Electoral Administration Bill

I am not convinced that the Government are serious about this matter. In her usual rather charming manner, the Minister gave the game away when she said that none of this was her idea. She has come to the House and said, ““I never really believed in this at all but I’ve had my arm twisted so, a bit reluctantly, I’ve brought forward this half-baked scheme that I do not really want and am not sure will really work.”” That suggests to me that the Government are not remotely serious about the substance of the proposals—a fact that emerged several times in the Minister’s opening speech. She has tried to make us believe that the Government want these proposals to be adopted, but the Bill, the Government’s new clauses and amendments, and the Minister’s contribution all give the lie to that. The Government do not really want to make the electoral system at all robust. All too easily, even a half-determined person could circumvent or evade what the Government propose. The Bill—and the new clauses and amendments—talks about dates of birth and signatures, but how robust can they possibly be when it comes to assessing whether a person is entitled to vote, or whether the person originally registered is the same as the one casting a vote? The use of the national insurance number has been mentioned repeatedly in the debate, and that would make the system significantly more robust than would the use of a date of birth or a signature. The Bill suggests that people who want to play a part in deciding the Government of this country need not be bothered, or able, to find their national insurance numbers. That strikes me as more than a little bizarre. I confess that I believe that making registering to vote a little difficult is a good thing. If we expect people to have sufficient judgment to decide who should represent them in Parliament and govern the country, it is not asking too much of them to take the minimal step involved in establishing their identity with the registration authorities.