asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their response to the report Purity of Elections in the UK: Causes for Concern, published by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd.

My Lords, the report is being studied with interest. It finds that there is no hard evidence suggesting a significant increase in electoral malpractice since 2000. We continue to examine how the integrity of the electoral system can be strengthened.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I am disappointed with his Answer. Do the Government accept that the legitimacy of election results largely depends on the integrity of the electoral register? Does the Minister accept that making voting more convenient, by postal voting on demand, weekend voting and so on, is much less important and should take second place to reducing fraud? Will he undertake to replace household registration with the much more accurate individual registration, which is supported by all official and independent authorities on this issue, in the forthcoming Constitutional Renewal Bill, which is due in the next Session? Does he recall the judgment in the Slough election court earlier this year? The commissioner concluded:

“There is no reason to suppose this is an isolated incident. Roll stuffing is childishly simple to commit and very difficult to detect. To ignore the probability that it is widespread, particularly in local elections, is a policy that even an ostrich would despise”.

My Lords, the noble Lord has completely ignored the 2006 Act, with the improvements to the system of administration and the introduction of personal identifiers, which the Electoral Commission has said work well. The Government agree with the principle of individual registration and are examining the practical consequences of moving to such a system. Overall, however, the system is one of great integrity and we should not—and the noble Lord should not—put doubt into the minds of anyone about that. Equally, it is right that we should do everything that we can to encourage people to vote, including encouraging more postal voting.

My Lords, given that the title of the report and its content are on the subject of the purity of elections, does my noble friend agree that the purest electoral system is that which provides for the closest possible contact and accountability between the electors and their elected representatives? Is it not obvious to most objective observers that the system that most provides for that is the time-honoured, tried, tested and proved system that we call the first past the post?

My Lords, there is much to commend in my noble friend’s extremely objective assessment of electoral voting systems. To those who are passionately interested in this matter I commend the document recently published by my department that looks at the pros and cons of different electoral systems and provides ammunition for anybody who has any view on these matters.

My Lords, in the past the noble Lord has justified the changes to postal voting and the increased ease with which people can post a vote on the grounds that it increases turnout and makes it easier for people to vote. What is the point of doing that if it increases the amount of fraud in the system?

My Lords, it is surely good to do everything that we can to encourage people in this country to vote. We also have to ensure that, when evidence of fraud is detected, it is dealt with. That is entirely what the Government did with the 2006 Act, which the Electoral Commission, in commenting on personal identifiers, has said works well.

My Lords, why should we go down the individual registration route when fraud is confined to a very few areas in the United Kingdom? Why do we not target those areas, as was proposed in my amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill in Committee? Why do we not just revisit that principle?

My Lords, there are some real advantages to individual voter registration, but there are also some practical consequences, which is why we are examining the matter. However, I agree with my noble friend that greater focus needs to be given to the question of specific areas with particular problems. The Rowntree report raises the issue of “clan politics”, to which I think my noble friend is referring. I agree that we need, with the Electoral Commission and the police, to consider the matter.

My Lords, during the debates on the 2006 Act, the Government said that they would consider what to do about individual registration. They are still considering what to do. Do they not realise that a very effective system has operated well in Northern Ireland and that it would be easy simply to import that system into the rest of the United Kingdom?

My Lords, I do not apologise for giving this careful consideration. We have said that we see the merits of individual voter registration. However, I point out to the noble Lord that, although he is right about Northern Ireland, one of the impacts there was a reduction in the level of registration when the system was introduced. That is one of the concerns that we need to address if we are going to move to individual voter registration. Surely we all want more people in this country to take part in the democratic process. Anything that we can do to encourage that has to be welcomed.

My Lords, would it not be even simpler not to import the idea into this country?

My Lords, the noble Earl presumably refers to individual voter registration in Northern Ireland. No, we should learn from the experience in Northern Ireland. The system has clearly worked well, but there is concern about the reduction in the number of people who have registered. We will obviously consider that carefully. However, I say to the noble Earl that the changes made as a result of the 2006 Act have already brought enhancements to the checks against fraud.