Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Lord Wills Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

17: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Auditors right to documents and information of private contractors
(1) A local auditor has a right of access at all reasonable times to audit documents from private companies that the local authority have contracted services to during the last financial year.
(2) A local auditor must publish any audit documents, obtained under subsection (1), as part of a local audit publication.”

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, both this amendment and Amendment 18A, which is grouped with it, seek to improve transparency in these new arrangements for local government. Such transparency is key to greater accountability and therefore to better government and over and over again we have seen what damage can be done when transparency is smothered. The NHS has provided some tragic examples recently, as the Francis report into Mid Staffs and the Grant Thornton report for the Care Quality Commission have both shown.

The work carried out by private contractors for local authorities will often be of equal importance in the way that it involves issues of public safety, but it may also raise other issues of concern to the public such as corruption. The public should also have rights of access under the Freedom of Information Act to the work carried out by local auditors, because they are the ultimate clients of those auditors. Those auditors may be carrying out their tasks for a local authority, but that local authority serves the public.

The amendments are particularly necessary because the Localism Act envisages that a growing proportion of local authorities’ functions will be carried out for them by private companies under contract. If the authority carries out the work itself, then all information about that work is subject to the Act and subject, of course, to the exemptions in the Act. But the public’s right to information is less straightforward when the work is done by a private contractor. Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act establishes that the right of access is to information which a public authority holds. Section 3(2)(b) of the Act provides that information which another person holds on behalf of the authority is treated as held by the authority itself.

However, how much of the information a contractor holds about the contract is held on behalf of an authority? The answer is not self-evident. The contract itself may specify that particular information is to be treated as held on behalf of that authority or it may say a specified type of information must be provided to the authority if it asks for it, to help it answer an FOI request. But what if such a provision applies only to a very limited class of information? The effect may be to exclude the public from access to any information which is not specifically mentioned. The amendments will help, I think, to overcome any such oversights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wills]

First, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the offer to talk to the Government. I will be very happy to take it up. He is not right that I am not entirely satisfied with his response; I am not at all satisfied with his response. Indeed, I find myself rather saddened by this resiling from the fundamental principle of the importance of transparency. It is in the coalition agreement that the coalition Government are committed to greater transparency. After all the evidence we have seen from the NHS in recent months, I would have thought that the Government would have been persuaded of the importance of that commitment but, sadly, we have the same old excuses that are always trotted out when freedom of information and greater transparency are proposed.

For all that the Minister says that local authorities should be able to provide all the information needed under freedom of information, he did not address the specific examples that I gave to show why there may be cases where the current provision is not adequate in which people will not be able to gain access to the information to which they are entitled. I hope that when he and his officials read Hansard, they will look at that again before we meet so that we can examine this particular case because existing provision is not adequate and neither is the provision in this Bill.

On the question of audit fees, again I had hoped that I would have pre-empted some of these arguments but it is, I have to say, pathetic for the Government to accept this argument. This is an argument for a steady withdrawal of transparency from the public in terms of local government as more and more services are contracted out, as the Government wish, rightly or wrongly, because that is envisaged in the Localism Act. There was a lot of discussion of it when that Bill was going through. As that happens, there will, according to the argument just advanced by the Minister, be decreasing transparency. That stands to reason. The provisions in this Bill are not adequate for that, so I am very disappointed.

Finally, I shall withdraw the amendment for the time being, subject to further discussions with the Minister and officials, but I ask Ministers to reflect on this. There will be abuses of power in local government. Wherever power resides, whether in local government or anywhere else, such as in the National Health Service or in central government, power is abused. Nearly always, greater transparency and freedom of information are the key to preventing, or at least mitigating, the effect of such abuses of power. We have seen it over and over again. So at some point in the future, unless changes are made to the Bill, this Government will be in the dock for having had the opportunity to increase transparency and having refused to do so. The consequences will then be visited, perhaps on some future Government, and some hapless Minister will have to stand up, as we have just seen Health Ministers do twice in the past few months, and apologise to all those who tried to get the information and were denied it and will then have to take remedial measures. Ministers have a chance to do something now before further damage is done. I hope they will think again.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, will the Minister clarify something? I think part of his answer was that all the transparency that is needed is provided for in the Bill and the regime that we are discussing. In that case, why is there concern about additional audit fees? What extra transparency is being forgone to keep those audit fees down if they would rise if my noble friend’s amendment is pursued?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I take the noble Lord’s cynicism about it always being a question of costs, although costs are not entirely a negligible issue at the moment for any of us. We had better pursue through further discussions the particular examples that the noble Lord raised and the question of how far into the internal workings of private contractors one needs to go to be sure that one is getting the value for money and service that one really requires.

[Lord Wills]

I am very grateful. My noble friend reinforces the point about the pathetic nature of the Government in accepting these arguments about increased audit fees. They really need not be there. These auditors are getting access to a very lucrative new stream of work and they should pay the price to the public in making information available.

[Lord Beecham]

Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, what is the present position when a contract is let by the local authority for a particular service in terms of the audit? What is the relationship of the district auditor to a council-commissioned contract in relation to its own service? Does he have access and is he subject to the same disclosure requirements that my noble friend seeks as if the council itself were directly providing that service?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My clear understanding is that auditors do have access to the relevant accounts of the contractor, but that would probably differ a great deal from one contract to another. I therefore need to make sure that in saying that they have access I am talking about all the cases rather than some. It may well be that a number of contracts differ one from the other.

[Lord Wills]

Again, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has made an important point. We will return to these issues in private discussion and I hope that I can persuade the Government that they need to be a little more robust in responding to the consultations. They often are, but not in this particular case. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Lobbyists: Register

Lord Wills Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I could not have put it better on behalf of the Government, and I note the consensus on a cross-party basis to that effect. The noble Lord may have seen the story in the Financial Times yesterday to the effect that public affairs consultants are thinking of taking to the European Court of Human Rights the case that to submit them to a statutory register—but only those who are third-party lobbyists—would be an infringement of their human rights. I think that that will be an interesting case to try to get the European Court of Human Rights to take.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, the Minister said that the Government are looking to regulate third-party funding in election campaigns. Can he confirm that that will include referendum campaigns?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I cannot confirm that, but I imagine that it would. Discussions are still under way, but I take the point. Clearly, there are slightly different rules for referendum campaigns, and as I recall from previous referendums, there have been umbrella bodies which have had to declare their funding. We are thinking much more about the sort of campaign groups which we have seen growing up, be they animal welfare groups, low tax groups and so on, trying to intervene. Again, we want to make sure that everything is as transparent as possible in the political process. I will come back to the noble Lord on the referendum issue.

Elections: Voting Age

Lord Wills Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on securing this debate. It is timely and important and, as so often when we discuss constitutional issues, I agree with a very large amount of what he said. He is right that the issue has been debated for some time without any conclusion being reached. There are passionate feelings on both sides but we seem unable to come to any conclusion. He is certainly also right that the United Kingdom should not be dragged backwards into making an ad hoc constitutional decision by the manoeuvring of the SNP.

However, I am more agnostic than he is about the issue of lowering the voting age. It is not an issue where sides are chosen on the grounds of political ideology. It is also an unusual issue in that positions are not driven, as is so much public policy, by differing priorities. Rather, the position taken on this issue seems to be as much the result of some gut instinct as anything else. For every argument advanced by one side there is an equally compelling argument on the other.

If the argument for lowering the voting age is that young people should be considered adults at 16 rather than 18, there are counterarguments that young people mature at different rates. Whereas some are clearly adults at 16, others are clearly not, and there is no sensible way of evaluating this. If the argument is that the law should be consistent in a way that it is not currently and that there should be one age at which young people are deemed to have become adults, with all the rights and responsibilities that follow, there is no particular reason why it should not be equalised at 16 rather than at 17, when young people are deemed mature enough to take possession of the lethal weapon that is a motor car—or at 18, which will soon be the age up to which young people will be deemed unarguably in need of full-time education.

If the argument is that possession of the vote will engage young people more in civil society and democracy, there is no evidence—as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out—that it has had that effect on those aged 18 and over. If the argument is the principled one of no taxation without representation, it will soon be the case, when the school leaving age becomes 18, that the already very small number of 16 and 17 year-olds who pay tax will dwindle even further.

In the face of the directly conflicting arguments that have clearly bedevilled the resolution of this issue for many years, it might be tempting to fall back on the essentially conservative argument that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, put forward: namely, that the case for change is insufficiently compelling to merit the upheaval that always accompanies any kind of profound constitutional change. However, I have an alternative suggestion.

Whenever constitutional change is discussed—we have heard it already, and I am sure we will hear it again from the distinguished speakers who will follow me—politicians lament the decline of trust in politicians, the increasing disengagement from formal political, democratic processes, and how disadvantaged groups and younger people are increasingly unlikely to vote at elections. One way of helping to tackle these problems is to develop ways in which the public can be more directly involved in the formulation of public policy. New methods of engaging the public in this way through deliberative democracy are potentially important both in engaging the public in politics between elections and in improving public policy.

Such methods would bring together perhaps 500 to 1,000 people to deliberate on policy, exposing them to a range of opinions and policy options and allowing them to debate them over a period of time, typically a day or two, before coming to conclusions. Such exercises would enable the public to bring relevant knowledge, experience and wisdom to bear on policy formation that may not always be available to cloistered Ministers and officials. Engaging the public in this way could help legitimise and entrench policy that might otherwise be unnecessarily contentious.

When politicians cannot come to any sort of settled agreement on an issue such as the one we are discussing today—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on this—constitutional change should always take place as far as possible on the basis of broad agreement across Parliament. That is not always possible, but it should always be at least the starting point. When the change so directly affects our constitutional arrangements and, therefore, everyone in the country, such deliberative democratic arrangements could play an important role in crystallising the issues and helping Parliament to come to a conclusion, thereby providing an important part of that proper consideration that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has so rightly called for. Those involved in such an exercise would be selected randomly but filtered to ensure that they are demographically broadly representative. In this case, they might legitimately include a significant weighting of 16 and 17 year-olds. Whatever decision this group arrived at, in keeping with our precious system of representative democracy, it would still be for Parliament to reach the final decision, but it could now do so informed by the wisdom of the people that it serves.

The Liberal Democrats used to be in favour of such methods of enriching democratic participation before they became preoccupied with other things such as government. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, can perhaps persuade his colleagues in government to rediscover that enthusiasm.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, this is not a subject on which I would often speak, but I have thought a great deal about the inconsistencies in our practice: having data protection legislation and yet an electoral register where you can opt-out of the publication of your address.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is right—there are too many people who have an interest in having access to this information for good purposes, by and large. If this were on an opt-in basis, have the Government done anything to obtain a picture of how many people would be likely to opt in. I imagine that the value of the register would be wholly destroyed. We know how many people have learnt in the age of the internet never to tick any of the boxes that state that you are willing to receive any further information for any purpose, even a worthy purpose.

I have a feeling that we are on the cusp between information that has to be public and information that our clunky data protection legislation regards as private. It is incoherent. We have ended up regarding home addresses in some contexts as personal information that is not to be transmitted or disclosed to others without express permission, and regarding them in other cases as public information that is non-personal and that may be published. It is not so much the purposes that concern me, whether they are commercial or not; it is that ultimately the opt-in register might be radically incomplete and not useful for many purposes.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, a change in public policy on this issue is long overdue, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on his persistence in returning to it on Report. I associate myself with everything he said in support of his amendment. In the past, Ministers have talked about the register being used as an aid for business and commerce, and we have heard in this debate about its uses for charities and other organisations. However, in my view, so far Ministers have advanced no good arguments, either practical or principled, about why such a public subsidy—because that is what these uses of the electoral register represent—to particular business sectors should take precedence over all the arguments for the other side that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton: weakened protection of personal data, the likely damage to registration rates caused under the present system, and the introduction of a commercial element into a relationship that should be founded on fundamental democratic principles.

When I was the Minister responsible for this issue in the last Government, I was minded to adopt an approach very similar to that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, both in Committee and today. Predictably, perhaps, I was vigorously lobbied by representatives of credit agencies who made fearsome claims about the potential detriment to businesses that would arise from any changes. Clearly there are arguments on both sides of the issue, so I asked those who had lobbied me to come back with detailed evidence of the potential damage: their analysis of what might be done to replace the electoral register as a source of data for them, how much the alternatives might cost, and a detailed principled case for public subsidy rather than their being put into the same position as other private sector firms that produce goods and services and fund their businesses from their own resources. I felt that when these people came back with the information, a proper assessment could be made of the advantages and disadvantages of different policy approaches.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that the same arguments apply to charities and other non-governmental organisations that use the electoral register for wholly commendable objectives. The argument is not so much about the usefulness of the electoral register, because that is clear and I think we all agree on it. The argument I would put is whether this is the best use of public money. What principled case is there for using public subsidy in this way, and could the sums involved perhaps be deployed more effectively in other ways? I have never seen any evidence to that effect, either as a Minister or subsequently. If there were any compelling evidence I might be prepared to change my mind, but in the absence of detailed analysis and evidence it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has made a compelling case for change. I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, might think again.

Sri Lanka

Lord Wills Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has done your Lordships’ House a service by enabling this important issue to be debated here today. The civil war in Sri Lanka was a prolonged, brutal and bloody business. Estimates of the numbers killed vary; most of the estimates that I have seen are considerably higher than those put forward just now by the noble Lord—I have seen estimates of more than 100,000. Many thousands of people were killed; tens of thousands more were wounded, tortured and raped. The LTTE, the Tamil Tigers, was a brutal adversary. It was guilty of terrible atrocities against civilians, including the widespread use of suicide bombing and deployment of child soldiers and human shields. However, there were also appalling atrocities committed by the opposing forces of the Sri Lanka Government. These have been well documented by the UN and by the Channel 4 films, “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, which showed the deliberate targeting of hospitals and civilians by heavy artillery, deliberate denial of food and medicine to civilians in the no-fire zone, summary execution of civilians and Tamil Tiger fighters, and sexual violence against women members of the LTTE.

The opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that the report from the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, set up by the Sri Lankan president, is independent is not shared widely outside Sri Lanka.

In presenting the Government’s response to that report, the Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt MP said,

“we continue to believe it is important that an independent, credible and thorough mechanism is put in place to investigate all allegations of grave abuses”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/01/2012; col. 21WS]

The International Crisis Group—a distinguished group of diplomats and politicians whose trustees include a Member of your Lordships’ House, a former Secretary General of the United Nations, former presidents, former prime ministers and former foreign ministers—said that the report,

“fails in a crucial task—providing the thorough and independent investigation of alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law that the UN and other partners of Sri Lanka have been asking for”.

Sri Lanka can never rebuild itself adequately after its terrible civil war until there is full accountability for the atrocities committed in its course. This is a moral imperative, but it is also a practical one. How can the significant Tamil minority ever be reconciled to a regime that treats war crimes and crimes against humanity insouciantly? More important than implementing the recommendations still outstanding of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is the establishment of an independent investigation of these alleged atrocities and then a calling to account of everyone responsible for them.

I appreciate the efforts that Her Majesty’s Government have made to persuade the Sri Lankan Government to set up such an independent and credible mechanism to investigate these human rights abuses. Sadly, however, the Government’s efforts so far have not worked. To date, there has been no such investigation and no accountability secured for any of the well documented atrocities and other human rights violations committed by state forces. The International Crisis Group has concluded that,

“Sri Lanka is suffering from a crisis of institutionalised impunity for human rights violations by state forces and those working in collaboration with the state”.

The longer this situation continues, the more likely it is that those responsible for these atrocities will think they have got away with them, to the shame of the international community.

We should never accept that those responsible for horrendous war crimes and crimes against humanity can escape responsibility for what they have done. Moreover, there are well substantiated reports that human rights abuses continue in Sri Lanka to this day. For example, the Amnesty report documented,

“numerous cases of disappearances which have taken place after the end of the conflict…there are reasonable grounds to believe that enforced disappearances have taken place in Sri Lanka as part of widespread attacks on the civilian population and they amount to crimes against humanity”.

Last month, the British Government expressed their concern about the current situation in Sri Lanka by saying that they,

“continue to have concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka, including the rule of law and individual freedoms”.

Now a critical decision is looming for our Government. In November, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is due to be held in Sri Lanka. The Canadian Prime Minister has made it clear that he will not attend,

“unless there is measurable progress in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka”.

The Government will soon need to decide whether they will adopt a similarly principled stand. There can be no evasion here because there can be no doubt about how attendance by the British Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen will be construed by the regime in Sri Lanka.

When the then Culture Secretary decided to spend his Christmas holiday in Sri Lanka just six months after the end of this brutal war, the state-run broadcaster in Sri Lanka reported that,

“his arrival, despite the accusations made by the British Government on the human rights record of Sri Lanka, is an indication that the charges have not been authenticated”.

What does the Minister think would be the reaction in Sri Lanka of the Sri Lankan Government and the state media when the visitor is not just a Culture Secretary but the British Prime Minister—and not just the British Prime Minister, but Her Majesty the Queen as well? We cannot allow our Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen to be used to cleanse any regime of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I recognise the strength of the arguments that Governments should not grandstand, that strident public denunciations of other Governments could be counter-productive. I understand that; I understand that they can strengthen such Governments domestically and can turn the issue into one not of human rights abuses but of national sovereignty. There is always a case to be made for persistent, resolute, behind-the-scenes diplomacy as being the best way of effecting change but, so far, such diplomacy has produced no significant results. In such circumstances, there is a strong case for more resolute diplomacy to demonstrate the limits of impunity for human rights abuses. Ronald Reagan understood that when he stood up to the Soviet Union; Margaret Thatcher understood that when she stood up to Argentina over the Falklands; and this Prime Minister understood it when he stood up to Colonel Gaddafi. Do this Government now understand that they have to stand up to the Sri Lankan regime? Are this Government prepared to follow the principled stand of the Canadian Prime Minister?

As the Minister considers her answer to that question, I should like to remind her what her colleague, the Justice Secretary, wrote in the Daily Telegraph just three weeks ago about his vision of human rights. He said:

“As Conservatives, we remain absolutely committed to the importance of human rights around the world”.

He identified as fundamental principles of a democratic nation the right to life, the right not to be tortured and the right to a fair trial. Those are all rights which have been denied to tens of thousands of Sri Lankans. I hope that the Minister can tell your Lordships today that these fine words, written by her colleague, the Justice Secretary, were more than just words and that they will be translated into action in relation to Sri Lanka.

I am sure that in addressing that question the Minister will also be aware that human rights, for which the Government of Sri Lanka have not shown very much respect, is one of the core values of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I should be grateful if, in replying, the Minister could answer these questions. First, have the Government already made a decision about whether to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka and, if they have not yet made it, why not? If they have not yet made it, when do they expect to be in a position to do so? Secondly, does the human rights situation and what the International Crisis Group calls a crisis of,

“institutionalized impunity for human rights violations”,

in Sri Lanka have any bearing on the Government’s decision on whether to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting? If so, what action do the Sri Lankan Government need to take before the Government will decide to attend the meeting? I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer all these questions today but, if she cannot, I should be grateful if she could write to me with the answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I will go back through the UN figures and will provide the ones that I have seen. I was going to go on to say, as my noble friend Lord Wills did, that it appears that in the final stages the figure of up to 40,000 comes near to the death toll. The 18-month inquiry, which concluded in November 2011, covers all 26 years.

One thing is absolutely plain to me: in any civil war of that duration and intensity, the pain between the combatants and the communities from which they come is going to be very great. Significant inter-communal violence, which is very up-close, raw violence, has on the occasions when it has occurred led to the division of countries—for example, India and Pakistan—rather than to an attempt to keep one country in one form.

It is certainly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, that one sees a good deal more evidence of peace, which is very good news, but it is also true that there are credible reports of civil rights abuses. I add my appreciation to that already expressed for the United Kingdom forces involved in the de-mining exercise. I had the great privilege of being with those forces in Colombia in South America and saw just how amazing and dangerous their work was. I remember how relieved one felt to be able to go away at the end of a phase when they could not always do so.

Both sides have made credible claims; both have eye-witness accounts; and both seek retribution. One side has sought prosecution of perpetrators, with greater emphasis focused, perhaps understandably, on the shelling of hospitals, which, by common consent, caused considerable civilian casualties. However, I also note that the commission expressed findings even on this issue, stating that it was impossible to say who had been responsible for that shelling.

The report contains findings on many other issues. It apportions blame for the causes of the war pretty evenly between politicians on both sides. It makes it clear that there were no steps taken by the Sinhalese which could have placated the Tamil people. It makes it clear that Tamil politicians worked up passions for militant separation which were impossible to accede to.

While there was support for the report, there has also been significant criticism. A lack of independence in the report has been alleged. Not even minimum international standards of protection of witnesses was accorded to many of those who might have given evidence.

However, I share a view with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby: that the decisions of Amnesty International, the International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch not to take any part can scarcely have helped the process. It would have been better had they taken part and I am not sure that their reasons for not doing so are sustainable.

Many of the commission’s recommendations could be detailed very extensively, but I highlight those to deal with long-term detainees individually, to publish full lists, to ensure that freedom meant freedom—that is, once people had been released, they should not be re-arrested—to overcome legal delays in process, to disarm illegal groups immediately as a priority, to ensure that there is free movement in the country, to normalise civil administration and to make sure that documents were in languages that people could understand. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bates, I often feel—maybe I would—that sport can play a significant role in giving people the opportunity to see each other in circumstances that are not quite so gruesome.

However, people plainly want more, and herein lies the central dilemma. Reconciliation processes seldom satisfy those who have suffered the sharpest distress or grievances. No one in the United Kingdom would willingly accept any process where there was impunity. I do not know that it would ever speak well in our culture; nor do I think that it would speak well in anybody’s culture, because people want their most serious grievances addressed. As we have seen elsewhere, retributive justice after a war of this kind is very unlikely to achieve reconciliation—these are not easy choices to make—but that does not answer the question of impunity. That is why it is an audacious route to take to seek reconciliation in this way and why it is seldom welcomed by all those who seek complete justice or even confirmation that the evidence that they have provided, and on which they rely, is the only accepted truth that should be accounted for.

I am with the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Dholakia, in believing that one has to be clear on both sides about the conditions for success if this is the route that one wants to take. The first condition is that there should be sufficient independence in the inquiry to command support—and I support what Her Majesty’s Government have said about that, which is useful and correct.

Secondly, reconciliation can work fully in my view, even against all the odds, only if substantive outcomes can be achieved in the programme of reconciliation that is recommended. I make these points here not because the international groups have all written to me and urged that they should be made but because I hope for the success of the country and want to think about how that might be achieved. The outstanding evidence is clear; the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the first and perhaps most important point, that political processes have to encapsulate the rights for all groups and the rule of law, and that is fundamental. The aid agencies must be able to reach those needing aid, especially with medicines and medical facilities. I do not believe that there is evidence that that has fully happened, and I wonder whether the Minister has an observation on that.

There are clear failings in the existing IHL regime in respect of internal conflicts in both state and non-state armed groups. Does the Minister feel that there may be progress there? A large number of allegations have been made of abduction, arbitrary detention and disappearances—what is called a different kind of white van syndrome. There do not seem to me to be such clear outcomes as have been presented, and I wonder whether the Minister has views on that. I know from the work that was done in Argentina and Chile that, until those issues are fully nailed down, the families do not go away—and you can understand why. It will never satisfy them. The independent police commission has to function properly, and I am not absolutely clear from what I have read that it does function. I wonder whether the Minister has any observation.

I make one quick observation on Channel 4. Jon Snow is, in my view, one of the outstanding journalists of this generation. He has amazing standards and amazingly good personal, ethical values, which contrast with some others in the media. Yet questions persist about the authenticity of some of the footage of “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”. It is not for the Minister, but could Parliament perhaps encourage “Channel 4 News” to consider whether it has been deceived in any respect?

[Lord Wills]

I am very curious about this, because I did a lot of work researching all this, including reviewing those particular films. I looked at an Ofcom judgment; there were a lot of complaints about those films— hundreds, I think. Channel 4 was found not to be in breach at all by Ofcom, so I wonder whether my noble friend could specify what doubt there is. I am sure that he is aware that much of the footage in those films was filmed by Sri Lankan soldiers on their mobile phones. What possible doubt is there about the veracity of that footage?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, if my noble friend had allowed me just one more sentence, I was going to go on to say that I personally had no doubt about the authenticity of the films—that is my view. But when people, particularly in the current media climate, believe that it is important to be absolutely certain of these things, an excellent news programme such as I believe “Channel 4 News” is would do itself no harm if it repeated the exercise if it gave greater confidence. I personally have no doubt about the veracity, but my view may not be significant.

Finally, steps could be taken before the conformation of the final arrangements for the state visit, which is also very important—it is not just CHOGM. This is a real opportunity, in the spirit of Commonwealth standards and reputation, not least because the Commonwealth has an outstanding Secretary-General in Kamalesh Sharma, to ask questions, discuss progress and articulate a possible programme and means of verification of the programme. I know that that kind of Commonwealth role appealed enormously—it did in its time to me, and certainly it has done to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and I know that it does to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. For those reasons, I always attach great importance to what can be achieved by that kind of process. If it is done properly, it may well be that the value of the Commonwealth and of CHOGM in this instance will be very well demonstrated.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for securing this debate. I know that he and others within both Houses of Parliament have taken a close interest in Sri Lanka. The timing is most apt, a year after the publication of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, or LLRC, report, that has been referred to today.

Let me first note that the United Kingdom and Sri Lanka have a long-standing historical connection, and present-day ties include business, family, tourism and education. I assure my noble friend Lord Dholakia that large numbers of bright, talented Sri Lankan students continue to come to study in the United Kingdom and the diaspora community of around 400,000 people contributes significantly to our economy and rich cultural diversity. We are friends and it is a friendship that we value, even on the cricket pitch, despite being knocked out in the World Twenty20 in October by the host, Sri Lanka.

The 2009 defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or LTTE, brought an end to decades of conflict in the country, but a military victory alone cannot deliver the stable, lasting peace which all Sri Lankans deserve. It is for this reason that the UK supports the view, widely held within Sri Lanka and outside, that long-term peace can best be achieved through an inclusive political settlement that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict. Such a settlement must also take into account the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all Sri Lanka’s communities. The Government of Sri Lanka recognised this in appointing the LLRC, which submitted its report in December 2011. The report made more than 200 recommendations.

In January 2012, following the publication of the LLRC report, my right honourable friend Alistair Burt issued a Written Ministerial Statement in which he welcomed publication of the report and urged the implementation of its recommendations. The recommendations, if implemented in full, would go a long way to achieving the reconciliation which we believe will achieve lasting peace. Those recommendations included calls for credible investigations of alleged extrajudicial killings and disappearances, demilitarisation of the north, implementation of impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms and the protection of freedom of expression. However, as Alistair Burt said at the time, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, referred, in the view of this Government the report left gaps and unanswered questions on alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and we were disappointed by the report’s conclusions and recommendations on accountability.

Sri Lanka has made some progress against the LLRC recommendations. The UK recognises and welcomes the progress that has been made in a number of areas. UK officials have visited all nine provinces in the past 12 months and have seen much to welcome. Most importantly, the absence of conflict has brought greater security and opened up economic development. Demining, which has been referred to in today’s debate, including with UK financial support, is freeing up more and more land for resettlement and agriculture. Rehabilitation of thousands of ex-combatants, including child soldiers, has allowed many individuals to integrate back into society. The majority of internally displaced persons have now moved out of camps, although there is still work to be done in ensuring that all have permanent homes and are, where possible, able to return to their places of origin.

Despite a visible military presence, troop numbers in many areas are now well below 2009 levels. Infrastructure development is opening up the country, creating conditions for economic growth and enabling easier travel. All these are positive developments. However, the picture is not all positive. Much remains to be done in order to tackle the roots of conflict and ensure lasting peace and prosperity. The need for progress was highlighted in a March 2012 Human Rights Council resolution, supported by a majority of member states from around the world. It called on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the LLRC report recommendations and to address alleged violations of international law. In July 2012, the Sri Lankan Government published an LLRC action plan, with deadlines from early this year for the implementation of the LLRC recommendations. However, it is notable that the action plan covers around only half the LLRC recommendations. We hope that the Government of Sri Lanka will reconsider and look at implementing the LLRC report in full.

This is not a case of unrealistic expectations. The UK has never suggested or expected that resolution following a long-running conflict can be instantaneous. We realise that the LLRC recommendations cannot all be implemented immediately. We have our own experience of reconciliation from Northern Ireland, and we know well that such a process is complex and can take time. I thank my noble friend Lord Bates for outlining possible and potential pathways. He is right: this process will take time. I will take back his suggestions regarding building on the Olympic legacy and, indeed, the Olympic Truce. He is also right that we must look to a future for all, but in the case of Sri Lanka true reconciliation is unlikely to be possible without a brave, open and comprehensive review of the painful past, and addressing the deep-seated issues in the LLRC report requires a long-term approach, tenacity and co-operation.

There are, of course, inevitable barriers to swift progress in some areas—for example, the need to broker agreements between various parties, undertake changes to legislation and devise equitable solutions to complicated issues such as land rights. However, to make this long-term progress requires a sense of urgency and it has to be on a positive trajectory.

I regret that a number of the recommendations have not been tackled at all or have been tackled in name only. The military presence in many areas is less invasive than at the end of the conflict but armed forces continue to occupy large areas of civilian land, now classified as high-security zones or military cantonments. Military involvement in civil and commercial activities has been reduced in some areas but still remains widespread and a source of tension. Not only has there been no agreement on political settlement but a recent Bill seeks to further centralise currently devolved powers. Moreover, almost four years since the end of the conflict, there have been no prosecutions for alleged misconduct during the conflict.

The Government of Sri Lanka face considerable challenges but they face them with the support of an international community eager to see lasting peace in the country. With this support comes scrutiny, and in 2013 this is set to be particularly intense. In March we have the anniversary of the Human Rights Council resolution, and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, spoke about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which Sri Lanka is due to host in November. The CHOGM is an opportunity either for Sri Lanka’s progress to be showcased around the world or for bad news to be amplified. The UK believes that the host of CHOGM should uphold the Commonwealth values of good governance and respect for human rights. We will look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to these values both now and in the run-up to CHOGM. A key part of this will be addressing long-standing issues around accountability and reconciliation after the war. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, will be aware that Sri Lanka was scheduled to host CHOGM in 2011 but, given ongoing concerns about the humanitarian and human rights situation, the UK and other Commonwealth members did not support its bid. Commonwealth members decided that Sri Lanka would host it in 2013, but at this stage it is too soon to talk about the UK’s attendance plans. I cannot give further details today, but we will be looking to Sri Lanka to demonstrate the Commonwealth values expected of any CHOGM host.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, raised current, ongoing concerns about the human rights situation. International concerns about human rights violations in Sri Lanka are not limited to the years of the war but remain since the end of the war as well. The UK has been candid in private and public about our concerns. In the 1 November UN Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka, the UK raised concerns about the attacks on and intimidation of journalists, human rights defenders and the legal professions. We recommended that the Sri Lankan Government investigate alleged grave breaches of humanitarian law during the conflict. This recommendation was accepted, along with 110 of the 210 recommendations made in that review. We also recommended that the Sri Lankan Government ensure a climate in which all citizens can express their opinions freely. This recommendation was rejected, along with recommendations to invite the UN special rapporteurs to visit and recommendations to ensure independence of the judiciary. We continue to have concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka, including disappearances—to which the noble Lord referred—political violence, reports of torture in custody and restrictions on free speech. We raised our concerns directly with the Government of Sri Lanka and called upon them to investigate reports of human rights abuses whenever they occur.

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, also raised the issue of missing persons. A legacy of decades of conflict is that large numbers of missing people remain an understandable cause of considerable distress for many families. The LLRC report is committed to establishing a decentralised database of the missing by February of this year and we look forward to progress in this regard.

Events as recently as the last eight to 10 weeks are a source of concern for us as well as for other states and international organisations. These include impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice, which coincidentally followed a number of rulings against the Government; violent disruption of student remembrance events in Jaffna and the detention of students; and the violent suppression of a riot at Welikada prison in which 27 inmates lost their lives. On 5 December, our high commissioner joined other EU heads of mission in a public statement expressing concerns about the rule of law and individual freedoms in Sri Lanka.

Following the end of the conflict, we want to see Sri Lanka win a peace that can be enjoyed by all its citizens. Progress has been made but is lacking in a number of areas necessary to ensure long-term peace and stability. We remain committed to helping the reconciliation process, recognising the Sri Lankan Government’s legitimate authority and looking to the Government to implement the LLRC recommendations in full.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way but I intervene as I suspect that she is about to conclude her remarks. I asked a number of specific questions. I quite understand that she cannot answer them today but will she confirm that she will write to me with specific answers to those specific questions?

[Baroness Warsi]

I will certainly do that. UK support includes funding activities on rehabilitation, access to language rights, community policing support and positive dialogue within and between communities in Sri Lanka and, indeed, engaging the UK diaspora. We recognise the need for a long-term approach but firmly believe that this must include some early evidence of progress. It is right that Sri Lanka’s friends should raise such concerns alongside more immediate human rights issues. As Alistair Burt said in his Written Ministerial Statement last January:

“Our long-term interest is in a stable, peaceful Sri Lanka, free from the scourge of terrorism, and as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, conforming to the standards and values which Commonwealth membership requires”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/1/12; col. 21WS.]

That position remains unchanged.

I close by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his continued interest in Sri Lanka and for securing this debate today.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

That is for a later part of the Committee stage, but I have sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord. Indeed, I pointed out at Second Reading that the London Borough of Hounslow has done incredibly well over recent years, despite the difficulties that most local authorities have been facing. Hounslow has used a whole number of positive and negative ways to encourage people to register. It is not just where these things happen; it is the degree of attention that the local authority is able and willing to give to these matters.

As my noble friend Lord Rennard has indicated, we have a later amendment which we think would bring back to Parliament the last word in pressing the go button, particularly for 2016. I think that that is more appropriate than asking the Electoral Commission to be, as it were, judge and jury in its own case.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, as always it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and particularly so on his birthday. I should like to take this opportunity to wish him many happy returns. I am surprised, though, that in his interesting history of the previous Government’s legislation in this area he omitted to mention that the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer referred, was agreed as being the best way forward by the Conservative Front Bench in opposition and by the Liberal Democrat Benches in opposition. We have still not had any explanation of why that agreement has been ditched and we have to spend the time of this House and the other place on this new legislation. Perhaps he will return to that in due course and explain to those of us who are still mystified by it exactly why that was the case.

I support these amendments, which have been so ably spoken to by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. They all go to mitigate what many of us think are the risks of a decline in levels of registration as a result of this legislation. There is no certainty that the levels will decline, but we feel that there is a risk of that. We do not know whether the Government agree because so far they have studiously avoided saying whether they think there is any risk, but what we do know is that they are commendably committed to a comprehensive register. They have said that many times and I think we all agree on that. We also know that, again commendably, they are bringing forward a number of measures to that end, and they have the support of almost everyone in the House for those measures. But what we have also learnt is that they seem to feel that a level of registration of 85% to 87%—in other words where there would be 6 million people who would be eligible to vote but who would not be on the register—is a level of completeness that, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in an email to me, is, “as complete as is reasonably possible”. That at least indicates that they think there is some considerable difficulty in achieving a truly comprehensive register. We do not know exactly why the Government will not say whether they think there is any risk of a decline in levels of registration as a result of this legislation. It may be because they actually think that there is no such risk but that it would be imprudent for a Government to commit themselves in that way. It may be that they have done some work which shows that there are considerable risks inherent in the legislation, but again they do not want to tell us.

Governments are not infallible. Amendment 36, which I particularly support, offers Parliament the opportunity to assess the Government’s record in this area. This amendment would commit not only this Government but subsequent Governments. This Government may not be in power after 2015 so this amendment would commit a future Labour Government to bring before Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise levels of registration and, if necessary, to produce remedial measures. I think Parliament should have that opportunity.

This is not a minor technical matter, although some of the details are technical; it is about the very wiring of our democracy. The outcome of general elections depends on electoral registration. There are worries on this side of the House that this legislation, coupled with the PVSC Act, will lead to partisan outcomes in levels of electoral registration. These are important issues and Parliament ought to have the opportunity to scrutinise them regularly.

The Minister may say that the Electoral Commission will do its usual good job in bringing forward annual reports on the state of electoral registration and then it may be for Parliament to discuss the matter if it so wishes, but I hope that the Minister will not rely on such an argument. That would be to downplay the importance of this issue and the risks inherent in this legislation. I hope that the Government can agree with what is actually a modest amendment and allow Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise levels of registration on an annual basis.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I always listen very carefully to what he says but on this occasion I must take a rather different view of him. The cat was rather let out of the bag this morning by the BBC, which said that many Members of this House, and indeed the other place, regard this Bill as being a partisan, party-political Bill—a conspiracy on the part of the Conservative Party to extract maximum electoral advantage. This Government have been accused of many things but being part of a Conservative Party conspiracy to extract maximum electoral advantage is not a characteristic that they display daily.

Clearly the Bill is of considerable importance. It gives more effective meaning to the principle of “one voter, one vote”. It is just too important to be played for party-political advantage. Indeed, from my point of view, it stands alongside redistribution of boundaries in ensuring that elections are fair and balanced. Surely it is no fault of this side of the House—at least this party—that at the next election the principle of “one voter, one equal vote” may not apply, although I live in hope that my colleagues in the coalition may yet see the way to a liberal dose of common sense and just a smidgen of consistency even on that issue.

Of course, the important question is: how do we measure the success of this Bill? I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and other noble Lords that numbers are falling as a result of the current system of electoral registration. Figures of 3 million or 6 million missing voters have been mentioned. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, mentioned 7 million, which is a figure that I had not seen before, but I suspect that voters are rather like those pesky badgers: every time you turn around there are more of them than you thought.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, is right that everyone who has a right to vote should have a vote. It is that simple, yet surely it is not just a matter of numbers, which he concentrated on; it is also a matter of accuracy—that those numbers should be the right numbers. So many of the amendments that have been put down to this Bill emphasise completeness rather than accuracy; for instance, Amendment 36 talks about the Electoral Commission producing,

“a report on the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register”,

but it goes on to emphasise that what it is really interested in are “variations in registration rates”.

The current system is wide open to abuse. There has been a huge recent increase in postal votes on demand, which has opened up much scope for fraud. The problem is going to grow with the increasing growth in the private rented sector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the Constitution Committee have implied that fraud is rare. However, I go back to stating that proven cases of electoral fraud are rare but of course it is incredibly difficult to prove that electoral fraud has taken place. Whether such abuse happens is not entirely the point. Our electoral system should be made as secure as possible. My concerns are not entirely hypothetical, as we can all quote cases of politicians of all political colours who have been convicted recently—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord is asking some very large questions that of course relate to his preference for having a central register for all citizens, which would mean an ID card. That is rather larger than the remit of the Bill, as he well knows. Over the two years we will be conducting some further data matching and data mining to confirm existing electors. There will be individual invitations to those who are not confirmed by this process—in other words, concentrated individual canvassing rather than an overall individual canvass—a full household canvass in 2015 and a carry-forward to protect those who have not been contacted by the 2015 general election. There will be a civil penalty to encourage applications and the change will take place at the time of the next election when there will be the highest amount of popular interest in politics. I think I recall correctly that in the run-up to the previous general election some 500,000 additional voters registered in the two to three months before the election. That will bring a number of people back on to the register. We are confident that the efforts that will be made during the period of transition will complement each other to a point where we have reached at least the current level and, we hope, a great deal more.

On Amendment 36, as we go through this transition, the Electoral Commission will be carrying out research to give us measures of how well we are doing and to give us an after-measure using the December 2015 measures. We are confident that we can rely on the Electoral Commission to give us the figures that we need.

[Lord Wills]

Before the Minister leaves that amendment, will he say why, as I gather he is resisting it, he wants to deprive Parliament of the opportunity to debate what the Electoral Commission finds and propose remedial measures if necessary? Is he so confident in what he is producing, or is there some other reason why he does not want to give Parliament the right to scrutinise that report?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I envisage that Parliament will continue to scrutinise this as it goes through. I recognise that this is a concern for the whole House, and it may well be one of the things that we need to discuss off the Floor between Committee and Report. The Government are not convinced that we need to have an absolute point at which Parliament says yes or no to the entire transition, partly because, if we have gone through the two-year to three-year transition, there is the question of what the alternative should be if you have not gone far enough. That would mean a much more out-of-date register, which we would know would be extremely inaccurate by then if we failed to carry through. For myself and for the Government, we prefer a process in which a dialogue will be continuing as we go through the transition. A number of experiments will be taking place at that time to ensure that we achieve the aim that we all need. We are confident—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I want to contribute briefly to the discussion of this amendment on the appeals process but, before I do so, perhaps I should put the record straight in relation to the 2009 Act. There was not unanimity, despite what was said earlier, about the previous Government’s timetable for the introduction of IER. Both my noble friend Lord Rennard and I, during the Second Reading of the Bill on 18 March 2009, made it clear that we hoped there would be an acceleration of the programme, which is of course what the present Government are doing. Since then we have found that the previous register was so incomplete that there was a greater case for accelerating the process.

[Lord Wills]

I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to distort the historical record on his birthday. I do not know whether he and his noble friend were speaking on behalf of the Front Benches in that case but, certainly in the House of Commons, what actually happened was that the Front Benches agreed on the Political Parties and Elections Act and the timetable for that legislation. That is a matter of record in Hansard.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, as may often be the case, your Lordships’ House was wiser than the other place on this issue, and I invite the noble Lord to look at Hansard for 18 March 2009, cols. 257 and 284.

Returning to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I too have some concerns. It is important to make sure that there is some form of transparent judicial appeal process in which everyone has confidence, not least because removals can be serious, not just to the individual concerns but more generally. I draw attention to the fact that the implications, not least in terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, could mean that a donor is found to be illegitimate because he or she has been removed from the register. There could be considerable consequences from any form of removal. Therefore, although I do not have a strong view about whether the tribunal process would be the right one—doubtless, the Minister’s officials may already be providing reams of advice on the cumbersome problems that could be caused by a new tribunal—will my noble friend consider extending the existing tribunal process that relates to the civil liability issue under the Bill?

I do not have a magic answer to this but surely if there is already a tribunal process under the Bill, perhaps it might be extended to deal with appeals of this sort. That would seem to be a neat way to deal with this issue, and I look forward to hearing whether my noble friend would find that a helpful way forward.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

My Lords, it is entirely appropriate that this unelected second Chamber should be debating, probing, examining and questioning the electoral system in our country. As none of us is elected, we can approach this with a degree of objectivity and dispassion, which was how the noble and learned Lord began his remarks. I welcome that; it is a sort of oblique argument in favour of not having an elected element to this House, but I leave that debate for another day.

The independence of this House in electoral matters was very much evidenced in 2004 when postal voting by demand, introduced by the Labour Government in an Act in 2001, was eventually implemented that year by another Act. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was involved at the time, as was one of his colleagues. This House insisted that there should be proof of identity in postal voting. That was resisted by the House of Commons again and again, and there was an episode of ping pong. Eventually a proof of identity was put on to the statute book, which I think is entirely appropriate. Anyone who has fought in an election, as have seven or eight speakers in the debate, knows how important the register is. They will also recognise how out of date and inaccurate it is, and how frustrating it is to be met by your supporters during an election campaign who say, “I’m afraid I am not registered”. We have all had that experience. There might be a case for late registration, which should be looked at by the Electoral Commission and possibly by the Government.

The purpose of the Bill is to try to suppress fraud. Fraud in election comes in many shapes and sizes. The old traditional one was a straightforward impersonation in the ballot room—you turned up and said that you were somebody you were not. I think it was derived from the old Irish custom of polling the dead, but wherever it came from that was the most likely method. If you look at the recent fraudulent cases, you will see that that rarely happens now. Fraud in elections has become much more sophisticated, and the real fraud now in elections takes place as a result of having a postal vote by demand. There is a good case for that in trying to increase the number of people who are going to vote in our country, but there is absolutely no doubt that after it was introduced there was a flood of fraudulent activities. I will give noble Lords some idea of its extent. Recorded proceedings were taken and charges were laid in the following places: Birmingham, twice; Coventry; Burnley, twice; Halifax; Middlesbrough; Rochdale; Leicester; Pendle; Hyndburn; Blackburn; Woking; Slough; Peterborough; Reading; Oldham; Bradford; and Tower Hamlets, which has become the centre of this activity and where there is an ongoing criminal investigation.

The original cases in 2005-06 were principally between the Labour and Liberal Parties in the northern cities. The Conservative Party was no slouch in this. It quickly got in on the act and there was really no difference between the various parties in this matter: all parties have engaged in that sort of fraud.

[Lord Wills]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he could help the House by saying two things. First, what percentage of total votes cast were represented by those challenges in that long list that he outlined? Secondly, is he familiar with the 2008 Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust study on postal voting? If he is not, I suggest he familiarises himself with it. I am going to quote extensively from it later in my speech. I will not tire the House with it now, but I hope that the noble Lord will stay around to hear exactly what it said about the extent of postal vote fraud.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

I am familiar with the Rowntree report and I intend to quote something from it which rather refutes it, so we will have an exchange of quotations later. On percentages, the point about the list I have read out is that this particular fraud has certain characteristics. It is urban and it is in marginal seats. In many seats where there is a clear majority, either for the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, there is no fraud because it is unnecessary: it will not affect the result. It will affect the result only in marginal seats where a small balance of a small number of votes can determine who is going to win at a local election or at a general election. That is the comparison that one must make.

This fraud takes place in high-density communities with crowded premises in towns and cities. There is a high turnover because people are moving all the time from flat to flat and from residence to residence. There is often a floating population which can generate what has been described by some electoral pundits as clan loyalty whereby people want to see their immediate friends and colleagues elected. Many of these cases have landed up in court and there has been the imprisonment and bankruptcy of some of the people involved. Mayors and councillors have been involved, and reputations have been destroyed. It has been a very sad episode. It is in the interests of all our parties to try to eliminate this as much as we can.

In May 2010, the Sunday Times reported that 27 people were registered in a single property in Southall and in February this year the Evening Standard reported that dozens of flats in Tower Hamlets were registered with eight people per bedroom. The quotation that I shall use, which is rather later than the Rowntree report, comes from Judge Richard Mawrey, the expert on electoral fraud in our country. He has dealt with many cases. He said that,

“where a small number of votes will make a considerable difference, then the opportunities for fraud are enormous, the chances of detection very small, and a relatively modest amount of fraud will guarantee you win the election”.

That is the problem we have to face. What can one do about that?

I remember when I first stood in a council election back in the 1950s. In those days, if you wanted a postal vote or a proxy vote—fellow parliamentarians will remember this—you had to justify it and explain that you were elderly, housebound, or bedbound, were going to be abroad or out of town, or worked in a town that was different from the town in which you were registered to vote. There was a variety of reasons. You had to have that application signed by a magistrate, an MP, a doctor or a professional person. I well remember—and I am sure my noble friend Lord Rennard will remember because in these matters I look upon him as a professional expert—that in those days in all constituency fights you had a committee of people who sought out postal votes for your party. I think the Liberal Party was the first to do so, but we followed quite quickly. You identified people who you knew were going to be abroad and got them registered. I would go back to something like that, but that may be a little unrealistic unless the checks and balances that we create are effective.

If this business of postal fraud continues—and I think we are going to try to stop it with this Bill, very imperfectly, if I may say so—what can one do? The basis of the previous system was verification by an outsider. Under postal vote by demand the verification is by the registered person and, as the Minister said and the noble Lord confirmed, there will be three qualifications: a signature, a date of birth and a national insurance number. This is going to be a matter for the Secretary of State to lay down in regulations after the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the national insurance number will be added. That would certainly deal with the problem of illegal immigrants because the national insurance number is the closest thing we in this country have to a national number.

Other checks are important. The canvass is important. There is going to be a canvass in 2014. That means that returning officers will have to carry out a canvass. I remember this happening once in Dorking. It surprised everybody. People were visited by people from the council who knocked on doors to see who lived there and who they were, but it happened only once during my 30 years-plus in the House of Commons. I think it is an important step in the verification of electoral registers, and there is a possibility that it could be suspended, postponed or done only partially, and that is quite wrong.

The other check is the verification of postal votes by returning officers. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, answered a Question last year or the year before about the 2010 election. In only two-thirds of the cases had returning officers checked the signatures on the ballot papers. Those of us who have postal votes know that you have to sign them, having previously registered your signature. That was done in only three-quarters of the cases. I would have thought that it would be necessary to make that mandatory for all seats.

One other matter I would draw to the attention of the Government is the spate of fraud from about 2005 to this year, mainly based around postal votes, and only partially on proxy votes. There have been one or two cases of late where the fraud seems to have moved to proxy voting. There was one case where somebody turned up with 50 proxy votes; that is just like the 18th century, when the Duke of Newcastle turned up with a number of votes and said, “That’s it”. I would have thought that there is a case for saying that anybody who has a proxy vote should have a vote for only one other person—not for another 50—to bring to the poll. That is not in the Bill; perhaps the Government might consider that carefully, to see whether such an amendment could be introduced.

I would make only these further points. This Bill also extends the length of the campaign from 17 days to 25. I do not know where this proposal came from; I always thought that 17 days was quite enough for a campaign. One of the great virtues of our system is that we have a short, sharp campaign. In America, it lasts for a year or 18 months, but in Britain, 17 days was absolutely ideal. I do not why we need another eight days for campaigning, when one counted and ticked off the days and the hours and hoped for polling day. That will be a big expense for the parties; they will need quite a bit more money to run the campaign for another week. It seems to be government policy and also I suppose coalition policy, too. It was—good Lord. In that case, I support it, although I do not really see the justification for it.

The other point I shall touch on is the extraordinary civil penalty which has been created: that the returning officer imposes a civil penalty on people who do not register. That reminded me of the Anglican confession:

“We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done”.

It seems extraordinary to create a civil penalty and a fine for not doing something. It would face enormous trouble in the courts. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are very strange religious cults in our country, which are not remotely concerned with the electoral system here; they are mainly concerned about the accessibility of the next world. They will certainly tell their supporters on no account to bother to register. Sure enough, there will be a case with some awkward person who will actually go to court and challenge this, and almost certainly end up in a human rights court, challenging whether his human rights have been denied by not registering. He would be hauled up because he had not performed his civic duty. Civic duty is another extraordinary concept of this Bill and I have not come across this previously in legislation. I know it as a concept. When the human rights court gets such a case before it, it will almost certainly find in favour of the litigant. After all, it was prepared to disregard civic duty to the extent of allowing prisoners— who have abandoned their civic duties—to have votes. I think this will be a big problem area for the Government; I do not know where the problem arose.

In conclusion, it is in the interests of all parties to ensure that there are no obvious areas of fraud. I believe that in spite of the checks and balances introduced by this Bill, there will be scope for elaborate and very ingenious fraud through postal and proxy voting. That should be checked. It was checked in the 19th century and the early 20th century; we have made it much looser. That is not in the interests of democracy or fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, as we have heard from almost every speaker so far, there is widespread support for the objective of the Bill, but there is also profound unease about the way the Government are going about it. The Bill aims to bring in individual electoral registration which, as the Minister and others have described, has significant advantages over the current system of household registration. That is why the previous Government brought in legislation, for which I was the responsible Minister, which introduced individual electoral registration. However, unlike this Bill, that legislation secured cross-party support. That is because, unlike this Bill, it was designed to have no partisan effect in the way it was delivered.

This Government have abandoned that careful cross-party approach; instead, this Bill seeks to rewire our electoral arrangements in a way that is likely to have a partisan impact and damage our democracy. This may seem strong language to apply to what may appear to be a narrow and technical Bill, but while electoral registration is often a highly technical issue, it is always an important one. The struggle for the right to vote defines the history of our democracy and electoral registration makes that right a reality.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in his opening speech, the key question that has to be addressed when scrutinising this Bill is: why did this Government abandon the previous Government’s approach of bringing in individual electoral registration by linking it to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate electoral register? That is the key question because all the evidence and expert opinion suggests that for all its merits, the introduction of individual registration carries with it the severe risk that significant numbers of people eligible to vote will not register and so will be unable to vote. This was the case in Northern Ireland when it moved to this new system, although, as we have heard, there were special circumstances there. The independent report on that experience by the Electoral Commission concluded that, while its findings about the impact on registration related directly to Northern Ireland,

“they are not unique and reflect the wider picture across the UK. They present a major challenge to all those concerned with widening participation in electoral and democratic processes”.

In evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee of the House of Commons last year, Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission, upon whom the Minister relied in his opening speech, said it was possible that,

“the register could go from around a 90% completeness that we currently have”—

actually it turned out to be a bit less than that—

“to around, say, a 60% completeness”.

There is already a serious problem with the electoral register in the United Kingdom. As we have heard, the latest estimate suggests that at least 6 million people eligible to vote were not registered to do so in December 2010. The problem is all the worse because those eligible voters who are not on the register are disproportionately concentrated in particular groups: young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally, those living in areas of high social deprivation, and ethnic minorities. The introduction of individual registration risks making a bad situation significantly worse, which is why its introduction was delayed for so long. The improvements it is likely to bring to the accuracy of the register by helping to ensure that all those on the register should be on it are balanced by the deterioration in accuracy it is likely to bring about as increasing numbers of eligible voters do not register.

As I have said, the previous Government sought to address this problem by linking the implementation of individual registration to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register by 2015. This timetable allowed for a phased introduction of the new system but we showed our commitment to meeting it by giving the Electoral Commission the power to oversee the process and the obligation to report annually to Parliament on its progress in achieving the objective, and substantial new powers to help it do so. This approach has now been junked by the Government, who want to bring in individual registration whatever the consequences for the coverage of the register.

I know that the Government, in good faith, are taking measures to increase registration and they are all welcome. But they are essentially a continuation of the same measures the previous Government brought in and, as I keep telling Ministers in this Government, when I was the Minister responsible for bringing in these measures I hoped that they would halt and reverse the likely decline in registration but I could not guarantee they would do so. That is why we took the approach we did. As I have said before, I could see no justification in advancing towards one public policy objective at the expense of another when it was perfectly possible to advance towards both at the same time.

In response to questioning in a debate in your Lordships’ House on I2 July, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, admitted that he could not guarantee that this Bill would not cause the numbers on the electoral register to go down but he appeared to justify this by saying that the numbers have been falling under the present system of household registration. I hope that, on reflection, he is not seriously seeking to argue that because a problem already exists, it is acceptable to make it even worse.

The impact assessment of this Bill carried out by the Cabinet Office is a very interesting document. It admits that in the long run the register is expected to remain 85% complete. In other words, all the efforts the Government are making to increase registration, which are considerable, will be counteracted by the damage to registration levels caused by the Government’s approach to bringing in individual registration. That figure of completeness is more or less where we are today.

The Government seem content to accept that, by their own estimates, some 6 million eligible voters will remain off the electoral register—even though the Minister has told us today that the Government place equal emphasis on the completeness and the accuracy of the register. This is in contrast to the previous Government’s approach, where there were continuing incentives to improve registration rates by tying them to the delivery of individual registration—a goal on which the whole of Parliament, I think, can agree. There was also provision for annual progress reports to Parliament by the Electoral Commission, giving Parliament the opportunity every year to introduce new measures should they be needed. All that was agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in opposition; all that has been junked by them now they are in government.

My concerns are increased by the silence of the impact assessment on two important issues that could make electoral registration even more worryingly incomplete. First, it does not say what levels of investment it assumes will be made by local authorities in registration. This Bill gives a lot of powers—we have heard a lot about data-matching—but it does not say how much local authorities are actually going to invest in the process of registration. Your Lordships will be aware that the money allocated by central government to local authorities for electoral registration is not ring-fenced. It is therefore likely that, at a time when local authorities are subject to intense pressure on their budgets, some—possibly many—of them might be tempted to spend those funds not on electoral registration but on other hard-pressed services.

Can the Minister say whether, in making projections about levels of registration, the Government have assumed that every penny of the money allocated for electoral registration will be spent to that end by every local authority? If they have not assumed that, what assumptions have they made about levels of local authority spending on registration? Will the Minister also share with your Lordships the calculations the Government have made about the impact on levels of registration if local authorities do not spend the funds allocated to them for that purpose to that end?

Secondly, the impact assessment is silent on the differential impact of this change on the system of registration. As I have said, under the current system, registration rates are lower among particular demographic groups and in particular parts of the country. Will the Minister set out the methodology through which the Government reached their assessment of the impact of this legislation on levels of registration? Can he say if the Government made any assessment of the impact on those groups and those parts of the country in which registration is disproportionately low under the current system? If so, what was that assessment?

Why are the Government risking such damage to the electoral register? They have suggested—in the Explanatory Notes, for example, and we have heard it again today from the Minister—that the aim of this Bill is to,

“reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration”.

Their argument appears to be that the problem of electoral fraud is so pressing that tackling it is such a priority that the Government must abandon the previous Government’s timetable and all its protections for levels of registration.

No one can quarrel with any measure that reduces electoral fraud, and I agree with the Government that individual registration can play a part in doing so; that was one of the main reasons the previous Government legislated for it. However, this argument needs to be kept in perspective. There is no evidence—none—that electoral fraud is widespread or systemic. That is what the independent bodies tasked with safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system have found over and again in their study of all the elections that have been conducted in this country over the past 10 years and more. To quote from just one analysis carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Electoral Commission into the 2010 elections, they found,

“no evidence of widespread systematic attempts to undermine or interfere with the May 2010 elections through electoral fraud”.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who seemed to be making a slightly different point, they went on to say about those elections,

“we are not aware of any case reported to the police that affected the outcome of the election to which it related nor of any election that has had to be re-run as a result of electoral malpractice”.

There is never any justification for any complacency about even a single instance of electoral malpractice. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others have said. However, the evidence does not suggest that electoral malpractice justifies the risk that the Government are running with the register. The Rowntree Reform Trust report of 2008 concluded:

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

It went on to say that what malpractice there was,

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

Nor will individual registration address all the cases of malpractice. ACPO and the Electoral Commission have concluded that the nature of recorded electoral malpractice tends to change as efforts are successful in tackling previous forms of it. Indeed, the Bill suggests the Government are actually not that worried about electoral fraud; they could have included measures to tackle it but they have not done so. They have not included, for example, anything to implement a suggestion by ACPO and the Electoral Commission that to strengthen the security of the electoral process the Government might require proof of voters’ identities at a polling station. There are strong arguments against it, but there is no consideration of it in this Bill and they have not brought anything forward to deal with it.

If the Government were really so concerned about electoral fraud, the Bill would include further measures, for example, to tackle directly personation, which still exists from time to time, and it would carry forward measures to tackle postal vote fraud. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on the advantages of 100% verification of postal vote ballots; he is absolutely right about that. At the moment electoral returning officers verify a small percentage of them, but 100% verification would help to tackle what postal vote fraud exists. There is nothing about that in the Bill; there could be, but it is costly. If the Government were as worried, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, seems to be, they would make provision for it, but they have not.

Looking again at the impact assessment, we can see that the Government are not altogether convinced about their own case. It suggests that the “problem under consideration” is the,

“widely held view that the current system for registration is vulnerable to fraud and a public perception that this allows electoral fraud to occur”.

In other words, the problem is not necessarily something that exists in fact but simply the perception that it might do so. Of course we need to be worried about perceptions—any doubts about the integrity of the electoral process are very important—so how widespread is that perception? I think the most recent evidence we have is from the tracker survey carried out by the Electoral Commission in 2011. That survey found that 36% thought that electoral fraud was a big or a very big problem but 50% thought that it was not a big problem or not a problem at all, so only a minority are worried about it. That becomes even more relevant when we look at the sample where those who said that they knew a lot about the problem amounted to a total of 6%. This hardly seems like a secure evidence base on which to bring legislation before Parliament. The Government seem to recognise this because they bring forward financial fraud as another reason for this legislation.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and, as always, I hesitate to interrupt in debates, but it may be helpful to all noble Lords taking part if I remind them gently that the Companion says, in chapter 4.44:

“In debates where there are no formal time limits”—

and this debate is not time limited—

“members opening or winding up, from either side, are expected to keep within 20 minutes”—

which, indeed, they have done. It continues:

“Other speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes”.

I am sure that the noble Lord is coming to the end of his speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wills]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her guidance. I am actually about to come to the end. However, I would point out tactfully, although I am not intending to take advantage of this, that the notes issued by the Government Whips Office suggests that the House is due to rise at 10 pm, so I suspect that there is a little time left for me to conclude.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, that was perhaps taking account of the elasticity of the previous business, on which the House was commendably succinct.

[Lord Wills]

I assure the House that I will not tire it any further. However, as I spent a great deal of my life on this issue—not altogether of my own volition—when I was a Minister, I had hoped that I would be able to contribute something to the debates as we went forward. I hope that I may be allowed a little more latitude—another two or three minutes, if that is acceptable. I see that I am being allowed to continue for the time being until I get a signal from my own Whips.

I shall deal with the question of financial fraud because it is put forward as an important justification for the Bill in the impact assessment. No one has mentioned it so far, but the Government estimate that there could be a reduction in such fraud of £17.5 million by 2030. When we look at the arguments for this, though, we see that that figure is reached only if the amount of fraud detected and prevented is a linear function of the electoral register—but then it is admitted that no such assumption can be made. The impact assessment states:

“This figures should be considered to be indicative”—

a slippery word—

“only however because the mathematical relationship between the accuracy of the electoral register and fraud is imperfectly understood”.

In other words, it might be a strong argument for this Bill but it might be no such argument at all. We really should not be legislating on such a flimsy evidence base, and the flimsiness of the case for this legislation is matched by the damage that it is going to do to the electoral register.

What are the consequences of this? Clearly it damages our democracy when millions are excluded from the electoral register. Most agree that eligible voters who do not register are more likely to vote Labour when they do vote. The Government recognise this problem by allowing a carryover from the household system of registration for the general election in 2015. Significantly, though, as we have heard, they have not allowed for such a carryover for the boundary review that is also going to take place in 2015. What are the consequences of that likely to be? As I have previously argued, Labour constituencies are likely to see disproportionate declines in those on the register because those less likely to register are disproportionately concentrated in such constituencies. Because of the very tight numerical limits on constituency size imposed by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, that is likely to mean fewer Labour seats. Furthermore, because of the way that Labour constituencies are often surrounded by strongly Conservative constituencies, that is likely to mean that more Labour safe seats will become marginal and more marginal Labour seats will become Conservative ones.

I have asked your Lordships before, and I ask you again today, to consider the impact on our democracy if it turns out that the outcome of a general election has been determined by the fact that millions of eligible voters could not vote because they were not registered to do so and this was the result of a government policy, deliberately pursued despite all the evidence that it would have precisely this consequence. As it stands, this Bill is noxious to democracy, and this is compounded by the broad order-making powers that Ministers wish to give themselves to alter the system further in future.

However, despite all that, I do not think that the Bill is beyond redemption. A number of amendments could rid it of its partisan elements while still securing its overriding objective. I conclude my remarks with a plea to all those Peers who have an understandable reluctance to amend too vigorously legislation that affects elections to the other place. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said about our slight remove and therefore our greater objectivity in these matters, but I also understand that many Peers do not wish to interfere in electoral matters. I ask any Peers who feel like that to recall that your Lordships’ House has historically seen the protection of our country's constitutional arrangements—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord is now in the 21st minute. The Companion says that even if the speech is of great significance to the nation that it should not continue beyond that period. It is a matter for the Minister to decide, of course, whether he responds to points put by the noble Lord. Given the general nature of this debate, I am sure that he would wish to do so. The Companion is clear and is there, for fairness, to all Peers because we are all treated equally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, I add my strong support for the aims of the Bill. The disadvantage of being so late in the speakers’ list means that most areas have been covered by other noble Lords. However, the advantage is that I have had the opportunity of hearing their interesting, wide-ranging and well expressed comments. Those wide-ranging views have covered fraud, fines, timetables, reduction of numbers on registers, postal votes and many other points. All will be discussed in great detail in Committee.

My main reason for wishing to speak in this Second Reading is because of my serious concern at the existence of electoral fraud. I have had personal experience of it, but I hasten to add that it was not as a fraudster but as the past leader of a council in one of the cities mentioned by my noble friend Lord Baker. Three members of my political group were found guilty of electoral fraud and, unfortunately, the common comment in the community and of other politicians at the time was that the three who were caught were less practised in fraud than the many other party members who practised it, managed it with expertise and got away with it.

I do not take pleasure or comfort in reminding your Lordships that politicians of various political persuasions have been convicted of electoral offences. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that he may feel that this is not a major issue, but such circumstances are hugely damaging to citizens’ views of the democratic process and to the political process.

[Lord Wills]

The noble Baroness may not have correctly heard me. I was quoting a report by the independent Rowntree Reform Trust and made it clear that even a single incident of electoral fraud should be taken extremely seriously. I am afraid that the noble Baroness inadvertently misrepresented my position.

[Baroness Eaton]

I apologise if that is the case.

It is not an enjoyable experience hearing, first-hand on the doorsteps at election time, voters clearly expressing the view that it is a waste of time voting when there is so much fraud taking place that can affect the outcome of the election results. Particularly in council elections where majorities can be small, these events can have a major impact on the outcome.

There is an issue that no one has raised but I have observed. There seems historically to have been a reluctance by the police to tackle and track down electoral fraud. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he thinks the new system of personal registration will help in this regard.

I should like also to express my concern about personation, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because it often referred to as a potentially bigger issue than many of us recognise. I fear that we must urgently move to an electoral registration system that gives all electors confidence in the integrity of that system because it prevents fraud. I am sure that in Committee we will give a great deal of time and attention to the detail, and that we will all be pleased to accept the end product.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this has been a very worthwhile Second Reading, and a number of very valuable points were raised that we will all pursue further in Committee. I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, that he raised a number of very interesting points on which I was not fully briefed, so I will be very happy to write to him on them.

We can take either a partisan or a non-partisan approach to this Bill in Committee. I very much hope that we will follow the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. Surely our goal must be to achieve a complete and accurate register—although I have to say, as complete and accurate a register as possible, because we all recognise that we already have problems with the register in both respects. We are trying to improve that, and none of us has the hope that we will be able to get complete accuracy or completeness. So let us take as non-partisan an approach in Committee as we can.

If I were to take a partisan approach, I would be quite sharp with both the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, whose opening speech reminded me of one that a prosecuting counsel might make in a case where he knew that the evidence was relatively weak. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, suggested in effect that this was a vast Conservative conspiracy in which the Liberal Democrats were somehow co-conspirators. I have done my politics in cities and I know of many cases of election fraud, mainly in local elections and often by Labour voters against Liberal Democrats, that were not pursued by the Liberal Democrats because of the immense expense involved in mounting a challenge. I am talking about Kirklees, Manchester and Bradford, although I am well aware of cases in Burnley, Birmingham and elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, what sort of democracy is it when we have severe problems at local level? I am also very conscious—

[Lord Wills]

I must correct the misapprehension that the Minister is under. I do not think that I used the word “conspiracy”, and I was not alleging any grave conspiracy. I was trying to take noble Lords through the consequences of the Government’s approach to the review of boundaries in 2015, and the partisan political consequences that could well ensue—that was all. It is perfectly open to the noble Lord to give me good arguments why those consequences will not happen, and I shall be completely reassured. There is no question of a conspiracy; it is just a question of natural consequences following from what the Government are trying to do.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I shall do my utmost to reassure the noble Lord by the way that we handle the Bill as it goes through. I regret that the level of Cross-Bench participation in this Second Reading debate was not higher, because there is a lot of expertise on those Benches about the groups we most want to reach—the most vulnerable and marginal groups in society who are least involved in politics. We share a common interest in trying to get those people re-engaged in politics, and we recognise that we all have a problem in getting them re-engaged. I spent some time over recent weekends on big estates in Bradford where the level of turnout was astonishingly low and the level of registration fairly low.

To suggest—as I think I also picked up from some noble Lords on the Benches opposite—that somehow these people belong to Labour and are naturally Labour, even if they do not vote or even register, is stretching the argument. They belong to no party, and we all share the problem of how to get them re-engaged in society, politics and community life. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that in this respect we have many problems. We are struggling against a deeply cynical media that reinforces the instinctive scepticism of rising numbers of voters. We all have to demonstrate that we share a concern for the quality of our democracy and of our democratic institutions.

Perhaps I may make one more partisan remark before I return to being my usual entirely non-partisan self. In the 2005 general election, the Labour Government returned to power on 35% of the votes cast—barely a quarter of the electorate—and the majority of the media and the Opposition did not cry, “Illegitimate and improper”. However, it was close to the bounds of democratic acceptability.

How will we engage young people? The noble Lord, Lord Bates, in particular asked how we are working with Bite the Ballot and Operation Black Vote. We have not looked very far into the question of whether we should have campaigns which involve personalities and celebrities. However, we have looked at using social media more. We are looking at the experience in Northern Ireland where working in schools with what are called the “attainers”—16 and 17 year-olds—has provided better civic education. Taking registration forms into schools has clearly had a very positive effect. As we move to individual registration, we very much hope to follow this experience to ensure that we catch the attention of young voters, many of whom are not terribly interested in politics at that time.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, raised the issue of elderly and disabled people. We are consulting Scope, Mind and a number of other bodies on how best to make sure that access is maintained and how to improve access to polling stations where possible. The levels of suspected fraud for postal votes and proxies are much higher than for those giving personal votes in the election. Therefore, asking people to reassure us during the transition that postal and proxy votes are real is a justifiable way of improving the accuracy of the system.

Perhaps I may talk about the difference between this Bill and the previous Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to a “ruinous timetable” as if this were being rushed through unannounced. I remind the noble Baroness that this Bill has been through pre-legislative scrutiny and through the other House. We have listened and changed the Bill. When the Political Parties and Elections Bill was introduced in the Commons, it contained no provisions for individual electoral registration. However, when the Conservative Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment and voted against the Bill, relevant clauses were added in the Lords. These were not discussed fully in the Commons, except when the Bill returned from the Lords. It is, therefore, grossly unfair to suggest that we are rushing into this or, indeed, as I understand the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that the previous Bill was perfect and this is somehow imperfect.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked me about the statement on the invitation on the civil penalty and how prominent it would be. The Electoral Commission will design the invitation form and will test it with users to achieve the best possible form to encourage registration. I know that there is much concern about differences between local authorities in the duties of the electoral registration officers. These duties will be clearly set out in the Bill, secondary legislation and in Electoral Commission guidance. We are working closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure, as far as possible, a consistent approach across local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, will no doubt return in Committee to how large the civil penalty should be and how often it should be applied. If an individual has been issued with the penalty and subsequently applies to be registered, we intend that the penalty will be waived. We are not persuaded by his suggestion of multiple fines in a single year—whatever it might do to assist the Treasury.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, asked what we are doing now to increase registration rates. I have already said a little about that. We are closely studying the experience of Northern Ireland. We have seen the excellent work there and we hope to learn from it to ease the transition, which I have already described in my opening speech. The Cabinet Office is leading a programme of work to maximise electoral registration among the groups on which we all agree—that is, the ones that are currently under-registered or identified as at risk of falling off. However, we recognise that under-registration is not the responsibility of Government alone. We will work closely with partners across the public, private and voluntary sectors. I hope that we will all engage in this effort and encourage people from voluntary organisations to engage in it as well.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, also asked me what evidence should be required. We dropped the requirement for a signature on the grounds that a date of birth and a national insurance number would be adequate in themselves. We propose to require these to enable online registration. We hope that people will gradually move forward with the technological change. I was struck by the DWP evidence about the speed at which people are moving to interact with the state online. Within the next five to 10 years, the overwhelming majority of people, including those of our generation, will be likely to interact with the state online. That is why we are moving in this direction and why it is proper to take in this Bill a power to suspend the annual canvass at some point in the future, as has been done in Northern Ireland, when it seems that the number of people dealing with registration online has reached an appropriate level.

The noble and learned Lord also asked me questions about the budget of the high-level implementation plan. I am sorry that he did not pick up from my opening speech that there is £108 million allocated over the spending review period. We are also making excellent progress in developing IT and we are pleased by the engagement of electoral registration officers of the Association of Electoral Administrators—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I have read the note from the Electoral Commission on this.

The question of overseas electors will be raised. I had a conversation off the Floor of the House with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in which we agreed that we are both being lobbied heavily by our local party organisations from Brussels and Luxembourg on this issue. The Government do not have any plans at the present moment to lengthen the period from leaving the country beyond 15 years, nor do we have any really ambitious plans to do what is done in some other countries, which is to allow voting in embassies and consulates. However, the longer electoral period will help.

I hope that that covers many of the questions which have been raised—

[Lord Wills]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I understand from the Companion that the time is now up. However, I did ask quite a large number of very specific and detailed questions, most of which derived from the impact statement published by the Cabinet Office. The Minister has not even referred to them. If there is no time now, I would be grateful if he could write to me with detailed answers to those questions. Also, he told me at the beginning of his speech that he would deal with the particular problem of the impact of any fall in registration on the boundary reviews. Perhaps he might be able to squeeze in a few seconds on that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

We will return to many of these issues in Committee. We have taken on board everything that has been said in the debate. We are confident that by going through the transition process and learning from the Northern Irish experience, we will come out with a register that is at least as complete as it is at the moment, and more accurate. Let us all recognise that we are operating against a decline in the completeness of the register over the past 10 to 20 years and that, first, we have to stem that decline. If we were to continue with household registration, it is likely that it would decline further. If we can work to reverse that decline and bring about a transition by which we will catch those who move around rapidly such as students and young people, we will have done extremely well.

[Lord Wills]

I am sorry to press the Minister, but will he provide me with the answers to my questions?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Lord in spite of the fact that he strained the patience of the House and of myself with the length of his speech.

Parliamentary Boundary Commission: Electoral Administration

Lord Wills Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for securing this debate. In the speeches so far, we have already heard just how important are the issues that he has given us the opportunity to discuss. When the Government brought forward their proposals for redefining the criteria for constituency boundaries, they justified them on the grounds of high constitutional principle. For example, during Second Reading in the other place of the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“If we together cannot deliver these reforms, we will have to ask ourselves what we really meant when each of us promised our constituents that we would seek to reform and strengthen our politics. We promised a new politics. Today is the day we must begin to deliver on that promise. We must make the system fair”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 44.]

However, we now know what this new politics actually means. We know it thanks to the interview given to the Independent last week by the recently retired director of strategy for that same Deputy Prime Minister. In that interview the recently retired director of strategy promised that these reforms, which, I remind the House, the Deputy Prime Minister promised would help deliver “a new politics”, would be sabotaged if the Liberal Democrats did not get their way on reform of the House of Lords—a reform which, if passed, would incidentally virtually guarantee the Liberal Democrats an entrenched position of power in Parliament. So we see that the Deputy Prime Minister’s much vaunted new politics in fact turns out to be nothing more than an old-fashioned backroom bartering of partisan pieces of legislation.

Today, however, I do not want to excavate any further the motivations behind that legislation. I want to look at the toxic consequences for our democracy of the interaction between the boundary reviews launched by that Bill—now Act—and the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill which is shortly to come before your Lordships’ House. I do not oppose the objectives of these pieces of legislation. Reducing the number of seats in the House of Commons and equalising the size of the constituencies that remain must be a reasonable objective. As a Minister I brought in the legislation which introduced individual electoral registration and which is the subject of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. But the way that the Government have set about delivering these objectives has abandoned long-established constitutional proprieties in the pursuit of partisan self-interest. There has been no serious attempt to establish cross-party working on radical changes of the boundary review process or radical changes in the system of electoral registration. Perhaps the Minister could say what happened to that cross-party working group on the introduction of individual registration for which, in January, there was such cross-party support in your Lordships’ House.

The Government have explicitly abandoned the cross-party approach to the introduction of individual registration adopted by the previous Government. I was the Minister responsible in that Government. When we brought in our legislation to introduce individual electoral registration we went to great lengths to consult other political parties and we secured Front-Bench agreement from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats to our approach, which linked individual registration to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register. After all this time and after so many questions, we still have not had an adequate explanation from the Government of why they have abandoned such a cross-party approach.

When we look at the detail we can perhaps see a clue as to the consequences of the Government’s change of approach. We have already heard—it is generally accepted—that for all its merits the introduction of individual registration carries with it the severe risk and the great probability that significant numbers of people eligible to vote will not register and so be unable to vote. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that was the case in Northern Ireland when it moved to this new system of registration. In evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons last year, Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission, said that,

“it is possible … that the register could go from around a 90% completeness that we currently have to around, say, a 60% completeness”.

As we have already heard, there is a serious problem with electoral registration in this country. The latest estimate from the Electoral Commission suggests that at least 6 million people eligible to vote were not registered to do so in December 2010. The fact that so many are not on the register who should be, despite all the measures taken by this Government and the previous Government, shows how intractable this problem is. It damages our democracy when so many eligible citizens cannot vote because they are not on the register. That is all the more so when we see that they are disproportionately concentrated in particular groups: young people, students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally, those living in areas of high unemployment and ethnic minorities.

The introduction of individual electoral registration risks making a bad situation significantly worse. That is why the previous Government delayed its introduction until a comprehensive and accurate register was achieved. We brought in a timetable and allowed for a phased introduction of the system by 2015. There was no undue delay about this. We gave the Electoral Commission power to oversee the process and Parliament the opportunity to monitor regularly what was happening. No one could say we were dragging our feet. We were trying to deal with the real problems that the introduction of individual registration was likely to bring.

This is the approach that has been junked by this Government, who want to bring in individual registration whatever the consequences on the register. I know that the Minister is going to rehearse in his reply all the measures that the Government are taking to increase registration. They are all welcome and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who is largely responsible for removing some of the worst features of the Government’s proposed changes and for restoring the situation to the status quo ante. He is to be congratulated on his hard work. The changes that he has brought about are welcome, but essentially the measures that the Government are bringing in to increase registration are the same ones that I brought in when I was the Minister responsible. I hoped that they would reverse the decline in registration. I looked at these issues for months, but I could not guarantee that we would be able to halt the decline in registration that individual registration is likely to lead to. That is why we took the approach that we did. I could see no justification in advancing towards one public policy objective at the expense of another when I thought that it was possible to advance towards both at the same time.

What will be the consequences of the fall-off in registration to which this Government are opening the door? Most agree that those eligible voters who will not be registered to vote are most likely to vote Labour when they do so. The Liberal vote in the inner cities is similarly likely to suffer. The evidence suggests that the party that will suffer least, if at all, is the Conservative Party. Electoral registration is only 90% complete in Labour seats and 94% complete in Conservative seats. When you look at the demographic make-up of these seats, the explanation is clear. That might be the reason why this coalition Government are junking the principle followed, for good reason, by successive Conservative and Labour Governments that fundamental constitutional change such as this should only proceed, wherever possible, on a cross-party consensual basis. That incidentally is the attitude that the Conservative Party is taking towards reform of your Lordships’ House.

The Government have taken some steps towards acknowledging this problem by allowing for a carryover from the household system of registration for the general election to be held in 2015. Significantly, they have not allowed for such a carryover for the constituency boundary reviews also due to take place in 2015. This means that those boundary reviews will be conducted on the basis of a profoundly flawed register.

What are the consequences of that likely to be? Labour constituencies are likely to see disproportionate declines in those on the register, because those less likely to register are disproportionately concentrated in such constituencies. Because of the tight numerical limits on constituency size and flexibility imposed by the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act, that is likely to mean fewer Labour seats. Because of the way in which Labour constituencies are often surrounded by strongly Conservative constituencies, that is likely to mean that more Labour safe seats will become more marginal and more marginal Labour seats will become marginal Conservative ones.

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said about the likely psephological implications of the boundary reviews but, with respect, that has not properly factored in the interaction between the decline in registration and those boundary reviews. It is clear that this Government are hijacking our electoral arrangements in the interests of the Conservative Party’s. They are turning these electoral arrangements into a matter for partisan dispute for the first time in over a century. This is potentially toxic for our democracy.

I have asked your Lordships to consider the situation before and I ask your Lordships to consider it today. What is the impact on the health of our democracy if it turns out, as it may do in 2020, that the outcome of a general election has been determined by the fact that millions of eligible voters could not vote because they were not registered to do so and that this was the result of a government policy deliberately pursued despite all the evidence that it would have precisely this consequence?

We will return to these issues on 24 July when we debate the Second Reading of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. In the mean time, I conclude by asking the Minister two questions and should be grateful if he will reply directly and without equivocation. First, can he guarantee—I use the verb advisedly—that there will be no decline in electoral registration with the introduction of individual electoral registration? Secondly, why will the Government not allow for a carryover from household registration for the purposes of boundary reviews in 2015?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this has been a rumbustious debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as fearless. I felt that in many ways it was a tub-thumping speech. I feel the pain coming from past and present Labour MPs at the way they have been treated by IPSA and by the threat of boundary reviews. In terms of economy, I have to say that I feel moderate pain in the current Government. I go around saying to people that this is the leanest Government we have had for many years because we have cut the government car pool in half and we walk more. With regard to economy but not humiliation, perhaps I may share with noble Lords the occasion on which I went with an official to represent the Government at an international conference. At the end of the conference, the government car collected us, delivered us to the VIP lounge at the airport and, from there, the protocol officer took us to the front of the easyJet queue for us to fly back. That is an approach to economy that Members of the other place may need to share.

With regard to spending on elections and on politics between elections, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, that over the past 25 years the amount provided to sitting MPs for assistance with casework and allowances for communications has given in-built advantages to sitting Members against challengers. That, again, is an issue that we may need to talk about in more detail.

[Lord Wills]

With great respect to the Minister, I think that I should correct him on that. There were very clear rules in the other place. The expenses given to MPs were solely for discharging their duties as Members of Parliament. They were explicitly excluded from any kind of campaigning purpose whatever. I can speak for myself and for the great majority of my former colleagues when I say that we scrupulously observed those rules. I just wanted to correct the Minister on a point of fact.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I merely referred to the advantages of incumbency and strengthening the advantages of incumbency. I think we both know what we are talking about.

As this Question refers to democracy and political representation, I thought that as an academic I should go back to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and look up the definition of democracy. It says that democracy is a descriptive term synonymous with majority rule. It goes on to say that the plurality rule, as opposed to the majoritarian rule, which selects the candidate with the largest single number of votes, even if that number is less than half the votes cast, may select somebody whom the majority regard as the worst candidate. It says that, nevertheless, countries using this rule for national elections, such as Britain, the United States and India, are normally described as democratic.

The question of how we choose representatives and the place and size of the electorate is something that we have tried very hard to balance over the past 100 years and more. The issue at stake, after all, is the balance struck by the Boundary Commission between the sense of place and the number of electors. The position taken by the coalition Government is that too great an emphasis had been placed on ensuring a sense of place at the expense of ensuring fairness and equality in the size of constituencies. In terms of numbers, noble Lords may know that in 1922, when the Irish left, Parliament consisted of 615 Members and in 1950 of 625 Members, and it has grown slowly to the current number of 650. Of course, all these numbers are arbitrary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Some do, some do not. However, we have a larger problem which we should also address. More and more constituents—including those who used to vote Labour, according to my experience in Bradford—do not identify with the constituency, any political party or politics as such and, indeed, do not wish to register. We will return to that wider issue in 10 days time, when we discuss the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked me to guarantee that there would be no further decline in registrations in the move to individual electoral registration, but of course the Government cannot guarantee that. We know that between 2000 and 2010, the number of people not on the register is estimated to have doubled from 3 million to 6 million. I am sure the Labour Government that were in office at that point had no intention of allowing that to happen—it happened, as we know, for a range of reasons to do with political attitudes and social change. We will be doing everything we can to maximise the completeness of the individual register, but the accuracy and completeness of the household registration system has been going down, which is very much part of the reason for the change.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he recognise that there is a big difference between a Government who are, on the one hand, doing everything they can to improve the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the register and a Government who are doing their best on that but are none the less proceeding with legislation that is undoubtedly going to damage that register even further—and in the interests of one particular political party? That is the difference. Does the noble Lord accept that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I do not accept that and I do not accept that we have not been consulting the Labour Party. The noble Lord and I have discussed this at great length, Mark Harper has discussed this with a number of people on the Labour Front Bench and we are continuing to discuss this as we go on. I have so far dealt with several statutory instruments about the data-matching exercise, which is part of the way in which we are testing the completeness of the register. We know that this will get a great deal more difficult and will be talking with others in the Department for Education and elsewhere about how far we can use school registers and student loan registers to get at some of the mobile young people who are among the most difficult to catch for the register. We will return to this area at some length at Second Reading and in Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. We will come back to that, and to the question of carrying over the registration from May 2015 to December 2015, in that context rather than in this one.

[Lord Wills]

This will be my last intervention for today. The Minister has made a very important point and I want to be sure that I have understood it, because it will obviously inform the approach of many noble Lords to the Second Reading of that Bill. Is the noble Lord saying that the Government remain open to a carryover for the purposes of the boundary review in 2015? Are the Government now prepared to consider that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I was not saying that, I was simply saying that we would need to discuss it further in that context, because we will be spending a good deal of time on the Bill. However, I was saying that a number of continuing experiments are under way with the government statistics authority and with the Electoral Commission about how best to ensure that, as we move to a new register, we maximise the number of people on it. He will know, as we have rehearsed it before, that the argument in respect of the December 2015 register is that maintaining a carryover from a register made over two years before risks carrying over a large number of additional names, particularly in the inner cities, of highly mobile people and those from multiple-occupation residences. There will be a post-May 2015 canvass of all of those who are in doubt on this. We think that the occurrence of a general election in May 2015 should produce the maximum registration available then, but that the question of accuracy and completeness is not best served by maintaining, even after the election, names that have not responded to several attempts personally to canvass them.

The joy and passion that members of the Opposition have for the single-Member constituency is striking. I remind them that the single-Member constituency and the electoral system that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, went for are not necessarily part of the ancient British constitution. The official with whom I travelled to a conference last weekend admitted to me that his grandfather had been one of the two Labour MPs for Blackburn between 1945 and 1950. That was one of the last two-Member constituencies. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is perhaps not quite old enough to remember the three-Member combined Scottish university seat, which was there until 1950. However, I am sure he remembers the electoral system used for that, which was of course the single transferable vote. We now regard the single-Member constituency as the only possible thing for Britain, but other things have been tried before and might be tried again in the future. This Government’s commitment to decentralisation and the revival of local democracy means that we see casework in future more often going to the local councillor, and not always, perhaps, all the way up to the MP.

There have been suggestions of gerrymandering. Looking through my preparatory notes on this, I see that in 1978-79, the then Labour Government postponed the introduction of boundary changes. There were accusations in the right-wing press that this was “jimmymandering” by the then Prime Minister, as a means of ensuring that Labour should not lose those relevant seats. I am conscious, as we all are, that the integrity, accuracy and completeness of the register, for the next election and beyond it, matters to all of us. We are also concerned that some of the underlying causes for the decline in the completeness of the register—political disillusionment and disengagement—need to be addressed, and on an all-party basis.

House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill [HL]

Lord Wills Excerpts

Friday 29th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, the political classes are once again whipping themselves into a frenzy over the Government’s comprehensive reform Bill. As the comfortably familiar arguments from all sides roll out once again, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, continues on his quiet and indefatigable quest to reform your Lordships’ House piece by piece. Here is the latest instalment.

In my view this is a practical and sensible Bill. It makes provisions for membership of your Lordships’ House that are long overdue. The only conceivable reason for opposing it is that it will soon become unnecessary when the Government’s proposals for comprehensive reform for the House of Lords are passed into law. That might—I stress “might”—be a problem for the Bill. Why should precious legislative time be spent on a Bill that will soon become redundant?

The cynical may see this as an attempt to tackle an obvious problem with the way your Lordships’ House operates in order to weaken the case for more general reform. That might dispose those who favour making the House of Lords more accountable through the election of its Members—I am such a person—to oppose the Bill. However, that would be a mistake. The mishandling by the Government of their House of Lords Reform Bill has almost certainly doomed it. I regret that. I fear that the Government’s revised proposals—this is not the time to discuss them in detail—still fail adequately to address the Bill’s two fundamental flaws. One is a failure to provide an adequate mechanism governing the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. The second is the length of term of the elected Members of the House, and the fact that they will not have to stand for re-election. I fear that the Government have botched the legislation so severely that it is too late for the Bill to make any serious progress in either House in this Parliament.

If this gloomy analysis is correct, it follows that the House must reform itself piecemeal—while at least some of us wait for a general election and perhaps another attempt at more comprehensive reform. This Bill contains some necessary reforms. Many noble Lords have long argued that there should be provision to retire. It is absurd that a Member of the House should be forced to remain a Member if they no longer wish to be one. It is a hangover from the days when membership was entirely hereditary, and it has no place in a modern Chamber. Nor can it be acceptable for anyone to enjoy the status and privileges of membership of the House when they cannot be bothered to turn up. Again, the Bill makes sensible, proportionate provision for that.

It is also clear that there must be an ability to expel Members of the House who have been convicted of a criminal offence. The current position, which is that no matter how grave their offence, a convicted criminal can remain a Member of the House, demeans Parliament. However, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain in a little more detail how he decided on his criteria for expulsion. I understand from the Library that they differ from those that apply in the other place. There it remains a matter of judgment for the House whether a conviction merits expulsion. In contrast, the Bill seeks to set down objective and immutable criteria. I understand the advantages of removing subjective judgments from the process. There is always a risk that Members of either House will be more sympathetic to those they know and may have been friendly with for many years than the cold facts of the case would merit and the public would consider fair. However, there is also a risk that rigid criteria might in certain circumstances lead to expulsion in cases where such a punishment may not be justified. I find it hard to imagine what those circumstances might be, but there must be at least a possibility that they could occur.

For example, let us consider the case of a Member of your Lordships’ House who takes part in a political demonstration for a cause in which they and many others passionately believe—not all passion is spent in your Lordships’ House, as we see in debates for example on this issue—and is found guilty of violent disorder. The offence often results in a sentence that would, under the terms of the Bill, lead to expulsion from the House. Such a sentence could be imposed for the offence of throwing a flimsy wooden placard in the direction of the police but not hitting anybody, in the heat of the moment. Would that really merit expulsion from the House when someone convicted in a magistrates’ court of head-butting a nurse while drunk in an accident and emergency department would receive a sentence that would allow him or her to remain a Member of the House?

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

The answer to the noble Lord’s question lies in Clause 3(5), which states:

“The Lord Speaker shall not issue a certificate under subsection (2) in respect of a conviction … if the House of Lords resolves that subsection (1) should not apply to the conviction by means of special circumstances”.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the noble Lord but, with respect, the “special circumstances” do not take us much further. I would be grateful if he would say why he has not allowed the latitude that the other place allows but has set down specific requirements—for which I well understand the need—while then allowing the get-out clause that refers to “special circumstances”. I would be grateful if he would spell out what special circumstances are in his mind. I have given an example from my point of view and would be grateful if at some point—not necessarily today—he would spell that out. With that proviso—

[The Earl of Erroll]

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, did not quote correctly. This is critical. Clause 5(3) refers to a conviction “outside the United Kingdom”. The noble Lord left out those words, which meant that his response to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was incorrect.

[Lord Wills]

I am very grateful to the noble Earl. It would be useful to have some further clarification on this point of detail. With that proviso, I am very happy to support the Bill.

Historical Manuscripts Commission

Lord Wills Excerpts

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on securing this debate and on an excellent speech. In my few brief remarks I want to support everything he said, not least about the crucial importance of these archives for our national heritage. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord for his many years of service to the cause of archive in this country.

I am also sorry that this debate has been necessary because, as the noble Lord indicated, it suggests that there remains unfinished business from the creation of the National Archives in 2003, nearly 10 years ago. It was clearly understood then that there would continue to be a distinctive and important role for the commission and the invaluable work that it did with private archives after the creation of the National Archives.

However, when I, as the Minister who had by then become responsible for the National Archives, was approached by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the late Lord Bingham in 2009, it became clear to me that undertakings in this respect given by previous Ministers had not been honoured as they should have been. The initial focus after the creation of the National Archives had understandably been on government records, the significant task of meeting the challenges of digitisation, and on ensuring that records remained available for future generations in the face of rapid and profound technological change. This was a significant challenge for the National Archives, and I understand that.

However, once I looked into it, I could see no reason why this and all the other excellent work being done by the National Archives should be incompatible with honouring the understandings reached between the commissioners and the Government at that time. Therefore, I held a number of meetings, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned, the one with him and the late Lord Bingham. I reached agreement with the National Archives on a way forward which, I hope it is fair to say, satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the late Lord Bingham as the de facto custodians of those original undertakings. However, at that point I had already announced that I was not going to stand again for the House of Commons—the general election was imminent—so it is perhaps not surprising that my agreement with the National Archives was not pursued with the same vigour as it might have been had it been reached a few years earlier.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, he and I then met the noble Lord, Lord McNally, last year and, once again, I thought that we had reached agreement on a way forward. Indeed, some welcome changes have taken place, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described. As I understand it, for example, the new forum is now meeting regularly with a membership that reaches out across the spectrum, and I think that everyone is content with that.

However, issues remain to be resolved. Everybody accepts that the National Archives, like all public bodies, today operates under severe financial constraints, but so far as I am aware—this is something that I have asked for, as, I know, has the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—there has still been no commitment, as had previously been agreed, that, when finances allow, the resources allocated to private archival work should be at least at the level they were when the work was carried out by the Historical Manuscripts Commission. Such a commitment, however caveated, would represent an unambiguous recognition of the importance that the National Archives attaches to this work, and I hope that we will see it in the not-too-distant future.

I am afraid that the website still leaves something to be desired. Because this is the gateway to the National Archives for more and more people, including professional historians as well as members of the general public, I saw this as an important vehicle for honouring the commitments made in 2003 and, above all, for preserving the identity of the commission in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described. That was particularly important to the late Lord Bingham. However, it was only after the meetings last year that my original ministerial request to have a reference to the HMC on the home page was fulfilled. Even now, it is only a quick link and then that link follows on to a page which conveys little of the significance and importance of private archival work. I really think that, in the light of everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said today, the National Archives could do a bit better than that.

The merger between the HMC and the PRO has clearly not worked as well as it should have done. Given the continuing difficulties in meeting the expectations created by the understanding with the commissioners in 2003, despite my ministerial intervention and meetings with Ministers last year, it is now time to keep track systematically of the honouring of those commitments. To that end, I suggest that the Minister agrees to meet the National Archives annually to review progress on this issue and the state of private archival work more generally, and I should be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister would agree to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for securing this debate and for the way in which he has kept at this question since the merger of the Historical Manuscripts Commission and the National Archives nearly 10 years ago. It is quite right for noble Lords to remember with great sadness Lord Bingham, whose commitment and dedication as the chair of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts ensured that the nation’s archives and manuscripts were in safe hands.

It is now nearly 10 years since the merger. In the light of what has happened since, I think it is fair to say that we are in the safe hands of a larger organisation. The Historical Manuscripts Commission was funded on a very modest scale, but I recognise that it was said in the Chamber today that we all need to make sure that resources are still there, that private records are given at least as much attention as public records and—perhaps I may add this, although it was not in most of the speeches—that the shift in public and in particular private records from paper to digital form is a challenge that the Government and all their partners now have to face and meet.

My engagement in this area comes as a lapsed historian. I share the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who the other day described the sheer joy of rummaging in an archive, feeling the paper and seeing different handwriting and typefaces. That is part of what we will lose with digitisation. The question of who will look at the noble Lord’s e-mails in 20 years’ time to see what he was really saying when he talked to Ministers is one that future historians will find rather more difficult.

There are a number of private archives still to be rescued; we all recognise that. I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the religious archives survey that the National Archives has just done, and looking at how we capture the archives of churches that are now much less prominent than they were, and how we get at the records of the Jewish community and now the Muslim community to make sure that they will be available to future researchers. I note that here and elsewhere we are talking about a partnership between government and other keepers of archives. Southampton University has developed a very good relationship with the Jewish community, for example, in the keeping of Jewish archives. Manchester University has a similar specialisation in Nonconformist archives.

My own involvement has been with the London School of Economics, which has developed a very useful archive of political records. Some years ago I gave my father-in-law’s records of the Liberal Party in the 1940s and 1950s to the LSE, which sorted them out far better than I would have done. I added my own records of the party in the 1960s and 1970s—also not always an easy period—and I am extremely happy that the LSE is cataloguing them rather than me. I was also pleased, with my wife, to take my father-in-law’s Bletchley Park records, which he should not have had in the first place, and give them to the Imperial War Museum. In the past few weeks I have enjoyed talking with other Members of the House about a number of Bletchley Park records, in particular because a 96 year- old who worked with a number of people I know sent us several entirely improper photographs taken of people working at Bletchley Park during the war. They are now on record and digitised, and we will hand them on.

I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by the debate to discuss this question. Perhaps I may reassure noble Lords that matters are under way. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to the advisory forum. It was established—before he talked to the noble Lord, Lord McNally—in May 2010, no doubt as a result of some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, had been engaged in.

We recognise that the problem of the budget squeeze is real in terms of staffing. There are now 4.5 full-time equivalent staff working in the private archives area, but a number of other people in the National Archives offer advice in different ways to people working in the private archives sector, in particular on the tremendous challenge of the shift from paper to digital that we are all beginning to face. Therefore it is not entirely true to say that staffing has shrunk. I cannot at this point give a definitive pledge that staffing levels will in future be raised, but I will take it back and discuss it with the various departments concerned and with the National Archives, and we will see what we can do.

On the question of a proper independent body, in December this year there will be the first of what it is intended should be an annual consultation with the owners of private archives. It will be held at Syon Park under the patronage of the Duke of Northumberland, and we very much hope that it will lead to a series of continuing dialogues with private archive holders, of the sort to which noble Lords referred.

The commitment on monographs is another difficult one. Perhaps I may move here to official histories. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said. As a historian, I am not entirely sure that I want official histories to continue in their old way. Those that I have read with most interest, and sometimes discussed with the people who wrote them, were particularly in those areas where the archives had been kept closed for 50, 60 or more years, and where someone distinguished and trustworthy was authorised to look through them and publish as much as they were allowed to for the rest of us to read.

The Government are trying very hard to reduce the secrecy of public archives and the length of time they are kept secret. I like to think—it is certainly my advice to my colleagues, and my opinion rather than government policy—that where possible archives should be available to people who are not subject to state control and Cabinet Office guidelines to write the sort of histories that we have had on nuclear weapons, for example, or the Cold War, much more rapidly than before because the archives will have been declassified. That is more desirable than relying on the state—but I take the point about an official history of the Northern Ireland Office. Again, I will take that back.

To reassure the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Wills, I think that we are responding, and moving in the directions in which we have been asked to move. The advisory forum is there. Dialogue with owners of private archives is very much there. Those who look at the website will see—as I have on the last two occasions on which I accessed it—that the Historical Manuscripts Commission appears very quickly when one moves into that dimension of the register. There is also some interesting stuff not just on the religious archives survey but on business archives and private archives.

We now have the National Register of Archives. Despite everything else, more than £250,000 has been invested in this comprehensive spending review period to update and improve online access to these systems so that the processes of contributing information to the register and finding the information it contains are brought up to date and simplified.

The National Archives has also undertaken the revision and provision of online access to the Manorial Documents Register, in which 22 counties have been surveyed since 2003. This is a lengthy task since the register has not been systematically revised since the 1920s. More than £300,000 has so far been invested in this project. Those are not insignificant sums at a time when the National Archives’ funding has been cut by 25%.

I emphasise that private archives and public interest are a matter of partnership with county museums, local repositories and, increasingly now, with universities. The vision and scope of the work with repositories beyond the public records system has grown and developed. The work undertaken today reflects a broad constituency of civil society, serving both traditional record-holding establishments such as record offices, landed estates and universities and an increasingly diverse range of private and charitable institutions.

Advice and support offered to such institutions and individuals reflects the National Archives’ awareness of diversity in the provision and maintenance of private archives. In fundraising opportunities, commercial licensing, the digitisation of software and community engagement, a breadth of advice is available. However, a two-way learning process from the wider expertise is also available as part of a bigger, national organisation.

Looking to the future, the National Archives is soon to launch its refreshed action plan to support the Government’s overall policy on public and private archives. The plan’s central priorities are the sustainable preservation of archival records and their accessibility to all who need and use them. The archives accreditation scheme currently under development will provide further support to specialist record repositories across the public and private sectors.

We recognise that it is vital that records of both the public and private domain are cared for and accessible and that their significance continues to be recognised. I can assure noble Lords—and I have spoken to a great many people over the past week—that the National Archives is striving actively and successfully to sustain a future for our archival heritage wherever it is held and that it is recognised as such.

[Lord Wills]

I assume that the Minister is about to conclude. Before he does, will he address my request for an annual review on progress in meeting the commitments already given? In doing so, will he recognise that for all the splendid work of the National Archives, and he has given a very good defence of it, there is nevertheless remaining unease about the commitments given in 2003 by people who are no longer in position? Although it does not mean that the Government should not honour those commitments, those commitments have not yet been fulfilled. Will he agree to an annual review meeting on that basis?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I recognise the question. My understanding is that the Syon Park meeting in December is intended to fulfil a great many of those commitments. If the noble Lord is not satisfied with that, I undertake to write to him on that score. I spoke to him before this debate, and I have also taken fully into account the concerns expressed by a number of people both outside this Chamber as well as inside it. Looking at the current situation I am relatively assured that most of the points made have been met, except for the question of funding. We would all like a great many more staff to assist.