Orders of the Day — Election Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

House of Commons, 31 October 2001.

New Clause 1 — Voters: specified documents

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

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

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 4, page 5, line 6, after "may", insert "be obliged to".

No. 18, in page 5, line 28, leave out from "documents)" to "a" in line 29 and insert—

'for sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) there is substituted'.

No. 10, in page 5, line 29, at end insert—

'(4) In Schedule 1 (parliamentary election rules), in rule 37(1E) (specified documents), sub-paragraphs (c) to (g) are omitted.

(5) Subsection 4 shall come into force on 30th April 2003, or 15 months after the coming into force of the rest of this section, whichever is the latter.'.

No. 17, in clause 7, page 6, line 37, leave out from "appoint" to end of line 39.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

In rising to speak to new clause 1, I wish to make it clear that I do so in the spirit that has accompanied the Bill in its progress to date. Hon. Members of all parties support the Bill's objectives. Like all other amendments tabled for debate today, the new clause is designed to help the Bill.

I shall begin by recounting to the House a statement made in Cabinet by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is reported by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to have said that the aim in Northern Ireland is to achieve the politics and the practice of politics that are normal in a liberal democracy. If that remark has been slightly mistranslated in its passage from what was originally said in Cabinet, I am sure that the House will forgive me. I am sure, however, that all hon. Members can sign up to that objective.

The new clause deals with the identity of voters in polling stations and the timetable for the introduction of the legislation. As the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee:

"The aim of the legislation is to make only secure photographic identification, such as a driving licence, passport, voluntary ID card and probably the Translink card acceptable as proof of identity at the polling station. There will therefore be four acceptable forms of identification."

The new clause would give effect to the Minister's aims. It would also reinforce the removal of non- photographic forms of identification by putting a timetable on the process that is in line with the Minister's intentions. As he explained in Committee:

"The target of the May 2003 elections has been at the forefront of my mind since I took responsibility . . . I am doing everything in my power, as are my officials, to meet that target".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 93-96.]

This first group of amendments is important in the historic context of bringing trust into the process of democracy in Northern Ireland, but it is perhaps not the most important in addressing head on the worst causes of electoral fraud there. Historically, the stories and accounts of personation in Northern Ireland have been legion. When the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs took evidence in 1998, it heard about people changing clothes and putting on wigs outside polling stations so that they could go in and pretend to be someone else. We heard such stories in Committee as well. It is essential that we support the Government and that voter identity in the polling station be as far as possible beyond reproach.

There is evidence of counterfeit medical cards being used as forms of identification. That is why these provisions are required and the Minister's objectives must be supported. The Committee was told of the Royal Ulster Constabulary raiding the offices of a political party and identifying a production line of counterfeit medical cards.

The new clause would assist the electorate if they were confused about the form of identity required in the polling station. The Northern Ireland Office commissioned research on the general election; it took into account the experiences of members of the public and polling clerks as well as considering polling station precedents. The evidence showed that a number of people were turned away from the polling stations because they had brought the wrong form of identification. Many had come with some form of photographic identification that was not listed; some had come with the wrong part of their driving licence, as the Northern Ireland driving licence is in two parts.

New clause 1 would give effect to the Minister's objectives by listing four types of photographic identification. The hon. Gentleman told us in Committee that the measures could be introduced by regulation. However, if the House supports the Minister in his objectives, it will be appropriate to put this measure into primary legislation now. That is what is behind new clause 1(2). There was no dispute in Committee that having voters produce these forms of photographic identification was a desirable objective.

The timetable that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have suggested in new clause 1 is the Minister's own. He has told us that his objective is to get this system up and running for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections due in May 2000, and we have taken him at his word.

The transfer from non-photographic forms of identification to a completely photographic system offers great advantages in terms of certainty. The public information campaign in Northern Ireland can be undertaken by the Northern Ireland Office and also by the political parties there. It will be in their interests to ensure that all their supporters can take part in the election and that they obtain some acceptable form of photographic identification.

The inclusion of concessionary fare passes for senior citizens as an acceptable form of identification after 2002, when I understand that the new photographic passes are to be introduced in Northern Ireland, will deal with the larger part of the population who do not have a driving licence or passport and who would otherwise need one of the new electoral identity cards. It would reduce the burden on the Northern Ireland Office and the chief electoral officer of producing electoral identity cards. Only a small proportion of the population would not have one of those three forms of identification.

On the timetable in the legislation, the Minister may find that part of the electorate or a political party that wants to retain non-photographic forms of identification—so that they could continue to produce counterfeit medical cards, for example—organises to resist the introduction of an electoral identity card. The Minister made it clear in Committee that he would be influenced if there were such a body of opinion in Northern Ireland and if people did not take up the necessary electoral identity cards or have other acceptable forms of identification. If the legislation contains a date, as it would if new clause 1 were accepted, the Minister's hands would be tied, as would be the hands of the Department and the chief electoral officer, and they would have to ensure that the scheme was a success.

I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with this matter in his reply. Did he say that it was impractical to introduce these measures for the May 2003 Assembly elections? He said that he was concerned that some of the electorate might resist taking up the identity card. If there are practical objections and it is difficult to meet the timetable for administrative or bureaucratic reasons, it would of course be appropriate to reconsider the deadline set in the legislation. If the Minister makes that point, I would not want to press the new clause in its present form. The date in the new clause is not immutable. It is meant to reinforce the Minister's position.

I thoroughly respect amendments Nos. 18 and 19 tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has stuck to the view that he and the other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee took in 1998 when they recommended a new, universally issued electoral card. In Committee, the Minister raised an issue of principle, saying that the people of Northern Ireland should not be subject to impositions that were materially different from those imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom. The electoral identity card that the chief electoral officer will introduce under this legislation is to be voluntary—one could also use a driving licence, a passport or, hopefully, a Translink card.

The proposals of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire would impose an identity card on the whole population of Northern Ireland. The debate about identity cards and their compulsory imposition on the electorate in a particular part of the United Kingdom should not be held in isolation, however. I thus tend to support what I assume is the view of the Minister: in these circumstances such an imposition would be wrong.

Furthermore, to issue identity cards to the whole population of Northern Ireland would create a significant administrative burden. However, if one was dealing only with that small percentage of the electorate who do not have some suitable form of photographic identification, the proposals would be achievable, and at much less cost to the taxpayer—although we have been assured, throughout the Bill's proceedings, that resources are not an issue.

Amendment No. 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), gives a timetable, but one that remains in the gift of the Secretary of State. Under the Bill's current provisions, the Secretary of State can choose when individual sections of the measure will come into force. The amendment thus does nothing to reinforce the Secretary of State's position; it merely imposes on him a 15-month waiting period once he has decided that he is ready to implement the provisions—unless, of course, that date happens to be before 30 April 2003.

That is not necessarily the best way to proceed. If things slide to the right, as they tend to do in the course of time, we should find, if we accepted the amendment, that the Minister was stuck with a 15-month notice period when he had decided he was reasonably ready to implement the legislation. It would be preferable to work to a fixed date.

If measures to combat electoral fraud are to be subject to acceptance by the electorate, as they would be if new clause 1 is not accepted, the Minister would be left open to undesirable pressures and persuasion from those parts of the electorate and political parties who want to continue to cheat the system. It would be better if the Minister's declared aims were reinforced by the acceptance of new clause 1.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 18. The amendments are linked so as to produce the result I want. Amendment No. 19 provides that people would be "obliged" to obtain a photo-identity card. Amendment No. 18 would ensure that the card was universal for the electorate of Northern Ireland, so that it was the only form of photo- identification used at the polling station. Under the amendments, the card would be compulsory and universal.

The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) argued that new clause 1 would prevent confusion, because it would restrict the forms of identity to four. That is a good argument. My amendment would prevent further confusion because there would be only one method available—only one method would be publicised.

In the United Kingdom, voter registration—apart from overseas voters—is not voluntary; people are obliged to register and can be fined £1,000 if they fail to do so. Although far too many people are missing from the electoral registers, people are none the less legally obliged to register. I am in favour of improving electoral registration so that we achieve electoral registration of 100 per cent., or as near it as possible, so that everybody has the opportunity to exercise the rights to which they are entitled.

In Northern Ireland, however, because of the special circumstances there, identification is required, correctly, at the polling station in order to exercise the franchise. To exercise the franchise in Northern Ireland, one needs to be on a register and one needs a form of photo- identification. I am arguing that one form of photo-identity card should be issued to everyone.

Universality is a fundamental aspect of the operation of a democracy. Registration is voluntary in some countries, but that system is by no means as good as the system that we have in the United Kingdom. It is possible for overseas voters who qualify to register voluntarily, but that is mainly because we cannot impose compulsory registration on overseas residents. I do not believe that overseas residents should have voting rights in this country, but that may be a matter for another debate. However, I believe that it is particularly important that the photo-identity card should be provided universally, and that people should be obliged to apply for one.

Amendment No. 18 applies particularly to the universal requirement. In 1997–98, the second report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland was on electoral fraud. Many aspects of the report have been adopted in the Bill, which is generally to be welcomed as being in line with its provisions. Paragraph 64 of the report records:

"The Secretary of State"—

at the time, it was Mo Mowlam—

"rightly expressed dislike for a system which provided for different types of documentation according to whether a voter drove a car or had travelled abroad. She felt that this was divisive and we agree . . . Any new system of identification should be common to all voters in Northern Ireland . . . We, therefore, recommend that the present list of documents which prove identity should be replaced by a new, universally issued electoral card".

I believe that the Select Committee was correct in making that recommendation. It is divisive to call on some people to seek to obtain a card while others may make use of passports, driving licences or other forms of identification that may be added to the list, such as cards for travel purposes. Many people would be missed, and the others would have to respond to the efforts of the Northern Ireland Office in order to register. It is much more likely that those people would apply for photo-identity cards if the requirement to obtain one were universal. In those circumstances, there would be a greater response from the public, the publicity would have much greater force and the social pressure to register would be considerable. So I believe in compulsory application for cards and the universal provision.

I agree that the proposals represent a form of identity card for electoral purposes in Northern Ireland, and I support the notion of having identity cards in the United Kingdom. In fact, I believe that those identity cards should be linked with electoral registration, and a change in the law may be necessary to ensure that everyone is covered by such arrangements. For example, residents from overseas, who do not come from Commonwealth countries or the Republic of Ireland, are not entitled to register for elections, but it would be valuable if they had identity cards. As residents of the United Kingdom, they should be entitled to vote, but the Bill does not affect the whole United Kingdom.

A special problem exists in Northern Ireland, so separate identification arrangements already exist there, and they will be developed and extended, or clarified, under the Bill. I simply want to clarify the arrangements on a better and more substantial basis than will be done under the Bill. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs knew what it was doing when it produced the report—it realised that those principles were important and should be responded to.

I appreciate that amendments Nos. 18 and 19 may not reach the statute book and that I am pressing the Minister on them, but I should like to know whether the Government are thinking along these lines. That might have an affect on cards in Northern Ireland and then have some knock-on consequences for United Kingdom electoral arrangements.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I rise primarily to speak to amendments Nos. 10 and 17, both of which were tabled by myself, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) correctly said, amendment No. 10 relates to the creation of a deadline by which time all this needs to be done. We suggest that that deadline should be 31 April 2003, or 15 months after the provisions are implemented, whichever comes later. Although the hon. Gentleman touched on part of this issue, let me explain why I feel that that is a more satisfactory arrangement than that proposed in new clause 1.

The first powerful argument is that that arrangement would take account of the concerns that the Minister expressed in Committee, and we are seeking to help him and to provide flexibility, by ensuring that the target is achievable. In simple terms, the Government said in Committee that they envisage removing the non- photographic identity cards by the time that the next Assembly elections take place at the beginning of May 2003. That is why we have chosen the end of April, instead of the beginning of April, as is suggested in new clause 1.

The 15-month leeway represents an insurance policy or backstop to ensure that, if something unforeseen occurs, the Government will not be held to have failed in their commitment to achieve something that we all wish to achieve. Unless the Government have very clear targets in the Bill, as was said in Committee, they will rob themselves of an opportunity to ensure that the changes that we have described come into force.

Let us be realistic—some individuals will not be happy with the legislation, exactly because it prevents them from conducting electoral fraud, which, as we know, has taken place so often in Northern Ireland until now. Those people will do everything in their power to give the Government strong reasons why it would not be fair to introduce the legislation by any particular date. If we include such targets in the Bill, we will make it clear to those people that it is outside the Minister's or the Government's discretion to renegotiate those deadlines. In so doing, we would significantly strengthen the hand of the Northern Ireland Office in ensuring that the provisions in the Bill are brought into force.

Amendment No. 17 would ensure that the Bill is brought into force as speedily as possible and that it is not cherry-picked in the process. There is no reason why the Government cannot implement the whole Bill at the same time. There is provision for the Bill to be introduced at different stages and at different times, but the amendment would remove the words

"and different days may be appointed for different provisions and for different purposes"

from page 6, line 37. The reason for that is simple. The enemies of an honest electoral system will seek to prevent the Government from implementing the provisions that are most disadvantageous to the fraudsters. They will provide all sorts of reasons for that and dress up their arguments by claiming that citizens will be disfranchised by the Bill.

If the Bill is explicit and it is clear that it is a package that will be implemented as a whole, it is much less likely that individuals will be able to prevent the Northern Ireland Office and the executors of the Bill's provisions from carrying out their work. Executors will be able to say that it is not in their power to delay some parts of the Bill while implementing others. We hope that the Minister will consider our amendments sympathetically, because they are designed to strengthen the Government's ability to implement the Bill.

I have concerns about amendment No. 18 because, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) rightly pointed out, it would result in the compulsory use of an electoral identity card. It is a judgment call, but it appears to me that such a provision would be a little too prescriptive.

In effect, the amendment would introduce an identity card that is likely, over time, to become a smart card that carries a great deal of information about individuals. I have an innate concern about identity cards, and such a proposal would be a bridge too far. I am determined that we should replace non-photographic identity with photographic identity for elections in Northern Ireland, but we should not go as far as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

I look forward to the Minister's remarks, and I hope that he will think seriously about amendments Nos. 10 and 17. Their sole intent is to strengthen the Government's ability to ensure that the Bill has teeth.

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

It was evident from the contributions made in Committee that both sides supported the concept that identification for electoral purposes should be restricted as soon as possible to photo-identity. I and others tabled amendments to ensure that people could no longer use the non-photo identity documents that are most used for electoral fraud. For example, the medical card has been replicated in its thousands in Northern Ireland in an orchestrated way. Although social security benefit books are less easy to obtain, they are also used to perpetrate electoral fraud.

I have great sympathy for the intention behind new clause 1. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has considered the remarks made in Committee about aged persons' ability to use the Translink photo-identity as an electoral document. He gave the proposal fair wind in Committee, but I would like him to reaffirm that such a proposal will appear in amending rules and regulations.

My problem with new clause 1 arises from something that the Minister said in Committee. Indeed, it is why I withdrew my amendments. In the second sitting, he clearly said that it was his intention by 2003

"that the new cards will be issued to those who do not have a passport or driving licence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 51.]

Anyone who has not got a passport or a driving licence—or a Translink card, if the Minister accepts that suggestion—will be issued with the new electoral photo-identity card. That will enable all non-photographic forms of identification to be withdrawn or designated invalid for electoral purposes.

I was happy and content with that assurance until unfortunately, in the third sitting, the Minister stated:

"It is the Government's intention not to remove non-photographic forms of identification that are presently permitted until everyone has a passport or a driving licence with a photograph, or has had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a photographic identification card for election purposes".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 84.]

I quote that carefully because I want the Minister to respond to it. In the same paragraph, he said that the Government intend to remove all non-photographic forms of identification as soon as possible, hopefully before the anticipated Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2003—if not before then, of course.

I want complete clarification of that. Does the Minister think that the electoral officer has sufficient resources and that it is practical to impose the withdrawal of non-photographic identification by, say, spring 2003? That is germane to the debate. I sympathise with the thrust of the new clause and would want that reflected in the rules and regulations that are imposed.

If the Minister is able to reassure me on that, I will take on board his other caveat about the danger in the process. The lack of time, resources, technology or techniques could mean that a significant number of people will not have photo-identity cards by April 2003 and will be disfranchised if new clause 1 comes into effect. That is a subjective judgment. I need assurances about the resources and the technicalities as they relate to implementing the Government's intent, rather than worrying that the Bill's measures are not capable of being implemented by spring 2003.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It seems that there is a broad consensus on this issue. New clause 1 and amendments Nos. 10 and 17 would achieve the same objective—to ensure that the identification for voting includes photographs. The second objective is to have the arrangements in place by 2003 in time for what we expect will be the next Assembly election. The Minister says that they are also his objectives. On that basis, I expect him to say that he is prepared to accept the new clause and amendments.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

indicated dissent

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister may want to consider the exact form in which the amendments are drafted, but it is very much in his interests to accept them. I am rather disappointed to see the Minister shake his head when I say that. I advise him that it is greatly in his interests to adopt that course of action.

In Northern Ireland, it has for a long time been clear that there is substantial abuse in respect of identification documents. They were introduced with the wholly laudable objective of preventing personation, and they succeeded in eliminating personation by all parties bar one. Personation in Northern Ireland is now committed by only one party, because only one party has the resources necessary to contravene the current system. Those resources should not be underestimated. The Minister knows that in financial terms, if not in manpower terms, that party's resources far exceed his party's. The Minister's party would have great difficulty matching it in terms of effective political organisation, because his party cannot match the resources of a party that runs rackets on a huge scale in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

There is a serious problem because that one party has the resources needed to contravene the current arrangements and it does so through non-photographic forms of identification, especially the medical card. The abuse has been known about for ages, and for ages Members of Parliament and members of the Northern Ireland parties have urged successive Governments to deal with that abuse. I remember six or seven years ago speaking to Northern Ireland Office Ministers and being assured by them that they would tackle the problem and do so promptly. I was told that legislation would be in place in time for the next general election—the one held in 1997; that legislation never appeared. In 1997, the new Labour Government assured us that they would tackle the issue and that legislation would be in place before the next general election; no legislation was in place by the time of this year's general election.

Finally, the legislative process has started, but can the Minister assure us that he will achieve the objective of having only photo-identity by May 2003? I hope that he can, but I know that there has been bureaucratic resistance to such a measure for the past half dozen years or more. I strongly urge him to accept in one form or another amendments that would put on the statute book the requirement that the measure must have been implemented by May 2003. Without that discipline and that argument to use against those who adduce reasons to delay, I greatly doubt his ability to deliver.

I do not doubt the Minister's intention, but I doubt whether he will be able to deliver in the next 18 months—the issue is delivery. We shall of course listen to what he has to say—what promises and undertakings he makes—but I repeat that to ensure the objective is achieved, it would be better for the provision to be on the statute book.

New clause 1 and the other amendments set out various forms of photographic identity document. Some of the proposals point towards the establishment of a system of identity cards for the whole population. The Liberal Democrat spokesman echoed the reservations voiced by the spokesman for the official Opposition. I have never understood why some people do not like the idea of identity cards, and I have never been able to find any coherent reason for opposing such a system.

Identity cards do not cause a problem anywhere else in Europe—this is one of the few occasions on which I recommend practice in the rest of Europe as a guide for us. Compulsory ID systems elsewhere are a convenience—it is quite a disadvantage not to have an identity card system. I see hon. Members turning around, and I do not want to open up an entirely different debate; I merely observe in passing that I do not understand the objections.

I should like the Minister to respond to one point relating to identity documents and the proposals before the House. On Monday, the Home Secretary made a statement in which he said that he would introduce by January a system of identity cards for asylum seekers that would use fingerprints, signatures and biometric techniques. All those bits of information would be on a smart card that would be available by the end of this year. I think that I am right in saying that, in Committee, the Minister said there would be difficulty in producing smart cards in that time scale. Evidently, progress has been made since the Committee reported, but I urge the Minister to look again at including that range of material on the appropriate cards, as we are dealing with people who are adept at forgery and manipulating the system.

There is a consensus in the House on the need to move to photo-identification alone and for that to be in place by May 2003. The only argument is about the details and ensuring that there is a statutory obligation; we urge the Minister to accept that there is a statutory requirement for such identification. That way, we might at least have some confidence. However, if we weighed the Government's pronouncements against the background of pronouncements by previous Northern Ireland Office Ministers stretching back over several Administrations, confidence would be in short supply.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

For the most part, I walked the same path as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in Committee, but we parted company on the issue of identification. The Minister is not being unreasonable in resisting the new clause; I trust that he will continue to do so.

The general consensus in Committee was that, while we were keen to have a Bill that would be powerful and effective in limiting the activities of electoral fraudsters, we did not want to do anything that would deter a significant number of people in Northern Ireland from being able validly to register and vote. If we are to succeed in the interests of democracy, we must ensure that whatever good we achieve in deterring the fraudster is not offset by deterring people who are genuine and want to exercise their franchise, as it is intended that they should. The Committee considered that balance as, indeed, must the House; the Minister had to consider it when the amendment was tabled in Committee, and he must consider now that it has been tabled on Report.

As right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is desirable to have an entirely photographic identification card system in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Whether that identification is a driving licence, a passport, a custom-made ID card, or, hopefully, if the good intentions of the Minister are followed, the concessionary pass produced by Translink and the Department for Regional Development, the inclusion of which came about as a result of good, sound Democratic Unionist party policy, that is the way forward. However, we must recognise that, at the moment, the most popular forms of identification at elections in Northern Ireland are probably benefit books and medical cards.

That is the reality; those of us who have attempted to carry out an investigation which, if not scientific, at least helped us to get some feeling of the use of identification at polling stations, came away with the clear view that those were the main identifiers in use. If that is the case, the burden is on the Government to ensure that those identifiers are replaced by photographic identification. The Minister should therefore delay any statutory requirement to take existing identifiers out of use and employ only photographic identification until he is sure that there is a sufficiently high uptake of the new identifiers.

I would not vote for the Bill—this is how important the matter is to me—if I thought that the end result would be a significant number of genuine people being unable to vote and if, correspondingly, an unspecified number of people, whose total is probably hard to determine, were able to abuse the system. The political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government must therefore be satisfied that the uptake is sufficiently high. That does not remove the requirement that the Government should have a clear goal, nor does it remove the requirement that the Northern Ireland political parties should ensure that they keep to that goal and timetable as far as possible.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does the hon. Gentleman recall points made outside the House about the vulnerability of the Government to pressure caused by intimidation of the republican population, which may be threatened and attacked for using photographic ID cards? The Minister gave an opaque response in Committee, but those are the people who will be vulnerable. If republicans are intimidated by their so-called representatives into refusing to use photographic ID cards, it will be impossible for the Minister to meet his deadline, unless it is included in the Bill.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That is a judgment that the Minister and, indeed, the political parties in Northern Ireland will have to make. If there is a campaign by a particular political party, that may very well be to the detriment of it and its political future. Every party should be consulted by the Minister periodically so that we are satisfied that progress is being made. There are other mechanisms in the House to call the Minister and Government to account if we believe that they are dragging their feet. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which championed the need for legislation, will undoubtedly want to observe its progress and receive periodic reports from the Minister to ensure that he is on course for the deadline which, I believe, everyone in the House, wants to be met.

None the less, it would be irresponsible of the Minister to include in legislation a requirement for the removal of key identifiers for what is probably the majority of voters in Northern Ireland without being satisfied that they had taken the opportunity to get new ID cards, whether concessionary passes from Translink and the Department for Regional Development or cards produced by the chief electoral officer. In this case, it is right to support the Government because they are acting both sensibly and responsibly.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I want to underline the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and pay tribute to many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). Furthermore, I admired the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), especially his comments on the timetable for the legislation.

Many of my constituents in Newark and Retford are currently serving in Northern Ireland with the Sherwood Foresters; they have been there for almost two years. Last weekend, I spoke to one of their company commanders, a personal friend with whom I served in precisely the same camp—Omagh—12 years ago, performing the same duties in that part of world. The battalion's life has changed very little in the interim. When I asked my friend what he was doing, he said, "Guess what? I am on election training again."

To most people, the idea of forces serving in Northern Ireland probably sounds exciting, but alongside the dreadful upsurge of troubles in places such as north Belfast, there is a routine part of operations for the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and all ranks in the Army, Navy and Air Force who serve over there.

I recall first having to protect a polling station back in 1975 in Dungiven. I was told that that would be the responsibility wholly of the electoral officers and the RUC, but it did not turn out that way. The RUC was stretched, as it is now, and the Army ended up taking a hand. Again, in 1977 I was faced with the same duties. In my nine tours in Northern Ireland, I do not think that I once avoided getting involved in an election protection scheme of one sort or another. Slowly, over the years, the duties have become more and more formalised, so poor old Tommy Atkins is faced with all sorts of complications in trying to avoid election fraud, support the RUC and support the electoral officers.

There was a funny side. I remember a tractor coming backwards to a checkpoint that I was holding. It was polling day, and we were protecting a polling station; I cannot remember where—Fermanagh, probably, in the middle of nowhere. A tractor backed all the way into the checkpoint. It turned out that the occupants were going to vote, but all the forward gears on the tractor had given out. So intent were those people on voting that they used just the reverse gear.

In west Belfast in 1982, we were warned that any number of attempts at personation would be made and that disguises would be used. We found a young man who looked curious, his cheeks puffed out with cotton wool. It turned out that he had a boil on his gum. Such were the difficulties of trying to understand what was going on and the various modes and means of personation. Now, training for polling protection has become formalised as a lengthy package for every unit serving in Northern Ireland and for the police, who do their best over there.

As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, there are people and parties who want the legislation to be delayed. It is in their interests that photographic means of identification should not be adopted speedily and that the target date of 1 April 2003 should not be met. In view of the considerable amount of time that is wasted by the security forces, particularly the Army, whose duties should be far less complex and technical, I urge the Minister to look closely at the timetable and to introduce a universal photographic means of identification. Above all, the timetable must be adhered to, so that by April 2003 there is watertight legislation that will enable electoral fraud to be minimised in situations that are always difficult and fraught with problems.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am pleased that the debate in the Chamber today has continued on from the constructive and helpful way in which the Committee conducted its affairs. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

I shall resist the new clause and all the amendments. I shall deal first with new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 10 and 17, which all seek to impose a timetable on the removal of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. The other amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) explained, are intended to make the electoral identification card compulsory for all voters in Northern Ireland.

As I said repeatedly on Second Reading and in Committee, the next scheduled Assembly elections in Northern Ireland are in May 2003. That has always been and will remain our target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. However, for reasons with which I will deal in detail and which have already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I must retain a degree of flexibility.

The people of Northern Ireland must be informed about—but, more importantly, they must accept—the electoral identity card. I have no intention of creating circumstances that inadvertently disfranchise people who do not have confidence in the system. The electoral identity card will be a voluntary card, but it will be in the interest of all the political parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that their voters obtain a card if they require one. We all have a duty as parliamentarians to explain that to the people of Northern Ireland and to help instil confidence in the process, as there is cross-party support for the measure.

A major publicity campaign will be necessary to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland is aware of the changes and aware of the photographic identification that they will need to exercise their franchise. It is not an unreasonable position for the Government to take to leave open the timetable for removing the existing prescribed documents which are not photographic, until we are satisfied that there has been sufficient uptake of the new electoral identity card.

There is no advantage to us in passing legislation that will make electoral fraud more difficult if, at the same time, we disfranchise legitimate and valid voters. Obviously, we will have to make a judgment as to whether people are volunteering for the identity cards, and a decision must be made as to what effect that will have on the poll. I repeat again that May 2003 is our target date for removing all forms of non-photographic identity from the list of specified documents, but I will not take the decision lightly.

I must retain the flexibility to assess whether there has been sufficient uptake of the electoral identity card, and to consult fully with the political parties in Northern Ireland before I make that decision. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by the Bill realise that flexibility is crucial. That is no doubt why the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Belfast, East—the only two Northern Ireland Members who were present when we last voted on the issue—voted against the amendment during the Committee stage.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the Minister understand that at the core of the argument for setting the deadline is the recognition that the Government are not passive in the matter? They do not merely react to the circumstances. The deadline would oblige people to get photographic identification. My concern is that the Minister is taking too passive a role for the Government in the matter.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

My understanding is that I had been criticised for taking too active a role and for retaining the decision to myself. I intend to consult all the political parties in Northern Ireland—not all of which are represented in the House—about our progress in implementing the plan that I have set out. I have no intention of deviating from the objective of May 2003, but at various stages I will have to make a judgment on whether the people of Northern Ireland are being taken along in that process.

That responsibility is not mine alone; it is the responsibility of other politicians in Northern Ireland who support the change. We will all have to work together towards that objective. If any party decides to spoil the process, that will be a consideration, but it will not deflect me from the decision that I intend to make, if it is appropriate. The decision will be made in the circumstances, and it will not help the process if we impose an unrealistic timetable at this stage—[Interruption.]

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) says that the timetable is mine—yes indeed, but to impose it by statute would make it unrealistic, as that would deny the reality that a considerable number of people who are not represented in this debate—the voters—must be taken along with us.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Can the Minister reassure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and me that his arguments are based on considerations of practicality—whether it will be possible for him to introduce the cards in time for 2003, and whether the public information campaign to which he referred will achieve his objective in terms of take-up of the card? If he can run a public information campaign and introduce the measures, surely it would be in his interest to reinforce his position in statute.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the opportunity to set his mind at ease on the practicalities. I am confident that we can meet, in practical terms, the objective that I have set. Earlier, he invited me to tell him whether practical difficulties would arise and he said that he would not insist upon the amendment if that was the case. I do not seek to use that excuse, however, as my understanding is that the measure can be achieved practically. The one element that I cannot assess is the valid response of the ordinary voters of Northern Ireland, on which I shall have to make a judgment. That is the only reason that I have ever given for the need to retain flexibility. I am not alone in holding that view, which has support. Hon. Members who represent significant parties and a substantial number of voters in Northern Ireland agree that that is the appropriate approach. There is a difference of view about the matter, but that is my position and has been since the issue was injected into the debate.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Putting it bluntly, the Under-Secretary appears to have handed Sinn Fein a veto on the process by refusing to include a deadline in the Bill. What will happen if it can blackmail, bully or intimidate its supporters into not carrying the card? I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that they have no interest in doing so, but he is wrong. The Under-Secretary has said—he can correct me if I am wrong—that he could not introduce it without evidence of widespread support from all the parties. Is not that handing the bullies a veto?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

With respect, the hon. Gentleman misrepresents me. I have never said that any party has a veto. Contributions to the debate suggest that one party may seek to obstruct implementation. If that happens between now and May 2003, it will be a factor that must be taken into account, but in no circumstances am I suggesting here or in any debate that if a party chooses to cause such difficulties, it will be a reason for not introducing the photographic identification cards. I am saying that we cannot introduce a change if an accidental effect is to disfranchise people who wish legally to exercise their vote, as would happen if they had no confidence in the system. It will be my responsibility as a Minister, and the responsibility of other politicians who vote for the change and operate within politics in Northern Ireland, to work together to achieve confidence. If we achieve that confidence, we will achieve the objective. There is no practical reason why we cannot do so.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I intervene a second time only because the issue is so important. Everyone seems to agree with the desired outcome, but the Under-Secretary seems to need some flexibility just in case his desired deadline is not achieved. Will he at least consider including in the Bill a deadline that he is pretty certain can be achieved, even if it is May 2005 or 2006? That would at least enable everybody to know there is a date after which it would not be acceptable to use inappropriate identification

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he asks me to put certainty into uncertainty. I am suggesting that there is one uncertain element in the process: the response of the voters. Until that element is tested, we will not know its effect. As I do not know how the electors will respond, it is pointless to include a deadline at all. I cannot attach certainty through uncertainty.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am slightly confused about the point that the Minister is trying to make. Is he saying that he cannot introduce the measure if there is an insufficient take-up of cards, or that he will not do so if people lack confidence in the system? Most of his comments suggest that he holds the latter position. If that is the case and he is concerned only about whether people have confidence, will he explain on what possible grounds they might not be confident?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. If I was not making myself clear, I shall try to do so now. I was trying to explain that if the small proportion of people who may need the card do not have confidence in the system and do not claim it, that will lead to a lack of take-up. One is a consequence of the other. He shakes his head, but as neither of us has asked voters to come forward for voluntary or compulsory identity cards, he can be no more confident that his assertion is any better than mine in respect of whether a lack of confidence will lead to a lack of take-up. With all due respect to him—these are his voters and he may know them better than me—he has never before asked the electorate to do this. We should work together to inspire confidence in the system and to get people who do not have this new form of photographic identification to come forward for voluntary cards. We must secure sufficient take-up, so that we can pass the test that we have set ourselves and ensure that everybody has a reasonable opportunity to obtain the card. With confidence, we can then remove the non-photographic forms of identification.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

rose—

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Obviously, that is not clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman; no doubt I have confused him even more. We will soon find out.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I think that I am beginning to understand the Minister. He is using the word "confidence" when it would be better not to do so. He appears to be speaking purely about uptake. He said that we had not asked people to do the same thing before, but that is not true. We successfully introduced the concept of identity documents for elections, which is novel to people outside Northern Ireland, just as we introduced different forms of voting long before any other part of the United Kingdom. The electorate of Northern Ireland are capable and intelligent enough to cope with the situation, as they have proved time and time again. The Minister appears to be speaking purely about uptake. He also used the word "confidence", but that is a different thing. Lack of confidence could be a factor in any failure to take up the card, but it would not be the only one. I was trying to find out whether he would take the decision purely on the basis of whether there was a lack of confidence or whether the matter is simply one of take-up. It appears that he is talking more about take-up than anything else.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

If the right hon. Gentleman now knows what I am talking about, I can move on.

I regret to say that I shall also resist amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire. I express regret because he knows the regard in which I hold him on these issues. He has made a valuable and consistent contribution to debates about them for many years.

The amendments propose that the electoral identity card should be mandatory and the only form of identification that is acceptable at the polling station in Northern Ireland. As we said in the White Paper, the Government's ultimate aim is for every voter in Northern Ireland to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier. I think that that answers another question asked by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. In a moment, I shall deal specifically with his point about Home Office proposals. As I told the House on Second Reading, the introduction and use of an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier is an aspiration. If every voter in Northern Ireland had to be issued with such a card, we would effectively be requiring all adults who wished to vote to carry a mandatory identification card.

There would be no point in introducing a mandatory smart card unless we could be certain that it was more secure than the existing forms of photographic identification. It would therefore need to contain biometric data about the holder, be that an iris scan, fingerprint or hand geometry scan.

The Government would be foolish to rush into such a radical new scheme before we could be confident of the practicalities or that the voters and political parties in Northern Ireland were happy to accept such a scheme. I hope that I have used the word "confident" properly in that sentence. We will continue to give further consideration to when it might be possible to initiate such a secure electoral identity scheme. However, such a scheme would not be introduced without wide consultation with all interested parties, and primary legislation would be required to introduce such a card. Hon. Members who seek an assurance from the Government should be aware that it remains our intention, as expressed in the White Paper, to proceed to such a system.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. The point about take-up has some relevance to my amendments. If a situation is reached where the take-up of identity cards is inadequate and the other forms of identification have to be used—if the legislation has not bitten—we may have to look closely at a system that is universal and compulsory. However, I welcome the Minister's comments about potential developments.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will use words similar to his later in my speech. If the system proposed in the Bill is not successful, we may have to look at proceeding more quickly to some form of compulsory card with the benefits that I have described.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked about Home Office plans for biometric identification cards—to be known as the application registration card—for asylum seekers. This is an extension of the current asylum application system. The Home Office already collects the fingerprints of all asylum seekers when they make their asylum application, so there is already a database of the fingerprints of all asylum seekers in this country. Immigration officers use mobile quick-check units to check asylum seekers' fingerprints against the database.

At the moment, asylum seekers are issued with a standard acknowledgement letter. The application registration card is designed to replace that letter. There has been concern at the ease with which those letters are being forged. A smart card containing a biometric element would make forgery virtually impossible.

That new system is very different from one in which we would require every adult who wanted to vote in Northern Ireland to provide us with their fingerprint or an iris scan. Not only would that involve mandatory registration, it would raise important questions of civil liberties—whether it was appropriate to require a person to provide biometric data about themselves before they were able to vote. Much discussion and consultation has to take place before we could proceed to a position where we could require people to provide that level of data about themselves before they were able to vote.

The electoral identity card proposed by this Bill will be freely and widely available to all those who require it. It represents the quickest way to create a situation in which we can remove from use the medical card and the other non-photographic identification. Our objective is to stop personation. We believe that requiring voters to show secure photographic identification at the polling station will meet this objective and, so far, no one has argued that that will not be the case.

Although I have cautioned that we must move steadily on the introduction of the electoral identification card and that we must take the electorate with us, I acknowledge that we have to take action as quickly as possible and reasonable. Introducing the electoral identity card as a stepping stone towards an electoral smart card allows us to act more quickly to remove all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. That is why we are proposing the legislation in the first place, and why we intend to take advantage of the fact that other people can use alternative forms of photographic identification, such as driving licences and passports, that cannot easily be forged.

This brings me to the Translink smart card, which is mentioned in new clause 1. I have said that I am willing to add the new Translink smart card, to be issued to all those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland from April next year, to the list of specified documents. However, it would be entirely inconsistent with what we are trying to achieve in the Bill to allow the smart card to be added to the list of specified documents before both the chief electoral officer and I are certain that the card will be secure proof of identity.

As I said in Committee, my officials are working with those at the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development to resolve the outstanding problems about the security of the Translink smart card. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, East on his recent appointment as the Minister for Regional Development. I am sure that the outstanding issues will be resolved all the more quickly with him in command. Once these problems are resolved—I am sure that they will be—I will happily add the Translink smart card to the list of specified documents. That can be done by secondary legislation at the appropriate time.

Our target has been and will remain 2003 for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. I would not have continued to state repeatedly that May 2003 was our target if I did not believe that it was possible for all those in Northern Ireland who require an electoral identification card to have one by that date. However, we must maintain a level of flexibility, for all the reasons I have outlined.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

This debate has mirrored the one that we had in Committee, in that the longer the Minister went on defending his proposal, the less convincing he became. As the Minister went on, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I became more and more incredulous at the case the Minister was attempting to put. I noted that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) shared my reaction.

Having listened to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), one can only admire the intellectual consistency and clarity that his solution would bring. However, because of the points that have been touched on earlier, I would continue to resist his amendments. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I share his concerns about the practicality of introducing the cards and about whether the Minister can, in practice, meet his own deadline.

The hon. Member for South Down asked about the resources for the chief electoral officer, and that remains an issue. It is clear that the officer is overstretched in a number of respects. That was shown by his inability to check the absentee votes at the last general election. Those have not been tested fully because the officer is now engaged in putting together the new register. That is merely an example to show that there is at least a question mark as to whether he has sufficient resources.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that what we are putting forward is entirely in the Minister's own interests. Without the discipline of having a date in statute, the Minister is likely to fail to get the Bill on the statute book. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire challenged the Minister to agree that if the deadline could not be 2003, it could be 2005 or 2006. There should be a date in statute to ensure that the legislation will definitely come in.

If we had the certainty of a date—even if it is not April 2003, as the Liberal Democrats have suggested—the actions of the Minister's officials and the public information campaign in Northern Ireland to achieve take-up of the card would be reinforced by the fact that the scheme was to come into effect, so that there was no point in any organisation seeking to obstruct it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's claim that he cannot put a deadline in the statute because he does not know the rate of take-up could be applied to all kinds of legislation—for example, the introduction of mandatory use of rear seat belts? On every other matter, we seem to have deadlines, but on this one very important matter he is resistant.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

It is odd. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my perplexity.

I listened with care to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He supports the Government on this issue, and we must agree to disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made a telling contribution about the historic importance of personation in electoral fraud in Northern Ireland and stressed the importance of a timetable, not least to give members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces, as well as the electoral officers, some certainty about when the transfer is to take place.

The Minister may come to regret resisting the assistance that we are offering him. He should have a chance to think again on the issue. We will want to examine his arguments in another place to determine whether it is appropriate to return to the matter. We are about to discuss more important causes of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, so I will not insist on the new clause at this stage, but it may be appropriate to press the matter in another place. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that his arguments have not convinced the House, and that he and the Government will think again.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2 — Registration: notification of multiple registrations

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

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

The new clause, as new clause 8, was withdrawn in Committee, following the Minister's welcome statement that he had been influenced by our debate and wanted to give the matter further thought. He said:

"I am coming to the view that there might be some value in including in a canvass return a question such as: 'Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?' Since we shall be using individual canvass forms rather than household forms, that might have additional value."

He went on to say:

"I give the Committee an undertaking to discuss the issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer and to consult the parties in Northern Ireland, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, if that is appropriate, so that we have a clear position on Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 126-27.]

If there was consultation with the official Opposition, it did not include me. I waited with hope until Monday evening, the deadline for tabling amendments, to see whether a Government amendment on the matter would appear. Sadly, none did, which is why I retabled the new clause.

I speak with a slight sense of foreboding, because I fear that the Government have not decided to accept the argument. Multiple registration is an extremely important issue. I draw the attention of the House to the Select Committee report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland, which has been the origin of many of the proposals in the Bill. Paragraph 23 says:

"An accurate Register is vital. Without a trustworthy Register, there can be no secure confidence in the electoral system. At present, it is not absolutely clear how reliable the Register is. We do not share the confidence of the Interim Review Report that 'while there may be some scope for minor adjustments to the current system for the registration of electors in Northern Ireland, in actual terms the accuracy of the register is not seriously in question.' On the contrary, in our view the evidence indicates that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland."

The Minister will be enormously familiar with that, as he was a member of the Committee and signed up to its report, as did all the other members.

In addition to the Committee's statement, and no doubt influenced by it, there is the experience of the party of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), which undertook an exercise to identify pairs of people with the same name. The largest concentration found in Britain was 6,000, yet in a constituency in Northern Ireland—presumably Belfast, West—there were 18,000 people with the same name as somebody else. That is a serious ground for suspicion that there may be considerable multiple registration and illegal multiple voting.

There has been no evidence to challenge the Select Committee's conclusion in 1998:

"We acknowledge that registration in more than one place is a useful right for students and others."

We had that debate in Committee, and that was our conclusion, although the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) took a different view and thought that any form of multiple registration should be against the law. The Select Committee continued:

"Those who have a legitimate reason to register in two or more places should be allowed to do so, but should be under a duty to indicate that they are doing so and where the other registered addresses are."

In our previous debate, the hon. Members for South Down and for Belfast, East expressed reservations, but on this issue there is cross-community support. I hope that I am not prejudging the issue, but the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down in Committee and the fact that the hon. Members for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and for Belfast, East have put their names to new clause 2 make it clear that there is such support. I hope that I have correctly interpreted the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down in Committee at column 122.

The Government have an opportunity to reinforce an area in which there is welcome cross-community agreement. Our proposal gained the support of all the parties in Committee other than the Government. As he took the same view in 1998, I hope that the Minister, too, will offer us his support, as he suggested in Committee that he might. I look forward to his response.

If national insurance numbers were used on the register, which is the subject of our next debate, the new clause would not be needed, as we would then have a method whereby the register could be properly tested, but if the Government intend to resist the inclusion of national insurance numbers—which our Committee debate clearly suggested that they would—it becomes extremely important to address the issue by obliging voters to notify if they are registered in more than one place.

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

Again, we are liable to repeat the arguments made in Committee, where the Minister said:

"I am coming to the view that there might be some value in including in a canvass return a question such as: 'Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?'"

The Minister added that, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said:

"Since we shall be using individual canvass forms rather than household forms, that might have additional value. If the hon. Member for Reigate is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I shall undertake to consider that possibility between now and Report stage"—

that is, tonight. He continued:

"I shall consult with the parties in Northern Ireland, and with the chief electoral officer, and I shall come back with a clear position on Report. I am more persuaded now than I was before I listened to the debate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 126.]

I hope that he will be, as we say in Northern Ireland, even more more persuaded after tonight's debate.

I believe that in response to some of my questions in Committee, the Minister suggested that it was a simple administrative matter to pose such a question on either the household or the individual registration form, whichever one we decide to have, and find out whether the person registering has registered at another address or addresses. I went on to suggest for the Minister's consideration that if that were the case, the would-be elector could simply say on the form which of the addresses he proposed to use in the election to which the new register would be germane. That is a simple administrative consideration, concerning the layout of the form. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has been further persuaded since our debate in the fourth sitting of Standing Committee D.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I would oppose the new clause if it took away people's right to choose where to vote, but as it is formulated, it can be regarded only as a matter of common sense. After an election, it would help to work out much more quickly who is who and who has done what. We have already heard the strong rationale for making sure that we can "de-duplicate" potential multiple voters who have used different addresses. I, too, was encouraged that the Minister seemed to share this concern and, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, gave a strong indication in Committee that he saw the sense of what is now being proposed in new clause 2.

We know that the Minister is passionate, as we all are, about getting rid of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. I also know that he, with his commitment to cross- community relations, will accept a good thing when he sees it, even if it originates from the Conservative party. [Interruption.] I could not resist saying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is especially true if the idea has the support not only of Opposition Members but also of those who sit on the Government Benches. On the assumption that he will accept the amendment as a sensible and not very onerous addition to what we require of voters when they register, I thank him in advance for his good sense.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I join those who have confirmed that there was a consensus within the Committee that requiring people who register to supply that further piece of information was not an onerous hardship to place on anybody. I do not think that it would do any violence to the Bill, or to the Minister, to insert it.

The Minister certainly did not consult me, as has been suggested. I can only assume that that means that he does not require any legislative force—

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I myself signed letters to the leaders of all parties in Northern Ireland, so although I did not consult the hon. Gentleman himself, I wrote to the leader of his party. I know that the post was delivered, because the leader of the Alliance party responded to my letter. That is the only response that I have had.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, if he can contain himself.

My position has not changed from the position that I stated in Committee; it is not conditional on parties in Northern Ireland signing up to it. None the less, I wrote to all the parties in Northern Ireland at the same time.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The House will judge whether that lives up to the expectation of the consultation that we were promised. I am surprised that the Minister could determine who the leader of the Alliance party was in order to send him the letter, so he must be congratulated on that.

The requirement would put little pressure on anybody filling out their registration form, and would supply information that would be useful in the electoral office for determining on the foot of the marked register whether people had voted illegally during an election. That information could also be used for the same purpose as some of us have suggested the national insurance number be used, if it were included as a further mechanism. It would allow us to look into multiple registration and multiple voting with a lot more information to hand.

It is right to say that in Committee I opposed both multiple registration and multiple voting. I did not express the same opposition in the Select Committee, for a reason that I explained in the Standing Committee. I said that I felt that in our proceedings on the Bill we had done much to overcome a number of the existing weaknesses in the system, but that as soon as we strengthened those parts of the system, we could be certain that the purposeful fraudsters would look to see where the new weaknesses were. If they do that, they will be thinking about multiple registration and multiple voting.

If that is the case, the Minister should, at the very least, identify those with multiple registration, because it would be an offence in itself not to fill in the form fully and properly. If the Minister is saying that he is not prepared to include the question on the registration form, I regret that. Is he saying that he is still looking at the issue, and has not ruled it out? He needs to satisfy the House on that issue.

I believe that the registration form should include the question, and I hope that the Minister can go further than he did in his intervention in meeting what seems a legitimate point of concern. It would not drive a coach and horses through the legislation.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I shall not keep the Minister long, but will let him clarify his position. His body language earlier suggested that he would accept the idea, and I hope that he does. I shall simply express our support for the new clause, and say that I do not doubt what the Minister said when he intervened. Had I seen his letter, he would have received a positive response. Where the letter went is an interesting question.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the fraudsters, balked at one point, would move on to other areas, and he thought that multiple registration was one of those. The fraudsters also move on to entirely false registrations—registering the names of people who do not exist. The next set of amendments contain measures that try to cope with that problem.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this vital debate, and to underline many of the points made by other hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I thank you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part tonight.

I want to give my broad support to the Bill, but I have a number of specific concerns. After listening to the discussion so far, my greatest worry is the apparent weaknesses in the Bill. In so many areas, there appear to be loopholes and issues that are not being addressed in the way in which I believe most Members in the Chamber this evening would like them to be addressed.

In the past, there has clearly been much electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, and that will continue if checks are not introduced. That is not questioned on either side of the House tonight.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I hesitate to stop the hon. Gentleman, but I wonder if he is making a Third Reading speech on the Bill in general. Is he speaking specifically to new clause 2?

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Yes, if I may continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the most significant deficiencies of the Bill is the failure to compel those registering to vote at more than one address to declare that information at the point of registration. The Government are right not to prevent individuals from registering at more than one address. Indeed, in many cases, doing so is necessary. For example, Members of Parliament probably register at their addresses in London and in their constituencies, which is a reasonable thing to do. However, the situation in Northern Ireland needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate mentioned that some 18,000 names are registered twice on the same electoral register in the constituency of Belfast, West. That arouses many suspicions and therefore I hope that the Minister will consider supporting new clause 2.

The situation in Northern Ireland needs tightening up for many reasons, some of which have already been outlined. There is no evidence that simple monitoring alone will solve the problem. The system currently operates on trust and while that is acceptable for the majority of decent, law-abiding citizens who would not dream of trying to defraud the system, it allows for widespread abuse. A declaration from those registering to vote about the number of addresses for which they intend to register would go far in clarifying those who are genuinely registering for multiple addresses and those who are not.

Some may argue that the system would not work, because declarations would be signed only by honest people, and those who sought to pervert the course of democracy would evade making them. Nevertheless, with the right level of efficient and competent administration and a good use of technology, declarations would provide clarity for those who are genuine multiple-address electors, leaving the chief electoral officer and his staff free to monitor and catch offenders. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the situation. The Bill has many holes, but I hope that he will address this specific problem.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I looked forward to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) revealing his thoughts on the many holes in the Bill, and he is welcome to the debate at this stage. One or two issues were considered in Committee and on Second Reading and, with respect, it is a gross misrepresentation of the Bill to describe it as the hon. Gentleman did.

In Committee, I gave an undertaking to discuss this issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer, to consult the political parties in Northern Ireland and to come back with a clear position on Report. I have not, in the short time since the Committee stage, been able to ascertain the views of all the Northern Ireland political parties, and it is important that I do so. As I said earlier, I wrote to the leaders of all Northern Ireland political parties, as far as I could ascertain them. Whether all those letters have been delivered is not my responsibility, but they were certainly sent and I have received one reply. It is incumbent on me to give the other leaders a reasonable time to respond, and we have not had much time between Committee and Report.

The hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) are owed an apology. The circulation list for the letter was based on my contribution to the Committee on 18 October, recorded at column 126. Column 127, as the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out, includes a reference to the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. They were not included, due to an administrative error, and for that I apologise. The error will be corrected tomorrow. Thanks to this debate, of course, I know what the Opposition's position is, but I will consult them as I agreed to do.

I am minded to agree with the chief electoral officer that a mandatory question on application to the electoral register, as suggested in new clause 2, would prove a useful tool in tracking multiple registration. However, I will resist the new clause as I do not believe that the penalty is proportionate to the failure to answer the question properly.

Furthermore, on advice, I believe that a question such as, "Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?" could be put to electors on application to the electoral register by regulation rather than by an amendment to the Bill. Under paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, regulations may authorise the chief electoral officer to require persons to give information required for the purpose of his registration duties. Paragraph 13 enables regulations to make it an offence to fail to comply with, or to give false information in pursuance of, any such requisition of the registration officer as is mentioned in paragraph 1. The regulations may set a penalty not to exceed level 3 on the standard scale, which in Northern Ireland is £1,000.

Therefore, it is possible—I am happy to give an undertaking to do so, subject to the consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland and with the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—to give the chief electoral officer the power by regulation to ask people if they are registered at another address on their application for electoral registration. Any person knowingly giving false information would be subject to a fine not exceeding £1,000, which is consistent with the penalty that applies to giving false information on other forms.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister gives an undertaking subject to consultation with the political parties. Five of those parties are represented tonight, and hon. Members from three of them represent constituencies in Northern Ireland—and those are the three largest parties wholly committed to democracy in Northern Ireland, which is the subject of the debate. The Minister knows the views of those parties so why cannot he give the assurance in terms now?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Because there are other parties that are not represented in the House. If we are to change the electoral system, we should consult those parties. The hon. Gentleman knows who those parties are and he may not wish to consult one of them but, as a Minister, I have to consult them all. There are at least five other parties. I have written to their leaders, but I have not yet had a reply. Indeed, I have written to the leaders of the political parties represented in the House tonight and I have not had a reply.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

That is a coincidence.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The right hon. Gentleman earlier called into question my desire to see this matter through and is now, by implication, calling into question my honesty about the letters I have written. I have evidence that one of the letters received a reply, and that all the letters went out in the same post.

I am not concerned that I have not yet had replies from all the people to whom I wrote, but courtesy requires me to wait and allow them the opportunity to reply to me.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

We must clear this matter up, as hon. Members may have to decide how to vote on the amendment. No one has impugned the Minister's honesty, or the good faith in which he gave that assurance. We accept the apology that he has given to the House, but we are perhaps impugning the efficiency of his Department. We leave it to him to sort that out.

However, we have to draw the conclusion that the Minister is much more conscientious about consulting parties outside the House—a need that he has laboured at length—than about consulting parties in the House. I am sure that he would not want to take up such a perverse position.

If the Minister has not completed consultation with the parties that he has mentioned by the time that the Bill reaches another place, will he assure the House that the Government will not seek to block this amendment, or its equivalent, in the other place? I do not know on what date the Bill will be considered there, but will the Minister assure us that there will be no further obstacle to his issuing a regulation in accordance with the procedure that he has outlined?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am partly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not have my own honesty impugned, and neither will I allow the efficiency of those who have served this process faithfully and well to be impugned in this House. Those people have worked very efficiently up to now, and that includes the way in which they have serviced requests from other parties on this matter. In fact, all letters were all faxed and posted on 25 October, and in my hand I have a copy of a reply, dated 29 October, that I have received from the leader of one of the parties.

An error was made in regard to the Conservative party. I have accepted responsibility for that, and apologised for it, but that error does not affect my view. The two parties affected by the error are represented in the House and have expressed their opinion on the matter.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

indicated dissent

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) appears irritated that I am replying to his intervention. I have apologised for the error, but that does not change the fact that I have written to a number of people for their views on this matter. Common courtesy requires that I give them a reasonable time to reply.

I anticipate that in a fortnight from today I shall have had a reasonable time in which to reach an informed decision based on the views of the Northern Ireland political parties. I shall then write to all the parties to which I have written previously—and to the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—confirming what I intend to do. At the moment, I am minded to introduce the question by regulation. No one has yet advanced an argument as to why I should not do that, and I do not anticipate that such an argument will be advanced.

I am minded to act as I have described, but I have embarked on a process of consultation by letter, and common courtesy requires that I give the people to whom I have written the opportunity to reply.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Clearly, this has not been a shining moment in the way that the matter has been handled by the Minister or his Department. I tabled a new clause in Standing Committee on the matter, and withdrew it when the Minister gave me an undertaking that he would consult me. I regarded that undertaking as an obligation, but I have accepted the Minister's apology in that regard.

However, the Minister also gave the Committee an undertaking that he would be able to clarify the position on Report, yet the letters were not signed out by the Minister's officials—or by the Minister himself—until a week after he gave that undertaking. It is therefore impossible for him to be able to say that his position, following consultation, is now clear. That is not acceptable.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

My position is clear.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister, from a sedentary position, says that his position is clear. However, it is clear that he has yet to consult and come to a conclusion. That is certainly not the implication to be drawn from what the Minister told Standing Committee D, when he said:

"I give the Committee an undertaking to discuss the issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer and to consult the parties in Northern Ireland, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, if that is appropriate"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 127.]

I thought that the words "if that is appropriate" applied to the Minister's auxiliaries on the Liberal Democrat Benches, rather than to anyone else, but they now seem to apply to everyone.

I wish the debate to return to the co-operative and good humoured mood that has characterised most of our deliberations so far. I hope that the Minister will undertake to ensure that the regulation that he has promised will be formulated and proposed before the Bill is considered in another place. However, if by that time there is no sign that the Government are proposing a regulation that resolves the problem of multiple registration—the Minister has accepted the chief electoral officer's recommendation that there must be registration—we will revisit the matter in another place. I am certain that the support for the measure evident in all parties means that the necessary provision will appear in the Bill. If the Minister wanted to reverse that, he would have to return to this House to do so.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 — Registration: provision of signature and date of birth

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after "completed", insert—

'(aa) the National Insurance number of each such person, if they have one'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 7, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'and

(c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.

No. 8, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—

'and

(c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.

No. 2, in page 2, line 23, leave out—

'both his date of birth'

and insert—

'his date of birth, his national insurance number if applicable,'.

No. 9, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—

'and

(c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.

No. 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 15, 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 applicants, if applicable".'.

No. 6, in Title, line 2, after "signatures", insert ", national insurance numbers.".

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Amendment No. 1 is designed to assist the Minister to return to the conclusion that he and his colleagues on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee reached in 1997. He was not at that time burdened by the cares of office, nor by the need to negotiate with the Treasury to ensure that the necessary resources are available for the actions that he has promised.

This group of amendments is the most important to be debated this evening. In relation to the previous group of amendments, I hope that we shall in the end learn the considered position of five of the six parties involved in the Standing Committee. The Minister will know, however, that all the Northern Ireland parties support the proposal that people should supply their national insurance numbers when they apply to join the electoral register in Northern Ireland.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Some members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs adopted a position that was not a knock-down argument in favour of this amendment. Had they not done so, I assume that the amendments that I tabled earlier would have been supported by the Opposition spokesman.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Of course, unlike the Minister, I was not a member of that Select Committee and did not take part in its proceedings. I am perhaps therefore not entirely bound by the terms adopted by that Committee and do not feel a loyalty to them. But in connection with the first group of amendments—which would have required that everyone in Northern Ireland had an electoral identity card—I paid tribute to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for his clarity, and for his consistency in sticking to the Select Committee's conclusions. I am therefore puzzled that the hon. Gentleman appears now to be inconsistent in his stance on national insurance numbers. He may of course have been influenced by the debates. The Government widened the membership of the Committee to include representatives from the SDLP and the DUP, which was extremely welcome. However, it meant that the Committee was, unusually in this Parliament, on a knife edge. On that occasion, every party except the Labour party supported making national insurance numbers a requirement to register. The majority in Committee was only nine to eight. The hon. Gentleman's vote was clearly of immense significance to the Government.

Paragraph 58 of the 1998 Select Committee says:

"Registration forms should contain more identifying details to overcome the problem of illicit multiple registration and to make fraudulent applications in another's name harder. These should include date of birth, a signature and the National Insurance number of the voter."

The Select Committee was heavily influenced by the evidence of Mr. Pat Bradley, who had been a chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland for nearly 17 years when he came before the Committee and who was clearly an expert. I should like to quote his responses to questions from the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). When asked by the hon. Member for South Down about his canvassers collecting and confirming information for putting the register together, Mr. Bradley replied:

"The officers collect the data from each household. They collect the information on the registration form. They are not able to confirm the information—and that is what the system is set up for at the present time—or to turn round and be convinced on the spot that each person on that form has shown to the canvasser some sort of documentation to show they are who they claim to be and they live there. If you like, that is the weakness of the system, the fact that it is the householder's responsibility for putting down the names of those who are eligible and that information is then taken on board."

The hon. Member for East Antrim then asked Mr. Bradley:

"Would the inclusion of National Insurance numbers, which are individual to everyone, not help that situation for your records?"

Mr. Bradley replied:

"I would welcome either a National Insurance number or a date of birth, and that is common in many countries."

His next point was crucial:

"If one has the two parameters, i. e. the date of birth and National Insurance, it is a very easy matter to run a search through the computer database and that would solve the problem and I would welcome that very much. It would make life much easier and reduce the scope for abuse considerably."

We had a lengthy debate about this in Committee. Indeed, the subject took up the whole of the Committee's first sitting, at the end of which the Minister replied to the Committee. I do not think that he convinced himself. Indeed, he was so unconvinced by his own arguments that he returned in the afternoon to put forward further objections to including national insurance numbers. I will deal with these in turn, and if I am being unfair about the arguments I am attributing to the Minister I hope he will correct me.

The Minister's first argument was that people do not know their national insurance number or how to find it out. That argument does not stand up to analysis. The Minister was particularly concerned about the elderly. Elderly people receive pensions and therefore have their national insurance number immediately to hand in their pension book.

In the process of registration, canvassers call at people's houses up to three times to get the information. The Minister shakes his head, but I received that information directly from the chief electoral officer. People have up to three weeks, if not longer, to complete the forms. To argue that people are unable to obtain their national insurance number in that period does not stand up. There are any number of forms of assistance open to them if they are unable to do so.

The Minister also argued that people who did not pay tax or receive benefits might not have a national insurance number. He gave the example of a student who had come back from South Africa. The fact that the Minister was having to grub around for such examples showed a degree of desperation in his attempts to convince the Committee of the merits of his argument. My amendments and those in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) address the matter by saying that the very few people who do not have a national insurance number cannot be required to give it. They hardly represent an overwhelming number of electors.

The Minister argued that a chief electoral officer had to check records held at the Treasury, where all the national insurance numbers for the United Kingdom are held. He said that members of the Committee might say that that could be resolved and that no doubt, in terms of computer technology, it could be. We all say that, and as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, sifting Northern Ireland national insurance numbers would hardly be at the cutting edge of technology. To find a software programme that would distinguish between the national insurance numbers of people registered in Northern Ireland and those of the rest of the United Kingdom would not be terribly difficult.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

It would not solve the problem entirely, because people are entitled to move from Britain to Northern Ireland. Presumably it would be difficult to find their registration numbers during that period.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

That was one argument. The Minister was adducing arguments under data protection legislation that it would be inappropriate for the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland to search the whole United Kingdom database. I do not see why it is remotely inappropriate for the chief electoral officer to search the whole United Kingdom database to check that a national insurance number belongs to the person who has claimed it. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, that would indeed be appropriate. I was trying to address the arguments that the Minister put forward later. The last refuge of a Minister in trouble when proposals are being made to simplify and clarify the system is the argument that there are problems under the data protection legislation.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

It may well be reasonable to argue that all the United Kingdom national insurance registration numbers can be investigated and discovered, but it shifts the ground. The hon. Gentleman argued earlier that all one would need to do would be to look at the Northern Ireland numbers.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Both arguments hold good. If the Minister says that it is inappropriate to check the whole register of national insurance numbers—that is his argument, not mine—it is perfectly possible to separate them. However, I do not see why it should be a problem to check the national insurance numbers of the whole of the United Kingdom.

The Minister's next argument concerned practicality. He said that whether the issue could be resolved against the deadlines the Government and others had set for the changes was a different matter. The deadline is of the Minister's own making. We have just had a debate about deadlines and he has so far refused to be bound by them. He has not been prepared to put one in the Bill. Had he done so, there might be a modicum of merit in his argument. Even then, I do not think that there would be when it comes to deadlines.

Checking national insurance numbers is simply a question of passing the necessary legislation, complying with the Data Protection Acts if necessary, and having the computer capacity to enable the chief electoral officer to undertake the checks. There is no reason why national insurance numbers cannot be put on the return that people have to complete.

The Minister's argument about data protection is the final refuge of people who oppose simplifying any of our bureaucracy. I do not accept that the data protection legislation would necessarily apply if the software program were written so as to include only national insurance numbers in Northern Ireland. If, as he suggested, primary legislation were necessary to effect that change and include the numbers as part of the process, that should be enacted.

I assure the Minister that he would have the wholehearted support of the Opposition to achieve that objective. There is no reason why such legislation could not be put in place to make the register as reliable as it must be. If the register is unreliable and we do not get it right, there will be a question mark over the conduct of democracy in Northern Ireland. We attended to those arguments in Committee, where the hon. Member for South Down made it clear that the future of Northern Ireland and the development of politics there were being affected by electoral fraud. At some stage, there may be referendums on the future status of Northern Ireland. Under the present arrangements, an individual vote can carry huge weight in local elections and can decide which parties will represent people on councils.

In Committee, the Minister did not even convince himself with his own rhetoric. There is cross-community support for this proposal. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was in alliance with the hon. Member for South Down and united with the Ulster Unionist party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives.

The amendments can only further the aims of the legislation. They are aims that the Minister and everyone in the House shares—tackling electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. In the main, the Minister has conducted himself with grace during the passage of the Bill. If he wishes to spare himself embarrassment in another place, I hope that he will have the grace to accept these amendments.

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

As the mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), said, my party and I have supported the inclusion of national insurance numbers as a form of identification for all electoral purposes—registration, postal voting and, in the appropriate circumstances, casting votes. The reason is simple. We understood the national insurance number to be unique to each individual and to be universal. Including that identification number on a registration form would enable other counter-checking measures to be used in the fulness of time. We would have three telling personal identification details—the date of birth, the signature and the national insurance number—all or some of which could be a means of identifying a fraudster.

The difficulty is that national insurance numbers are not universal, as the Minister explained well in Committee, which was an instruction to me. He gave some strange examples, one of which has been referred to—the teenage girl returning for education from South Africa. I confess that in the short time since our debate in Committee, I have searched my constituency for a childless French woman who has never worked or received benefit. I am not unoptimistic that I will achieve my objective, with all sorts of consequences perhaps in due course, but to date I have failed to identify such people.

The difference between the debates in Committee and this evening is that the amendment states that national insurance numbers should be used when they are available. I will not go into the cause and effect, but that is a reasonable proposition. In some genuine cases, they may not be available to people—by that I mean that they do not have such a number, not that they do not know it.

In my simplicity, I understood that every boy and girl was issued with a number at the age of 16. I may be wrong. I do not know how long the system has been in vogue, but it must be some considerable time—at least a decade. People who do not have a number must not have a pension and must never have worked, paid tax or filled in a tax return. That narrows the gap considerably.

The proposals in the amendments would seem to allow an exception for people who genuinely do not have a national insurance number—be they returning expatriates or European or Asian men or women who have not worked but have come to reside and at times to vote in Northern Ireland, where they are most welcome. It would not be an onerous task for the electoral officer, when he receives such an application, to see that the person seeking registration has not got a national insurance number and to telephone to find out why. One could ascertain the validity or the invalidity of the reason.

The important thing is that the majority of people—perhaps 97 per cent. or 98 per cent., although that is pure guesswork—have a national insurance number. It is an individual identifier, it is held on a common database and it is readily available to everyone on all sorts of documents that are carried daily—a tax form, a pension book and, I think, the Translink card, although I am not sure yet.

Using national insurance numbers would offer a great opportunity to create a significant database for the electoral system. At this stage, we cannot use signatures. They will not be digitised for some time. However, that does not prevent us from seeking the information. Initially, it will be used for the postal vote comparisons, which will presumably be manual until computers have the necessary sophistication.

We would be building a database. The national insurance database is enormous and can be checked, and I think that it would throw up any irregularities, which is all that we are concerned about. I am sure that we could cope with that with relative ease using computer technology. For that reason, I support the inclusion of national insurance numbers in the information given at registration, which can then be deployed for other purposes. The amendments propose a pardon for people who do not, for good reason, have a national insurance number. A simple inquiry would resolve that problem, which wipes out most of the arguments for not including the numbers as a personal identifier.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I could say that of all the debates in Committee, this was the most weakly argued by the Government, but I am a positive chap and I will say instead that of all the debates it is the one that provides the Minister with a shining opportunity to demonstrate the listening ear of the Government. I am sure that he is all ears as he listens to this debate and will show, once again, that the Government are primarily interested in doing the right thing rather than offering what at times seem to be specious arguments and setting their face against a common-sense proposal that is recommended by Northern Ireland parties on a cross-community basis, as well as by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.

Despite a long debate in Committee, the Minister failed to convince anyone—apart perhaps from himself and some of the loyalists in his party—that the argument against the inclusion of national insurance numbers was reasonable—[Interruption.] I realise that I may have just offended some loyalists and I apologise for doing so.

The arguments have already been set out clearly by previous speakers in the debate, but I have some brief points to add. The restrictions of the Data Protection Acts have been cited as a reason why the Government cannot include national insurance numbers. However, it would indeed be ironic if legislation to protect the public from corruption actually prevented the Government from introducing an electoral measure that would also protect the public from corruption in the form of electoral fraud. I do not believe that that is a reasonable argument behind which to hide. The Data Protection Acts were introduced to help us, not to hinder us. Certainly it cannot be strategically beyond the wit of the Government and their employees to ensure that the legislation is not a barrier to the change that we propose.

There was reference to the possibility of needing to check through 50 million or 60 million national insurance numbers. As the Minister knows, any computer could do that job in seconds—or minutes at most. That would not be a restriction. Furthermore, with a little creative thinking it would be easy to establish a list of those who were eligible to vote in Northern Ireland. The use of a tactical, technical defence to oppose the strategically important proposal to use national insurance numbers as a unique identifier does not stand up to scrutiny.

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) gave us an entertaining description of his research to show the small number of people who might be in the same category as the student whose family moved to South Africa—the example used by the Minister. An even more extraordinary example was that of the childless French woman, who was not working, not claiming benefit and was married to a Northern Ireland resident.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It got a laugh.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Yes, but the point is that we would know that fraudsters were using that approach because there would suddenly be a huge rise in the number of childless French women who were not working or claiming benefit, were married to Northern Ireland residents and were attempting to vote in elections in Northern Ireland. Once there were so many obstacles to cheating the system, the fraudsters might take the radical step of campaigning on the streets, handing out leaflets and canvassing rather than finding such exotic and elaborate means to continue their electoral fraud.

The Government have an opportunity to help themselves through the amendment. They should not regard the cross-community support for the proposed change as being based on a wish to beat the Minister into submission or as suggesting that he is not committed to doing the right thing. However, as we debate this point, it becomes increasingly difficult for those of us who support the use of national insurance numbers to understand the substantive opposition to the inclusion in Northern Ireland elections of what amounts to a human bar code. There really seems to be no more reliable means than the national insurance number to ensure that each person has a single, unique identifier. It already exists and does not need to be created especially for the election.

If the Minister has come up with genuinely new and significant arguments, I am sure that we could be persuaded by them. However, he has had a substantial amount of time, in Committee and afterwards, to explain the reasons for the Government's resistance to the inclusion of national insurance numbers.

With a little effort, everyone can find out their national insurance number pretty easily. They do not need to keep repeating—

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

What is yours?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am being challenged to read my number, but obviously I would not like to see it in Hansard as it might cause me unforeseen problems—people might forget my name and would just refer to me by my national insurance number. However, I assure the hon. Lady that if the matter was important enough, I could leave the Chamber and find out my national insurance number, even though I was not prepared for that question. Furthermore, I am sure that for individuals in their own homes who are willing to play an honest and constructive part in the electoral process in Northern Ireland, such a matter would be no more difficult than it would be for me.

I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the change is not being proposed as a blanket, all-pervading necessity. The amendments allow for the fact that it may not be possible to provide a national insurance number. I appeal to the Minister to acknowledge that the amendment is a common-sense proposal that has significant support from both sides of the House, and to show that the Government are willing to listen to sensible ideas and, in the process, ensure that Northern Ireland has a much more reliable system than anything we have so far debated for checking that individuals are who they say they are.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am sure that the whole House realises that the electors of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) have much for which to be thankful in having a Member who is so dedicated in his pursuit of issues that arise in Committee. Where that research might lead the hon. Gentleman, should he discover the person he seeks, only he can tell us. However, although he might have enjoyed that aspect of the Committee's business, I doubt that the Minister is enjoying this moment.

The Minister has been squirming for some time as we have debated the amendment—and so he should. He had a difficult time in Committee because his past was brought up, dragged before the Committee and thoroughly inspected. Once, the Minister was open minded; he was a free thinker who was allowed to reach conclusions based on his own judgment, but now he bears the heavy burden of office. Now, he has his civil servants around him. Now, he has the benefit—enjoyed by many—of having others to prepare the words he has to utter at the Dispatch Box.

The reality is that when the Minister was able to consider in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs the merits and demerits of proposals such as those in the amendment, he knew where the argument lay. He knew on which side the weight and burden of the issue came down. He concluded—as did everyone on the Select Committee, even those of his colleagues who are also in denial tonight—that the right thing to do was to include the national insurance number on the registration form.

The Select Committee was not alone in reaching that conclusion. Others held the same view. The Northern Ireland Forum set up a committee to consider the issue and made the same recommendation, realising that the proposal made good sense. The Northern Ireland Office published a review paper which noted that it was worth investigating the inclusion of the number on the form. The paper went even further, by proposing not only that the number should be on the registration form but that people could be asked to give it at the polling station. That is a step beyond my proposal in the Standing Committee and that in the amendment. The proposal is much more moderate than that which the Minister and others have been prepared to align themselves with in the past.

In the past, people have considered and judged the proposal and found it worthy of merit, but on this occasion it has found the fulsome support of every Opposition party in the House. It managed to unite all the Northern Ireland parties in Committee, and I presume in the House as well. I thought that it was Government policy to achieve cross-community support. If such a consensus were achieved on any other issue, the Minister would almost die for it, yet here he has the Northern Ireland parties jumping up and down in front of him and he waves the proposal away; he does not want it. Why is it that when the Minister has, on a Northern Ireland issue, the Northern Ireland parties all saying, "Go in this direction!" he decides to turn his back and go another way?

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

The hon. Gentleman is posing a puzzle to the House. He suggests that the Minister, when he was a Back Bencher, was a seeker after truth and that the burdens of office have borne down on him and he has changed his mind. Might it not be that he is still a seeker after truth and that, as a Minister, he sought the advice of his colleagues in the Government and they said, "Above all you must not concede this amendment; the national insurance scheme is in chaos, but you cannot admit that in the House because some English Members also hold that view, and would like to hear it expressed from the Treasury Bench so that they may use it in campaigning to secure the national insurance system so that it is a safeguard of people's identity and can be used in a way that people on both sides of the House tonight wish it to be used in Northern Ireland"?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The House has heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. Given the right hon. Gentleman's history, I am sure that the Minister will want to be not only a seeker but a teller of the truth, and will want to respond to what has been said. The question is more for the Minister than for me, so I will pass it back to him and listen eagerly to his reply.

As the hon. Member for South Down said, the national insurance number is a unique identifier. Unlike the signature, unlike the name, unlike the date of birth, it is one for which there is a database, and it is something that can be extracted by the chief electoral officer to identify instances of multiple registration. If the chief electoral officer sees the name of John Murphy in the register half a dozen times in a street or an area, he has no real way of determining whether it is the same John Murphy, but if the national insurance number is to be given, very quickly he will be able to determine whether there has been a multiple registration by the same person and whether action needs to be taken. If the marked register is examined and it is found that someone with the same national insurance number has voted several times, it will identify where multiple voting has taken place, perhaps illegally in the context of anything other than a local government election. The mechanism will allow cross-checking to take place.

Re-reading the report of our debate in Committee, I was led to believe that the Minister's response did not amount to much more than what in Northern Ireland we refer to as waffle. There was no real substance to the argument that he attempted to marshal against ours. After he had had lunch and a regrouping—no doubt of those civil servants who give him advice, of whatever variety—the Minister came up with two points. One was that not everyone has a national insurance number, but he did not say how small was the group that did not have one, and he did not quite overcome the problem that we had posed by suggesting that the question on the form could end with the words "(if any)". It seems to me that no one will be punished if they do not have a national insurance number and do not write it on the form. The words "(if any)" appear elsewhere on the registration form, and it would not be inappropriate to insert them in this instance if there was any problem with people not having a national insurance number.

The second defence that the Minister put up was that not everyone can remember, or find, their national insurance number. The answer to that was simple. Potential electors will not be asked to fill out a form on the doorstep. A matter of weeks will pass between receipt of the form and the date by which it must be submitted, and that will allow people plenty of time to discover their national insurance number.

The defences put up by the Minister in Committee did not have much substance, so I hoped that he would reflect on the position and be prepared to meet the whole of the Opposition on the matter on Report. I hoped that he would be able to concede to the wish of the parties in Northern Ireland, and I regret it if, as his earlier remarks suggest, he intends to continue to resist it.

I hope that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will press the amendment to a Division. I believe that in future the Minister will look back at that Division and be saddened that he allowed himself to be whipped by his civil servants into taking the stand that he is taking. I know that it is not his own inclination. I know his true inclination because I shared with him those amendments in the Select Committee when, in comradeship, we went down the same road together, and I hope that once again, when he has the opportunity to be freer in the way that he acts and speaks in the House, he might return to his former principled position.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has had some good fun at the expense of my hon. Friend the Minister, because my hon. Friend now adopts a different position from that which he signed up to in the Select Committee report—a report which I also signed. If the hon. Member for Belfast, East is so keen on consistency with the Select Committee report, it is unfortunate that when he was given an opportunity to support my amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were taken from that report, he did not do so. I do not really condemn him for that because people's ideas alter according to their experiences. My position may have changed since I signed the Select Committee report; the Minister's certainly has.

I am keen on the argument that there should be an identifier, such as a national insurance number. It might be the case that the smaller the nation, the easier it is to sort things out. In Malta, which has identity cards, the identity card number appears on the electoral register. Moreover, a card is issued to an elector, through the police, at each election, and is handed in when people vote. A fresh card is issued afterwards. Therefore, it is possible to develop techniques that make use of good organisation in order to tackle some of these problems.

In Committee I expressed concern—and was taken to task by the hon. Member for Belfast, East—when the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) accepted that the national insurance system was less than perfect. How much less than perfect is it? If some people give their national insurance numbers and their numbers are not confirmed within the system or are not seen to be those that are supposed to relate to them, those people can be disfranchised, or temporarily disfranchised, until the problem is sorted out.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The national insurance system might be in chaos, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, but the suggestion is not that people have no national insurance number, but that they have more than one. That is what needs to be sorted out. Any check of the cross-reference, such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman, in which the correct national insurance number was included, would almost certainly involve a cross-check to that person.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that the national insurance system was in chaos. If that were correct, there would be many serious problems in using the system as a check. If the chaos merely involves people having more than one number, it might be possible to sort out the problem if records are kept showing all the different numbers. Something that lies between being less than perfect and being chaos may be the type of problem we have to consider. If problems exist with national insurance numbers, there is a difficulty with the amendment. In Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate alerted me to that.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

All the Opposition parties view the date of birth system proposed by the Government as inadequate. We have a better system—the national insurance system. Surely it is better to use that system, even though it is flawed to an extent, than to rely on a date of birth system, which most Opposition Members believe to be inadequate?

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I understand that signatures and dates of birth will be used, and it is being proposed that national insurance numbers should be added. The date of birth is relevant because electors will be asked their dates of birth in addition to having to show their cards when they turn up at polling stations. Some people might get that wrong and some people might be disfranchised as a result, but that is very unlikely. It is much more likely that there would be difficulties with national insurance numbers.

People would have to complete forms and provide their national insurance numbers, signatures and dates of birth, and the one that they would be liable to get wrong is their national insurance number, so the electoral returning officer would have to return to the constituents to check whether an error had been made. When looking at national insurance forms and details and writing them down, how many people would get them wrong, especially in households where several people have to do that? Even if only 1 or 2 per cent. of the population get those numbers wrong, those people would be disfranchised, or they would have serious problems.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East was eloquent in saying that he did not want a system that actually disfranchised people who were entitled to be on registers, and I am keen not to introduce a measure that would remove people from the franchise.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

The hon. Gentleman is skating on such thin ice that he could drown at any moment. The logical extension of his argument is that the Government should never produce any sort of form in case people fill it in wrongly. His argument is nonsense on stilts.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

The Bill deals with voting arrangements, not the others things in which Governments engage. If people apply to the Benefits Agency for benefits and fill in their national insurance numbers wrongly, it is possible to go back to them to get the correct numbers, and it may also be possible to use other records to find the right numbers. That will not be so readily and easily the case with electoral registration. Under electoral registration law, people have a right to be on the registers, and they are technically subject to a £1,000 fine if they are not. That is a fundamental building block of our democracy, and we must ensure that, whatever system we use, we do not disfranchise people even though we are doing other beneficial things. Much in the Bill will get rid of fraud but, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, we cannot get rid of fraud at the expense of removing people who are on registers legitimately.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman made that point extensively in Committee. I was not convinced then and I am not convinced now—and so far as I can tell, neither is any other Opposition Member. He has not established why it is impossible for the returning officer to go back to those who may have made a mistake and ask them to check. Will he explain precisely why that is so impossible?

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

If 1 or 2 per cent. of the electorate are involved, the electoral registration officer would be involved in quite a task. He would have to contact people directly himself, or he would have to send canvassers or other people around to discover information about the small number of people who have been missed. Those people are likely to be among those who are also expected to choose identity cards. We would be in danger of creating a group of people who would be deprived and depressed in society. They would find it difficult to obtain identity cards, or they may not be keen to do so. They may be the very people who would get such information and details wrong.

We should not make the system too complicated. I wanted to make it universal, so that everyone would be involved and have to get a card to vote, but that could be achieved without the problems that the amendment would involve. I am simply saying that it is not beyond peradventure and absolutely clear that that system would work in the way that some of us, with our naive nature, and having listened to Mr. Bradley addressing the Committee, believe that it could.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

First, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the system will involve a big job just once—the first time that everyone has to fill in the form—and that that is a small price to pay to reduce fraud? Secondly, will he note that the amendments states, "if they have one", so we do not want to change the national insurance system? We would merely create a data collection expectation, and the task would diminish massively when we had completed it once.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Fresh people will appear on the registers, so they will have to go through the system themselves. Perhaps it would be easier to work with young people who come into contact with their national insurance numbers and their electoral registration rights for the first time, and perhaps few difficulties would occur. People move in and out of Northern Ireland from the Republic and are entitled to vote—and from Great Britain as well. So such a system would not be automatically ready and easy.

I am in favour of modernised electoral registration systems that use all types of new technology. That is why I advocate the rolling register, and we have something like a stopping, standing still and crawling register, which has improved things. However, there is still a tremendous amount to be done, but much of that has to be done on a United Kingdom basis, and I believe that it should be tied in with identity cards, so that we could operate a nice clear system. I am worried that we may spatchcock some ideas on to the existing arrangements and that that will not work well.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I wish to put a couple of things on record. First, my colleagues and I fully support the amendment, and if it is pressed to a Division, we will support it. It is a sensible measure, and we note the strength of support for it on both sides of the House. I shall return to that point later.

In Committee, the Minister pleaded that one reason for not accepting the proposal was that some people do not have national insurance numbers. However, I draw Members' attention to the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who asked

"how many and what percentage of United Kingdom citizens have a National Insurance number"?

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), replied:

"The vast majority of the approximate 48 million UK adult population have a National Insurance number".—[Official Report, 30 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 643W.]

Therefore, most people are covered by the requirement.

I express my disappointment at the way in which the Government are conducting business. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) focused his comments on the Minister and on the inconsistency between his past and present positions. However, the Minister is a member of the Government and he is now adopting their position. I am disappointed at their approach because when the measure was first suggested, we strongly expressed the view that although particular provisions were good in themselves, the Bill needed to be strengthened.

The Government assured us that they would give us a sympathetic response if we came forward with proposals that were, in particular, supported by both sides of the House and the main parties in Northern Ireland. If arguments against the amendment had carried any weight in Committee or in this debate, I could have understood the Government's reasons for rejecting it. However, we are faced with their stock response. They have published the Bill and decided to put up the shutters by fighting any amendment tooth and nail, irrespective of the merits of the argument.

The merits of the argument are clear. I greatly respect the hon. Member for North–East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I know that he has done much good work. He made a valiant attempt to defend the Government's position, but I am afraid that although we give him credit for doing so, he was not convincing.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I am not sure whether the terminology is appropriate given the position in Northern Ireland, but I am not usually considered to be a Labour loyalist.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Indeed, and I notice that, at the end of his comments, the hon. Gentleman came towards what will be the eventual solution, namely, an identity card system. I am sure that, in time, we will come to that, but how long will the luddites in the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office prevent us from moving towards that solution?

It is ironic that the current national insurance number system developed out of compulsory wartime identity cards. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested, over the years that system may have fallen into confusion and may need to be overhauled completely. That overhaul will come when we move to a nationwide system of compulsory identity cards—the issue can be resolved then.

I do not wish to delay our proceedings, because I know that other Members wish to speak. I simply wish to put on the record the fact that we support the amendment. I have read the Committee debates and I have not seen any reason why we should not. The House has had a little fun at the Minister's expense, but he could put an end to that and do himself and the Government much credit by undertaking seriously to consider our proposal.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke eloquently in Committee about the nature of elections in Northern Ireland. It is well worth repeating some of his sentiments, to explain—particularly to those outside the House—the widespread support for the amendment.

For some political parties, elections in Northern Ireland have for many years been an extension of the armed struggle. They are now a substitute for the armed struggle. They are militarised and they are conducted by men with guns who will fight, intimidate, bully, kneecap and sometimes murder to make sure that people turn out to vote in the way that those men want—not once, not twice, but as many times as they can get them to the polling station in whatever guise they can be bullied into adopting. That is the nature of an election in Northern Ireland, so it is no surprise that the turnout in elections there is continually high: it is the result of widespread militarised fraud conducted by paramilitaries.

It is splendid that the Government have introduced a Bill which at last attempts to tackle the problem of fraud in Northern Ireland elections. One party in particular undertakes such fraud. It is trying to squeeze out the party of the hon. Member for South Down, and it is in danger of doing so.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a general speech rather than addressing his remarks to the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall move straight to the amendment, but I wanted to put it in context. I thank you for your indulgence in permitting me to do so.

The amendment would prevent people as far as possible from registering twice when they were not entitled to do so. For example, they might register two different versions of the same name, or the same name in two or three different locations. They might even register in the same name at the same address, in the expectation that the returning officer or his assistants could be persuaded that there was an older and a younger man—or an older or younger woman—of the same name at the same address.

The amendment would require that when people registered to vote, they not only furnished their signature, date of birth and name and address but provided their national insurance number. A national insurance number is a unique identifier. There may not be many Lembit Öpiks in Montgomeryshire; there may be more Harry Barneses in North-East Derbyshire; there is certainly more than one Andrew Turner on the Isle of Wight; and I wager that there are many Peter Robinsons in Northern Ireland. However, the national insurance number is a unique identifier that the returning officer can use to check against the name.

If there were no unique identifier or the name did not match the national insurance number, the returning officer could undertake further inquiries. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) objected to that because he felt it might prevent people from registering in time for an election. However, in these days of a rolling register, it takes just 30 days between filling in the form and appearing on the register. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, that should be time enough to allow any returning officer furnished with the right resources to check whether the applicant for registration does or does not exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) ably related the proposal's history. The Select Committee on which the Minister sat agreed that such a provision was necessary. The hon. Gentleman changed his mind at some point before the Bill was drafted, and he explained his reasons in the Committee that considered it. They were feeble. He said that the difficulties involved in recalling a national insurance number at the time of registration might make it more difficult for people to register. He said that, on balance, it was unwise to proceed with the proposal.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, the Committee was so unconvinced—and more important, I suspect the Minister was so unconvinced—that the Minister went away and, between lunchtime and the beginning of the afternoon sitting, came up with new reasons. But they were not reasons to exclude the national insurance numbers proposal from the Bill. He had already given those reasons which, as I have said, he recognised were feeble. All the Northern Ireland parties supported an amendment similar to this in Committee, as did the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and although it was defeated, I do not believe that the arguments were defeated.

The only mildly constitutional party—if I can use that phrase—from Northern Ireland that opposes the inclusion of national insurance numbers chooses not to be represented in the House, and it is the greatest beneficiary of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. It is a scandal that its wish is being pushed through by the Government in the Bill against the advice of all the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and the people whom they represent, who have suffered so long at the hands of the bullies, gunmen and terrorists whom Sinn Fein represent.

A date of birth can be duplicated, a signature may be inconsistent and names are frequently repeated, but a national insurance number cannot usually be duplicated. The amendment makes provision even for that tiny minority who do not possess a national insurance number. It would also enable greater scrutiny of postal votes. As we know, many people apply fraudulently for postal votes in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire repeated the assertion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the national insurance system is in chaos. The Government have not relied on that argument yet, and unless they are prepared to do so, I see no reason why the House should reject the amendment.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

The amendments would allow the use of national insurance numbers. That would add a great deal more protection to the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland than the measures set out in the Bill. The vast majority of people have national insurance numbers. They are a prerequisite for paying tax and obtaining benefits. National insurance numbers are probably the most complete and easily accessible record of adults in the United Kingdom that we have, and we should not dismiss them lightly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's arguments on why he opposes the amendment because the arguments of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) did not persuade many hon. Members.

It is right to collect the numbers at the time of the canvass and cross-check them against the national insurance database prior to publication of the draft electoral roll. It is an important check on the validity of the voter's identification. I believe that there is sufficient time between the canvass and the publication of the register to undertake a proper check.

We should consider three questions in connection with the registration phase: will people know their national insurance number or have access to it; what happens if an elector does not have a national insurance number; and how will we manage access by the chief electoral officer to the national insurance database? Most people either know their national number or have access to it. I cannot say offhand what mine is, but I know that it is on my P60 and my payslip. People who receive benefits will know their national insurance number from their records. The argument that people do not know their number is neither watertight nor valid.

What happens in the rare instances when people do not have a national insurance number? I have seen the examples that the Minister gave in Committee. Some people may not have a national insurance number, but we will have enough time to go back to them to establish why. I appreciate that, in the first year of the register, additional time may be spent checking out people's arguments, but once the register is in place—it will have a relatively small turnover from year to year, and relatively few people will lack national insurance numbers—the practical long-term arguments against checking them out make that concern invalid.

On how we manage access by the chief electoral officer to the national insurance database, we have heard about the restrictions that the Data Protection Act 1998 places on access, and about the swathe of data to which he will have access and whether or not that will be irrelevant. Notwithstanding the myriad problems that seem to affect information technology projects commissioned by Governments, it is not beyond the wit of man to cross-check national insurance numbers against a database. It would be helpful if the database of national insurance numbers could cross-refer to the computerised records of tax and benefits. That would allow us to check not just the national insurance number and its uniqueness and validity, but the address that is given on the electoral registration form, so we can ascertain that it is the same.

I do not accept the argument that the Minister used in Committee. He said the law would have to be changed, which would not be feasible in the time scale. In response to the events of 11 September, Departments have moved quickly in recent weeks to the pressing need to change legislation.

The amendments offer a powerful way to improve the integrity of the electoral voting system in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will not simply say no and employ flimsy arguments, because so far the arguments have lacked validity and do not stand him in good stead.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Having listened to the debate, I wonder how serious the Government are about cracking down on electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Much could be done to improve the Bill, including the use of national insurance numbers, as set out in the amendment. It is astonishing that, despite the broad agreement of all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, the Government oppose that. Having read the Committee proceedings, I know that the Minister's arguments were weak.

Of course, not everyone can say off the top of their head what their national insurance number is; I certainly could not. However, to suggest that it is not possible within a 30-day period for someone to produce their number is pathetic. Either the Government are serious about tackling electoral fraud or they are not. There is an opportunity to improve the Bill, and I should like the Government to take that on board.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have followed the Bill's progress from some distance, but my interest in Northern Ireland is well known, as the Minister is aware. Following the excellent speeches made by some of my hon. Friends, will my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) speculate in greater detail about why the Government are resisting what are clearly sensible amendments? My hon. Friend makes it amply clear that the proposals are supported by all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, so why are the Government resisting good sense and good policy?

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Government have yet again shown that in certain instances when dealing with issues relating to a part of our kingdom, Northern Ireland, they appease rather than take the action necessary to get a grip on the situation and ensure that democracy prevails against those who have turned to, and continue to employ, solutions that are outwith the democratic arena.

Although it is important that sensitive information is not disclosed unnecessarily, it is a typically public sector approach to admit that the technology to prevent that is achievable but to discount its use because of artificially imposed deadlines. I have read that in other reports. If something is likely to strengthen a measure, it is worth ensuring that it is included and delivered on time. It is typical of the Government's haphazard approach that they dismiss potentially useful ideas because they would be difficult or inconvenient to implement.

It has taken some time to produce the Bill. I am astonished that it has taken the Government so long, but judging by comments made earlier in the debate, it appears likely that it will take even longer to be implemented—yet another example of the Government's appeasement. The Government are being hypocritical: it is hardly credible to use as an excuse lack of time or the fact that people might not know their own social security or national insurance number. Few complain of not knowing their national insurance number when claiming benefits, so I do not understand why it should be such a problem when they want to vote.

There is no question but that the Bill will enable significant headway to be made. That is welcome. However, I urge the House to support the Opposition amendment to include national insurance numbers as additional identification markers for electors registering in Northern Ireland. I see no good reason why any of the obstacles that the Government claim exist should prevent the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral registration process.

Of course it will take time to construct a workable system, but in the long term the ability to cross-check national insurance numbers against those registering to vote—and later, if necessary, those voting—will provide an extra layer of security against electoral fraud. Simply giving dates of birth and signatures may prove to be insufficient to stop those who are determined to get around the system. National insurance numbers might not make the system foolproof, but they are unique pieces of information, specific to individuals, that are too valuable to ignore. I commend the amendment to the House.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

If the few years that the Government took to consult widely on our proposals and to draft and introduce the Bill can be described as appeasement, I wonder what 18 years of refusal to address the problem can be called. Perhaps the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) can provide a suitable description before the end of the debate.

Amendment No. 1 requires electors to state their national insurance number, if they have one, on their annual canvass return. Amendment No. 2 terminates an elector's right to remain on the electoral register if they have a national insurance number but fail to provide it. We established in Committee that not everyone has a national insurance number, nor is everyone entitled to one. I acknowledge that the amendments are worded to get around that difficulty, but I remain concerned that they would disadvantage legitimate voters who simply do not know their national insurance number. Faced with the problem of finding out, people—especially the more vulnerable members of the community—might simply return their annual canvass form without including their number. Moreover, the amendments would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the chief electoral officer, who would be required to check all those cases in which an annual canvass form was returned without a national insurance number to determine whether the elector actually had a number or was entitled to one.

Amendment No. 5 would require people to state their national insurance number, if they have one, when applying for an absent vote for either an indefinite period or a specific parliamentary election. It is possible, whether legitimately or not, to have more than one number. If someone gave a different national insurance number on their application for an absent vote from that which they had provided on registration, that would be a reason to deny them their vote, even if they held the two numbers legitimately. As I have said before, 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, but the chief electoral officer does not consider that a requirement for electors to state their national insurance number on registration or on their application for an absent vote would be of any additional value to him if he is already able to check the signature and date of birth of electors against his records.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have immense respect for the Minister, who is, from time to time, very amusing. Will he state how an individual can legitimately have two national insurance numbers? I might have misheard him, but I think that that is what he just said. Will he explain?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

My understanding is that in certain circumstances individuals can be given temporary national insurance numbers, and that they can therefore have two national insurance numbers for different purposes.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister gave the same explanation in Committee, and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. However, is he going to list a series of practical problems as the Government's justification for not accepting national insurance numbers as a form of identification? If he is, does he not accept that those are points of detail and that we are in fact discussing an extremely important strategic opportunity to identify each potential voter using what is, for the overwhelming majority of people, a unique identifying number?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

My concern, which I expressed repeatedly in Committee, is that we may inadvertently disfranchise people because of changes in the rules that we make. We had to strike a balance between interdicting fraud and not placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of legitimate voters, and identify where in the use of national insurance numbers such difficulties might be found. However, I am conscious—this was forcefully pointed out to me in Committee and on more than one occasion today—that all the Northern Ireland political parties represented in the Committee and in the Chamber today are as one on the issue. Mindful of that pressure and consistent with my approach throughout proceedings on the Bill, I have put a number of options to the test again, including data protection aspects, which are not minor, to see if the national insurance number can be used for electoral purposes in a way that does not disfranchise legitimate voters. However, as presently advised, I am not satisfied that they can; until I am, I have no alternative but to resist the amendments.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister concluded his explanation on a wholly inadequate note; his arguments have been similarly inadequate throughout Committee and on Report.

First, I want to take up the Minister's point that the previous Government did nothing for 18 years. If that had been the case, there would not be a need for consolidation of the legislation now. There are so many different pieces of legislation floating round the system, which, from memory, were introduced in 1983, 1985 and 1989 to try to address the issue of identification in polling stations and elsewhere in piecemeal stages, that there is now a desperate need to consolidate them. The Minister knows well that that is the position of the chief electoral officer.

Of course, the Bill is welcome, but it only goes so far; on that issue, it could go much further to ensure that the register is, as far as possible, and given the limitations on the current national insurance system, beyond reproach. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) amused the House with an account of attempting to find a person who qualified as someone who does not have a national insurance number. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made it clear that there was no more reliable way of establishing an individual's identity. It was a joy to see the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) put the Minister through his paces and make him relive his past as a free-thinking member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Indeed, in attempting to reject the amendments, the Minister should bear in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to give him a flexible timetable on the introduction of identity cards. He might ask himself why, on this issue, the hon. Gentleman does not want to give him flexibility.

The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made a noble effort to defend the Minister. He confessed that, in 1998, when he was a Committee member, he was naive to accept evidence given to the Committee. I have never thought of the hon. Gentleman as naive, and he was certainly not naive when he agreed with every other Committee member, from every party, in reaching his conclusion in 1998. That conclusion is still shared by all the other parties that have taken part in consultations on the process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) properly drew attention to the level of intimidation and the issue of a unique identifier. He said that if the chief electoral officer were furnished with the right resources, there is no reason why national insurance numbers cannot be introduced. I wonder what advice the Minister has received from the Treasury. When he concluded his contribution, he said that he had received advice that led to his not being satisfied. He left it at that, leaving the House in the dark about the detail of advice that was so overwhelming that he could not accept the proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) asked just how serious the Government are about the proposals. I must tell him that I take what the Minister is trying to achieve in the Bill at face value. It would be wrong of the House to impugn his general motives. However, why are the Government resisting the amendment? They should consider just who their allies are. There are none in the House, but my hon. Friend will see that, in its evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 1998, Sinn Fein said:

"Sinn Fein believes that there is a compelling and logical argument to ensure that the electorate have the maximum freedom to exercise their vote as freely as possible. We would therefore argue for an end to the current identification regulations because we believe they restrict the electorate's freedom and impose an unnecessary burden on them."

Well, that is a surprise. Why is it that, on the issue of electoral fraud, the Minister finds himself in alliance with Sinn Fein, rather than all the other parties in Northern Ireland? He should ask himself that question.

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

The hon. Gentleman and others have impugned the Government's intention as being in some way an appeasement of Sinn Fein and other groups. Has he any evidence whatever that that is the case? I, who reside in Northern Ireland, have no such evidence. It would be wrong to make such assertion if there was not a reasonable certainty of its validity.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to what I said. I did not say that. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford used those terms, but I have taken some trouble to dissociate those on the Conservative Front Bench from that suggestion, and to make it clear that we take the Minister's intentions at face value. I am not suggesting that he is in league with Sinn Fein in his proposals. I am merely pointing out to the House that it so happens that on this issue he finds himself at one with Sinn Fein, which would no doubt resist the proposal. It is the only other party that would do so. The Minister should consider the position in which he finds himself. I am not saying that there has been some arrangement or that a direct effort has been made to appease Sinn Fein on other issues. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

Is not the truth of the matter that the Government are in league not with Sinn Fein, but with the Treasury, and that the Treasury has told the Government that the proposal is unworkable because the national insurance system is a shambles?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Having listened to the Minister's arguments in Committee and on Report, it is almost impossible to resist agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. The Treasury has been behind many inexplicable decisions, when Ministers have been forced to explain the unexplainable to the House and put the case to protect the Treasury. Given the weakness of the Minister's arguments in Committee and on Report, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is the one that most appeals to me.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good case. If the Government seek to justify the introduction of identity cards for the security of the state, and such an identity card could well include a national insurance number, why should not a national insurance number serve to safeguard the country's democracy?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's general point. We have yet to see the Government's proposals for identity cards for the security of the nation. My hon. Friend's point about the security of democracy is extremely important.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On the suspicions directed at the Treasury, does the hon. Gentleman accept that however much of a mess the national insurance system might be, it is not a factor in the debate, because as long as someone could find his number, it could be entered and used in a database in Northern Ireland? The state of the national insurance system is probably not the explanation, but that makes the Minister's seeming intransigence on an eminently sensible idea even more confusing.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am still attracted by the explanation from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Government would have to admit that the entire national insurance system was in chaos. If it is in chaos, it is imperative that the Government sort it out. That is no argument against a cross-reference system to help protect against electoral fraud.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) suggested that the Government were putting the shutters up; that they had produced the Bill and were too inflexible to consider change during the proceedings. That is one explanation, which we have encountered too often in the House, when the Government have been defeated on the detail of the argument. In this case the Government have been defeated strategically and in detail. We will press the matter, and if we are not successful this evening, the Minister will not have heard the last of it.

Clause 3 — Absent votes and declarations of identity

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 36, 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,'.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 2, page 3, line 47, at end insert—

'(2A) In section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) after subsection (1) there is inserted—

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

(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. 4, in clause 3, page 4, line 4, 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,'.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

It is quite an evening when we reduce the Government's majority to 87. That is indicative of just how badly the Minister lost the argument on new clause 2, in this Parliament of such unhappy numbers.

I am grateful for the progress that we made in Committee, when the Government changed the Bill to include a requirement to put the date of birth on applications for absent votes. Yet again, I am here to help the Minister. He has accepted our help, to some extent, on one occasion. In Committee, he said:

"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".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 71.]

The amendments would achieve precisely that.

This is an area of key importance in addressing electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 38 of the excellent 1998 report from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs concludes:

"Absent voting provides a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland—a view with which the Interim Review agrees."

The extent of absent voting in Northern Ireland and the potential for abuse, which was predicted in the report, was confirmed by the statistics that emerged from the 2001 general election. The seats that were contested most fiercely and resulted in gains by Sinn Fein, which has been associated and identified with a fairly ruthless and, in the words of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), a paramilitary organised approach to these issues, included West Tyrone, where the astonishing number of 2,012 proxy votes and 3,427 postal votes were granted. There was a total of 5,443 absent votes. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, 4,664 postal votes and 1,116 proxy votes were granted, and there was a total of 5,784 absent votes.

The number of proxy votes granted in West Tyrone is fabulous, and I do not think that any other constituency in the United Kingdom can come remotely close to that figure. Certainly, no constituency in Northern Ireland does, because the next highest number of proxy votes is about half that.

The constituencies of West Tyrone, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and Mid-Ulster, all Sinn Fein held, were the ones with the highest number of absent votes. To say that there is a coincidence between those figures and the fact that Sinn Fein is on the receiving end of accusations about an organised approach to the abuse of the electoral system is to take coincidence one step too far.

The prediction that was made by the Select Committee in 1998 appears on the basis of the statistical evidence to be borne out by what happened in the last general election. Unless the amendments are accepted, as the law stands—and will continue to stand under the Bill when it is enacted—only the information with an absent vote application has to be delivered to the chief electoral officer. The Bill does not specify in which form that information is to come.

If the Minister wants to meet his aim of automated processing of absent vote applications, those application forms will have to marry up with the computer system for the information to be read in the appropriate place. So far, the House has not agreed to include the requirement for national insurance numbers, but if we require the signature and date of birth as factors to be tested between the absent vote application and the register, the forms must enable that to happen. Otherwise, we will be in the same position as we are today.

In the general election in Northern Ireland, 31,048 postal vote applications and 10,000 proxy vote applications were made, which gives a total of more than 40,000. The chief electoral officer was not able to check, even after the event, whether those applications merited further investigation. In the 1997 general election, the chief electoral officer was faced with a tidal wave of up to 10,000 applications that were produced at the very last moment. There was a only a short time between the presentation of those applications and the general election, and given the way in which the forms are constituted, there was not a cat in hell's chance for the chief electoral officer to check them properly. That is known, so people who wish to abuse the system have an opportunity to do so.

In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that we should not advertise the opportunities to defraud the system by explaining that it was sufficient to provide the necessary information without using the official form, but I am sure that those who wished to do so could work it out for themselves. The abuse of the electoral system is sophisticated and if we leave a loophole, it will be exploited. It is our job to ensure that that cannot happen.

The Government resisted similar amendments in Committee and squeaked through the Division nine votes to eight, which means that all five Opposition parties were united in their view, including all the parties representing Northern Ireland. The Minister said that the change would be an unnecessary restriction on normal activities as part of the political process. I do not accept that. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the chief electoral officer—who has been in post for 17 years—believe such fraud to be the commonest form of vote stealing in Northern Ireland and it must be addressed. The most effective way to address it is to ensure that the forms on which people apply for absent votes are those issued by the chief electoral officer.

My amendments would leave it to the chief electoral officer to decide the format of the form, but the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats would require the form to be bar-coded and would place a duty on the chief electoral officer to ensure that the forms could be individually identifiable. It is the chief electoral officer's intention to bar-code the forms, if possible, but I have been convinced by the arguments for flexibility and would leave the decision to him. However, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and I differ only slightly on the issue.

The issue is important and the Minister needs to address it. He was able to give some comfort to us earlier tonight and I hope that he will be able to do so again.

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

The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) suggested that the absent vote system—for the sick and disabled, and for proxy votes—presented the biggest opportunity for electoral fraud and I can but agree with that statement. However, statistics are wonderful things and I shall give a few figures from the table mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

In 1997, before the 1998 report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the percentage of absent votes in West Tyrone was 7.5 and it went up to 9 per cent. in 2001. For Fermanagh and South Tyrone, in 1997 the percentage was 9.3 and it went down to 8.7 per cent. in 2001. In Mid-Ulster, it was 8.6 per cent. in 1997 and fell to 6.7 per cent in 2001. High figures for absent votes are not a new phenomenon but have been going on for many years. I should like to attribute great insight to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but modesty and the statistics forbid me.

However, this is a serious issue, and one with which we have wrestled for many years at hustings in Northern Ireland. The difficulty is that it has been traditional for the political parties, in the most honourable and trustworthy way, to help people to vote who otherwise could not go to the polls for one reason or another. The people thus helped have included those permanently on the sick list because of disablement, or those temporarily affected by sickness or injury during an election. Some people, of course, are unable to vote in elections for other reasons, or are elsewhere when election day comes around.

The phenomenon of trusted proxies is relatively new, but their use as a way to represent people at the polls is valid and is increasing. However, I think that imposing on the electoral officer and his assistants the requirement that each postal vote application form issued should be coded individually would cause practical difficulties.

Moreover, I believe that the proposal would diminish the ability of people to secure a postal vote when there are genuine reasons that render them unable to vote in person on the day of an election. Perhaps that is its purpose. In my experience, it is very difficult to get the electoral office to issue postal applications in time for people to return them, and requiring the applications to be allocated on a one-to-one basis would make that process even more difficult.

If all the people unable to get to the polling station on election day had to apply for a form permitting them an absent vote, I believe that the system would break down, as they would have to complete the form, get it attested, and send it back in time for inclusion in the poll. I am fully aware of what goes on in certain areas, and that means that I am reluctant to make the process so difficult. The danger is that many people would be disfranchised if numbered and traceable application forms were introduced.

It has been suggested that block applications could be given to the existing accredited representatives of political parties, and that those block applications could have a single, identifiable code number that would allow the person or group to whom the block application was issued to be identified. In other parts of the country colours could be used to identify the block applications, but that could cause all sorts of difficulties in Northern Ireland.

Although the use of a code number would not be foolproof, as no doubt the number would filter out somewhere down the line and duplication could take place, it would be a step towards what is proposed in the amendments. On balance, however, I am unable to support what is proposed in the amendments because I judge that many people who are legitimately unable to vote because they are ill or absent on election day would be disfranchised. In addition, I consider that the proposed system would be unnecessarily complicated.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As in the last group of amendments, when I made common cause with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), so also we make common cause on amendment No. 15. This has already been touched on, but let me outline the key reason why I believe, along with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, that bar codes are an important evolution in reducing fraud.

I have been concerned about the opportunities for fraud with regard to absent votes in United Kingdom elections as a whole. Some of the important check steps are absent if people are absent themselves. As such, the people in Northern Ireland for whom the legislation is intended are most likely to go to the point of least resistance once other changes have been made. Even with the Bill's limitations, given that the Government have not accepted our amendments, there will be some improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland. However, if the Government do not accept the proposal in amendment No. 15, we still have the Achilles' heel of absent votes.

The principle of the proposal was debated in Committee. We stipulated that applications for absent votes must contain a bar code, which are easy to scan and difficult to reproduce. The basic principle is to have each application form for an absent vote marked in a specific way so that applications cannot be photocopied wholesale many times over, as has been the case in the past. Each code will be unique to its particular application form and, by direct implication, to a particular person.

The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that about 40,000 absent votes were recorded in Northern Ireland in the recent election. Even if that figure were 80,000, the cost of specifying a particular bar code for each paper would be relatively small, perhaps a few pence per sheet. Given the benefit that would be gained, the investment of a few thousand pounds would surely not be prohibitive. So cost is not an issue. The logistical challenge of creating these forms is well within the Government's technological capabilities, so there is no logistical barrier to having a supply available.

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who is resistant to amendment No. 15 and this group as a whole, can be reassured by the fact that we would not have to maintain the existing limitations on availability of forms. We could streamline it and speed it up and still maintain a cohesion as to who gets which form. We could track where large blocks of forms go and ensure that there was no concerted effort to duplicate the applications, which would show up with the bar codes.

In terms of the cohesion of the system as a whole, bar codes would enable us to spot patterns if a large block of forms was completed in the same handwriting in a suspicious fashion. We could trace patterns much more easily if each form was observed afterwards as having come from a particular block given to a particular grouping.

There is no absolute certainty, even with bar codes. A fraudster who was inventive and determined enough could still be responsible for a limited degree of fraud. However, it would get much more difficult as the circumstantial evidence would mount up until the people behind the fraud could be identified and prosecuted.

If bar codes are not introduced, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that we would be unable to make significant progress. As right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall, at present one can use any piece of paper in Northern Ireland or in any election in the United Kingdom with which to apply for a postal vote. When I was a councillor in Newcastle upon Tyne, the incidence of requesting postal votes on anything other than a proprietary form was fairly small. The political parties active in the Newcastle area were assiduous in using the readily available forms from Newcastle council. If we can be sure that honourable individuals and their associated political parties are willing to use these forms at council level, I would like to think that the same would apply to Northern Ireland.

Sadly, we have just rejected the case for the use of national insurance numbers, which are unique to individuals as right hon. and hon. Members will recall. I fear that we will have to return to that matter in another place. In their absence it makes it even more important that individual absent vote forms are traceable. In that way, we can ensure that forged signatures and so forth can at least be tracked as I described.

What is the Minister's view of the desirability of tracing individual forms and has it changed since the Committee? If he accepts that there are no logistical or significant costing negatives to introducing bar codes, will he at least consider the case that we have put forward and respond in kind to the many hon. Members who are interested in ensuring that each form can be traced?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

At this stage I wish merely to direct the Minister to the comments that he made in Committee at columns 68 and 70, where he said of having bar codes or some other number on the forms:

"The chief electoral officer will in future ensure that applications . . . will be given a unique identifier, be it a serial number or a bar code."

Evidently the object, as I understand it, is to move to a position where such applications will be processed automatically.

The Minister went on to say with regard to that processing:

"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 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".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 68-70.]

Will the Minister elucidate on whether he is any closer to realising those proposals? Can he assure us that sufficient resources will be provided to ensure that a system in which an individual identifier is put on the application forms is introduced, and that they can be automatically processed by 2003, in time for the next Assembly election?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I can assure the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the resources are available and will be made available as necessary to achieve the objectives that have been set out in the planned programme of change for the introduction of the necessary computers and software in the electoral office. That will enable the very things that I spelled out in Committee, on Second Reading, and today to be done in time for the planned elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly in May 2003. As currently advised, we are still on course to achieve that objective. I intend to consult the parties in Northern Ireland and to find a mechanism to keep them involved in discussions about progress towards that objective.

We had detailed discussions in Committee about many aspects of absent voting—properly so, as there is clearly great concern about abuse of the electoral system. It is not merely a matter of statistics although, interestingly, when one aggregates the statistical evidence for Northern Ireland, the rate of absent voting is not significantly greater than the overall rate for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is concentrated in certain constituencies. The statistical evidence given us by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is also of some interest, in that there has been no consistent rise in the number of absent votes used in certain constituencies.

Whatever the explanation for these shifts—perhaps we need not dwell too much on an explanation of why there may have been shifts in individual constituencies—there is well justified concern about the potential offered by the absent voting system for fraud and about evidence that suggests that fraud is being perpetrated by the use of absent votes.

Apart from that very general concession to the points properly made by contributors to the debate, I shall concentrate on the specific amendments for the remainder of my speech. The intended effect of the amendments would be that any individual application for an absent vote would have to be made on an original form provided by the chief electoral officer. It is on that point that I part company with the supporters of the amendments. I believe that the proposals would hinder individuals who wanted to apply for an absent vote.

As I said in Committee, the current law does not require people anywhere in the UK to apply for absent votes on a particular form. There is no evidence to suggest that the existence of that opportunity has been exploited by anybody intending or attempting to commit fraud in the electoral system anywhere in the United Kingdom.

In Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of the UK, an applicant for an absent vote is required to give the chief electoral officer certain information. Until now, the law has been that it is the information that entitles the applicant to the vote—not the form on which the information is presented. However, it is currently the norm for applications for absent votes in Northern Ireland to be submitted in the main on forms—or copies of forms—that are provided by the chief electoral officer. The chief electoral officer already plans to take administrative measures to ensure that applications for an absent vote will be given some kind of unique identifier—be it a serial number or a bar code—and that can be achieved without either primary or secondary legislation.

When it comes to tracing to whom the original form was issued, it will not matter if an application for an absent vote was made on an original form or on a photocopy, because the bar code would be copied on the copy. 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 to whom he gave the individual forms. Although electors will not be required to submit their applications on a form from the electoral office, I suspect that it will continue to be the norm for most people to do so. I have no reason to believe that in future there will be a sudden flood of applications on odd bits of paper. However, I am not inclined to remove the possibility that people currently have to make an application in a form other than on an original form or a copy of an original form provided by the chief electoral officer. We live in a democracy and I shall not put into legislation any measures that could disfranchise people.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

In that case, will the Minister explain why he said in the Standing Committee:

"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."?—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 68.]

Surely that means that if two forms came in with the same bar code they would not be accepted by the electoral officer.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman reads my whole contribution, he will see that I made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion during that Committee debate that it would still be open to parties to copy those forms. Although the form would be unique when it was provided by the chief electoral officer, it would still be open to parties to copy those forms as they do at present.

Earlier today, I made the point that as long as the original form that is copied includes the bar code it will be possible to identify to whom it was given. As I explained in Committee and now repeat, it is not my understanding that the effect of any of the amendments would be that parties would not be able to pick up more than one form from the chief electoral officer. That would defeat the objective of being able to identify to which specific voter a bar-coded form was sent or given. Those who tabled the amendments in the group are not suggesting that parties will not be able to go in and pick up forms in hundreds, or even more, if they are available. In those circumstances, how does amendment No. 3 achieve the objective of making it possible to trace a particular form to an individual voter?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister makes a fair point. After reading the fuller contribution that he made in Committee, I recall his views on the subject. However, will he at least recognise that there is a difference of view here—on one side a concern that it is easier if each form genuinely is an original, and on the other the argument that he is making—and will he accept my concern that if any photocopying is allowed, it significantly weakens the opportunities to trace voters who exercise absent votes? I do not want to pursue the matter further; I believe that we have both made our points.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I accept the objective that the hon. Gentleman has now set up, but that objective, which the official Opposition may share, could be achieved only by an amendment that required an individual voter to make application individually to the chief electoral officer for a form and to obtain that form from the chief electoral officer, so that in the first place the chief electoral officer knew which voter was asking for the form and could give a bar code to that individual voter.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

indicated dissent

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Failing that, those who apply for more than one form will need to have in advance the names of the voters who will use those forms. It seems to me, with respect, that we are in danger of creating a level of bureaucracy in relation to absent votes that will be calculated—I use that word advisedly—to defeat the opportunity for many people to vote, either by proxy or by post.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

There is an issue about the traceability of the forms that are going out from the CEO to individuals. The Minister's argument that the process would be too bureaucratic is well made, and he talks about the opportunity for parties to photocopy the forms and make application on photocopied forms. That in a sense is not, as I understand it, precluded by amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

The Minister must still address the fact that the reason why at the moment the forms are in pretty much the same format as those issued by the chief electoral officer is that they cannot yet be checked by computer, but by 2003 he wants to be able to computer-check these things. Unless the applications come in on a specified form once the computer-checking is up and running, the whole point of that computer-checking will be negated.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point precisely. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 do not prevent parties from collecting one form from the chief electoral officer and photocopying that form, because that would still be a form that had been provided by the chief electoral officer and an application would be made on that form. They are therefore consistent with what we are putting in place administratively, and there is no need for the amendments to achieve the objective that we can achieve administratively.

The hon. Gentleman is arguing that unless the information is submitted in a format that is identical to the format of every other application, it cannot be checked by the chief electoral officer using a computer. I do not accept that that is necessarily so. In my view, the information provided on the form can be checked against a simple keying process on the computer, but in any event the bulk of the applications will come in—I expect that they will continue to do so—on forms that have been provided by the chief electoral officer and then copied, or on the originals of those forms. The comparatively small number that may arrive in another form will still entitle people to vote. I do not accept that a flood of applications will suddenly come in on odd bits of paper.

The requirement for electors to provide additional identifiers in the registration and in any subsequent application will improve the efforts to authenticate absent vote applications. Applications and declarations of identity will require the elector to provide a signature and a date of birth, and those data can be compared with those that an elector provided on registration. That is how the system will operate, and in the light of those remarks I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I shall reply briefly to this short debate, in which we have dealt with absent votes. The Minister has gone round the same course as in Committee, and we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to the issue that I raised in an intervention. The behaviour of parties that want to abuse the process will change when they realise that to avoid automated checking—the position that the Minister wants to reach—they need to supply the information on a large scale on forms other than those issued by the chief electoral officer.

The Minister is entitled to say that, so far, there has been no suggestion that people will not use the forms, or copies of the forms, produced by the chief electoral officer. Plainly, that is all right at the moment because it is convenient. However, rather than make their own forms, parties that want to abuse the process will give 10,000 applications to the chief electoral officer at the last possible moment, so that he is totally overwhelmed and unable to check them because it has to be done manually. The moment the system is computerised, the way to stop computer-checking will be to ensure that the information is presented on a non-standard form. That opportunity exists, and the House should prevent that loophole from being exploited by parties that might be determined to do so.

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

Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a question not of identifying the form, per se, but of determining that the form has been returned by the applicant. That will be based on the signature and the date of birth identifiers—and, we hope, on the national insurance identification in future—not on the actual piece of paper, so individual application forms need not be bar coded.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I think that we agree, but the form must be standard if the signature is to appear in the right place to be read by the computer and then to be cross-referenced to the information on the signature that is held on the register, so that people can check that they are the same. I presume that the same is true for the date of birth, as well as for the name. I imagine that it would be impossible for the computer to read that information if it did not appear in a standard place.

The Minister has said that a simple keying process would deal with that problem, but manual keying processes should be avoided as far as possible, given that 10,000 application forms may have to be checked at the last moment. The Minister will want to consider the issue further. He has had a fairly rough evening so far and I rely on him to reconsider the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill has remained largely unchanged since its introduction. [Interruption.] For the edification of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I was merely stating a fact. The Bill will give effect to the proposals in the White Paper "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland", and will provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud.

In recent years, there has been growing concern about the perceived level of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. Electoral fraud is a crime and the Government are determined to combat it wherever it occurs.

The Bill represents a broadly acceptable, workable and fair set of proposals to combat electoral fraud. It is the culmination of a great deal of work by, and extensive consultation with, the Northern Ireland political parties and the chief electoral officer.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for his work on this issue in his time at the Northern Ireland Office. I also pay tribute to all my former colleagues on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Its report made an important contribution to the thinking behind the Bill, as did the work of other bodies such as the Northern Ireland Forum. However, it should not be a criticism of the Bill that it does not implement all the Select Committee's recommendations.

The Bill is the result of extensive consultation. When taking measures to prevent electoral fraud, we have to ensure that we do not put obstacles in the path of genuine voters. Only if we do that will the measures that we take be acceptable to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland.

As I said earlier, the Bill's purpose is to provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud there. In the debate on Second Reading, in meetings with political parties before the Committee Stage and in Committee itself, I have continued to listen carefully to all proposals and suggestions that have been made to me and that hon. Members have argued will improve this Bill.

I thank colleagues for the hard work that they put into tabling amendments and for the robust and civilised debates that we have had on a wide range of topics. I know that colleagues are as keen as I am to tackle successfully the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.

We amended the provisions relating to absent voting. Originally, the Bill stated that applications to vote by post or by proxy must be signed and that the signature on the application must correspond with the signature provided to the chief electoral officer on registration. Now an application for a postal or proxy vote for either an indefinite period or for a particular parliamentary election will have to include an elector's signature and date of birth. Both will have to correspond with the signature and date of birth supplied by the elector on registration. Similarly, a postal ballot paper will have to be signed and an elector will have to state his date of birth or that ballot paper will not be deemed to be duly returned.

I will continue to reflect on a number of points that hon. Members have made during the Bill's passage and I will consider carefully, with the chief electoral officer, whether those suggestions would help our efforts to combat fraud and improve the electoral system in Northern Ireland.

I have already indicated my willingness to explore other possible forms of photographic identification that may be used at the polling station. I hope that the Translink smart card, which will be issued to all those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland from April next year, will meet the security requirements that will enable me to add it to the list of specified documents.

I have written to the political parties in Northern Ireland to ask for their views on whether there might be value in including in the annual canvass form—or any other application to be included on the electoral register in Northern Ireland—a question asking an elector whether they were registered or intended to register at another address. I will continue to explore further ways in which data held by other organisations might be used to combat fraud.

We will consider all these issues, and others that are suggested to us, carefully and with an open mind. The Bill and other measures that have already been taken by the chief electoral officer respond to calls from within Northern Ireland itself and from parties across the political spectrum.

The Bill sends a clear signal to those people intent on committing electoral fraud that it is a crime that the Government are determined to combat. We have a duty to protect the electors of Northern Ireland's right to free and fair elections. The Bill does that by countering electoral abuse directly and at every stage of the electoral process. However, we will not prevent genuine voters from making their voices heard.

Tonight, I have heard people arguing that a strict timetable should be imposed for the implementation of certain features of this Bill, but I hope that they now see that such a measure would not necessarily assist the joint aim of interdicting electoral abuse while not preventing genuine voters from making their voices heard.

I am happy to reassure the House yet again that the measures in the Bill will be implemented as soon as is practicable, and our target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification will remain May 2003. However, we will take all the necessary steps to ensure that no one is disfranchised because of the proposals contained in the Bill.

In all our discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties, we have been constantly reminded of the need to proceed in a careful and considered manner. The Bill has maintained cross-party support thus far because it contains carefully thought-out, workable measures to address the specific problems in the Northern Ireland electoral process. It strikes the right balance between limiting the opportunity for abuse and putting obstacles in the path of genuine voters. I commend it to the House.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The Minister began by saying that the Bill had been largely unchanged since its introduction. That does not merit self-congratulation, let alone complacent self-congratulation; instead, it is of considerable concern to everyone inside and outside the House who cares about how this place works.

The Government have used their massive majority to override the combined suggestions based on the separate wisdom and experience of every other party in the House, including those from Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland parties rarely find a consensus, but they have this time, and the Government will not listen to them because they have a massive parliamentary majority and do not care. That is shameful. This is not an attractive episode or an edifying moment in Parliament. The phrase that the Minister used should weigh on his conscience.

I do not think that the Minister is personally responsible for the way in which the legislation has been treated. It is not a case of his being personally arrogant or obtuse; he merely reflects the culture and frame of mind into which the Government have fallen after more than four and a half years of taking for granted a massive parliamentary majority and using a regiment of spin doctors who believe that they can manipulate the press with impunity. They believe that they can close their minds to every other influence and insight that is available and that should be brought to bear in the formulation of legislation. It has not been a good evening for Parliament or the Minister. He was having to thrash around to find excuses for the position that he is forced to defend.

The first group of amendments dealt with the deadline for introducing photographic identification in Northern Ireland. A deadline is not a matter of principle or even substance; it is an administrative matter. However, the Minister was forced to concede that there were no administrative objections to having a deadline. He said that he had to consult before he could accept the proposal. As the Government consult only on matters of substance and principle, the consultation is immaterial to the acceptance of deadlines. He lost credibility by taking that line.

We also debated the declaration of multiple addresses when someone chooses to register at different addresses for the purposes of an election. The Minister got out of an awkward spot in Committee by promising to consult in time for the debate on Report, but he told us today that he did not have time to consult properly, so he has contradicted himself.

We also discussed using national insurance numbers to protect against electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. We were told that the Minister took a different view when he was a Back Bencher on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. Once again, he has contradicted himself. That is a serious state of affairs, especially for someone in public life and with accountable responsibilities. To manage to contradict oneself twice during the proceedings of the same Bill in the same evening is unfortunate. I can only feel sorry for him, but when he accepted the role of spokesman for a Government who act in such a fashion, he committed himself to suffering those humiliations. None of us feels the same degree of personal sympathy for him as we would for any other human being in similarly invidious circumstances.

Despite the fact that I sincerely mean everything that I have said so far, I want to end on a serious but positive note. It would be perverse of the Opposition to vote against Third Reading. If we can get a whole loaf of bread, we will take it, but we will accept half, three quarters or one quarter of a loaf if that is all we can get. We shall continue to battle here, in the other place and elsewhere, but for now we will accept the Bill as a positive contribution to the workings of democracy in Northern Ireland.

The Bill has appeared at a moment of high drama in the Province. Last week, we heard encouraging news of the first act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA. Although there is a constitutional crisis, we hope that it will be resolved this Friday—

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are discussing the Bill, not other matters. We cannot go wide of the Bill.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I was only touching briefly on the context in which the Bill will proceed to the other place and thereafter—in an improved form, we hope—on to the statute book.

Now is an opportune time to reflect on the way in which democracy works in Northern Ireland—its mechanisms and safeguards. We all hope that from the context that I briefly described will emerge a rosier future for democracy, and that people will have greater confidence in the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland and their ability to meet the aspirations of the electorate. Now is a good time to debate such a Bill as this.

It is obvious that among Northern Ireland's many problems is an unfortunate tradition of electoral abuse and fraud more prevalent than is usual elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland Members on both sides of the House have, with their characteristic frankness and honesty, accepted that fact. It lies with us to do something about it, and we are doing so. We are improving the system, albeit not as fully as we wanted to while the Bill was in the Commons. I believe that today we have made a contribution to improving the prospects for the people of the Province and their public life to which the whole House is strongly attached.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Bill deals with electoral fraud, so the objective should be to introduce measures to curb electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that fraud exists, nor about some of the ways in which it is perpetrated.

Toward the end of Committee stage, figures were given on the abnormally high—in relation to other constituencies—number of absent votes cast in certain constituencies in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt, too, that in those constituencies—I have in mind Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid–Ulster and West Tyrone—a significant proportion of the absent votes cast are fraudulent. It is likely that the fraudulent votes in those three constituencies are sufficient to account for the results, and that if we had honest voting and honest elections in Northern Ireland, fewer Sinn Fein Members would be returned to serve here—although, of course, they do not serve here.

I am sure that if there had been an honest election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Sinn Fein would not have won, and that the person who ought to be and is the true Member of Parliament for that constituency—my colleague Mr. Cooper, who fell victim to the fraud of Sinn Fein, which was assisted by the Democratic Unionist party's choosing to run a candidate in that constituency—would be here tonight.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) mentioned the election petition that was then outstanding in respect of that case. Of course, the matter could not be pursued because the case was sub judice. Since then, the election court has made its decision, and I want to share with the House just a few phrases that it used about the conduct of the election and of Sinn Fein in that constituency. The judge referred to "extremely reprehensible" incidents. He said that

"nothing can excuse the scenes of threatening intimidation which took place . . . Such behaviour"—

meaning that of Sinn Fein—

"is the negation of a parliamentary democracy."

He then referred to the disturbance in St. Martin's school, Garrison, a polling station where votes were cast well after 10 o'clock. The court said that the disturbance was

"serious and intolerable, but it was an isolated incident".

That last phrase was accurate in terms of the evidence given to the court, but it is not true. It was not an isolated incident.

After the election petition was lodged within 21 days, as it had to be, in the first week of August, there was reliable and credible information that voting had continued at the polling station at St. Joseph's primary school, Ederney, for a period of approximately 10 minutes and that one of the police personnel present was prepared to appear in court and confirm it. However, because that information was not available earlier, it could not be included in the election petition, and consequently it could not be presented to the court. There is every reason to believe that if that evidence had been given to the court, the result of the petition would have been different.

I referred to that incident to bring out two simple points. First, the rules about election petitions inhibit the giving of evidence. Evidence could not be given in that case because the rules were unduly restrictive. Secondly, and more importantly, the information that became available after the petition was made should have been available beforehand; it was known to the electoral office, but was not conveyed to anyone. We are considering a Bill on electoral fraud that tries to strengthen the law. The primary responsibility of the electoral office in Northern Ireland ought to be to ensure that the system operates properly and fairly but, disturbingly, when we tried to deal with clear misconduct in the election, our experience was that it was not concerned with bringing out the truth or exposing wrongdoing. It was more concerned with trying to show that everything had been okay and that nothing had really happened. Indeed, its attitude was one of trying to cover up the bad behaviour of Sinn Fein and breaches of electoral law.

Will the Minister reflect on that? If he likes, we can give him more detail about what happened. Will he consider carefully what measures can be introduced in the Bill to ensure that the electoral office carries out its duties properly and sees its first duty as ensuring that the law is observed? If that means ensuring that information is put into the public domain that assists the making of a petition, the office should do so and not try to cover up matters, which was the approach taken in this case.

There is an opportunity in another place to strengthen the Bill further. The Minister congratulated himself on the minimal changes that have been made, but he should try to consult the parties properly, listen to what we have to say and introduce proposals that ensure that electoral law is observed properly and that we get honest results. That would be a significant achievement, and the Minister could then congratulate himself.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As I said at the beginning of the Committee stage, in my many years as Liberal Democrat Northern Ireland spokesperson, I have seen Ministers come and go, each more brilliant than the last. Looking at the Minister, I can honestly say that I see a very nice man. Frustratingly, however, he does not listen. As other Members have said, I heard him congratulate himself on the fact that the Bill has changed very little; that made me think of an iron fist in a velvet glove, frightening Labour Back Benchers into supporting things which, if they had reflected for a moment, they would not have supported.

In the Chamber, the majorities in votes on this matter have been large, but in Committee, many Divisions were nine votes against eight. In terms of political parties, the Minister was losing votes by five parties to one on many of the arguments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the point that cross-community support has been garnered for many ideas which the Government have rejected. As a consequence, the Bill will not be as good as it could have been with the benefit of that input.

With regard to national insurance numbers, the Minister once again failed to justify his refusal to adopt the proposals made by so many people and so many parties. We had a debate on bar codes, then he had the audacity to say that we should now see that our proposals were unhelpful, but his arguments were not particularly robust. On time scale, his desire for flexibility made him inflexible in dealing with our proposals. Any business would set a time scale and regard that as a proactive gesture that would focus the team to achieve the launch date that had been outlined.

I have learned a great deal in the debate. I have learned that although she challenged me on whether I know my national insurance number, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) knows hers by heart. I hope that the shame that she must now feel will cause her to encourage the Minister to think again. I have learned that our winning some of the arguments was insufficient to cause the Minister to think again. That is a matter of concern. I have also learned that there is cross-party support for the essence of the Bill. On occasions, that cross-party support, at least on the Floor of this House, has not been sufficient to convince the Minister to think again.

On balance, the Bill is good, but it could be even better. On balance, the Bill will have an impact, but not the full impact that it could have had with those further proposals. There is work to be done in another place, and no doubt the Government will be challenged on some of the familiar territory that we covered in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I congratulate the Minister on his ever-patient and ever-pleasant demeanour. In the words of Arnie Schwarzenegger, "We'll be back."

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

This is an important Bill to eradicate the scourge that has persisted for many years in the democratic system in Northern Ireland. It could have gone a wee bit further, but it is difficult to achieve a compromise between securing the integrity of the voter and not preventing legitimate voters from exercising their right. We will revisit many of these matters.

I do not agree with the Minister's comment at the start that no change has been made during the passage of the Bill. There may be no change in the wording of the Bill, but the Official Report of the Committee and the debate tonight is riddled with promises and undertakings, which the Minister will have to live up to, after he persuaded us to withdraw our amendments. We will hold him to that.

I offer the Minister, his predecessor and their current and past staff a great deal of thanks for the many, many hours of consultation that they gave us and other parties. However, the Minister did not take on board the fact that we and other parties in Northern Ireland had a unity of purpose and a unity of mind that were unique. He should have grasped the historic moment when it was available to him.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

This has been an important debate on an important Bill. I am only sorry that despite the many promises that were made by the Government and the previous Government to bring the matter to the Floor of the House sooner, and the consultation that was carried out, we have had to wait until now for the Bill to appear. We may need such legislation much sooner than envisaged in view of some of comments about the Assembly elections that are due in May 2003. Many people in Northern Ireland would welcome that prospect.

It is important that as well as new legislation to strengthen provisions against fraud, the necessary resources are made available to the chief electoral officer. We may have new provisions, but if we do not have the resources to implement them, we will be no better off. Lack of resources for the chief electoral officer has been one of the problems in tackling electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. One of the things that has struck me—

It being 10 o'clock, Mr. Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [10 July].

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time, and passed.