Orders of the Day — Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 24 February 2005.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

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

I will begin by setting out what this short Bill does and then explain its context and why its introduction is necessary at this time. It gives the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland the power to re-register former electors on to the Northern Ireland electoral register by 1 April 2005. Former electors are individuals who appeared on the register published on 1 September 2004, but who failed to return that year's annual canvass or failed to complete it accurately, so did not appear on the register published on 1 December 2004.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Minister for taking such an early intervention. The whole purpose of the electoral fraud legislation passed by this House in 2002 was to put in place additional identifiers to stamp out the serious problem of electoral fraud. What is the point of putting back on to the register electors who failed to comply with the requirement to provide the proper identifiers?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

People who were previously properly recorded on the electoral register will have been through that verification process. They were on the register running from 2003 to 2004 precisely because they had filled in the forms properly and had been checked. In 2004, they either did not return the forms, for which there are many possible reasons, or they did not fill them in accurately, but those individuals had already been checked. So we are not changing the procedure for properly identifying individuals or the procedures for verifying voters at polling stations. I shall return to that matter.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister is being most generous in giving way again. If an elector has changed address, how will the chief electoral officer check the accuracy of the identifiers?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

In cases where the officer does not believe that the elector has moved or that someone else resides at the address in question, he already has the identifiers for those voters. He already has their national insurance numbers and dates of birth, which is why they are included on the existing register. The difficulty that we face—it is reinforced by today's report on electoral registration—is that whereas one might have anticipated a one-step drop in the electoral register as a result of its being cleaned up and of the changes introduced in previous legislation, in fact there is year-on-year decline. That is why there has been considerable and widespread cross-community concern that although the register is now highly accurate, because everyone who is on it is supposed to be on it, it is definitely becoming less comprehensive because not everyone who should be on it is. I will identify some of the differential effects shortly.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Does my right hon. Friend agree—he has just touched on this issue—that the previous legislation was intended to prevent fraud, rather than to deter people from taking part in a proper democratic process?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

As I have said, there are many measures that prevent register and voting fraud. For the latter, photo identity is an example, and we rightly propose to make no change in that regard.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Can the Minister explain the effect of this restoration? He said that the UK average for persons eligible to be on the register was 93 per cent. and that the figure for Northern Ireland is now 85 per cent. What will that percentage be, assuming that the Bill is passed today?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The Bill will certainly improve it—by approximately 81,000 electors—but we should allow for the fact that every week that figure is reduced. For example, the registrar produces a weekly report on the deaths that have occurred and by other means it might become clear to the registrar that certain people have moved. Of course, there might also be a new registration at a different address.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). The Minister referred to registration figures of 93 per cent. for Great Britain and of 85 per cent. for Northern Ireland. Although we will eventually have an effective register of citizens as a consequence of the identity card legislation—that is one of the advantages of that legislation—we do not currently have one, so how can the Minister be sure that those figures are accurate?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We work on the most reliable census figures, but there will be a degree of inaccuracy in them, as some of the challenges to the census have made clear to us. However, the census figures for both jurisdictions make it clear that a considerably lower percentage of those recorded in the census are registered as electors in Northern Ireland than are registered in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill will increase the registration figure to more than 90 per cent., but we do not regard this as the long-term answer. It is an interim measure to enable us to have a more comprehensive register while we look at the whole question of electoral registration.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is right, in that an identity card register might completely change the way in which an electoral register is drawn up. In some continental countries, for example, the register is entirely drawn from the residential register because, whether or not one is a citizen in those jurisdictions, it is a requirement, on moving, to register with the local authority. In Holland, that information is gathered together into one national register, which is also used for vehicle licensing and other purposes.

Those are some of the broader issues, but today we are dealing with an interim measure to deal with a recognised problem before May this year.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

rose—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman, after his earlier intervention in which he objected to harmonising arrangements between the United Kingdom—I mean Great Britain—and Northern Ireland.

David Burnside (UUP, South Antrim)

The Minister's Freudian slip speaks for itself.

Does the Minister accept that lower registration in Northern Ireland stems from the general disillusionment of the citizens of Northern Ireland? We have more elections than any other part of the United Kingdom. Over the last 20 or 30 years, we have constantly had elections, but the democratic mandate—as in the Assembly elections at the end of last year, for example—is not reflected in concrete governmental terms. There is no reaction on the ground. We can elect an Assembly, but it does not operate; we elect local government, but it has very few powers. There is a general disillusionment with political society in Northern Ireland because of the lack of powers to govern the Province and affect its future.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That argument may imply that people decide not to participate in elections by not voting. We want to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote has the ability to participate when election day comes and is not prevented from doing so because of non-appearance on the register. Incidentally, what we are proposing is not unusual in a number of countries. In Australia, which has slightly later registration once an election has been announced, about 500,000 electors apply within a few weeks to be on the register. It is indefensible in democratic terms not to ensure that we have the most comprehensive register possible. The Bill is designed to achieve that.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

While the Minister is considering the need to get 81,000 people on the list, will he answer a question that is on many people's minds? Is it not the case that some of those 81,000 may never have existed in the first place and may be bogus voters? The Minister may have a good answer to that question, which I have been asked many times. It would be helpful to have his answer on the record.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That argument could have been made about previous electoral registers, but as a result of the 2002 legislation, there was a major clean-up of the register. Subsequently, all those registered were checked in respect of their personal identifiers, so they have already been verified as individuals on the register. Some of the concerns previously expressed are no longer relevant because the safeguards on voting are stronger. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has tabled an amendment that we can debate later. I hope to be able to allay some of the concerns about postal or proxy voting, but the great majority of votes are cast at a polling station and I have pointed out the safeguards that apply in those circumstances, which I hope reassures hon. Members.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Would it not be difficult for a person who did not exist to secure a photo identity card?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We are perhaps now touching on some of the broader areas of theology.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

While the Minister is in the mood for allaying fears, I want to put another concern to him and I am sure that he will provide a good answer. Could any of the 81,000 electors being carried forward include any who had died in the meantime? That question has been put to me and it would be helpful to have the Minister's answer on the record.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I thought that I had answered that earlier. The carry-over arrangements for the electoral register include the mechanism for the registrar to be notified on a weekly basis of any deaths registered during that period. The list will therefore be cleaned up regularly. That concern applies to the current register in any case, not just to the carry-over register. The same procedures apply in each case. It reminds me of the anecdote about a little Mexican boy crying on the street in south Texas. Asked why he is crying, he says that he is upset because his father did not come to see him. When told, "Your father has been dead for seven years", he replies: "I know, but on Saturday he was in town and voted for Lyndon Johnson, yet he never came to see me". That would no longer be a problem because of the regular clean-up of the register. As I said, it applies to both parts of the register.

It would be as well if I made some progress—

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister is gracious in taking so many interventions, which I greatly appreciate. On the question whether any of the 81,000 names go back on the register, will he clarify one particular issue? When the properly registered electors were first included on the register, it was in connection with a particular address. That is part of the identification scheme. If, in the interim, someone moves and subsequently dies at the new address, how can the Minister guarantee that no voting papers will be issued to the original address at which the elector, sadly, no longer resides?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The answer is simply because of the national insurance number identifier. Cross-matches are regularly undertaken. I am a little cautious, because I cannot quite remember whether we have actually carried out the first cross-checks—or are about to do so—between the national insurance register and the electoral register. In any case, that is the clean-up mechanism and there are a range of such mechanisms in place. I return to the point that anyone who wants to vote will have to secure a photo identity card. As the hon. Lady knows, a driving licence or pensioner's bus pass can be used. I stress that these cross-checks do not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom, but I believe that they provide, for Northern Ireland, a considerable degree of assurance as to the integrity of the register and the electoral process.

I want to make some progress, though many of the issues have already been covered in my responses to interventions. The Bill also gives the chief electoral officer the power to carry forward the names of electors who fail to complete the annual canvass form in 2005 on to the register published on 1 December 2005. The provision expires after one year, but may be renewed for a further year by order of the Secretary of State.

On the restoration to the electoral register of names previously removed, clause 1 gives the chief electoral officer the power to put back on the electoral register those electors who were on the register on 15 October 2004 but did not re-register during the autumn canvass in 2004. That takes effect on 1 April 2005. If the chief electoral officer has information suggesting that the former elector has ceased to be resident at the relevant address or that the registration conditions set out in previous legislation—the Representation of the People Act 1983—no longer apply, the chief electoral officer cannot exercise his power in relation to a former elector.

I have already stressed that the personal identifiers that the former electors gave when they originally registered will be kept when they are restored to the register. To respond to another question put to me, an elector's previously expressed preference as to whether they wanted their name to be on the full or the edited version of the register will still be binding.

Clauses 2 and 3 modify the 1983 Act to ensure that the chief electoral officer can retain names on the register after an annual canvass until the publication of the updated register after the next annual canvass. The power does not apply to former electors added to the register under clause 1. An elector's name can be carried over only for 12 months—that is important—and, unless they re-register, they will be removed from the register. It is a one-off exercise for an elector, even in the event of that one renewal by the Secretary of State. That applies only to those whom the chief electoral officer has no reason to believe are no longer at the address given. That power will automatically lapse unless specifically extended by the Secretary of State for a maximum period of one year.

I shall briefly give the background because it is important to put it on the record. In Great Britain, the Representation of the People Act 1983 allows the name of an elector to remain on the register after a canvass until the registration officer determines that they are not entitled to so remain. That is referred to as the carry-forward. In Northern Ireland, names must be removed if no form is submitted or if the form submitted does not include all the information required.

The effect is to prevent a carry-forward of names from year to year unless the chief electoral officer receives a properly completed form. That was introduced by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The measures introduced in 2002 have been successful in reducing fraud and increasing the accuracy of the register, but an unfortunate consequence has been that, although there was a one-off fall in the register as we anticipated, there has also been a consistent fall in the number registered year on year. We believe—the belief is widely held in Northern Ireland—that that risks damaging the integrity of the register due to a lack of comprehensiveness.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister said, correctly, that the introduction of the 2002 Act was expected to result in an initial reduction as it cleaned out false registrations and phantom voters. However, as he also said, there has been a subsequent fall. I may be anticipating what he is about to say, but I hope that he will consider the reasons for that subsequent fall and what the continuing fall is. That would be worth while because the Bill is a one-off measure; we must look to the future and consider how to ensure that people register. We know the cause of the one-off drop, but what is the cause of the continuing drop?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

There are multiple causes, many of which are common to democratic societies. They include increasing social mobility, lower registration by younger people, people becoming more averse to filling in endless forms and so on. All those factors are comprehensible and can be addressed. We must consider a range of measures and we are looking at methods in other countries, such as cross-referencing to driving licences, social security and national insurance records, notification of change of address to the Post Office and other utilities, the sale of houses and new registration of house ownership, housing association properties and so on. Many of those refer to a previous point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about an identity register. However, in the absence of those procedures, we must address the problems. They are not unique to the United Kingdom or to Northern Ireland, but we must consider how to tackle them.

In the meantime, we have the immediate problem of a substantial shortfall—that is generally agreed—between the number of people who are eligible to be registered and the number who are registered. No one would argue that it is undesirable to have the maximum possible registration and no one would argue for attempts, as we have seen in some other jurisdictions, artificially to depress the register by administrative means. That would be unacceptable to all democratically minded people and I know that that argument would not be made today. Therefore, we must consider how to ensure the most comprehensive register possible. We need to consider longer term measures, which I intend to explore with the political parties during the next few months. In the meantime, we must take action—we have received representations from across the community for that—to deal with the particular problem facing us now.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister has said several times that this is a one-off problem, but that the Government must address the ongoing problem. Will there be any research into the 80,000-plus voters who will be restored to the register as a result of the Bill? For example, many people believe that younger voters are predominant among the 80,000. Will there be any research to ensure that the younger age group of voters will be targeted to ensure maximum electoral registration and maximum turnout at elections?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Yes, indeed. We have commissioned work from the Electoral Commission to discover the reasons for the continuing fall and the shortfall. We are also undertaking our own work to consider how other jurisdictions ensure the most comprehensive register possible.

The main Northern Ireland parties have been lobbying Ministers hard to introduce measures to alleviate the falling numbers on the register. There is general concern, particularly about the shortfall among younger people, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said. Therefore, we have decided to re-introduce the carry-forward temporarily until we can put in place new registration arrangements for Northern Ireland in the longer term.

The Bill is important because the electoral register should be accurate and comprehensive. Putting an additional 83,000 electors back on to the register will strengthen the democratic process in Northern Ireland, particularly with important local elections due in May.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I hope that the Minister can respond to a matter that he has not yet touched on. He referred to the desirability of having as many people as possible on the register. It is also desirable to have the register available to people, particularly with the prospect of at least one election. Those involved in political activity need to have the register available as soon as possible. The Bill does not take effect until 1 April. Will a new register be published on 1 April, or is that being too optimistic?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That touches on an amendment that has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats and I shall address the matter when we come to that amendment. We recognise the desire for the comprehensive register to be available as soon as possible and, if it is administratively feasible, I hope that it will be produced before 1 April for that reason. We are considering the possibility of doing that because I recognise the need for political parties to be able to access the electorate as early as possible. I shall deal with the matter in greater detail when we come to the amendment.

I appreciate some of the concerns that were raised during the debate on the programme motion about fast-tracking the Bill and cutting down some of the time available for debate. There has been adequate discussion and consultation since November and we need to implement the Bill because those electors must be able to vote in the forthcoming local elections.

I thank hon. Members for their constructive comments and look forward to responding to any detailed matters that are raised. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The Opposition accept that the Bill has been introduced to try to remedy a real problem. It was made clear during exchanges in response to interventions from Unionist Members that everyone expected the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to lead to a fall in the number of registered electors in the Province. It certainly did that, because about 120,000 electors, amounting some 10 per cent. of the entire register, were removed. What was not expected was that that would be followed by a year-on-year decline in the number of people registered to vote.

The Minister has given the Government's assessment that only about 85 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland are now registered to vote compared with about 93 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. Not only the Government but the Electoral Commission and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland have expressed concern about that state of affairs. In its report on the operation of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) 2002 Act, the commission explicitly pointed to the abolition of the ability to allow names to be carried forward for one year as probably the chief reason for the continuing fall in the number of registered electors.

One has to ask, as others have done already in the debate, why those people have not registered. I suppose that for some it was a matter of deliberate choice. For others it was probably, if we are honest, sheer laziness, or due to the mislaying of a form. I am obviously speculating here, but I suspect that the chief reason is that there are plenty of people who are not terribly interested in politics and for whom the task of re-registering annually is one of those things that they do not regard as a particularly high priority.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that one of the significant reasons why people do not register every year is that there is an education problem here. The Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer need to advertise more clearly especially to older voters who enjoy voting and vote regularly that a change has taken place and they are now expected to register every year. That is the main problem.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The hon. Lady makes a perfectly fair point. When I consulted my own party organisation about our approach to this Bill, a comment was made to me by a senior agent that people in Northern Ireland might well have expected that, having once registered with the unique identifier, they had done the job for good and all, and that they would not have to repeat the process annually.

So we have to decide today whether we can make it easier for people who are genuinely entitled to vote to remain on the register without compromising the safeguards against fraud that were built into the 2002 Act. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer in due course. Some of the points that I intended to make have already been covered, so I will not labour them at length. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) referred to how deaths influence the composition of the register. The Minister gave us an answer that provided some reassurance that the chief registration officer notifies the chief electoral officer every week of those people in Northern Ireland who have died and provides lists of their unique numbers. I hope that the Minister can confirm exactly the procedure that is followed. It seems a vital safeguard.

Can the Minister be absolutely confident of the reliability of the data set of national insurance numbers? We hear from time to time in the House and in the media about the alleged widespread use of false national insurance numbers and of people who appropriate the national insurance numbers of citizens who have died. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that he can be confident that there is no gap in the anti-fraud regime as a consequence of that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

May I ask the Minister through my hon. Friend what alternatives to national insurance numbers were canvassed? My hon. Friend is right to say that worries about accuracy have been raised on occasions in the House. We carry all kinds of other things. National health numbers are an example, but there are many others. How were any alternatives judged to be inferior to national insurance numbers? What test has been made of that? There is a widespread worry in the House about the impermanence of all this and whether we are proceeding without having done that kind of homework. The Minister may be able to assure us that he has done it, but I would like to ask him through my hon. Friend whether he has.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I am sure that the Minister will have taken note of my hon. Friend's comments and that he will respond later.

I move on to questions about people who have changed their address since their original registration. Clause 1(c) makes it unlawful for somebody to be re-registered if the chief electoral officer has information to suggest that that person is no longer resident at the address at which he was previously lawfully registered. What in practice does that safeguard mean? Does the chief electoral officer have the wherewithal to carry out checks on change of residence, or is all we are saying in the Bill that somebody who notifies the officer of a change in address will have his or her electoral registration duly altered? Are there other sources of information to which the chief electoral officer has access that would provide safeguards against the impersonation of somebody who had moved house and as a consequence had not registered at their previous address and had chosen, for whatever reason, not to register at their new address?

I have a particular concern about younger voters. Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), I have seen figures that suggest that fewer than a quarter of 17 and 18-year-olds in Northern Ireland are registered to vote. We know that in general young people in their late teens and 20s are likely to be mobile; they may well change address relatively often. So re-registration as proposed in the Bill could put back on the register many people who have moved house but who have not bothered to tell the electoral authorities. If we consider that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, how likely is it that a paramilitary organisation linked to a political party could work out that at a particular address in Belfast or Londonderry a number of young electors had properly registered in the first instance, subsequently moved away and re-registered under the terms of the new legislation? In such circumstances, will there not be an opportunity for such an organisation to make applications for postal or proxy votes on behalf of those people who have moved away from their original registration address? I know that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) hopes to speak about that issue in later stages of the consideration of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to come forward with some persuasive reassurances at that stage, if not in response to the Second Reading debate. This is one of the most troublesome aspects of the Bill.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about how the votes could be misused. Is it also possible that one of the problems of younger voters dropping off the register is that registration takes place around August or September when some of them are moving away from home to university or other education establishments? In the past, their mother or father would put their name on the register, but no longer is that being done. Is there not a role for education there as well? It seems to me that once students are away sometimes they are forgotten about.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point.

Finally, may I put it to the Minister that there may be a risk of intimidation? I simply ask the question: is it possible that some people have failed to re-register not through idleness but in order to make it impossible for them to be intimidated into voting for a particular candidate in an election in Northern Ireland? It seems to me that if one's name is on the register in Northern Ireland, one knows that the parties linked to the paramilitaries will—admittedly after the election—in due course have access to a marked register showing which electors have voted and which have not; and that knowledge on the part of the individual elector may make him or her more susceptible to intimidation by those paramilitaries into turning out, into casting a vote and into casting a vote in a particular direction. From the elector's point of view, to follow my hypothesis through, the only way to avoid any risk of that happening would be to decide not to go on the register at all. So is there a risk that in bringing this measure forward we shall actually make it easier in some circumstances for paramilitary groups to intimidate people who are very scared and have chosen not to register to vote in order to avoid being put in that predicament?

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that members of the security forces, particularly police officers and those serving with the Royal Irish Regiment, have been advised at times—I am talking about security advice—to remove their names from the electoral register because of the threat of being identified through that mechanism and having their homes targeted? Does he share my concern that they may find themselves back on the electoral register again, and could be identified in the same manner as he has just outlined in terms of others who, for different reasons, would be concerned about intimidation?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly legitimate point. Of course there are a number of electors in Great Britain as well who, for similar reasons, choose to withhold their address details from the published electoral register, and the hon. Gentleman has raised a further point that I hope the Minister will address, and certainly about which I trust that the Government have done some thinking and provided some answers.

In conclusion, this legislation is all about trying to get the balance right. It is clearly wrong for there to be some tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are qualified to vote but who, as a result of inattention or a lack of publicity or for some other reason, will not be able to exercise the most fundamental of rights in a democracy. On the other hand, can we, through this Bill, provide a mechanism to redress that wrong without risking the framework of safeguards against fraud, impersonation and intimidation that the House enacted back in 2002?

I shall await with interest the Minister's responses to the questions that not just I but other Members of all Opposition parties have posed.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister will know that of late I have been increasingly unhappy with the lack of consultation regarding various aspects of legislation and initiatives taken by Northern Ireland Office Ministers in regard to the peace process and other matters. I am glad to say, and I give credit to the Minister and his colleagues for this, that the situation seems to be improving, and I am grateful for the proactive approach that the Government seem now to be taking in regard to consultation and inclusion of all parties in pre-legislative discussions of matters such as this one. It has been very helpful to hear and see the Government's perspective on the need for the Bill in advance of today's debate.

It is also clear that we are not discussing the occasional omission or error that appears on electoral registers. We have all seen or heard of examples where somebody's pet or six-month-old child has turned up on the register, but we are now talking about the massive level of electoral fraud that bedevilled politics in Northern Ireland for a very long time, and to that extent it is salient and appropriate that this matter is being discussed in the run-up to the May elections—although, for the reasons that we discussed earlier and which I need not repeat, it does seem a little curious that the Government have left it so close to the last minute to do so.

I remain slightly sceptical, however, and indeed a little uneasy, about the contents of the Bill, and that is because we supported the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and we are concerned that the Bill might to an extent dilute it. It was obviously sensible to tackle the huge problem of electoral fraud faced particularly by Northern Ireland, where democracy was really being undermined and where in some cases the outcome of elections may have been affected or compromised by fraud. Indeed, it was the Liberal Democrats, together with the other Opposition parties, who proposed the use of national insurance numbers as an additional personal identifier for electors when registering.

Interestingly, in April 2004 the Electoral Commission published a report on the operation of the Assembly election of November 2003. Paragraph 5.63 of the report stated:

"The findings illustrate that suspicions of electoral fraud among presiding officers had reduced dramatically. This view was endorsed by a number of parties and candidates who felt the election was fair and free. One political party said they believed the election held in November 2003 was probably the 'cleanest and fairest' ever held in"

the north of Ireland. The Police Service of Northern Ireland

"confirmed that they had received no reports of attempted personation at any of the polling stations during election day. This was in direct contrast to previous elections when a small number of incidents of personation were reported directly to the police."

So it does seem that the 2002 legislation is working.

I have, however, a concern that the methodology designed to include the 83,000 or 81,000 people whom we have discussed might actually dilute the efficacy of the original legislation. The Minister indicated that there was a problem in a written statement published in Hansard on 30 November 2004. During the annual canvass last autumn, officers of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland had been, and were, calling at electors' houses to deliver and collect registration forms. Electors were written to and encouraged to fill in those forms, and still we ended up with a deficit of 83,000 people at that time.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

I accept a lot of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he accept that there might equally be a problem on the other side? There is a distinct possibility that at the next election some people who think they are still on the register will turn up at the polling station, discover that they cannot vote and then perhaps feel that a fraud has been committed against them.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

That is an interesting point and a fair one, and I fear that such things happen in every election in England, Wales and Scotland as well as in the north of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is right, but I am not entirely convinced that the move that we are taking today will necessarily alleviate that problem. In response to what the hon. Gentleman says, I would ask the Minister, in his summation, to share his perspective on whether he thinks there will be a significant problem at the next elections in the Province of people who think they are registered but turn out not to be.

It must also be said that there has been an intensive communication process with the citizens of Northern Ireland to encourage them to fill in their forms, and still we have ended up with 80,000 or so people who have not. I am still not clear in my mind why the Government think that this has occurred. It has been mooted to us by officials that perhaps there is just a lot of apathy about, but I am wondering what the chief electoral officer has actually done between the end of the annual canvass and today to establish why there has been a drop in registration. I suggest to the Minister that it would be helpful to have a definitive analysis of the cause. He also spoke about percentages and, although he may not be able to give us the statistic now, I should be grateful to know the figure for the number of people that it is estimated are not registered to vote in England, Wales and Scotland, because that comparison would probably be rather important. I suggest that there probably comes a ceiling beyond which it is extremely difficult to get people to register.

On the legislation itself, electors can still register through the existing process for inclusion in the April register. Since—to use a phrase that has been used before—the dogs in the street now know that the general election is likely to take place on 5 May, there is a particular incentive to do so. Under the rolling registration process, I understand that the last date to register is 10 March. I wonder whether, since the Minister made a statement in November, the officers from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland have made significant attempts personally to contact the 80,000 or so people who will be affected by the legislation. I accept that that is a very large number, but personal contact may be the single most effective way to overcome the problem. Has anyone attempted to explain to those people that, unless they fill out an electoral registration form, they will not be able to vote? To some extent, that responds to the intervention from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) a few minutes ago.

Surely it is much better to ensure that electors are registered properly in accordance with the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, rather than through the measures proposed in the Bill. That leads me to my concern: we are setting a precedent that might be rather difficult to get out of in the future. We can discuss the danger of having to re-enact this kind of last minute legislation when we debate the amendments. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will not use today's debate as a precedent for future debates and say, "Well, back in February 2005, we made this exemption, so it's okay to do it again," because, as far as I am concerned, it is not. This is a one-off occasion when we will rather unhappily pass an exemption that should not be repeated.

A very interesting point was made earlier about the possibility that students will be excluded because, unlike in the past, their parents will not be able to put their names on the register. I am particularly concerned about that, because students are obviously smart and we know that smart people tend to vote for the Alliance party of Northern Ireland. So my sister party stands to lose more than anybody else if students are not on the register. I seek the Minister's perspective on what we can do to ensure that those students do not fall through the net. I feel, therefore, that the Government have not really fully explored some of the alternative measures to those proposed in the Bill. We seek to make some modifications with the amendments that we will be discussing shortly.

Finally, in some correspondence relating directly to the legislation, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has written to me and my colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party asking us to reconsider our sceptical stance on the Bill. In fact, he said:

"in the interests of democracy, it is important that the Northern Ireland register is both accurate and comprehensive. I firmly believe that this Bill will help us to achieve that objective."

The Secretary of State and the Minister are more persuaded of the need for that than the Liberal Democrats; nevertheless, on the basis of the Minister's speech and his helpful responses to a number of interventions, the Liberal Democrats will agree to support the Bill today.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I start by commending what was done by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in terms of their approach to the Bill, which has resulted in the Bill before us being somewhat different from the Bill that we might have had originally. I will come back to that, because there are some really important points there.

As has been said, we are operating in a context created by the electoral reform legislation. We regard that legislation as hugely important. There is no doubt but that Northern Ireland elections over the years have been attended by certain local customs, although I have to say that those customs are not unique to Northern Ireland. The extent of electoral abuse that existed in the past in Northern Ireland exists in some localities in Great Britain today, and indeed will be hugely increased by some of the Government's other proposals.

The Minister may be aware of the very considerable concern about recent elections and referendums that exists in some areas in England, where there is increasing evidence of massive abuse through the novel practices that the Government have been introducing. That is not a matter for debate today, but it is so closely connected with this matter that the Government need to think. They have been doing—I hope that they continue to do—the right thing in Northern Ireland, but they are not doing the right thing, in electoral terms, elsewhere. I hope that the practices that operate with regard to Northern Ireland elections are replicated elsewhere in the United Kingdom to deal with the abuse that exists there.

I return to my central point that there were local customs in Northern Ireland, of which at one point, I suppose, there was a grudging acceptance in society. Indeed, in many respects, the practice of what was called personation operated as a sort of informal proxy voting—I may come back to this later. People sometimes took advantage of it. However, in recent years, because of the way in which it has been organised by certain paramilitary-related parties and because of the intimidation that accompanied their actions, there was very real concern that the abuse was getting out of hand in some respects and was becoming something completely one-sided. That had been a concern of ours for a long time. As the Minister knows, we have been pressing for reform on this matter and we were glad to see reform come in the shape of the electoral reform legislation. We think that it is hugely important.

The report quoted by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) expressed the opinion that the November 2003 election was probably the most honest that there had been in Northern Ireland. We share that view, and we are glad of that. We want to see elections that are honest and that have the greatest participation possible, which is why we approach the Bill with a slightly mixed mind. We are concerned that it might weaken the structure of the electoral reform legislation, but at the same time, we do not object in principle to putting people on the register. Indeed, we want to see people go on the register—but they must be people who are entitled to be there.

That brings me to the point that I touched on earlier in an intervention, which is that although we expected there to be a significant drop when the electoral reform legislation took effect, we thought that it would be a one-off. The continuing drop is a matter for concern. As a number of hon. Members said, it is something that ought to be looked into closely. Some work has already been done, but as was suggested in an intervention, it would be a very good idea for more to be done, and in particular, for an effort to be made to identify the 80,000-plus persons whose registration is about to be resumed, and to establish whether we can find out anything about their circumstances.

The Minister referred to some of the reasons why people may allow their names to lapse, or not put themselves on the register, but hon. Members have also touched on three matters already in their interventions. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to the fact—it is a fact—that many people associated with the security forces do not put their names on the register because they feel that by being on the register, they are making it easier for people to target them. That has been a factor. I do not think that it would be an increased factor at the moment. If anything, it might be a diminished factor, although, in the present uncertainty, who knows? But it certainly has been a factor in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to a significant factor when she spoke of the quality of the work done by the Electoral Commission, and whether enough was being done to draw people's attention to this fact, particularly with regard to old people. Again, I do not want to stray beyond the terms of the Bill, but we have grave concerns about the quality of the Electoral Commission's work, even on something as basic as why counts in Northern Ireland take so much longer than counts elsewhere. We all have to experience that irritation in Northern Ireland. I dare say that if there is something other than a local government election on 5 May, by the time the first results come out in Northern Ireland, everyone else in Great Britain will have gone home.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

You may hold the balance of power.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

There was a happy occasion when that happened. It caused some confusion on the mainland in February 1973—[Hon. Members: "1974."] I stand corrected. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) for assisting me.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Always happy.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

But never so felicitous.

Slow counts are one of the many factors that concern us about the work of the Electoral Commission. The Bill deals with the creation of the register and the maintenance of an accurate register. I do not want to be too negative about the Electoral Commission, but the Minister should see whether there are ways to improve the quality of its work, because that is undoubtedly a factor.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made a good point that may explain the low take-up of registration by young people. Previous research mentioned that fact, but did not explain it, other than assuming that young people are more apathetic than others.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

Surely one of the great problems is the number of students from Northern Ireland who are studying at university on the United Kingdom mainland who either were not on the original register or are now in their second or third year. Those who are diligent and deem themselves residents of Northern Ireland could be treated unfairly, but there is also the potential for abuse if they are not retuning as frequently to Northern Ireland as they once did. The problem is the grey area of what constitutes a "resident" in respect of Northern Ireland students who are on the mainland.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that the problem of young people registering may be affected by the large number of people from Northern Ireland who attend university in Great Britain. However, I wonder whether that proportion is any higher than the proportion of people from an English region who are attending universities out of their region, perhaps 50, 100 or 200 miles away. The proportion of Northern Irish students on the mainland may be no higher. The existence of a bit of water does not affect ease of travel.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

This is an important point. There is a cultural difference. People from the mainland are encouraged by the National Union of Students and their families to register, and it is not considered irregular to be registered both at university in, say, Durham, and at home in Surrey. However, I can understand the diligent and responsible citizen of Northern Ireland hesitating, almost nervously, in case he is doing something improper by registering in both places. It is the decent people who will be nervous, because the Electoral Commission has not spelt out with clarity the ground rules in Northern Ireland.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I would take further. The cultural difference is largely the result of people finding themselves operating in a different political environment when they move from Northern Ireland to GB. Why is that so? No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that it is because of the failure of the national political parties to be national parties. The fault lies to a large extent with the people who are not in the Chamber; I think we can cheerfully agree on that.

The serious point is that people who have moved from, for example, Surrey to attend Edinburgh university will be approached by those who are involved in political activity to ask them whether they want to register in Edinburgh or to participate in the election at home. People from Northern Ireland might not be approached and targeted in the same way because they are likely to cast their votes at home, to which those involved in politics in Edinburgh or wherever are not motivated to have regard. The problem is underlined by an important fact that is of a more general nature. Again, I do not want to stray too far from the point, but there are political implications for the so-called national parties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South mentioned timing. The months of August and September are not a good time for people to fill in the forms. That is true not only because young people are going to university, but because of the normal tempo and shape of family life. That should be taken on board.

We need to look at the causes. Until we know what they are and find a way to address them, we cannot be sure that the problem will not continue. The one-off drop in registrations when the 2002 Act came into force was followed by a continuing drop, in response to which the Minister has proposed a Bill that is almost of a one-off character. It will operate for 12 months, but if we do not address the underlying problem satisfactorily, then what? Once the Bill ceases to have effect and people are no longer restored or carried forward in the way provided for in the Bill, will the Minister or his successor introduce another one-off measure in three or four years' time? If that happens, will we not permanently change the scheme of electoral reform, and does that not put us in danger of undermining legislation? That is one of the crucial problems with the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that it would help if the Minister gave a categorical assurance that the Government will not use the Bill as a precedent for the future? The danger is that electors in Northern Ireland will think that there is no need to register early, because they can do it at the last minute.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The crucial issue is whether there will be a change of policy. Is this a one-off or are we setting a precedent? He asks the Minister to give an undertaking. I hope he does because if he fails to do so, the amicable nature of our proceedings might change.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that people in Northern Ireland are used to annual re-enactments of non-permanent legislation, and we do not want that to be repeated?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

When my hon. Friend said "annual re-enactments", another thing popped into my mind, but he then made it clear that he was talking about legislation and some of the unfortunate ways in which it is handled. I am happy to agree entirely with him.

The central point is whether we are maintaining the policy of the 2002 Act. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to the request by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. But even if such a positive response is given, if we do not address the underlying causes there is the danger that in two or three years another Minister will say that we must deal with the changes that have come about as a result of continuing falls. We must find some way of tackling the underlying cause and encouraging people to register. It is a trite point to make, but if politics in Northern Ireland were more successful, and more effectively addressed the whole range of people's interests rather than just constitutional and security matters, and if the whole range of economic issues and activities and parties were available to the people of Northern Ireland, we might see a great change. To that extent, it is important that the issues on which I am sure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and others would agree with me are progressed.

As the Minister knows, I intend to say something about the need for safeguards. That is a matter that we will discuss again, but it is appropriate to advert to it at this point. In response to interventions earlier, when hon. Members were worried about the Bill leading to people being on the register who should not be on it, the Minister referred to the identifiers as safeguards. Each time he spoke about safeguards, he returned to the photo ID as the key one—but people can gain access to insurance numbers, and signatures can be forged. The Minister's sheet-anchor in his response to earlier interventions was photographic ID.

I understand the point that the Minister makes, and the fact that we have such identifiers is hugely important. Without them, our approach to the principle of the Bill would not be the same, but photographic ID is relevant only for those who are physically present at the polling station. It is not relevant to proxy voting and absent voting. The abuse that was taking place on such a large scale by paramilitary-related parties involved proxy and absent voting in particular. It was no longer the old-fashioned impersonation by people who turned up at the polling station and then allegedly went to a caravan where they changed clothes, hats and what not, and came back to vote again, or the sort of circumstances that led Sinn Fein in Foyle to hold a competition, or at least award a prize, to the person who cast the largest number of votes in an election. I dare say the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who is a native of the maiden city, will tell us that on one occasion that prize was won by a person who was subsequently elected herself to a particular place—but that is another matter.

I was about to say that that was in the good old days, but I correct myself—that was in the old days. In modern times the abuse occurs through proxy voting and absent voting. That is why safeguards are hugely important. To take the point a little further, I said that in the past in Northern Ireland, personation was an informal form of proxy voting. To a certain extent an improperly cast vote is organised in families. We have spoken about the intimidation that may take place, but improper voting may be organised in families, which means that information about national insurance numbers, for example, and even about signatures, may be readily available to people who want to ensure that a vote is cast improperly. The point that we will discuss later in the context of my new clauses is hugely important, but I shall reserve my further comments until then.

As I said, we are generally well disposed to the Bill. We obviously want to see as many people on the register as should be there. We are concerned about the underlying problem that needs to be addressed. We are concerned that there should be no change in fundamental policy and that there should be safeguards, but we are content to pursue the matter in Committee, and we do not intend to divide the House on Second Reading.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for the consultations between members of our party and himself and officials. As he knows, the issue has exercised our party considerably and is undoubtedly a major issue right across the Province, particularly in Protestant working-class areas where there is a greater than average fall in the number of people registering. That is of great concern across the Province in all communities. I express the appreciation and gratitude of our party for allowing us to make representations and also for the way in which he responded.

By and large the Bill is a sensible measure. We welcome it and we will support it in its course through the House today. There are points of detail that need to be clarified and matters of concern that need to be dealt with, but as the debate has progressed some of those fears have been allayed already. As the Minister pointed out, the Bill brings the law in relation to the carry-over of registered electors into line with what happens in the rest of the country. As a matter of principle, there is no reason why we should oppose it.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

There is one issue that must be addressed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—and, certainly, the Minister—will do so. The terms in which the Bill has been drafted will restore only those previously properly registered on the electoral register. That is fine, but there is a key duty on the chief electoral officer and all public authorities to promote equality of opportunity under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We have just heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) speak of the need for young people to be on the electoral register. They will be discriminated against by the effects of the Bill.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

When the Minister replies, I am sure that he will want to address that in terms of the legislation to which the hon. Lady referred. We are dealing with the 81,000-odd people who were previously on the register, who fulfilled all the requirements as to identifiers and so on, and who the chief electoral officer was satisfied met all the criteria under the anti-fraud measures. Those are the only people whom we can legitimately deal with. It would be a matter of grave concern if we tried to do anything else.

The Bill is a sensible measure in line with the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It is right that we should try to increase the number of people registered from the current level of 85 per cent. and bring the figure closer to that in the rest of the country. I am particularly alarmed by the figure mentioned today with regard to young people—that is, 17-year-olds who are registering to vote when they turn 18, and 18-year-olds. As few as 25 per cent. of those people may be registering. That is a cause of grave concern. A number of reasons have been given. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the problem of student mobility and the time at which the canvass was carried out—September and October—when many young people may be embarking on courses of study in places other than where they live.

We now have rolling registration, which some might say is allowing many more people to come on to the register at times other than when the annual canvass is done. I think that the figures will show that it is not taken up by as many as should be taking it up. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that not many people are aware of the ability to get on to the register at any time during the year. That raises a point that I want to deal with in a little while—the resources that are given to the chief electoral officer and his proactive approach in searching out people and getting them on to the register, which is an important point.

I agree that the current electoral register for Northern Ireland is much more accurate than previously, as a result of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, but I do not think that it is as comprehensive as it should be. We must acknowledge that. We all accept that the legislation that was passed in 2002, which was supported across the House, has made a significant difference. The Electoral Commission has reported on the significant and positive effect of the 2002 Act. There have been problems and we have raised them with the Minister and his Department over the past two years. There have been concerns about people getting access and getting hold of the electoral identity cards that they need to vote if they do not have a bus pass or other appropriate photographic evidence.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister just what the latest position is in relation to electoral identity cards and what the current uptake is like. I know that things have improved. When I go around polling stations on election day, I find that many people use passports, driving licences, bus passes and so on. The electoral identity card is by no means the main or only means of identification. Nevertheless, it is significant, and we must therefore ensure that people are not only on the register, but provided with the wherewithal to vote on the day. The chief electoral officer needs to be given the resources and funding to be able to make it easy for people who are on the register to get electoral identity cards easily and quickly, and in areas that suit them, such as local libraries or community centres. I know that efforts are being made in that regard, but a lot more could be done.

On the comprehensiveness of the register, there are 150,000 fewer people on it than there were two years ago. Other hon. Members referred to the fact that one would expect a drop in the first year of operation under the 2002 Act, because of the anti-fraud measures. Indeed, I have no doubt about the effects that the anti-fraud measures would have had if they had been in place prior to 2002. I think, for example, of a former colleague, William McCrea in Mid-Ulster. I have no doubt that, if the legislation had been in force at the time, William McCrea would have been returned, rather than Martin McGuinness, in the constituency of Mid-Ulster.

Clearly, the electoral register needed to be cleaned and tidied up, but there is an issue as to why there has been such a massive drop in the first year, with 81,000 people not registering. Other hon. Members have alluded to various reasons and I shall not go through all of them. I have been out and about talking to people in recent months, calling at their doors and asking them about registration. There will always be people who do not want to be registered—it happens here and in Northern Ireland, and in every democratic country because, for various reasons, there are people who do not want to appear on the electoral registration list—but many people simply forget. People get a form through their door or somebody calls and gives them a form, but they put it to one side and forget, or they cannot be bothered to search out their national insurance number or whatever else. They might do it, but forget to get their son or daughter, or another member of the household, to do it. When people are asked about the matter and they realise that they are not on the electoral register, they are willing to get registered. On about 31 January, when the tax deadline comes up for return of income tax forms, we get a reminder in the national newspapers and are told that hundreds of thousands of people let that deadline go by every year. Even with the threat of a monetary penalty, hundreds of thousands of people still do not fill in the forms. There is an aversion to form-filling.

That is why more resources need to be given to the electoral officer to get people to fill in and return the forms. The main reason why we have such a problem is that, because of lack of resources, not enough has been done by the electoral officer to advertise, get out there, make it easier for people to get the forms filled in and make it clear to them that they have to do it and what the procedures are. When an election is called, whether it is a local, general or Assembly election, people are aware that a vote is coming and canvassing starts. Everybody starts to ring our offices and contact party staff to say, "I've just discovered that I'm not on the register. I want to get on to it, and I need to be on it."

One possibility—I know that there are administrative difficulties and all the rest of it—is to provide a longer period for people to register once an election is called. As with postal, proxy or absent votes, the time between the announcement of the election and the time to make an application is very limited. People do not get their applications in on time. The more time we can provide for people, the better. After all, this is a computerised age in which things can be done fairly quickly. We need safeguards and checking, and identification in terms of national insurance numbers and so on can be checked relatively easily. People should be given as much time as possible, especially in the period after an election is called. That is when they start seriously to think, "Am I on the register and can I vote in this election?" That would be positive in getting more people on to the register.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to see that new clause 1 attempts to extend the deadline in a similar way to the one that he suggests.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. We will debate the new clause in due course. I would welcome and support anything that gives people a greater opportunity to register.

On the longer-term arrangements, we are dealing with a one-off, as the Minister said, although there could be another one-off next year. The Bill allows for another one-off extension allowing people who will be on this year's register to be carried forward to the 2006 register. It is to be hoped that, by that stage, longer-term arrangements will be in place. Clearly, it is important at this stage to say that there needs to be carry-over of electors from one year to the next. It simply makes no sense for everybody to have to start completely afresh every single year. That is bound to cause problems. Some people have suggested that the carry-over period should be one year, while others say it should be three years. I think that there should be some discussion and debate, but provided that the safeguards are in place in terms of national insurance identifiers, the signature requirements, photographic identity and so on, the problems that could previously have arisen in a long carry-over will not have the same weight. I urge the Minister to consider seriously, as part of the long-term arrangements that must be put in place, a longer carry-over period so that people will not be disfranchised unnecessarily as a result of carelessness or because they have not got round to registering at a time at which they might not be concentrating on elections. We should offer every opportunity to maximise the vote provided that safeguards are in place, as I believe that they are, thanks to the anti-fraud measures in the 2002 Act.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I join other hon. Members in thanking the Minister for the consultation in which he and his colleagues engaged in the lead-up to the Bill.

The Minister said at the outset that more than 80,000 voters who had been removed from the register because of their failure to return a registration form would be restored to it as a result of the Bill. We will have a new register on 1 April. The political parties receive electoral registers from the electoral officers through the normal process of events, so they are in receipt of the present register. They will receive a new register on 1 April, which will include the 80,000-plus additional names. Will the Minister indicate whether the political parties will get the additional names in a separate document in addition to the new register? I fully understand that we will receive the new register, but many political parties are building up towards the local government elections and want to know whether there will be a separate entity to detail the additional entries as well as the new register.

I asked the Minister about the research that is required on those who do not return the forms. It is not in anyone's interests for the register to decline year on year, but that has been the case for the past three years. I and many others believe that a significant number of the 80,000 people whom we are discussing today are younger people, and several hon. Members have made that point. Research is critical to establish whether that is a fact. Many of us suggest that there is a small proportion of elderly and middle-aged people among the 80,000, but a significant number of people in the 18 to 25 age group. We need to establish whether that is true and then, if necessary, establish why it is the case.

Setting aside the one-off basis of the Bill, the Minister must find better ongoing ways of getting young people to fill in electoral forms. We must collectively remove our heads from the sand. Younger people by and large do not rush home on a Thursday night to watch the politics show with Andrew Neil and two of our fellow hon. Members. They are just not interested—[Interruption.] Some people might find that difficult to believe, but it is the case. Many things might be on young people's minds, but that politics show is not one of them. How do we encourage young people to get involved in politics and on to the electoral register?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Change the cast.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I shall come to that later.

We could achieve such progress if the Minister was prepared to examine the wider distribution of electoral registration forms on an ongoing basis. For example, the only time that many young people find out that they are not on the electoral register—apart from at the time of an election, obviously—is when they go to apply for credit in retail outlets for the purchase of a vehicle or other goods. Retail outlets, by and large, use the electoral register to establish the identity and address of a person seeking credit. If electoral registration forms were available at car showrooms and other retail outlets and people applying for credit were told that filling in the forms and subsequently being approved would allow them to get the credit that they wanted, it could be another way to motivate young people to register. Young people would not necessarily be registering for altruistic reasons, but they would get on to the electoral register. I hope that the Minister will consider ways in which we can get young people to fill in electoral registration forms.

By and large, we are in favour of the Bill making progress, although we obviously wish to raise several issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) raised the question of security forces personnel earlier. I hope that the Minister will address that point because I know that the matter affects a small number of people in my constituency and the same situation might well exist in others. I understand that members of the security forces who had previously been registered but last year decided not to re-register because of security fears due to their location, will automatically be restored to the register under the Bill, despite the fact that they took a conscious decision not to register last year. What will happen to such people? Will they have to apply consciously to have their names removed from the register because they will otherwise be restored to it under the Bill?

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As a matter of interest, is he aware of whether any representations on that have been made to the chief electoral officer by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am not aware of representations made by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, but I know that the situation applies to a small number of people. It might well be the case that the situation is more widespread than that throughout Northern Ireland, so I hope that the Minister will respond to the point.

Let us consider the wider issue. First, we should try to ensure that we have a more representative and comprehensive electoral register, which is a laudable objective that we should support, and, as a consequence of that, we should ensure that we have higher turnouts in elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) alluded to the fact that there is low turnout, especially, but not exclusively, in Protestant working-class areas. In my constituency, as in others, there might well be a 60 per cent. turnout at an election, but the turnout in places in which there is a high proportion of younger people can be 25 to 30 per cent. In effect, there is a double whammy in that younger people do not register and those who do register do not come out to vote on the day of an election. I accept that that is a separate issue from the Bill, but I have no doubt that we will return to it.

The Bill appears to have achieved a broad consensus among hon. Members who have spoken, although some have had reservations. That is welcome. That is the view of my party and all hon. Members who have spoken. It was thus strange that, when the Bill was considered in the other place earlier this week, Lord Maginnis of the Ulster Unionist party was scathing about the Bill and appeared to be utterly opposed to it. Perhaps other hon. Members will wish to qualify or expand on his comments.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

With the permission of the House, I shall reply to the debate. In response to the last contribution, I would fear for the future of the country if young people were rushing home to watch the politics show rather than pursuing the normal healthy activities that they should be undertaking.

I shall respond to some of the points that were made in the debate, although some will be taken up in Committee. If I do not touch on others, they will probably be covered in discussions with the political parties as we look to the future of registration. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I stress that the Bill is not a precedent for further action. I think I made it quite clear that we see it as an interim operation to deal with a particular problem at a particular time. We fully accept that we have to address the underlying problems. By the way, on a slightly different point, the Department for Constitutional Affairs is looking at registration in the broader context across Great Britain.

We need to look at the broader issues, such as many of the social changes that we have discussed today, which have led to lower levels of registration and participation, and we shall explore ways to improve that. In general, colleagues will have to take on board the need for greater data sharing between public and some private bodies, such as utility companies, and electoral registration officers, to provide a much wider range of information streams that will enable registration officers to produce a full and comprehensive register. I make that point merely as a preliminary remark, because I accept that there will need to be much wider discussions, but colleagues should be aware of the consequences of redressing the pattern, on which I think we are all agreed.

That ties in with the question of education, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for North Down (Lady Hermon). I am increasingly convinced that many young people who have not voted at several elections fear that they will be embarrassed if they turn up at a polling station and ask what the procedure is, so yet again they do not vote. Such behaviour then becomes self-reinforcing. We need to look at that.

Some hon. Members dealt with various issues, but did not necessarily address the way in which they interlock. We talked, for example, about the substantial number of young people who are not registered. Although they will not be affected by the Bill, they will be affected by the subsequent arrangements. The Bill is about re-registration; it is by no means a universal panacea. It is a remedy, not a solution. It will improve the register and make it more comprehensive, probably taking registration towards 90 per cent., but it will not take it to 100 per cent.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister take this opportunity to address the issue we raised about section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? How does the Bill promote equality of opportunity between first-time younger voters and older voters who are already on the register?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

It is in the public interest that the register should be as comprehensive as possible, so we are undertaking a number of measures, for example in colleges, to try to increase registration among younger people. In this instance, we are also trying to maintain the strength of the register. In all honesty, no one could argue that it is undesirable to continue to add to the register people who should be included on it. It is open to all to register, and we have to try to facilitate the process wherever we can. As I said, we recognise that the Bill is not a universal solution, but it goes a considerable way towards addressing the problem.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention on this important point. The Bill includes the imprint that it is compatible with the European convention on human rights—quite right, too; that is what we expect. The Minister will be well aware that under the convention the United Kingdom has an obligation to ensure free elections with no discrimination on any ground whatever. Can the Minister explain to the House how the Bill fulfils that obligation on this country?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That argument is slightly reminiscent of one that was advanced against me on antisocial behaviour orders, so I paraphrase the words of Mr. Justice Girvan: it is open to all to register. That is the discrimination argument. The public policy argument is that we should facilitate as far as possible the most comprehensive electoral register. The fact that we are unable to achieve 100 per cent. registration is not an argument against trying to improve the percentage from the mid 80s to the low 90s. That is exactly right and it is indeed the burden of the Bill.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister says that he has dealt with the public policy argument and the discrimination argument. Perhaps he has. What he has not dealt with is the equality of opportunity argument, which is not that he should not undertake the measures in the Bill but that he should be taking equal measures to provide for those classes and individuals that the Bill does not cover. That is the point. Although he can point to some activity in reaching towards or identifying young people who were not previously registered, he will have some difficulty convincing the House that the measures that he is taking in that respect are equal to those he is taking in the Bill. He is not affording equality of opportunity in terms of section 75.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I should probably not have great difficulty in convincing the House, but I may have difficulty in convincing the right hon. Gentleman. I suspect that colleagues will find my arguments fairly convincing in terms of what we are doing to ensure greater participation in elections. As I outlined, we are already working with colleges, through the Department of Education. Indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) outlined some of the improvements that have taken place, with regard to access to forums and so on. That is not yet sufficient and there is more to be done, but we need to hold discussions with the political parties on how we can further develop registration, precisely to address a number of the groups that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) described. Improving that situation will involve us in work on the greater disclosure of data to the electoral registration officer.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury on intimidation, the marked register shows only that a person attended a polling station. It does not indicate how they voted. In fact, a higher percentage of people in Northern Ireland vote by going to a polling station, which relates to the question about postal and proxy voting put by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, to which I shall return in due course. The number of people voting by post or proxy has gone down from 41,000 to 27,000, which may have narrowed the scope for possible abuse. However, the marked register merely says that a person has attended the polling station, not whether they actually cast a vote. That is perhaps like the Spanish referendum, where a considerable percentage of voters took the trouble to turn up, but did not record a vote.

I take the compliment from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others on the consultation, and I pay tribute to the work undertaken by my officials with parties in this House and in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned the significant problem, which political parties have raised with me, of those who think that they are registered. For example, people who registered for last June's elections for the European Parliament needed to re-register in August and September under the current provisions. People find that difficult to comprehend, and it undermines the procedure. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann about registration in August and September, which we must address when we examine the future pattern of registration and decide whether we should move towards a system of continuous registration.

In Britain, it is common for students who come from Surrey and who study in Edinburgh to be registered in two different places, whereas people in Northern Ireland must undertake individual registration. A disparity exists, and we are examining how to tackle it in future.

We shall examine the question of safeguards in Committee.

The hon. Member for Belfast, North rightly identified under-registration as a problem that has generated concern across the communities in Northern Ireland. That is an important point to stress.

About 100,000 identity cards have been issued. The elections in June saw a considerable reduction in the number of people who, for one reason or another, were unable to vote, and some such people were able to return to the polling stations later. There will be a further campaign to take the facilities around in order to maximise the number of people who have the necessary identity card.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised his concerns about registration once an election is called, and we will deal with that issue when we discuss his amendment in Committee. One way to deal with those concerns would be to introduce UK-wide legislation concerning the relationship between the electoral register, the announcement of the election and the date of the election. Beyond that, I shall refer to a straightforward practical matter that reflects concerns expressed in this debate: if the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland receives a considerable tide of applications in addition to all the other work that it must do before an election, the scope for dubious applications to slip through might be increased, and we must bear that point in mind in striking that balance.

On security personnel, we recognise that members of Her Majesty's armed forces can register at their base for electoral purposes and that that provision does not apply to the police service or, as far as I can recall, to the Prison Service, which is a significant point in particular constituencies, and we must address it.

We must examine the additional list in order to identify more readily those who will be coming on to the register, and I will write to the hon. Member for Belfast, North tomorrow or early next week on that matter.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On the ability of security force personnel to vote, in election after election the issue arises that members of the police service and the Royal Irish Regiment who have registered to vote and who want to vote, but who are on duty at a polling station other than the one at which they are registered, are denied the opportunity to register their vote. That issue comes up at every election. Representations are made, but the problems still occur. As we approach council and other elections, will the Minister undertake to ensure that that issue will not arise again in Northern Ireland?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

They may be eligible for a postal vote on the grounds of undertaking that duty, and I undertake to take the matter up with the chief electoral officer.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

To reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), this is a serious problem, and it may be necessary to go beyond the electoral officer. It could be solved by postal voting, but because of the nature of these services and the attitude of those who direct them, policemen and those in the Royal Irish Regiment are not being facilitated in that. That cannot be solved by the chief electoral officer, and the Minister should direct his inquiries to the police and the RIR.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I certainly undertake to consider that matter within a time scale that will enable action to be taken.

I think I have dealt with most of the issues that were raised. I am sure that I have missed some, but we will be able to discuss them at a later stage. I am pleased with the positive way in which the debate has proceeded, which indicates that we are addressing a genuine problem. Of course there will be individual concerns, but I think that the broad thrust of the Bill is accepted. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. Michael Lord in the Chair]

Clause 1 — Restoration to Electoral Register of Names Previously Removed

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 18, leave out from 'Officer' to end of line 19 and insert

'shall conduct an additional canvass in respect of such former electors.'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 20, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—

'(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) may only be exercised before 18th March 2005.'.

New clause 1—Rolling registration—

'(1) For the purposes of this Act, the last day for an elector to register under the rolling registration process shall be the day on which nominations for election close.

(2) An updated register shall be published no later than one week after the relevant date in subsection (1).'.

Amendment No. 4, in title, line 1, leave out

'in cases where required information is not provided'.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I wish to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

The Second Reading debate covered in fairly extensive detail the reservations that several of us have about the Bill as it stands. As our amendments and the subsequent amendments correspond to the discussions that we have already had, I do not intend to rehearse the broader issues but instead to focus specifically on the purpose of the amendments in order to seek a response from the Minister.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would allow the chief electoral officer to carry out an additional canvass of the 81,000 people who were on the register in 2003 and did not re-register during the autumn canvass of 2004. The canvass would have to be completed by 18 March to allow time for an updated register to be produced for 1 April. That would concentrate the effort of encouraging people to register and get on to the list in time to vote. It would also achieve the benefit of the direct contact that we discussed before. We would hope to see a very vigorous campaign by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to achieve that, including sending individual canvassers to call at the homes of each of these electors to persuade them to complete and return their forms. In stipulating the date of 18 March for the process to be completed, we anticipate that the register could be updated and published on 1 April. I recognise that that represents a significant requirement in terms of human resources, but since it is a one-off situation the cost will not be repeated. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that this is not intended to set a precedent for the future.

I turn to new clause 1 and amendment No. 4. We were informed by Northern Ireland Office officials that the last day for people to register through the rolling registration process for inclusion on the register on 1 April would be 10 March. The new clause would extend that date to the day on which nominations for this year's council elections close. We anticipate that by that stage, with election fever in the air and a general election in the offing, people would be more concerned about whether they are on the register and more enthusiastic about completing their forms.

There would be an additional benefit in terms of the media, who will unquestionably be increasing their political coverage. I have seen some interesting projects to encourage voter participation. For example, in London, I recently did an interview with Virgin Radio, which is trying to increase public interest in matters that are discussed in Westminster. I am sure that that would have a more beneficial effect if the registration period were extended, as the new clause proposes.

The new clause has perhaps the added benefit of attracting more young people to register to vote. The Bill's carry-over proposals would not do much to tackle the problem of increasing the number of young people on the register. As we have already discussed, that figure is worryingly low—approximately 25 per cent. of those eligible to vote.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and new clause 1 seek to provide a practical way of addressing some of the issues that we discussed on Second Reading. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I have some sympathy with new clause 1 on rolling registration, given my long-term interest in the subject. When the Representation of the People Act 2000 was introduced, the Minister responsible for piloting it through the House was kind enough to call me the father of the rolling register.

In many ways, rolling registration is in its infancy. There is no reason why it should not be a much more rapid process. There should be many more arrangements in place to ensure that, when people move into areas, we have details of that and registration can be transferred almost immediately.

I also have sympathy with the notion of moving back the date for final registration. There may be a small defect in the drafting because, although the Bill is a short-term measure, which can exist for two years at most, I have always been conscious that the register should cease to roll when an election is called. The dates for local government elections are known well in advance, but with parliamentary elections, there is a danger that if a by-election were held, people would move into an area to distort the result. That could still happen if registration were left until the time of nomination. The qualifying date should always be when an election is announced in the case of parliamentary elections.

My right hon. Friend the Minister's point about the need to examine United Kingdom-wide provisions on rolling registration is important. Some Select Committees are examining electoral registration, and rolling registration is an important consideration in that. There is a point that we should consider even though it may be for the future. A good stimulator is not only the announcement of an election but immediate issuing of polling cards, which contain details of who is registered in a specific household. The polling card could state that, if the information were incorrect and people were missing, there would still be time to register, perhaps by, for example, the date of nomination. There is no reason why cards cannot be sent to homes where nobody is on the register, because some people in those homes might be entitled to register. There should be a late opportunity to do that.

Publicity—from the Northern Ireland Office in the context of the Bill and the Home Office on the mainland—could be pumped up at a specific stage and state, "Check now to see whether you're registered. Here is an opportunity, as long as you're qualified, to get on the register." I am therefore keen that development in that direction should be pursued. That does not mean that I go along with new clause 1, despite having such sympathy, as I see the faults and the need to engage in a United Kingdom-wide consideration of rolling registration.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

Part of the problem regarding the rolling register is that one can register at any time under it, but one must still do so by the so-called qualifying date of 15 October. What "resident" is deemed to be is not spelled out adequately by the electoral registration office. That is so throughout the United Kingdom but particularly in Northern Ireland with regard to the group to whom I referred earlier—students who are away at university, often in Great Britain. They do not understand that they can be deemed to be resident in County Londonderry or wherever, even though they might be at university in Durham or Edinburgh in October.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

The rolling register has moved us away from the 15 October qualifying date requirement. When people move their residence to new areas, they can now go on to what used to be called the supplementary lists. At one time, there was an arrangement whereby people could only get on to the published monthly supplementary lists by meeting the qualifying date of 15 October, or September, I believe, in Northern Ireland. That changed under the 2000 Act to allow the register to roll during that period. The problem with that is the number of monthly stages and the period that must be fulfilled before that occurs. I would like a more continuing rolling register and much more rapid provision in relation to people moving to different areas. Help is required, as the last thing on the mind of anyone who moves home is whether they are on the electoral register—unless they are politicians. People are alerted to the issue when an election takes place, and if they have missed out, they should still be able to qualify otherwise. We need an opportunity to meet that.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who contributes regularly on these issues and gives a lot of thought to them. I sympathise with much of what he said.

As I indicated on Second Reading, I support giving people as much time as possible to register to vote. Clearly, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire said, people have these things brought to their attention as an election is called, when it becomes a matter of immediate concern. I therefore have a lot of sympathy with new clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), and with that type of approach, subject to safeguards. The Minister has indicated the concern about a flood of applications late in the run-up to polling day, as the electoral registration office still has a lot of other things to do. With adequate resources, however, that can be taken care of.

We should, therefore, not necessarily in this Bill but as part of longer-term arrangements for the future, try to get as many people as possible on to the register, particularly young people. To do so, people should be given the opportunity to register to vote as late as possible, subject to all the caveats about fraud and so on. I am therefore generally sympathetic to that approach, and I think that it would meet with general support across the Province of Northern Ireland.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am almost tempted down the path of a full discussion on the future of electoral registration in Northern Ireland, but I would probably not be so well thought of by the Whips Office if I did so.

We are all going to have to consider many of the issues raised in the amendments, and think about their implications. One of the underlying issues is the extent to which notification of one body—the Post Office, in the case of forwarding addresses, the national insurance authorities, the Inland Revenue or one of the utilities, for instance—will trigger notification of other relevant bodies. Today, however, is not the time to explore those issues in detail.

Amendment No. 1 would fundamentally change the nature of the Bill by requiring the chief electoral officer to conduct a full canvass. It would militate against what some parties here have asked us for—the conveying of the information as quickly as possible. If we asked for a full canvass between now and 1 April, we would not be able to give those parties the information that they have rightly said they need in good time for the local elections in May. I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), but I must cast some doubt on the practicality of his proposal.

Clause 1(2) provides that the names to be returned to the register must be reinstated by 1 April, but an earlier date would be possible. We are talking to the chief electoral officer about that. There is a degree of contradiction, and I accept that a trade-off is involved—as, I know, does the hon. Gentleman.

I know of the long-standing interest of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in rolling registration. I only regret that he may no longer discuss that subject in the Chamber in future, although I suspect that he will take an unhealthy interest in it outside the House. He has put a great deal of work into it over the years, and I think his views and his advice would be welcome.

Amendment No. 4 is consequential on the others.

I hope I have explained some of the reasons for our belief that the amendments are contrary not just to the Bill, but to some of the issues that have been raised today. I would ask the Committee to reject them if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire did not feel free to withdraw amendment No. 1.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Let me record my sorrow at the potential moving on—not passing on!—of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). It does, of course, leave the way open for him to become the regular rolling register commentator on "The Daily Politics", should Andrew Neil be looking for such a contributor.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for his comments, which were consistent with what he said on Second Reading.

I hear what the Minister says, and he is right: amendment No. 1 does change the nature of the Bill. That, however, is why I tabled it. I want the nature of the Bill to be changed in that way. The Minister also hears what I say, and we must agree to differ, but I think this would be practicable if resources were made available.

The Minister is also right about the slight contradiction between amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and new clause 1, but they were grouped together for the purposes of the debate. As I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, I am grateful for the view that he has expressed.

I say that I will not press the amendment to a Division, but the Minister's aggressive command to the House to reject my well crafted and thoughtful amendments almost prompts me to do so. But as we live in a country that appears to have been brought to a standstill by 2 cm of snow, it might be a bit unreasonable to expect colleagues to return from the four corners of the country simply in order for me to make that point. I am grateful to the Minister for his response; I am not completely satisfied with it, but sufficiently so to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 — Duration of Act

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

The amendment, which was tabled by myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), relates to a matter that we dealt with on Second Reading. We discussed earlier the grim and inexorable temptation that exists in Northern Ireland politics to turn temporary orders into recurring annual events. Indeed, one tends to get the feeling that legislation relating to the north of Ireland has become something of a shanty town of exceptions, which, over time, get renewed and become the norm. For reasons that we have already discussed, I am keen to prevent this legislation from becoming another hut in that legislative shanty town.

The amendment removes from the Bill the Secretary of State's power to make an order allowing the chief electoral officer to carry over electors from, say, the October 2005 canvass for another year. Such a power is unacceptable. If the Bill is to be a one-off, it really should be a one-off. If further future problems are thought to occur with the electoral registration process, the Minister must come before the House with properly prepared legislation and give us the courtesy of allowing time to discuss it fully and carefully. We should also be given the opportunity to table amendments, rather than the order being hastily pushed through. That is the purpose of the amendment.

The Minister has assured us that he does not intend the legislation to set a precedent, so I would be at a loss to understand why he would refuse to accept the amendment. In anticipating his agreeing to it, I look forward to hearing his comments.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I support the amendment, which relates to matters that we discussed on Second Reading and to concerns about a change of policy. The Minister said that he does not intend a change of policy and that this provision is a one-off, but as I said on Second Reading, if the underlying problems are not tackled, in a year or two's time strong arguments for yet another one-off will be advanced to whoever is then discharging the ministerial function.

The Bill as drafted gives the Minister, the Electoral Commission and the system in general until the end of 2006 or 2007 to tackle the underlying problem, whereas the amendment would give them a shorter period. I understand why the Minister wants more time, but the more this system is allowed, the more it will take. There will be drift, instead of the vigorous approach that should be taken.

The amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats in the other place puts the Minister and others under much firmer discipline and requires them to get stuck into the problem, which is wholly desirable. The amendment would compel the Minister to tackle the underlying problem with greater urgency, which is precisely what he should want to do. He should not come to the Dispatch Box to ask for a power to spin things out for another year; rather, he should be anxious and eager to get to grips with the problem in the course of this year.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Discussions about electoral registration and voting systems are, understandably among politicians, the subject of great controversy and concern. They are also a matter of considerable complexity. Our debate today has shown the consequences—sometimes unintended consequences—of changes to systems and how they work out in practice. We also need to be aware of the interconnections and interrelations between the different aspects of the problem.

I certainly want to move on, but I anticipate further quite lengthy and detailed discussions with the political parties and other interest groups, not least because of parallel work being undertaken by the Department for Constitutional Affairs on registration in Great Britain. I view the process as drawing up the initial work, going out to consultation, dealing with its results and then legislating, which I suspect means that we may be pressed for time. We may be able to achieve it all within the time scale envisaged in the amendment, but equally we may not. If not, it will not be the result of any lack of will, but a reflection of the nature of the process.

It would be unfortunate if we had to go through another full round of legislation in order to achieve the objectives. There are limits and this is not an open-ended piece of legislation. It is predicated on the one-year extension and it provides the facility for a second year, should it be necessary. I hope that we can work it all out through the one year, but failure to do so would not, as I said, reflect any lack of will. We need to recognise the considerable complexities in the process, so I urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) to withdraw the amendment.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

A phrase from my time in industry springs to mind: "It is never too late to procrastinate". I am worried because the tone of the Minister's response suggests that he is seeking latitude to procrastinate on a very important matter. In his concluding comments, he considered the possibility of re-enacting the provisions for further periods of time, and I have to say that I find that frustrating.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

What I said should not necessarily have led the hon. Gentleman to draw that conclusion. I merely drew attention to the provisions for a one-year extension and the ability to include another year, if necessary, and suggested that the Bill was limited to those circumstances. I thought that I had explained that further primary legislation would be required only if those provisions were not realised.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am glad that the Minister has sought to clarify the position. I know that tomorrow morning, 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland will tune into the internet and read the proceedings of our debate. From what the Minister said earlier, they would deduce that they could relax, as there would be further opportunities to procrastinate in the filling in of forms. The Minister's intervention did not reveal any visceral determination to avoid finding ourselves again criticising the Government for having allowed this modification of the law to slip through and then be used indefinitely, as has happened so many times in Northern Ireland politics in the past.

I shall not seek to divide the Committee on the amendment, but others may wish to. In anticipation of a nail-biting climax, I refer the Minister to a saying of my father's: sooner or later, even the best strategy must degenerate into action.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2 — Absent and Proxy Votes

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

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

The purpose of new clause 2 is simple and we touched on it earlier. We do not know who the 80,000-plus people who have dropped off the register are. Many of them probably did not realise that they had to return the form. Most people probably fall into that category because they are not accustomed to having to register every year and expected that, as in the past, names would be carried forward. It is likely that people did not notice, or did not care about, the form that dropped through the letterbox and did not return it in time. Most of the 80,000 are probably in that category, but some may have moved away, and some are no longer with us.

There is concern about putting people back on the register, particularly when the explanatory memorandum says on page 3:

"The purpose of clause 2 . . . is to enable"—

chief electoral officers—

"to carry forward the names of electors registered in the register in cases where those electors have failed to submit an annual canvass form or have submitted a form which does not include all the personal identifiers."

If people are put back on the register when they have returned the form without including all the personal identifiers, one starts to feel uneasy and to look for safeguards.

On Second Reading, the Minister offered reassurance when concern was expressed about the Bill opening the door to electoral abuse, and he referred to the existing identifiers. They included signatures, which can be forged, national insurance numbers, which can be obtained in various ways, and photographic identity, which will not be available for applications for proxy and absent voters. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that people who are reinstated on the register under the Bill will have to vote in person at the polling station and produce—

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the majority of the 80,000 people who are not on the register were entitled to be on it 12 months ago, would the new clause preclude them in their entirety from applying for a postal or proxy vote, even though many of them may have a legitimate reason for not being able to vote in person?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The electoral reform legislation has introduced a number of safeguards to avoid abuse. It is known that when abuse has occurred it has involved absent and proxy voting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that, and I am sure that he would be anxious to ensure that safeguards existed and were operated. We are dealing with people who have had the opportunity to put themselves on the register, but have failed to do so. The Bill will give them a second chance, so it is reasonable for us to say that we want to ensure that the full range of safeguards in the 2002 Act will operate in that instance, including the need to have, and to produce on voting, the photographic identity card.

The new clause will not deleteriously affect large numbers of people. As I said earlier, the probability is that most of the 80,000 people in question are still resident at their original address, and the Bill will facilitate their registration. It is true that the Bill departs from the basic principles of the 2002 Act, and that is why it is reasonable to try to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place. The new clause would do that, and I therefore hope that the Minister will take it seriously and decide to accept it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I have much sympathy with the new clause, for the reasons outlined by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The touchstone is the need for risk management. However, the inference is that we are more concerned about the 80,000 or so people and their bona fide right to be on the register than about those already on the register. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) rightly pointed out that the new clause would take away a right from those already on the register, but I wonder whether the Minister agrees that the greatest single risk of abuse is in absent or proxy votes. Therefore, with the aim of minimising the risk of electoral fraud, it might be reasonable on this specific occasion to curtail the right to an absent or proxy vote for this specific category of voters, even if that makes it more difficult for them to vote.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I, too, have considerable sympathy with the new clause. The Bill says to those who declined to exercise their responsibility under the law to re-register annually that we will, in the interests of the health of our democracy in Northern Ireland, allow them—for the next year or two years—to be restored to the register and enjoy their full democratic rights accordingly. Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), I wonder whether allowing postal or proxy votes to that category of elector without any check would tilt the balance of risk in the wrong direction. I therefore support the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The new clause would have the effect—whether intentionally or as a by-product of the wording, I do not know—of removing those among the 81,000 to be carried forward who are on the permanent list of absent voters. It would deny them the right to be on that list, and therefore it would effectively disfranchise them. That could include elderly people, disabled people and those on the list for other reasons.

Had the new clause said that people would not be able to apply for an absent or proxy vote, it would have affected people who were not on the permanent list, and then that would be the issue. However, effectively, the new clause would deny people who are already on the permanent list the right to a postal vote, which would clearly be unfair. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) intended that effect, but the wording certainly has that effect. Therefore, it would be unwise to press the new clause. It would have a detrimental effect on disabled or elderly people.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those people who have, on their own initiative, applied for an absent vote in the past will probably have applied by now for the right to vote? So while what the hon. Gentleman says sounds technically correct, the risk is minimised by the fact that the individuals with the absent vote will have shown the initiative to fill in the forms on the previous occasion.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

No, I do not accept that. There are people in Northern Ireland who are on the electoral register and the permanent list of absent voters. The effect of the new clause would be to say that, yes, people can be on the electoral register, but they will not be able to have an absent vote—not that they cannot apply for one, but that they cannot have an absent vote at all—even though they are on the permanent list. That should not be the case.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and we may need some guidance from the Minister and others as to the position. We are dealing with people who were on the register, did not return their registration form and consequently ceased to be on the register. It may no longer be accurate to describe them as being on the permanent list of absent voters. I do not know whether the situation that the hon. Gentleman has in mind will arise. It is something on which we need advice. If it will, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised it. It is still open to the Committee to take manuscript amendments in the course of these proceedings so if we have the appropriate advice from the Minister or those who may send missives to the Minister, we can certainly deal with the problem.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

What the right hon. Gentleman has said carries some weight. When we hear what the Minister has to say in response, we can consider better how to take the matter forward.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I understand the important argument that the hon. Gentleman has put. It is surely also the case that if the new clause was accepted, the Bill would have to go back to the House of Lords for consideration of Commons amendments, and any technical further amendment that the Government wished to make could be considered there.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

That is absolutely right. Having made all these points, we await with even keener interest than otherwise what the Minister has to say.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I am advised that, since falling off the register last year, those people will no longer be on the permanent list of absent voters. I recognise that that might create a further anomaly, with the reinstatement of the register. Those people may presume that they do have a vote, and we do not want to deny them that.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me to consider the matter seriously, and I have done so. I can see the arguments and the difficulties to which he referred. Against that, I have had to balance whether the new clause would create two classes of elector—those who are entitled to an absent or proxy vote and those who are not. I then went back to the more basic principles. The chief electoral officer already has the personal identifiers of those who will be back on the register as a result of the Bill, because they will not have been on the register previously. My understanding is that he will check in some detail any applications for absent or proxy votes that arise from any of those 81,000 individuals.

If, for example, the chief electoral officer discovers that one of the three personal identifiers from the applicant does not match, or that the application comes from a person who is no longer living at his or her registered address—that is important as well—the application will be disallowed, because under the current legislation the chief electoral officer has to be satisfied that any such application is correct before issuing an absent or proxy vote. So, quite apart from the previously mentioned safeguards with regard to other aspects of voting, the fact that he will not be issuing a postal vote to someone who is not resident at the address is a significant further safeguard, which I hope may satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister and I want to repeat the point just to make sure that I have understood. He is saying that if an application comes in for an absent or a proxy vote, and on checking the application it is clear that the applicant is not living at the address on the register, no proxy or absent vote will be issued. Am I correct?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

For those who are within the 81,000, yes. That is my understanding from the chief electoral officer, so I hope that that would satisfy some of the difficulties that have been identified.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister says that that is his understanding, and by that I take it he means that this is the policy that the chief electoral officer will follow.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

indicated assent.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

If that policy is followed, it will achieve the same effect as the new clause, which is a considerable reassurance to me, but the Minister must now consider the point consequential on the discussion a few moments ago. I am now bound to think that the advice that he has received confirms what I thought might be the case—that if persons who had been on the permanent list did not re-register they would not automatically be resumed to the permanent list, and I am not quite sure what is the best thing to do in this situation. Obviously, one wants to facilitate people. How that can be achieved I am not sure, because this may be a matter of legislation and the Minister may not now have the time in which to add a necessary amendment to his Bill, but I am afraid I shall leave it to him. In view of the points raised, there is a matter here that should be looked at sympathetically, but it is not clear to me at the moment how that can be done. In any case, that is a side issue.

I thank the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for their support for the new clause, but in view of the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

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

We have had a useful, interesting and constructive debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for withdrawing the last motion, but I shall consider the administrative consequences, as well as the issues raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). It may not be necessary to deal with some of those issues in legislation. It may be possible, at the very least, to write to those people who previously had permanent postal votes to get them reinstated. I will certainly have urgent discussions with the chief electoral officer about undertaking that. In many ways, that demonstrates the spirit in which the debate has taken place.

There has been a general recognition of the concern about under-registration and an understanding of the possible pitfalls and dangers, and I hope that we have indicated that we have been alert to them. We have tried not only to mitigate any danger, but to maximise participation in the electoral process. I have also been much encouraged by the contributions from Members on both sides of the House on looking at practical ways in which that can be achieved.

I recognise that this is a staging post in the process. The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 was a significant improvement in the legislation to deal with not just perceived, but clear abuses of the system. That has enabled the system to be considerably improved, but all changes may bring consequences in their wake and we have talked about some of those. As I readily identified, this is an interim measure designed to ensure that the register is more comprehensive, but we fully acknowledge that there are further improvements to be made, so I take note of the point made by hon. Members that we should try to undertake this process as quickly as possible. We need to consider a more long-standing procedure to deal with registration.

Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)

When the Minister has his ongoing conversations with the electoral registration officer for Northern Ireland, will he undertake to explore whether there is parity of treatment on the narrow issue of what constitutes residence? I have reason to believe that the electoral registration officer in Northern Ireland is putting a very narrow interpretation on that and one that electoral registration officers in Dudley and Bromley, for example, would take a different view on. There needs to be parity of treatment throughout the United Kingdom on what constitutes residence, particularly in relation to people who could claim to be legitimately on the electoral register of north Belfast and of Edinburgh at the same time.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I take my hon. Friend's point, although I am not sure what they do in Dudley. I am more interested in Sandwell—all sorts of strange things probably go on in Dudley. He must understand that this process is taking place in parallel with an examination of electoral registration by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We will obviously seek to be guided by that and by broader international experience. Having said that, I am mindful of hon. Members' co-operation and the weather—not to mention the arrival of my colleague the Minister for Work. As a result, I thank the House and urge it to approve the Bill on Third Reading.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

This has been a good debate and I place on the record my appreciation of the constructive way in which the Minister listened to the various points that have been made during our proceedings and gave reassurances that people have rightly sought that the Bill will not lead to any undermining of the measures taken against fraud through the 2002 Act.

At one stage, when I was listening to two such formidable lawyers as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) engaging in a courteous disagreement over the detailed content of the Bill, it was like being back as a university student. However, our proceedings this afternoon have been characterised by an understanding that the Bill attempts to address a real wrong and a flaw in our democratic arrangements in Northern Ireland while preserving those safeguards against fraud that are vital to the health of our democracy.

I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for progress on the Government's proposals for a more permanent system of electoral registration to be not only swift, but transparent. We do not want to be in a position again in which Members of whatever party are put under undue pressure to agree to something without sufficient time to consult either outside the House or other Members within Parliament about the likely consequences of the measures on which we are being asked to take decisions. Some lessons could be usefully learned from our experience in dealing with the Bill. I hope that it delivers the successful outcome that the Minister intends.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

It is a shame that the Minister for Work came in so late because, at the risk of engendering some jealousy in her, I want to congratulate her colleague, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who has been a parliamentary titan of debate, setting out a high watermark for inclusive and constructive discussion for his colleagues to follow. She missed it all.

The debate showed three things. First, the high standard of debate that can occur when the Government proactively consult and operate their legislative processes in an inclusive fashion. I said in the debate on allocation of time that my great frustration is the failure of the Northern Ireland Office to do that. Today we saw the rewards of what happens when it does. I enjoyed the interaction between the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). In effect, they did the Minister's job for him. As such, I am sure he will consider providing them with an honorarium from his ministerial salary.

Secondly, we learned that when we are not shoehorned into an artificially restrictive programme motion with guillotines, we conduct ourselves maturely and concisely, and we will finish almost one and a half hours ahead of schedule. The Government should take serious note of the fact that programme motions sometimes act as a provocation to extend debate and reduce the value of their contents. Once again, I hope that this is a precedent for future debates within the Northern Ireland portfolio and elsewhere.

Thirdly, we learned that Opposition Members share concerns about the danger of the Bill becoming a law that is renewed annually. There is no benefit to the Government in regarding the passing of the Bill as a precedent that they can fall back on. The Minister assured us that he does not regard it as a precedent. I sincerely hope that he and others who may discuss the subject will heed those words and not force us into reconsidering the measure. Although we have acceded to the Government's wish to accept the Bill, it should not be taken as an automatic green light for expecting the same co-operation if they do not use the period that they have been granted to solve the problems permanently.

It has been a pleasure to participate in the debate with the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members. On reflection, I am sure he will agree, as he looks at Members on the Opposition Benches and considers our contributions, that he is lucky to have us.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Yes, this has been a constructive debate. We appreciate the way in which the Minister approached the debate and previous consultations leading up to it. This is a good day for democracy in Northern Ireland and the Bill is a positive move. The Minister has dealt with some of the points raised and allayed some concerns.

Reading clause 1 again, it struck me that we have acted on the assumption that, once the Bill is enacted, the chief electoral officer will immediately get to work ensuring that the 81,000 people are carried forward on to the new register. However, as the explanatory notes state, the Bill gives the electoral officer the power, not the duty, to do so. My concern was reinforced by the fact that clause 1 states that

"the Chief Electoral Officer may enter"

their names. Having gone through the process of passing the Bill, I hope there is no question of the chief electoral officer saying, "I know I have the power and I may do that, but I am disinclined to proceed along that route." The clear will of Parliament has been expressed, and I hope we will see those 81,000 people being able to vote in the forthcoming elections.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Like other Members, I express my appreciation to the Minister and others for the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) referred earlier to the 1.5 million people who will log on to the internet in Northern Ireland tomorrow morning to read the debate. It was a nice fancy, but is it not a pity that it will not happen?

Is it not a pity that very few people outside the Chamber will be aware of today's debate and the manner in which it was conducted? It would do an awful lot to improve the standing of Parliament in the eyes of the public, were they aware of that. It is a good thing that we have the internet and the one channel that takes a continuous feed from the House so that people can log on or switch on to that. It helps to some extent to counterbalance the conspicuous absences from the Press Gallery. Let me express appreciation to the persons who are in the Press Gallery and draw attention to the absences.

Having reflected on the quality of the debate, I echo the point that has been made. We have taken just over three hours to deal with the substance of the Bill. It has been dealt with expeditiously and with no attempt to prolong the proceedings. That underlines the point that programmes are not necessary and are in some respects counter-productive. The Committee stage went according to the timing allowed. A number of mini-debates were provided for by the selection of amendments. Some of them were quick and some took longer, because they needed to take longer as points arose. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned such a point, and it is a serious one. The Minister will try to address it through administrative action.

Had there been a programme for the Committee stage, those drawing it up would have had no way of anticipating which amendments needed time and which did not. For that reason, particularly for Committee, programmes are wholly inappropriate. I have had the pleasure of serving on quite a few Committees, more in the early and mid-1990s than recently, and I was never conscious in Committee that members were deliberately wasting time. There was the odd bit of self-indulgence and there was a little badinage around the Chamber today, but it did not waste time. The Whips may want to think again about programming. I express appreciation to the Whip for the fact that the programme motion was not as restrictive as such motions have been on other occasions.

I shall make two further points by way of conclusion. I thank the Minister for the assurance that he gave me with regard to safeguards on applications for proxy and absent votes. That is helpful and I am glad that there has been progress in that respect.

I shall end, if I may, on a slightly different note. The way in which things have been done means that we have different classes of voters—those who have applied, those who have been rescued by special legislative means and others who have still not been included, in respect of whom the Minister has an obligation to ensure that equal efforts are made to provide the opportunity to be on the register. I, too, was uneasy about his reply in that regard, which made it sound as though the matter is not going to be treated with the urgency that it deserves. Having had a good day here, let us hope that that emboldens the Minister to get stuck into the problems that he knows he still has to deal with.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.