I recognise that there is a dilemma here, but putting on the face of the Bill that there should be a minimum of 20 per cent checking may make some returning officers retreat from their current practice of 100 per cent. That is a retrograde step. I do not know the administrative answer to this. Maybe it is something that could be dealt with by regulation, but if the Bill includes what would appear to be a retreat, that would send a most unfortunate signal at the present time.
While I have the Minister’s ear, can he give some indication of the results of checking on a wider basis than my noble friend’s anecdotal evidence? There is obviously a considerable difference between finding a discrepancy between the signatures, which may be something to do with elderly people finding it difficult to give a consistent signature, and the other things. That is unfortunate because they will not know. But getting one's date of birth wrong is different, apart from somebody who has dementia, which is a different problem altogether. If it is always the signature that is the problem, we may have to think very carefully about the effectiveness of this verification.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tyler
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c435-6GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:02:02 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557487
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557487
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_557487