HC Deb 31 October 2001 vol 373 cc907-26

'(1) From 1st April 2003, paragraph (1E) of rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules applicable to elections in Northern Ireland, imported into Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 by section 1(2) of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c.2), is amended in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) Sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) are omitted and the following are inserted:

  1. "(a) the plastic photographic card which is, or forms the counterpart of, a current licence to drive a motor vehicle;
  2. (b) a current passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or by the Government of the Republic of Ireland;
  3. (c) a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass issued by the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development;
  4. (d) a current electoral identity card issued under section 13C of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Blunt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.7 pm

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 4, page 5, line 6, after "may", insert "be obliged to".

No. 18, in page 5, line 28, leave out from "documents)" to "a" in line 29 and insert— 'for sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) there is substituted'. No. 10, in page 5, line 29, at end insert— '(4) In Schedule 1 (parliamentary election rules), in rule 37(1E) (specified documents), sub-paragraphs (c) to (g) are omitted. (5) Subsection 4 shall come into force on 30th April 2003, or 15 months after the coming into force of the rest of this section, whichever is the latter.'. No. 17, in clause 7, page 6, line 37, leave out from "appoint" to end of line 39.

Mr. Blunt

In rising to speak to new clause 1, I wish to make it clear that I do so in the spirit that has accompanied the Bill in its progress to date. Hon. Members of all parties support the Bill's objectives. Like all other amendments tabled for debate today, the new clause is designed to help the Bill.

I shall begin by recounting to the House a statement made in Cabinet by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is reported by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to have said that the aim in Northern Ireland is to achieve the politics and the practice of politics that are normal in a liberal democracy. If that remark has been slightly mistranslated in its passage from what was originally said in Cabinet, I am sure that the House will forgive me. I am sure, however, that all hon. Members can sign up to that objective.

The new clause deals with the identity of voters in polling stations and the timetable for the introduction of the legislation. As the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee: The aim of the legislation is to make only secure photographic identification, such as a driving licence, passport, voluntary ID card and probably the Translink card acceptable as proof of identity at the polling station. There will therefore he four acceptable forms of identification. The new clause would give effect to the Minister's aims. It would also reinforce the removal of non-photographic forms of identification by putting a timetable on the process that is in line with the Minister's intentions. As he explained in Committee: The target of the May 2003 elections has been at the forefront of my mind since I took responsibility … I am doing everything in my power, as are my officials, to meet that target".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 93–96.] This first group of amendments is important in the historic context of bringing trust into the process of democracy in Northern Ireland, but it is perhaps not the most important in addressing head on the worst causes of electoral fraud there. Historically, the stories and accounts of personation in Northern Ireland have been legion. When the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs took evidence in 1998, it heard about people changing clothes and putting on wigs outside polling stations so that they could go in and pretend to be someone else. We heard such stories in Committee as well. It is essential that we support the Government and that voter identity in the polling station be as far as possible beyond reproach.

There is evidence of counterfeit medical cards being used as forms of identification. That is why these provisions are required and the Minister's objectives must be supported. The Committee was told of the Royal Ulster Constabulary raiding the offices of a political party and identifying a production line of counterfeit medical cards.

The new clause would assist the electorate if they were confused about the form of identity required in the polling station. The Northern Ireland Office commissioned research on the general election; it took into account the experiences of members of the public and polling clerks as well as considering polling station precedents. The evidence showed that a number of people were turned away from the polling stations because they had brought the wrong form of identification. Many had come with some form of photographic identification that was not listed; some had come with the wrong part of their driving licence, as the Northern Ireland driving licence is in two parts.

New clause 1 would give effect to the Minister's objectives by listing four types of photographic identification. The hon. Gentleman told us in Committee that the measures could be introduced by regulation. However, if the House supports the Minister in his objectives, it will be appropriate to put this measure into primary legislation now. That is what is behind new clause 1(2). There was no dispute in Committee that having voters produce these forms of photographic identification was a desirable objective.

The timetable that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have suggested in new clause 1 is the Minister's own. He has told us that his objective is to get this system up and running for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections due in May 2000, and we have taken him at his word.

The transfer from non-photographic forms of identification to a completely photographic system offers great advantages in terms of certainty. The public information campaign in Northern Ireland can be undertaken by the Northern Ireland Office and also by the political parties there. It will be in their interests to ensure that all their supporters can take part in the election and that they obtain some acceptable form of photographic identification.

5.15 pm

The inclusion of concessionary fare passes for senior citizens as an acceptable form of identification after 2002, when I understand that the new photographic passes are to be introduced in Northern Ireland, will deal with the larger part of the population who do not have a driving licence or passport and who would otherwise need one of the new electoral identity cards. It would reduce the burden on the Northern Ireland Office and the chief electoral officer of producing electoral identity cards. Only a small proportion of the population would not have one of those three forms of identification.

On the timetable in the legislation, the Minister may find that part of the electorate or a political party that wants to retain non-photographic forms of identification—so that they could continue to produce counterfeit medical cards, for example—organises to resist the introduction of an electoral identity card. The Minister made it clear in Committee that he would be influenced if there were such a body of opinion in Northern Ireland and if people did not take up the necessary electoral identity cards or have other acceptable forms of identification. If the legislation contains a date, as it would if new clause 1 were accepted, the Minister's hands would be tied, as would be the hands of the Department and the chief electoral officer, and they would have to ensure that the scheme was a success.

I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with this matter in his reply. Did he say that it was impractical to introduce these measures for the May 2003 Assembly elections? He said that he was concerned that some of the electorate might resist taking up the identity card. If there are practical objections and it is difficult to meet the timetable for administrative or bureaucratic reasons, it would of course be appropriate to reconsider the deadline set in the legislation. If the Minister makes that point, I would not want to press the new clause in its present form. The date in the new clause is not immutable. It is meant to reinforce the Minister's position.

I thoroughly respect amendments Nos. 18 and 19 tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has stuck to the view that he and the other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee took in 1998 when they recommended a new, universally issued electoral card. In Committee, the Minister raised an issue of principle, saying that the people of Northern Ireland should not be subject to impositions that were materially different from those imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom. The electoral identity card that the chief electoral officer will introduce under this legislation is to be voluntary—one could also use a driving licence, a passport or, hopefully, a Translink card.

The proposals of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire would impose an identity card on the whole population of Northern Ireland. The debate about identity cards and their compulsory imposition on the electorate in a particular part of the United Kingdom should not be held in isolation, however. I thus tend to support what I assume is the view of the Minister: in these circumstances such an imposition would be wrong.

Furthermore, to issue identity cards to the whole population of Northern Ireland would create a significant administrative burden. However, if one was dealing only with that small percentage of the electorate who do not have some suitable form of photographic identification, the proposals would be achievable, and at much less cost to the taxpayer—although we have been assured, throughout the Bill's proceedings, that resources are not an issue.

Amendment No. 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), gives a timetable, but one that remains in the gift of the Secretary of State. Under the Bill's current provisions, the Secretary of State can choose when individual sections of the measure will come into force. The amendment thus does nothing to reinforce the Secretary of State's position; it merely imposes on him a 15-month waiting period once he has decided that he is ready to implement the provisions—unless, of course, that date happens to be before 30 April 2003.

That is not necessarily the best way to proceed. If things slide to the right, as they tend to do in the course of time, we should find, if we accepted the amendment, that the Minister was stuck with a 15-month notice period when he had decided he was reasonably ready to implement the legislation. It would be preferable to work to a fixed date.

If measures to combat electoral fraud are to be subject to acceptance by the electorate, as they would be if new clause 1 is not accepted, the Minister would be left open to undesirable pressures and persuasion from those parts of the electorate and political parties who want to continue to cheat the system. It would be better if the Minister's declared aims were reinforced by the acceptance of new clause 1.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

I speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 18. The amendments are linked so as to produce the result I want. Amendment No. 19 provides that people would be "obliged" to obtain a photo-identity card. Amendment No. 18 would ensure that the card was universal for the electorate of Northern Ireland, so that it was the only form of photo-identification used at the polling station. Under the amendments, the card would be compulsory and universal.

The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) argued that new clause 1 would prevent confusion, because it would restrict the forms of identity to four. That is a good argument. My amendment would prevent further confusion because there would be only one method available—only one method would be publicised.

In the United Kingdom, voter registration—apart from overseas voters—is not voluntary; people are obliged to register and can be fined £1.000 if they fail to do so. Although far too many people are missing from the electoral registers, people are none the less legally obliged to register. I am in favour of improving electoral registration so that we achieve electoral registration of 100 per cent., or as near it as possible, so that everybody has the opportunity to exercise the rights to which they are entitled.

In Northern Ireland, however, because of the special circumstances there, identification is required, correctly, at the polling station in order to exercise the franchise. To exercise the franchise in Northern Ireland, one needs to be on a register and one needs a form of photo-identification. I am arguing that one form of photo-identity card should be issued to everyone.

Universality is a fundamental aspect of the operation of a democracy. Registration is voluntary in some countries, but that system is by no means as good as the system that we have in the United Kingdom. It is possible for overseas voters who qualify to register voluntarily, but that is mainly because we cannot impose compulsory registration on overseas residents. I do not believe that overseas residents should have voting rights in this country, but that may be a matter for another debate. However, I believe that it is particularly important that the photo-identity card should be provided universally, and that people should be obliged to apply for one.

Amendment No. 18 applies particularly to the universal requirement. In 1997–98, the second report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland was on electoral fraud. Many aspects of the report have been adopted in the Bill, which is generally to be welcomed as being in line with its provisions. Paragraph 64 of the report records: The Secretary of State"— at the time, it was Mo Mowlam— rightly expressed dislike for a system which provided for different types of documentation according to whether a voter drove a car or had travelled abroad. She felt that this was divisive and we agree … Any new system of identification should be common to all voters in Northern Ireland … We, therefore, recommend that the present list of documents which prove identity should be replaced by a new, universally issued electoral card". I believe that the Select Committee was correct in making that recommendation. It is divisive to call on some people to seek to obtain a card while others may make use of passports, driving licences or other forms of identification that may be added to the list, such as cards for travel purposes. Many people would be missed, and the others would have to respond to the efforts of the Northern Ireland Office in order to register. It is much more likely that those people would apply for photo-identity cards if the requirement to obtain one were universal. In those circumstances, there would be a greater response from the public, the publicity would have much greater force and the social pressure to register would be considerable. So I believe in compulsory application for cards and the universal provision.

5.30 pm

I agree that the proposals represent a form of identity card for electoral purposes in Northern Ireland, and I support the notion of having identity cards in the United Kingdom. In fact, I believe that those identity cards should be linked with electoral registration, and a change in the law may be necessary to ensure that everyone is covered by such arrangements. For example, residents from overseas, who do not come from Commonwealth countries or the Republic of Ireland, are not entitled to register for elections, but it would be valuable if they had identity cards. As residents of the United Kingdom, they should be entitled to vote, but the Bill does not affect the whole United Kingdom.

A special problem exists in Northern Ireland, so separate identification arrangements already exist there, and they will be developed and extended, or clarified, under the Bill. I simply want to clarify the arrangements on a better and more substantial basis than will be done under the Bill. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs knew what it was doing when it produced the report—it realised that those principles were important and should be responded to.

I appreciate that amendments Nos. 18 and 19 may not reach the statute book and that I am pressing the Minister on them, but I should like to know whether the Government are thinking along these lines. That might have an affect on cards in Northern Ireland and then have some knock-on consequences for United Kingdom electoral arrangements.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

I rise primarily to speak to amendments Nos. 10 and 17, both of which were tabled by myself, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) correctly said, amendment No. 10 relates to the creation of a deadline by which time all this needs to be done. We suggest that that deadline should be 31 April 2003, or 15 months after the provisions are implemented, whichever comes later. Although the hon. Gentleman touched on part of this issue, let me explain why I feel that that is a more satisfactory arrangement than that proposed in new clause 1.

The first powerful argument is that that arrangement would take account of the concerns that the Minister expressed in Committee, and we are seeking to help him and to provide flexibility, by ensuring that the target is achievable. In simple terms, the Government said in Committee that they envisage removing the non-photographic identity cards by the time that the next Assembly elections take place at the beginning of May 2003. That is why we have chosen the end of April, instead of the beginning of April, as is suggested in new clause 1.

The 15-month leeway represents an insurance policy or backstop to ensure that, if something unforeseen occurs, the Government will not be held to have failed in their commitment to achieve something that we all wish to achieve. Unless the Government have very clear targets in the Bill, as was said in Committee, they will rob themselves of an opportunity to ensure that the changes that we have described come into force.

Let us be realistic—some individuals will not be happy with the legislation, exactly because it prevents them from conducting electoral fraud, which, as we know, has taken place so often in Northern Ireland until now. Those people will do everything in their power to give the Government strong reasons why it would not be fair to introduce the legislation by any particular date. If we include such targets in the Bill, we will make it clear to those people that it is outside the Minister's or the Government's discretion to renegotiate those deadlines. In so doing, we would significantly strengthen the hand of the Northern Ireland Office in ensuring that the provisions in the Bill are brought into force.

Amendment No. 17 would ensure that the Bill is brought into force as speedily as possible and that it is not cherry-picked in the process. There is no reason why the Government cannot implement the whole Bill at the same time. There is provision for the Bill to be introduced at different stages and at different times, but the amendment would remove the words and different days may he appointed for different provisions and for different purposes from page 6, line 37. The reason for that is simple. The enemies of an honest electoral system will seek to prevent the Government from implementing the provisions that are most disadvantageous to the fraudsters. They will provide all sorts of reasons for that and dress up their arguments by claiming that citizens will be disfranchised by the Bill.

If the Bill is explicit and it is clear that it is a package that will be implemented as a whole, it is much less likely that individuals will be able to prevent the Northern Ireland Office and the executors of the Bill's provisions from carrying out their work. Executors will be able to say that it is not in their power to delay some parts of the Bill while implementing others. We hope that the Minister will consider our amendments sympathetically, because they are designed to strengthen the Government's ability to implement the Bill.

I have concerns about amendment No. 18 because, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) rightly pointed out, it would result in the compulsory use of an electoral identity card. It is a judgment call, but it appears to me that such a provision would be a little too prescriptive.

In effect, the amendment would introduce an identity card that is likely, over time, to become a smart card that carries a great deal of information about individuals. I have an innate concern about identity cards, and such a proposal would be a bridge too far. I am determined that we should replace non-photographic identity with photographic identity for elections in Northern Ireland, but we should not go as far as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

I look forward to the Minister's remarks, and I hope that he will think seriously about amendments Nos. 10 and 17. Their sole intent is to strengthen the Government's ability to ensure that the Bill has teeth.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

It was evident from the contributions made in Committee that both sides supported the concept that identification for electoral purposes should be restricted as soon as possible to photo-identity. I and others tabled amendments to ensure that people could no longer use the non-photo identity documents that are most used for electoral fraud. For example, the medical card has been replicated in its thousands in Northern Ireland in an orchestrated way. Although social security benefit books are less easy to obtain, they are also used to perpetrate electoral fraud.

I have great sympathy for the intention behind new clause 1. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has considered the remarks made in Committee about aged persons' ability to use the Translink photo-identity as an electoral document. He gave the proposal fair wind in Committee, but I would like him to reaffirm that such a proposal will appear in amending rules and regulations.

My problem with new clause 1 arises from something that the Minister said in Committee. Indeed, it is why I withdrew my amendments. In the second sitting, he clearly said that it was his intention by 2003 that the new cards will be issued to those who do not have a passport or driving licence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 51.] Anyone who has not got a passport or a driving licence—or a Translink card, if the Minister accepts that suggestion—will be issued with the new electoral photo-identity card. That will enable all non-photographic forms of identification to be withdrawn or designated invalid for electoral purposes.

I was happy and content with that assurance until unfortunately, in the third sitting, the Minister stated: It is the Government's intention not to remove non-photographic forms of identification that are presently permitted until everyone has a passport or a driving licence with a photograph, or has had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a photographic identification card for election purposes".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 84.] I quote that carefully because I want the Minister to respond to it. In the same paragraph, he said that the Government intend to remove all non-photographic forms of identification as soon as possible, hopefully before the anticipated Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2003—if not before then, of course.

I want complete clarification of that. Does the Minister think that the electoral officer has sufficient resources and that it is practical to impose the withdrawal of non-photographic identification by, say, spring 2003? That is germane to the debate. I sympathise with the thrust of the new clause and would want that reflected in the rules and regulations that are imposed.

If the Minister is able to reassure me on that, I will take on board his other caveat about the danger in the process. The lack of time, resources, technology or techniques could mean that a significant number of people will not have photo-identity cards by April 2003 and will be disfranchised if new clause 1 comes into effect. That is a subjective judgment. I need assurances about the resources and the technicalities as they relate to implementing the Government's intent, rather than worrying that the Bill's measures are not capable of being implemented by spring 2003.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

It seems that there is a broad consensus on this issue. New clause 1 and amendments Nos. 10 and 17 would achieve the same objective—to ensure that the identification for voting includes photographs. The second objective is to have the arrangements in place by 2003 in time for what we expect will be the next Assembly election. The Minister says that they are also his objectives. On that basis, I expect him to say that he is prepared to accept the new clause and amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Trimble

The Minister may want to consider the exact form in which the amendments are drafted, but it is very much in his interests to accept them. I am rather disappointed to see the Minister shake his head when I say that. I advise him that it is greatly in his interests to adopt that course of action.

5.45 pm

In Northern Ireland, it has for a long time been clear that there is substantial abuse in respect of identification documents. They were introduced with the wholly laudable objective of preventing personation, and they succeeded in eliminating personation by all parties bar one. Personation in Northern Ireland is now committed by only one party, because only one party has the resources necessary to contravene the current system. Those resources should not be underestimated. The Minister knows that in financial terms, if not in manpower terms, that party's resources far exceed his party's. The Minister's party would have great difficulty matching it in terms of effective political organisation, because his party cannot match the resources of a party that runs rackets on a huge scale in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

There is a serious problem because that one party has the resources needed to contravene the current arrangements and it does so through non-photographic forms of identification, especially the medical card. The abuse has been known about for ages, and for ages Members of Parliament and members of the Northern Ireland parties have urged successive Governments to deal with that abuse. I remember six or seven years ago speaking to Northern Ireland Office Ministers and being assured by them that they would tackle the problem and do so promptly. I was told that legislation would be in place in time for the next general election—the one held in 1997; that legislation never appeared. In 1997, the new Labour Government assured us that they would tackle the issue and that legislation would be in place before the next general election; no legislation was in place by the time of this year's general election.

Finally, the legislative process has started, but can the Minister assure us that he will achieve the objective of having only photo-identity by May 2003? I hope that he can, but I know that there has been bureaucratic resistance to such a measure for the past half dozen years or more. I strongly urge him to accept in one form or another amendments that would put on the statute book the requirement that the measure must have been implemented by May 2003. Without that discipline and that argument to use against those who adduce reasons to delay, I greatly doubt his ability to deliver.

I do not doubt the Minister's intention, but I doubt whether he will be able to deliver in the next 18 months—the issue is delivery. We shall of course listen to what he has to say—what promises and undertakings he makes—but I repeat that to ensure the objective is achieved, it would be better for the provision to be on the statute book.

New clause 1 and the other amendments set out various forms of photographic identity document. Some of the proposals point towards the establishment of a system of identity cards for the whole population. The Liberal Democrat spokesman echoed the reservations voiced by the spokesman for the official Opposition. I have never understood why some people do not like the idea of identity cards, and I have never been able to find any coherent reason for opposing such a system.

Identity cards do not cause a problem anywhere else in Europe—this is one of the few occasions on which I recommend practice in the rest of Europe as a guide for us. Compulsory ID systems elsewhere are a convenience—it is quite a disadvantage not to have an identity card system. I see hon. Members turning around, and I do not want to open up an entirely different debate; I merely observe in passing that I do not understand the objections.

I should like the Minister to respond to one point relating to identity documents and the proposals before the House. On Monday, the Home Secretary made a statement in which he said that he would introduce by January a system of identity cards for asylum seekers that would use fingerprints, signatures and biometric techniques. All those bits of information would be on a smart card that would be available by the end of this year. I think that I am right in saying that, in Committee, the Minister said there would be difficulty in producing smart cards in that time scale. Evidently, progress has been made since the Committee reported, but I urge the Minister to look again at including that range of material on the appropriate cards, as we are dealing with people who are adept at forgery and manipulating the system.

There is a consensus in the House on the need to move to photo-identification alone and for that to be in place by May 2003. The only argument is about the details and ensuring that there is a statutory obligation; we urge the Minister to accept that there is a statutory requirement for such identification. That way, we might at least have some confidence. However, if we weighed the Government's pronouncements against the background of pronouncements by previous Northern Ireland Office Ministers stretching back over several Administrations, confidence would be in short supply.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

For the most part, I walked the same path as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in Committee, but we parted company on the issue of identification. The Minister is not being unreasonable in resisting the new clause; I trust that he will continue to do so.

The general consensus in Committee was that, while we were keen to have a Bill that would be powerful and effective in limiting the activities of electoral fraudsters, we did not want to do anything that would deter a significant number of people in Northern Ireland from being able validly to register and vote. If we are to succeed in the interests of democracy, we must ensure that whatever good we achieve in deterring the fraudster is not offset by deterring people who are genuine and want to exercise their franchise, as it is intended that they should. The Committee considered that balance as, indeed, must the House; the Minister had to consider it when the amendment was tabled in Committee, and he must consider now that it has been tabled on Report.

As right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is desirable to have an entirely photographic identification card system in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Whether that identification is a driving licence, a passport, a custom-made ID card, or, hopefully, if the good intentions of the Minister are followed, the concessionary pass produced by Translink and the Department for Regional Development, the inclusion of which came about as a result of good, sound Democratic Unionist party policy, that is the way forward. However, we must recognise that, at the moment, the most popular forms of identification at elections in Northern Ireland are probably benefit books and medical cards.

That is the reality; those of us who have attempted to carry out an investigation which, if not scientific, at least helped us to get some feeling of the use of identification at polling stations, came away with the clear view that those were the main identifiers in use. If that is the case, the burden is on the Government to ensure that those identifiers are replaced by photographic identification. The Minister should therefore delay any statutory requirement to take existing identifiers out of use and employ only photographic identification until he is sure that there is a sufficiently high uptake of the new identifiers.

I would not vote for the Bill—this is how important the matter is to me—if I thought that the end result would be a significant number of genuine people being unable to vote and if, correspondingly, an unspecified number of people, whose total is probably hard to determine, were able to abuse the system. The political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government must therefore be satisfied that the uptake is sufficiently high. That does not remove the requirement that the Government should have a clear goal, nor does it remove the requirement that the Northern Ireland political parties should ensure that they keep to that goal and timetable as far as possible.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight)

Does the hon. Gentleman recall points made outside the House about the vulnerability of the Government to pressure caused by intimidation of the republican population, which may be threatened and attacked for using photographic ID cards? The Minister gave an opaque response in Committee, but those are the people who will be vulnerable. If republicans are intimidated by their so-called representatives into refusing to use photographic ID cards, it will be impossible for the Minister to meet his deadline, unless it is included in the Bill.

Mr. Robinson

That is a judgment that the Minister and, indeed, the political parties in Northern Ireland will have to make. If there is a campaign by a particular political party, that may very well be to the detriment of it and its political future. Every party should be consulted by the Minister periodically so that we are satisfied that progress is being made. There are other mechanisms in the House to call the Minister and Government to account if we believe that they are dragging their feet. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which championed the need for legislation, will undoubtedly want to observe its progress and receive periodic reports from the Minister to ensure that he is on course for the deadline which, I believe, everyone in the House, wants to be met.

None the less, it would be irresponsible of the Minister to include in legislation a requirement for the removal of key identifiers for what is probably the majority of voters in Northern Ireland without being satisfied that they had taken the opportunity to get new ID cards, whether concessionary passes from Translink and the Department for Regional Development or cards produced by the chief electoral officer. In this case, it is right to support the Government because they are acting both sensibly and responsibly.

Patrick Mercer (Newark)

I want to underline the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and pay tribute to many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). Furthermore, I admired the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), especially his comments on the timetable for the legislation.

Many of my constituents in Newark and Retford are currently serving in Northern Ireland with the Sherwood Foresters; they have been there for almost two years. Last weekend, I spoke to one of their company commanders, a personal friend with whom I served in precisely the same camp—Omagh—12 years ago, performing the same duties in that part of world. The battalion's life has changed very little in the interim. When I asked my friend what he was doing, he said, "Guess what? I am on election training again."

To most people, the idea of forces serving in Northern Ireland probably sounds exciting, but alongside the dreadful upsurge of troubles in places such as north Belfast, there is a routine part of operations for the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and all ranks in the Army, Navy and Air Force who serve over there.

6 pm

I recall first having to protect a polling station back in 1975 in Dungiven. I was told that that would be the responsibility wholly of the electoral officers and the RUC, but it did not turn out that way. The RUC was stretched, as it is now, and the Army ended up taking a hand. Again, in 1977 I was faced with the same duties. In my nine tours in Northern Ireland, I do not think that I once avoided getting involved in an election protection scheme of one sort or another. Slowly, over the years, the duties have become more and more formalised, so poor old Tommy Atkins is faced with all sorts of complications in trying to avoid election fraud, support the RUC and support the electoral officers.

There was a funny side. I remember a tractor coming backwards to a checkpoint that I was holding. It was polling day, and we were protecting a polling station; I cannot remember where—Fermanagh, probably, in the middle of nowhere. A tractor backed all the way into the checkpoint. It turned out that the occupants were going to vote, but all the forward gears on the tractor had given out. So intent were those people on voting that they used just the reverse gear.

In west Belfast in 1982, we were warned that any number of attempts at personation would be made and that disguises would be used. We found a young man who looked curious, his cheeks puffed out with cotton wool. It turned out that he had a boil on his gum. Such were the difficulties of trying to understand what was going on and the various modes and means of personation. Now, training for polling protection has become formalised as a lengthy package for every unit serving in Northern Ireland and for the police, who do their best over there.

As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, there are people and parties who want the legislation to be delayed. It is in their interests that photographic means of identification should not be adopted speedily and that the target date of 1 April 2003 should not be met. In view of the considerable amount of time that is wasted by the security forces, particularly the Army, whose duties should be far less complex and technical, I urge the Minister to look closely at the timetable and to introduce a universal photographic means of identification. Above all, the timetable must be adhered to, so that by April 2003 there is watertight legislation that will enable electoral fraud to be minimised in situations that are always difficult and fraught with problems.

Mr. Browne

I am pleased that the debate in the Chamber today has continued on from the constructive and helpful way in which the Committee conducted its affairs. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

I shall resist the new clause and all the amendments. I shall deal first with new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 10 and 17, which all seek to impose a timetable on the removal of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. The other amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) explained, are intended to make the electoral identification card compulsory for all voters in Northern Ireland.

As I said repeatedly on Second Reading and in Committee, the next scheduled Assembly elections in Northern Ireland are in May 2003. That has always been and will remain our target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. However, for reasons with which I will deal in detail and which have already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I must retain a degree of flexibility.

The people of Northern Ireland must be informed about—but, more importantly, they must accept—the electoral identity card. I have no intention of creating circumstances that inadvertently disfranchise people who do not have confidence in the system. The electoral identity card will be a voluntary card, but it will be in the interest of all the political parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that their voters obtain a card if they require one. We all have a duty as parliamentarians to explain that to the people of Northern Ireland and to help instil confidence in the process, as there is cross-party support for the measure.

A major publicity campaign will be necessary to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland is aware of the changes and aware of the photographic identification that they will need to exercise their franchise. It is not an unreasonable position for the Government to take to leave open the timetable for removing the existing prescribed documents which are not photographic, until we are satisfied that there has been sufficient uptake of the new electoral identity card.

There is no advantage to us in passing legislation that will make electoral fraud more difficult if, at the same time, we disfranchise legitimate and valid voters. Obviously, we will have to make a judgment as to whether people are volunteering for the identity cards, and a decision must be made as to what effect that will have on the poll. I repeat again that May 2003 is our target date for removing all forms of non-photographic identity from the list of specified documents, but I will not take the decision lightly.

I must retain the flexibility to assess whether there has been sufficient uptake of the electoral identity card, and to consult fully with the political parties in Northern Ireland before I make that decision. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by the Bill realise that flexibility is crucial. That is no doubt why the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Belfast, East—the only two Northern Ireland Members who were present when we last voted on the issue—voted against the amendment during the Committee stage.

Lembit Öpik

Does the Minister understand that at the core of the argument for setting the deadline is the recognition that the Government are not passive in the matter? They do not merely react to the circumstances. The deadline would oblige people to get photographic identification. My concern is that the Minister is taking too passive a role for the Government in the matter.

Mr. Browne

My understanding is that I had been criticised for taking too active a role and for retaining the decision to myself. I intend to consult all the political parties in Northern Ireland—not all of which are represented in the House—about our progress in implementing the plan that I have set out. I have no intention of deviating from the objective of May 2003, but at various stages I will have to make a judgment on whether the people of Northern Ireland are being taken along in that process.

That responsibility is not mine alone; it is the responsibility of other politicians in Northern Ireland who support the change. We will all have to work together towards that objective. If any party decides to spoil the process, that will be a consideration, but it will not deflect me from the decision that I intend to make, if it is appropriate. The decision will be made in the circumstances, and it will not help the process if we impose an unrealistic timetable at this stage—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) says that the timetable is mine—yes indeed, but to impose it by statute would make it unrealistic, as that would deny the reality that a considerable number of people who are not represented in this debate—the voters—must be taken along with us.

Mr. Blunt

Can the Minister reassure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and me that his arguments are based on considerations of practicality—whether it will be possible for him to introduce the cards in time for 2003, and whether the public information campaign to which he referred will achieve his objective in terms of take-up of the card? If he can run a public information campaign and introduce the measures, surely it would be in his interest to reinforce his position in statute.

Mr. Browne

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the opportunity to set his mind at ease on the practicalities. I am confident that we can meet, in practical terms, the objective that I have set. Earlier, he invited me to tell him whether practical difficulties would arise and he said that he would not insist upon the amendment if that was the case. I do not seek to use that excuse, however, as my understanding is that the measure can be achieved practically. The one element that I cannot assess is the valid response of the ordinary voters of Northern Ireland, on which I shall have to make a judgment. That is the only reason that I have ever given for the need to retain flexibility. I am not alone in holding that view, which has support. Hon. Members who represent significant parties and a substantial number of voters in Northern Ireland agree that that is the appropriate approach. There is a difference of view about the matter, but that is my position and has been since the issue was injected into the debate.

Mr. Andrew Turner

Putting it bluntly, the Under-Secretary appears to have handed Sinn Fein a veto on the process by refusing to include a deadline in the Bill. What will happen if it can blackmail, bully or intimidate its supporters into not carrying the card? I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that they have no interest in doing so, but he is wrong. The Under-Secretary has said—he can correct me if I am wrong—that he could not introduce it without evidence of widespread support from all the parties. Is not that handing the bullies a veto?

Mr. Browne

With respect, the hon. Gentleman misrepresents me. I have never said that any party has a veto. Contributions to the debate suggest that one party may seek to obstruct implementation. If that happens between now and May 2003, it will be a factor that must be taken into account, but in no circumstances am I suggesting here or in any debate that if a party chooses to cause such difficulties, it will be a reason for not introducing the photographic identification cards. I am saying that we cannot introduce a change if an accidental effect is to disfranchise people who wish legally to exercise their vote, as would happen if they had no confidence in the system. It will be my responsibility as a Minister, and the responsibility of other politicians who vote for the change and operate within politics in Northern Ireland, to work together to achieve confidence. If we achieve that confidence, we will achieve the objective. There is no practical reason why we cannot do so.

Lembit Öpik

I intervene a second time only because the issue is so important. Everyone seems to agree with the desired outcome, but the Under-Secretary seems to need some flexibility just in case his desired deadline is not achieved. Will he at least consider including in the Bill a deadline that he is pretty certain can be achieved, even if it is May 2005 or 2006? That would at least enable everybody to know there is a date after which it would not be acceptable to use inappropriate identification

Mr. Browne

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he asks me to put certainty into uncertainty. I am suggesting that there is one uncertain element in the process: the response of the voters. Until that element is tested, we will not know its effect. As I do not know how the electors will respond, it is pointless to include a deadline at all. I cannot attach certainty through uncertainty.

6.15 pm
Mr. Trimble

I am slightly confused about the point that the Minister is trying to make. Is he saying that he cannot introduce the measure if there is an insufficient take-up of cards, or that he will not do so if people lack confidence in the system? Most of his comments suggest that he holds the latter position. If that is the case and he is concerned only about whether people have confidence, will he explain on what possible grounds they might not be confident?

Mr. Browne

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. If I was not making myself clear, I shall try to do so now. I was trying to explain that if the small proportion of people who may need the card do not have confidence in the system and do not claim it, that will lead to a lack of take-up. One is a consequence of the other. He shakes his head, but as neither of us has asked voters to come forward for voluntary or compulsory identity cards, he can be no more confident that his assertion is any better than mine in respect of whether a lack of confidence will lead to a lack of take-up. With all due respect to him—these are his voters and he may know them better than me—he has never before asked the electorate to do this. We should work together to inspire confidence in the system and to get people who do not have this new form of photographic identification to come forward for voluntary cards. We must secure sufficient take-up, so that we can pass the test that we have set ourselves and ensure that everybody has a reasonable opportunity to obtain the card. With confidence, we can then remove the non-photographic forms of identification.

Mr. Trimble

rose—

Mr. Browne

Obviously, that is not clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman; no doubt I have confused him even more. We will soon find out.

Mr. Trimble

I think that I am beginning to understand the Minister. He is using the word "confidence" when it would be better not to do so. He appears to be speaking purely about uptake. He said that we had not asked people to do the same thing before, but that is not true. We successfully introduced the concept of identity documents for elections, which is novel to people outside Northern Ireland, just as we introduced different forms of voting long before any other part of the United Kingdom. The electorate of Northern Ireland are capable and intelligent enough to cope with the situation, as they have proved time and time again. The Minister appears to be speaking purely about uptake. He also used the word "confidence", but that is a different thing. Lack of confidence could be a factor in any failure to take up the card, but it would not be the only one. I was trying to find out whether he would take the decision purely on the basis of whether there was a lack of confidence or whether the matter is simply one of take-up. It appears that he is talking more about take-up than anything else.

Mr. Browne

If the right hon. Gentleman now knows what I am talking about, I can move on.

I regret to say that I shall also resist amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire. I express regret because he knows the regard in which I hold him on these issues. He has made a valuable and consistent contribution to debates about them for many years.

The amendments propose that the electoral identity card should be mandatory and the only form of identification that is acceptable at the polling station in Northern Ireland. As we said in the White Paper, the Government's ultimate aim is for every voter in Northern Ireland to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier. I think that that answers another question asked by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. In a moment, I shall deal specifically with his point about Home Office proposals. As I told the House on Second Reading, the introduction and use of an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier is an aspiration. If every voter in Northern Ireland had to be issued with such a card, we would effectively be requiring all adults who wished to vote to carry a mandatory identification card.

There would be no point in introducing a mandatory smart card unless we could be certain that it was more secure than the existing forms of photographic identification. It would therefore need to contain biometric data about the holder, be that an iris scan, fingerprint or hand geometry scan.

The Government would be foolish to rush into such a radical new scheme before we could be confident of the practicalities or that the voters and political parties in Northern Ireland were happy to accept such a scheme. I hope that I have used the word "confident" properly in that sentence. We will continue to give further consideration to when it might be possible to initiate such a secure electoral identity scheme. However, such a scheme would not be introduced without wide consultation with all interested parties, and primary legislation would be required to introduce such a card. Hon. Members who seek an assurance from the Government should be aware that it remains our intention, as expressed in the White Paper, to proceed to such a system.

Mr. Barnes

I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. The point about take-up has some relevance to my amendments. If a situation is reached where the take-up of identity cards is inadequate and the other forms of identification have to be used—if the legislation has not bitten—we may have to look closely at a system that is universal and compulsory. However, I welcome the Minister's comments about potential developments.

Mr. Browne

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will use words similar to his later in my speech. If the system proposed in the Bill is not successful, we may have to look at proceeding more quickly to some form of compulsory card with the benefits that I have described.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked about Home Office plans for biometric identification cards—to be known as the application registration card—for asylum seekers. This is an extension of the current asylum application system. The Home Office already collects the fingerprints of all asylum seekers when they make their asylum application, so there is already a database of the fingerprints of all asylum seekers in this country. Immigration officers use mobile quick-check units to check asylum seekers' fingerprints against the database.

At the moment, asylum seekers are issued with a standard acknowledgement letter. The application registration card is designed to replace that letter. There has been concern at the ease with which those letters are being forged. A smart card containing a biometric element would make forgery virtually impossible.

That new system is very different from one in which we would require every adult who wanted to vote in Northern Ireland to provide us with their fingerprint or an iris scan. Not only would that involve mandatory registration, it would raise important questions of civil liberties—whether it was appropriate to require a person to provide biometric data about themselves before they were able to vote. Much discussion and consultation has to take place before we could proceed to a position where we could require people to provide that level of data about themselves before they were able to vote.

The electoral identity card proposed by this Bill will be freely and widely available to all those who require it. It represents the quickest way to create a situation in which we can remove from use the medical card and the other non-photographic identification. Our objective is to stop personation. We believe that requiring voters to show secure photographic identification at the polling station will meet this objective and, so far, no one has argued that that will not be the case.

Although I have cautioned that we must move steadily on the introduction of the electoral identification card and that we must take the electorate with us, I acknowledge that we have to take action as quickly as possible and reasonable. Introducing the electoral identity card as a stepping stone towards an electoral smart card allows us to act more quickly to remove all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. That is why we are proposing the legislation in the first place, and why we intend to take advantage of the fact that other people can use alternative forms of photographic identification, such as driving licences and passports, that cannot easily be forged.

This brings me to the Translink smart card, which is mentioned in new clause 1. I have said that I am willing to add the new Translink smart card, to be issued to all those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland from April next year, to the list of specified documents. However, it would be entirely inconsistent with what we are trying to achieve in the Bill to allow the smart card to be added to the list of specified documents before both the chief electoral officer and I are certain that the card will be secure proof of identity.

As I said in Committee, my officials are working with those at the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development to resolve the outstanding problems about the security of the Translink smart card. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, East on his recent appointment as the Minister for Regional Development. I am sure that the outstanding issues will be resolved all the more quickly with him in command. Once these problems are resolved—I am sure that they will be—I will happily add the Translink smart card to the list of specified documents. That can be done by secondary legislation at the appropriate time.

Our target has been and will remain 2003 for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. I would not have continued to state repeatedly that May 2003 was our target if I did not believe that it was possible for all those in Northern Ireland who require an electoral identification card to have one by that date. However, we must maintain a level of flexibility, for all the reasons I have outlined.

Mr. Blunt

This debate has mirrored the one that we had in Committee, in that the longer the Minister went on defending his proposal, the less convincing he became. As the Minister went on, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I became more and more incredulous at the case the Minister was attempting to put. I noted that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) shared my reaction.

Having listened to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), one can only admire the intellectual consistency and clarity that his solution would bring. However, because of the points that have been touched on earlier, I would continue to resist his amendments. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I share his concerns about the practicality of introducing the cards and about whether the Minister can, in practice, meet his own deadline.

The hon. Member for South Down asked about the resources for the chief electoral officer, and that remains an issue. It is clear that the officer is overstretched in a number of respects. That was shown by his inability to check the absentee votes at the last general election. Those have not been tested fully because the officer is now engaged in putting together the new register. That is merely an example to show that there is at least a question mark as to whether he has sufficient resources.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that what we are putting forward is entirely in the Minister's own interests. Without the discipline of having a date in statute, the Minister is likely to fail to get the Bill on the statute book. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire challenged the Minister to agree that if the deadline could not be 2003, it could be 2005 or 2006. There should be a date in statute to ensure that the legislation will definitely come in.

If we had the certainty of a date—even if it is not April 2003, as the Liberal Democrats have suggested—the actions of the Minister's officials and the public information campaign in Northern Ireland to achieve take-up of the card would be reinforced by the fact that the scheme was to come into effect, so that there was no point in any organisation seeking to obstruct it.

Lembit Öpik

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's claim that he cannot put a deadline in the statute because he does not know the rate of take-up could be applied to all kinds of legislation—for example, the introduction of mandatory use of rear seat belts? On every other matter, we seem to have deadlines, but on this one very important matter he is resistant.

6.30 pm
Mr. Blunt

It is odd. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my perplexity.

I listened with care to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He supports the Government on this issue, and we must agree to disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made a telling contribution about the historic importance of personation in electoral fraud in Northern Ireland and stressed the importance of a timetable, not least to give members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces, as well as the electoral officers, some certainty about when the transfer is to take place.

The Minister may come to regret resisting the assistance that we are offering him. He should have a chance to think again on the issue. We will want to examine his arguments in another place to determine whether it is appropriate to return to the matter. We are about to discuss more important causes of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, so I will not insist on the new clause at this stage, but it may be appropriate to press the matter in another place. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that his arguments have not convinced the House, and that he and the Government will think again.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to