Electoral Administration Bill

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the view of the Conservative party is different from that of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. That is transparently the case, but then it is so different from that of many Conservatives. But I must not allow myself to be diverted. As I have said, I am attracted to individual registration and personal identifiers, but I understand Labour Members’ concerns about the potential deterrent effect, although I do not necessarily agree with them. We have been trying to reach a common view, so I am prepared to accept that there is at least a risk. I hope that we shall engage in a vigorous attempt to increase the number of people on the register, and I am heartened by proposals in the London boroughs to maximise the effectiveness of the drive for registration. I hope that that succeeds, because it is long overdue, and for numerous reasons London causes particular concern when it comes to registration. National insurance numbers may pose the risk of a deterrent, although I do not think that the same applies to signatures and dates of birth. I think that everyone can cope with those on their own behalf. Let us go some way towards meeting the concerns of the public and the Electoral Commission. Let us for a moment park our concerns about individual registration and consider personal identifiers, and how they might be applied at least to the most urgent and crucial parts of the electoral process: the postal vote and the absent voters list. The Electoral Commission came up with what it called a transitional arrangement. It said ““OK, we will not require everyone to provide personal identifiers on registration yet. We will allow people to provide personal identifiers, but we will not demand it if they are to vote in person. However, we will certainly not send ballot papers through the post to people unknown without checking that they are who they say they are.”” Those who wish to be included in an absent voters list are required to have already added their signatures and dates of birth to the electoral register. A test can then be carried out—I accept that it is not the most rigorous test in the world—to establish that they are the people whose names were put on the register in the first instance. I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that that is a minimal requirement if we are maintain the integrity of the system and restore confidence in it. I do not believe that it is the perfect answer and neither does the Electoral Commission; indeed, it makes it plain that it sees it as a first step. It says in its briefing for this debate that it is a ““transitional scheme”” that would"““act as the first step towards full individual registration . . . a household form would continue to be used for the canvass, and no additional information would be required from an elector in order to vote in the ordinary way at a polling station . . . unlike geographically based pilot schemes, postal votes across Great Britain would immediately benefit from improved security while requiring no change to the registration process for the majority who wish to vote in a polling station””." That is the difference between the Electoral Commission’s proposal and the Government’s. First, the former proposal would have nationwide applicability; secondly, it would immediately improve the security of the postal voting arrangements; and, thirdly, it would not affect registration in its basic form or people’s ability to vote in person at a polling station.