HL Deb 03 March 1998 vol 586 cc1188-90

8.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order covers all the detailed provisions needed to enable the London referendum to take place on 7th May in accordance with the provisions of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. As will be evident, the order is neither a lightweight nor a simple document, but a draft was made available in the Library of the House during the later stages of the Act and I hope that it has proved useful.

In preparing the order, we have drawn heavily on the valuable precedents set by the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. The supplementary provisions worked well in that legislation; indeed, noble Lords will recall that they were specifically debated and approved by this House as a schedule to the Bill.

Of course, in London there are special circumstances because we are combining the referendum poll with the local elections. We have had extensive consultations with returning officers, chief executives and electoral administrators at all stages in drafting this order and I would like to support the comments made earlier today by my honourable friend the Minister for London in thanking these people for all their hard work. They have made a major contribution to our preparations.

The order as a whole takes the usual local election procedures and adapts them for the purposes of the referendum. This approach gives the referendum procedures the usual protections afforded by election law, while also making it possible for the London borough council elections to be held at the same time.

At first glance, the order appears rather complex, but that is not the case as in many places much of it amounts to little more than changing the word "election" to "referendum". However, as I have said, the order contains a number of provisions particular to the referendum and I shall explain the most significant in a little detail.

Article 7 of the order sets out who will act as returning officers for the referendum. This would be the returning officer in the local council election for each London borough.

Article 9 sets out the form for the back of the ballot paper. It is very similar to that used in local elections and follows the form used in previous referendums. The wording on the front of the ballot paper is something about which we had a great deal of debate in this House, and is as prescribed in the schedule to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998.

We have held careful consultations on the form of the ballot paper with chief executives, electoral administrators and in particular with the Royal National Institute for the Blind—for whose help we are indebted.

As a result we have devised a ballot paper which I am told is a fine shade of daffodil yellow and uses a large and bold typeface. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the design is clear and comprehensible; it is intended to make sure that the referendum ballot paper is able to be read without difficulty by almost everybody. I am placing copies of the proposed ballot papers in the Library of the House.

Article 10 deals with counting the votes. The principal Act provided for the appointment of a chief counting officer for London and of counting officers to count the votes in each borough. It places on those counting officers the normal requirements to make arrangements for the count and gives them the powers to enable them to do so.

Finally, as I indicated earlier, the adaptations made in Articles 12 and 13, and the schedules associated with them, make all the necessary amendments to representation of the people legislation to enable the referendum to go ahead. The adaptations made are broadly equivalent to those in the schedule to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997.

The order follows a well precedented formula which draws upon the valuable work done in the recent Scottish and Welsh referendums. We have consulted extensively with experienced returning officers and others in preparing these considered proposals and have sought to make the whole process as open as possible. The order is essentially a technical measure, but we believe that it will enable an efficient and smooth referendum to take place on 7th May. I commend it to the House.

Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining various of the order's provisions. I should like to ask just a few questions which I am sure I could have answered for myself had I devoted more attention to the fine print of the order. I am afraid that there has been a little laziness on my part.

Article 9, to which the Minister referred, relates to the number printed on the back of the ballot paper and counterfoil. Can the Minister confirm that the same provisions with regard to official marks will apply to both the ballot for the referendum and that for the local elections? I am not seeking to make particular comments about perforations, but I am anxious to be assured that voters will not be required to check for different things when they enter a polling station. We know what happened at Winchester and on other occasions. My concern is merely that there are not different procedures.

I have some minor questions relating to Schedule 2. The hack of the ballot paper is to carry a reference to the name of the electoral ward in the borough. I understand that it is intended to announce the count for each borough at that borough—in other words, the public will know how each borough has voted in the referendum. What is the purpose of having the name of the ward on the ballot paper? Is it intended that the count shall be detailed on a ward-by-ward basis?

Why is it intended that the same ballot box should be used, given that that will mean that counting officers have the job of separating the ballot papers? I am sure that the matter has been discussed with returning officers, but simply as a matter of procedure I am interested in understanding why it is thought that that is more satisfactory than attempting to have separate ballot boxes. I recognise the problems that are likely to arise if even one or two ballot papers are placed in the wrong box. Inevitably, the whole lot has to be emptied.

My final comment relates to Part I(7) of Schedule 2 and to applications for postal and proxy votes. I rather laboured the point during our debates on the Bill, and I am grateful to note that I need not have done so because the provision is here. Indeed, the Minister gave assurances to that effect during the passage of the Bill. I am glad that only one application will be required.

Baroness Seccombe

My Lords, perhaps I may add the thanks of these Benches to the Minister for her explanation and presentation of the order. Our only comment is to express our sadness that there are not to be two questions. However, we debated that at earlier stages. We wish the referendum well and we shall watch with the greatest of interest to see what the people of London decide.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments and for their welcome for the procedures that we have established.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the numbers on the back of the ballot papers. I can confirm that the provisions for official marks will be the same for both polls, so there will not be the problem to which she alluded. As I understand it, the inclusion of the name of the ward on the backs of individual ballot papers is at the request of the returning officers and is for their own administrative reasons. I confirm that the count will be on a borough, not on a ward-by-ward, basis. That will be the way in which the results are announced. There was considerable concern that it should be possible for borough results to be seen. There is no intention of sub-dividing the results to ward level.

On the issue of the two ballot boxes, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Returning officers expressed the view, from their experience, that the likelihood—indeed, the certainty—that some ballot papers would be put in the wrong box was such that having two boxes would not simplify matters, but would complicate them. It was felt that a full separation would be needed anyway. As I understand it, when two polls have been held on the same day in the past, it has been found to be more efficient to have one ballot box and to carry out the separation afterwards.

I was grateful for the remarks of the noble Baroness about the provisions for applying for absent votes. As I have said many times in the House, the Government hope that the campaign on absent votes will be successful and will filter through to other elections.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before nine o'clock.