principle. We do not shift our position on who should remain in Parliament on the basis of opinion polls. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is the system that operates.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am happy to, although I suspect that we shall diverge a little from the clause and Northern Ireland.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Not for long.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Without going off the trail of Northern Ireland, if a Westminster Member died there would be a by-election. Is that going to change?

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

No. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, we are dealing with a different system of elections in Northern Ireland. We have first past the post for parliamentary elections to Westminster, but we also have a different system in this context, and views will differ on its merits. In the specific context of Northern Ireland, that system and the methods in place to replace Members of the European Parliament, should they die or otherwise become unavailable to continue their term of office, could lead to specific problems. That is what the new clause is intended to deal with.

We have consulted widely on the new clause in Northern Ireland and have made provision in it for regulations to be made to permit Members of the European Parliament who did not belong to a political party when they were returned to submit a list from which a replacement MEP could, if required, be selected. Hon. Members will know that replacements for seats vacated by MEPs from a registered party in Great Britain are filled from the party’s list and no by-election is held. The proposed change will align Northern Ireland closer with that principle.

Amendment No. 128 simply provides for new clause 18 to come into effect on Royal Assent. Regulations will then be required to give full effect to the changes.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I draw the Minister’s attention to proposed new subsection (4)(b), which the new clause will insert in section 5 of the 2002 Act, which deals with the death of someone elected as an independent.

The Minister mentioned the possibility of a list being used in that case, but there is nothing in the new clause to determine who on the list would be nominated. If the independent MEP died having only submitted a list, who would decide which person on the list would be nominated in his place?

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks; he raises an important point. The process is difficult with independents, as he says. We intend to cover the point in more detail in regulations, and I hope that the Committee will bear with us on that.

The issue is complicated and we must bear in mind the very specific circumstances of Northern Ireland. However, we intend that independent MEPs in that context will be able to submit a list of substitutes when they are returned. That list may be changed by the independent Member by notifying the chief electoral officer during the term.

I hope that the Committee will support the new clause and amendment No. 128, so that in the event of a vacancy arising during a term, the views of the people of Northern Ireland will continue to be represented proportionately in the European Parliament.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I support amendments (a) and (b). I want to say at the outset that I believe that the single transferable vote system is the best and fairest system of election. I am delighted that it is used in Northern Ireland European elections and wish that exactly the same system were used in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I accept that nothing is perfect, and that there is one imperfection with the single transferable vote, which is how vacancies are handled.

There are two obvious options: one is a by-election, which is how the law stands in Northern Ireland, and the other is nomination, as Government new clause 18 provides. The problem with a by-election is that even if everybody voted for exactly the same party that they voted for in the previous general election, somebody from a different party could be elected if the vacancy had occurred because of the death or resignation of someone representing a party that had not got the most votes in that constituency. That is the problem that can arise with by-elections under STV.

The system of nomination also has defects: there is no public scrutiny of the person who becomes the MEP, and it also lays the way open for political parties to nominate a well known public figure at the election. If that well known public figure got elected, they could resign a few days later and be replaced by someone totally unknown to the electorate.

In most circumstances, a by-election is the best way to fill a vacancy under STV, which is what the Scottish Parliament decided when it introduced the STV for local government in Scotland. That system has worked well. As I said earlier, even if people voted the same way as in the previous election, that could result in someone from a different party getting elected. We are all aware that, even under first past the post, by-elections are different beasts from general elections. A significant number of by-elections—local government and parliamentary by-elections—result in someone from a different party being elected.

Normally, I prefer the STV system to fill vacancies in a by-election. However, Northern Ireland is different, as the Minister said. We need to ensure that we balance the interests of the whole community in Northern Ireland. All our European elections in Northern Ireland have resulted in two Unionists and one nationalist being elected. A problem could arise if the nationalist MEP died or resigned. The by-election would almost certainly result in a Unionist being elected, so we would have three Unionists and no nationalists in the European Parliament.

In the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland, I agree with the Government on using nomination to fill the vacancy. We tabled amendments (a) and (b) because the Government’s new clause will allow political parties to nominate somebody who will go through no public scrutiny. We all know that parties put forward prospective candidates. There are circumstances in which the media questions that candidate, or something arises in that candidate’s background that causes the candidate to withdraw. Even in list systems—parties put forward lists for the European Parliament—the media can question someone lower down the list even though that person has no chance of getting elected. If anything damaging is said by that person, it might damage the political party’s chances of winning votes in the election.

It is important that the people who are nominated to fill vacancies are known to the electorate before they cast their votes in the European election. That is why we have tabled amendments (a) and (b). Amendment (a) refers to the circumstances in which somebody representing a political party has been elected. Along with that person, there would have to be three possible substitutes nominated. Their names would be published so that the electorate knew that if they were voting for that person, there would be a possibility that one of the three nominated substitutes could become the MEP if that person died or resigned. Therefore, when a vacancy arose, the political party would choose one name from the list of three.

Our amendment would not allow for that political party to add other people to the list. The important thing is that anybody who becomes an MEP should be known to the electorate at the time of the original election. That would be the effect of our amendment.

We have not said that the list should be ordered because there could be problems if the person at the top of the list defected to another party or became seriously ill. We have said only that the three possible substitutes should be known at the time of the election.

Amendment (b) relates to independence, which I raised with the Minister earlier. In this case, the list must be ordered. If the independent candidate dies, there is no way—unless they wrote something in their will—that they can come back from the grave and decide which of the three substitutes should become the elected representative. The Minister said that that matter would be tackled by secondary legislation, but the best way to tackle it would be to accept amendment (b). At the time of his election, the independent candidate would submit an ordered list of three people. If a vacancy arose, it would be filled by the highest ranking surviving person on that list.

The Government new clause sets the right principles of nomination, but I urge the Government to accept amendments (a) and (b). Potential MEPs must put themselves forward at election time and undergo public scrutiny. They should not merely be nominated by their party and appear from nowhere after the vacancy has arisen.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

It is strange to debate the reintroduction of a sort of hereditary principle as part of the Bill, but that is really what new clause 18 brings about. It would save a lot of time and difficulty if, when standing for election, each of us could say, “If I do not make it to the end of this Parliament, I would like so and so to take my place.” Many political parties have worked like that in the past, but I am delighted that none of us work like that now. Of course, I see why the Government want to introduce the provision in respect of Northern Ireland, and I support what they are trying to do. That is perfectly reasonable.

We support amendments (a) and (b) as proposed by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. They produce greater clarity—again, I return to that point—about how the system would work. In recent weeks until 4 November, newspapers around the world were full of the succession question: if John McCain were elected as President of the United States, would Sarah Palin take on that role in the event of a catastrophic event that removed John McCain? It seems that—against the better judgment of some of us—the people of the United States decided, for some unfathomable reason, that that succession was not to be risked. Actually, that is not correct. The reason was not unfathomable; it took up thousands of columns in newspapers throughout the world.

When the hon. Gentleman was speaking, it struck me that this is the same principle. If we elect a person, we should know who would take over that position should they not complete a term in office. Normally, our democratic system depends on by-elections. If it were not for them, we would surely get bored between elections—they are an essential part of our system.

I support what the hon. Gentleman has said and I hope that the Government will consider the amendments favourably as they would clarify what would happen under new clause 18. I am also concerned about what is meant by the phrase “specified circumstances.” New clause 18 refers to certain issues occurring in “specified circumstances”, but what are they? The lack of transparency of new clause 18 was the issue that concerned me most. However, when someone votes, they should know what substitutes the elected representative has put in place, as they would perhaps subsequently become the elected representative for that particular place. The voter ought to know that. It is not fair to ask a voter to go into the polling booth and elect Mr. A without knowing that he carries Mrs. B with him. It is wrong for that information not to be given to a voter. It would be perfectly possible to put that information before a voter in the two specific circumstances referred to in amendments (a) and (b), while keeping the Government’s overall intention of maintaining the balance within the specific unusual circumstances of the Northern Ireland elections. We all understand and support that intention.

The other slightly worrying thing is that the basis of new clause 18 is the assumption that people vote on party lines alone and not on other factors related to a candidate. I accept that the Minister put that forward as a reasonable argument and that people do largely vote on party lines. However, sometimes the particular candidate matters as well. I am always suspicious of giving political parties more power and taking that power away from the individual—for example, the list system for European elections gives far more power to a political party and takes power away from the individual. If power is taken away from the individual, it is taken away from the voter because if the voter does not know who is accountable, they cannot get rid of that person. The voter therefore has less power and the political party has more power.

Once again, we come back to the basis of our democracy, which is what the Bill is about. The way in which our democracy works is the basis of our democracy. The more power that is given to political parties and the less power that is given to the individual and the voter, the weaker the democratic system is because it is much more difficult for the people to speak. It is much more difficult for the people to be heard if the panoply of party political power gets in the way. Having said that, I reiterate that we understand why there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland. If the clause were to apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, it would be totally and utterly unacceptable. However, for the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, it is acceptable. The measure is much improved by amendments (a) and (b) and I hope that the Government will take those seriously.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

May I assist the Committee—particularly the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute? I say this, of course, before the Minister has replied to the debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to press one or both of his amendments to a Division, he will need to make it clear during the debate. As I say, the Minister is yet to reply, but I have to advise him that if he does not make it clear, the Chair will proceed to put the question on adding the clause to the Bill straight away. I hope that will help the hon. Gentleman to make up his mind. Of course, we now depend on the Minister’s reply.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute at any point during my relatively brief remarks. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epping Forest for their understanding of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. We all accept that. Unfortunately, like the people of the United States of America, I shall reject the advice of the hon. Lady.

The amendments will more carefully align the method of filling seats with the current method of filling vacancies in the Northern Ireland Assembly where a list of up to six possible substitutes can be submitted prior to the election. However, hon. Members may be aware that the Government recently laid an order to change the method for filling vacancies in the Assembly to one similar to that proposed in new clause 18. When consulting on possible changes to the method of filling vacant European parliamentary seats, the Northern Ireland Office also consulted on changes to the method of filling vacant Assembly seats. The consultation paper noted that the current substitutes method used to fill seats in the Assembly can be problematic in situations where those designated as substitutes are unwilling or unable to fill the seat when the vacancy arises, particularly if they have assumed other responsibilities during the Assembly term or if other factors have emerged since they were first listed as a substitute. Indeed, the person may have defected from the party to which they belonged when they were listed as a substitute.

The vast majority of respondents to the consultations, including the four largest political parties in Northern Ireland, agreed that reform was needed. With that in mind, I hope that the Committee will agree that it is not appropriate now that the system has been changed to reintroduce a system for filling—

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I am interested in what the Minister is saying. Can he give any instances in which the problem to which he refers actually happened, and what the resolution was?

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

It is not so much whether it has actually happened. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is a possibility that it could happen and, as we have heard many times in this Committee, we must legislate for reasonable possibilities as well. With that in mind—given that we have conducted the consultation and that the four largest political parties in Northern Ireland agree that the changes should be made to the Northern Ireland Assembly—the changes in new clause 18 would align the method for filling vacancies in the Northern Ireland Assembly with that for filling vacancies in the European Parliament. It seems almost perverse to accept amendments that would return to a system that the four largest political parties in Northern Ireland want to change.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Just to put it on the record, it does not have the consent of the fifth largest party, the Alliance party. There is another way out of the problem. France, I believe, has a supplÃ(c)ant system for elections to the National Assembly. A party can put forward a supplÃ(c)ant, and if the supplÃ(c)ant does not want to do the job, a by-election must be held. That risk is up to the party.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

We have discussed by-elections, and I was careful to say “the four largest political parties in Northern Ireland”. That is an important consideration. As I said, it would be perverse not to seek to align the two systems, and I very much hope—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that I have just been informed that, although the consultation was widespread, the Alliance party did not respond to it, which might account for the fact that it is not part of the consensus. However, I am not sure that it would be anything other than perverse to resist the amendments, and I hope that the Committee will not do so.

New Clause 19

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 129.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am moving this clause now because it is necessary for the successful implementation of the co-ordinated online record of electors scheme, and if we do not pass it, there may be delays in the implementation of the scheme. Subsection (2) expands the circumstances in which the CORE keeper must inform an electoral registration officer that improprieties involving electoral records or potential absent voter fraud may have arisen.

As for postal votes, the CORE keeper will now be required to notify electoral registration officers when more than a specified number of postal votes are requested for a single address, as well as for a redirection address. That is in response to feedback from electoral registration officers that the number of postal vote redirections is minimal and that there would be greater value in looking at all instances when large numbers of postal votes have been requested to close the opportunity for postal vote fraud to occur.

The new clause also provides that the CORE keeper will be required to notify electoral registration officers when the same person is appointed or votes as proxy for more than two electors. Being appointed as proxy for more than two electors is not in itself an offence, but voting as proxy for more than two electors who are not close relatives is. The new clause will provide an opportunity for electoral registration officers to remind those appointed as proxies of the legal position.

Subsection (3) of the new clause extends the Secretary of State’s order-making powers in respect of a CORE scheme order so that he or she can require an electoral registration officer to take steps, if any, that seem to the electoral registration officer to be an appropriate response to a notification from the CORE keeper. It will be the responsibility of the electoral registration officer to decide what steps should be taken or whether steps should be taken at all. That is consistent with the nature of the statutory appointment of electoral registration officers, in that they are ultimately responsible for their own electoral registers. When deciding how to respond to a notification from the CORE keeper, electoral registration officers will be free to make best use of their professional judgment, local knowledge and experience.

Subsection (3) also requires electoral registration officers to report to the CORE keeper about either the steps taken in response to information provided by the CORE keeper or the reasons for not taking steps. That will enable the CORE keeper to maintain an overview of how the CORE scheme is running and ensure consistency throughout the scheme. Subsection (4) of the new clause allows the CORE keeper to provide relevant information to an electoral registration officer when the CORE keeper has a suspicion that an offence has been committed or may have been committed under the Representation of the People Act 1983 or that there has been some other impropriety.

Subsection (5) of the new clause allows a CORE scheme to provide for the electoral registration officers to share information with each other for the purposes of responding to information supplied by the CORE keeper under the provisions. That will allow electoral registration officers to work together across electoral boundaries for the purpose of taking steps in response to notifications from the CORE keeper. The new clause is essential to the detection of fraud and in making sure that the prevention functions of the CORE scheme work effectively. It will ensure that the CORE scheme can be delivered without unnecessary delay.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am pleased that the Minister has tabled the new clause because we support all efforts that are made by the Government to stop electoral fraud. As I have said several times, we want the workings of our democratic system to be absolutely watertight and we are in favour of every reasonable measure taken to ensure that that is brought about. When the CORE scheme was introduced, we supported it for that reason.

However, I am worried that, in the few years since the scheme was introduced, it has not achieved anything. Little has been done, but it has cost a lot of money. If that money were invested in improving our record on electoral fraud, I would be all in favour of it, but we have seen a lot of money spent and little result. The Minister might explain that there is a long time lag in the spending of money and the setting up of some parts of the CORE scheme. If he does, I will have to accept that. However, when we first discussed the matter during consideration of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 some three years ago, we all hoped that something along the lines of CORE would happen. We hoped that by the time we were looking at another general election and the important European elections that we are about to face, the CORE scheme might be achieving something.

However, in a written answer to a question that I put to the Minister a couple of weeks ago, we discover that to date, the staff costs of CORE are £2.78 million and that £1.73 million has been spent

“to enable local authorities’ electoral management systems to output data in an agreed Election Mark Up Language (EML) format.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2008; Vol. 481, c. 559W.]

I accept that those sums, and the other several thousands of pounds that have been spent in the intervening period, are necessary. One does not get the results if one does not invest in the technology—I am in favour of that. However, I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister in this respect.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

To clarify the point, is the hon. Lady suggesting that we should not spend this money on getting an agreed system for outputting data?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

No, not at all. I am saying that if we can see that this expenditure is investment in a good system to combat fraud, we are certainly in favour of it. I am not suggesting that it is an enormous amount of money; it is a few million pounds, and when covering the whole country, I accept that that is what these things cost. Every penny of taxpayers’ money spent in this way will be well spent if it brings about the result that we hope for.

However, two aspects in particular concern me. I am sure that the Minister is aware of these points and will be able to address them. The first is that, generally, the Government’s record on investing in technology has not been good. In the Ministry of Justice alone, several projects have gone way over budget and have not achieved what they ought to have achieved. I am not suggesting that that has yet happened with the CORE scheme. I also appreciate that the Minister has not had responsibility for this area of policy development for very long, so I do not hold him personally responsible, or suggest that he has not carried out his duties properly. However, we have had many examples of massive expenditure on Government technology, on computer systems that do not work, on new technology which promises the earth and where Ministers announce in the House, “We will be able to achieve x, y and z because we have spent £10 million on a, b and c,” and it does not happen. People rely on technology and it does not work. Not only do the Government not achieve what they set out to achieve, but they are often in a worse position than they were before they spent all the money on the technology.

I hope that that will not happen with CORE. I am not suggesting that the evidence we have so far indicates that the whole CORE project is likely to fail and I seriously hope that it does not. We want this project to work; we want the fight against electoral fraud to be won and we will do all we can to support the Government in that respect. I merely draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that some of his colleagues have been very unsuccessful in bringing about good end results in the technology projects that they have started. I hope that he will be able to assure us that vast amounts of money will not be spent on CORE to no avail. I appreciate that he may have good explanations of why it has not achieved anything yet, but I would like to give him the opportunity to say what it will achieve in future, hopefully without the spending of further enormous amounts of taxpayers’ money.

My second concern is the security of data, another matter on which the Government have a bad track record. Again, it is not this Minister and this project that have been in trouble—far from it. Let us hope that they never will be. However, even he must admit that his colleagues in many Departments have been responsible for massive losses of data that should have been kept secure and safeguarded on behalf of the members of the public to whom it related. My one concern—[Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Please, one speaker.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas.

My one concern when I first looked at the proposals for a co-ordinated online record of electors was that it was yet another instance of the Government bringing enormous amounts of information to a central point. There is always a danger in that, because, as we have seen with child benefit, many Ministry of Defence information sources, even provisional driving licences and many more examples that I shall not take the Committee’s time to explore, the more the Government bring vast amounts of information together in a central place, the more risk there is of that information going astray. We do not want that to happen in the case of CORE.

I seek assurances that the Minister has learned from the mistakes of his colleagues and that the data security aspect of the provision will be taken into consideration. It is unimaginable what a catastrophic effect there would be if the information concerned were brought to a central point and then lost. I assume that the technology will be good enough that the information would not be lost for ever, which would be quite ridiculous. If the information got into the wrong hands, even if it were not used for nefarious purposes, it could certainly be used to send so much junk mail that although it might be good for the economic prospects of the Post Office, it certainly would not be good in terms of the amount of paper engendered and the number of trees cut down.

That is just one way that I can think of in which such information could be used. I hope that it would not be, and I sincerely hope that the real purpose of the CORE project will be advanced securely and with good use of taxpayers’ money and careful regard for the information about individual citizens of this country that will be held in a central point. I seek those assurances merely because we would like to be able to support the Government’s new clause.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

First, I congratulate the hon. Lady for managing to make so many generic points out of what is rather a modest little amendment to the CORE provisions, enabling us to tackle fraud even more effectively than we are already tackling it, which I hope is an objective that all of us on the Committee share. None the less, she has raised some interesting points and I will briefly address them.

I start by gently pointing out to the hon. Lady that there may just be a contradiction between the various points that she has raised. On the one hand, she appears to be criticising us for what she described as delaying bringing CORE on stream. On the other hand, she said that she hoped that we would be extremely careful to ensure that money was well spent and that we took great care in ensuring that the data were stored securely. I would like to suggest to her tactfully that the reason that we are proceeding so cautiously and deliberately on this matter is precisely to ensure that we are spending the money to good effect and that the data is stored securely.

I am very happy to take the Committee’s time in explaining everything that we are doing, but very briefly I would like to point out to the hon. Lady that we are moving forward carefully. We are consulting 468 different electoral registration officers to ensure that they are in a position to store and move the data securely. We are spending the money carefully and I am very glad that she agrees that the money that we have spent so far has been well spent. We will continue to ensure that we get value for money.

The hon. Lady’s description of a list of Government failures was, if I may say so, misleading There is no question but that mistakes have been made in Government. Mistakes are also made in the private sector. Those mistakes involve the failure to achieve value for money, projects not coming to fruition in the way that they were originally conceived, and of course matters of data protection. It is a matter of record that the Government have made mistakes, but, as I say, mistakes also happen in the private sector, so I should be grateful if she would reflect on the fact that there is no evidence that the public sector is worse than the private sector in this regard, either in terms of great schemes that did not come to fruition in the way that they were originally conceived, after lots of money had been spent, or in the matter of data protection.

The most recent data losses in the public sector have taken place among private sector contractors working for Government. The real problem with this area is that the technology is moving so much faster than the managerial processes that are in place. I can absolutely assure the Committee that the Government are seized of this issue. In the last year, we have taken radical action to improve our processes. No one can ever guarantee that all data will always be secure, but we are doing our very best and we are certainly moving forward in relation to CORE.

I sense that you are getting slightly impatient about our straying beyond the remit of the clause, Sir Nicholas.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Indeed, the Chair is.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am happy to assure the Minister that I fully appreciate that, of course, mistakes occur in the private sector too, but he knows perfectly well that two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the private sector makes mistakes, and sometimes it makes mistakes on behalf of the Government, does not excuse the Government from the responsibility that they have to the taxpayer.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. We have covered this ground adequately. Perhaps the Minister can respond to the debate.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I will, Sir Nicholas. I just want to say that I entirely agree with the hon. Lady; I was just seeking to correct a misleading impression that she was giving.

However, we have perhaps spent enough time on this particular amendment. I detect a consensus on it. I beg to move the new clause.

New Clause 1

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a), in proposed new subsection (4A)(c) to section 10 leave out sub- paragraph (ii).

Amendment (b), in proposed new subsection (1A)(c) to section 10A leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

Amendment (c), in proposed new subsection (2A)(c) to section 13A leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

New clause 2—Registration of British citizens overseas—

‘In section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (c. 50) (registration of British citizens overseas), after paragraph (3)(b) there is inserted—

“(ba) the declarant’s passport number or a statement that the declarant does not have one.”’.

New clause 7—Opting in to the edited electoral register—

‘(1) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/341) is amended as follows:

(2) In regulation 93 (edited version of the register), for subsection (2) there is substituted—

“The edited register shall include the name and address of any elector whose details are included in the full register only if a request has been expressly made in the form referred to in section 10(4) of the 1983 Act or in accordance with Regulation 26 above by or on behalf of that elector for his or her name and address to be included on the edited register.”’.

New clause 8—Personal identifiers at the ballot box—

‘(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”) Schedule 1 (Parliamentary Election Rules) shall be amended as follows.

(2) The following shall be inserted after Rule 27(1) (ballot paper to be delivered to voter on application)—

“(1A) A ballot paper shall not be delivered to a voter unless he has produced a specified document to the presiding officer or a clerk.

(1B) Where a voter produces a specified document, the presiding officer or clerk to whom it is produced shall deliver a ballot paper to the voter unless the officer or clerk decides that the document raises a reasonable doubt at to whether the voter is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be.

(1C) Where a voter produces a specified document to a presiding officer and he so decides, he shall refuse to deliver a ballot paper to the voter.

(1D) Where a voter produces a specified document to a clerk and he so decides, he shall refer the matter and produce the document to the presiding officer who shall proceed as if the document has been produced to him in the first place.

(1E) For the purposes of this rule a specified document is one which for the time being falls within the following list—

(a) a current passport issued by the government of the United Kingdom or by the government of the Republic of Ireland;

(b) a current licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (or Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988) (including a provisional licence), or under Article 12 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 or any corresponding enactment for the time being in force;

(c) a credit or debit card with signature;

(d) HM forces identification card;

(e) a medical card with signature on it;

(f) a local authority valid bus pass with signature on it;

(g) a valid book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions if it has a signature in it;

(h) a tenant book if it has a signature in it;

(i) a certified copy, or extract, of an entry of marriage issued by a Registrar General, where the voter producing the copy of an extract is a woman married within the period of two years ending with the day of the poll concerned.

In sub-paragraph (i) above “a Registrar General” means the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland or the Register General for Northern Ireland,

(1F) Regulations may make provision varying the list in paragraph (1E) above (whether by adding or deleting documents or varying any description of document).

(1G) References in this rule to producing a document are to producing it for inspection.”.

(3) The following shall be inserted after Rule 38(1) (incapacitated voter’s vote to be marked on ballot paper on application)—

“(1A) Paragraphs (1A) to (1G) of Rule 37 shall apply in the case of a voter who applies under paragraph (1) above as they apply in the case of a voter who applies under Rule 37(1), but reading references to delivering a ballot paper to a voter as references to causing a voter’s vote to be marked on a ballot paper.”.

(4) The following shall be inserted after Rule 39(2) (blind voter to be allowed assistance of companion on application)—

“(2A) Paragraphs (1A) to (1G) of Rule 37 shall apply in the case of a voter who applies under paragraph (1) above as they apply in the case of a voter who applies under Rule 37(1), but reading references to delivering a ballot paper to a voter as references to granting a voter’s application.”.

(5) The following shall be inserted after Rule 40(1) (person entitled to mark tendered ballot paper after another has voted)—

“(1A) Paragraphs (1A) to (1G) of Rule 37 shall apply in the case of a person who seeks to mark a tendered ballot under paragraph (1) above as they apply in the case of a voter who applies for a ballot paper under Rule 37(1).

(1B) Paragraph (1C) below applies where a presiding officer refuses to deliver a ballot paper to a person under paragraph (1C) of Rule 37 (including that paragraph as applied by Rule 38 or 39 or this Rule).

(1C) The person shall, on satisfactorily answering the questions permitted by law to be asked at the poll, nevertheless be entitled, subject to the following provisions of this Rule, to mark a ballot paper (in these Rules referred to as “a tendered ballot paper”) in the same manner as any other voter.”.

(6) The following shall be inserted after Rule 40(4)—

“(5) A person who marks a tendered ballot paper under paragraph (1C) above shall sign the paper, unless it was marked after an application was refused under Rule 38 or 39.

(6) A paper which is required to be signed under paragraph (5) above and is not so signed shall be void.”’.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

New clause 1 was originally in my name, but I then detected that I had made a drafting error, so I tabled amendments (a), (b) and (c) to the new clause. As a procedural matter, therefore, my name no longer appears at the top of new clause 1 and it is in the name of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, who has asked me, on his behalf, to continue to speak to it. For the sake of getting the amendments to the new clause out of the way, I shall begin with amendments (a), (b) and (c) in my name.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

This is about the most important clause that we will consider in the whole of the Bill. It goes to the heart of it. I have seen many of these clauses in past Committees, but we have not yet developed the last word on this. The Government say that they are keen, in principle, on this type of improvement. I take it that we would be amenable to constructive suggestions from the Government to improve the new clause. Is that correct? If they come forward with suggestions, rather than just knocking it out, the Opposition will be constructive.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend asks me a leading question, and of course I agree with him.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

I am not a lawyer, so I am just asking a question.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I, clearly, and not for the first time, have been proved not to be a brilliant parliamentary draftsman, but I did not set out to be. My hon. Friend is right. This is an extremely important group of new clauses on a vital issue. If the Government produce a constructive way forward, we would be happy to co-operate.

I will deal first with the amendments, so that the Committee does not have to puzzle over their meaning. New clause 1, as drafted, is taken from the Northern Ireland legislation, so I made the mistake of leaving in proposed new subsection (4A)(c) (ii), which states:

“a statement of whether or not he has been resident in the United Kingdom for the whole of the three-month period ending on 15th October in the year in question, and”.

That should not be there, because it is a specific requirement relating to Northern Ireland and it is not necessary in the rest of the United Kingdom. I did not intend to introduce the three-month residency restriction across the rest of the United Kingdom—that would be wrong. Amendment (a) removes that sub-paragraph.

It has not been our intention at any point in the Bill to make it more difficult for people to register, or for people who legitimately ought to be voting to vote. We want to ensure that the franchise is extended to everyone to whom it ought to be extended, with no unnecessary restrictions. The areas to which amendments (a), (b) and (c) refer would have introduced a residency restriction, so I have amended my own new clause. Or, in technical terms, to ensure that the procedure is correct, I have amended the new clause standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. I hope that the Committee will accept that explanation so that we do not have to waste time debating amendments (a), (b) and (c).

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

As one who tried to persuade my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton to include a scheme for individual registration in the 2006 Act, I certainly will not argue against the principle of the amendments, but when the hon. Lady refers to the Northern Ireland model, does she accept that there was a big drop in the number of people registered to vote when the single registration scheme came into effect there? Does she think that, when we design a scheme for the rest of the United Kingdom, we ought to do something in the law to protect against that happening again?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman makes at the outset the very point that we have to discuss. That is why the new clause is such an important omission from the Bill. I cannot say that it is an important part of the Bill because it is not in the Bill, but it should be.

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point later, but discuss it briefly now. One reason why the legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland while it was still in the early stages of being considered for the remainder of the UK was because it was seen as a necessary way to solve a specific problem in Northern Ireland. It was recognised by the Government and, I believe, all political parties, that the Northern Ireland register was not accurate. It was not intact. It had on it the names of many people who should not have been on it. Indeed, it had on it many names that were not the names of people. It was very much in need of being cleaned up, to put it simply.

Inevitably, if one of the reasons for introducing legislation is to remove names that are not names of people but the names of people long deceased or not yet born or of people who left the country long ago and have no right to vote or that are merely anagrams of other names—something that was discovered when the matter was examined—given that the intent of the legislation as it applied initially in Northern Ireland was to remove superfluous names from the register, by the very nature of the legislation, the outcome was that the number of names on the register was significantly reduced.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

May I clarify this point? Is the hon. Lady asserting that the entire fall in the numbers registered was due to the phenomenon that she described?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

No, not the entire fall. I could not possibly assert that, and I certainly could not prove it. It was not entirely for that reason, but we have evidence to show that it was largely for that reason. The Minister cannot argue that, three years ago, his colleagues did not introduce legislation to clean up the Northern Ireland register. I hope that the Government would have been extremely disappointed if there had been no difference in the number of names on it. However, there are significant differences between the way that the register is made and kept in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK. I am not asserting that the fall was entirely due to that, and I am happy to address that point later.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

While the main purpose of the legislation was to remove people from the register who should not have been on it, does the hon. Lady accept that there already was a serious problem of under-registration in Northern Ireland, with 29 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds and 17 per cent. of people in socio-economic categories D and E not on the register, and that the legislation probably made the problem worse by increasing under-registration among those groups?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s statistics, but he must not forget that there is a statutory duty to register. I am sure that the Minster will correct me if I am wrong, but the present legal framework provides that electoral registration officers in Northern Ireland can impose a fine of up to £1,000 on someone for not registering. Of course, that is not enforced. I am not suggesting that it should be enforced, but the framework is in place to allow that and perhaps it would be a good idea for the Government, through their officials in the electoral registration offices, through the Electoral Commission, or through whichever way they choose, to remind people that they have a duty to register to vote. There is an idea that, “Oh dear, a significant part of the population aged between 18 and 25 don’t bother to register to vote”. Surprise, surprise. A significant part of the population aged 18 to 25 do not bother about very much, because they are at that stage in life where they do not have to, and this is just one of those things. However, it should be remembered that the framework is there to impose the law if the Government choose to do so.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend, with the help of the hon. Member for Battersea, has uncovered one of the most disgraceful aspects of our electoral registration system and democracy in this country: hundreds of thousands of people fail to register, thereby breaking the existing law. We are looking to move the law on, but it is important to make the point that the existing law is being broken.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend is correct. I do not think that I have ever seen a Government information programme—leaflets or posters—about this. We see so much Government information: there are glossy brochures on just about everything, coming from every Department. One can hardly turn round without seeing some kind of Government information about something, whether it is teaching our children to read, how to cross the road, or not having water that is too hot running into our baths—that is done particularly in Scotland, but it is still Government money that pays for it. All that is done, and yet I do not think I have seen any promotion by the Government saying that it is an offence not to register to vote.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am sorry to stray, but I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that the literature on babies being scalded is not worth spending money on.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

No, of course I am not. It is right to educate people about such important matters, and so it is right to teach people that they have a duty to register to vote. We all often go out on the campaign trail and I assume that every member of the Committee sometimes knocks on people’s doors and asks, “Will you vote?”. Usually we ask “Will you vote for me?”, rather than “Will you vote?” generally, but often the conversation comes round to whether a person votes generally. We find people who say “I don’t vote”, like “I don’t smoke” or “I don’t eat pasta” or “I don’t ride a bicycle”, as if there is no duty to register to vote. It is as if they are asserting that they are in some way morally superior because they do not get involved in the political process, but they will be the first to complain if something goes wrong and their representative has not done anything about it. That is a massive generalisation that I do not propose to back up, but we all meet people who say that they do not vote. It should be up to the Government to tell them that they have a duty to register to vote. If they then choose not to vote, of course every individual has the freedom to choose whether to exercise their vote.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s argument about what happened in Northern Ireland and the what purpose of individual registration was. Does she accept that, after 2005, when a provision was introduced to enable a person to have one year’s grace on the carry-forward mechanism if they had not re-registered the previous year, virtually the whole reduction in the register that had been experienced previously was reinstated by the increase in votes that took place as a result of that carry-over mechanism? These were real voters, not fake voters, who had been removed from the register. By and large, they were members of the settled population in Northern Ireland, not the younger people whom she referred to, who perhaps had not fulfilled their responsibility to register to vote. Is she saying that all portions of the population should register annually in order to undertake the duty to register, or is she saying that, as is the case throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, there may be some leeway for ensuring that settled communities that do not necessarily have to re-register every year continue to be placed on the electoral register?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have different rules in different parts of the country. I accept what he says. It is essential, and it is the purpose of the Bill, to try to make it easier for people to register to vote. He will have heard what I said about service voters earlier this morning. It is essential that everybody who has the right to vote can fulfil the duty to register to vote, and then to vote if they choose to do so.

What I would say about the Northern Ireland situation is that one of the reasons the Government have given over the last several years for not introducing individual voter registration in the rest of the United Kingdom is that they wish to carry out pilots. My argument is that there is no need to carry out pilot schemes, because we have a pilot scheme in a whole country, Northern Ireland, and we can learn from what has happened there. The hon. Gentleman put the point very well.

Other Labour Members have also made good points about the lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland. I am not suggesting for a moment that everything that happened in Northern Ireland is perfect, but I am suggesting that the individual voter registration scheme has been successful there, and that in learning the lessons of what could be improved, the Government should be able to bring all those lessons together and in a short space of time introduce a similar scheme in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The hon. Lady has just told the Committee that the Northern Ireland scheme is successful. It depends what criteria one uses to describe successful. Nearly 120,000 people were removed from the electoral roll as a result of the changes, and it was only when the rollover system was introduced that a further 70,000 came back on. That means that there are still at least 40,000 to 50,000 people who are not registered in Northern Ireland. I do not think that that is a success. While individual registration is important, we need a range of other packages to ensure that we encourage people, as she rightly says, to register to vote, so that they can vote.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman’s comments are amazing. The point of introducing the legislation in Northern Ireland was to take out of the register the names of people who were not people and of people who did not have the right to vote. That system was not democracy, the Government rightly took steps to put it right and we supported them. UK citizens who are responsible enough to exercise their right to vote and make a decisive contribution to deciding who shall govern our country ought to have responsibility for registering themselves to vote. We ought not to make that difficult but, my goodness, it is not very difficult to fill in a form.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I invite the hon. Lady to respond to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire actually made.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg your pardon, Sir Nicholas. If I have missed the point, I should be happy for the hon. Gentleman to make it again.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I shall do an encore, Sir Nicholas. My point was about unintended consequences. The individual identifier removed the names that should never have been on the register, as the hon. Lady rightly says, but the unintended consequence was that 120,000 people who should have been on the register no longer were. It was only when further legislation introduced the rollover system, and 70,000 names were added, that we started to return to the previous level of registration. Even now, an awful lot of people in Northern Ireland—tens of thousands—who should be on the register are not.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I did not miss the hon. Gentleman’s point; I fully understood it. I accept that the drop of 120,000 went too far, and that it was right to introduce further legislation on the rolling register. That brought the number back up by 50,000, meaning that 70,000 had been taken off the register.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

It is the other way around—70,000 went on.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Yes, so the number that came off the register was not 120,000, but 70,000, because 50,000 went back on. This is exactly my point about pilots and about learning from Northern Ireland. There were unintended consequences, as there often are with this type of legislation, but the Government then put the situation right. That is what is important. Can the hon. Gentleman explain where those 70,000 people are and why they do not register?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The hon. Lady has already said that there is reluctance among people of certain age groups either to engage in the political process or to believe that they should fill in the form. We all know that there is a certain amount of apathy.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Precisely.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The introduction of the individual identifier means that those people, whom we want to encourage to participate in the political process, have denied themselves that. I accept that point.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Interventions should be short.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

We must have systems that encourage people who are not registering but who were registering before, as in Northern Ireland at the moment. That is the point.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman is arguing beautifully against himself. He used the important word that is the elephant in the room—apathy.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I remind the Committee that with this it is convenient to consider the following: amendment (a), in proposed new subsection (4A)(c) to section 10, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

Amendment (b), in proposed new subsection (1A)(c) to section 10A, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

Amendment (c), in proposed new subsection (2A)(c) to section 13A, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

New clause 2—Registration of British citizens overseas—

‘In section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (c. 50) (registration of British citizens overseas), after paragraph (3)(b) there is inserted—

“(ba) the declarant’s passport number or a statement that the declarant does not have one.”’.

New clause 7—Opting in to the edited electoral register—

‘(1) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/341) is amended as follows:

(2) In regulation 93 (edited version of the register), for subsection (2) there is substituted—

“The edited register shall include the name and address of any elector whose details are included in the full register only if a request has been expressly made in the form referred to in section 10(4) of the 1983 Act or in accordance with Regulation 26 above by or on behalf of that elector for his or her name and address to be included on the edited register.”’.

New clause 8—Personal identifiers at the ballot box—

‘(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”) Schedule 1 (Parliamentary Election Rules) shall be amended as follows.

(2) The following shall be inserted after Rule 27(1) (ballot paper to be delivered to voter on application)—

“(1A) A ballot paper shall not be delivered to a voter unless he has produced a specified document to the presiding officer or a clerk.

(1B) Where a voter produces a specified document, the presiding officer or clerk to whom it is produced shall deliver a ballot paper to the voter unless the officer or clerk decides that the document raises a reasonable doubt at to whether the voter is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be.

(1C) Where a voter produces a specified document to a presiding officer and he so decides, he shall refuse to deliver a ballot paper to the voter.

(1D) Where a voter produces a specified document to a clerk and he so decides, he shall refer the matter and produce the document to the presiding officer who shall proceed as if the document has been produced to him in the first place.

(1E) For the purposes of this rule a specified document is one which for the time being falls within the following list—

(a) a current passport issued by the government of the United Kingdom or by the government of the Republic of Ireland;

(b) a current licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (or Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988) (including a provisional licence), or under Article 12 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 or any corresponding enactment for the time being in force;

(c) a credit or debit card with signature;

(d) HM forces identification card;

(e) a medical card with signature on it;

(f) a local authority valid bus pass with signature on it;

(g) a valid book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions if it has a signature in it;

(h) a tenant book if it has a signature in it;

(i) a certified copy, or extract, of an entry of marriage issued by a Registrar General, where the voter producing the copy of an extract is a woman married within the period of two years ending with the day of the poll concerned.

In sub-paragraph (i) above “a Registrar General” means the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland or the Register General for Northern Ireland,

(1F) Regulations may make provision varying the list in paragraph (1E) above (whether by adding or deleting documents or varying any description of document).

(1G) References in this rule to producing a document are to producing it for inspection.”.

(3) The following shall be inserted after Rule 38(1) (incapacitated voter’s vote to be marked on ballot paper on application)—

“(1A) Paragraphs (1A) to (1G) of Rule 37 shall apply in the case of a voter who applies under paragraph (1) above as they apply in the case of a voter who applies under Rule 37(1), but reading references to delivering a ballot paper to a voter as references to causing a voter’s vote to be marked on a ballot paper.”.

(4) The following shall be inserted after Rule 39(2) (blind voter to be allowed assistance of companion on application)—

“(2A) Paragraphs (1A) to (1G) of Rule 37 shall apply in the case of a voter who applies under paragraph (1) above as they apply in the case of a voter who applies under Rule 37(1), but reading references to delivering a ballot paper to a voter as references to granting a voter’s application.”.

(5) The following shall be inserted after Rule 40(1) (person entitled to mark tendered ballot paper after another has voted)—

“(1A) Paragraphs (1A) to (1G) of Rule 37 shall apply in the case of a person who seeks to mark a tendered ballot under paragraph (1) above as they apply in the case of a voter who applies for a ballot paper under Rule 37(1).

(1B) Paragraph (1C) below applies where a presiding officer refuses to deliver a ballot paper to a person under paragraph (1C) of Rule 37 (including that paragraph as applied by Rule 38 or 39 or this Rule).

(1C) The person shall, on satisfactorily answering the questions permitted by law to be asked at the poll, nevertheless be entitled, subject to the following provisions of this Rule, to mark a ballot paper (in these Rules referred to as “a tendered ballot paper”) in the same manner as any other voter.”.

(6) The following shall be inserted after Rule 40(4)—

“(5) A person who marks a tendered ballot paper under paragraph (1C) above shall sign the paper, unless it was marked after an application was refused under Rule 38 or 39.

(6) A paper which is required to be signed under paragraph (5) above and is not so signed shall be void.”’.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

This morning, we had considerable argument, discussion and constructive consideration about what has happened in Northern Ireland. However, I reiterate that we are discussing not what should happen or has happened in Northern Ireland, but what lessons are to be learned from Northern Ireland as a pilot for what might happen throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

As I was saying at the end of the previous sitting, there are significant differences between the situation in Northern Ireland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, in Northern Ireland, the carry-forward that previously applied was scrapped, which meant that a number of people fell off the register when they failed to re-register, as more than one Labour Member pointed out. The temporary reinstatement of the carry-forward was responsible for some 70,000 people coming back on to the register. That is an interesting illustration but the fact is that what we propose in new clause 1 would not abolish the carry-forward, so that problem would not occur.

In Northern Ireland, the annual canvass was abolished. The annual canvass, as we discussed earlier today, is an important tool to get people to register, and its abolition would have prevented some eligible people from re-registering. That is another lesson to be learned from what happened in Northern Ireland. Again, we have no plans to scrap the annual register. It is very important that there should be an annual canvass and an annual register of voters. It is one way to encourage people to vote and give them the opportunity to do so.

Before the abolition of the household registration system electoral registration in Northern Ireland was 96.6 per cent. That is unrealistically high, by its very nature. Hon. Members look puzzled, but that figure is unrealistically high. It would be miraculous if proper registration were at that level.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The hon. Lady says that the figure is miraculous. The figure for North-West Hampshire in 2003 was 103 per cent. of the 2001 census, and that for East Hampshire was 103.1 per cent. Are those miraculous or perhaps subject to some other explanation?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has come forward with that evidence, which proves my point. It is not possible to have 103 per cent. so that truly is miraculous. I do not see how it can be possible for 103 per cent. of people to be registered.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

If we take the 2001 census and then use the on-year estimates from that census, in some seats where registration is consistent because the seats are stable, registration may exceed the total census figure that was recorded prior to the half-year figures going forward. In other seats, such as those in Brent, which is about 60 per cent. of the census figure, the opposite is the case. I do not believe that one is miraculous or that the other is because of feckless citizens failing to register.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is all over the place. No one is talking about feckless citizens failing to register. I do not understand what he is talking about. He referred to 103 per cent. but 103 per cent. of what? Did he mean 103 per cent. of the estimate based on the census? That is interesting but fairly meaningless, and it is not what we are discussing. We should get on with debating new clause 1. We are discussing what should be the most important part of the Bill and, quite honestly, Labour Members are wasting time.

The fact that electoral registration in Northern Ireland fell by 10 per cent. on the introduction of individual voter registration is evidence that the problem of fraudulent over-registration was tackled directly. That is the whole point. Individual voter registration and the accompanying personal identifier system worked in Northern Ireland. It is a good system. It is better and much tighter, and we ought to have it in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is important that we tackle over-registration in Great Britain, and that we restore the trust and integrity that we should observe in the ballot.

We should also note that, in its report, the Northern Ireland Select Committee stated that the

“Electoral Commission has concluded that the removal of the carry-forward mechanism is likely to be the most important factor by far in the decline in the level of voter registration following the introduction of the 2002 Act.”

All that shows that the lessons from Northern Ireland are there to be learnt, not to be copied, and that we should not dwell too much on what is happening in Northern Ireland. What matters is that the integrity of the electoral system is the very basis of our freedom under democracy. That is precious. We are here as elected representatives of the people to defend the process, and we should value it but it is under threat because of how registration is carried out. It is not more difficult to borrow a library book than it is to register to vote. In fact, we have to prove more to take a book out of a library than we do to cast our vote and influence who governs the country. Integrity could so easily be restored by introducing individual voter registration coupled with personal identifiers.

The Government have said on more than one occasion that they intend to introduce a scheme of individual voter registration. The Minister has said that he accepts the principle, as have his colleagues. If the principle had not been accepted, it would not have been suitable for Northern Ireland. The Government promised to put the principle into action, but what puzzles me is that they have failed to take the opportunity to do so under the Political Parties and Elections Bill, the perfect vehicle for such a measure. That is why we put high store by the proposal and why the new clause, tabled immediately after Second Reading, is about individual voter registration.

In a report published just last week, the Committee on Standards in Public Life stated that, although levels of confidence in the electoral system are reasonably high,

“people are attracted to the greater security and accuracy of individual voter registration.”

It goes on to explain that it undertook a survey that showed that about two thirds of respondents—65 per cent.—in the United Kingdom thought that the electoral registration system in their own country was very or fairly safe from further abuse, but that only 15 per cent. of respondents felt that the system was very safe while 18 per cent. considered the system unsafe.

Should we not in the UK in the 21st century have a system that is very safe and utterly watertight? Of course, we should. Mediocre is simply not good enough. Nearly two thirds of respondents to the survey expressed an overall preference for the individual registration system in Northern Ireland, compared with 30 per cent. who preferred the household system in Great Britain. There is a 2:1 plebiscite in favour of an individual rather than a household system of registration.

I ask the Committee to imagine it. If we were giving advice to a newly emerging democracy on how to set up an electoral system in order to produce the best democratic results possible, we might say, “Here you are; get on with it. You set up your Parliament—it may have one House, it may have two—and you set up a system of voting.” The hon. Gentleman on my left would say that the single transferable vote or some other proportionate system was best, while I would say that first past the post was best. It would be decided one way or the other. Each system has its merits. But suppose that we then said, “How about copying the British system? You have a country full of free, individual people, and in order to be allowed to vote, each one of them has to go to the head of their household, who has the duty to fill in a form that gives them the right to vote or doesn’t.” How utterly ridiculous when it is looked at like that.

We have that system because it is left over from the Victorian age, when the paterfamilias did everything. It is left over from an age when only the men in the household voted. It is left over from an age when we did not have the technical or practical ability to carry out a canvass of individuals. It is an affront to the freedom of the individual and it is totally ridiculous to take away personal power and responsibility. No wonder lots of young people do not bother to vote or take their duties seriously. They have to get their mothers or fathers to fill in the form for them, as though they were children.

In thinking about it, I realised that it happened to me when I was living under my father’s roof and was a parliamentary candidate. I was the person on the ballot paper. I was the person for whom people could vote. All right, it was in Paisley, North and only 5,252 of them did vote for me, but I thought that that was quite a lot at the time. I was the name on the ballot paper, but before I could cast my vote for myself, my father had to fill in my name and sign the form as head of the household. How utterly ridiculous. That is the system that Ministers are defending. It is simply not right.

I speak jocularly about my situation because my father, being an honourable and responsible district councillor, filled in the form properly, but if I had tried to be a Labour candidate and not a Conservative one, you can bet your bottom dollar that my father would not have let me vote. Whether that is right or wrong— [Hon. Members: “It is wrong.”] Of course it is wrong.

I had better be careful about using my late and very honourable father as an example, because he did not do things that were wrong—well, not that sort of thing, anyway—and he would not have done that, but under the current system, we give the person who fills in the form the ability, if not the right, to disfranchise other people who live in that household. That is indubitably the case. It is not a right—it would be wrong for a person to fill in the form wrongly—but we give them the opportunity and ability to disfranchise other people. It might not happen often in families, but it might happen in other households in multiple occupation, such as student or bedsit accommodation or homeless hostels. It is wrong that one person should have the ability to prevent another from registering to vote. If we are talking about individual responsibility and individual duty, each individual must have the ability to register themselves individually to vote. By not adopting new clause 1, the Government are saying that they are content with the law of 100 years ago, under which the head of the household is the person who holds the power and individuals do not count. That is a disgrace in the 21st century.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Being as concerned with the rights of women as she has shown she is in this place and in various committees on which she serves, would my hon. Friend care to discuss how women have been disadvantaged by the existing system, compared with individual voter registration?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful point. I jocularly gave the example of myself bowing to the greater political wisdom of my father, but fortunately I agreed with him, so there was no difficulty for me, but what if there was a difficulty? What if there was a difficulty in a culture in which men say that women should not take part in affairs of the outside world? I know of many households in and around my constituency and in other parts of our country where women are expected to undertake the domestic duties and bring up children. I am not saying that they are necessarily badly treated, although sometimes that happens, but the men in the household will frequently say, “Voting is a matter that men undertake; women don’t need to do that.” That may happen; it may not happen. In many cultures, that attitude prevails. The point with new clause 1 is that it should not be possible. By carrying on without individual voter registration, the Government are potentially allowing it to happen.

Tony Lloyd (Labour, Manchester Central)

I think that the hon. Lady has said that she knows of cases in which that happens. Will she clarify that? If she does know of such cases, that is material to the debate that we are having, but why has she not done anything about it? As she has already pointed out, it is a criminal offence to fail to register, so it would be in her hands, in respect of the cases that she knows about, to have the matter dealt with properly. Has she done that?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I must explain something. The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not saying that I know of specific cases that I can name. I have said that I know of cases in which a household is set up in a certain way. It might be a large house with two families living in it, in perfectly happy and luxurious conditions, but the men, according to the particular cultural background that they pursue—it is entirely a matter of their free will for them to do that; I am not complaining about it for a moment—take part in the outside world and the women do not even speak English and stay at home, look after the children and undertake domestic duties. There is nothing wrong with that. I am not criticising. Every family and every person can choose to live the way they want to, but I am saying that keeping the current system of household registration instead of individual registration makes it possible for the head of the household, however right or wrong, not to put down other people on the form. I am not saying that that is being done vexatiously or even intentionally; I am saying that it can happen and we should stop it happening.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I have been enjoying the excursions into the hon. Lady’s family history, but I hope that she realises that under provisions that the Government introduced in 2001, what she describes need not be the case. Any voter can apply for an individual registration form, even if they have been left off the household form, so the hon. Lady need not have been excluded if her father had taken the route that was suggested.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank the Minister for that point, which brings us back again to the fact that the Government have accepted in principle that individual registration, by individual voters, is the right way forward. [Interruption.] I thank the Minister for confirming that. I do not want to go down other illustrative routes—I intended to make a small point and I have given away on too many occasions. I do not want to take up the Committee’s time. I am merely illustrating that things can go wrong under the current system which would not do so under a system of individual voter registration.

I am not the only person who thinks that; almost every organisation concerned with such matters agrees. The chair of the Electoral Commission, Sam Younger, said:

“Registration should be a matter for each individual rather than for heads of household and it is vital that a system of individual registration is introduced as soon as possible so that the register used at the next general election is secure, accurate and commands confidence.”

That is the most important statement made on behalf of anyone on the matter, and the Government should pay attention to it. A report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life said:

“Despite the simplicity and familiarity of household registration, on balance the Committee takes the view that, as there is agreement among all the major parties, it is the right time to recommend the introduction of individual registration.”

It recommended that

“A decision should be made and legislation developed to implement a system of individual voter registration immediately following the next General Election or by 2010 at the latest.”

The judge who looked into vote rigging during Birmingham’s 2004 local elections said that he had heard evidence of fraud that

“would disgrace a banana republic.”

It is embarrassing to have such a judgment of our electoral system in the 21st century.

The comments made by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly’s Monitoring Committee were even worse. It said:

“The voting system in the United Kingdom is open to fraud, and while it delivers democratic elections, this is despite vulnerabilities in the system which should urgently be addressed...In particular, registering voters without personal identifiers—such as date of birth or national insurance number—made it ‘childishly simple’ to register bogus voters”.

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust said that there is

“widespread, and justifiable, concern about both the comprehensiveness and the accuracy of the UK’s electoral registers—the poor state of the registers potentially compromises the integrity of the ballot.”

Outside ministerial circles, there is a widespread view that a fundamental overhaul of our system is necessary. Coupled with individual voter registration, we would need personal identifiers and that is laid out in new clause 2. I suggest that those could be the person’s signature, date of birth and national insurance number, but if the Minister were to come up with a better idea, we would support it. I am not wedded to the practicalities of new clause 2, but I am to the principle.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

For the purposes of the record, will the hon. Lady accept something else contained in the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust report? It also said:

“It is unlikely that there has been a significant increase in electoral malpractice since the introduction of postal voting on demand in 2000.”

Any malpractice that did exist

“related to a tiny proportion of all elections contested.”

Will the hon. Lady confirm that the report said that, and can she enlighten the Committee about how many cases of electoral fraud there have been in recent years?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Indeed I can. First, the part of the Joseph Rowntree report quoted by the Minister is just as bad if not worse than the part that I quoted. It means that we must do even more to tighten postal voting. There are some very questionable election results from the last general election, and since then, postal votes have been unreliable. The fact that the Government have done little to tighten postal voting is even worse. My understanding is that there have been 43 cases of electoral fraud over the past few years. That means that only one electoral district in England did not have a case of electoral fraud to look at. There are far too many.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

It is amazing that the Minister asked my hon. Friend how many incidents of fraud have taken place in this country. Perhaps he should be telling the Committee that. The figure of 43, mentioned by my hon. Friend, referred to cases taken to court, not cases notified to the authorities. The latter was, I think, 10 times that amount, not including the evidence given to this very Committee by one of the learned professors, who said that there had been under-reporting and that the true figures were not known. Why is that the case?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend is right. In the intervening moment I have found my note on this. I was correct: in the past seven years there have been 42 convictions—not just cases brought—for electoral fraud. Only one of the 43 police authorities—I apologise, Sir Nicholas, a moment ago I said electoral registration authorities, but I meant police authorities in England and Wales—has had no case to investigate at all.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I just want to clarify something. When I was asking the hon. Lady to enlighten the Committee, it was not because I did not know the figures. I am very well aware of them and, in due course, with your indulgence, Sir Nicholas, I shall reveal them to the Committee at great length. The hon. Lady was making a hyperbolic speech about the extent of all this and I just wanted to be clear that she knew what the actual figures are. We have some idea of that, but I shall reveal more in due course.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before the hon. Member for Epping Forest continues her speech, may I say that I have been somewhat upset by the Minister’s response. He indicated that he is going to talk at length. I had hoped that he would give us the information succinctly.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. We look forward to the Minister telling us, at length, why this is relevant. Perhaps we are interpreting this rather differently, but I think that to have 42 convictions for electoral fraud over the past seven years is a high figure and not one that we ought to be proud of in Britain in the 21st century. We should not have any electoral fraud; it is bad enough that we can have electoral mistakes and that the occasional thing goes wrong, but to have 42 convictions for electoral fraud puts the integrity of the ballot in question.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

Is this not another case of the hon. Lady asking for something that we have already got? Just as she asked for individual registration, which is already available to people, it is generally agreed that the great majority of problems with fraud centre on postal votes. However, in the postal votes system that we have introduced, we already have signatures. In order to get a postal vote, one has to produce two signatures—one on the application form and another on the declaration. Surely the security that she is looking for is already there.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. Of course what he says is correct for postal votes, but it does not apply to votes in the polling station. It is more difficult to take a book out of the library than it is to go into the room next to the library and cast one’s vote.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

How many of these cases of fraud involve votes cast at the voting station?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is hung up about here. Postal votes are different from those at the polling station. While we are on the subject of postal votes, let me say that there have been many instances that prove the inadequacy of the system for verifying signatures. Our postal voting system calls into question the integrity of the ballot, which is all I care about. I do not care what the Minister uses. I do not mind if it is not national insurance numbers but something else—as long as it is not identity cards. If the Minister says not to use signatures, but thumb prints, I say let us consider it. It is the integrity of the ballot with which I am concerned, and not the process.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I hope that she will not give me many more occasions when I feel that I have to intervene. I must correct something she said. She suggested that we on the Government Benches are proud of what happened. Of course we are not proud. No one can be complacent about a single instance. One instance is too many, and we agree on that. All that I have been seeking to achieve is that she try to put the matter in proportion.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept what the Minister says. Putting it in proportion by my reckoning means that 42 convictions for electoral fraud is 42 convictions too many. We should not have electoral fraud. It is so easy to commit electoral fraud.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

The Minister is getting dangerously close to suggesting that there is not a serious problem when we have all the experts in the field queuing up to tell us that the system is “fundamentally flawed”.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Yes. As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am beginning to worry about the Government’s motive for not introducing individual voter registration. The Bill is perfect for such a measure and everyone is calling for it, even Labour Back Benchers. Some have even been brave enough to sign the early-day motion along with the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Some 27 Labour Members had the audacity to stand up to their Government and sign that early-day motion. I am sure that many more would like to sign it and support the proposal, because there are no arguments against it.

What the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire said earlier about the reduction in the number of people registered in Northern Ireland is not an argument against bringing in individual voter registration. It is not an argument against saying that the individual is a free person and should have the right to register themselves to vote on every occasion—not just when they do it separately, because that takes a huge amount of effort.

It was mentioned a few moments ago that people can already register individually, but they would have to take the trouble to do that, knowing that for some reason they were not registered by the household by which they ought to be registered. That goes completely against what every member of the Committee and every Member of the House is saying about making it easier for people to register and to vote.

We want to encourage people to vote and to widen the franchise, not narrow it. That is what individual voter registration is all about. What are Labour Members afraid of? Are they afraid that some people in some marginal constituencies held by their colleagues will not register to vote, which will mean fewer votes for the Labour party? Is that what they are afraid of? If not, they must be afraid of something. There is no argument against individual voter registration.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

As a Member who represents a very marginal constituency, I am afraid that non-registration will get even worse, as it did in Northern Ireland. Already in inner London, 18 per cent. are non-registered. Some 27 per cent. of private tenants are non-registered, and 37 per cent. of black Africans. In inner-London seats, there is huge non-registration. Even if the experience in Northern Ireland is replicated only partly as a result of an immediate blanket move to individual registration, there will be an even greater problem with under-registration in seats such as mine.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

So, it is about party political advantage. The hon. Gentleman is talking about inner-London seats, but almost every inner-London seat is held by the Labour party.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

What about Kensington and Chelsea?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am not worried about Kensington and Chelsea—I said almost every seat. The hon. Gentleman is talking about an inner-London problem, but why do not people in inner-London seats register? I shall give way to him if he cares to answer that.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

Well, since I have been asked to intervene again, I think that the clue is in the categories in which under-registration is highest: 47 per cent. of people who share flats, 38 per cent. of people who live in unfurnished accommodation and 37 per cent. of black Africans. Those are the very categories of people who are least engaged in the political system. Those figures apply, regardless of party, to all seats in which there is a mobile population and where there are large proportions of people on low incomes or who live in tenanted properties.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point far better than anyone else has all day. As he has just said most eloquently, the people in inner-London seats who do not register are those in shared flats, in rented accommodation and who are part of the mobile population. Those are the very people who depend on a head of household to register them. They live temporarily in shared flats and rented accommodation and do not register themselves. They do not register because they have to depend on someone else to register them— [Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point perfectly, so I shall not give way to him again. This is exactly the point: if people should have the right to vote and to take part in the democratic system, they should have the right, the duty and the responsibility to register themselves. What he said a moment ago answers my question perfectly, and in the inner-London seats it is exactly the reason why people do not register.

Another reason why people do not register might be that they are not engaged in the political system, but that is up to them. Every individual has the right not to be engaged in the political system if they do not want to be. The reason why the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are so afraid of this fair system of registration is that they think it might reduce the Labour party vote. That can be the only reason why they are against individual voter registration.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

On this point, hon. Members will want to study what happened in America recently with Obama’s campaign. He went to areas in which there was low registration and gave people a reason to register—some for the first time. The hon. Member for Battersea and other hon. Members could do that in their constituencies, but that is a separate issue from the need for individual voter registration.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

That is absolutely right. It was striking to hear people say in interviews for the American elections that they had never voted before. It is incumbent on us all to encourage people to register and to vote. A few weeks ago, I did an interview with a female journalist on this subject. A person in the audience said something about encouraging people to vote, and the journalist asked me, “Don’t you think it should be up to MPs to try to get people to vote?” I realised that she had not a clue what she was talking about because what do we all do, all the time, but try to get people to vote? We encourage them to vote first and foremost for us, or for whichever candidate we support, but my goodness, as a body of people we go out there—week after week, month after month—to encourage people to become involved in the democratic process.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

My hon. Friend may not be aware of my evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I suggested that it was our job to get the vote out, not that of some other institution. That is why I felt that that part of the Electoral Commission’s budget should be cut back and its role altered. The Government have accepted the principle, and the Electoral Commission is being remodelled to take account of exactly that point that I made to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The committee’s report set out why it agreed. In other words, it is our primary duty to interest people in politics. We should not be relying on other institutions. We should certainly not be relying on wheezes, such as maintaining completely out of date 19th century registration systems.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend is correct. I shall move on, because we are also considering new clauses 7 and 8.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Has my hon. Friend heard the explanation that the problem in Northern Ireland results more from the number of voters exceeding the number of people resident in the constituencies?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Yes. Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point of which the Committee should take note.

I shall move on, because I am conscious of the time and we have a lot to get through. However, I am not sorry for taking time over this group of amendments, because new clause 1 should have been the most important measure in the Bill. It still should be the most important, but I fear that the indications from the Minister are that the Government will not accept it, which is a great pity.

New clause 7 concerns opting in to the edited register. I merely propose it because, as we said when discussing the keeping together of so much information in the register, registers are used by many commercial organisations. Rather than giving people the right to opt out of the edited register, which then goes to mail order companies, charities and other such organisations, it would be more sensible to give people the right to opt in, if they so wished.

We should also consider, although not in the context of the Bill, the very principle of the electoral register being sold for commercial purposes. That is an argument for another day, and I do not propose to go down that route today.

New clause 8 concerns personal identifiers at the ballot box. It is incredible that a person can walk into a polling station, say, “I am John Smith and I live at 40 Acacia avenue”, and be handed a ballot to vote. They do not have to prove who they are or where they live; they do not have to prove anything at all. Most people think that they need their polling card. How often on polling day have we all encountered people and encouraged them to vote, but they say, “Oh, but I can’t find my polling card.” We have to explain to them, “Madam, you do not need your polling card. Just go down to such and such a village hall, which is where this street votes, say who you are and vote.”? It is incredible that it is easier to vote than to take out a library book.

There is no doubt that the system needs to be tightened up. The most ironic thing here is that it would be relatively easy to do. It has been done in Northern Ireland. For more than three years, the Government have been saying that they intend to do it, but they have not made proposals for individual voter registration, personal identifiers or any system that would take us forward to prevent fraud in the electoral system. That puts the integrity of the ballot itself in question.

If we were to have an election where, unlike any election in recent times, the majority in the House was small and some constituencies were decided on majorities of well under 1,000, as many were during the last general election, the integrity of our democratic system and of a future Government could be brought into question. That is unnecessary. If the Government introduced the safeguards that I suggest in new clauses 1 and 2, the system could be massively improved.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I will not take up as much of the Committee’s time as the hon. Lady, but I am glad that she moved amendments (a), (b) and (c). Apart from the problems identified by the Electoral Commission with the original drafting of new clause 1, there is also the problem that it appeared to bar all gap year students from the electoral register for at least three months. Given the hon. Lady’s strictures this morning about the importance of ensuring that students can get on to the electoral register, it would have been odd if she had proposed something that operated entirely in the opposite direction only a few hours later.

I am somewhat disappointed, however, by the interventions from the Government Benches on the question of individual registration. It seems clear that there is a serious problem with the accuracy of the electoral register, a problem that threatens the legitimacy of the entire electoral system. What Richard Mawrey, the election commissioner, said in the Slough case—not the Aston case—is important. He said that electoral fraud was

“childishly simple to commit and very difficult to detect”.

The particular fraud that he was referring to in the Slough case was what the Australians call roll-stuffing: increasing the electoral register by inserting people who do not exist. There is a clear case for reform.

The arguments on the other side are not arguments against reform; they are arguments for doing reform carefully, in a properly considered way. For example, the arguments from Northern Ireland about how much the register went down and came back says that one can go too far in reforming and throw off the register people who are entitled to be there, but that is not an argument against the proper effect of reform, which was to throw off the register people who did not exist in the first place and should not have been there.

At this point, I part company to some degree with the hon. Lady. When the reform is introduced, as I am sure it will be, it needs to be accompanied by a Government-led, state-organised campaign to get the right people on the electoral register. It is not enough to say that individual Members of Parliament or politicians in general should take on that task; it must be the state’s role to get the register right.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I agree entirely. I said that this morning, but it might have been at a time when I was going on a bit.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I hope that I will be forgiven for having forgotten, because it was so long ago.

My interest in the matter, as I said this morning, comes from being in a university seat. Among the households that organise electoral registration are Cambridge colleges. They count as the head of the household and put everybody on the register. If we changed to individual registration, we would need some way to ensure that individual students were on the register. That would not be too difficult to organise—students have to sign up for lots of things at the start of term, and they could sign up for that as well—but we would need to ensure that it was carefully considered.

I believe that we are also discussing new clause 2. The hon. Lady did not say much about new clause 2, but its effect appears to be the opposite of new clause 1. New clause 2 seems to say that if one is an overseas elector and one does not have a passport, one does not have to present one’s passport number—it is enough to claim to have a passport. That seems to be the exact opposite of what the hon. Lady is trying to do with new clause 1. It seems that it is okay to stuff the roll with people who live abroad, but not with people who live in the UK.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I ought to clarify that point. I skipped over new clause 2 to try to save time, because I had given way so many times over new clause 1. I realised that was the only time that other Members would have a chance to participate in the debate.

The point of new clause 2 is simply to find a personal identifier for overseas voters and a passport number seems to be a perfectly sensible one.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I accept that a passport number is a sensible identifier, but the substitute, which is simply a declaration that one has lost one’s passport, does not seem to be adequate at all.

I return to the rather disappointing arguments from the Government Benches about why we should not go to individual registration quite yet. There is a kind of Augustinian aspect to this—we all accept that it is a good idea, but we do not want to be made virtuous right now.

The hon. Member for Battersea raised an argument about postal votes, saying that they are the real problem and that if one looks at the cases one can see that there is a serious problem. He said that there is not a problem—at least as far as we know—with personation, where people turn up at the polling station, pretending to be somebody else. There is some truth in that, but individual registration would make postal vote fraud more difficult because planning the fraud would take longer. At the moment, all one has to do is to decide to commit the fraud at the moment when one is trying to generate fake postal votes. That is the point at which one would generate the fake signature.

However, to commit the same postal vote fraud when the signature is on the register and each individual has signed the register to make sure that they are individually identifiable, makes the whole thing more difficult because it has to be planned further in advance. That does not make the system foolproof, and I fully accept that individual registration would not make the system foolproof. It does not seem to be a significant condition for increasing the security of the register to first-class levels, but it would make it better. In the end, what would make the system even better than simply a legislative change comes down to resources, which I touched on earlier when I talked about the need for a campaign of registration. One of the problems at present is that electoral officials do not have the resources to check signatures properly on postal votes—they are simply overwhelmed by the numbers.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is a problem with resources, although whether the service is better or worse depends on which part of the country one is in. It is also a question of the checking systems—the machines that help with the checking are apparently not up to scratch in many cases either.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I gathered the same thing as the hon. Gentleman, but it is a matter of resources in terms either of people, or of the equipment needed to make the system work properly, and we cannot do without that. It is therefore not right to say that simply passing a law to introduce individual registration would solve the problem—it would not. More would be needed, such as the investment of resources and a real commitment by the authorities to make the system work. Nevertheless, I am still convinced that the individual registration route is an important step forward.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

I have been reflecting on the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for a state-run campaign. Can he clarify whether that state-run campaign is the Electoral Commission, which enables a transition from the current system to individual registration to be conducted without people falling off the register, or is he primarily talking about a campaign with a substantial increase in public expenditure that will take place every year to achieve higher registration?

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

There is definitely a need for a transitional campaign. The question is where to go after that. Having been a local councillor and seen how much money is devoted to ensuring that the register is up to date in particular authorities, I think that there might be a need for some permanent increase as well. My main point remains that even though we will not attain perfection by introducing individual registration, it will be an improvement. I support new clause 1 as amended by amendments (a), (b) and (c).

I do not support new clause 8 in its present form. The problem with new clause 8, with its list of personal identifiers, is that it is too inflexible. It does not allow for different circumstances in different parts of the country. The hon. Member for Epping Forest spent a lot of time talking about library cards, but I notice that library cards are not on the list. I have a British Library card. It has my signature on the back and a photograph on the front, and it seems a perfectly adequate identifier. New clause 8 is imperfect, and I urge the hon. Lady not to press it.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the principle of personal identifiers?

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Yes. I agree with what the hon. Lady said. It has always struck me as rather extraordinary that in the UK one can vote without any personal identifier at all, but there needs to be flexibility in how the system of identifiers works. What will count as an adequate identifier in some parts of the country will not exist in others. In my constituency, library and university cards would be good things to use.

I mentioned new clause 2, which goes in exactly the opposite direction to new clause 1. On new clause 7 and the edited register, I agree with what the hon. Lady said, but it does not seem to go far enough. I do not see why the electoral register should be used for any commercial purpose at all. It should be used only for electoral and political purposes. We should make that absolutely clear and try to get away from the situation in which the electoral register has become a tool for advertising and commercial organisations.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before I call the next speaker, may I make an appeal for brief speeches? We have a tremendous amount of ground still to cover. I know that the usual channels want to break at a reasonable time this evening, and I hope that all the important parts of the Bill can receive proper debate and scrutiny in the Committee.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I rise to make three points. First, we should be concerned about two things: the integrity of the register and the validity of the ballot. If the ballot loses its value and its resonance with people, confidence in the whole system will be undermined and the outcome, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, could eventually be called into question. The integrity and value of the ballot are important.

Secondly, the fact that someone can cast a ballot is important. That is why the integrity of the register is essential. It is not just that people who should be on the register are on it and people who should not be on it are not; there should be access to the register in the first place. It is an important part of our duty to ensure as nearly as we can that people can cast their ballots and that as many people are registered to vote as possible.

I do not think that it is reasonable in those circumstances to say simply, “Well, if people really want to register, they will.” We know from evidence gathered over quite a period that for various reasons, cast it how we will, there are enormous variations in the extent to which people living in a particular area of the country are able to cast their ballots. I mentioned earlier that registration figures in Hampshire in 2003 were 103 per cent. of the census. That is what one would expect from a registration system that works properly. The people on the census get to register, and more people register as they move into the area over the years. Within two or three years of the census, the number of people on the register will be in excess of the number recorded as resident in the area when the census was taken. That means that the system is working well. We should realise that the electoral registration offices in the area are working well, and we should reflect on the nature of the population living there.

In some parts of the country, over the same period, the electoral register collapsed by more than 20 per cent. I do not mean in relation to the census, but the electoral register itself. In 2003, almost 20 per cent. fewer electors were on the electoral register in Brentford and Isleworth than in 2001. In central Edinburgh, there were 10,000 fewer people on the register in 2003 than in 2001, and in Bradford, West, 7,000 fewer. Those changes related to, among other things, differing practices in electoral registration at local level. On a wider basis, if we look at the 2001 census figures for various parts of the country, as well as at electoral registration numbers, we see a different picture to that in north Hampshire. The registration figure for Brent in 2001 was 70 per cent. of the 2001 census figure, whereas for Hammersmith and Fulham, and for Brentford, it was 76 per cent. There is enormous variation in who is getting to vote.

My plea is not that we should not have individual registration, because that is very important, in the short, medium and long term, to ensure that the ballot is validated—the use of individual identifiers is an important aspect of validating the ballot. However, validating the ballot is about not just one issue, but a whole range of issues that ensure integrity in our electoral system. In some parts of the country, the system fails to deliver huge numbers of people on the electoral register, thereby denying them a vote. Under the current system, when we periodically divide our electoral boundaries, through the boundary commissions, the numbers of electors per constituency are taken into account. Over a period of time, not only will some people be denied the right to vote, but whole areas of the country will end up with lower levels of representation than they might otherwise have had, because of the way that the electoral system has worked.

We have a dual responsibility. First, we must ensure that the ballot has integrity. Our electoral system is relatively clean, but even one case of fraud in a relatively clean system is too many. We must have a system that is as fraud-proof as possible.

Tony Lloyd (Labour, Manchester Central)

My hon. Friend makes some important points, because there are two ways of getting the system wrong, one of which is when people fraudulently want more than their one vote. It is equally fraud of the electoral system when people cannot vote because they are not registered. In an earlier speech, it was said that information about that complaint was relatively light, but will my hon. Friend hazard a guess as to which is currently the dominant feature in modern Britain—fraud or under-registration?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I hope that I am making the case that those elements are interlinked in a complete electoral system. I think that all hon. Members present agree that there is not widespread fraud in the British electoral system. We have a relatively clean electoral system. However, some aspects of our electoral system have always been as they are and always will be. For example, if one wished to be sufficiently corrupt, one could, to some extent, in principle, match up who has balloted and which way they have voted. Even with individual registration, it would not be possible to clean the system completely of fraudulent entrants.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that expert after expert, and report after report, have said that fraud is a significant problem in the UK? Is it not therefore the first issue to be dealt with?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

With respect, the expert evidence that has been given to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, of which I am a member, and to this Committee has been that there are cases of fraud, particularly postal vote fraud, but that they are not an enormous proportion of the total system. Compared with a number of other systems, fraud is a relatively small element of our system. That is different from saying that the British electoral system itself is proof against fraudulent entry. There are two separate questions to be addressed. First, are people fraudulently entering or misusing the ballot on a widespread basis? Secondly, does the construction of our ballot system mean a low possibility of fraudulent entry, whether or not it is taking place? Fraudulent entry is possible now and could remain so in a future system.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

On the point about convictions for fraud, the total number of convictions under the Representation of the People Act 1983 was one in 2006, one in 2005 and none in 2004.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I thank my hon. Friend for those statistics, because they underline that while one is too many—we must make our system as fraud-proof as possible—the overall incidence appears not to be enormous compared with a number of countries in the world. That does not mean we should do nothing about it.

Essentially, a valid electoral system is, one might say, a three-legged stool: those entitled to vote should be able to vote; those who vote should be able to do so freely, anonymously and without threat; and those who vote should not feel that their vote has been devalued by casting their vote alongside those who are not entitled to vote. If we ignore any one of those three legs, the system will not work. That is why moving to individual voter registration and to individual signifiers has to take place alongside measures to ensure that the register itself is as good as we can make it. That should include, as has been undertaken with some other legislatures, voters whom we know as reliable entrants to the register being placed on automatically—perhaps sixth-formers at college, rising-18 voters, or those known to have proper data-protection safeguards, having identified themselves to public bodies in various ways. In addition to having reliable canvassing methods across the country rather than the huge variation in the quality of register compilation in different parts of the country, we should look at measures for strengthening the register.

The hon. Lady asked what the argument was against individual registration. There is not, and should not be, an argument against individual registration. The question is how complete we wish to make our electoral system. I am in favour of making it a complete system with those three legs of the stool thereby verifying it. We have to move towards individual registration with that understanding. That is how, overall, we shall give our system integrity for the century.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

I am sorry that I missed a couple of minutes of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but I listened attentively to what he had to say before the Divisions. He was right on the button in terms of identifying the key issues. He and I worked together for a long time on a Select Committee, and we also worked on the informal consultative group for the Electoral Commission. We know each other’s views and there is a good degree of agreement between us. I agree that the integrity of the register is important, but I differ slightly from him in one regard.

I have made this point repeatedly in different ways and it goes to the heart of a question that was asked by an hon. Gentleman who is no longer in his place—it is a pity that the Divisions have broken up the discussion as we had come to a very important point. The question was whether under-registration or fraud posed the bigger problem. However, I do not think that that is the crucial matter. The crucial question is, what is the public perception of the bigger problem? The essential—the necessary—condition for any electoral system, is that it should secure consent. Broadly speaking, after people have been upset about this, that and the other and have had a go at all and sundry, they finally get the chance to vote and—win or lose—they accept the result. That situation is not achieved lightly but is easily destroyed.

We have seen many countries with apparently perfect and sophisticated constitutions that have failed over time to find a means through which to establish a level of consent, regardless of how many rough edges still exist in the electoral and voting systems. In Britain, we had a system that secured a very high level of consent. The tragedy is that some of that consent has been eroded because of the perception of fraud, even if the level of fraud is lower than the perception of it. That is why it is crucial to push through a measure such as new clause 1.

There is no point in thinking through clever wheezes to improve the situation such as electronic voting or publicity campaigns. I am not against a transition publicity campaign but I am nervous about having only a campaign that might sit there in perpetuity and create its own constituency, as Weber tells us that all bureaucracies do. The Electoral Commission has threatened to do just that unless it is reformed as a consequence of the investigation by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We must keep focused on the basic point of securing consent. The perception is as important as the reality.

I want to discuss a number of aspects to new clause 1 that have been touched on by others. Before I do so, there is a relationship between this point and that which I raised earlier concerning service voter registration; I promise not to dwell on it long, Sir Nicholas. If we introduce individual voter registration, we must think about how it will affect voters in the services. They have already been badly affected by one reform, and we do not want them to be affected by another. Has any preliminary preparatory work been done on that subject? Have we examined the effect that the introduction of individual registration and voter ID might have on the arrangements that are currently in place to try and secure higher levels of service voter registration? Have the services been consulted?

I ask those questions because, inadvertently, I did not give the accurate figures for the fall in service voter registration as a consequence of PPERA. I suggested that they had roughly halved but perhaps I can quickly give more accurate figures. In 2000, there were 483 service voters registered in Chichester, in my constituency. Two years after PPERA, there were 22. That gives an idea of the scale of the fall. Service voter registers are kept in Scotland, but are not kept separately for England and Wales. In Scotland in 2000, there were 18,226 such voters on the register. By 2004—the big drop was in 2003—that figure of almost 18,500 had dropped to 2,100, which gives an idea of the scale of what has happened. I cannot impress on the Committee too strongly how important it is that we think through carefully the changes for groups such as service voters, but that is not an argument for delaying the introduction of individual registration along the lines set out in new clause 1.

It is worth while putting the new clause into context. When the Government came to power, they were full of bright ideas for polishing up the constitution. Some worked and some did not: rolling registration has broadly worked, but postal voting on demand fell flat. In fact, it has been an absolute disaster. It led to the warehousing of votes and ended up with the notorious Birmingham court case. One of the key quotations from that case, which has already been given, was that it resulted in practices that

“would disgrace a banana republic.”

I had always assumed that that quote was “would not disgrace a banana republic”, but

“would disgrace a banana republic”

is actually rather worse, so the judge was clearly in a firm frame of mind when he wrote his judgment.

Before we go any further in working out how to address all this through the new clause, it is worth asking this: before the Government introduced postal voting on demand, just how big was the problem that three or four Labour Members have alluded to? The most detailed recent investigation of non-registration was by the Office for National Statistics, which did work on behalf of the Electoral Commission. Overall, it gave 8 to 9 per cent. as the best estimate for non-registration in England and Wales in 2000. That sounds quite a lot and it is not ideal, but it is worth bearing it in mind that that compares to an estimate of 7 to 9 per cent. in 1991, so it does not seem that there has been much change. There has been no sharp decline.

It is interesting to note that in two surveys, in 1981 and 1991, some 19 per cent. of those who were then unregistered to vote said that they did not wish to vote or that they could not be bothered, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest was making. By contrast, in 2004-05, a poll conducted by MORI showed that 14 per cent. said they were not interested in voting.

I should add that the figures I have just quoted are not entirely comparable. The Electoral Commission has done its best to make them comparable, and those who are interested can look at its September 2005 report, pages 43 and 44. I only say that because there would be no point in the Minister coming back to me with detailed, technical points about the construction of that survey. The commission has concluded that the figures are broadly but not exactly comparable in the way in which the questions were asked.

Notwithstanding the assessment that we are still in the range of 8 to 9 per cent., I still think that there is a problem, and it is a problem that exists in particular constituencies more than others. I agree with the general point that has been made by Labour Members, but it is not an alibi for delaying the introduction of individual registration and voter identification.

Under the Electoral Administration Act 2006, the Government tried what I still consider was probably a stalling measure. I did not oppose it at the time, but it was not ever likely to deal with the problem. I am referring to the creation of the new offence of falsely applying for a postal vote. It was in the wake of the Birmingham case. I am not a lawyer, but I could not see the point of it. Falsely filling in a postal vote application form was already illegal, even before the Act. Those engaged in the warehousing in Birmingham already knew that such action was illegal. The whole response of the Government to that issue had the smell of display purposes only legislation, the sort of legislation that we have had too much of recently. However, I do not exempt my own party from such action when it was in government. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is perhaps the most salient example of the phenomenon.

Such a measure was not an adequate response. We are now several years further down the line and we still have not got to the starting post for individual registration. I do not know whether what I am about to say is correct, but a colleague told me that only one country has household voter registration. Officials might be able to supply me with a long list of such countries. I would be delighted if the Minister could supply additional names. I was told that the only country was Zimbabwe, but that country is not a good precedent.

In his evidence on 4 November, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life was unequivocal. He said:

“At the time my committee made the recommendation”—

for individual voter registration—

“under my predecessor, it was well aware of the situation in Northern Ireland and of what has happened since the measure was introduced. That includes the much greater confidence that now exists in the integrity of the electoral system...if something is fundamentally flawed, as we now believe the electoral system in the country to be with the combination of household registration and postal voting on demand, we should not keep it because of concern about some other issue. One should address that other issue directly”.—[Official Report, Political Parties and Elections Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2008; c. 36, Q90.]

We could not have clearer advice than that given by the chairman of Committee on Standards in Public Life: “Fundamentally flawed” was his conclusion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest quoted the Council of Europe. I will not repeat her quotation about the United Kingdom being open to fraud and the system being childishly simple to fiddle, but it was worth pointing out. Those quotations can be found on page 12 of the House of Commons Library brief on postal briefing and electoral fraud. I implore members of the Committee to read the rest of what was said, which is set out over the page, and note who said such things. Politicians from Poland, Germany and other countries throughout Europe strongly recommended that we do not tarry with such matters but get on with changing the system in the manner that we are proposing under new clause 1 without delay.

Furthermore, those politicians were so concerned about such matters that they considered threatening us, as they might a hopeless banana republic. The briefing stated:

“The UK should not face a full PACE monitoring procedure at this stage, the committee concluded—but special attention should be paid to these outstanding vulnerabilities during periodic monitoring reports on the UK. If they are not addressed, and start to have an impact on the overall democratic nature of British elections, a full monitoring procedure should again be considered.”

For Britain to be in the dock with the Council of Europe, which we helped to create—indeed we were integral to its creation—is deeply worrying.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

Most European countries do not have electoral registers or annual canvasses for the simple reason that they have ID cards. There is no reason to draw up a separate register of voters every year because they already have a register of the population. One point that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest have not made is that Northern Ireland has electoral ID cards, which is the most effective security device. The logic of his argument, therefore, points to the fact that the most effective way in which to register voters is through an ID-card system.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

I found that a deeply concerning intervention. No one else who has looked at this matter has arrived at that conclusion. I am talking about people who devote their professional lives to considering this and no other issue. It also seems to confirm what I fear, which is that the Labour party will cling to any counsel of delay. As everybody knows, ID cards are something for the very indefinite future, even if Labour were to win the next election. Frankly, the matter is probably for the birds because the cost would be so prohibitive, and the cost-benefit analysis simply does not stack up.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

For clarity, I was not suggesting that progress on the road towards individual registration should be held up on account of the fact that Parliament may in future decide to adopt ID cards. I was merely saying that the hon. Gentleman’s international comparisons are beside the point. He is comparing us with countries that do not need to have electoral registers or annual canvasses.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

There are upwards of 200 countries in the world, of which 150 purport to have some sort of democratic system in place. I would not claim to know what their systems are, which is why I referred the point back to the Minister to consider in the fullness of time. I was not demanding that though.

The fact that several European countries use ID cards does not seem to take us very far in this debate. We do not have ID cards, but we have a method of dealing with the problem. All the experts and the overwhelming evidence suggest that we should go forward on that basis. [Interruption.] I have been passed a note that says that I must sit down in eight minutes. I have a long history in my party of being slightly independent. However, I am not so independent as to disobey such a clear message.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. The only message that the hon. Gentleman should obey is that from the Chair.

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

There are all sorts of people whom I should obey, temporal and otherwise, but certainly you, Sir Nicholas, are very high on the list.

The remaining argument, to which I alluded earlier—we certainly had a heck of a canter around it earlier so I do not want to prolong it much further—is this question of the Northern Ireland experience providing an alibi for not acting now. Labour Members queued up to make that point. I would not suggest for one moment that some brief had passed among them. I doubt that it has because they made points from very different angles. It clearly is a very strongly felt point, and I am sure that Northern Ireland itself will be impressed by the depth of their knowledge and understanding of what was allegedly done. The truth is that Labour Members are clinging to a pretty poor life raft if they want to use Northern Ireland as an excuse for not getting ahead with this. It is such a waterlogged life raft that it is virtually sinking.

It is worth looking at what the Committee on Standards in Public Life said about Northern Ireland on page 94, paragraph 5.67 of its “Review of the Electoral Commission”, which I do not think has not been quoted in Committee yet. It states:

“The Committee’s view is that individual registration in Northern Ireland has not led to the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters, as is widely believed to be the case.”

That is a direct reference to the earlier paragraphs. It continues:

“The Government is on record as saying that this drop owed to a combination of inaccuracy resulting from weaknesses in the household-based system and the withdrawal of the ‘carry forward’”

Paragraph 5.67 goes on to say:

There are...a significant number of individuals who, for various reasons, do not re-register during the annual canvass; therefore the withdrawal of the carry forward effectively meant that each year a sizeable number of individuals would fall off the register. There would be a similar significant reduction in registration under the household system if the carry forward was abolished.”

Therefore, we have the answer to the points that Labour Members were making. The lion’s share of the reduction in the numbers on the register was not caused by the introduction of individual registration. The report goes on to praise the Government. Although it does not use the word “praise”, it is fair to say that that is what it does. It says that the Government’s response, with the Miscellaneous Provisions (Northern Ireland) Act 2006, was to abolish

“the annual canvass in favour of a system of continuous registration.”—

which the committee clearly supports. The main problem in Northern Ireland has been resolved. I would have thought that that would have been enough for anybody. It is clear and unambiguous advice.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I only have three minutes to go and I want to make only one more point.

Finally, the Electoral Commission has looked at the issue in great detail and it sent me an e-mail today. I asked for some advice on the Northern Ireland experience and whether the e-mail could be put in the public domain. It states:

“We commissioned a series of research reports to monitor the impact of individual registration on the numbers of people registered. The research clearly showed that the requirement to conduct an annual canvass tended to have a negative impact on the number of people registered by as much as 2-3% per year. It was this, rather than individual registration itself, which affected the numbers of people registered.”

That is crystal clear, and it adds:

“An analysis of the drop in numbers registered concluded that it was largely explained by the removal of duplicate names that had been contained in the household register.”

That is where the real fall came from; it is pretty unambiguous.

We should not have had to rely on this e-mail. I will make it available to the Committee and I am sure that the Electoral Commission will too.

Peter Wardle, in his oral evidence on 6 November said much the same. I will conclude with that quote, and I think that I will be nicely on time. He said:

“There are legitimate concerns about the impact on the comprehensiveness of the register...but in my view we can and should address those concerns and should not make them a reason for continuing to put off the introduction of individual registration and thereby putting off addressing the accuracy and integrity of the register...a 21st-century modern western democracy ought to be able to address both the integrity and accuracy of the register and its comprehensiveness, but we will make no progress on either of those things unless we get started.”——[Official Report, Political Parties and Elections Public Bill Committee, 6 November 2008; c. 59, Q153.]

I could not have put it better myself.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

Everyone on the Committee will agree that this has been an extremely important and useful debate. I want to address the new clauses in some detail and to make some general points of principle in response to comments, but I shall start by correcting some of what has been said during the debate.

We have heard several times from those on the Opposition Benches about a belief that there is a legal duty on an elector to take proactive steps to register to vote. That is not correct. A person is liable to be fined only if they fail to respond to a registration officer’s request for information. The next point was that the Government have taken no action on electoral fraud—I think I am referring to this correctly—and that, somehow, we are insouciant about that which exists. I shall briefly put the record straight.

On postal voting, in measures in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and associated secondary legislation, we have stipulated that postal voters must specify a reason if they want their postal vote to be sent to an address other than that at which they are registered. As administrators get more time to check postal vote applications, there is a requirement for electors to provide personal identifiers—signature and date of birth—if they wish to have a postal vote. The identifiers must be replicated by the elector when casting the postal vote, and they will be cross-checked with the original samples to ensure that the postal vote is valid.

There is a new offence of falsely applying for a postal or proxy vote, and new secrecy warnings on voting papers to deter attempts unlawfully to influence another’s vote. There is a strengthened offence of undue influence, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest alluded to and which will make prosecution easier. Ballot papers have a security mark to enable ballot papers to be validated. After every election, a list of all those who voted by post is published, so that individuals can check whether their vote was counted.

The police can check with any individual whether they voted by post or their vote was stolen. Police have been given more time to carry out investigations of electoral fraud—increased from one year to two years. There is a new criminal offence of supplying false information. There are clear new powers for electoral administrators to cross-check applications to register to vote against other information that the councils hold.

That brief list—brief in terms of time—shows how ridiculous it is to say that we do not take such matters seriously. Of course we do.

Mrs. Laingrose—

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I am also under constraints. If it is a highly significant point, I shall happily give way.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.