---

Mr. Dodds: 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.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 529
 

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.

Mr. Spellar: 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
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 530
 
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: 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: 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
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 531
 
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.

Mr. Trimble: 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.

4 pm

Mr. Spellar: 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.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 532
 

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.

---