Q
152Mr.
Wills: So that we are absolutely clear, I think that we
can accept that there is a consensus about the need to strike a balance
between overburdening volunteers and dissuading donors from making
legitimate
donations on the one hand, and ensuring transparency on the other.
However, I think that I have just heard you say, although I would be
grateful if you confirmed it, that there is merit in measures that draw
attention to and focus both donor and recipient on the need to show
that they have complied with the
law. Peter
Wardle: Yes, that is right. As you said, we do not
say that there are no benefits to the measure; we say that there are
some benefits. As the Bill is currently drafted, we think that the
disbenefits outweigh the benefits, but it may be possible to change the
balance of the argument so that the benefits of the clause are
achievable without unacceptable detriment to the parties
themselves.
The
Chairman: May we move on to
registration?
Q
153Mr.
Tyrie: I just want to ask you about individual
registration. I am confident that you heard Sir Christopher’s
remarks in our first evidence session, that the introduction
of postal voting on demand, combined with the retention of householder
registration, generates conditions where the electoral system is
“fundamentally flawed”. I would like you to comment on
whether you agree with that conclusion of the chairman of the Committee
on Standards in Public Life. What is your view?
Peter
Wardle: Yes, we agree with the chairman. The
commission has been calling for individual registration in Great
Britain since 2003. Lots of other people—I will not rehearse
them—have agreed with us. The Government made it clear when they
responded to the report by the Committee on Standards in Public
Life that they support the principle of individual
registration, but they are concerned about how that could be introduced
without significant numbers of people falling off the
register. The case for
individual registration is about basic rights and responsibilities for
individual citizens and the fact that it is not right, in the 21st
century, to maintain an electoral system where the head of household
influences who is enfranchised and who is disfranchised. Changing to
individual registration with personal identifiers would also deal with
the current lack of integrity and confidence in the process. We need a
proper system. In our view and in the view of many others, only a
combination of individual registration and a system of personal
identifiers will provide end-to-end security in the electoral system,
because the electoral register is the bedrock of that system.
There are legitimate concerns
about the impact on the comprehensiveness of the register if we
introduce individual registration with personal identifiers, 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. The two things are not mutually exclusive;
they are both problems that need to be addressed. In the
commission’s view—it has been the
commission’s view for some years now—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.
Q
154Mr.
Tyrie: That is a pretty clear answer. Just to make it
crystal clear, do you think that there are at the moment any practical
or technical obstacles to which you do not readily see a solution, and
which might not command general support, that lie in the way of
beginning this process of implementation? How long would that process
take? Peter
Wardle: I do not think there are any fundamental
practical or technical obstacles. The biggest problem is the one I
referred to before, about which the Government are understandably and
legitimately concerned, which is that eligible people might, for
various reasons, fail to appear on the new register. There are many
ways of addressing that and we have made it clear what those are.
First, sufficient resources need to be put into a public information
effort. Probably some things might need to be done that were not done
when individual registration was introduced in Northern
Ireland—principally, combining the introduction so that, on
implementation, there is some sort of safeguard so that there is not a
cliff edge for people in the first year of individual registration to
fall off and then that is it; instead, they should be identified as
potentially falling off and followed up, because we need their personal
identifiers before we move
forward. The
second thing is to look seriously at data sharing, so that, for
example, if one part of a local authority knows that a family has moved
in or out of the authority area, the electoral registration officer
should somehow get a trigger to take action on his or her own account
to ensure that the register is up to
date. This
is a not insignificant change; the commission has never made any secret
of that. This is a major change that effectively requires all
registered electors to re-register and provide their personal
identifiers afresh. That will make the register more secure and will
give them an individual stake, in every case, in their electoral
registration. There are certain categories of the community who are
going to be harder to reach. We need to make sure that enough effort is
put into finding them. There need to be safeguards so that people do
not fall off overnight. This is not something that can happen
immediately. To
answer the second part of your question, we think that if there were
movement in the legislation now, the earliest that you could attempt to
build a new register on the basis of individual registration would be
in the 2010 renewal canvas. Almost certainly you would not have a
comprehensive set of personal identifiers from that exercise, and until
you have a comprehensive set of personal identifiers you cannot start
to use those personal identifiers to guarantee, for example, the
security of the voting process in the way that we would like to see. So
we are probably looking at a two to three year gradual process until
the register is complete and has a much greater degree of integrity, in
that there are personal identifiers for each person registered. This is
not an overnight fix. I think we are realistic about the time it will
take. We acknowledge the concerns that the Government and others have
put forward. But our view remains that it is better to get started on
it now than to delay
things.
The
Chairman: Two hon. Members have caught my eye: David
Kidney and David Howarth. If they put a question for a yes or no
answer, I hope that one of our witnesses will be able to
respond.
Q
155Mr.
Kidney: Mr. Wardle, can we
achieve a single registration of donations and benefits to Members of
Parliament in place of the current system without changing this
Bill?
The
Chairman: That is the first
question.
Q
156David
Howarth: To come back to individual registration, you have
answered most of my questions, but on one practical point, you would
agree, would you not, that there are certain practical difficulties in
simply translating the Northern Ireland legislation into Great Britain?
For example, the three-month rule that was brought in for a particular
reason in Northern Ireland would not necessary apply in
Britain. Peter
Wardle: The answer to Mr. Howarth’s
question is, yes, there are problems with simply translating the
Northern Ireland provisions. The answer to Mr.
Kidney’s question is, not quite. Some minor changes are probably
needed. That matter is currently under discussion between the Ministry
of Justice, the commission and the Standards and Privileges Committee.
But the intention is clearly to ensure that most donations to most
Members of Parliament for most purposes are no longer subject to the
dual reporting problem that we currently
face.
The
Chairman: Thank you very much. I am afraid that that
brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask
questions of the Electoral Commission. I thank Peter Wardle and Lisa
Klein very much indeed for the way in which they have dealt with our
questions; it has been most helpful. Thank you for giving
evidence. It
being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
