---

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

I shall address my remarks to my amendment No. 27. I remind the Minister that just over a month ago, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State gave us this assurance about measures for the registration of voters: "““The measures broadly mirror change being introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Electoral Administration Bill, as the Government believe that it is right that the citizens of Northern Ireland should enjoy the same rights as those of the rest of the UK.””—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1175.]" As the Minister reflects on the words of his esteemed colleague, he may care to try to reconcile the differences between the Electoral Administration Bill and this Bill, especially clause 3, under which the Secretary of State has exclusively been given the power to override a decision of the chief electoral officer in ““the public interest””—whatever that will mean. The Minister has of course assured us that it means more than a financial interest, although he mentioned financial interests twice in our earlier debate, so we wait with bated breath to hear what else might amount to public interest. The Minister may also care to study the Electoral Administration Bill, currently in another place, to which his colleague referred to on 13 March, for a direct comparison in respect of the rights that the people of Northern Ireland should have. There is no provision for a Secretary of State in any other part of the United Kingdom to override the collection of information by an electoral officer. Will the Minister address that inconsistency? I dislike subsection (2)(b) of clause 3 and the Minister would be well advised to remove it. The inclusion of a reference to the Secretary of State having power to override the decision of the chief electoral officer in the public interest has caused enormous annoyance among Members who have spoken. Only the Government are in favour of the provision. If the Minister does not heed our advice, I urge him to ensure that my amendment No. 27 is adopted, because at least it indicates that where the chief electoral officer is concerned about electoral fraud the presumption will be that a canvass is in the public interest to eradicate that fraud. The matter would be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State by the person most keenly interested in having a valid, proper, up-to-date, modern electoral register—the chief electoral officer. My amendment reads: "““When considering a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection (2)(a) above, the Secretary of State must””—" that is an obligation and a duty— "““have particular regard to prevention of electoral fraud with a presumption that prevention of electoral fraud is in the public interest.””" It is inconceivable that the Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and say that the prevention of electoral fraud was not in the public interest. He can make no logical objection to such a sensible amendment. I would prefer that subsection (2)(b) was withdrawn altogether and deleted from the face of the Bill. However, if the Minister insists on it, I ask him to adopt my amendment to make quite sure that when the chief electoral officer indicates his or her wish to eradicate electoral fraud, it will be in the public interest to hold a canvass.