---

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): Would it not be difficult for a person who did not exist to secure a photo identity card?

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

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): 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.

Mr. Spellar: 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—

Lady Hermon: 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?

Mr. Spellar: 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.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 503
 

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
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 504
 
is widely held in Northern Ireland—that that risks damaging the integrity of the register due to a lack of comprehensiveness.

Mr. Trimble: 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?

Mr. Spellar: 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.

Mr. Gregory Campbell: 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?

---