HL Deb 17 November 1998 vol 594 cc1236-40

9.46 p.m.

Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two draft instruments before the House today are fairly modest in content but we see them as making a good start on the work ahead of us to further improve electoral procedures in Northern Ireland.

Perhaps I may give your Lordships a little background information. In July last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the establishment of an internal electoral review to look into allegations of widespread electoral abuse and to consider electoral procedures. That review reported last month and has made a number of far-reaching and radical recommendations. The Government have given Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland public, the political parties and anyone else with an interest in these matters until Christmas to comment on the review's proposals. Elections are an excepted matter and it will be for the Government to decide on the way forward. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to encourage response to the review.

I should also say at this point that the elections review concluded overall that elections in Northern Ireland are efficiently and fairly administered in very difficult circumstances, and that much of the credit should go to the Chief Electoral Officer. In the meantime, however, we believe that there are two issues on which we can make some progress. The order and regulations before your Lordships today tighten up arrangements for absent voting for local government, parliamentary and European elections. A subsequent order following the Northern Ireland Bill will do the same for Northern Ireland Assembly elections. Absent voters are those members of the electorate who vote by post or by appointing a proxy.

The legislation before your Lordships will amend two areas. First, it will increase the scrutiny time available to the electoral office to consider all the absent vote applications. Secondly, it will tighten up the medical attestation statement that is required on the absent vote application form for a particular election when the reason for needing an absent vote is on health grounds.

The elections review commissioned by my right honourable friend found cause for concern in the current absent vote application procedure. Insufficient personal information is requested; the application form can be photocopied and altered and there is a far lower standard of identification from that required of the voter at a polling station.

Northern Ireland's Chief Electoral Officer has been concerned for some time that there is considerable potential for fraudulent absent vote applications. During the course of the Government's election review, the team commissioned an investigation into absent voting by comparing the applications for the May 1996 elections and the May 1997 parliamentary and local government elections. The application forms were sorted into wards and then put into alphabetical order by name. In the case of people applying for an absent vote in more than one of these elections, the signatures and reasons given on the form were compared. Where there was a contradiction, the applications were clearly suspect.

Forty to 60 per cent. of those applications gave cause for concern. A further exercise has been carried out comparing the absent vote application forms for this year's referendum and Assembly elections. The results are not yet available but, when they are, a third and final exercise is planned comparing the results of the first two exercises.

The concern about the potential for absent voting fraud in Northern Ireland is shared. All the political parties contributing to the review, some members of the public, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee report and the Forum Committee report expressed that concern. We have decided, therefore, that, rather than wait to move on the review recommendations as a whole, we can secure a couple of safeguards, one of which was employed in both the referendum and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, and the other of which is already in use for applications for an indefinite absent vote.

I turn in detail to the first of our changes. Today's legislation proposes to increase the time available for the electoral office to scrutinise the absent vote application forms. In 1996 the electoral office had about five working days for scrutiny. In 1997 that was changed across the UK, giving only three working days. That was particularly inadequate for Northern Ireland's somewhat unique needs. For the referendum and Assembly elections this year, the legislation allowed six working days. We propose to retain that timeframe with today's order and regulations.

The effect of that increase is to shorten slightly the time allowed to make applications. I do not wish to give the impression that we are making life difficult for potential absent voters; quite the contrary. Let me emphasise that we are talking about one-off applications. That has nothing to do with those voters who are on the permanent absent voter list because of physical disability, nature of occupation, being a service voter or a difficult journey by air and sea to the polling station. It concerns those voters who, realising that there is an impending election, become aware that on this occasion they will not be able to vote in person. We endeavour to help as much as possible in such circumstances. For example, specifically to help the absent voting applicant, the chief electoral officer now sets up around 20 advice centres around Northern Ireland, which are announced in the local press before an impending election.

Furthermore, when an election is impending, my department sends to every one of the 642,000 Northern Ireland households a clearly printed coloured leaflet advising voters among other things of their need to apply for an absent vote. Additionally, when the electoral office's canvassers are delivering and collecting the electoral registration forms to Northern Ireland households, the canvassers remind all households of the facility of an indefinite absent voters list.

Moreover, the recommendations in my right honourable friend's electoral review provide for a computerised processing of absent vote applications to speed up the process and to make the procedure more straightforward and responsive for applicants.

I now turn to the other aspect of today's legislation: the tightening up of the medical attestation required by a doctor, registered nurse or Christian Science practitioner. What today's legislation is dealing with is only the attestation by a health worker in the case of a physical illness. Current regulations for an application for an indefinite absent vote on health grounds require the health worker's statement to attest that the applicant has been seen by him or her in relation to the application. However, a one-off application for a particular election currently only requires the health worker to attest the applicant's reason to the best of the health worker's knowledge and belief. The review found that in some cases doctors have each attested dozens of individual applications at a level out of proportion with the overall patterns of application or ill health across the Province.

The reasons why health workers may make false statements centre around intimidation where the doctor or nurse is forced into signing blank forms, or where the health worker is a party activist or sympathiser and gives a large number of blank, signed forms to party workers. In any event, the Government propose to make the medical attestation on the absent vote application form for a particular election the same as that for an indefinite absent vote application on health grounds. We believe that this change will discourage possible fraud and, where that fails, make subsequent prosecution easier.

In conclusion, these are two relatively minor changes. But we believe that they will help to improve Northern Ireland electoral procedures and will give the Northern Ireland electorate a system in which they can have more confidence. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I support both the regulations and the order.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, we support both orders. It is worth while saying that we are grateful for the Bradley Review. We shall respond to it. I believe that there are some useful recommendations on which this matter is based. It is good that the Government have tackled electoral malpractice both in terms of medical forms and absentee voter registration. The noble Lord implied in what he said that there is remaining the problem of voter intimidation. When the Minister responds I shall be grateful to hear from him what the Government intend to do about what is the most blatant threat to the emergence of civil society and the kind of democratic institutions that we have been debating over the past few hours in your Lordships' House. Intimidation is the greatest single threat.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I have no doubt that the extension from 11 to 14 days, giving three extra days in which to scrutinise applications, will be a great help. It may ease the pressure on the chief electoral officer and his hard-worked staff. An even greater easement would be the decentralisation of the process, making full use of the regional or constituency returning officers who remain in place, not to mention no fewer than 26 district council officers who are similarly qualified.

I simply cannot understand why the chief electoral officer refuses to consider this sensible course, but then complains of the burden imposed on him. I know that he feels very strongly because, in company with the then Northern Ireland Minister, one Nicholas Scott, he fought to deny the people of Northern Ireland the right to holiday votes many years ago. So obviously at that time he did not want to be greatly troubled.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made. Clearly, intimidation is a criminal offence. Where there is evidence of it then the RUC will act accordingly. Whether we can find more evidence that intimidation is taking place is rather more difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the Bradley Review on administering elections in Northern Ireland is fairly comprehensive. I believe that, in the context of the review, we can take fully into account the points made by the noble Lord.

As regards the decentralisation of procedures suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, we are consulting on the administration of elections in Northern Ireland. It would be appropriate for his points to be taken into account as part of that consultation process.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, tightening up on absent votes is one of the best ways to restrict intimidation. It is only through an absent vote that the intimidator can see the ballot paper and make sure that what he wishes to be done is carried out or that the threat can be carried out. However, in the secrecy of the polling booth it is much more difficult to practise intimidation.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. As I have said, intimidation is an offence and if we can gather evidence of it the RUC will act accordingly. But there may be other aspects of intimidation which it would still be worthwhile considering as part of the review. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his comments.

On Question, Motion agreed to.