'(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make provision (referred to below as a "scheme") authorising or requiring specified persons to provide to a specified registration officer, for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2), information contained in records kept by those persons.

(2) The purpose is assisting the registration officer to secure, so far as reasonably practicable—

(a) that persons who are entitled to be registered in a register are registered in it,

(b) that persons who are not entitled to be registered in a register are not registered in it, and

(c) that none of the information relating to a registered person that appears in a register or other record kept by the officer is false,

and, in particular, assisting the officer to ascertain to what extent the objectives referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) are being met and to determine what steps should be taken for meeting them.

(3) A scheme may authorise or require information to be provided at specified times or in specified circumstances.

(4) A scheme may not authorise or require information to be provided by a person other than—

(a) a local or public authority, or

(b) a person providing services to, or authorised to exercise any function of, a local or public authority.

(5) An order under this section may include more than one scheme.

(6) An order under this section has effect despite any statutory or other restriction on the disclosure of information (but may not permit disclosure in breach of subsection (7)).

(7) Information provided to a registration officer under an order under this section may not be disclosed to a person other than one to whom the officer may delegate his or her functions, except—

(a) for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2), or

(b) for the purposes of any criminal or civil proceedings.

A person who discloses information in breach of this subsection is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(8) An order under this section may contain incidental, supplemental, transitional or saving provision.

(9) An order under this section must not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(10) In this section—

"false", in relation to a signature, means that the signature is not the usual signature of, or was written by a person other than, the person whose signature it purports to be;

"specified" means specified in an order under this section;

"register", in relation to a registration officer, means a register maintained by that officer under section 9 of the 1983 Act;

"registered person" means a person registered in such a register;

"registration officer" has the same meaning as in the 1983 Act (see section 8 of that Act) except that it does not include the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.'.— (Mr. Wills.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 22— Schemes under section [Schemes for provision of data to registration officers]: proposals, consultation and evaluation.

These new clauses form an important part of our plans to transform electoral administration. It is significant and complex, so I hope the House will bear with me as I set out first the context of the new clauses, which I hope will assist the House in forming a judgment, before turning to deal with the details. In Committee, we discussed—and, it is fair to say, we all agreed—that democracy is undermined when significant numbers of people are not able to participate in elections because they are not registered to do so. Registration is the source from which democratic participation flows. Those who are not registered are denied that participation, so we must all be concerned that it has been estimated that more than 3 million eligible people are not able to vote in this country because they are not registered.

That is not acceptable—I hope we can all agree on that—and I hope we can agree that particular effort needs to be directed at registering voters in those groups who appear to be most at risk of not being registered. I hope that we can also all agree that the steps taken to tackle that problem must be on the basis of a level playing field for all democratic political parties. Anything that undermines that principle is partisan and risks illegitimacy. We must constantly strive to ensure that the register is as comprehensive as is reasonably possible, on the basis of a level playing field. That is one fundamental principle of electoral registration. The other such fundamental principle is that the register must be as accurate as possible.

I am going to assume that if I say anything about these fundamental principles with which Opposition Members disagree, they will intervene to tell me. Otherwise, I shall assume that they agree with the fundamental principles that I am setting out. Indeed, I would be surprised if they did not.

The only fundamental principles that I would raise at this point are those of data protection. Will the Minister explain why new clause 21 seems to allow an order to be made that completely ignores those principles?

Of course data protection is a fundamental principle as well. It does not apply specifically to electoral registration in general in the terms that I am discussing right now, but I have registered the hon. Gentleman's concerns and I will come to them in due course, when I deal with the detail of the new clauses. They are important concerns—I understand that—and I am happy to address them.

Does the Minister agree that another fundamental principle is that the registration should be accurate, bearing it in mind that this is a gateway to, for example, absent voting? These things must be done in such a way as to provide good identifiers that stand in the way of fraud.

I absolutely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that is precisely what I said. It is one of the two fundamental principles of electoral registration that the register should be as accurate as is reasonably possible. Electoral registration should be comprehensive and accurate—those are the principles.

On that basis, therefore, the Government are introducing measures that will transform the system of electoral registration. We agree with those who have argued that a system of individual registration in Great Britain would represent a significant step forward in improving the integrity of the electoral register. We also believe that there are other principled, important arguments in favour of individual registration, but our concern has been that, in pursuing the realisation of one fundamental principle of electoral registration, we should not jeopardise the achievement of the other. The simple fact that many individuals, currently registered under the system of household registration, would under a system of individual registration be required to provide personal information for the first time in order to register is very likely to deter some—perhaps many—from registering unless we take important remedial action.

The Northern Ireland experience is often cited in debates of this nature, and it is right that we should learn the lessons, both positive and negative, from that experience. At least some of the drop in the numbers registered in Northern Ireland in 2002 was due to the removal of the so-called carry forward, but as the Electoral Commission noted in its report on the implementation of individual registration in Northern Ireland:

"Individual Registration tended to have an adverse impact on disadvantaged, marginalised and hard to reach groups. Young people and students, people with learning difficulties and other forms of disability and those living in areas of high social deprivation were less likely to be registered and encountered specific problems with the new registration process."

Does the report that my right hon. Friend is quoting from make any reference to illiteracy? What is the effect of low functional literacy on registration rates?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The passage from which I am quoting does not make any specific reference to illiteracy, but it is another problem, a barrier and something that we must address if we are to fulfil and deliver on both the fundamental principles that I have suggested.

The Electoral Commission report continues:

"While these findings relate 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."

We believe that the way forward is to combine the implementation of individual registration—on a careful but fixed timetable—with significant new measures to increase registration, so that we do not jeopardise the reach of the register in seeking properly to improve its integrity.

Today, I am announcing the historic steps that we are taking to entrench those two fundamental principles of electoral registration, which underpin our democracy. The Government have already been taking significant steps to increase registration. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 placed a statutory duty on electoral registration officers to take all necessary steps to maintain the electoral register, including sending the annual canvass form more than once, making house-to-house visits and inspecting records that electoral registration officers are permitted to inspect. Much of that is common sense, and many electoral registration officers are doing excellent work in maintaining and expanding their registers.

I echo my right hon. Friend's comment that many electoral registration officers are doing an excellent job, but the reality nationwide is that only 91 per cent. of those eligible to be registered are registered. Must not we prioritise getting a comprehensive register before we do anything else?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Those two things have to go in lockstep together, but 91 per cent. is not acceptable. As I will point out in a few moments, any of us can be satisfied only when we can be absolutely confident that the register is at 100 per cent. of those who are eligible to vote.

As I say, many electoral registration officers are doing an excellent job. Some, however, need to raise their game. The new duty has required them all to raise their game. Since its introduction for the 2006 annual canvass, registration rates have increased year on year. In the past three years, the registration figures for parliamentary elections have increased by 371,000 in 2006; 307,669 in 2007; and 111,595 in 2008. There are now 45,194,449 parliamentary electors registered in the UK.

Similarly, the registration figures for local government elections also increased by 513,054 in 2006; 463,000 in 2007; and 227,374 in 2008. There are now 46,147,877 local government electors registered in the UK. Those increases are a great achievement and they show what can be done, but that is a beginning, not the end. That end will come only when 100 per cent. of those eligible to vote are so registered to vote.

Estimates from 2005 suggest, as my hon. Friend Mr. Love has just said, that only about 91 per cent. are so registered, so we have a considerable way to go.

I am sure that the House will have registered the fact that the figures that I have been referring to are national figures, and there are significant differences in different parts of the country—again, as my hon. Friend has just said. Some parts of the country having fewer of their eligible voters registered to vote than others corrodes democracy in this country. We must do everything possible to tackle that problem.

Going forward, section 67 of the 2006 Act also empowered the Electoral Commission to set and monitor performance standards for electoral services. Electoral registration officers in Great Britain have recently self-assessed their performance against 12 individual performance standards, and the Electoral Commission will publish the results of that this month. After that, local authorities will be required to report annually on their performance. The commission will also shortly publish data on the financial resources devoted to registration by local authorities.

The performance standards framework will be vital in driving up the numbers registered to vote. The standards will give the public much greater understanding of the effort being put into registering voters—good and bad, excellent and indifferent. Practice in individual areas throughout the country will quickly become apparent.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that a great difficulty here is whether the council giving the funds for electoral registration prioritises that as an activity? In such circumstances, would it not be better for us to ring-fence funding for electoral registration to ensure that it is done properly?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I am aware of that strongly held point of view. There are measures that I want to announce today; there are further measures that I will announce shortly, just before the summer recess. I can absolutely assure him that everything possible that we can do, we will do in this respect.

When I have tabled parliamentary questions asking about the amount per elector in each local authority area, I have been told that the information is not collated in England, but it has been collated in Wales. The point made earlier by my hon. Friend Mr. Love about the importance of ring-fenced funding is crucial. In Wales it was found—lo and behold—that the authorities that spent more money on electoral registration had bigger, better registers, while those that spent less had worse registers. Funding is key. If the Ministry of Justice sends the money to local authorities for that purpose, it must be spent for that purpose.

As I have said, what I am announcing today is only the start of a process to increase the numbers on the register. As always, we will be driven by evidence, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will take every bit of it into account.

We believe that the performance standards will help to increase registration and participation rates across the country. It is important for that to happen, because it is crucial for every part of the country to be able to expect the highest possible levels of performance from the electoral registration officers. Disadvantage should not exist in electoral registration any more than it should in any other area of public life.

I fully support the sentiments that the Minister is expressing, but there is a problem with uniform national standards in the context of electoral registration. It has nothing to do with deprivation; it simply has to do with the demographic circumstances of different authorities. Cambridge has a massive turnover of population—not just the student population—and to hold such areas to the same standards as even neighbouring authorities such as South Cambridgeshire, which has a very stable population, would not be fair on the authorities in the city of Cambridge.

That is an important point. There are significant variations throughout the country, and some areas find it much more difficult than others to achieve satisfactory levels of registration. Places such as Cambridge may be relatively advantaged socially and economically, but may have other problems because of the massive churn of the population. Other areas may have difficulties caused by large numbers of people living in houses of multiple occupation. Every area has specific problems. What we cannot accept is that any of those problems constitute excuses for anything other than the utmost effort to ensure that the register is as full as possible.

We have taken important steps and they are beginning to pay dividends, but we can do more. We propose to take three further steps. Electoral registration officers in areas where there is one tier of local government can already gain access to data held by education departments and social services which help them to maintain and enhance their registers, but that is not the case in two-tier areas. We therefore intend to introduce secondary legislation under powers in the 2006 Act to enable EROs in areas with two tiers of local government to access data held by the higher tier, to help them to target individuals who are not registered and check the accuracy of their registers. That will help them to identify, for example, young people attaining the age at which they can vote and persons in care homes, all of whom have a right to vote but many of whom may not be registered.

We also want to ensure that electoral registration officers are fully aware of all the steps that they can take to improve the register. We intend to make clear in legislation that the section 9 duty imposed by the 2006 Act applies throughout the year, not just during the annual canvass period. We know that some officers conduct mini-canvasses outside the main annual canvass period to increase registration rates in areas where they are low. We want all EROs to undertake similar activities where necessary, and to do so throughout the year. That will challenge them, but it will assist them as well. It will challenge them to do more, but we believe that it will also assist them by clarifying what is expected of them.

As my right hon. Friend says, EROs currently have permission to consult databases in different local authority departments. That entitlement is taken up with gusto by some, and is not taken up at all by others. Given that any new powers that my right hon. Friend gives may not be taken up, what measures can he and his Department take to ensure that what powers are given are used?

When we give powers we naturally expect them to be used, and we will monitor the position. That is the point of the performance standards. All of us—not just Government—will be able to see which EROs are doing well and which are not, in proportion to the funding that they receive. We will expect all of them to measure up to the standards of the best, and to strive to meet the 100 per cent. target. We may not achieve that, but it must always be a pressing obligation for us all. I shall say more about that in a moment. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, he will hear something that I hope will afford him some comfort.

We need to do more, which is why we tabled the data-matching clauses. In some areas, particularly those where the population is stable—not areas such as Cambridge—registration rates may have hit their peak, but in many other areas ensuring that people registered has always been, and is still proving to be, a significant challenge for electoral registration officers. We want to do more to assist officers in such circumstances, while not necessarily forcing them to act. The piloting of data-matching schemes that will allow them to receive relevant and restricted data from public authorities will allow us to test, in a controlled way, new tools to help them to maintain their registers.

The provision will allow the Secretary of State to make an order allowing a public authority, or a person appointed to discharge its functions, to supply an ERO with specified data at specified times for the sole purpose of electoral registration. The officer would use the data for the purpose of identifying persons who were entitled to be on the electoral register but were not currently registered, or inaccuracies in the register meaning that the officer would need to conduct a review of a registration. We have already discussed our proposals in outline with a number of public authorities, such as Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, and they are content in principle with the possibility of sharing data to assist improvement of the electoral register. We are discussing with them in greater detail the practicalities of any such schemes.

Since 25 November, many people renewing visas have been given identity cards containing their names and addresses. Some of those people are eligible to vote in this country. May I take it that they will be automatically included in the relevant electoral register?

No, not at present. We are proceeding carefully, in ways that I shall continue to outline. The question of the identifier is interesting, however, and I shall touch on it briefly in a few moments.

I support the aim of new clause 21. However, subsection (7) deals with the disclosure of information to third parties by a registration officer, who, according to paragraph (b), can pass on information

"for the purposes of any criminal or civil proceedings".

In what circumstances would the officer provide such information pursuant to civil proceedings, what civil proceedings has the Minister in mind, and what protections would be provided?

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will outline the scheme and then describe the protections involved. Obviously they are important.

The Minister referred to the public bodies, or Government Departments, that had been consulted, and Bob Spink asked about the specificity, or the particular consequence, of the order. Has the Minister consulted the Information Commissioner about the new clause, and if so, what did the commissioner say?

As I have just said, I will be dealing with the subject of the protections, but the direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. Although I cannot speak for the Information Commissioner, he will forgive me for answering that question. His response was that he was content with the provisions, and I think that when I explain them, the hon. Gentleman will see why.

We have been very careful to hedge the provisions around with a lot of protections. As a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I said specifically that bodies will be able to supply an electoral registration officer with specified data at specified times for the sole purpose of electoral registration. He will thus immediately have realised that makes the provisions consistent with data protection principles. He is looking at the new clause, but I can assure him that it was drafted on that basis.

rose—

If the intervention is about data protection principles, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient as I shall come to those when I have finished outlining the scheme. Everyone will then be a little wiser—although perhaps only a little.

As I have said, the data-matching schemes will operate on a pilot basis. The local authorities participating will be selected through an open and transparent process involving the Electoral Commission as well as the Ministry of Justice, and there will be a set of criteria for the electoral registration officers who participate. We intend to publish details of the process before the summer recess. I am keen to ensure that Members on both sides of the House have the opportunity to contribute to the design of the process, and I will consult the parties before that point. In doing so, as I hope it is recognised we have tried to do throughout the passage of the Bill, we shall seek consensus.

The clauses require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of each pilot and publish a report on its findings. We believe that the pilots will help us all to understand what information would be useful to electoral registration officers in maintaining the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their registers. They will also identify which data-matching schemes would help to secure registration rates when we move to a system of individual registration in Great Britain.

We are absolutely clear that any data matching must be carefully controlled and scrutinised. What we are proposing is not new. Both the overall approach and the provisions are closely modelled on provisions that Parliament approved in 2006 for application in Northern Ireland. I shall spell out the safeguards that will apply.

The clauses themselves set out explicitly the purposes for which the data supplied must be used by an electoral registration officer. Only data relevant to electoral registration may be provided by the public authority.

The public authority providing an electoral registration officer with data would be consulted on the release of information, and proper safeguards would be put in place in each order to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Each order putting in place a data-matching scheme would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, giving the House the opportunity to determine whether it was acceptable to proceed.

I understand what the Minister is saying, but it seems to me that the provisions breach one of the data protection principles. The principle of fair processing—as I understand it—is that data should be processed only for the purpose for which they were supplied to the data processor. In supplying data for voter registration, another public authority such as the NHS or the Department for Work and Pensions would actually be using that data for a purpose for which they were not supplied. That represents a breach of the original data protection principles.

With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, the House will have an opportunity to look at each scheme on its merits in each case— [ Interruption. ] The rights are not unfettered; how such things are treated will be a matter of judgment.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman would bear with me for just one more minute, I shall give him some extra reassurance. We are anxious that it should not be the Government who make those judgments, but the House, properly advised about the application of the principles of data protection by the person Parliament appoints for that job—the Information Commissioner. We are providing that the Information Commissioner will be able to issue their own assessment of each order, in each case, which will be published. It will be made available to the House before the House votes on the order.

That is very helpful, but we have to remember that the affirmative resolution is not amendable. Given that fact, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House should have an opportunity to debate affirmative resolutions in draft so that we can make our comments and the Government can decide whether they want to amend the final draft to reflect what the Information Commissioner has said?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very helpful suggestion, and at the moment I think it is perfectly reasonable, although this is the first time I have heard it. If I may, I shall consider it further and if we need to make such an amendment we can do so in the other place. I cannot agree to it right now, but it is a helpful suggestion and unless I can find a good reason not to, I am perfectly disposed to do things in that way. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be comforted by the fact that if the House is uncomfortable with an order it can reject it.

The Minister is being very patient with me. I can see provision under the new clauses for a report by the Electoral Commission, but I can see no specific provision for a report by the Information Commissioner. Can the Minister draw our attention to the exact clause or subsection where that provision is made?

I am giving the hon. Gentleman the assurance in the House that that is what will happen— [ Laughter. ] Members are perfectly able to vote against the proposals, but we are trying to give them assurances and I hope they will reflect on what I am saying and bear in mind the safeguards that are in place. It is up to them what they decide to do.

rose—

I have a considerable amount still to go through and I do not want to try the patience of the House unduly. We have other points to make and I am sure that Members will want to have their say on those matters too.

We believe that the consultation will make sure that proper safeguards ensure that we do not act without taking into account privacy concerns or other concerns that might have an impact on the legitimacy of our electoral processes. These safeguards and protections go further than the Northern Ireland provisions we implemented, which I understand the House accepted. I am not sure what the position of the hon. Gentleman's party was on those provisions but I do not remember the Liberal Democrats making much noise at that point. I hope he agrees that what is appropriate for Northern Ireland should be appropriate for Great Britain.

We are determined to do everything possible to ensure that the electoral register is as comprehensive as reasonably possible. The measures I am announcing today are the start of a drive to achieve just that. We will announce further measures to improve the register when we set out our broader strategic vision for electoral administration towards the end of June.

In connection with the switch to individual registration, we are asking the Electoral Commission to judge whether and when the register is as comprehensive and accurate as possible. If at any time, the Electoral Commission judges that it or others need new powers to achieve those ends, the Government will start from the position that any such requests should be granted, assuming of course that the proposals are proportionate and necessary. I hope that Opposition parties will join the Government in responding similarly to such requests.

I turn to the historic shift to individual registration. The Government agree with the arguments for it: greater protection against electoral fraud, increased individual responsibility and enhanced legitimacy. The debate has not been about the ends, but about the means.

The shift to individual registration will be complex; it is a radical and unprecedented move in this country. It is a profound change—a recognition in the registration system of the shift that took place long ago from the household franchise to the individual. At every stage, we have to be sure that we are subjecting the reform to the proper degree of careful scrutiny. As the Electoral Commission said in its briefing paper for Report, individual registration, and I quote—

Will the Minister give way?

I shall be happy to give way when I have given the quote, but the hon. Gentleman should hear these words.

The Electoral Commission said that individual registration

"would be a major change to the electoral registration system in Great Britain. There will need to be detailed planning and identification of key milestones to provide the basis for moving towards implementation"—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that we have been given the right information on the grouping of the new clauses and amendments. The Minister seems to have moved on to new clauses 14 to 16 and 25, which, according to my piece of paper, are in a different group from new clauses 21 and 22.

Order. I have every confidence in Mr. Speaker's selection, and I have not heard anything that causes me to worry about the Minister's interpretation of it, but I shall continue to listen to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of course you are right, as always. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Members for Cambridge (David Howarth) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) are desperate to make the points that they want to make on what they choose to hear. However, if they had listened carefully when I introduced new clauses 21 and 22, they would know that I said that if the House is to make a proper assessment of the new clauses, it has to understand the context in which we are introducing them. I have, I hope, been setting out that context for quite a long time, and I have given way many times to the hon. Gentlemen. I have been trying to point out to them that if we are to move towards individual registration, which I think most people in the House agree is a most desirable objective, we must improve the electoral registration system. I am trying to explain that. That has nothing to do with the groupings, and when hon. Members see Hansard, they will see that I pointed that out right at the start of my remarks.

I will, if I may, repeat what the Electoral Commission said, because they are important words that the House needs to hear to reach a judgment. It said that individual registration

"would be a major change to the electoral registration system in Great Britain. There will need to be detailed planning and identification of key milestones to provide the basis for moving towards implementation of individual electoral registration over a number of years, including the delivery of public awareness campaigns during any transition to a new system. There will also need to be a real effort to make sure Electoral Registration Officers throughout Great Britain have the right tools to ensure all those who are entitled to be registered to vote are helped to do so."

I stress

"the right tools to ensure all those who are entitled"; that is precisely what we are discussing.

We agree with the Electoral Commission's analysis, and I have already outlined the steps that we have taken, and are taking, to enhance the reach of the register. We can have a register that is both comprehensive and accurate, but only if we frame the process in a way that prepares the public for the transition to a new form of registration and do all that is in our power to ensure that registration rates do not fall. If we fail to do that, we damage the legitimacy of the electoral process and our democracy.

The Government will propose amendments during the House of Lords stages of the Bill to put in place a statutory timetable for the introduction of individual registration, begin the roll-out of measures to prepare both the public and the electoral system for that change, and put in place a series of tests, which are to be independently assessed by the Electoral Commission, that will ensure that the shift is made only when the system is ready for it.

We will legislate to allow local authority electoral registration officers to collect personal identifiers—date of birth, signature and national insurance number—from electors. That will take place alongside the existing process of household registration. Provision of the identifiers would be voluntary. That process, which we are calling permissive individual registration, would begin during the autumn 2010 annual canvass.

Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to include in that timetable, with which I wholeheartedly concur, the piloting and rolling out of electoral registration and the inclusion, in the way he describes, of the information that he suggests is necessary? Does he therefore think that the timetable for piloting and for the national roll-out of data sharing, and the electoral registration drive, are central parts of a larger timetable, as far as individual identifiers are concerned?

If my hon. Friend bears with me for two or three minutes, I will come to that point, because the two things are linked, although not quite in the way that he suggests. In the early stages, to ensure that we take time to acclimatise the electorate to the radical change that is proposed, there would be no distinction drawn between those people who were registered to vote through having been included on a household form, and those who had voluntarily provided their identifiers. Household registration would effectively remain in place, but a base of identifier data would be being built up alongside it. I will work closely with electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission to ensure that the lessons of the Gould report are applied during the initial, permissive period.

Under the Bill, the provision of identifiers will become compulsory at the time of the autumn 2015 annual canvass. That lead-in would give the Electoral Commission time to consider the full weight of evidence on the collection of identifiers, help electoral registration officers to identify why certain groups might have difficulty providing them, and allow the Electoral Commission to start addressing those problems before any move to full individual registration.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way yet again. Does he think that the timetable, with its end date of 2015, is long enough, bearing in mind that the changes that we made in 2006 to improve the electoral register have increased it by only 500,000? There are still 3 million people missing. It has taken three years to get 500,000 people back on the register; how long does he think that it will take to get 3.5 million people back on the register?

It is simple arithmetic.

No, it is not. [Interruption.] Good. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will just signal that in future. I will address the point made by my hon. Friend Chris Ruane in a moment; things are not quite as easy as that.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. My question relates to the Electoral Commission and its role of signalling whether individual registration should be undertaken. Will it be able to override the 2015 date if, in its view, we are not ready to move to individual registration?

I am coming to that point. If hon. Members will be patient for a bit longer, the full majesty of the scheme will unfold. The time scale should give the Electoral Commission sufficient time to assess whether we are ready to move to the compulsory system. It will also enable a decision to be taken on what the most appropriate identifier is after the move to the next stage.

On that point, and the point raised by Mr. Love about the timetable, when Mr. Peter Wardle, speaking for the Electoral Commission, gave evidence at the beginning of the Bill's Committee stage, he said that he thought that individual registration could begin with the 2010 renewal canvass, and that from then, it would be a

"two to three year gradual process until the register is complete and has a much greater degree of integrity, in that there are personal identifiers for each person registered." ——[ Official Report, Political Parties and Elections Public Bill Committee, 6 November 2008; c. 60, Q154.]

I took that to mean that it was the view of the Electoral Commission that the whole thing could be put in place by 2013, or possibly 2014.

If the hon. Lady reflects on that, she will see that the two timetables are not too different. As always, there is an element of judgment involved, but we are talking about a profound shift. If we got it wrong and, as a result of shifting to individual registration, which we all agree is desirable, large numbers of people who were eligible to vote fell off the register, it would be a disaster. We must not botch it if we can possibly avoid doing so. A proper time scale enables us to ensure that we do not.

A crucial element that we have not discussed so far is the census; I am happy to try to reassure the hon. Lady on that point. The 2011 census will be helpful in determining the proportion of eligible voters who are registered. I am not referring to the absolute numbers, which I mentioned earlier. As the hon. Lady will be aware, it is methodologically extremely difficult to get a figure for the proportion of eligible voters who are registered. The figure of 91 per cent. was mentioned; that was the result of an extremely complex methodological exercise, and the figure is hedged around with caveats. However, we know for a fact that far too many people who are eligible to vote are not registered to do so.

The 2011 census will give us a valuable database. It is the first census that has a nationality question on it, so it will give the Electoral Commission a great deal of potentially very important data on which to make the assessment that I am about to discuss. It is worth remarking that, as I understand it, the data will not begin to be processed until well into 2012, after which lessons will have to be learned. If the hon. Lady does some simple arithmetic—she can borrow it from the Liberal Democrats—she will find that the two timetables are pretty close together.

Will the Minister give way?

I have found that I am about to answer a lot of the questions that I am being asked. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, he might find that he has the answer to his question. If not, I will be happy to give way to him.

From autumn 2015, all people making new registrations—for instance, if they are moving house and reregistering or entirely new to the register—will have to provide their identifiers to be put on to the register. Anyone already on the register in autumn 2015 who does not provide their identifiers will be carried forward for a further two years to 2017. From that point on, there will be full compulsion and we will have full individual registration. Everyone on the register will have provided identifiers.

However, we also intend to provide that that shift will proceed in 2015 only if two statutory tests are met. Those tests will be on the state of preparation for the change and the robustness of the existing registration system, which the Electoral Commission will assess no earlier than January 2014. The commission will have to have a reasonable expectation that the move to compulsory provision of identifiers would not compromise the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the register by the point of full individual registration being introduced in 2017. It must believe that the electoral register is both as comprehensive and accurate as is reasonably practicable, and that the effectiveness of the registration system is improving across Great Britain. That finding will have to be supported by performance standards data and other measures.

It will be for the commission to determine whether those tests have been passed. However, we expect that it will not just assess the situation at national level but ensure that patterns of improvement are consistent right across the country, and that registration officers are succeeding in reaching out to those groups that are currently, and have historically been, under-represented on the electoral register.

My query is about the previous part of the plan, the point at which the provision of identifiers is not yet compulsory. I have a number of concerns about that. What the Minister is announcing is immensely important, and by the time identifiers become compulsory we must have learned as much as possible about what the pitfalls might be. How will the system work during that run-up period? Will different areas do different things? Unless they do so, surely we will not be able to learn the possibilities of the scheme. For example, a student library card might be an identifier in a student area, but not in a different area. What will happen so that we get experimental data in that period?

I addressed that point earlier when I mentioned the criteria for the pilot, but I am happy to say a little more about it. We genuinely want to consult and take views on it, and we will be interested in the hon. Gentleman's views about how we should structure the scheme. He is right in principle, and we intend to set up the piloting in such a way that it gathers all useful evidence. We are open to what that might be, and his constituency experience will be valuable.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need information about how willing people are to give up their personal information. That will be crucial in deciding how to maintain the comprehensiveness of the register. Some people will be daunted by the requirement, and some will think that it is too much bother. We have to work out how real those problems are and what we can do to address them. We must consider whether public information will work, or whether there are other ways in which we can reach out to people. Those are complex issues, and that is the whole point of the piloting. Some of the databases that we will be using might be very useful for the purpose and some might not, but finding out about all those things will provide invaluable data. That is why we are anxious about rushing the scheme. We certainly do not want to delay it unnecessarily, because it is an important change. We agree that the system is desirable and have tried to strike a balance between ensuring that we get it right, and that people do not fall off the register, and moving with due speed towards implementing it.

The Minister is right that a comprehensive register is an important object of policy, but so is establishing a register that prevents fraud and abuse, particularly with regard to absent voting. What troubles me in listening to him is that it appears that the Electoral Commission, in making its adjudications, will concentrate primarily on gaining comprehensiveness. In the criteria that the commission will be given, how important will the objective of preventing fraud be? That does not necessarily work in tandem with ensuring comprehensiveness, and for me, preventing fraud is more important.

Again, I had hoped that I had made this clear. I said that they were both fundamental problems, and the whole problem has been that they have been prioritised differently. We are saying that they cannot be. They must both be absolute priorities, as they are both too fundamentally important to be compromised. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that we cannot compromise on the integrity and accuracy of the register, but neither can we compromise on its comprehensiveness. Both are fundamental to the health of our democracy. There is no choice or trade-off. The language is clear: there is to be comprehensiveness and accuracy, with no prioritisation.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to spell out just how historic this shift is, but when it comes to the crucial decision about when the whole thing goes live and household registration ceases to have any validity, it is one thing to say that the Electoral Commission will tell us what has happened and advise us, after which the decision will be taken by Ministers accountable to the House. It is another thing to say that the whole thing will be put under the commission's control. Which are the Government proposing?

It is not the latter, but I am limping towards the end of my speech and I will address these points.

David Howarth said that different areas do different things, which is true. I shall illustrate that point graphically. When the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Islington was challenged to go on an electoral registration drive prior to an election, he refused. He said that not having registration drives was how Liberal Democrats won elections. [Interruption.] What measures can be taken to prevent political interference? All the measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister takes will mean nothing if there is political interference from the top, and if people deny the opportunity for promotion and deny electoral registration officers resources. What can he do to ensure that there is no recurrence of such Liberal Democrat electioneering?

I assume that the chorus of noises from the Liberal Democrats means that they agree with my hon. Friend that that comment by the Liberal Democrat leader in Islington was disgraceful. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether they agree—they will speak for themselves about that in due course. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am announcing certain measures today, and more will be announced by the end of June, so all will be in its due place.

As I have said, the decision will be for the commission to make. However, if it concludes that the tests that I mentioned have been met, it will recommend that the shift to full individual registration should proceed, subject only to a vote by Parliament on whether to accept the recommendation. If the commission recommends not making that shift, or if Parliament does not endorse a positive recommendation, further legislation will be required.

This point is important, and it is related to what Mr. Hogg said. Does the Minister envisage that there will be an unamendable order to bring the new scheme into force? I guess that there will be a lot of debate about which identifiers are acceptable and which are not, so a simple up-down vote at that point would be the wrong procedure.

I will consider that point carefully. There are issues about the identifiers. My instinct at the moment is that there should be a straight yes or no. We have set in place a process that we want to deliver an end, subject to a fundamental test. I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House about the desirability of the end—full, comprehensive individual registration. I do not really detect, despite all the interventions, any disagreement that the register must be as comprehensive as possible. So far, I think that the entire House agrees that those are both immutable priorities.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way, but all that I can say is that these proceedings finish at 9 o'clock and that, at this rate, I will not even be able to reveal the full details of our proposals.

I am grateful to the Minister, but it is precisely the fact that he will not able to reveal the full details that is the problem. This is the single biggest thing in the entire Bill, and it is not in the form of a Government amendment before the House is asked to pass the Bill to another place. That, frankly, is not satisfactory, and he must realise that.

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my remarks, he can make a speech, saying exactly what he thinks of them; but until he has heard them, he might do me the justice of listening to what I have to say, and then he can comment on it. All that I can say is that the amendments will be debated in the other place. They will then, no doubt, come back to the House, and he will have plenty of opportunity to contribute to this process. It is a process; it is not happening now, it is beginning now. There will be plenty of time for this to happen. We are quite clear that this proceeds fundamentally only on the basis of consensus. It must endure. There is no point in going ahead unless there is broad agreement not only on the ends—I think that there is—but on the modalities. If it goes wrong, we will all do great damage to democracy.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants consensus. I understand him to be saying that these fundamentally important amendments will be introduced in the other place. They will then come back to the House, where they will be debated probably for an hour. That is not a proper way in which to get consensus. It is extraordinarily late to introduce amendments of this moment, but to do so in the other place and then have them debated in the House for an hour is scandalous.

I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's use of that adjective. He may have a relatively minor point about the process, but I should like to focus on what we are trying to achieve with these new clauses.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give way for at least two minutes.

I think that we have reached agreement on the broad principles, if not yet on the modalities. I hope that this goes without saying, but I should say for the record that all this will be subject to available resources, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that fact. Given that it is so important that this historic move is non-partisan, we have put the Electoral Commission at the centre of the move to individual registration, although, crucially, as I have said, Parliament will have the final say. We have consulted the Electoral Commission about its role, and it is content with it.

For too long, the debate on electoral registration, which is the foundation of our democracy, has focused either on one or the other of these two fundamental principles—either on the reach of the register, or on its integrity—and as a result, we have persisted with a system that no longer has any place in Britain today. The time has come to make this change.

The proposals that we are announcing today and the strategy to carry them forward will introduce individual registration as soon as it is possible without damaging the reach of the register. That link between the system of registration and its reach ensures that this historic shift, if and when it takes place, will ensure a level playing field for all political parties. That is the guarantor of the legitimacy of the change, and it is what will ensure that it endures.

For all those reasons, I hope that the House will support the new clauses and, in doing so, endorse the strategy that lies behind them. We have an opportunity now, no matter what the concerns about the process. I understand the concerns, but we will do whatever we can to mitigate them. I have no theological problem with the concerns about modalities that have been expressed by Opposition Members. What is absolutely fundamental—I hope that the House will agree on this today—is that we endorse the fundamental principles and that we move to individual registration on the basis of a register that is as comprehensive and accurate as possible, and these new clauses are the start of that process.

We welcome these new clauses. The Minister has stressed several times during his speech the fundamental principles, and we agree with him on those principles. Indeed, the Opposition said from the very beginning, when the Bill was first introduced, that there was no point in having a Bill about political parties and elections without the sort of provision that the Minister has introduced this evening. Although I understand his explanations about the practical difficulties that he has faced in introducing his proposals tonight, what is sad is that, if the provisions had been included at the beginning of our scrutiny of the Bill, by this point in the proceedings—we are minutes away from the debate on Third Reading—he would have had the consensus that he asked for. As far as I can tell from long and detailed consideration in Committee, we are all in agreement about what we are trying to achieve. The question is how, and what the balance is between the needs of the individual, of privacy and of preventing fraud and so on, and the integrity of the ballot.

The hon. Lady knows that we have had this argument before, with the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats strongly advocating the need for personal identification and individual registration and the Government rejecting it, but does she not agree that taking such action at this stage, with nothing relating to any Government proposals on the amendment paper for us to vote on, is simply unsatisfactory? Does she agree that the best course of action would be for the Minister now, with a manuscript amendment, to recommit the Bill with his new amendments, so that it can be reconsidered in Committee and we can do the job that the House is elected to do, rather than giving it to another House that is not elected?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point; of course, I agree. Indeed, I agree with the Minister, and we all agree that we want to improve the integrity of the ballot and the electoral system, and to enhance and indeed restore confidence in that system. At the same time, however, I want the integrity and supremacy of the House of Commons to be protected, so I object, as do Liberal Democrat Members, to the proposals being introduced so late.

Nevertheless, I will not oppose these new clauses. I will not encourage the Conservative party to vote against them, because half a loaf is better than no bread at all, and it is better that these provisions should be introduced at a time when at least they can be scrutinised in another place than that they should not be introduced at all.

I caution the hon. Lady to distinguish between new clauses 21 and 22, which are before us tonight, are about data sharing and have not yet been properly debated, and all the proposals the Minister announced, which sound very good, but are not before us tonight. Those two things are entirely separate, and I ask her not to come to any final conclusions on the new clauses until the debate has finished.

No, I shall not do so. The hon. Gentleman is correct: the Minister has this evening put before us a set of new clauses that pave the way for further reform and which we welcome in principle, but he has explained matters to us only in words and with no legislative provision. This is not a debate about principles, however; it is the Report stage of a Bill that has already been scrutinised for many months, and we are only minutes away from moving on to Third Reading. It would have been much better if the House had been able to consider these matters properly. It might be constitutionally correct by the letter to introduce such measures in, effectively, the other place and not in the House of Commons, but it is not constitutionally correct in principle.

To reinforce what my hon. Friend has just said, I point out that the programme order provides that amendments from the House of Lords may themselves be programmed, and it is therefore likely that if substantive amendments come from the other place, we will be given a very short period in which to comment on them.

As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, the method of dealing with the Bill, with the timetables introduced over several months now, has been a disgrace to democracy. [Interruption.] Ministers may laugh, but I am trying to help them, because in principle what they say they wish to achieve is also what I wish to achieve. However, we have no way of knowing its precise details and by what method it will be achieved.

My right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Hogg mentioned timetabling, and I am currently particularly concerned about that, because this evening we have only 29 minutes of Report left and there are some very important matters that we are unlikely to have time to address because we have suddenly had to deal with this other group of new clauses. I am thinking in particular of the very important new clause 23, which was tabled by my hon. Friend Dr. Lewis and which deserves to be debated and voted upon by this House, although that is unlikely to happen.

I do not want to delay the hon. Lady, but I ask her to reconsider her comments about the timetabling being a disgrace. The reason why there have been so many new amendments and changes is that we have approached these matters openly; we have listened to what the House has said, and we have changed things in response. We have not rammed the measure through; if we had made up our mind without listening, rammed it through and done exactly what we first proposed, this process would all have been much simpler and easier. It is precisely because we have listened and decided to proceed on the basis of consensus that the timetabling has been the way it has. May I also reassure the hon. Lady that we will do whatever we can to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate these important points on their return from the Lords? We will do whatever we can, as we always have.

I understand what the Minister is saying, but I am unsure whether his colleagues who deal with the business of the House will agree with him. I must point out that the principles set out in my new clause 16, which we will not now have time to debate, attempt to achieve what he now says he is attempting to achieve, and I am delighted that he has once again embraced Conservative policy, which has been right since the beginning of our consideration of the Bill. Indeed, I recall standing at this Dispatch Box proposing a very similar measure in 2005, when we debated what is now the 2006 Act. I have been asking for these things for more than four years. [Interruption.] Did the Lord Chancellor say, "Be gracious"?

rose—

Well, I shall indeed be gracious by giving way again to the Minister.

I also want to be gracious to the hon. Lady, who is, in fact, being very gracious about these matters. However, all the measures she and her party have brought forward have been silent on one of the great fundamental principles: how we drive up the comprehensiveness of the register. We are in agreement on accuracy, integrity and individual registration, but until tonight, we have not been in agreement on comprehensiveness. I am delighted that we now are.

I am happy to confirm that we are in agreement; of course we want the register to be comprehensive.

I should like briefly to make some progress, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak on this matter, although many of them have already intervened. We welcome these specific new clauses, as they pave the way for much more that needs to be done to improve and secure the integrity of the ballot. The principles of individual voter registration and the use of personal identifiers are absolutely fundamental to the aim of improving the integrity of the ballot.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he must understand that his Liberal colleagues will not have time to make their wonderful speeches.

I am astonished by the Conservative party's failure to oppose these new clauses. Surely the principle here is the concentration of power in the hands of the few. That used to mean Tory aristocrats trying to buy constituencies with their wealth—perhaps it still does—but the important principle at stake is the concentration of information in the hands of the state, and that is especially worrying in the case of a state as careless with people's personal data as this one. Surely the hon. Lady should be opposing these proposals.

I am coming to the point about data security. I am also being careful to stay within the rules and not speak to the next group of amendments.

The Minister did.

Well, had I had a chance to do so, I would have extolled at much greater length the virtues of individual voter registration and personal identifiers. Some in this House will know that we dealt with those matters at great length in Committee, so I am satisfied that the principles have been thoroughly examined. The Committee was more or less unanimous in agreeing that individual voter registration, personal identifiers and all the other matters that I would have proposed in the next group of amendments have now been accepted in principle by the Government. I am delighted about that; I would even go so far as to call it a U-turn, and I am delighted that it is a U-turn in the Conservative direction. We appreciate, of course, that the new clauses are necessary in order to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to vote are properly registered to vote. Just as importantly, people who are not entitled to vote should not be on the register, and it should not contain any names that are not those of real people—the integrity of the register itself is so important.

May I again point out the Conservatives' focus on ensuring the integrity of the register to the exclusion of its comprehensiveness? Can the hon. Lady tell us how many cases of individual registration fraud, if any, there have been in the past five years?

I do not have the exact number at my fingertips, but that is not the point. The hon. Gentleman has made his point a few times this evening, and I do not entirely agree with him. He says that one side of the argument should take precedence over the other, but I do not believe that it should. Surely we can devise a system that ensures that all those who are entitled to vote are registered and are encouraged and able to vote, while also stopping fraud in the register. They are equal aims, goals and principles, and one should not take precedence over the other.

Is the hon. Lady on record anywhere stating her belief in the importance of the comprehensiveness of the register? Is that an important aim for her party?

I believe that I am on the record as saying that, but just in case, I am happy to go on the record right now and say it. Of course, I agreed with the Minister on the fundamental principles that he put forward. Some 91 per cent. of those entitled to vote are registered to vote, and that is not good enough. Every single person, especially those who, because of disability or other reason, have difficulty in registering to vote, should be helped to register to do so. That is extremely important and in our own personal campaigning in our constituencies we do all we can to ensure that all the people whom we can reach register to vote and do vote, especially—no, I shall not say any more about which way they vote. In principle, we want everyone to be registered to vote, and I am happy to go on the record on that.

I take the Minister's point about two-tier local authorities, for example. It is therefore important that the measures that he has proposed should come into force. However, most importantly, it is the individual who has the right to vote, not the householder. It is the individual who has the right, and indeed the duty, to participate in the democratic system, and therefore the system should recognise the individual. We want to improve the integrity of the ballot and restore the security and accuracy of, and the people's confidence in, our electoral system.

At the same time, I do of course have concerns about data sharing, which several hon. Members have mentioned. That is why I am concerned that we will not be able to scrutinise properly the new clauses before us. Neither will we be able to scrutinise the Minister's proposals, as they are not before us in any way. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said earlier, it is all very well for the Minister to say that these matters will come before the House under the affirmative resolution procedure, but an affirmative resolution is not amendable and usually gives rise to a debate of one and a half hours—

If that.

Indeed. That is not sufficient to scrutinise such proposals properly, so I wish to put it on the record that we are concerned about that. Although we want to work with the Government to bring about the aims towards which we are all working, there are better ways to do it than this. There are better ways to improve democracy through the democratic system.

If the Minister can give us undertakings that this measure is specific and has a finite purpose, I would simply ask for his assurance that these provisions could not be used to increase data sharing generally. He said that they were for the provision of specific information and for a sole purpose, and that is very important in terms of data sharing, security and protection.

These are important points and I can give the hon. Lady exactly that assurance. I know that she is very exercised about the amount of time that the House has for debate and about the amendments that we will not reach tonight. They are important and we will do our best to accommodate the points that have been made through the usual channels. We accept that it is important that the House has proper time for discussion and I hope that the usual channels will make time available in due course.

I take that as an assurance from the Minister on behalf of the Government that we will have proper time for debate. This is extremely important. It is not just a political argument for the sake of it. The Minister rightly says that he wishes to take the issue forward by means of consensus.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

In a moment.

David Howarth, the Minister and I have spent many hours reaching some consensus on the principles that we are discussing. If the Government want consensus, they must give the House an opportunity to come to a consensus. Consensus cannot just be reached, but must be seen to be reached—to coin a legal phrase, which I see the Lord Chancellor appreciates. I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend, who, I hope, will agree with me on the legal principle.

I did not intend to touch on that. We have been told by the Minister that we will be given proper and appropriate time for consideration. Who will be the judge of that? May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the best thing is to extract an undertaking from the Minister that the time spent on the House on Lords amendments will be agreed by all the parties before the timetable motion is tabled?

I will attempt, as my right hon. and learned Friend suggests, to extract that undertaking from the Minister. I will be surprised if I get it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the House far longer than I—

He was a Whip, too.

Indeed. He is asking for something that he knows he is not going to get. However, what the hon. Lady says is right—we have demonstrated time and again that we want consensus on the matter, so I can give the assurance that we genuinely want that. I agree that we will not get it until there has been a proper opportunity to debate the matter in the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be satisfied with that reassurance. The hon. Lady's argument is right. The matter will be decided collectively through the usual channels, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows.

I appreciate that the Minister's undertakings are genuine, and I believe him when he says that he wants to achieve what we all want to achieve. Whether he will succeed in getting the usual channels and the Leader of the House to give the amount of time that we—I think I speak for everyone on the Opposition Benches—consider to be realistic and necessary is another matter. For a moment even Pete Wishart and I agree. However, I believe that the Minister will try. [Interruption.] The Minister asks how long. The answer is long enough for all the hon. Members who have expressed concern this evening and throughout the passage of the Bill to express them properly about data.

To guide us in our reflections, can the hon. Lady tell me how much time she thinks will be a proper amount of time?

Six hours.

The principle is so important that I had hoped that tonight we might have several hours on new clause 16, the principles of individual voter registration and so on. When I saw the Minister's new clauses, which we are discussing, I had hoped that we would have a few hours on those as well. I would say that we need at least six hours.

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a matter not of time, but of process? What would be ideal would be a Committee stage, followed by a period for reflection, followed by a Report stage and Third Reading.

The issue is about more than the hours. We should be able to scrutinise the legislation line by line, with amendments—including probing amendments. We need to consider it very carefully. As the Minister says, the Bill has been considerably improved during its passage through the House. That is the point: it has been improved because we have scrutinised it—the Minister said that himself. It would be further improved if we could scrutinise the new proposals that he has put forward this evening.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions about data security. Will he assure us, on behalf of the individuals of this country, that adequate data security procedures will be in place to ensure that the enormous amount of personal data to which the clauses refer are properly protected—that is, better protected than the personal information that the Government have lost in recent months? Will the Electoral Commission be required to lay before Parliament a copy of its report on the data-sharing scheme? Will the Information Commissioner be required to produce a report in respect of subsection (4)? Will registration officers be required to undertake a privacy impact assessment?

Those are precise questions, but this is not the time for asking them or the atmosphere in which they should be asked; we are now nine minutes from Third Reading. I do not suppose that the Minister will have a chance to answer the questions this evening. [Interruption.] The Minister says that he will write to me, and I appreciate that. However, we should ask the questions in an atmosphere where the Minister and Members can properly scrutinise the information before us.

Having said all that, I am pleased that the Government have brought forward the proposals this evening. As I said a few moments ago, at the beginning of the Bill's passage we said that there was no point in a political parties and elections Bill that did not include provisions to improve the integrity of the ballot and the individual's right to register and vote. We are delighted that, at last, the Minister—albeit at the eleventh hour—has come forward with the proposals for which we have been looking for many months.

This has been a remarkable hour and a half. Through a group of new clauses about data sharing, the Government have announced a reform of the entire electoral registration system, and in a wholly new direction. It should be said that my party has called for that new direction for some time; we certainly welcome it and we thank the Government for it. I should also say that, unlike some Conservatives, I have always accepted the Government's other point, on which the Minister spent a good deal of time before he got to the details of the major concession. It is that if we are to move to a system of individual registration, there needs to be some preparation and a comprehensive study of the possible pitfalls and problems. We do not want there to be a move to an individual registration system that results in a great fall in the number of people registered. We would then have to spend years and years trying to scramble back up to where we were at the beginning.

For the record, I should say that I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

I am very glad to hear that. I think that at last we have achieved consensus on an issue where there was no apparent consensus on Second Reading or, for a good deal of the time, in Committee.

There are, though, serious problems to consider, and Mrs. Laing rightly raised a large number, which I will not repeat because time is short. If I could be forgiven for making a parochial point from my own constituency, a typical question that arises when one moves to a system of individual registration is what happens to students. At the moment, students in halls of residence are often treated by the electoral registration officer as living in a single household, and the university or college authorities take the role of head of household and fill in the electoral registration forms on behalf of those students. If we are to move to a system of individual registration, as we should, it will take a while for those institutions to work out new ways of encouraging their students to register. That is possible, and it is not something to be afraid of, but it needs time to work through to ensure that it happens.

Like other Members, I am concerned about the process by which this change of direction has been announced. The Minister says that he has been listening in the course of the debates on Second Reading and in Committee. That is true. I would like to pay tribute to the way in which he has approached the Bill; he has indeed listened. However, if someone is listening, they should take sufficient time to work out what they are going to do as a consequence of what they have heard. He might have felt somewhat rushed by the fact that we have had one day on Report, with a second day now under way, and felt that he had to announce these proposals before they had been properly written down. It would have been better, in process terms, and would have shortened the debate—certainly, shortened his speech—if we had taken a few more days before getting to the second day on Report. We would then have had before us proposals that were fully written out and that we could consider and debate in the normal way. As it is, we will end up taking even more time and there will be even more worries about the content of what is proposed.

However, as I said to the hon. Member for Epping Forest earlier, those proposals are not before us tonight: not in this group of new clauses and amendments, nor in any group. Instead, we have before us new clauses about data sharing. Because of the debates that have been going on in the Committee on the Coroners and Justice Bill, many of us are rather more sensitive to the problems raised—

I agree with an awful lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The truth is that we do not know the detail of, and we will not have the opportunity properly to discuss, the nature of the amendments to be moved in the other place. Does he agree that the proper thing to do now is to recommit the relevant parts of the Bill to a Public Bill Committee where the Government can table their amendments to be considered and reported back to this House on a further Report stage?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct, given the momentous nature of the new clauses that will be proposed in the other place and the fact that they are about electing Members to this place and nothing to do with what happens in the other place.

The hon. Gentleman has expressed his concerns about databases. I think that 420 electoral registration authorities currently have access to local government databases. Can he name one occasion when those databases have been corrupted or shared when they should not have been?

I do not know of any off the top of my head, but my point concerns the nature of the powers that are being offered in the new clause, which have not been properly examined.

As I said, because of the debate that took place in the Committee considering the Coroners and Justice Bill, there is a great deal more sensitivity in the House about the problems raised by data-sharing orders than there has been, particularly regarding the role of the Information Commissioner in introducing such orders. Also—

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 9 February).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).