THE row over vote-rigging took a new twist yesterday when it emerged that the Labour Party’s General Secretary had demanded tough anti-fraud measures that the Government is fiercely resisting.

Ministers had kept secret from Parliament documents showing that Peter Watt, Labour’s top official, insisted that the safeguards were needed to end election fraud.

The showdown over voting scandals worsened as MPs voted for a second time to reject pleas by the Lords to make everyone give their signature and birthdate to get on the electoral roll.

After eight months of pleading by Conservatives, officials finally placed in the Commons library on Monday copies of all letters received in a public consultation on election reform.

Oliver Heald, the Tory constitutional affairs spokesman, triumphantly waved the Labour Party’s official response at the Minister, Bridget Prentice, across the dispatch box.

“All political parties support the case I am making, even the Labour Party,” he told her. “Official Labour Party response to Department for Constitutional Affairs policy paper: head of constitutional and legal unit said, ‘We agree with the collection of individual identifiers when people register to vote as a welcome improvement in enhancing the security of the electoral process’.”

The Times has seen the document, dated June 2005. It was written by Mr Watt, then Labour’s constitutional chief.

He wrote: “We agree with the collection of individual identifiers when people register to vote as a welcome improvement in enhancing the security of the electoral process . . . Every voter would need to include their personal identifiers on the form themselves.”

Mr Heald read a list of Labour individuals and bodies who had also responded to the consultation by demanding the reform. They included Michael Connarty (MP for Linlithgow & Falkirk East), Bill Rammell (Harlow) and Doug Naysmith (Bristol North West). The Labour-run councils of Merton, Bury, Telford and Redcar had written asking for the change. So had Birmingham, where a judge said Labour’s successful vote-rigging of the 2004 local elections “would disgrace a banana republic”.

Mr Heald said the policy was backed by election observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Electoral Reform Society and Electoral Commission. “It’s time to stop making the Government look ridiculous,” he said.

The Electoral Administration Bill was introduced to allay growing concerns about the risk of vote-rigging. It includes some safeguards to prevent postal voting fraud but does less to tackle the risk of voters having their identities stolen in polling stations. The Lords’ amendment would require people to sign and give their date of birth to be checked against records before a ballot paper is issued.

Robert Syms, Tory local government spokesman, said: “People get really, really angry when they are registered and turn up and find someone has voted ‘for’ them.”

Ms Prentice said: “We must ensure our response is proportionate.” MPs voted 290-204 to send the Bill back to the Lords for another tussle.

Times Recommends

• An officer and a gentle woman
• Dame Helen Mirren is worthy of the Epidaurus
• Foods that can help to prevent swine flu