Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 October 2001.

Standing Committee D

Clause 1 - Registration: provision of signature anddate of birth

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:

No. 13, in page 2, line 6, at end insert

`and

(c) the national insurance number of each such person.'.

No. 14, in page 2, line 20, leave out

`both his date of birth'

and insert

`his date of birth, his national insurance number,'.

No. 15, in page 2, line 30, at end insert

`and

(c) the national insurance number of each such person.'.

No. 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, leave out `question' and insert `questions'.

No. 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 45, after `birth?', insert

`and, What is your national insurance number?'.

No. 34, clause 2, in page 2, line 45, at end insert

`what is your National Insurance number?'.

No. 35, in clause 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

`(aa) his failure to state correctly his National Insurance number pursuant to rule 35(1A); or'.

No, 20, in clause 6, page 5, line 12, leave out `or date of birth' and insert

`, date of birth or national insurance number'.

No. 21, in clause 6, page 5, line 26, after first `birth', insert `or national insurance number'.

No. 22, in clause 6, page 5, line 26, after second `birth', insert `or national insurance number'.

No. 10, in title, line 5, after `signatures', insert `, National Insurance numbers'.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I should mention the fact that I associated the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) with the amendments in the name of the official Unionists, the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Those amendments deal with the question that should be asked at the polling station about national insurance numbers. The hon. Member for Belfast, East has, quite properly, pointed out to me that his name does not appear on those amendments. Amendments Nos. 2 and 10 apply to the issue of the national insurance number going on the register. That is one issue; the other is the question that should then be asked at the polling station.

On the major issue of national insurance numbers being required in order to be placed on the register, I should say that we know that the Government want to improve the position on electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. That is why we are considering the Bill. We also know that the Select Committee that investigated this in 1998, which included the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and the Minister, came to the conclusion that national insurance numbers should be required. We know, too, that Pat Bradley, the then chief electoral officer, said that that would ``solve the problem''.

We have heard that the practical arguments against including national insurance numbers have been thin and have not convinced Opposition Members. We know that all parties that allow people in Northern Ireland to belong to them want national insurance numbers included as a requirement for registration. The Government have told us that resources are not an issue. If one takes that at face value—as we should, because the Minister made the statement in Committee earlier today—there is no explanation why the Government are resisting the measure. I understand that the Minister may have more to say on the matter before we decide whether we should press the amendment to a Division but, as things stand, I believe that we should press it.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful for the opportunity to share with the Committee various facts that I have had checked, taking advantage of the Committee's adjournment. I hope not to prolong the debate significantly but to provide those who return to the debate with some practical information that may inform their contributions.

It is true that everybody has the right to vote, but not everybody has the right to a national insurance number. That may come as a surprise to some people. I have listened to hon. Members saying confidently—presumably they researched it—that people who do not know their national insurance number can find it out for the purpose of electoral registration. That is simply untrue. To obtain a national insurance number, people must meet one of two criteria: they must either claim benefit or pay tax. National insurance numbers will not be given to those who do not fulfil those criteria. Those people would be disenfranchised as a consequence of the amendments.

I can give the Committee a recent example of someone who would be entitled to vote but was not entitled to a national insurance number—indeed the Inland Revenue refused to give her one. A British family moved to South Africa some years ago when their daughter was very young; at the age of 18 she returned to Britain to study at university. She wanted to apply for a student loan but was unable to do so because she did not have a national insurance number and, moreover, was not entitled to one. Normally, children of 16 or over receive a national insurance number, but only if they are receiving child benefit, as that satisfies one of the criteria. The student was not receiving any benefit and was not entitled to a national insurance number, but she was entitled to vote. She was a British citizen who applied to the Inland Revenue and was rightly denied a national insurance number on the grounds that she was not intending to claim benefit or to work while studying at university.

I admit that that is an unusual case, but I use it to illustrate a serious point. A grave flaw in the argument is that we should just require national insurance numbers to be used for qualification for being on the electoral register. We do not, presumably, expect people to start claiming benefit or having to work so that they are entitled to a national insurance number in order to get a vote. That would be ludicrous, and that argument is not being made.

A further example is a childless French woman who is married to a Northern Ireland resident. That is not beyond the bounds of possibility. If the woman did not work or claim benefit, she would not be entitled to a national insurance number. However, she would be entitled to register to vote so that she could exercise her democratic right to vote in the European, parliamentary, local government and Assembly elections. She could not go on the electoral register if the amendments were accepted.

I acknowledge that the number of people living in Northern Ireland who meet such a description is likely to be relatively small but, as a Minister, I cannot accept the amendments if they mean that one person in Northern Ireland would be denied their right to vote. That would undoubtably be the case for at least those two examples.

Mr. Blunt rose—

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I shall finish these points, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Theoretically, while it would be possible for the chief electoral officer to check national insurance numbers that were provided to him on registration, he would have to do that by accessing the departmental central index, which is part of the Inland Revenue's computer system and is the database containing all national insurance numbers. For the chief electoral officer to check all 1 million or so individuals on the electoral register in Northern Ireland, he would need direct access to the DCI. However, the national insurance details of Northern Ireland and Great Britain are kept together on the DCI. The chief electoral officer could not be granted access to only the Northern Ireland data. Therefore, he would have direct access to vast amounts of irrelevant but sensitive data, which is contrary to the principles of data protection. Hon. Members may say that that could be resolved and no doubt technologically and in terms of computers it can be. However, whether it could be resolved against the deadlines that we, and others, have set for the changes is a different matter.

We cannot dismiss the principles of data protection because one of its basic principles is that a general identifier can be used only for the purpose for which it was issued. In the case of a national insurance number that is the administration of national insurance. It seems unreasonable to amend the Data Protection Act 1984 in the time scale set, which we would have to do but is probably unachievable, to allow the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to have access to the national insurance numbers of electors while every elector in Northern Ireland is not entitled to, or does not have, a national insurance number. Even if we were to proceed down that route, it is unlikely that we would complete all necessary legislative and administrative changes by the target date of spring 2003, at least not at the expense of other measures. Specific legislation would be needed to amend the Data Protection Act to allow the chief electoral officer to make use of electors' national insurance numbers. In the light of those additional factors, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, and that hon. Members will be satisfied that it would not be sensible for national insurance numbers to be used for electoral purposes.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I was going to intervene on the Minister, but if I ask him a question, maybe he can respond.

Once, I was told that a person with two good reasons often has none. I now hear a completely different set of justifications for why the use of national insurance numbers is not acceptable from the ones that we heard this morning.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

During my earlier contributions, the hon. Gentleman and others said that my reasons did not go far enough and that they wanted more practical examples. I have taken advantage of the break to find more practical information with which to inform the Committee. The reasons are not different but additional to this morning's argument, which I accept that the hon. Gentleman rejected. That does not mean that it was not a good, solid argument. It was a good, solid argument, and the fact that it is now a better argument is to the disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman and not me.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am grateful for the Minister's aspiration to seek the truth, which I and all Opposition Members share. However, this is more than a matter of simply illustrating the points that were being discussed before. To suggest, for example, that a significant proportion of individuals may masquerade as childless French women in order to vote, or, more to the point, that any Opposition Member has even implied that one must have a national insurance number to vote is to miss the point. The phrase that most Opposition Members used was that it could provide a reasonable additional security in order to identify the veracity of an individual's claim to be the person they say they are, not that it was absolutely mandatory to have a national insurance number. I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East will share his views on that.

My second point is that to argue that there is a data access issue, which, on its own, would be sufficiently controlling to prevent us from using this additional security is to massively underestimate the wit of man. It would not be that difficult, if we thought that it was the right thing to do, for the Inland Revenue to provide security by having a separate register for those living in Northern Ireland, or something similar. Therefore, that is a tactical justification for opposing a strategic proposal.

Lastly, I respect the Minister for having investigated and provided these examples. I do not question his sincerely held concerns about them, but I simply have a different view. The subset of individuals who would be excluded from having a national insurance number is so small that there are ways to work around that. In addition, I sincerely believe that the Data Protection Act is not a sufficient justification to move away from a proposal that Opposition Members believe would massively tighten up the likelihood of avoiding electoral fraud.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Obviously, I will deal with the Minister's late intervention in the debate, which seems to be an act of desperation. First, however, I want to deal with some of the other comments that have been made during the debate.

The hon. Member for South Down assisted us greatly by providing a context for our debate and painting some of the backcloth to what electoral fraud means in Northern Ireland—its impact in terms of electoral outcome, and the politics of that region of the United Kingdom as a result of electoral changes. Most of us can see that in at least three recent elections to this House, the result could have turned on a small number of votes that had been fraudulently cast. It is therefore important for us to recognise that at least one organisation has a military discipline and capacity to organise a level of electoral fraud that can make a difference to an election result.

The hon. Gentleman also properly pointed out—I noticed that the Minister made no effort to deal with the issue—cross-party, cross-community support for this measure, which, in other areas of their activity, the Government desperately seek. It seems strange that when they find such support, they turn their back on it, and decide that they know better, even though, in the past, they would have nodded in assent to the sentiments expressed by the amendment.

The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has clarified my position in relation to the amendment. My name is appended to amendments Nos. 2 and 10—No. 10 is simply a consequential amendment. I have not added my name in support of the other amendments, but like the hon. Member for Reigate, I have left myself with an open mind and intend to listen to the arguments that are advanced. If, as stated by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), such a question can be posed at a polling station and it will not in itself deny someone a vote, I should be more likely to support the further amendment. I have taken a minimalist approach—I could even say ``moderate''—and have tabled an amendment that would deal with the matter by registration.

The hon. Member for South Down made his most telling point during an intervention, which as you pointed out, Mr Hood, allowed him to go into detail. I wish that he had had more time to expand on it in his earlier speech. What he said about the national insurance number was right. It is the only verifiable, cross-checkable—if there is such a term—identifier. The Minister is all for what can be done within the realms of his timetable and, as yet, a cross check on a signature or date of birth cannot be made under the data bank. Such data is available for national insurance numbers, which is what makes them attractive.

The hon. Member for Reigate rightly identified Sinn Fein, in particular, when he referred to the electoral abuse that has taken place. It may be necessary for us to expect that if the Bill is enacted, with or without amendments, it will not have a massive impact on election results in Northern Ireland. Much of the damage has already been done. I refer to our present four-party system in Northern Ireland. The reality with sectarian elections is that in a race in Mid-Ulster, for example, where the Social Democratic Labour party and Sinn Fein are attempting to gather the nationalist vote on one side and the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionists are trying to gather the unionist vote on the other, whichever of the nationalist parties or the Unionist parties finds itself sufficiently ahead in such a hot-bed constituency is the party that the rest of the nationalist community is likely to plump for next time around. If, through electoral fraud, the Sinn Fein organisation had managed to get itself ahead of the SDLP, it would have gained the incumbency value that comes with that. I am not sure whether the abuse that is being sorted out now will have the effect that some of us would consider desirable.

The hon. Member for Reigate also raised the important issue of funding for the electoral office. Much of the Bill could be undone if the office does not have the necessary resources or staff. I am not assuming that the Minister will not arrange for the necessary funding, but it is essential that such funds are available. Much of what we are dealing with requires human checks to be made during the process. The electoral office has found it difficult to ensure that checks have been made. Indeed, reference has been made to that during today's debate. We must increase the amount of funding that is available to the electoral office.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire told us about finding himself on his friend's motor bike. We noted that it took him all of 15 minutes to convince the police officer that he was a law-abiding citizen. I do not know what arguments he advanced, but it seems a long time for a Liberal Democrat to take to convince the forces of law and order.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I was not a member of the party at the time.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Perhaps it would have made a difference and shaved a minute or two off the time.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the pattern of consistency and cohesion that previously existed between the work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Government, which he felt had been interrupted by the Government's approach to the amendment. However, it is not simply a matter of the Government's approach being inconsistent with that of the Select Committee. The Government's approach is inconsistent with the Minister's past approach and the approach of the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who enjoyed membership of the Select Committee and joined us in supporting the sort of issue with which the amendment deals. The Northern Ireland Office review of electoral fraud went further than I did, saying:

``These proposals would quite probably significantly reduce the amount of opportunist personation at polling places.''

It even supports the suggestion in the amendment that such a question should be asked at polling stations. Therefore, there has been a change of attitude.

The Minister said that the matter was one of balance. Holding ministerial office seems to have affected his equilibrium on the issue. I suspect that most of us would recognise that the issues have not changed since 1998, when the Select Committee considered the issue.

I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire say that he had been persuaded to change his mind because of the debate, because at that stage no one had spoken in support of the view that he now holds. When he further explained that some issues had arisen that had caused him to do so, he argued that he had just discovered that the national insurance number system ``was not perfect''. He could safely have assumed that in 1998 as much as today. None of the systems is perfect, but such information would be a great help as an identifier in registration.

The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire also had a stab at suggesting that some matters had caused him anxiety. Delay in registration was one factor on which he relied at one stage, hoping that his view of what canvassing meant would support that. It may be worth while my dealing with delay in registration. I do not believe that it could lead to the denial of anyone's right to exercise the franchise. The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the system of checking is inefficient and ineffective and that the process does not and cannot work.

The canvassing system works as follows. During August, the electoral office delivers a form to the homes of residents in Northern Ireland. Its officials do not stand and fill it in but say that they will return in a matter of weeks to collect it and leave the form with the householder to fill in. There is therefore plenty of time for people to find out their national insurance number, if they have one, and fill in the form properly. When the form has been filled in and collected by the canvasser or returned by post by the householder, it is gathered by the chief electoral officer's staff, who go through the necessary processes. We should not forget that the electoral register is not published until February, so there are weeks and months during which this matter could be dealt with. Even if it were not dealt with, the reality is that there is rolling registration—I mention that quickly before the officials tie themselves in knots trying to answer my previous point. It clearly would not take too efficient a checking system to be able to work through the process in a matter of weeks.

Another important factor relates to what the Minister said about the mischief that the amendment intends to address. He was right in saying that each of us must decide when it is appropriate to draw the line. However, in attempting to do that, we must base our decision on the arguments that have been advanced and on the difficulties that may be met by those seeking to register if the question in the amendment were asked. The Minister seemed to be having some difficulty at that point, which was just before lunch. After saying that it was a matter of balance, he did not seem to have any further arguments to advance—I hope that he will forgive me for characterising his argument in such a way. During the lunch break, however, he recognised that some argument had to be advanced, marshalled his forces and gave us two arguments.

The Minister's first argument was based on the fact that some people do not have a national insurance number—a fact he seems to have only just discovered. However, there are other questions on the form sent out by the electoral office that it is not essential to answer. There would be no difficulty in putting on the form ``National insurance number, if applicable'' or ``if any''. People who have no national insurance number could leave a gap. The electoral office would then be able to check whether the gap was left because the person who filled in the form wanted to avoid providing damaging cross-checking information or because the person genuinely did not have a national insurance number.

The issue of data protection has been waved at us in the past; it did not cut much ice before and does not do so now. In this highly technical age, to find a program that could sift Northern Ireland national insurance numbers from the rest would hardly be at the cutting edge of information technology, and would fall well within the timetable that the Minister has set. I appreciate the correspondence that I have received from the Minister and the consultations that we have had. However, I do not believe that he has marshalled sufficient argument to suggest that the amendment would provide an obstacle that would in any way make it more difficult for people to register or—as might be argued on the other amendments—to vote. My view is still that the national insurance number is sufficiently accessible. It is not simply another identifier but it is probably the best available. Acceptance of the amendment would in no way damage the Bill and would tighten the safeguards that are available to us. I have heard no convincing reason not to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 1, line 16, after `satisfied', insert `by evidence'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—

`(4C) The Chief Electoral Officer shall as a priority develop a scheme to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, those unable to comply with the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) above shall be issued with an electoral identity card.'.

No. 39, in page 2, line 12, after `satisfied', insert `by evidence'.

No. 27, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—

`(1C) The Chief Electoral Officer shall as a priority develop a scheme to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, those unable to comply with the requirement mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) above shall be issued with an electoral identity card.'.

No. 40, in page 2, line 35, after `satisfied', insert `by evidence'.

No. 28, in page 2, line 37, at end insert—

`(2C) The Chief Electoral Officer shall as a priority develop a scheme to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, those unable to comply with the requirement mentioned in subsection (2A)(a) above shall be issued with an electoral identity card.'.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The amendments, which stand in my name and that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, can usefully be divided into two groups. The first comprises amendments Nos. 38 to 40 and relates to the provision in clause 1 for the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to be able to dispense with the requirement for a signature in the event of a voter's incapacity or inability to read.

The second set comprises, youthfully, amendments Nos. 26 to 28, which would require the chief electoral officer to give priority—it would not be an obligation or duty—to those who are genuinely incapacitated or illiterate in the issue of electoral identity cards.

Reading clause 1, I was struck by the breadth of the discretion given to the chief electoral officer, although I in no way question his integrity. It states that the chief electoral officer may dispense with the requirement for a signature ``if he is satisfied''. The clause does not say how he will be satisfied or refer to any evidence. The amendments would insert the words ``by evidence''. We have not been prescriptive about the type of evidence, but the amendments would shift the test of satisfaction from being subjective to one that can be objectively measured.

Background literature, including even the White Paper, refer to not only the electoral office but political parties checking through the registration. It is difficult for political parties to challenge the exercise of the electoral officer's discretion if he is not required to provide evidential support for its exercise. The amendment would shift the burden from being subjective to objective—a simple and logical move.

Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 relate to the insertion of the words:

``The Chief Electoral Officer shall as a priority develop a scheme to ensure that . . . those unable to comply with the requirement . . . shall be issued with an electoral identity card''.

It applies to those unable to sign because they are incapacitated or illiterate.

Under the Bill, the new electoral identity cards do not require a signature, but they will bear photographs and contain full names and dates of birth. For those genuinely incapacitated and unable to sign, the electoral identity cards seem ideally suited. We have no wish to place obstacles in the way of voters who genuinely want to cast their vote, but if new electoral identity cards are being introduced under the Bill, priority should be given to those who are at present unable to register on the canvass. At a polling station, that could eradicate the embarrassment caused to people whose names are not on the register because they have been unable through genuine incapacity or illiteracy to sign it or give their date of birth. Priority should be given to such individuals.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I shall not detain the Committee. The amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire seem unobjectionable. Who could object to placing a duty on the chief electoral officer to be satisfied by evidence? The lesson of electoral practices in Northern Ireland is that it is better to close down a potential loophole if one can see it coming. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for North Down predicted an increase in the recorded illiteracy rate in Northern Ireland as people try to take advantage of the clause. It is right and sensible to place a duty on the chief electoral officer to attempt as a priority to help people who might or might not be illiterate and to reduce the scope for abuse by the use of electoral identity cards. The Opposition support the amendments.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I shall deal with amendments in the order in which they were debated rather than the order in which they are presented on the amendment paper.

I say at the outset that I appreciate the intention, explained by the hon. Member for North Down, to ensure that people intent on committing electoral fraud do not escape detection by claiming to be incapacitated or unable to read when that is not the case. However, the Bill permits the chief electoral officer to dispense with the requirement for signatures only if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practical for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way.

In deciding whether he is satisfied, the chief electoral officer must look at the evidence. Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 are therefore unnecessary because in making a decision about whether he is satisfied, the chief electoral officer will by definition review all the information available to him. The words in the amendments are already implied and do not need to be added to the legislation. He cannot be satisfied in any way other than by the evidence, so they are not necessary.

I understand that amendments Nos. 26 to 28 are intended to prevent people from claiming to be unable to provide a signature in order to commit fraud. Although the amendments require the chief electoral officer to develop a scheme for the issue of photo identity cards as a priority, they would make it mandatory for him to issue a photo identity card to people who qualify for that priority process. While I support the objective, these amendments are not necessary either.

The Bill provides for the issue of an electoral identity card by the chief electoral officer and by 2003 it is my intention, as I said on Second Reading, that the new cards will be issued to those who do not have a passport or a driving licence. That will enable us in the same time scale to remove all the non-photographic forms of identification so that everyone, whether or not they can provide a signature, will have to have photographic identification in order to cast their vote at the polling station. It does not seem to me to be necessary to specify that, for a priority group, that identification must be the electoral ID card rather than a passport or driving licence. Such a requirement would place an additional burden on the electoral office when it will be busy doing many other things. It would have to cross check those who had not provided a signature with those who had already applied for an electoral ID card and would have to ensure that cards were provided for all in the first group.

There would be a burden on the voter, as those who already had a driving licence or a passport would still have to obtain a card. That may not have been the intention of the amendment but that would be its effect. There is a potential for confusion there. Most importantly, as I have outlined, there would be no real benefit, as everyone will have to have a form of prescribed photographic identification to vote at the polling station. The new requirement, combined with the universal requirement to provide a date of birth, seems to provide the necessary safeguards. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member will withdraw the amendments.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister. I found that clarification helpful. I am sorry that amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 give the impression that there would be a requirement. That was not our intention. I am happy with the Minister's clarification and his assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

`(4C) The Chief Electoral Officer shall electronically scan and electronically store copies of signatures obtained in the annual canvass under (4A)(a) above for the purpose of his register.'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—

`(1C) The Chief Electoral Officer shall electronically scan and electronically store copies of signatures obtained in an application under (1A)(a) for the purpose of his register.'.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The two amendments stipulate the way in which signatures are to be stored once they have been collected on the forms for the annual canvass, electoral register and applications for postal and proxy voting. The report of the elections review lays out the advantages and disadvantages of several methods of collection, storage and verification. On balance it seems that the most voter friendly method of collecting signatures is in a paper format. Those forms could be converted to computer records by being electronically scanned and then transferred to a computer database. The advantage is that validation could still be carried out by visual comparison. The computerised record system would be much quicker, more efficient and certainly a more secure method of verification than the storage and retrieval of paper files. As ever, we aim to be as helpful to the Minister as possible. No thanks are required on the assumption that he accepts our amendment.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

In that event, I shall not hold my breath for the thanks. I hope however that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Down when I say that the new IT system to be rolled out by the electoral office next spring will allow the chief electoral officer electronically to store signatures as well as dates of birth of electors and those applying for registration. I assure those who fear that that information will be gleaned from the register and used for other purposes that, apart from the dates of birth of those who will become 18 in the coming year, the information will not appear on the electoral register. The information will be used in the electoral office and at the polling stations.

It is the chief electoral officer's intention that such information should begin to be stored electronically as soon as it is available—from the autumn canvass 2002—provided that the Bill is acceptable to the House. It is unnecessary to write the requirement into the legislation. The Government provided a clear explanation in the White Paper. The point of collecting the signature and date of birth is that they can be stored electronically and used efficiently and effectively as additional identifiers to combat fraud. We are at one on the practical consequence, but it is unnecessary, as I explained, to amend the Bill to achieve that purpose. It was the point of the exercise all along the line. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. The system that he outlines is sensible and his assurances satisfy us that the amendment is unnecessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Opposition and all parties represented in Committee want the Bill to make progress. It is a pity that the Government were unable to accept our earlier amendments on national insurance numbers. An opportunity has been missed, but it is not sufficient to induce the Opposition to vote against the clause. However the Bill ends up, following our deliberations, it will improve the position in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Dates of birth and ballot papers

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 1, at end insert—

`(za) in paragraph (1A), after ``document'' there is inserted ``and supplied his signature''.'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this we may take new clause 5—Requirement for signature before issue of ballot paper—

`(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (parliamentary election rules) is amended as follows.

(2) After rule 35 there is inserted—

``35A.—(1) A person applying as an elector shall sign his name before he is issued with a ballot paper.

(2) The presiding officer may dispense with the requirement in paragraph (1) above in relation to any applicant if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapacity of his.''.'.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Amendment No. 19 would require that when a would-be voter is proffered a ballot paper, in addition to producing the documents that provide the read-across under the Bill, the apparent age will be reflected against the register's age data. I put that badly and if I may I shall start again. The additional requirement in place of the two proposed in the Bill is important. The would-be voter has to produce a document and the apparent age of the voter is compared with the data supplied by the chief electoral officer. Correspondence is sought.

When amendments Nos. 29 and 30 were debated, the Minister said that he hoped that good progress would be made with digitisation and computerisation of signatures. Much was made in earlier debates about the fact that two additional pieces of information were required—the date of birth and the signature made in applying for a vote.

Under the amendments, the signature on the application form would have to coincide with that of the person asking for the vote at the polling station, who would sign for their vote. I am immediately conscious of the logistical problems that might arise if that process was not well managed—perhaps the bottleneck would grow even greater than it was at the last election—but with the right manpower and management, our objective could be achieved.

I should like to know if at any time it is intended that the signature on the application form to be registered as a voter will be stored electronically other than when a person applies for an absent vote, be it proxy or postal. With all the trouble that we are taking, quite correctly, to have signatures on applications for votes, to store them electronically and to have them available to the electoral officer, both centrally and presumably at polling stations, would it not be logical to ask someone to sign for their vote and immediately scan the signature for accuracy using the electronic database? With the Committee's permission, the Minister's reply will determine whether I press the amendment.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I shall speak to new clause 5 and I am working on the assumption that it would have precisely the same effect as amendment No. 19. I hope that I have understood that amendment correctly and that it is not simply asking for an additional check to be available to the presiding officer at a polling station if there is doubt about whether the person presenting themselves is the person on the registration. I assume that the amendment would make it automatic for everyone to have to sign when they received the ballot paper, which is also the purpose of new clause 5. If the Committee were minded to accept the amendments, the most appropriate vehicle for placing the requirement in the legislation could be chosen.

The fact that the hon. Member for South Down and I have taken two different approaches to the same problem is another eloquent testimony to the need for a consolidation Bill. Trying to find one's way from one part of the legislation to another is immensely complicated. Four or five Acts are now involved, so a consolidation exercise is badly needed.

I shall now deal with the detail of the amendment, and this is a simple issue. If the Bill is passed, the signatures of everyone who applies to go on the register in Northern Ireland will be collected. As the Minister said, they will be recorded not only on the registration form but, in time, electronically. Currently, the only cross-check between signatures will be for people applying for absent votes. If we required people to sign for their ballot paper at polling stations, they would know that at some stage a check could be made. It would not necessarily be made there and then if they passed the other tests and had created a false identity sufficient to personate successfully in the polling station, but they would know that there could be a test of signature against signature at another stage. That would give the people hunting down electoral fraud a much greater ability to bring people to justice for defrauding the electoral system in that way.

Putting that provision on the statute book and making known the fact would be the biggest deterrent to personation in the polling station. We have debated medical cards, the ability of organisations to produce false ones and the use of photographic identity cards to combat that. To make people sign for the ballot paper would make it conclusive, closing off completely the potential for fraud when people go to cast their vote illegally for someone else.

I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the logistics and, as the hon. Member for South Down mentioned, to see what difficulties such a move would entail for polling stations. Logistical problems could be properly overcome and, if it is not too difficult an exercise to mount, the Committee should consider the amendment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As I understood it, the distinction between amendment No. 19 and new clause 5 was that amendment No. 19 would require a signature only if it were requested by the presiding officer and some doubt was expressed about an individual's identity. I am not sure whether that is true. I have only one concern about the impact of requiring every elector to sign, which relates to difficulties in the polling station.

Most hon. Members found valuable the survey results that the Minister forwarded to provide us with some background information from the 7 June election. One noticeable factor was that there were some areas in Northern Ireland where, although people had presented themselves at polling stations before 10 o'clock at night, they were not able to vote. If the issue had been one of electoral fraud, I would have tabled an amendment to the effect that a person who presents themselves at a polling station before the close of poll should be allowed to vote, even if they were physically to vote after 10 o'clock. The inefficiency of the electoral office in providing the necessary number of booths or staff should not be a determining factor in whether one can exercise one's franchise.

It is also clear from the survey that the overwhelming majority of people who were questioned shared that view. In one area of Castlereagh, in Newtownbreda, which is a middle class area of Northern Ireland, we saw something approaching riots because people had to queue for hours during the day and many were unable to vote because the queues had not diminished by 10 o'clock. The amendment might cause a further delaying factor that could be a disincentive for people coming out or ensure that some people were not be able to vote. I recognise that not every election will be as awkward as that of 7 June, when we had a proportional representation local government election running parallel with a first-past-the-post Westminster election, but the factor causes concern. That would be diminished considerably if this were simply a question of the presiding officer asking for a signature when there is some doubt about the identity of the individual. A signature would be required significantly fewer times, and the measure would be not as problematical.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I should point out at the outset that, as I understand it, the effects of both amendment No. 19 and new clause 5 are the same—to require all potential voters to provide a signature to check against the one supplied at registration. Until now, I had firmly believed that there was total consensus on the view that photographic identification would be the biggest deterrent to personation in the polling stations. A serious breach in that consensus might be worrying. However, until now, nobody has seriously argued in any documents that I have read or in any conversations or discussions in which I have taken part that we should add a requirement for a signature. The view was that if everyone who presents themselves to vote at a polling station provides secure photographic identification, that would be the best deterrent to personation.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, East for drawing attention to the electoral research project, conducted by the Northern Ireland Office, into the combined elections that took place on 7 June 2001. I am sorry that I was not able to provide the results of that research and evaluation earlier to members of the Committee. As it is, the order was accelerated to make the report available, and I am grateful to research and evaluation services for agreeing to do that. I, too, have had limited opportunity—only 24 hours or so more than members of the Committee—to digest it.

The report is full of helpful information. It clearly identifies some of the problems that the hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned. I have significant sympathy for his view, although it is not the law, that people who are queuing to vote at the polling station before 10 o'clock are not at fault if the system cannot cope and get them through before 10 o'clock. It is the Government's duty to provide sufficient resources to ensure that that does not happen. It is difficult to criticise people who present themselves before the poll closes but are then denied their vote. I agree that the criticism ought to be of the system.

The Northern Ireland Office and the chief electoral officer will take other practical lessons on board in respect of deployment of resources to ensure that the minimum number of difficulties are put in the way of those who wish to vote in future elections. I give that assurance as the Minister.

I resist the amendments because I do not want to add to those burdens and for some of the reasons articulated by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. In my view, the amendments would create unnecessary difficulties for the elector and would undoubtedly impede the smooth running of the poll. I have spoken repeatedly about the need to ensure that, in preventing fraud, we do not set up too many hurdles for the voter. Otherwise, the simple fact is that people will be prevented from exercising their right to vote.

The amendments would considerably slow down the voting process, because election staff would have to check signatures as well as identity documents. Furthermore, there would inevitably be differences of opinion about whether the signature was true. A photograph is clear proof of identity, but a signature might not be. I can envisage confrontation between individual voters and election staff if there is disagreement about whether the signatures match. Such confrontation would be unnecessary, given the level and nature of identification that will be required of voters.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

It was certainly not my intention that there should be an immediate check of the signature given by the elector against the signature held electronically on the register or physically on paper. That comparison would not be possible—I doubt that the information would be available in the polling station. However, voters would know that their signature had been recorded and that the chief electoral officer would be able to make a comparison subsequently. The time required would simply be a question of how long it took the elector to sign a piece of paper that was pushed across to him or her.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that distinction. However, it seems to me that the purpose of any checks on identity made in the polling station should be to deter people from seeking to impersonate others and to steal other people's votes. Therefore, while it may be of advantage to have a retrospective check in certain circumstances, if that is what it is to be used for, we might add greatly to the burden on those who have to work at the polls and administer them for us. We will have to take the time to identify and map those that we want to go back and check. In any event, I am satisfied—and, up until now, it appeared to me that there was a consensus—that the true deterrent to personation would be the secure photographic identification document.

The requirement for a signature, if it is only for retrospective checking or if it is a precondition that it should be checked against the signature held in the register before a ballot paper can be issued, will slow down the poll and generate potential for unnecessary confrontation between those who are working at the poll and voters. It will not add significantly to our ability to deter people from personation or our ability to check identities. Under our proposals, individuals will have to produce photographic identification, and the presiding officer will be able to put a new statutory question in cases of doubt in order to confirm date of birth. It would be an unnecessary extra burden on voters to ask them to provide a signature before being issued with a ballot paper. The measures that we propose will be effective in their own right in preventing fraud. That has been the unanimous view until now.

On the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down about our intention in relation to signatures, it will be clear from my contribution that the Government do not intend to extend the checking of signatures to help identify those in polling stations who put their eggs in the basket of photographic identification. However, given a register that has signatures, dates of birth and photographs, if it becomes necessary in the future, which we do not believe that it will, the resource will be there. Currently, however, the signatures will be used to check absent votes, and the identity of those applying for them. Photographic identification will be the way in which we will identify voters in polling stations. I hope that those words of reassurance will persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Before the hon. Member for South Down summates, I want to ask him how the information would be used, which is a concern to which the Minister alluded. If the information is to be used retrospectively, it would be of limited benefit in terms of the outcome of an election. I say that because, unless one is willing to fish out the offending votes after they have all been counted and alter the outcome of the election, it might provide evidence of fraud but it would not necessarily help us to right that wrong when it really matters—during the election.

Mr. McGrady rose—

Mr. Blunt rose—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

The hon. Member for Reigate should make up his mind.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On the assumption that if I allowed you to pass over me, Mr. Hood, I might not be called after the hon. Member for South Down has spoken, I shall make my points, and he will be able to pick up the bits that I have left behind.

The information will not, of course, immediately confirm a signature on the day of an election, because the polling staff will not be in a position to make those checks. However, it would have the effect of being almost a complete deterrent. If one knew that a permanent record of one's signature could be tested against that, the authorities could go back and check that the signatures match.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to address the circumstances in which he thinks that the deterrent would work. It would have to deter somebody who had gone to the trouble of getting a forged passport, a forged driving licence, a forged Translink card and made him or herself look over 65 to justify that or, alternatively, a forged electoral identity card. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is seriously trying to persuade the Committee that a person who would go to all that trouble would baulk at putting a signature on a piece of paper. If he thinks that they would, it may be a deterrent but, frankly, I do not think that it is.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

If the Minister had been able to restrain himself, it would have become clear that I do not intend to press the matter to a Division.

If a person is able to get away with the issue of photographic identification, one assumes that the polling staff would be able to make a careful check. However, people were able to walk into the Ministry of Defence, during my time as a special adviser there, with a Crystal Palace supporter's card rather than the necessary identification. Therefore, occasions when people may use incorrect identification to get into places where they should not show that polling staff, who may be under great pressure with a large queue of people outside, may not be able to hold the card up to the light and ensure that the voter is the person shown on the card. Of course, once that test is gone, it is gone. It cannot be brought back and checked later. That would be the benefit of a signature test.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

There is an even more profound difficulty than that outlined by the Minister. If it can be proved after an election that a person has claimed to be somebody other than who they are, they are unlikely to have left their real address so that the police can apprehend them. In fact, there is no way to trace the cheat in the first place.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The point at issue is that at an election such as that in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which was decided by 53 votes, or in any election that has the potential to be decided by one or two votes anywhere or in the event of an accusation of widespread fraud, the proposal would provide a way of returning to the record and saying that in the course of the election a number of people voted who should not have done. The courts would then decide whether, on the basis of the evidence, the election should stand or another election should be called. In such circumstances, the result would be addressed.

I listened to the Minister and I take on board his assurance that we should rely on photographic evidence in the first instance and hope that that works. He said that if it becomes necessary to use signatures, they are on the registration forms and could be an issue that the Government would address. I am happy to rest on that assurance.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Minister and hon. Members for their comments on the amendment. I shudder to think that there would be an extension of the problem that occurred during the last election, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, when some of my constituents queued for over an hour to vote. There were various remedies applied for who was eligible to vote and who was not. Sometimes, those in the building or within the grounds were allowed to vote after 10 pm, and those outside the grounds were not. There were a varied set of circumstances and we do not want to exacerbate problems for the voter or for staff of the electoral office.

The amendment's purpose was to create a deterrent for a would-be fraudulent vote claimer. It is important to remember that it is the representative of the political party who must make the challenge. I assumed that it would be an additional benefit to that person, who is not covered by any legal protection for wrongful arrest, which is the ultimate penalty for calling it wrong. People would be reluctant to fully challenge someone with being a wrong voter, as they could be subject to a charge of illegal arrest if the situation were to reach that point.

I thought that a signature could also be requested, so that it could be checked after the election to see if an act of fraud had been perpetrated. I welcomed the Minister's comments about the paramount importance of photo-identity, and his reassurance that resources will be made available. However, I am concerned about what will happen in the period before the introduction of universal photo-identity, either by way of ID cards for electoral purposes, or other forms of acceptable photo-identity. For a considerable time in the future the medical card and the social benefit card will be employed.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am reluctant to intervene, as the hon. Gentleman is clearly coming to the end of his speech, and I have sought to persuade him to conclude, but I cannot allow his representation of what is likely to happen in the future to remain on the record without correcting it. It is not the Government's intention to have an interregnum when non-photographic identification will be accepted. The legislation is intended to create the architecture wherein the non-photographic identification can be removed and replaced by a requirement for photographic identification, either photographic identification provided by the voter from documents that the Government are satisfied are secure—and the Committee will be told in detail about that in the future—or a secure electoral identification card that will be issued on a voluntary basis to those who do not have the other documents. The timetable for achieving that is not in the Bill, but the infrastructure is, and I will refer again to that matter at a later date. A situation will not arise in which the criticised documents remain as identity documents after the Bill is enacted.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. That was a lengthy intervention.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I am grateful for that very long intervention, as it clarified a misunderstanding with regard, not to the wording of the Bill, but to the Government's intentions on the matter under discussion. Subsequent amendments can now be aborted due to what the Minister has just said, which has come as news to me because I understood that the ID card provision, allied to other photographic identification, would be issued to only certain categories of people after an application had been made and the electoral officer had deemed it appropriate to issue the card. If that is not the case, and, instead, we are going to have complete photo-identity at the polls, I can happily forget the rather complex set up that I was contemplating for my constituency. I will read and re-read what the Minister has said in this context, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Absent votes and declarations of identity

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I beg to move amendment no. 45, in page 3, line 32, leave out `(ba)' and insert—

`(ba) the application states the applicant's date of birth and the registration officer is satisfied that the date stated corresponds with the date supplied to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland as the date of the applicant's birth pursuant to section 10(4A)(b), 10A(1A)(b) or 13A(2A)(b) of the principal Act,

(bb).'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 46, and amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 46, at end insert—

`(3A) In section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) and in section 7 (absent vote at a particular election), there is inserted at the end of paragraph (1)(c) the words—

``, which shall include the date of birth and the national insurance number of the applicant.''.'.

Government amendments Nos. 47 and 48.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Paragraph 2 currently has the effect that applications to vote by post or proxy for an indefinite period must be signed, and that the signature in the application must correspond to the signature provided to the chief electoral officer on registration.

Amendment No. 45 amends section 6(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which specifies requirements when an elector applies for an absent vote at elections for an indefinite period. An application can be granted only if the chief electoral officer is satisfied, among other matters, that the date of birth on the application corresponds with the date of birth supplied by the elector with his registration application. The effect of the amendment would be that an application for a postal or proxy vote for an indefinite period would have to include an elector's signature and date of birth. Both would have to correspond with the signature and date of birth supplied by the elector with his registration application.

Amendment No. 46 would have the same function as amendment No. 45, but applies to applications to vote by post or proxy at a particular parliamentary election. It amends section 7(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1985. Thereafter, an application for a postal or proxy vote for an indefinite period or for a particular parliamentary election would have to include an elector's signature and date of birth, and both would have to correspond to the signature and date of birth supplied by the elector on registration.

Amendment No. 47 would amend rule 24 on postal ballot papers under the parliamentary elections rules in schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. It provides for a postal ballot paper to include provision for the form to be signed and, in the case of an elector, the stating of his date of birth.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I need clarification. The Minister said that the amendment would leave a duty on the chief electoral officer to check that the signature on the application corresponds to the signature supplied by the elector. I am not clear whether it would do that. The amendment would change the duty under the Bill to ensure that the chief electoral officer checks the date of birth, but his duty to check the signature would be removed from the Bill. If I have not understood the amendment correctly, I should be delighted to be corrected.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has misunderstood the amendment. The Bill already requires the checking of the signature and the amendment would add the provision under which the date of birth would be checked. I was encouraged to do that on Second Reading by certain contributors to the debate, a suggestion which at first I rejected. I was told that paragraph (ba) would become paragraph (bb). If it is of any assistance to the hon. Gentleman, that may explain why he thought that the provision would disappear.

Amendment No. 48 amends rule 45 of the parliamentary election rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Its effect is that a postal ballot paper shall not be deemed to be duly returned unless the accompanying declaration of identity states the date of birth of the elector and the returning officer is satisfied that the date stated corresponds with the date supplied to the chief electoral officer on registration and on the elector's application for a postal vote.

The chief electoral officer will be able to check that both the date of birth and the signature on an elector's declaration of identity accompanying the postal ballot paper corresponds with the date and signature supplied by that elector on registration. I acknowledge again that the amendments are contrary to my position on Second Reading. However, I have reconsidered the matter and I now believe that the chief electoral officer should be given as much useful information as possible to enable him to check absent vote applications against the information that an elector will be required to provide on registration. Amendments Nos. 45 to 48 should further assist the chief electoral officer in detecting fraudulent absent vote applications.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am glad that the Government tabled their amendments at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and I tabled ours. Amendment No. 12 would go further than the Government amendments in requiring the national insurance number, but we have had that debate and I do not propose to cover the issue again. Therefore, given that the Government have met my amendment halfway by including the date of birth but not the national insurance number—much as I regret that last fact—I am content not to press the amendment and to support the Government amendment introducing the date of birth requirement.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the logic of his contribution to the debate and for his support for the Government amendments.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I seem to rise every 20 seconds. Every time I have stood up it has been to criticise the Minister, so I should not allow the occasion to pass by without welcoming the fact that the Minister has tabled the amendments. They are helpful.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

For clarification purposes, I would like to say, along with the hon. Member for Belfast, East, that we are pleased that the Government have tabled the amendments.

Forgive me if I seem to raise the same issue again, but how does the Minister intend to deal with the matter of those absent voters who are incapacitated or otherwise unable to give their signature or date of birth, given the requirement for the date of birth on applications for absent votes?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Off the top of my head, I do not know the answer to that question. Would the hon. Lady accept an undertaking to write to her on that matter? She has caught me unsighted on that particular point, but I may be able to answer it in the context of another debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 32, after `application', insert

`is made on a form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland containing such marking or coding as he may determine,'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 42, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—

`(2A) In section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) after subsection (1) insert—

``(1A) Any application under subsection (1) for an absent vote must be by means of an application form provided by the Chief Electoral Officer.

(1B) Any application form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection (1A) shall be marked with a bar code unique to each form.''.'.

No. 7, in page 3, line 41, after `application', insert

`is made on a form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland containing such marking or coding as he may determine,'.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When I discussed my amendment with the Minister, he felt that I was over-egging the cake by changing primary legislation for what might be an administrative matter. If the Minister is content with the general thrust and can find a way for the same effect to be achieved other than through an amendment to primary legislation, I will be pleased.

The amendment would facilitate the chief electoral officer and his staff by providing a tracing mechanism for applications. That has been a problem in the past when bulk applications were photocopied by political parties without identifying where they were coming from so that, if there were attempts to gain postal votes fraudulently, the electoral officer could not trace their origin.

One of the other difficulties, which is dealt with in other amendments in this group, is that there would be a requirement for the official form sent out by the chief electoral officer to be the only form for use for postal votes. At the moment there is no such requirement; one does not need to fill in a postal vote application form to apply for a postal vote. Some of the applications received have been in the form of an ordinary letter—or worse, as the chief electoral officer can tell us. In those circumstances, if people do not use the official form, they often leave out some of the necessary information, which requires further inquiry. Standardising by introducing the requirement to use the official form provided by the electoral office therefore makes sense. Also, if the form is marked or identified by bar coding or some other means of detecting who was sent the application form in the first place, that helps tracing if there are queries about its validity at a later stage.

It is necessary to look at the issue in terms of the number of applications received for postal votes in elections in Northern Ireland. Even with the generous basis on which postal votes are offered in the rest of the United Kingdom, the take-up is not as great as it is in Northern Ireland, given the limited circumstances in which postal votes are available. In some constituencies, many thousands of applications are received, and, indeed, many thousands of valid applications appear to be received. In about eight constituencies in Northern Ireland, it probably becomes the difference between a candidate winning and losing a seat. It is therefore an important area, which must be tied down as much as possible. The proposal is a further way of doing that, and of assisting the electoral office, and I understand that the chief electoral officer will find the measure useful. As the Minister used the views of the chief electoral officer earlier in the debate, I am sure that he will want to be consistent by supporting the amendment, or at least the thrust of it.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am delighted to support the hon. Member for Belfast, East in putting forward the amendments, especially Nos. 6 and 7. He has slightly understated the case and the importance of the amendments. He alluded to conversations that he has had with the chief electoral officer, during which he received precisely the same information I have received. That reinforces the statements made earlier in Committee that absent votes constitute the area of greatest vulnerability in the electoral system of Northern Ireland.

There are stories about the electoral office being presented with thousands of applications for absent votes at the last moment, before the end of the timetable, which means that the electoral office is unable to make the necessary checks to ensure that absent votes are properly applied for. Stories are also legion about the distribution of those votes and the postman being followed around. Those of us who represent constituencies in Great Britain must remember that elections in Northern Ireland frequently take place in communities where there is real intimidation. The idea of surrendering one's vote to someone else for a quiet life is possibly one that people will entertain. If they have their vote stolen from them by an organisation seeking to abuse the system, that might be an option, however unwelcome we might find it, given the scale of intimidation that people live with day by day in Northern Ireland.

It is therefore extremely important that we address the issue of absent votes as robustly as we can. Regrettably, we do not have the national insurance number to refer to, but the forms do include the date of birth and the signature, which is information that will be compared. We cannot give the electoral office the resources to cope with thousands of applications coming in at once on forms that are not issued by the electoral office. That is why it is essential for the amendments to be agreed.

The amendment would ensure not only that the absent vote applications go to the electoral officer in a form that he set out, but that the forms are bar-coded and he will know to whom he has given the forms. That does not mean that it would be the responsibility of the individual elector to approach the electoral officer in order to get a form. It would still be possible for political parties, candidates and agents to receive a group of forms, but the officer would know that he had issued forms one to 1,000—whatever the numbers—to a specific political party. That is his intention, under the existing legislation, in order to trace where malpractice occurs and to give him a handle on that. If the provision that the absent vote application must be on one of the forms put out by the electoral officer is not in the Bill, we can be pretty sure that if, as many believe, organised malpractice occurs in the collection of absent votes and the stealing of votes, such applications will not come in on bar-coded forms with unique identifiers issued by electoral officers.

I hope that the Government will accept the amendments because they will address what everyone accepts as the greatest area of malpractice in the conduct of elections.

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Would the voting allegiance of a particular voter be identified when the forms are issued to a political party and returned?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

In effect it would, if returned by the political party. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is pretty much the same as mine. When canvassing during a general election, especially in the early stages before the deadline for postal votes, one is keen to identify whether one's supporters will be present on polling day. If they are not, one will assist them by giving them necessary forms to allow them to claim an absent vote. Of course, that is an ordinary part of political life, as the hon. Gentleman and I know. Therefore, we will provide people with the forms. Plainly, the elector understands that if he receives a Conservative on his doorstep to whom he pledges support and makes it clear that he wants an absent vote, he has effectively declared—in this instance to me—his support and, presumably, he is not unwilling for that information to be shared with an official. The official will not be under any duty to disclose that, and, in fact, will be under a duty not to disclose to whom he has sent forms and the numbers of the forms that he receives. Therefore, the bar code on the form will be used to check whether malpractice has occurred and to chase the responsible organisation, if particular numbered forms appear to be suspicious.

Paul Farrelly (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I listened to the point. The practical difference in my constituency and the hon. Gentleman's constituency is that, when I return a form that has been issued to me, nobody in authority is able to guess the political allegiance of the person returning the form from the issue of the form or any type of identification. The hon. Gentleman will accept that certain parts of the community of Northern Ireland may have reason to distrust—if that is not too strong a word—authority in any shape or form.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I entirely agree. Each elector can apply for an absent vote. He does not have to go through a political party. If in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes an elector is so worried, he would make the application himself, and the bar code that he would receive would be unique to him as issued by the electoral office. It might be argued that it would be preferable to place the duty on individual electors to make the application themselves rather than allowing it to go through political parties. Given the stage that we have reached in trying to deal with the problem, I accept that on the grounds of practicality many electors are not so interested in whether they vote—perhaps not in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain, given the turnout in the last general election—and that there is a role for political parties to try to interest people in elections and make the bureaucratic path for people who will not be around on polling day as easy as possible. In such circumstances, I accept that the balance of argument in this instance comes down to the fact that we should allow political parties to be a vehicle for increasing turnout by making it easier for people to exercise an absent vote, but with the necessary protection that it be known exactly to whom the form on which people register was sent so that the electoral officer can chase down applications that turn out to be fraudulent.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Two points come to mind. First, I was impressed and pleased when in the early part of the debate the Minister explained to the Committee that ``the IT would be rolled out in the near future'', and kindly further explained that that meant from next year. Bearing that in mind, I reflected on the evidence taken from the now retired chief electoral officer, Mr. Bradley, by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He had noticed that the abuse of absent voting

``constitutes the commonest form of vote stealing in Northern Ireland. Although the regulations requiring identification have not by any means eliminated personation'',

as the Minister emphasised,

``they have made it harder to personate successfully'',

as we have agreed. However,

``fraudulent applications for absent votes provide a comparatively easy and safe way to steal votes.''

That is the reflection of the chief electoral officer in evidence to the Select Committee. We could marry the two—the fact that IT will be rolled out and available from next year and the serious problem of absent votes being so easy and safe to steal—and, under the amendment, have a bar code that could be electronically scanned and would, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, get rid of the photocopies of any other forms involved in applying for an absent vote. The two could easily be married.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Member for Belfast, East accurately describes our conversation about the issue. My contribution was more detailed than saying that he was over-egging the pudding, but that is probably a reasonable categorisation. The safeguards that we are putting in place to deal with the anxiety identified in evidence given by the chief electoral officer, to which the hon. Member for North Down referred, is the appropriate and reasonable response. It is unnecessary to introduce legislation relating to such issues to ensure that they work. I shall discuss some of them in detail. Some do not require legislation. It is sometimes considered helpful, as the hon. Member for Reigate says, to provide a belt and braces in legislation when the Government want to make a clear statement about a matter. However, when dealing with a matter of fact, as the chief electoral officer is with the application forms, it seems doubly unnecessary to include the provisions suggested in the amendments in the Bill.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I want to be clear about what the Minister is saying. I understand that the electoral officer intends to bar code absent vote application forms, and if those were the only forms with which people could register for an absent vote, that would be entirely satisfactory. Unless that is specified in the Bill, people and political parties will be able to register people for absent votes on any old form they like, as long as it conforms to what is already in legislation.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Without wishing to agree with every word said by the hon. Member for Reigate, he is correct that current law does not require people in the UK to apply for absent votes on a particular form. It requires the applicant to give the relevant electoral authority certain information, but not for that information to be on a particular form. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Belfast, East is right, that all electoral officers will have experience of getting applications on documents that are far removed from the relevant form. However, they will be few and far between and not in the numbers that would cause concern that they were being used to steal votes or create the basis for fraudulent voting. Electoral officers will remember examples in detail because there are so few.

The norm is that applications for absent votes are submitted on forms or copies of forms that are provided by the electoral officer—in Northern Ireland the chief electoral officer. I have examined the issue, and there is no evidence to suggest that the few people who do not use the normal forms are suspicious applicants. I also have no reason to believe that there will be a sudden flood of applications on odd bits of paper as a result of this debate. I am sure that we will rehearse in other contexts the argument that patterns of voting in Northern Ireland will suddenly change because people now know the law. There is no evidence to suggest that that will happen, and I believe that the current situation will continue to be the norm.

It does not matter whether an application for a postal or absent vote is made on an original form or a photocopy when it comes to trying to trace who received it. If I take from the chief electoral officer form number one and he records that he has given me form number one, as he will, and if I make a thousand copies, it will be a reasonable assumption that of the one thousand forms that come back to the chief electoral officer marked as form number one, 999 are copies. We do not have to insist that all forms are original to find out who took them out of the office. The chief electoral officer has only to record in some way to whom he gave the individual forms, which is what he intends to do.

The total effect of the amendments, which would go further and require that the only forms that can be used are the originals provided by the chief electoral officer, would place unnecessary restrictions on the legitimate activities of political parties in the electoral process, as well as hindering individuals who wish to apply for an absent vote. I cannot speak for all Committee members, but I suspect that we have all filled in applications for absent votes to assist voters who are not able to get to the polling station. We will not have signed them; we will have helped such voters fill them in, and there is nothing wrong with that. It has become an accepted part of the political process in the United Kingdom. For the reasons explained by the hon. Member for Reigate with regard to what he as a representative of the Conservative party would do if he canvassed one of his constituents in that situation, people in Northern Ireland should be able to do so as well. I see no objection to that.

However, we must recognise that the evidence suggests that there is the potential for dishonesty and vote stealing and put in place a system that checks applications to ensure that they are legitimate, so that suspicions can be investigated.

The chief electoral officer will in future ensure that applications for an absent vote will be given a unique identifier, be it a serial number or a bar code. That could be achieved without legislation. Although voters will not be required to submit their applications on an original form from the electoral office, I suspect that it will continue to be the norm for people to do so.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I follow the Minister's logic. It is fair enough. The research paper states on page 19 that it was apparent that large numbers of the forms had been filled out almost on a production line. The production of a bar code would make it much more difficult for such an operation to take place because it would remove the ability to photocopy forms. I accept the Minister's point that such a system would make the Northern Ireland system different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, but would he share his perspective on why he is so opposed to it?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. Such a system would not make any difference to our ability to respond to production-line completion of absent vote forms. If the chief electoral officer knew to whom he gave forms, it makes no difference whether they are sequentially numbered or bar-coded. However, the difference when the Bill is enacted will be the requirement to provide additional identifiers at registration and in any subsequent application. It is by the use of that additional information and the system for checking it that we intend to improve the authentication of absent vote applications—not by authenticating the forms on which the applications are made. It is not the forms that create the problems; it is the fabrication of information on the forms. We need to attack the dishonesty at the point that it is perpetrated.

I am arguing—I may be wrong but the evidence suggests that I am right—that the norm will be that the information will come in on the forms provided by the chief electoral officer or on copies of them. If, as he will do, the chief electoral officer keeps a record of where the forms have gone, it will not make any difference whether they are sequentially numbered or photocopied from one that is bar-coded.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am sure that if the Minister reflects on that argument for a moment he will realise that it does not hold. As soon as there is one photocopy in the system, it can in turn be photocopied. That means that, if a Sinn Fein supporter, for the purposes of the argument, waits to collect a form on their doorstep from a Unionist, SDLP or any other party canvasser, saying that he or she will complete it, and the form is photocopied in large numbers, the link between the electoral officer sending out the form and his being able to identify which organisation was responsible for the production line alluded to by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will immediately be broken.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I invite the hon. Gentleman to do what he has just invited me to do in regard to his own argument. The weakness in the suggestion that nobody has any control over what is done with the forms once they are handed over from the chief electoral officer is that it does not matter how they are marked. If someone collects 20,000 forms from the chief electoral officer, all bar-coded and marked, they could then be stolen or moved from one constituency to another. That person could subsequently say, ``I lost all but one of them on the bus; I have no idea where they disappeared to.''

The purpose of the Committee is surely not to spell out to people how they can cheat the system. We must concentrate on the information, as the Bill does. It concentrates on the individual information: the signature, date of birth, name and address, the checking of the registration to ensure that people are properly registered and the checking of the information when applications are made for absent votes.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister is talking about the checking of information. If there is not a duty for the forms to be the originals issued by the chief electoral officer, they can take whatever shape they like. An organisation may be engaged in organised defrauding, to have a production line of absent votes, and the duty placed on the electoral office to check the information on the forms is much more difficult if the forms are not coming back in a precisely standard shape. It might be acceptable in the case of a photocopy, but there is no duty to produce forms in exactly the same shape as those issued by the electoral officer. That would be another advantage of bar coding and serial numbers.

The computer technology is not yet able to check precisely one signature against another, but if the form comes back in precisely the manner issued, the electoral officer is in a position to check all the signatures on the absent vote forms. He cannot do that at the moment and has not been able to in the four months since the general election on 7 June. In June, July and August, no comprehensive checking of the validity of absent votes in Northern Ireland could take place.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening yet again, because it allows me to clarify another potential piece of misinformation that might be affecting the Committee. At the moment, the information technology and software available to the chief electoral officer does not allow him to do any such checking. However, we are currently concluding the contract that will put in place the necessary computers, in a process rolling out from next year towards a target date of 2003, to provide the IT equipment that will make the Act work. It is pointless to compare what the Bill seeks to do with what the chief electoral officer can currently do technologically. The contract will be drawn in a specific way to enable the software to check signatures in a digitalised form or in some electronic fashion.

I cannot stand in front of the Committee and claim that all of that can be done now, because none of it can be. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative framework to match the plans for computers and software so that we will reach a point in 2003 when we can interdict the dishonest use of votes in elections in Northern Ireland. It is of no help to anyone in the Committee to say what the chief electoral officer can or cannot do with the equipment available at the moment. The potential equipment is my concern, and it will be my job, as a Minister, to ensure that the chief electoral officer and the agency have the resources necessary to achieve their objective. I have given the Committee and the House undertaking after undertaking that we will ensure, as far as possible, that that is done. I have no intention of doing otherwise.

The central point of the amendments is the checking of information. Our aim is automated processing of absent vote applications—that is, by computer—in the time period available, which is different from the time period in Great Britain, in order to cut down the opportunity for such fraud. Things have been done to prevent such fraud in the past, and we will have to take advantage of them, but we will also have to design the software, and put in place the computer equipment, to allow the chief electoral officer to work in that window of opportunity.

We all know what the challenges are. If the information comes in in large amounts, its handling has resource implications. I understand that, and I cannot make that any clearer. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the electoral office is being flooded with ad hoc forms and bits of paper—unfolded cigarette packets and other things with the information on them. The fact is that applications are coming in on forms, or copies of them, provided by the chief electoral officer. I am being urged to provide a legislative framework so that it is possible to trace where the forms went. That can be done but it is not necessary. We do not need to go to the lengths of sequentially numbering every single form, because we can keep a record of to whom we give an individual form. If a form is photocopied, that evidence will be as good as if we had given someone 10,000 forms.

What we can do does not require legislation. Hon. Members are urging me to do something that would seem to fall on the wrong side of the balance that I have tried to apply to all such decisions. I have changed my mind about some of these matters, but on others I am holding my ground. It is perfectly legitimate for people to be able to apply for absent votes through a letter that they have drafted themselves, and which gives the chief electoral officer the information that he needs and that the legislation requires. We ought not to put a barrier in the way of someone for whom such an application to vote is the only resort. In fact, we have a duty to tell people that they can apply for absent votes on that basis.

However, it is not individual handwritten applications that are the problem. Members of Parliament can easily deal with, say, the 5,000 postcards about a single matter that a particular organisation has encouraged voters to sign. We can deal with that by sending out one letter. It is the individual handwritten letters from constituents, expressing their personal views, to which we pay attention. They stand out because they are comparatively small in number. As I understand it, the situation is exactly the same in relation to applications for absent votes.

The automated processing of absent votes will allow the electoral office to make simultaneous checks against the register. Such processing, along with the declarations and applications, will identify those that do not provide sufficient or correct information, so that they can be further investigated. I hope that that contribution has reassured hon. Members about the way in which we intend to deploy our resources in relation to absent votes, and has persuaded them to withdraw their amendments.

Before I sit down, I should answer an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for North Down that related directly to the amendments and the process of absent vote applications. In fact, the answer to her question can be found on page 3 of the Bill. The relevant provisions are in line 32, and they are repeated in line 41 because we have to deal with both types of absent votes. The phrase

``(unless section 10(4B), 10A(1B) or 13A(2B) of the principal Act applies)''

essentially means that checks in relation to absent vote applications—the check against the signature—can be applied only to those for whom registration also requires a signature. If people are excused signature on registration, it cannot be checked because there is no signature to be checked on an absent vote application.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

In the course of the interventions that the Minister has been good enough to take, we have covered many of the issues. However, he has failed to convince me of the merits of the case. We are dealing with the suggestion that a political party with access to resources and manpower and a high level of organisation deliberately goes about stealing votes, and that the route that it uses is the application for the absent vote. If we in this Committee do not put sufficient obstacles in the way of people who want to behave like that, we will have failed in our duty to make the electoral process as fair as we reasonably can.

At the moment, in order not to have absent votes checked, it is sufficient to pile in 5,000 at the last moment following a photocopy of the correct form as issued by the electoral officer. The electoral office is unable to check 5,000 absent vote applications at once with the technology that it has. If it becomes clear that that practice is no longer good enough—because a photocopy of the form will be whistled through a computer and all the data will be checked to make sure that the absent vote application is in order—and that the way to put an obstacle in the way of the chief electoral officer is to get supporters who are going after votes to complete forms that are deliberately different from those issued by the chief electoral officer, that is the route that will be taken by those engaged in organised defrauding of the electoral process through applications for absent voting.

Can the Minister explain why we are going to allow that opportunity? We do not need to. The problem could be addressed by the Government's accepting the amendments. In proposing the amendments, we have accepted that it is possible for the political parties to help to administer the process and to try to meet the need for as many people as possible to be registered. However, if the information is not on a form that is bar-coded or identified in some way by the electoral officer, we are leaving open the opportunity for parties, in Northern Ireland in this instance, to engage in organised defrauding of absent votes. One can see a loophole forming. We should now move to close it.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The hon. Member for Reigate said in his initial comments that I had perhaps understated the case, a charge not usually directed at me. I am usually accused of having gone over the top. However, he is right that of all the areas of electoral fraud, this is the most popular target of the fraudsters. It is the most popular target because there is an anonymity about it, and a distance between the fraud and being caught. It is therefore an area to which the Government must pay special attention.

If anything, I am slightly more confused as a result of this debate than I was when I started it. I had thought that it was a relatively simple process: if we wanted to clean up that whole area of activity, we should require everyone to complete the recognised official form—an original form, not a photocopy—which would be coded in such a way that if there were something unusual that required further inquiry the electoral office could immediately source and trace it. However, a lot of smoke has been put up during the debate that has confused the issue a little for me. Nevertheless, it is an area that we should undoubtedly deal with because of the steps mentioned earlier in the debate.

I am coming to the Minister's getting his retaliation in first about patterns changing. Patterns will change. If an organisation wants to commit electoral fraud and the House changes legislation to close its options, it will look for the weakest area and attempt to get through there. If we leave such an obvious gap as this, it is clear that organisations such as that will follow through on that activity. Their members will not need to stand in front of a presiding officer with a passport in one hand, attempting to make themselves look the age of the person whose vote they are taking. They will be able to do it discreetly at a distance in circumstances permitted by the Minister without much chance of being caught.

There is cause to make changes to reduce the operating and manoeuvring ability of the electoral fraudster. I believe that we could do so by using one official and coded form, which could therefore be properly traced.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9.

Clause 4 - Electoral identity card

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 4, line 26, at end insert—

`(4A) The information contained in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4) above shall also be stored electronically on a computer chip incorporated into the electoral identity card provided for by this section.'.

The amendment is straightforward. I hope that there will be a change, and that this time the ayes will have nine and the noes eight.

The electoral identity card will be introduced on a voluntary basis. It is also apparent from the Bill that it will be free of charge to the applicant. On Second Reading, I noted that Northern Ireland now has a reputation for leading the world in police reform and human rights legislation. It was suggested then, and I repeat now, that we have a golden opportunity to make some progress and show that we are also leading on electoral reform.

If we supply, free of charge, electoral identity cards with people's photographs, their full names and the other information as stated in clause 4, it would seem a simple addition to incorporate a computer chip in the card. That would ultimately result in a breed of smart card, which I think is the technical term. I am pleased that the Minister has expressed the view that the architecture will be in place for IT to help with the next scheduled Assembly elections in 2003. Although the amendment will involve expenditure, the Minister has made it clear that the Government will not hesitate in financing the reforms and the necessary IT. Perhaps he could add it to the software package that is currently being negotiated?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I should say at the outset that I have no objection in principle to an electoral identity card on which information is stored by an electronic chip. However, there are practical drawbacks to such an approach. In particular, at this stage in the process it may be difficult to obtain public support for such a significant change.

The electoral identity card will be one of several photographic identity documents that will be acceptable at the polling station. Although more than one form of identification can be used, it does not make sense for information to be stored on only one of them. Information will not be stored electronically on a passport or on a photographic driving licence. If the Translink card comes up to the security standards that we hope it will, the information stored on it electronically will be for a different purpose, in which, in any event, we are not interested. Such technology would be useful if the card were to be used to facilitate electronic voting, but that is not its purpose. Electronic voting may be an aspiration, but it is not the card's current purpose and it does not fit into this statutory scheme.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The point is that we have just heard that the card may have an electronic chip built into it. My difficulty in accepting that derives from clause 4:

``an electoral identity card becomes current on the date of its issue and ceases to be so on the expiry of the period of 10 years''.

Is the Minister telling us that after 11 years the technology will be available to put an electronic chip into all forms of identification? I understood from the earlier part of the debate that he was confident that the architecture and software would be in place for 2003. Is it his intention that electoral identity cards, the first of which will be valid for 10 years, should be issued at some expense—perhaps considerable expense—by the electoral office, but there will be no attempt to put in an electronic chip before the 10 years have expired?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. However, if she thinks that that is my position, she misunderstands me. I do not know when and if Parliament may decide to move to electronic voting. We have had significant reform of the electoral system throughout the United Kingdom in the previous Parliament. I suspect that before we embark on further changes we shall want that to bed down to see how it works. The next time Parliament turns its attention to electoral law, it may do what many have been crying out for in this debate: consolidate the law to make the position clearer than it is at present. However, I have no crystal ball in relation to that.

It is interesting that the hon. Lady chose time limits—not quite arbitrarily, but from the Bill—in order to illustrate her point. I have had some discussions through my officials with those who are responsible for contracting for and designing the Translink card. That card has an electronic chip in it, which is to be used for other purposes: accounting by individuals to whom it is granted. It is not to be used for voting purposes.

Interestingly, I understand that the most robust card that was appropriate has an electronic chip with a life of only five years. I have not examined whether we could at this stage produce a card with an electronic chip that could be used for voting purposes, if and when the technology became available. However, it would be somewhat ironic if we were to go to the expense of issuing the best cards that we could now, with a life of only five years, and found that the voting process did not catch up with the technology during that period.

Looking at time limits illustrates why the inclusion of such a chip is probably not in our practical interests. It is probably not useful to add a chip to the card when its purpose is identification of those who will carry it as eligible to vote. There will be no electronic voting and so no purpose for the chip. It may well turn out to be a useless expense. It may run out of life before it could be used for anything else.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

It sounds as if the Minister in principle agrees with what we are trying to achieve with the amendment—moving towards a smart card. Will he confirm that he is saying that the timing is wrong, but the principle is probably right in the medium term?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

If it is any help to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, if it makes his day, I will go some of the way with him. I said at the outset that I had no objection in principle to the amendment. That is the best he is going to get from me today—that I have no objection in principle. I suppose that I could also say that I have no objection in principle to the Liberal Democrats.

Perhaps more importantly, we need to consider how the public would view a card incorporating a chip. We always have to bear it in mind that what we are embarking upon will, at the end of the day, require us to persuade about 30 per cent. of the voting public in Northern Ireland that they should volunteer to get an identity card for this purpose. We have to take those people with us. There will be a job of education and persuasion to be done. Many of those people will be elderly people, who may have no other forms of identification, and who may be suspicious of what they are being asked to carry around and what it can be used for.

We ought not to add any more hurdles to our task of persuading the public. How would the hon. Lady or I persuade an elderly person that he or she should accept an identity card with an electronic chip that served no actual purpose in relation to the reason for the card being issued, but that might serve a purpose at some time in future? It seems unnecessary and we should not place ourselves in the position of having to deal with it. People must not be dissuaded by our actions from applying for a card because they have fears, whether they are grounded or groundless. If that were to happen, we could not, in all conscience, withdraw the non-photographic forms of identification. We may find that we have defeated our objective because we have disfranchised many people who would not go along with the measure.

We cannot be seen to be denying people their vote. Equally, we cannot be seen to be defeating the principal objective by stretching slightly too far. We do not need to stretch as far as this at present. We may in future need to stretch, but when we do we will have to do so in the context of a better argued case and with technology that will allow us actually to use those chips. I hope therefore that the hon. Lady will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment, but I look forward to it being resurrected in the future, when the electronic industry and voting in general have caught up with her enthusiasm.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister was able to read across the Room that we virtually agree with what he has just said. We have agreed that we must work on him on the next occasion.

I am happy with the Minister's clarification and concession and I thank him for agreeing in principle with the amendment. However, having listened to the debate, I remain deeply worried that we have allowed there to be a loophole under the Bill. I am not directing that comment at those who are genuinely incapacitated or unable to read. We will have a system whereby electoral cards will not have a chip. Furthermore, such matters will not even be considered at this stage. We will not have a signature on the register of those who are not genuinely incapacitated or unable to read. The signature of those who are not genuinely incapacitated when they apply for an absent vote will not be read by the use of technology.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I have spent much time today correcting members of the Committee who have misrepresented the position. The hon. Lady has made one or two generalisations that are not entirely accurate, but her one clear misrepresentation is that people will be allowed not to sign. That is not so. Registration will require a signature unless the chief electoral officer is satisfied—on the evidence—that the person is incapable of signing or unable to sign for a legitimate reason. We are not creating an enormous loophole whereby people may be allowed not to sign. I do not want the Bill to be misrepresented.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I appreciate the points that have been made by the Minister. It was not my intention to misrepresent the Bill, but having lived in Northern Ireland and having witnessed the exploitation of loopholes under legislation, I and other members of the Committee have a genuine worry that, when there is potential for exploitation by those who are extremely well clued into the legislation, advantage will be taken of the loophole. I did not intend to misrepresent the Government's intentions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 18 October at half-past Nine o'clock.