Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Oliver Heald (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 8 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Electoral Administration Bill 2005-06.


Electoral Administration Bill

The purpose of the amendment, which follows the wording of the Northern Ireland legislation, is to include national insurance numbers in the personal identifiers listed in the clause. It is also designed to make it not just a pilot, but a permanent scheme, with national insurance numbers included. Why? We know that postal voting on demand has led to an upsurge in postal voting, which is welcome, but there is a need for proper anti-fraud measures. We have already discussed this evening strengthening the accuracy of the register, but most of those who have looked into the problem believe that individual voter registration, coupled with proper personal identifiers, is the answer. Ensuring proper verification is important. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) spoke earlier about the Australian system. In Australia, it is an offence not to vote, so if someone on the register is to be prosecuted for not voting, the register has to be an accurate. That has been the spur in Australia. Personally, I am not in favour of compulsory voting, but I believe that we should have an accurate register, and the amendments provide an opportunity to bring that about. The amendments follow the wording and pattern of what was successfully introduced in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 introduced individual voter registration, coupled with personal identifiers—and it worked. The numbers registered have fallen, but the levels are still high—92 per cent. of census—and the accuracy is excellent. The Northern Ireland Office and the Select Committee praised the new system, saying that it had been successful in reducing the perception among the electorate of the prevalence of fraud and the actual level of fraud. Some suggest that some of those who are entitled to vote have missed out and that 120,000 have been disenfranchised, but that is simply untrue. The Electoral Commission said clearly:"““We do not agree with the assertion that 120,000 . . . were disenfranchised””." Anyone who has spoken to Denis Stanley, the electoral registration officer in Northern Ireland, will know that that argument is simply unsustainable. I am the first to agree with Government Members who say that we need not only accuracy, but a really good campaign to increase registration.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c229-30 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Armed forces Death Candidates Administration Absent voting Fraud Elections Electronic voting Electoral Commission Electoral register General elections National insurance Pilot schemes Northern Ireland Personation Proof of identity Registration Voting behaviour Voting methods Timetables
Legislation
Electoral Administration Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk