---

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, since the last time that we had a debate on Northern Ireland, the Liberal Democrats have elected a new leader. There is a new shadow Cabinet, but I am still here. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), in his benevolence, has granted me the opportunity to continue to speak on Northern Ireland and, indeed, Wales, which proves that he is far from Ming the merciless, but Ming the merciful. Since the last Ming dynasty lasted 275 years, I am both relieved and delighted to have found favour with the new emperor. I thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill and explaining its various provisions. On the whole, Liberal Democrats support the motivation behind them, but, once again, we have several serious concerns. We will thus try to improve the Bill as it progresses through the House. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) correctly pointed out that we had a debate on the possible unintended consequences of the Short money for Sinn Fein. I remind him and the House that the problem with that debate was not the sincere intent of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but the confused attempt by the Leader of the House to explain what was going on, which led many Liberal Democrat Members to vote as the hon. Gentleman would have liked: against the proposal. I say to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is likely to wind up today’s debate, that it is important that a lesson is learned from that debate. Individuals have become cynical and think that while the Government might intend to do one thing today, a future Secretary of State or Minister may do another thing tomorrow. In Committee, I intend—I hope that hon. Members of all parties will do this—to ensure that we really understand the consequences of such a wide-ranging Bill. The hon. Member for Foyle described the Bill as a dog’s breakfast, but I would more charitably describe it as a catch-all Bill that covers many matters. The worst thing that could happen would be that the Bill had precisely the opposite outcome to that intended by the Government, but that is more than possible, given the history of other legislation. Let me turn to the details of the Bill. We have little worry about the intention in clause 1 of introducing anonymous registration in Northern Ireland to mirror clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill. As the Secretary of State indicated, the power would allow individuals to register anonymously if they feared that their safety, or that of any person in their home, would be at risk if they could be identified from the electoral register. Given the changing threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland, I can only say that I hope that the number of people for whom the provision might be necessary will be small and decrease over time. I am curious about how the Government will achieve anonymous registration. The clause allows the Secretary of State to lay an Order in Council to achieve such registration. However, will the Minister explain why such a measure is not simply in the Bill? Why, once again, do we have to go through the increasingly unsatisfactory Order-in-Council process? Why is it not possible to extend the provisions on electoral administration to Northern Ireland now because the Government could thus achieve their aim earlier than they would by using the Bill? Perhaps there is a procedural explanation, but I have not heard it, so I hope that the Minister will deal with my point. We are disappointed that the Government intend to abolish the annual canvass that was introduced by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The annual canvass has proved to be pretty successful in Northern Ireland. The introduction of individual registration, with personal identifiers, has been a matter for debate throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland it has led to a much more accurate and robust electoral register than those compiled under the system of household registration. There are roughly 1.2 million people on the register, which is an estimated 91 per cent. of the voting age population. I understand the Government’s concern at the continued decline in numbers of people registering, and we must make sure that the procedures are not so onerous that we are discouraging registration. That is a fair point, but I fear that by extending the period of time between canvasses to 10 years, the Government have back-pedalled far too far and will, as an unintended consequence, achieve the exact opposite of what they seek to achieve. Can the Minister, in his summation, explain why a period of 10 years was chosen? Would not a shorter period be more sensible—if not an annual canvass, then a canvass every four years to ensure that the registers are comprehensive in advance of Assembly elections? There is a logic to tying the registration of individual voters to the timing of Assembly elections. It is not clear to me why the Government would choose a period—10 years—which will necessarily alter the synchronisation of the electoral registration process with the elections, which should be on a fixed time scale once the situation normalises.