---

Electoral Administration Bill

Before the hon. Gentleman starts giving us statistics, I hasten to say that I am talking about the potential for fraud in the system, and not the reality. The problem is especially severe in the context of postal voting, and there is an urgent need to address it. That urgency is not lost on Ministers, who understand that something must be done. It is a great shame, therefore, that they have rejected the Electoral Commission’s clear proposals in respect of individual registration and personal identifiers. We have gone down this road before: the Government have previously rejected the Electoral Commission’s views, and rued it later when their alternatives have been shown to be unworkable. That is why I believe that we need to take the commission’s opinions in this matter seriously. I detect some confusion between individual registration and personal identifiers. The two are not identical, nor necessarily linked: we can have personal identifiers without individual registration, and individual registration without personal identifiers. I believe that both are constituent parts of an appropriate system for preventing false registration and voting, but it is still possible to separate one from the other. For the moment, I shall set aside the question of individual registration and deal with personal identifiers, which are central to amendment No. 18. It has been accepted in the debate that we want to extend the franchise as far as possible. That means that we must get as many people to register as we can manage, but at the same time we have to prevent fraud. A spectrum of barriers and encouragements to registration has been considered, as has the Bill’s place in that spectrum of potential solutions. Any personal identifier could be construed as a barrier of one sort or another. We have to determine whether a barrier could be surmounted easily and so would not reduce the registration level, or whether it would cause a significant reduction in the number of people wanting to register. I contend that a signature is not a difficult barrier to overcome. Most people, if asked, can contrive to provide a signature or identifying mark. If they cannot, it is unlikely that they will be able to complete a ballot paper successfully. So the requirement to provide a signature is not a barrier to registration, but it is a personal identifier that allows the registration officer or presiding officer to do his job. Other personal details that are not difficult to provide could be used as identifiers—for example, date of birth. Some people may pretend not to know their date of birth, but I suspect that most people, if pushed, could come up with a consistent date of birth to use as a personal identifier.