HC Deb 20 January 2000 vol 342 cc1030-45
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 13, line 10 leave out clause 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in page 13, line 13, leave out and on a permanent basis". No 49, in page 13, leave out line 19.

No. 50, in page 13, leave out lines 20 and 21.

No. 51, in page 13, line 27, leave out , or (as the case may be) district electoral area,". No. 53, in page 13, leave out line 44.

No. 54, in page 14, leave out line 1.

No. 55, in page 14, leave out line 4.

No. 56, in page 14, leave out line 6.

No. 34, in page 17, line 4, leave out "11".

No. 35, in page 17, line 7, after "purposes," insert ; except that section 11 shall not come into force before 1 January 2003.".

Mr. Forth

In what I have repeatedly called an unnecessary and bad Bill, the clause is one of the most worrying provisions. Sub-section (1) says: If it appears to the Secretary of State, in the light of any report made under section 10"— such a report would be from a local authority that had conducted one of the pilots we have been discussing— on a scheme under that section, that it would be desirable for provision similar to that made by the scheme to apply generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to relevant elections of any description, he may by order make such provision for and in connection with achieving that result as he considers appropriate". That bothers me considerably. I am worried in any case, as I have said a number of times, about the way in which we are tampering with long-established electoral law. I am not happy with that approach and shall expand my comments, although not at great length, on Third Reading.

All that would be bad enough, because I do not believe that the case has been made for the provision and sufficient weaknesses and loopholes have emerged in Committee and on Report for us to be even more worried about the Bill, but the clause allows the Secretary of State, on the basis of the pilot schemes and the reports on them, simply to apply the results generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to relevant elections of any description". We are going way beyond what is prudent, sensible or wise, dealing as we are with something as sensitive and basic as electoral law.

My amendment would delete the clause altogether and I am advised that the effect would be that the Secretary of State would be obliged to resort to primary legislation widely to apply the results of a pilot. That is what I am after. I am not satisfied that it is sufficient to have an order made, even with the approval of each House of Parliament, which is provided for in subsection (4). As we all know, one of the many problems with that approach is that statutory instruments are not amendable, so we face the prospect of the Secretary of State being enthused by one of these experiments and implementing such a change to the electoral process right across the country, by order. To my mind, that weakness and danger is inherent in such an approach.

It would be one thing if all those matters had been carefully researched, and perhaps the Minister will tell me again about his working party, for which I still have no enthusiasm. He might, however, tell me of the thoroughness with which the working party operated and how it foresaw all those difficulties, saying that it cannot be blamed for all the flaws in the Bill that have emerged. They would be down to the parliamentary draftsman, not the working party.

Did the working party ever envisage that, as a result of the measures that will be put in place by this ill-begotten Bill, a relatively small pilot—implemented, for example, in St. Helens—could attract the attention of the Secretary of State, who might decide that it could be equally implemented in Caithness and Sutherland on the one hand and Cornwall on the other? According to the clause, the Secretary of State could come to the House and say, "By order, I have decided that this scheme is a jolly good idea and the whole country will now have it." Given the rather slender accountability that statutory instruments regrettably provide for us, that could be done. We were criticised for having the gall to scrutinise the Bill, but how much less scrutiny would a statutory instrument provide before the electoral law of the entire country might be changed?

I make a plea. My amendment would have the simple effect of removing the clause from the Bill so that we could all have the reassurance—the guarantee—that, were we ever to face the prospect of changes being made to our electoral law based on the slender evidence of perhaps only one pilot scheme, even if it were to take place in St. Helens, the Secretary of State would have to produce primary legislation, with all that that implies. It would have to go through the full process of scrutiny, unless it were truncated by the Government of the day, and then, and only then, would there be a general change in electoral law.

This is an important part of the Bill and the brevity of my remarks should not be taken as in any way diminishing the importance that I attach to the measure. My point, which I believe is very important, almost makes itself and I hope that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the deletion of the clause, will give us a jolly good story indeed as to what reassurances we shall have that changes will not be made—to our electoral law, no less—on the basis of some slender and rather obscure pilot scheme.

Mr. Hancock

Once again, I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The amendment makes a lot of sense, and I wonder whether the clause is necessary and what was the motive for including it. Like many Members, I welcome the idea of change and I am sure that we are all delighted that, as we heard from the Minister, 44 local authorities have applied for changes to be made. I hope that there will be a good, countrywide expression of the benefits that can be derived from such changes and that many are agreed to by the Home Office so that they can be implemented fairly quickly.

I must, however, ask Ministers to be cautious. They must not rush to accept the results of one or two pilot schemes. As I am sure most Members on both sides of the House agree, we must see what develops over a period—a minimum of two or three elections—before the Government are able to reflect the success or otherwise of the schemes, and direct the House to decide whether it wishes the nation to be covered by the arrangement involved. Any Secretary of State who rushed into implementation of a scheme—laudable though it might be, and successful in a specific area—and suggested that it would be acceptable in other areas would be making a serious error.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right to put caution to the fore. I see no possibility other than the deletion of clause 11. It is not possible to tinker with the clause; it is all or nothing. I should be sorry if the matter were not forced to a Division, because this is a critical part of the Bill, and one that I oppose vehemently.

Ultimately, primary legislation must be the only way of introducing effective change nationwide. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of what is being proposed, and will accept that deleting clause 11 would be a help rather than a hindrance. It would enable other local authorities to chance their arm with a pilot scheme, or an adaption of one of the 44 that are proposed.

I also hope that the Minister will consult his colleagues with the aim of ensuring that the House is given a full report of the reasons for and against acceptance of the pilot schemes that have been submitted. It is interesting to learn that 44 have been submitted, but I should like to know why only 30 have been accepted, and why the others have been refused. Following a debate on legislation such as this, hon. Members are entitled to know the thinking behind decisions to accept or reject pilot schemes.

Mr. William Ross

I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We are discussing an important part of the Bill, which I think should have been dealt with by means of primary legislation. I have been in the House long enough to know what "made by statutory instrument"—words that appear in clause 11(4) —means. Many statutory instruments appear on Order Papers. As a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know that hundreds, if not thousands, go through on the nod every year, and that, in some instances, no parliamentary procedure is involved. We should think carefully.

I can envisage instances in which the only way in which to secure a debate on a statutory instrument in either House would be by means of a Prayer, involving a discussion lasting perhaps an hour and a half. If I am wrong and we would be allowed a day or more, well and good; but statutory instruments are not amendable, and statutory instrument procedure falls very far short of what I consider to be vital, given the sweeping powers possessed by the Home Secretary, whatever the Government involved.

3.45 pm

I am a signatory to amendment No. 26. I added my name to those of Conservative Members independently of them, as is normal procedure. The amendments that I myself tabled are all intended to discover what the consequences would be in some instances, and also to draw attention to the dangers of permanence—especially in the case of amendment No. 48, which asks for the removal of the words and on a permanent basis". Those words would mean that a change made by the Home Secretary would not apply merely to one or two, or even three or four, elections; it would be a permanent change, which could be reversed only by another statutory instrument—and I am not certain that even that would be possible. I suspect that such changes could be reversed only by primary legislation.

I object to the sweeping powers given to a Minister who has been enabled to change the system applying to any election, or to all elections, and to change any existing legislation in order to do that. I do not accept what I consider to be a lame excuse about consultation. I know what "consultation" means: it means that the Government will eventually tell the House what they are going to do and, if they have a large enough majority, force it through. That is not acceptable to me at any time, but it is particularly unacceptable to me in the context of electoral law, which is the basis for the presence of each and every one of us in this place. We depend on an electoral system that the people trust—a system that is above reproach—and we should not be giving such sweeping powers to anyone. The matter should be dealt with in the House, where it should be considered in detail and at length.

The Home Secretary put it very well when he said: Electoral law is so fundamental to democracy that changes to it should, wherever possible, proceed by consensus." —[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 160.] The qualification "wherever possible" negates the rest of the sentence. I am familiar with the concept of making what appears to be a very good statement, and then qualifying it out of existence. It is a favourite tactic of Ministers, and we have suffered much from it in Northern Ireland.

I do not think that we should proceed by consensus "wherever possible"; I think that we should always proceed by consensus. I do not think that any party, or any Member, would object to genuine improvements in the electoral system, and I believe that our proceedings last night and earlier today were not the right way in which to deal with electoral law. Consensus should be demonstrated by an overwhelming majority in Parliament, after long and careful consideration of the consequences. As we know, it is amazing what comes out of the woodwork during the Committee and Report stages of Bills. Often, consequences and dangers are not apparent at first sight. The Bill introduces sweeping changes by the back door.

Amendment No. 49 also expresses my concern about the powers of the Home Secretary, but it proposes the removal of the words with respect to the whole of the United Kingdom". The proposal is universal, proving what I said earlier about the Home Secretary's powers covering each and every election. Amendment No. 50 proposes the removal of the next paragraph— "if such elections are held only in a particular part of the United Kingdom, with respect to the whole of that part."

No one has yet explained why Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, a region thereof or a particular council area can have a system that is different from the rest. I believe that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We should try to have a universal system, applied across the board.

On amendment No. 51, it is not immediately apparent, but I believe that the words "district electoral area" can apply only to Northern Ireland; the single transferable vote system of proportional representation is used there. As written in the Bill, a district electoral area is not a whole council area. It is a part of a council area. It is a number of wards. It could be three, four, five, six, seven or eight wards, but it is not the whole council area.

Therefore, a peculiar and sweeping power will be given to the Secretary of State—I assume that it could be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—to ensure that one particular area of a council can elect people by one system and that another area in the same council can elect people by a different system. That cannot be acceptable.

I know that the Minister will stand up in a few minutes and say that that will not happen, but, under the legislation, it could. My experience is that, if something nasty can be done in Northern Ireland, it generally will be. Therefore, I am concerned about the measure.

We need to look at the clause's direct consequences in relation to the STV system. By-elections occasionally take place. Under STV, three, four or five council members could be elected, with votes tumbling from one to the other in order of preference, or allegedly so. It is a fairly mathematical job to work it out. Calculators must be used to get it done.

I remember losing a very good councillor because, at one point, he was two fifths of a vote short of getting to the next stage. It is remarkable. People do not lose by one vote in Northern Ireland; they lose by a fraction of a vote. It was interesting that he lost. Eventually, we got someone whom we did not like because many of the votes did not transfer the next time round. The consequences are unforeseen. We can never know what will happen as the votes tumble down the chute.

Whenever we come to a by-election, that is not what happens. We transfer the votes only until someone has one over the half; it is not even 51 per cent. It is a modified system of first past the post, or first past the 50 per cent. barrier. Therefore, we need to be careful about what will happen if some fancy scheme is introduced for by-elections in Northern Ireland, rather than for PR elections for a council area, for councils in the whole of Northern Ireland, for the Assembly, or even for Europe. That part of the Bill raises a number of interesting and important questions for Northern Ireland.

Amendment No. 53 aims to leave out parliamentary elections—those to this place—from the list of relevant elections. Again, the measure raises questions. The other elections that I aim to leave out are in whole or in part to do with Northern Ireland. They include elections to the European Parliament, where, again, the STV system is used in Northern Ireland, and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

We are being told once more that changes can be made to the system of electing European Members in Northern Ireland by passing a simple Order in Council through the House. We can go back to first past the post. We can have some sort of list system. God knows what we might have.

At present, we have the STV system, which I object to anyway because it is different in every respect from the system that is used on this side of the Irish sea. Again, for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, we have STV, with six Members per parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland. Again, one system could be used in one part of Northern Ireland and another in another. Anything could be introduced that we would not wish to be foisted on us. My amendment would also leave out local elections in Northern Ireland, which I have already discussed.

I say it yet again: I firmly believe that such changes, either for the whole of the UK or any part thereof, should not be made by order. They should made in Northern Ireland only where a clear majority of the Members representing the Province in this place are in favour of them, and only by primary legislation. It is fundamental to our democracy that we have an honest system of election. I do not want it to be undermined by fancy footwork and misrepresentation of the will of the people.

Mr. Evans

Much has been said about consensus on the general thrust of the Bill. Yes, there is much consensus, but there is much concern as well over clause 11 and the sweeping powers that will be transferred to the Home Secretary.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) ably moved amendment No. 26, for which I have enormous sympathy.

Mr. Ross

Is the hon. Gentleman certain that it is only the Home Secretary? Surely it is only the Home Secretary with regard to Great Britain, although powers may be devolved powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Secretary of State for Wales. However, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has power over electoral matters there.

Mr. Evans

The Bill certainly transfers powers to the Home Secretary to take wide-ranging powers once pilots have taken place. The Home Secretary can then extend schemes to a number of other elections. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about other Ministers being able to utilise power. The Minister may say something about that in his winding-up speech.

I have enormous sympathy for the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We know what happens in relation to statutory instruments in the House. We have talked a lot about scrutiny of the Bill on the Floor of the House but, when a power is transferred to the Home Secretary and a statutory instrument is introduced, the scrutiny and amount of publicity that are given to the statutory instrument are not the same.

Mr. Bermingham

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that, if, for example, we have a maverick Home Secretary in 2015 who suddenly decides that he or she wants a particular voting system following an experiment in East Kilbride or somewhere else, the publicity generated against such a maverick scheme will not be mighty enough to ensure that there will be no chance of that silly statutory instrument getting through?

Mr. Evans

No doubt even in St. Helens there will be publicity along those lines if there is a maverick scheme from a maverick Home Secretary, but who is to say that it will not, on the face of it, be a maverick scheme, but a well-thought-out and calculated scheme? It may come from a Home Secretary not from the hon. Gentleman's party, but from some other party, which the House would reject if it were given the opportunity of a full debate.

We are talking about scrutiny of an important constitutional area. That is why I believe that we need to get it absolutely right and why we have tabled amendments Nos. 34 and 35. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spoke about the need for proper evaluation of any of the pilot schemes. That is what Conservative Members will be carefully looking for.

4 pm

The Opposition are still uncertain about when the pilots will be fully evaluated. The Minister said today that 44 pilot schemes have been submitted to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, his officials—perhaps even the Minister, particularly after the good work that he did on his own working party—will have to examine those schemes before deciding which ones to allow. After the announcement on the successful schemes, we should like to hear the Home Secretary's reasons for refusing the other schemes, so that the Opposition and local authorities may see the reasoning behind the Home Secretary's decisions.

We tabled amendment No. 35 to extend the time available for reflection on the pilots at least beyond the next general election, and specified the date of January 2003. We believe that, if the amendment is accepted, the pilots conducted this year and in 2001 could be properly considered. To date—while the Bill is still being considered by Parliament—44 schemes have been proposed. After the Bill is passed, there will be even more publicity about pilots. Once the pilots are up and running—the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said that one will be conducted in his area, covering six of his wards—

Mr. Bermingham

Four.

Mr. Evans

Nevertheless, six wards will be covered, at a cost of £5,000.

Once we start deviating from traditional Thursday voting, there will he much publicity and interest in how those polls fare. Consequently, I believe that, next year, the Home Secretary will be confronted with proposals on far more than 44 schemes. If people believe that the May 2000 pilot schemes are successful, and that they may be implemented at reasonable cost without imposing prohibitive costs on local ratepayers, other local authorities will want to participate, following in the footsteps of local authorities that have already conducted trials.

As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, the pilots should be nationwide. The Home Secretary may approve some schemes for trial in only one part the United Kingdom, and—for a variety of reasons, such as the nature and stability of the constituency, and regardless of the new rolling registers—those schemes may be a total success. However, it does not follow that, simply because a scheme is successful in one part of the country, it will be adopted, fully embraced and enjoy equal success in another part of the country.

Many commercial firms conduct trials of products in one part of the country before launching them nationwide, as they want to know how the product might do nationally before incurring the expense of a nationwide launch. Similarly, before the Home Secretary issues his evaluation of the schemes, the Government will be conducting trials. In some parliamentary and European elections, the Home Secretary may wish to adopt schemes for use across the country. Once a statutory instrument to that effect has been passed, it will be the first time that some areas have deviated from traditional Thursday voting in that type of election. We shall have to examine the results of those elections very carefully.

The most recent nationwide trial in the United Kingdom was conducted in the previous European elections—when we adopted d'Hondt and regional lists, and when voter turnout, at just over 23 per cent., was derisory. I assume that the Home Secretary, upon examining those results, will have reached the same conclusion that I have—that the public did not embrace the regional list system, and that they perhaps did not like even the regions themselves. In the north-west, millions of people have 10 Members of the European Parliament, from various political parties, and do not know which one to go to. The constituency link has been broken, and many people may not even know the name of their MEP. People have conducted their own trial of the new voting system, and—as the turnout figures show—they do not like it.

We propose that, for the schemes that the Home Secretary is being asked to approve, before he uses the powers conferred on him by the Bill, in some cases there should be one full year of consideration, and in others there should be at least two years. We are asking for extensive consideration, and not only because of the costs involved. The figure of £5,000 was mentioned to implement a scheme in six wards, but that is only one small example. The costs of weekend voting will be even greater. If voting were done on only one weekend day—the Minister has assured us that that will not happen—people will have to be paid at time and a half. If there is voting on Sundays, people may have to be paid at double time, imposing enormous cost.

If the Home Secretary, after considering the results of a local pilot scheme, decides that general elections should be held on weekends, and if he makes it obligatory in a statutory instrument, enormous costs will be imposed on local authorities across the country. I am not aware of any assistance to local authorities to meet that extra cost. Currently, local authorities volunteer to spend ratepayers' money to conduct trials of new schemes. They will not be able to volunteer to comply with a statutory instrument, but will have to find the money to do so from within their own budgets. Subsequently, other spending will have to be cut, or council tax will have to rise.

We still do not know how many of the 44 schemes will be accepted, and it will be interesting to see how many are. There may not be many pilots in 2000. Regardless of the number, we shall at least be putting a toe in the water.

It will require at least a full year before we are able to determine whether a pilot has caused the vote in local elections to increase or decrease. Although we know from published figures that there has been a decline in polling numbers, particularly at local elections, we do not know what turnout criteria the Home Secretary will use to judge the success of the pilots conducted this year and next year.

How will the Home Secretary judge whether the decline in turnout has been arrested? Even if the numbers decline is stopped, how will he determine whether it has been stopped by the pilot, or whether the pilot has prevented the decline from being more severe? We do not know how he will make those determinations.

Mr. Bermingham

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another problem is that, next May, only a third of metropolitan areas will be polling, and that shire counties, London and district councils will not be polling? The experiment will be conducted only in certain areas.

Mr. Hancock

Some districts are polling.

Mr. Bermingham

Yes; I am grateful for that intervention. The results of the experiment will not be nationwide, and we should perhaps be cautious in considering them.

Mr. Evans

I agree completely. There are 44 pilots, but we do not know how many of them will be accepted. This year and next year, there will be only limited pilots in the United Kingdom. Local elections will not be held simultaneously across the United Kingdom for three years. The Home Secretary, using the powers that we confer on him in clause 11, may decide to use those elections to conduct a trial of a new voting scheme for the entire United Kingdom, prior to changing the system used for Westminster parliamentary elections.

Mr. Bermingham

The hon. Gentleman's fears may be unfounded, because the votes will be counted under a first-past-the-post system, so the trials will not necessarily change the overall strategy of voting. Clause 11 does not give the Home Secretary the power to introduce proportional representation.

Mr. Evans

I agree. Proportional representation was not considered by the working group. If any local authority proposed a pilot scheme that included the use of proportional representation, the Home Secretary's bin would not be far away. The Bill does not give him the power to agree to such a pilot anyway, but it gives him power in other areas. That is why I am anxious that we should get the trials right this year and next. As we suggest in amendment No. 35, there should be a longer period of evaluation before the Home Secretary is able to introduce a new system nationwide for local or Westminster parliamentary elections.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mentioned the integrity of the vote. If polling takes place on more than one day, people will need to ensure that there is great security. If there are any errors, future pilots could be jeopardised. One local authority failing to take proper precautions could result in a good idea not being developed in other areas. We have also asked whether the ability of the political parties to cope with voting taking place on a different day or on a number of days could be taken into account in the evaluation. We are all part of the system. Candidates, canvassers and tellers all have a role to play in the election procedure. Not everybody is entirely happy with the telling arrangements.

I am sure that we have all encountered voters at polling stations who refuse to give us their number, because they feel that that would give us more information than just the fact that they had gone to vote. They do not fully appreciate the fact that we take numbers to ensure that we do not waste their time—never mind ours—later in the day when we knock on doors or phone people to encourage them to vote. I hope that giving extra time for the evaluation procedure will enable us to consider the ability of the political parties to participate in the changed voting arrangements.

The Home Secretary will also be given powers to introduce voting a lot earlier than polling day. Early voting may be permitted on a number of days, with the polling booths open for more than just two days. I read one suggestion about mobile polling, with ballot boxes being taken to a place of work, a residential home, a nursing home or even a small village with only two or three houses where the people are disadvantaged by having to travel a long way to vote. For example, there is the case of Paralchina in Australia, which is miles from anywhere. The ballot box is taken to the villagers. The authorities ensure that everybody votes by going to them. The villagers all know when the ballot box is coming, because it is one of the most exciting things that happens in Paralchina, apart from the train going in and out.

Some villages in this country might benefit from mobile polling, but we need to see how the idea will work. We shall want to be privy to such an experiment and to ensure the integrity of polling boxes that move around the country. The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that, in Northern Ireland, if bad things can happen, they will. Mobile polling boxes travelling round the country could present an opportunity for fraudulent voting if we are not careful.

4.15 pm

The possibility of voting in supermarkets has also been mentioned. The Home Secretary may well find from pilots that it works. Some hon. Members said in Committee that the last thing that people out shopping wanted to do was go and vote, but shopping centres and big supermarkets attract many people. It is worth giving local authorities the opportunity to set up a mobile polling station in a supermarket car park to see what the response is. Some families like to vote together and wait until the entire family is home before going to the polling station, but for others that is not possible and they might want to vote while they are out at the supermarket.

Not everybody voting at a supermarket would necessarily live in the local polling area. They might come from another part of the town or city to go shopping and then pop into the polling station. We have to evaluate the idea properly because, without proper proof of identity—we appear to have decided against requiring that—people can assume a false identity and be crossed off the list at the supermarket but not off the other list at the polling station, perhaps a few miles away, where the real voter could then vote as well. If all the polling stations were linked by computer, there would be less of a problem, but having polling in a supermarket as well as at the local polling station gives greater opportunity for personation.

We need proper safeguards and better evaluation of the dangers of personation. We have already agreed that scant research is being done on that. I have heard of people at polling stations being told that they have already voted and other hon. Members may know similar examples. Without more research on personation, how can we properly evaluate whether a pilot is successful on that count if we do not know the base line?

Mr. William Ross

There is another aspect of that issue. At a parliamentary election, people voting at the supermarket may not even know who their local candidates are. How can we determine which constituency they live in and how will the information be conveyed from one constituency to another? In most of the elections that I have fought, a few ballot papers have turned up from other constituencies. God knows how they got there. I assume that they were postal votes that went astray in some way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are in danger of going into too much detail about individual schemes rather than talking about the amendments.

Mr. Evans

I am coming towards the end of my contribution. I want to ensure that the Home Secretary has enough time to evaluate the great number of pilot schemes. We all know about the problem with supermarket voting that the hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to. I hold a surgery at a supermarket when shoppers can come and chat with me about whatever their problems are. I know that other Members of Parliament do the same. When I ask where they live, I sometimes find that they are from outside my constituency. I then advise them to see their Member of Parliament. The catchment area of a supermarket may cover more than one constituency. It would be more expensive and time consuming, but polling stations at supermarkets that cover more than one constituency might need to make provision for voters from neighbouring constituencies. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that can be done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail about individual schemes. The debate is time limited and we want to make best use of the valuable time available.

Mr. Evans

I hope that the Minister will take on board the date that we have suggested. We want the pilots to take place, but they need to be properly evaluated. The pilots will be limited this year and next. It would be dangerous for the Home Secretary to be confident of his conclusions after a few brief experiments. We would need further evaluation before extending the experiment countrywide, perhaps against the wishes of some local authorities. I hope that the Minister will reassure us.

Mr. Bermingham

As to the security of the boxes on a two-day vote, the answer is simple. At present, when a count takes place not immediately, but the next day—as happens in a number of constituencies at a general election—the boxes containing the voting lists are sealed. Verification takes place the next day, and there is never a problem. At the end of the first day's polling in a two-day vote, one would seal the lids of the boxes for that day and verify them. The next day would be verified also, with a separate box. There does not seem to be a problem in that respect.

I am keen that these experiments be looked at carefully, and I am equally keen that the bid made by my local authority—which covers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) —be accepted. However, that is a matter for the Home Secretary in due course.

In St. Helens, voting in some central areas has decreased. In local authority elections, we get a turnout of 20 per cent., and in the European elections we were down to 14 per cent. That is never satisfactory for whoever wins. We must hope that we can stimulate interest again, so that turnouts for local and national elections are about 70 per cent. At the last election, the turnout in my seat was about 65 per cent. The reason for the drop is the nature of the area, and the nature of the problems that we have. The experiments are therefore a good idea.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think about clause 11 as it is drafted and the conclusions that are to be drawn. I would like to see experiments and evaluation in different areas, as different factors affect different areas and the voting intentions there.

The experiments should be carried out over, perhaps, three or four local government elections—the best place to test these matters. Then we can look at whether double-day voting, single-day voting on a different day or no change is the answer. I understand the purpose of the amendment, but it would be short-sighted.

It would be better for the Minister to leave clause 11 as, in the long term, it is probably the answer. As Governments come and go, legislation can change. Just as with statutory instruments, everything on the electoral system is scrutinised. My experience here over more than a decade and a half has taught me that certain statutory instruments are never overlooked and are debated at some length.

The experiments should be over a number of years and different local government elections—including county, district and metropolitan. Elections in the City of London could be used. There are one or two experiments that I would like there, so that we could get some democracy. Before you call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will go no further down that line, and I will make my points in respect of the City at the appropriate time.

I urge the Minister to show breadth of vision and experimentation, and then draw his conclusions.

Mr. George Howarth

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) must be thinking of some other Ministers when he calls on me to show breadth of vision. I am more of a nuts-and-bolts man. Nevertheless, I will bear his strictures in mind.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) talked about different electoral arrangements applying in different parts of the same local authority. However, under clause 11, whole local authority areas could be excluded, but not particular parts of a local authority. I hope that that provides the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to supermarkets, a matter we discussed in Committee. No pilot would be approved unless it included arrangements to make sure that the register was networked. If someone votes in a supermarket, that vote will be registered immediately by the electronic equipment and deleted from the register. Hopefully, that would prevent the kind of abuse that the hon. Gentleman fears.

Mr. Hancock

Would that be an essential condition of any pilot scheme incorporating voting in a supermarket?

Mr. Howarth

Unless the application for a pilot scheme could demonstrate that it was capable of that—I do not want to be prescriptive as to how—the Home Secretary would have no choice but to turn it down, simply because it would not meet any practical test in terms of someone voting more than once. It is a fair point, but it is covered.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred to the cost of the roll-out of any pilot schemes. That cost will fall on the local authorities themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South indicated what he takes to be the cost in St. Helens. At this stage, I do not have enough information to say what the typical cost would be. I suspect that the costs will not be unduly prohibitive—indeed, no local authority would submit a pilot application if it felt that the costs involved were prohibitive.

The costs of general and European parliamentary elections are met out of the Consolidated Fund. If there were to be further developments, they would be costed in that way.

I intend to say a word in a moment about publishing the evaluations, but it would be unnecessary and heavy-handed if either the Home Office or the House tried to impose some particular methodology on them. The expectation is that local authorities will carry the evaluations out in as vigorous, objective and professional a manner as we would all expect. I have no reason to believe that that will not be the case.

Amendment No. 26, moved by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have the effect of removing clause 11 from the Bill. However, the clause is crucial to the Bill, as it will enable successful innovations to be rolled out. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about this measure, and I suspect that those concerns have increased, rather than decreased. There is not a great deal that I can do about that—it is in the nature of debate that some people will remain to be convinced. However, I share his concerns in this respect—the desire to see that the rights of this House and Parliament are upheld. However, his fears are misplaced and I shall explain why. Clause 10 will allow local authorities to apply to run pilot schemes at particular local elections. All those pilot schemes will have to be fully evaluated and a copy of the evaluation report must be sent to the Secretary of State within three months of the election concerned. That is a reasonable length of time for the sort of evaluation that we would all expect to see carried out.

4.30 pm

I am happy to assure the House that all such evaluation reports will be published and that copies of the reports will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, so that the process will be open and transparent. It will be open to any Member to read the evaluation of any pilot, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will pore over them with great thoroughness.

Let us consider what would happen if a particular innovation were to prove a great success. Perhaps it had been tried in several local authorities with varying demographic complexions. Turnouts had increased and the evaluations had shown that the electorate welcomed the innovation. In such cases, why would we not wish to apply the innovation more widely and as quickly as possible? If the amendments were to be accepted, the innovation could not be applied until well into the next Parliament, no matter how successful the pilot scheme or how successful the innovation.

I suspect that the electorate would find it hard to understand why some successfully piloted procedures could not apply to them the next time they went to the polling station. Indeed, as a Member of Parliament, let alone as a Minister, I would not like to have to explain to the electorate that, although better procedures had been proved successful in pilots, they had to wait for Parliament to re-examine the issue and to decide whether the innovations should be applied more widely through primary legislation.

Mr. Hancock

Is the Minister saying that pilots can be tried for one election only? Is there any reason why a scheme successfully piloted by a local authority in May this year could not be repeated in May next year?

Mr. Howarth

No, but a separate application would have to be made for a separate pilot. If pilots are successful, they may spread. For example, let us suppose a pilot in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South proved to be successful—knowing the local authority, I am sure that it would. If that happened, and given the symbiotic relationship that I know exists between Knowsley and St. Helens—I live close to the border of my hon. Friend's constituency—the people of Knowsley would ask why they could not have the system, too. My hon. Friend is well aware that political events in St. Helens tend to find echoes in Knowsley, and vice versa.

If amendment No. 26 were accepted, we could not roll out any change except by introducing further primary legislation. As the House knows, the demands for legislative slots always exceed the amount of parliamentary time available. Who knows when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might be able to secure a slot for the necessary legislation?

Mr. Forth

Good.

Mr. Howarth

Somehow I knew the right hon. Gentleman would find that an attractive proposition, but the rest of us—including, possibly, the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues—might not. It is our hope that we will have a steady stream of pilots over the next few years and it is quite possible that each year one or more innovations will emerge that are successful.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a good-natured and patient person, but I imagine if the Home Secretary were to say to her, "It is possible that I will need slots for one or more electoral procedures Bills for each of the next few Sessions," she might respond with a few choice words.

Mr. William Ross

The Minister mentioned the need for a slot for primary legislation, but the Bill provides that, if a prayer is signed by the Leader of the Opposition and a considerable proportion of his right hon. and hon. Friends, the Leader of the House would have to find a one and a half hour slot—and there could be a lot of those.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, has anticipated me. As I was saying, it would be difficult to justify to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for regular electoral process Bills.

The notion of pilot schemes came from the working party on electoral procedures and, at the risk of incurring the ire of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I shall quote its final report: Any legislation should in our view be framed to allow successful pilots to be rolled out widely without the need for further primary legislation. Although that places no obligation on the right hon. Gentleman, even he will appreciate that it places an obligation on me to ensure that the legislation envisaged by the working party—which included representatives of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—reaches the statute book. We have followed that recommendation closely in framing the Bill. No member of the working party dissented from it, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself able, in his generous way, to withdraw his amendment.

I also hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry has taken some comfort from my remarks. His amendments were designed to prevent any roll-out of successful innovations from applying to Northern Ireland. I understand the source of his concerns, because we have discussed it many times before, and I know that they are based on experience of the possible difficulties of ensuring the integrity of the ballot. However, even allowing for the difficulties that we know exist in Northern Ireland, that approach is perhaps excessively negative. There may be innovations that we have not even thought of that prove to be a great success and from which the people of Northern Ireland would wish to benefit. I cannot rule out that possibility. I know that the problems of turnout mentioned by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and others are not of the same magnitude in Northern Ireland, but anything that makes voting easier and more convenient should not be ruled out, even though we do not yet know the precise form that it will take.

I have already explained that all the information on which to decide whether an innovation should be rolled out will be made freely available to the House, and that Parliament will have every opportunity to discuss the merits of any proposed roll-out. That seems a much more sensible way to proceed than simply to seek a blanket exclusion from the process for Northern Ireland.

On the basis that something may turn up, as Mr. Micawber put it, for Northern Ireland, I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Forth

The temptation in circumstances such as these is to respond to an argument on the basis that one likes and trusts the people who have made it. Because they have been charming, one is inclined to feel that a measure is safe in their hands. I am tempted in that way today because of the way in which the Minister has put the argument.

The problem is that neither the Minister nor the Home Secretary, whom we all admire so much, will not be in their posts for the rest of time. It is possible that people will be appointed who, under clause 11, will be empowered to take a different view and act in a less trustworthy way. I accept what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government and, on balance, it would be appropriate for me to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the House of Lords will look again at this and other matters.

The irony is that, as long as the House of Lords remains unelected—a fact that I consider unfortunate—we will be asking unelected people to consider a Bill that bears directly on our electoral process. However, I hope that their Lordships will take a view closer to mine than to the Minister's.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to