Crispin Blunt

Conservative Party | Reigate

Draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) order 2002

Crispin led this debate for the Opposition as shadow Northern Ireland spokesman. The debate covered electoral fraud.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): I welcome you, Mr. Illsley, as it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome the Minister. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would usually deal with matters of such enormous detail. The Minister appears to be standing in for him, and I sincerely hope that she will not be exposed under questioning, given her brevity when going into the detail of the order. I hope that she has had the opportunity to make herself familiar with all its detail.

The order relates to our debates on the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. That is the only legislation that I have been involved in since 1997 that went through its parliamentary procedure satisfactorily. A number of important changes were made to that Bill, and its provisions were beefed up considerably. It was to the Under-Secretary's credit that he listened to the debate. The Department eventually responded to our concerns in the other place, although it would have been better if the Government had taken up the suggestions and ideas put to them by the Committee at the time. They should not have left it to the other place to show them the way, particularly on the matter of national insurance numbers. However, it was a successful Bill, and the Lords amendments received the full support of the House.

During proceedings on the 2002 Act, an overwhelming case was made for the consolidation of electoral law in Northern Ireland. It is hideously complicated. Those who have to find their way around the statutes consider them impenetrable, and even professionals need the help of lawyers to understand them. We are dealing with references to a 1983 Act, a 1985 Act and to a number of 2001 statutory instruments. One has merely to consider the enormous number of modifications that have been made to the Representation of the People Act 1983, the fact that the Act applies differently in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and the significant number of changes that have been made to the law since then to realise that the subject is crying out for consolidation.

Given the Minister's efforts to become fully briefed on the Assembly elections order, which is short and relatively straightforward compared with the local election order that was withdrawn, she may have taken a neat sidestep—one worthy of the Irish rugby football team—to ensure that the other order landed back in the hands of the Under-Secretary. That more complicated and detailed measure will no doubt need considerable discussion when we return to it in October, as the Minister promised.

The Assembly elections order seems to be fairly straightforward, although I question one element of detail. The order states that the returning officer must satisfy himself not only that the date of birth of the elector is consistent with the relevant section but that

''the declaration of identity referred to in paragraph (3) shall be taken not to be duly signed unless the returning officer is satisfied that the signature on the declaration corresponds with the signature supplied as the elector's signature''—

pursuant to the relevant section. I am puzzled by that. The Standing Committee considering the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill went to a great deal of trouble to have included in the Act a requirement to use national insurance numbers. That most significant step would make systemised electoral fraud much more difficult, but it is not included in the order, and I would like a careful explanation from the Minister. My preliminary inquiries suggest that the reasons are somewhat convoluted, and I am not entirely sure that I have understood them so far. I hope that the Minister can explain in terms that we all understand why the order requires the returning officer to satisfy himself about the date of birth and signature of a person who applies to vote by post, but not about their national insurance number. I fear that that may be beyond her, although much may depend on our ability to understand. None the less, I challenge her to explain why national insurance numbers do not appear in the order, so that we may satisfy ourselves—this is the most important point—that the returning officer will be required to check national insurance numbers. Otherwise, there would have been precious little point including them in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act.

The Assembly elections in May next year will be extremely important, and their outcome will quite possibly decide the fate of the peace process. In parliamentary constituencies, especially in the rural west, where an enormous number of postal and proxy votes were cast, Sinn Fein, by coincidence, did particularly well. In those elections, extensive proxy and postal votes coincided with a strong showing by Sinn Fein, and it was suggested that there may have been some form of organised fraud. That is what the 2002 Act was designed to tackle, and we must ensure that the national insurance numbers of those who apply for postal votes in the Assembly elections are checked, and that the important safeguard against electoral fraud that Parliament put in place takes effect.

I look forward to the Minister giving us a satisfactory reassurance that national insurance numbers will be checked. If she does, she will have the Opposition's support; if she does not, we shall regard the order as inadequate.

To view the debate in full, please click here.