|
Ms Harman: Setting up a new system, for which we are asking the Committee's support, must be paid for. However thrifty the Electoral Commission is with its resources, we would be astonished if it already had enough in its budget to set up the system. Therefore, the initial implementation of CORE national access has been allocated £10 million from the capital modernisation fund, which is a Treasury grant. Thereafter the CORE scheme will require ongoing running costs to be met. The financial provision proposed in the Bill is necessary to allow appropriate
Column Number: 21
funds to be made available to CORE keepers to enable them to perform their statutory duties to maintain the CORE scheme efficiently and effectively. The point about grants in clause 3(4) is that if they can do the work for less money, they can repay part of the grant. It is part of the proposal's flexibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd made a very important point. With respect to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, as my hon. Friend has information for Wales that we do not have for England, we do not know whether they are being frugal in Wales. My hon. Friend seems to have established that the more that is spent per elector the more secure the register is and the more it is proof against fraud, because money is spent ensuring that there are no multiple registrations. The more complete the register is, the fewer people are left off and not allowed to vote.
The Bill introduces transparency to enable us to consider the important value-for-money issues that Opposition Members raised. Previously, neither the House nor individual Members were able to know how much was being spent and to what effect.
This has been an important debate on what is being spent on democracy and what we are getting for that money.
Mrs. Laing: Given that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd eloquently proved that in Wales it has been possible to collect the information necessary to make a judgment on these matters and to work out the efficiency, should not that be done in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister undertake to do it?
Ms Harman: That is exactly what the Bill enables us to do, and we will discover that different amounts need to be spent in different areas. In areas such as my own in Camberwell and Peckham, there is a highly mobile population, with many young people, many people living in rented accommodation and many people from the new Commonwealth, particularly Africa. In such areas, we must invest quite a lot to ensure that the register is complete, accurate and up to date. On the other hand, in areas such as Somerton and Frome, where I imagine more people are owner-occupiers, fewer are from the new Commonwealth and fewer are under 50, it is probably not such a difficult exercise.
The CORE budget is £10 million initially. That money will be spent according to the way in which the House wants the project to be designed and approves in regulations.
Mr. Binley: The Minister's point is fair and reasonable, but again the cost of ensuring that scrutiny can take place is higher in areas where there is more movement in the way that the Minister described. Will the Minister take that into account when we discuss grants for local government?
Ms Harman: We are dealing here with the grants to the CORE keeper. The CORE scheme may take some of the burden off individual electoral registration officers, because people can get the national picture from the national CORE scheme instead of having to
Column Number: 22
ask each registration officer. Therefore, responsibility for some actions may be shifted from local to national.
Elsewhere in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know, other duties and responsibilities are laid down on electoral registration officers. For those general duties £17 million is made available, but for the CORE scheme the initial allocation from the Treasury's capital modernisation grant is £10 million.
Chris Ruane: In my view, £10 million divided by 44 million or 46 million electors is money well spent. If the money is used to create an accurate central database whose information can then be disseminated, especially to the poorer local authorities that have difficulty in getting up-to-date register lists, it will be money well spent; £10 million to run a democracy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Electoral Commission
Question proposed, That clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Laing: Once again the provision refers to Wales. I am glad that we are considering Wales in great detail, as the administration of democracy in Wales has been a key part of our deliberations for many years.
Mr. Heath: I would hate the hon. Lady to misdirect her comments. The provision merely happens to lie in the Bill after the section that refers to Wales. The clause is not specifically about Wales.
Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which, as usual, is perfectly reasonable. I appreciate that the clause does not refer specifically to Wales; I was merely taking the opportunity to compliment those who deal with electoral administration in Wales. They had to administer one of the closest results of any recent democratic exercise undertaken in the United Kingdom; namely, the referendum on the Welsh Assembly.
I was about to say that that referendum is a very good example of why it is important that the rights systems are in place, and that they are financed in the right way and use the best modern technology that is available. When a result is so, so close, and it affects many people and the governance of a large part of the United Kingdom—
Chris Ruane: I have the amount spent per elector for Wales for the past 10 years in front of me. In 1998, the year in which the referendum was held, 17p per elector was spent. This year it is £1.25 per elector. Such a small amount was spent that the result of the referendum may have been down to an inaccurate register.
Mrs. Laing: Another excellent point by the hon. Gentleman. Had Wales spent more, it might have got a better result. Mr. O'Hara, I may not be allowed to say that.
The Chairman: Order. An incidental reference is made to the Local Government Boundary
Column Number: 23
Commission for Wales in the clause. I ask the hon. Lady to come to order.
Mrs. Laing: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I do not intend to try your patience further.
When does the Minister propose to make a decision on whether the Electoral Commission should be a designated CORE keeper? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk raised the following point earlier in a completely different context. Does proposed new section 20A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 mean that the Electoral Commission will be the CORE keeper for all purposes, or are we still talking about the Electoral Commission being the CORE keeper for national matters but not the CORE keeper of information in individual constituencies or districts?
Ms Harman: I hope that I can assist the hon. Lady by saying that, during the consultation and before we introduce regulations, the House must consider, among other things, whether to establish CORE through a big bang, where suddenly it is all over the country in one go, or to introduce it in a couple of regions and build it up. If we build it up, it might be sensible for one of the electoral registration officers in that region to be the CORE keeper for that regional roll-out.
Other countries that have a national register, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, use their electoral commissions. Proposed new section 20A makes it possible for the commission to be a CORE keeper at national level, but it is just a possibility. We do not rule out, as the national scheme builds up, transitional CORE keepers, who might be well-experienced registration officers in particular regions, starting the CORE ball rolling.
12 noon
Mr. Binley: For certain members of my party, including myself, the word ''regionalisation'' sends shivers up and down our backbone. I want to be assured that the matter is in no way related to the whole concept of a united Europe.—[Interruption.] I said it sent shivers up and down my back. Secondly, as to the term CORE keeper, which has a Harry Potter connection in a sense, will the Minister be kind and explain what sort of establishment she feels might constitute the CORE keeper's office?
Ms Harman: The flexibility in allowing designation of CORE keepers is due to the argument that can be made, on which we shall want to consult, for a staged approach to implementation. The CORE keeper might, ultimately, look pretty much like the Electoral Commission. That is what it looks like in other countries. When the national scheme is ready, that becomes one of that body's responsibilities. I should like to empathise with the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who is obviously having panic attacks about Europe, but his point has completely passed me by. I do not see how what he has been saying has anything to do with Europe.
Column Number: 24
The Chairman: Order. Part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions is in clause 1.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
CORE schemes: supplemental
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Laing: We are making progress, and I am grateful to the Minister for answering so many intricate and difficult questions this morning. In doing so, she gives us more confidence in our understanding of how the proposed schemes will work. As I said, it is important to reach some kind of consensus. The Bill is not like other political matters. If we do not have consensus about how our democracy works, and, as a result, we do not have confidence in the electoral system, that undermines the validity of elections. I do not suggest that we are at that stage now; most Members of the House have confidence in the electoral system, and we have debated it at length many times over the years. However, it is important that we investigate the matters in intricate detail.
I still believe that the system in Britain is one of the best in the world. I felt almost personally insulted when, as happened a few months ago, some of the ways in which our electoral system was administered were referred to very critically as akin to those of a banana republic. Such remarks are not good for democracy in Britain. That remark was made perfectly reasonably, and many of us agreed with it. We cannot have such occurrences, because confidence in the workings of our democracy is basic to the working of our society and country.
Clause 5(1) provides that a CORE scheme
''may make provision as to circumstances in which a payment is to be made—
(a) by the CORE keeper to an ERO whose area is specified in the scheme;
(b) by such an ERO to the CORE keeper.''
I wonder why. I should like to know specifically what the Minister of State envisages—[Interruption.] This is the crux of the question. I entirely understand if the Minister of State is not paying absolute attention to every word of my preamble—
| 
