HC Deb 16 December 2003 vol 415 cc1517-44

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 5 leave out `voters' and insert 'electors'.

No. 48, in page 3, line 18 at end insert —

'() The report must also include an assessment as to the following matters relating to the requirement by virtue of section 2 to provide polling progress information

No. 49, in page 3, line 22 [Clause 4], leave out 'voters' and insert 'electors'.— [Mr. Leslie.]

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A remarkable piece of news is running on BBC television at the moment. It reports that the Prime Minister has revealed in an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service that there is massive evidence of systems of laboratories throughout Iraq that could have produced weapons of mass destruction. He has also talked about programmes for the building of intercontinental ballistic missiles. I raise this matter because although I understand that the statement is based on the Iraq survey group's interim report, it goes a good deal further than anything that the House has been told. If true, the news is very significant and the Prime Minister should surely have told the House before broadcasting it. Has the Prime Minister asked your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to come to the House and make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife) (LD)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, these issues were extremely controversial, both before the commencement of military action against Iraq and during the hostilities. They have continued to be of controversy, not least given the inquiry being conducted by Lord Hutton. Is not it appropriate that the House of Commons should be advised about these matters before anyone else?

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the points already made, can you confirm that Mr. Speaker has repeatedly ruled from the Chair that announcements such as this should be made to the House first? Can you therefore ask whether urgent inquiries can now be sent from this Chamber to No. 10 to determine whether the Prime Minister has spoken in the way suggested? If he has, can he be invited—very strongly—to come to the House of Commons promptly, in order that he may tell us what on earth is going on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Obviously, the Chair knows nothing of these broadcasts or their content. The Chair can say that there has been no request from No. 10 for permission to make a statement. These are obviously serious matters, and they have been heard by Government Front-Bench Members. I remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister is due to answer questions in this House tomorrow.

Order for Third Reading read.

6.5 pm

Mr. Leslie

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Many hon. Members have contributed significantly during the Bill's passage through the House, especially by effective scrutiny in Committee. It is also worth commenting briefly on several other initiatives as we conclude the consideration of the Bill. First, I wish to put on record my appreciation of all members of the Committee, especially those who have also contributed to the debate today, for generating useful ideas and assisting the development of policy.

One example is the amendment that has just been agreed unanimously, to change the part of the Bill that relates to the definition of a voter or elector. The amendment was originally tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and affects the terms as defined in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The change that has now been agreed will extend the duty of local authorities so that when assisting the Electoral Commission they may be required not only to assist in the ascertaining of the views of those who have actually voted, but those eligible to vote and who chose not to vote. A consequential change has also been made to the nature of the Electoral Commission's report. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and I am glad that we have been able to accept it.

Members from all the parties who took part in the debate in Committee—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists, as well as Labour Members— made several helpful suggestions about how the marked register or— in legal terms— the polling progress information should be piloted in the case of all-postal ballots. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to provide political parties and candidates with an electoral register marked to show who had cast their ballot in the all-postal process, to be provided prior to the close of poll. Amendments were tabled and the Government have been able to accept them. That is the right way forward.

My Department has been in contact with representatives of all the main political parties and electoral administrators about the form that a marked register should take and how it could practicably be produced. The conclusion was that it should not take the form of an electoral register marked to show those who have cast a ballot, but instead be provided as a list of those who have returned an envelope purporting to contain a ballot paper, thus enabling worries about human rights, secrecy and privacy to be overcome. Parties would then cross-reference the list with their own copies of the electoral register. That was the clear preference of all parties and the favoured mechanism of regional returning officers. The purpose of the change— which has now been made— is to state explicitly in the Bill the principle that the information will be provided and to make clear the obligation on electoral administrators.

The rationale behind this Bill is simple: we need to modernise our electoral systems so that the public as a whole can express their democratic choice more easily and conveniently. There has been much discussion recently about the levels of participation in our political process, reflecting the sense that the turnout at elections is too low and needs attention. While there are no doubt deeper undercurrents that create voter apathy or fatigue— the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has mentioned some of them— some practical and achievable steps can be taken now to make the process of voting more amenable and suitable to modern ways of life.

I have announced today the Government's intention to extend the process, begun some time ago, of trialling new and innovative voting mechanisms, extending the scale now from the local to a regional level. All-postal voting is of benefit not just to those with difficulties physically getting to a polling station— those with disabilities or the elderly— but is of positive convenience to the wider population as well.

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD)

In Committee, the Minister assured me that we would see a dialogue between the Electoral Commission and the organisations that represent those with disabilities. Will he assure the House that he will take up any recommendations from the commission on people with disabilities?

Mr. Leslie

I can assure the hon. Lady that we have continued that dialogue, not only with the Electoral Commission but with organisations representing disabled people and elderly people. A number of initiatives may need to be included in the pilot order; for example, in relation to a device to assist visually impaired people to vote. The debate on those matters, in which she took part, was useful in developing policy.

At the local election pilots so far undertaken, all-postal balloting ran at nearly 50 per cent. turnout, compared with an average of 33 per cent. where conventional arrangements applied. That illustrates the likely impact of the removal of some of the physical obstacles that lie between the voter and the ballot box. We propose to pilot all-postal voting in the north-east of England and the east midlands. I hope, too, that a third region or nation will be identified over the coming few weeks, following conclusion of the considerations advised of the Electoral Commission.

The Government recognise that all-postal voting is not a panacea for all the problems of voter participation in our democracy. Nevertheless, it is surely right to take steps where we can on practical and popular improvements to make voting more accessible and simpler. All of us in Parliament have an interest in ensuring that our democracy remains healthy and that elected representatives have a clear mandate from their constituents to act. The Bill represents an important step forward in that objective and I commend it to the House.

6.11 pm
Mr. Hawkins

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said on Second Reading, this is not a very good Bill. It is a bit of a mess. It started as a mess, and has been made worse by the Government's great surprise last week when they did not receive the response that they expected and wanted from the Electoral Commission. They did not receive the response they wanted on the number of regions; the commission recommended only two, not three. Indeed, the commission went further and said that there could be only one pilot region. On page 25 of its report of 8 December, the commission states: Should the Government be minded to provide for only one pilot scheme in 2004, the Commission recommends that it provides for an all-postal pilot in the North East. Clearly, as we have been suggesting, the Government could end up with only one pilot region.

During the last substantive debate on amendments, the Minister gave the game away. As I said then, and as we feared when I wound up on Second Reading, it is clear that the fix will be put back. We expect that the Government will bow to the demands of all their Back Benchers who represent Scottish constituencies and announce that the region will be Scotland. If they do, they will be flying in the face of the Electoral Commission's recommendations. Not only has the regional returning officer said that he does not think that Scotland would be an appropriate place for a postal pilot—although the Minister chose to quote selectively from the commission's report—but the commission's conclusions are even more strongly against the idea.

Section 3.8 on page 26 of the report states: The Regional Returning Officer for Scotland has submitted to the Commission, on behalf of himself and all 31 Local Returning Officers, that: having carefully considered the opportunity to conduct an all-postal ballot for the European Election in June 2004, we"— that is all the returning officers— have concluded that the success of an all-postal ballot cannot be guaranteed—Returning Officers feel that the lateness of the proposal and the difficulties which this brings to planning and contracting are significantly more important than many of the questions posed in the Consultation Paper. This conclusion is based on very real fears that the necessary infrastructure, which would be required to support the process, cannot be delivered in time to ensure that the election could be conducted properly. The risks are identified and commented upon in this response. We believe that these risks are cumulative and centre upon concerns over: the legislative timetable; the general lack of experience in Scotland of all-postal ballots; the lack of time available for forward planning; the recent busy electoral history in Scotland; issues relating to the security of the ballot; possible problems of delivery and return of ballot papers; the very significant staffing implications of an all-postal ballot; concerns about the ability of suppliers to deliver effectively; lack of time to test critical computer systems; and resources to plan for and deliver the election. That is the regional returning officer for Scotland setting out his objections on behalf of all 31 local returning officers.

I wanted to put those comments on record on behalf of my party because those present earlier who listened to the contributions of some Scottish Members—who, perhaps significantly, have not stayed for Third Reading—might have got the impression that local returning officers took a different view from the regional returning officer. It is made absolutely clear in the report of the Electoral Commission—which the Government set up—that the regional returning officer was writing on his behalf and on that of all 31 local returning officers. If the Government were to go ahead and soon or quickly—as the Minister variously put it—announce that Scotland was suitable, they would be flying in the face of all those detailed objections. I do not overstate the case by saying that the Opposition would regard that as a constitutional outrage and a recipe for disaster.

The Electoral Commission therefore concludes, in the light of all those factors, that those issues remain unresolved and must be addressed before any decision to designate Scotland a pilot region. We are talking about elections in June 2004, so there is no way that all those serious concerns could possibly be addressed in time.

Mr. Leslie

indicated dissent

Mr. Hawkins

If the Minister thinks otherwise, I would be interested to hear shortly how that can be done. If he wants to set out how he would answer all those detailed bullet points, I will take an intervention.

Mr. Leslie

I understand the hon. Gentleman's excitement but surely it is worth looking into the points raised by the returning officers further to see whether they can be overcome. Is that not reasonable?

Mr. Hawkins

No, because the Government set up the Electoral Commission. I agree respectfully with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said about commissions and I will say more in a moment. If the commission does not give the answer that the Government want and expect, they seek to undermine it and go back on its recommendations. We are talking about an election in only six months' time. The Electoral Commission, all the returning officers and the regional returning officer say clearly that these matters cannot be dealt with in time, and they say it, if I may say so, in spades.

The Minister conceded finally that everything that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members said about e-voting in Committee and on Second Reading was correct. The Electoral Commission has supported us, and the Government have had to abandon their previous obsession with so-called e-voting. Unfortunately, they have not abandoned their other obsession with so-called modernisation. Today, the Minister added a further abuse of the English language with what he described as a multi-channel general election after 2006. I do not know what that neologism is supposed to mean. Whatever it is, I suspect that Conservative Members will dislike it intensely. I am getting almost to the stage at which when I hear a Minister—he is one of the worst offenders—trot out yet again their dreary mantra of modernisation I want to reach for a revolver or a sick bag.

Mr. Forth

Perhaps the Minister had in mind reality elections, in which all the candidates go into some horrible room, and people are invited to telephone in and throw them out one by one.

Mr. Hawkins

That reminds me of the old-fashioned balloon debate in a university or school debating society, in which people would vote to decide who should be thrown out. We know that every time the Prime Minister has a reshuffle he indulges in a political version of the balloon debate in deciding who has been slavishly loyal enough to stay in the Government's balloon and who must be thrown out. It is the same with modernisation as with some of the Government's other obsessive buzzwords such as "sustainability". The Government believe that anything that is old must be bad. Conservatives, however, believe in our parliamentary and electoral traditions. We say that the reason that they are old and have survived is that they work—they are tried, tested and true. We strongly agree with the basis of the Electoral Reform Society's concerns about the Bill, which they have repeated before Third Reading to assist all hon. Members. It clearly has great concerns about issues such as the misuse of postal ballots in houses in multiple occupation and student halls of residence, and even cases in which the head of a household could purport to vote on behalf of everybody in that household.

I hope that the my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will acquit me of what he called nauseating sycophancy towards the Electoral Commission, because I strongly agree with him that the Government keep setting up such commissions, which is a recipe for constant flux. Once there is a commission, it will always make recommendations and it will always want to change things. It would be far better if we said that the reason why our electoral traditions have survived is because they work.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made several important points, which I shall touch on because they are equally relevant to Third Reading. The Opposition believe that the decline in turnout for European elections, which the Government are concerned about, is at least partly because of the introduction of the party list system under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which abolished first-past-the-post voting in European elections.

In our view, the decline is also because of the centralising, remote and bureaucratic process of further and deeper European integration. Perhaps the fact that last weekend's European Commission summit to try to draw up a new European constitution collapsed is a welcome sign that the European position is now collapsing under the weight of its own inadequacies and internal inconsistencies. There is certainly the problem that issues to do with further European integration will undermine trust and respect in the political system, and a referendum on any future constitution that may emerge from any future summit will be absolutely essential. We believe that we should return to first-past-the-post voting in European elections. If that were the Government's proposal today, instead of all the nonsense in the Bill, it would increase turnout in European elections, which the Government say is the object of the exercise.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Stone spoke on Second Reading, he drew attention to the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee—which has a Labour majority and is a chaired by a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) —urged the House to reintroduce first-past-the-post voting for European elections. We sought to introduce such a proposal in Committee. First past the post is the only system that maintains the immediate link between a representative and his or her constituency. That is particularly important now that we have these enormous, so-called European regions, which may have up to 6 million voters.

The evidence on all-postal voting is mixed. In some areas, it has undoubtedly increased turnout, which is why we have not, as a party, opposed all the Government's proposals for all-postal voting. When examining the Bill, it is right to point out that the evidence is contradictory. In the Hackney all-postal pilot, turnout actually fell by 3 per cent., and in Greenwich it dropped by 0.4 per cent. Some of the postal pilots have not worked well even to increase turnout, which the Government say that they want to do.

Our concerns about fraud and the dangers of personation remain. As the Electoral Reform Society has said, the chances of large-scale fraud are now back with us for the first time in 130 years—for the first time since the ballot reforms in 1872, there is serious concern about large-scale fraud. If the Government had not dropped their e-voting pilot plans this afternoon, we would be even more concerned that there would be large-scale attempts to distort a ballot by hacking into insecure computer systems. I am glad that the Government have belatedly listened to us and the Liberal Democrats and dropped those proposals.

Many senior police officers—some of whom I have spoken to—including Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Churchill, the head of West Midlands police major fraud unit, remain concerned that postal voting systems have too few major checks or controls to ensure that the true identity of the voter can be relied upon. The Bill contains too little protection for the security of the ballot, which is why we tabled amendments to provide for greater protection.

The security of the postal system gives rise to several questions and it might be relevant to mention the strange saga on which I briefly touched earlier. Although I have received hard copies of most Electoral Commission documents in good time by post, there was one that I did not receive, so I had to get it from the helpful people in the Library. Perhaps I did not receive it because of the pressures on the Christmas post, but if even a shadow Minister cannot get a hard copy of a relevant document in time for a debate, despite the fact that it was issued a week before, how can we be certain that the postal system will be able to run an effective all-postal ballot in an area as large as a European constituency?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) expressed worry about potential problems in rural parts of north-east England such as his constituency. If the north-east is selected for all-postal pilots—the Government are likely to accept the Electoral Commission's recommendations on that—the area might be out of synchronisation with the rest of the national campaign. Problems such as the way in which the media will cover the election are set out in the commission's report and despite the fact that the northeast and midlands have been recommended for pilots, it does not say that all the problems have been solved.

I agree with the worries expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). There should be more delivery points in the postal system. Given that the Bill will impose all-postal pilots on local authorities that might not wish to participate, it is important for there to be delivery points in each local government ward so that people who wish to vote by post will be able to drop off their ballot envelopes by hand in a secure location that is convenient for them. There is a danger that there might be strike action by Post Office workers, which has happened throughout the country in recent months and years, so there are genuine worries about the reliability Of the postal service. Indeed, militant unions could regard the fact that an election depended on the postal service as a good excuse to try to blackmail the Government of the day, which would cause a real problem.

We are also worried that, according to Postwatch, figures that were issued at the end of January 2001, an average of 1,500 items of mail are lost every week across every parliamentary constituency. I received a letter in the post only today from a constituent with whom I correspond regularly. She said that she wrote to me during the last postal dispute in London, but I have not received her letter. That situation confirms the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster cited earlier.

We did not have time to discuss amendment No. 26 because of the earlier Divisions. Conservative Members believe that the Government should make it clear that local authorities will be fully funded for all the costs of all-postal elections. Many small local authorities, such as those in my area and Tynedale council, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, are in danger of being left seriously out of pocket because the Government keep loading more obligations on such authorities without providing the funds to pay for them.

Mr. Salmond

The hon. Gentleman is raising several perfectly reasonable concerns about the practicality of all-postal ballots, but the stuff about people being open to blackmail from militant trade unions is grossly offensive to postal workers. What is the difference between his argument and the situation if people were to refuse to deliver polling cards or man polling stations? He is going into the realms of fantasy.

Mr. Hawkins

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but let us wait and see what happens when we have the all-postal pilots. The situation for polling cards is different. All hon. Members will be familiar with canvassing electors who say that they have not received their polling cards. Under the traditional system, we tell them that they can go to the polling station because if they can prove their name and address, the officials will accept that and give them a ballot paper. However, if ballot papers are delivered only through the post, electors who do not receive them will be deprived of their right to vote.

Although we have tried to improve the Bill and the Government have belatedly accepted several of the things that we said—we welcome the changes that they have made—we remain worried about it. We do not think that it will improve elections. In the light of what the Minister said about ignoring some of the Electoral Commission recommendations and proceeding with three pilots instead of two, we believe that we are right to mark our disapproval by voting against Third Reading.

6.29 pm
Mr. Heath

There are times when Governments need to introduce legislation in haste because of events. It is rarely good legislation. A habit is forming in the Department for Constitutional Affairs that also existed in its predecessor, of introducing legislation in haste when there is no need and when they have failed to predict or accommodate within their legislative plans the deadlines determined by the electoral timetable. This is one of those occasions. Nevertheless, our consideration of the Bill, especially in Committee, has been good. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who were involved in that, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh). He has sat patiently waiting to contribute to the debate and I hope that he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Progress has been made. The Government accepted my amendment No. 4, which they took over and called their own by adding the Minister's name to those who tabled it. I thank him for that because it improves the Bill. I am also grateful for his consideration of marked registers, which we pursued in Committee. He has accepted that they are in the interests of all parties and his proposal for them is sensible.

I am grateful to the Electoral Commission for knocking on the head the idea of a mixed all-postal and electronic election. We still have grave concerns about the efficacy of voting by electronic means and the avoidance of fraud. Those concerns have been strengthened rather than eliminated by the Electoral Commission. I am glad that the Minister has ruled out mixed voting for the pilots.

I wanted us to make more progress on fraud, personation and so on. The commission's proposals are good and need to be implemented. Although the Minister gave us vague assurances, they will be considered further in another place. The key concern for many people is whether the integrity of the ballot is maintained in all-postal elections. That is not only a problem for houses in multiple occupation. In general, there is a problem with the secrecy of the ballot and the ways in which it is more likely to be subject to malpractice than voting in person.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on people with disabilities. I hope that that work will continue and bear fruit so that everyone is properly involved in our electoral process.

There are some key problems. I have said all along that I am not intrinsically against novel forms of voting. There are cases for exploring ways of making the voting process better and more accessible to our electorate, but that process must be beyond challenge and reproach. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) nods, but I disagree with his argument that the Electoral Commission has no role to play. We need a degree of external arbitration on what is beyond reproach if Ministers are to introduce proposals for the House to consider, as they have done. In this case, they have decided that the north-east and east midlands should hold the pilots. I do not accept the premise behind the Bill, but I do accept that recommendation. If that is the conclusion of the Electoral Commission, those areas should hold the pilots.

The Minister is not satisfied with that. He wants a third region. As I said, if he is not changing the criteria that the Electoral Commission uses, it is bound to come to the same conclusion. In that case, he will have to override its decision for his own reasons, which he must give. If, on the other hand, he had accepted our amendment, he could have asked the Electoral Commission to do more work in those areas to ascertain whether it could come to a positive recommendation. The right approach would have been to say, "When you come forward with a positive recommendation for a third region, we shall adopt it, but we must have that recommendation."

In the present circumstances, the Minister will do far better by just accepting the runner up, as it were Scotland—and be done with it. Any other solution that the Minister comes forward with will be unacceptable. It will appear to be a gerrymander, whether it is or not and that is the problem that the Minister faces.

I have not entirely supported the Bill. My colleagues and I opposed it on Second Reading and we will oppose it on Third Reading. We do so because we do not believe that there should be pilots on such a scale in a national election. It is a sensible and reasoned proposition that when there is a national election or an international election, in the case of European elections, every voter in the country should be voting on the same basis, not with some voters in full possession of the facts as they are elicited during the election campaign and some not. Some electors should not have easier access to the ballot than others. There should he consistency. That is our key objection to the proposal. What the Minister said in the course of our considerations has not changed that fact. For that reason I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

6.36 pm
Joyce Quin

I welcome the Bill and I shall briefly explain why. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has presented the Government's case throughout our proceedings, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee.

I naturally wish to express my pleasure that the northeast has been recommended by the Electoral Commission as one of the pilot regions, and that the Minister has accepted that recommendation, which reflects the scale of the pilots at local elections that we have already conducted in the north-east. I think I am right in saying that the north-east is the only region where more than half the local authorities have already been involved in all-postal pilots.

The experiments have been extremely successful. Returning officers and others who have been involved in conducting such elections have not encountered the problems and genuine fears—I accept that they are genuine—that have been expressed by a number of Members during our proceedings. I accept that with all-postal elections candidates conduct themselves and campaigns are run in a somewhat different way. However, in our local experiments it has been possible to cast one's vote right up to the last day either at the civic centre or at some other designated point. It is true that even with all-postal ballots it is possible to vote fairly late in the proceedings.

I listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the difference in the national campaign when compared with others. However, we must recognise that local elections are often affected by national issues. Some issues that are relevant at local elections are relevant to local authorities throughout the country—issues relating to council tax, for example. They may be similar from one local authority area to another even though a particular local authority may be participating in a pilot and another local authority with similar issues may not. I do not think those obstacles are insuperable. If we were talking, as I hope we shall be, about rolling out on a more extensive scale, we would have to think of the consequences in terms of campaigning overall.

I reaffirm how popular the experiment in my area has been with voters. In parts of my area we have had the experiments now for three consecutive years. Like all Members at local election time, I canvas, knock on doors, and speak to people on the doorstep. The reaction to postal voting has been extremely positive, and I do not believe that we should stick with a traditional way of voting just for the sake of it. Many people, particularly in households where both partners are working, have stressed the fact that the all-postal system fits much better with their lifestyle. Of course, people may know in advance that they are going to find it difficult to get to the polling station, perhaps because both partners are working, or because they work long or unsocial hours. At the same time, my constituents warmly welcome an automatic entitlement to a postal vote. In parts of my constituency, people are used to the postal system, which they have used for three consecutive years, so there would be resentment if we went back to what they consider an old-fashioned and less convenient way of voting.

For all those reasons, I am very pleased indeed that the north-east was selected as a pilot for the experiment. I agree that we need to learn from our experience and evaluate carefully what happens in the elections, but I encourage the Government to think innovatively about voting systems. They should not be deflected by the doom and gloom that we have heard in our proceedings, because in my experience it is not borne out by reality.

6.41 pm
Angela Watkinson

I have listened with great interest to the debate. When our debates started this afternoon, I was opposed to the Bill in principle because of my experience in the most recent local elections of the postal ballot pilot in Havering, which threw up a range of difficulties. I hoped that, during the debate I would gain confidence that those difficulties could be overcome. but having heard Members' contributions, I remain opposed to the Bill.

The pilot in Havering threw up problems with the postal service, such as the non-receipt by electors of ballot papers and the difficulties of getting duplicates. In Havering, the one-envelope system was a particular problem, because a lot of electors resented having to put their declaration of identity in the same envelope as their ballot paper on the grounds of lack of confidentiality. The person who opened the envelope could link the ballot paper to the elector's identity, which was wholly unsatisfactory. There was also the problem of finding out whether completed ballot papers had been received at the town hall. A significant number of voters contacted me to ask how they could be certain that the town hall had received their ballot paper. In fact, there is no way of knowing. If we acknowledge the large amount of post that goes astray every year, we must assume that a certain proportion of ballot papers do not reach their destination.

In principle, an all-postal ballot is a bad thing, because it removes choice from the elector. Anybody who wants a postal vote can have one. In the past, it has been necessary to give a reason, such as going on holiday, work commitments or illness. Now, however, anybody who wishes to vote by post can do so if they submit an application. Nobody is therefore denied a postal vote if they want one.

David Taylor

The hon. Lady posed a rhetorical question when she asked how people can know that their absent voter ballot has reached the count. The marked register is a public document and is available for inspection after the electoral process is complete.

Angela Watkinson

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights my point. By the time a voter has discovered that their vote has not been received, it is too late. It is certainly possible to find out whether a vote has been recorded, but only after the election has taken place.

Choice should remain. If people wish to vote in the traditional way at a polling station, they should still be able to do so, but if they wish to have a postal vote, they should have one. That is preferable to choice being removed from people who wish to vote in person.

I shall say a few words about electronic voting, about which I would be extremely concerned. Highly sophisticated hackers, the introduction of viruses and the opportunities for personation mean that secure and confidential electronic voting is a long way off. I for one would never wish to vote by electronic means, because I would have no confidence at all in that system. It would have to be part of a mixed method system, because one could not guarantee that everybody had access to a computer. Those who had access to a computer at home or in their local library—those are two different methods, for a start—could vote electronically, while others would vote by post or in person at polling stations. That would make the system extremely complicated.

I take issue with the aim of the Bill. If I understand it correctly, the aim is to increase voter participation, which in itself is desirable. The proposals are aimed at non-voters, but people who do not vote choose not to vote. Nobody prevents them from voting. One can hardly say that voting is a complicated, onerous or difficult task. It is a simple matter to go to a polling station, and it is very simple to ask for a postal vote if anybody wants one. To make the process even simpler is wrong in concept.

If people need to be spoon-fed their ballot papers, they are not motivated to make a choice of who they want to vote for. They must have some personal motivation to participate in an election. The proposal is one step away from knocking on somebody's door, putting a pen in their hand, taking the ballot paper and putting it in the ballot box for them. People must take some responsibility for themselves. Making an election simpler is wrong in concept.

Mr. Hawkins

My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does she agree that when we look around the world and see many other countries where people are still fighting and dying for the right to vote in the traditional way, it is rather ridiculous that, because of their obsession with modern technology, the Government want to demean and get rid of a system that people elsewhere in the world desperately want—a democracy that is tried and tested, and which has worked for many hundreds of years in this country?

Angela Watkinson

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the situation in this country. We live in a free democratic country where everybody has the right and the opportunity to vote. If they do not take it, that is their choice. It is up to politicians to motivate people to use their vote by giving them reasons to think that that is important and makes a difference, not to make it so easy for them that they do not have to make any effort at all. If people cannot be bothered to vote, if it is too much trouble for them to ask for a postal ballot paper or to go to a polling station, it is their responsibility, not the Government's.

6.48 pm
Dr. Pugh

I rise for three purposes: first, to express my strong support in principle for postal voting, for entirely selfish reasons—it saves me a great deal of energy on election day if more and more people vote by post; secondly, to express support for the Electoral Commission's conclusions, although I do not tend to make a habit of that; and thirdly, to urge the Minister to resist other siren voices from the north-west and the erroneous idea that the north-west would be a good target for the pilots.

I accept entirely that there have been successful pilots in places such as Chorley and St. Helen's, and I accept entirely that there has been an increased level of participation in those elections. That is well documented. However, there are specific reasons this time for not choosing the north-west. The Electoral Commission is right in its decision, not because there is no need to increase participation—there clearly is; not because north-west people are not ready for modernity—they clearly are; and not because it would affect the political balance—the figures last time showed that it did not.

There are specific circumstances in the north-west in 2004 that make the region a bad choice. There is a real risk that the success of the north-west pilot in 2003 will not be replicated in the whole of the north-west in 2004. What was true in Chorley in 2003 may not generally be true of the whole of the north-west subsequently. The axiom "Chorley today, the world tomorrow" will not necessarily hold in this case.

I should like to give a rationale for that. The bulk of the elections in the north-west will be in the big mets and unitaries. That is where most people will vote. Very large numbers of the politically disconnected reside in those areas. Eighteen of the biggest councils in the north-west happen to have all-up council elections. That will occur in all the mets. It is the product of a completely coincidental process in terms of the periodic boundary reviews. Unusually, across the north-west people will vote in June and not May; for three councillors, not one; in two elections, not one; and under two voting systems, not one. Adding many people's first encounter with a postal voting system will produce a recipe for a degree of chaos, as novelty will be piled upon novelty.

My judgment—I think it is a fair one —is that, because of the complexity involved in this year's elections, people in the north-west will need more help than usual from polling clerks. A large number of people will be outfaced by the sheer size of the ballot paper and the various notes that will need to accompany it. Those who are least politically literate will have more problems. People in ethnic communities, for example, or those who have problems of social disadvantage may be most deterred by that scenario and by the bulk of paper. If one's introduction to the postal voting system is complex, but will not be replicated the following year, when a more simple procedure will be in place, it will not be a good basis for a pilot.

That is not just my judgment. Obviously, it is only a guesstimate on my part. but I have taken the trouble to write to a good number of chief returning officers in the mets who face the problem that I have described. In most, but not all, cases, they anticipate problems not for themselves—they are capable and competent administrators —but for the people who have to fill in the voting slips.

I wish to make one final point that is more delicate in some respects. In urban boroughs, including some in the north-west in particular, serious concerns have been expressed about electoral fraud. Much of what is said is based on anecdote, even though the Electoral Commission refers to it in its report, and much of it features in the media. I thought it would be very helpful to have some positive and exact statistics, so I took the trouble to write to the Government asking how many allegations of electoral fraud in postal voting in local elections in the north-west had been reported or investigated in the past 10 years. I thought that, if they were going to propose the north-west as a pilot region, they would definitely know the answer to that question. The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire replied: Information on electoral fraud at elections is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost."— [Official Report, 6 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 793W.] The fact that the Minister and the ministerial team do not know the answer to that question adds to uncertainty and to the prima facie case that the northwest is not the best area for a pilot. If he were to choose the north-west, which would run contrary to all the evidence that has been presented and to the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, the suspicion would be that the explanation was entirely political.

6.53 pm
Mr. Forth

I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) in challenging the underlying presumption behind the Bill, which seems to be something like this: it is terribly difficult, awkward and challenging to cast a vote in our democratic system, so we must help these poor voters, who find the whole thing overwhelmingly difficult, and make it much easier for them to vote.

In my view, that is a patently absurd proposition. Our electoral system is tried and tested, and elegantly simple. Although the existing system is not foolproof, I suggest that if we are worried about personation or fraud within it, it should be relatively easy to deal with them. The Government's underlying presumption is extremely patronising to our voters. I am partly astonished by and partly in admiration of Labour Members who find themselves able to stand up in this Chamber and imply that their voters are almost incapable of meeting the challenge of the apparently extraordinarily difficult electoral system that they face.

I do not share that presumption. I believe that our system is a proper and tried and tested one and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to exercise the privilege of voting by going to their local polling station and casting a vote on a ballot paper. That is not an obstacle—it is perfectly proper and appropriate in a modern, sophisticated democracy. We are, after all, talking about people whom we assume to be educated, if they wish to be knowledgeable, and who certainly have access to a wide range of information through the media.

The whole presumption behind the Bill is wrong and open to challenge, and it is cloaked in the word "modernisation", which some of us have come to detest, and which the Government trot out on every occasion to imply that modern is better. I challenge that assumption. Particularly when one is involved in tinkering with an electoral system, the burden of proof must be on those who wish to make the change, because the alternative methods are in many ways open to doubt and suspicion.

Mr. Salmond

If it had been left to the Conservative party, most of our electorates would never have got the vote in the first place. Although we cannot be sure about such things, I am pretty certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had sat on the Conservative Benches throughout the 20th century, he would have opposed every extension of the franchise.

Mr. Forth

I am tempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not.

I want to identify the Electoral Commission as one of the villains of the piece. The Government are fond of setting up such bureaucracies consisting of bodies of people, who, let us not forget, are appointed by the Government, and whose self-justificatory mission is to produce endless proposals for change. The Government pick the proposals up, put the modernisation label on them, and patronise the electorate by saying, "This is something to which we must all agree in the name of democracy." That approach does not hold up. We lived without the Electoral Commission for a long time, and we could certainly do so again: I hope that my party has the courage to say that and to pledge itself to do something about it.

Any self-respecting Government should be perfectly capable of examining the electoral system from time to time and making proposals that are put to the test of the parliamentary process to see whether they survive. We do not need a commission that is set up allegedly to be impartial, only for the Minister—rightly, in my opinion—to exercise his political judgment to say, "Thank you very much for that, but we are not going to do it anyway; or we are going to do something rather different." That challenges the whole basis of the commission.

Many of the problems of the postal vote were highlighted today. We do not yet have anything like a satisfactory solution to the problem of personation, which was mentioned several times. To my mind, however, the more difficult and challenging problem is that of intimidation, which was hardly mentioned. We all know that our present system is about as secure as one can get. An individual who feels in any way vulnerable knows that they can go into the security of the polling station and cast their vote in absolute secrecy: on that they can rely. That is not the case if a ballot paper is posted to them, because that makes them vulnerable to intervention or intimidation by some other person, be it a member of the family or another person in a house in multiple occupation. That should give us pause for thought. I have not heard anyone give even the beginnings of an answer to the problem; until that happens, I will remain utterly unconvinced that the way forward suggested in the Bill is appropriate. Surely we cannot ask our voters, especially those who may be vulnerable to intimidation, to move from a secure system to a potentially insecure system without having made any attempt at reassurance.

The Bill is deeply flawed. The reasons that have been given for it are invalid; the role of the Electoral Commission is one that I deprecate; and I am sorry to say that the alleged solutions for which the Government are responsible are inappropriate, poorly thought out and in many ways counterproductive. I hope that the House will reject it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 166.

Division No.14] [6:59 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Bryant, Chris
Adams, Irene (Paisley N) Buck, Ms Karen
Ainger, Nick Burden, Richard
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) Burgon, Colin
Alexander, Douglas Burnham, Andy
Allen, Graham Byers, rh Stephen
Atherton, Ms Candy Caborn, rh Richard
Atkins, Charlotte Cairns, David
Austin, John Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bailey, Adrian Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Baird, Vera Caton, Martin
Banks, Tony Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)
Barnes, Harry Challen, Colin
Barron, rh Kevin Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Battle, John Chaytor. David
Bayley, Hugh Clapham, Michael
Beard, Nigel Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)
Beckett, rh Margaret Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh
Begg, Miss Anne Pentlands)
Bell, Stuart Clark, Paul (Cillingham)
Benn, rh Hilary Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &
Bennett, Andrew Chryston)
Berry, Roger Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Betts, Clive Clelland, David
Blackman, Liz Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)
Blizzard, Bob Coffey, Ms Ann
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington) Colman, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Connarty, Michael
Brennan, Kevin Cousins, Jim
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Cranston, Ross
Wallsend) Crausby, David
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Browne, Desmond Cummings, John
Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack Hurst, Alan (Braintree)
(Copeland) Hutton, rh John
Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S) Iddon, Dr. Brian
Cunningham, Tony (Workington) Illsley, Eric
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire Ingram, rh Adam
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Irranca-Davies, Huw
David, Wayne Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &
Davidson, Ian Highgate)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Jamieson, David
Dawson, Hilton Jenkins, Brian
Dean, Mrs Janet Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Denham, rh John Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn
Dhanda, Parmjit Hatfield)
Dismore, Andrew Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dobbin, Jim (Heywood) Jones, Kevan (N Durham)
Dobson, rh Frank Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)
Donohoe, Brian H, Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Doran, Frank Jowell, rh Tessa
Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W) Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)
Drew, David (Stroud) Kaufman, rh Gerald
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Kemp, Fraser
Edwards, Huw Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &
Efford, Clive Inverness)
Ellman, Mrs Louise Kidney, David
Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E) Kilfoyle, Peter
Etherington, Bill King, Andy (Rugby)
Farrelly, Paul Knight, Jim (S Dorset)
Fisher, Mark Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Fitzpatrick, Jim Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna Lazarowicz, Mark
Flynn, Paul (Newport W) Leslie, Christopher
Follett, Barbara Levitt, Tom (High Peak)
Foster, rh Derek Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Foster, Michael (Worcester) Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings Liddell, rh Mrs Helen
& Rye) Linton, Martin
Francis, Dr. Hywel Llwyd, Elfyn
Gapes, Mike (llford S) Love, Andrew
Gardiner, Barry Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)
George, rh Bruce (Walsall S) Luke, Iain (Dundee E)
Gerrard, Neil Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)
Gibson, Dr. Ian McAvoy, Thomas
Gilroy, Linda McCabe, Stephen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) McCafferty, Chris
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) McCartney, rh Ian
Grogan, John McDonagh, Siobhain
Hamilton, David (Midlothian) MacDonald, Calum
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) McDonnell, John
Hanson, David MacDougall, John
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart) McFall, John
Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & McIsaac, Shona
Rhymney) McKechin, Ann
Healey, John Mackinlay, Andrew
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) McNamara, Kevin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) McWilliam, John
Hendrick, Mark Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hepburn, Stephen Mallaber, Judy
Hermon, Lady Mann, John (Basset/aw)
Hesford, Stephen Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)
Heyes, David Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hill, Keith (Streatham) Marshall, David (Glasgow
Hinchliffe, David Shettleston)
Hodge, Margaret Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall) Martlew, Eric
Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale) Meale, Alan (Mansfield)
Hoon, rh Geoffrey Merron, Gillian
Hope, Phil (Corby) Michael, rh Alun
Hopkins, Kelvin Milburn, rh Alan
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E) Miliband, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Miller, Andrew
Sefton E) Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hoyle, Lindsay Mole, Chris
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Moran, Margaret
Humble, Mrs Joan Morgan, Julie
Morley, Elliot Soley, Clive
Mountford, Kali Southworth, Helen
Mudie, George Spellar, rh John
Mullin, Chris Squire, Rachel
Munn, Ms Meg Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Steinberg, Gerry
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Stevenson, George
Naysmith, Dr. Doug Stewart, David (Inverness E &
Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) Lochaber)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Stinchcombe, Paul
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Stoate, Dr. Howard
O'Hara, Edward Stuart, Ms Gisela
Olner, Bill Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)
Organ, Diana Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)
Perham, Linda Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Picking, Anne Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)
Pickthall, Colin Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)
Plaskitt, James Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Pound, Stephen Timms, Stephen
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham Tipping, Paddy
E) Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Trickett, Jon
Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Truswell, Paul
Dinefwr) Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Primarolo, rh Dawn Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton
Kemptown)
Prosser, Gwyn Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Purnell, James Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Quin, rh Joyce Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Quinn, Lawrie Tvnan Bill (Hamilton Si
Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N) Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)
Raynsford, rh Nick Vis, Dr. Rudi
Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Walley, Ms Joan
Bellshill) Wareing, Robert N.
Robertson, John (Glasgow Watts, David
Anniesland) White, Brian
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry Whitehead, Dr. Alan
NW) Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)
Ruddock, Joan Williams, Betty (Conwy)
Russell, Ms Christine (City of Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Chester) Wills, Michael
Salmond, Alex Winnick, David
Salter, Martin Winterton. Ms Rosie (Doncaster
Sarwar, Mohammad C)
Savidge, Malcolm Wishart, Pete
Sawford, Phil Woodward, Shaun
Sedgemore, Brian Woolas, Phil
Sheerman, Barry Worthington, Tony
Sheridan, Jim Wright, Anthony D. (Gt
Singh, Marsha Yarmouth)
Skinner, Dennis Wright, David (Telford)
Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Finsbury) Wyatt, Derek
Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &
Lunesdale) Tellers for the Ayes:
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Joan Ryan and
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) Vernon Coaker
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Boswell, Tim
Allan, Richard Brady, Graham
Amess, David Brake, Tom (Carshalton)
Arbuthnot, rh James Brazier, Julian
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Brooke, Mrs Annette L.
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Browning, Mrs Angela
Bacon, Richard Burns, Simon
Baker, Norman Burnside, David
Barker, Gregory Burstow, Paul
Baron, John (Billericay) Burt, Alistair
Barrett, John Butterfill, John
Beggs, Roy (E Antrim) Cable, Dr. Vincent
Beith, rh A. J. Calton, Mrs Patsy
Bellingham, Henry Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)
Bercow, John Carmichael, Alistair
Beresford, Sir Paul Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping)
Blunt, Crispin Barnet)
Chidgey, David Maclean, rh David
Chope, Christopher McLoughlin, Patrick
Clappison, James Malins, Humfrey
Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe) May, Mrs Theresa
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Mercer, Patrick
Collins, Tim Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Cormack, Sir Patrick Norman, Archie
Cotter, Brian Oaten, Mark (Winchester)
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Öpik, Lembit
Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli) Ottaway, Richard
Djanogly, Jonathan Page, Richard
Doughty, Sue Paterson, Owen
Duncan, Peter (Galloway) Pickles, Eric
Duncan Smith, rh lain Prisk, Mark (Hertford)
Evans, Nigel Pugh, Dr. John
Fabricant, Michael Randall, John
Fallon, Michael Redwood, rh John
Field, Mark (Cities of London & Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)
Westminster) Rendel, David
Flight, Howard Robathan, Andrew
Flook, Adrian Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &
Forth, rh Eric M-Kent)
Foster, Don (Bath) Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Francois, Mark Roe, Mrs Marion
Gale, Roger (N Thanet) Rosindell, Andrew
Garnier, Edward Ruffley, David
George, Andrew (St. Ives) Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis) Sanders, Adrian
Gidley, Sandra Selous, Andrew
Grayling, Chris Shepherd, Richard
Green, Damian (Ashford) Simmonds, Mark
Green, Matthew (Ludlow) Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)
Greenway, John Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &
Gummer, rh John Kincardine)
Hague, rh William Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)
Hammond, Philip Soames, Nicholas
Hancock, Mike Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Hawkins, Nick Spicer, Sir Michael
Heald, Oliver Spink, Bob (Castle Point)
Heath, David Spring, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, rh David Steen, Anthony
Hendry, Charles Streeter, Gary
Swayne, Desmond
Hoban, Mark (Fareham) Swire, Hugo (E Devon)
Hogg, rh Douglas Syms, Robert
Holmes, Paul Taylor, John (Solihull)
Horam, John (Orpington) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Taylor, Sir Teddy
Hunter, Andrew Teather, Sarah
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Thurso, John
Jenkin, Bernard Tonge, Dr. Jenny
Johnson, Boris (Henley) Tredinnick, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Keetch, Paul Tyrie, Andrew
Key, Robert (Salisbury) Viggers, Peter
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Walter, Robert
Kirkwood, Sir Archy Waterson, Nigel
Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire) Whittingdale, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Wiggin, Bill
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Wilkinson, John
Lamb, Norman Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Lansley, Andrew Willis, Phil
Laws, David (Yeovil) Wilshire, David
Letwin, rh Oliver Winterton, Ann (Congleton)
Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E) Winterton, Sir Nicholas
Liddell-Grainger, Ian (Macclesfield)
Lidington, David Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Lilley, rh Peter
Luff, Peter (M-Worcs) Tellers for the Noes:
Mcintosh, Miss Anne Angela Watkinson and
Mackay, rh Andrew Richard Younger-Ross

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 2, 3 and 4 together.

Back to