Absolutely; I could not agree more with the noble Lord. That is why we have not introduced a system of annual registration in the amendments before us. By changing the system, Northern Ireland got rid of the negative impact of annual registration. Now, people have to reregister only when there is a change in circumstances, and that seems to be eminently successful.
One terribly important point about what happened in Northern Ireland is that the register published on 1 December 2007—I accept that that was 18 months ago—was 94 per cent accurate. For those of us who had some contact with Northern Ireland and its electoral system some time ago, the idea that a register could be 94 per cent accurate was unbelievable, because everyone knew that there were phantom voters and serious problems there. I found it fascinating to go to Northern Ireland and talk to the electoral registration officers about their problems. I have spoken to the current ERO in Northern Ireland, and he is very happy about the system and the way that it now works.
I wish to make a couple of final points, the first being the length of time for the introduction of the system. I have a little sympathy for querying whether there is a need to put the date in the Bill. I understand all the reasons for the Government and the Electoral Commission needing time to do the necessary work to ensure that the register is accurate, but I wonder whether it is necessary to put the date in the Bill.
One of the fundamental differences between the systems—this was mentioned by my noble friend when he introduced the amendments—is that in Northern Ireland, where much less time was allowed for the introduction, there is only one electoral registration officer, whereas in this country we have, I think, 402 EROs, all of whom have to have been trained and be working on the scheme before it can be introduced.
One thing clearly to have come out from the Electoral Commission is that the performance of electoral registration officers up and down the country varies considerably. That has to be sorted out. Also, if we are to start with a voluntary scheme, the Electoral Commission has to ensure that that scheme is working before starting on a compulsory scheme. The view of the Electoral Commission will be crucial and there has to be discussion with it about whether it thinks that it is necessary to put the date in the Bill.
For all these reasons, I think that my noble friend is completely incorrect in many of the things that he has identified as problems with individual registration. It could increase the names on our register and the number of people who are able to vote; it is much more democratic and should help to reduce fraud. We shall come back to fraud in other debates; I am not going to talk about postal votes, as that is a separate issue. If we can succeed in improving the level of registration in this country, I think that we should support it.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Political Parties and Elections Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c403-4GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:37:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557437
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557437
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557437