HL Deb 03 March 1999 vol 597 cc1742-64

8.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I intend to discuss these three orders together. If the House is content, I intend to begin with the second and third of the orders and turn finally to the disqualification order.

I am pleased to present to the House these three orders which mark a significant stage in preparing for the first meeting of the Parliament and elections to the Scottish Parliament. I threatened Members of your Lordships' House at the end of our discussions on the Scotland Act that we would shortly return to devolution matters through discussion on the orders. I have lived up to that promise and I now present the orders to this House. The orders have already been debated and agreed in another place.

The first of the orders to which I wish to refer is made under Section 2(1) of the Scotland Act and is called the Scottish Parliament (First Ordinary General Election and First Meeting) Order 1999. The purpose of this order is quite simple but extremely important. It sets the date of the first election to the Scottish Parliament. This will be 6th May of this year. The order also provides that the first meeting of the Parliament will take place on 12th May at 9.30 in the morning in the Church of Scotland General Assembly Hall on The Mound in Edinburgh. Provision already exists in the Scotland Act concerning the dates of future elections and meetings. In the case of ordinary general elections, Section 2(2) provides that they are held on the first Thursday in May every four years. Under Section 2(3) of the Act, the first meeting of the Parliament following election will be within seven days of the day after the day of the poll.

The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 makes detailed provisions for the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament and covers a wide range of provisions, including, for example, absent voting, nomination procedures, ballot papers and the count procedures. The order also makes provision for those occasions when the Scottish Parliament elections are combined with local government elections. This will be the case this year on 6th May. This order is made under Section 12(1) of the Scotland Act.

Members of your Lordships' House will no doubt recall with a degree of affection and pleasure the late nights which we spent debating the election provisions during the passage of the Scotland Act. Thanks have already been offered in the other place to the representatives of the political parties and electoral administrators with whom we have consulted over the past few months on this order. I add my own gratitude for the input by all concerned which has resulted in this order which I am confident will provide comprehensive rules and procedures for the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections.

Election law as it stands is sometimes, perhaps inevitably, criticised for being arcane. However, it is also a well tested basis on which elections have been held successfully over the years. That is not to say that we can stand still. Your Lordships may be aware that the Home Office is currently looking in general terms at the way elections in the United Kingdom are run. I am sure this review will make comprehensive recommendations which may be applied at some future point to the elections to the Scottish Parliament. I make no excuses therefore that the order before us reflects to a great extent existing UK electoral law covered by the representation of the people legislation.

The order has, however, also had to take account of some recent changes to electoral law and of course recognises the use for the first time of the additional member system. Account has also had to be taken of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. This controls the descriptions political parties and candidates may use at elections in order to reduce the scope for confusion. Following that Act the order also provides for the use of official party emblems on ballot papers. I shall return to the question of ballot papers in a moment.

While the Government are still considering the full implications of the report prepared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee, we have taken the opportunity in this order to include provision dealing with the expenses which may be incurred by political parties during an election campaign. I shall come to that later.

I shall now explain briefly how this order makes provision for this May's elections, and some of the changes which are being made to existing practice. The order mirrors to a considerable extent the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985. It covers such general issues as the provision of staff for returning officers, the people who are on the ground and who have to put these provisions into practice and the loan of equipment for use at the Scottish Parliament elections. Importantly, from the point of view of the returning officers, it also applies Section 29 of the 1983 Act, which covers payments by and to returning officers.

The main part of the order also covers the election campaign and expenses. This covers the appointment of election agents and as at present each constituency candidate and each individual candidate at regional level will be entitled to an election agent. Each party which puts forward a list will also be entitled to an election agent in respect of that list. As I mentioned earlier, we have also taken into account the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee to the extent that the powers under the Scotland Act will allow.

The order therefore imposes expenses limits and penalties for constituency candidates which are on the same basis as apply for elections to the other place. It also imposes expenses limits for those individuals who are standing as independent candidates in a regional ballot. These limits will be structured in a similar way to those for constituency candidates. The limits for such an individual candidate will be the aggregate of the constituency limits in a region for which he or she is standing. The order also sets a limit of £1.5 million on political party expenditure. This limit on party expenditure is intended to cover all a party's campaign expenditure which is not normally incurred in respect of a particular constituency candidate. I should say that it has been extremely helpful to have had the voluntary agreement reached by the main political parties in Scotland on the national limit on party expenditure and on some other matters covered by the noble and learned Lord's committee which are not provided for in the order.

In the expectation that I shall be asked further about these limits, in particular, I suspect, about the absence of limits at a regional level, I should say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, did not recommend attempting to subdivide party expenditure between national and regional elements. However, as regards the form of return for these expenses, the expenses incurred by each regional election agent will require to be shown separately. We think that transparency is as effective a safeguard as we need against parties targeting expenditure on a particular region.

On broadcasting, we have decided not to apply the existing Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Section 93 required broadcasters to seek the agreement of all candidates to certain types of broadcast reports. This of course does not absolve the broadcasters of the requirement to be impartial. This mirrors the provision for the elections to the Welsh Assembly.

The order also has eight schedules and an appendix containing prescribed forms. Schedule 1 deals with the election lists and registers and the sale of such registers. Schedule 2 contains the rules for the conduct of the elections. These rules, in effect, set out the practical arrangements that must be in place at any election. I shall say a little more about these rules in a moment.

Schedule 3 of the order deals with absent voting. Your Lordships will, I hope, agree that by allowing for those who already hold an indefinite absent vote automatically to qualify for an absent vote at the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary election, we have gone a great way towards ensuring that those people are not disenfranchised. Other electors will be able to apply for an absent vote either by post or by proxy in the normal manner.

Schedule 4 of the order is technical and deals with how a returning officer issues postal ballot papers to electors and how the papers are then dealt with when they are completed and returned. It also covers, among other issues, who is eligible to be in attendance at such proceedings.

The combination of polls is dealt with in Schedule 5. We have concentrated in the order on the combination of the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. A number of the provisions in this schedule are, again, of a technical nature, and alter as necessary the rules contained in Schedule 2 and the local government rules where the functions can be combined for both elections. For example, each elector will receive only one poll card for both elections. In addition, no elector will have to visit more than one polling station to vote at both the Scottish parliamentary election and local government elections in May. Voters will visit the one polling station and automatically receive three ballot papers. Other issues include the detailed arrangements for counting the ballot papers at both elections and making provision for the local government ballot papers to be counted at any time after 10 a. m. on the day after the poll. By this time we hope that the ballot papers for the Scottish parliamentary elections will have been counted and the results known.

Schedule 6 deals with various legal proceedings which can arise from an election. Schedule 7 of the order deals with the use for election meetings of rooms in school premises, and mirrors as far as practical the existing arrangements. Finally, Schedule 8 of the order deals with modification of enactments arising as a consequence of this order.

Turning back to the rules contained in Schedule 2, these introduce, among a vast array of other issues, the timetable to be used. We have decided that the timetable should be, as far as possible, the same as that for local government elections, with some slight necessary adaptations. This will allow a longer period than the timetable for Westminster general elections allows for some of the processes. We consider that using such a timetable will, in particular, have its advantage when the elections are combined with local government elections and should make the administering of the main processes, such as nominations, that much easier. Based on this timetable, all candidates and parties must submit their nominations before the final deadline of the 13th April, an auspicious date.

The nomination process for prospective candidates has been somewhat changed. At present a candidate must have his nomination proposed, seconded and attested. We consider that this is not appropriate for the Scottish parliamentary elections, particularly with the introduction of regional lists. All registered political parties will have to be registered, which will involve a separate process under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. It seems illogical, having gone through that registration process, for a party also to have to seek subscribers for its list. To ensure that there is a level playing field between prospective regional candidates and political parties, we decided further to remove the need for attestation of nominations for individual candidates. For further consistency, candidates standing as constituency members will also be released from this requirement. This means that at Scottish parliamentary elections the nomination form will simply be signed by the candidate and witnessed by one other signature.

We believe that the real safeguard against frivolous candidacies will continue to be deposits. During the debate on the Scotland Act your Lordships' House was informed that the deposit level for constituency candidates had been set at £500. For regional seats it will also be £500 for each individual candidate who wants to stand as an independent, and £500 for each political party that puts forward a list for a particular region. These levels are now confirmed in rule 10. The deposit will of course, as at present, be returnable if a party or a candidate receives more than 5 per cent. of the vote in the respective constituency or region.

Noble Lords will be more than aware of the lengthy discussions we had during the Committee stages of the Scotland Bill about the design of ballot papers. There are a variety of views on how the ballot papers should look. To assist us in this difficult area we commissioned research involving a cross-section of the public to offer their views on the papers. The constituency ballot paper will be similar in design to those already in use at general elections. In respect of the regional ballot paper, we have had to give particular care to produce a form of ballot paper which will be clear and straightforward for the voter to understand. In the appendix, the forms at the back of the order constitute the form of paper which, having undertaken research and consulted with returning officers and political parties, we consider to be the most appropriate. This ballot paper will list each registered political party followed by the names of any independent candidates in alphabetical order.

During the debate on the election provisions in the Scotland Act, it was apparent that your Lordships wished to see the names of candidates for each list on the face of the ballot paper. These names now appear under the names of each registered political party. The names will be printed in the order in which the party wishes them to be elected. This should provide the public with sufficient information about each party which is standing for election. I should add that 80 per cent. of those who took part in the research found a paper in this form to be very or fairly easy to understand. A poster will also be on display in each polling station. This will provide guidance for electors on the procedure for voting, the rules set and the text at form AD. We are preparing a layout for this text which will be recommended to returning officers.

Turning to the ballot paper colours, rule 28 specifies that the colour of each type of ballot paper must be different. For the elections on the 6th May, we have guided returning officers that the ballot paper for the constituency candidates will be purple and that the regional ballot paper will be peach. There was considerable difficulty deciding which particular colour should be associated with any particular voting slip. The ballot paper for local government elections will be white as normal.

Some noble Lords will be aware that a detailed publicity campaign—which has been agreed by political parties from all sides—has started in Scotland. This includes television and press advertisements, as well as a leaflet which will be sent to each household in Scotland over the next few weeks. We consider that this will go a great way towards informing voters what to expect when they enter a polling station and what the ballot papers will look like.

The voting procedure at the elections will be similar to that as present. On each ballot paper the elector will be asked to place an "X" against the preferred choice of candidate or party. There will be three ballot boxes at each station: one for the constituency election, one for the regional member papers and one for the local government elections. Each ballot paper will then be placed in the respective ballot box. We have suggested to returning officers that the ballot boxes should be colour coded as an additional aid to voters. Returning officers have the capacity to have additional staff on hand at polling stations to assist voters, if needed.

Counting of the Scottish Parliament elections will begin as soon as practicable after the polls have shut at 10 p.m. We therefore have every reason to hope that an overnight count will enable the results to be known during the course of the night. That will be the expectation of the public. As I mentioned earlier, the count for the local government elections will be delayed until the following day and the legislation provides that the counting should not start before 10 a. m. the following morning. This will give some discretion to the local returning officer to set the exact time in the light of local circumstances.

Schedule 2 to the order also covers the issue of recounts. The counts for both the constituency and regional parts of this election will, of course, be a matter for each constituency returning officer. For the constituency element, the rules governing recounts will follow those existing for general elections. Where a recount is required for a regional poll, then the legislation similarly makes provision for a recount to be asked for at a constituency level. But a further recount cannot be demanded across an entire region once all the constituency level results of the regional poll have been passed to the regional returning officer. This is the same approach as will be taken in Wales and also for the European elections. It is the only practical option in our view, given the size of the regions and the impossibility of being absolutely sure that the count will be able to proceed at the same speed, or at approximately the same speed, in every place.

I acknowledge, however, that the question of regional recounts is a difficult one. We face it for the first time. We face a situation where the winners of the election will not be immediately apparent from the result of the count at each individual counting centre. In reaching a view, we have looked at how a similar situation is already handled in the proportional system used for the Northern Ireland Assembly where the same issues also arise. In elections to that assembly there is, as there will be in Scotland, provision for a recount to be requested at each count centre but no provision for a recount for the whole vote once the results from each centre have been collated nationally. It has been accepted in that context that recounts can work on such a basis.

However, I do recognise the concerns that have been expressed about how this may work in the Scottish context. It is important that the House appreciates that for a recount to take place there is no requirement for the vote to be close. Existing electoral law, repeated here, simply allows candidates as a matter of right to request one or more recounts. The only limit on when a recount may take place is that the returning officer may refuse a request which he believes to be unreasonable. Clearly, therefore, if candidates are concerned that any aspect of the count process at a particular centre has not been properly conducted, or if there are other issues at hand, they will be able to seek a recount even though the final result is still unknown.

I appreciate that some noble Lords would prefer the further option of a region-wide recount. I understand that. However, the order leaves ample scope for any concerns about the count process to be pursued at the point of the original count. We think that that is the preferable way forward. Given what I recognise is a difficult problem—I say in all fairness that it is a problem we have not faced before and we are all, to an extent, learning—I am happy to ask officials to explore further with returning officers ways in which the detail of the count process might be arranged to minimise the scope after the event for any questioning of the outcome, which I am sure returning officers themselves will be only too pleased and too keen to avoid.

This is a very bulky document, and rightly so, as it covers a huge number of important issues. I have covered some of these issues only briefly. I would be happy to comment on other points as necessary. We have consulted widely with returning officers who are the experts on the ground in the conduct of elections. We believe that the order is a sound basis for future elections to come.

I should now like to turn to the order that is made under Section 15 of the Scotland Act which disqualifies a number of office holders from membership of the Scottish Parliament. We intend that the Scottish Parliament should represent the widest possible range of interests. We have made no secret of that. However, we also recognise that it would not be appropriate for certain office holders, because of their position, to sit in the Parliament. Put quite simply, those who are eligible to be Members of the other place will also be able to be MSPs. In addition, ordained members or ministers of any religious denomination, and Commonwealth and Irish Republic citizens, as well as EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom, will be able to stand. I do not need to labour the point that Members of your Lordships' House will also be able to stand as MSPs.

As your Lordships know, it is felt to be inappropriate for certain officer holders to be Members of the other place. Similar considerations evidently apply to the Scottish Parliament. Section 15 of the Scotland Act therefore makes provision about who should be disqualified from membership of the parliament. The provisions of Section 15 cover civil servants, members of the Armed Forces, members of police forces and judges. Section 15 also gives Her Majesty power, by Order in Council, to specify office holders who should be disqualified from being members of the parliament. That is the order before us today.

In considering which office holders should be disqualified from the Scottish Parliament, we have paid particular heed to the established and well-understood precedent set by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Quite rightly, in my view, we have decided that it would not be appropriate to depart radically from that approach at this stage. This order makes provision for the first elections on 6th May and will remain in force until such time as the Scottish Parliament makes its own provision. I am quite sure your Lordships would agree that it is right for the Scottish Parliament to be able to decide the scope of the disqualification provisions for its own membership. But we have to start with something, and this is the order we are starting with.

We think that the list of disqualified office holders before us today strikes the right balance between ensuring that the Parliament is open to a wide range of talented people but is properly independent and able to hold the Executive to account. In deciding who should be disqualified under the order, we applied the criteria used to determine whether an office holder should be disqualified from the other place. Our aim has been to maintain the independence of the Scottish Parliament and safeguard the MSPs from undue influence by the Executive through the existence of patronage. We have also recognised that certain office holders must be seen to be politically impartial.

The disqualification order therefore disqualifies those office holders who would be disqualified from being an MP wherever we thought that the same arguments applied in relation to the Scottish Parliament. For example, if office holders are operating in devolved matters or in areas where Scottish Ministers have an interest, such office holders will be accountable to the Parliament and it would be clearly wrong if they could also be MSPs. Office holders who fall into that category include members of Scottish water authorities or members of Scottish Enterprise.

However, it would not be right to limit this order to office holders in Scottish bodies. There are various bodies based outwith Scotland or operating in reserved areas which are properly within the scope of this order. For example, there are certain office holders outwith Scotland who must be politically impartial in order to carry out their role. For example, those in certain broadcasting organisations are disqualified. In a similar vein, we concluded that members of tribunals should also be disqualified from membership of the Scottish Parliament to ensure judicial impartiality.

However, the order does not disqualify everyone holding public office. Noble Lords may be interested to know how many people are disqualified from being members of the Scottish Parliament. We estimated the figure at under a million across the United Kingdom. Of those, the vast majority are civil servants: just over half a million; members of the Armed Forces, a quarter of a million; and members of the police force, about 140,000. The order adds under a further 100,000 across the United Kingdom. However, that figure alone gives a misleading impression.

Of the 100,000 disqualified by the order the vast majority are politically restricted local government employees. There are about 52,000 in England and Wales and about 5,900 in Scotland, which represents about 2 per cent. of the total number employed in local government. If we remove those, members of the Metropolitan Police Force and Northern Ireland prison staff, the order disqualifies about 10,000 office holders across the United Kingdom. Of those, 3000 are members of various social security tribunals and 2,500 are members of employment tribunals, leaving in the region of only 4,800 specified office holders across the United Kingdom.

It is difficult to break this down further into those bodies which could be described as Scottish. But rough calculations suggest that between 700 and 800 office holders would fall into this category, of whom around a quarter will be staff at the Scottish parliament, who themselves will be quite properly disqualified. Indeed, there are in all under 330 entries in the order which range to cover all members of certain bodies as various as Scottish Homes and the Crofters Commission to specified office holders such as the chairmen of other bodies, for example, the Gas Consumers Council.

Those who are disqualified under the order would be required to resign that office before making their formal consent to nomination. That provision is contained in the Conduct of Elections Order, which I have already mentioned. The consent to nomination must be given by the last day for the delivery of nomination papers and may be submitted up to one month before that. For the Scottish Parliament elections, consent to nomination must be submitted by 13th April. That would mean that people holding disqualifying offices would be required to resign by that date at the latest, as is the case for Westminster elections.

I realise that I have spent some considerable time explaining these matters in detail to the House. When it comes to disqualifying anybody from standing in a parliamentary election, it is necessary to make absolutely clear the basis upon which we have acted. I therefore ask the House's indulgence for having taken so much time. However, I hope that I have been able to deal with the issues as fully as possible. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)

8.45 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, we are doubly grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. We are grateful, first, for the detail that he has gone into on a number of issues; we are also grateful for the fact that he did not go into detail on all the issues on these very large orders.

I shall approach matters as quickly as I can, in a slightly different order, but beginning with the noble Lord's announcement that election day is to be 6th May. That fact will come as a huge surprise to the Scottish population—it is interesting to note that everyone has assumed it but it is not quite legal yet. It would have been quite a shock had it been decided not to hold the election on 6th May. I do not think I shall subject anyone to the dangers of that shock.

My only point in relation to the first page of the order arises from the reference to 12th May. I begin to wonder what kind of ceremony will surround what is a very important day. I hope that it will not merely be a case of people sidling up and down the high street and popping in, almost unbeknown. I hope that there will be at least some of the pomp and circumstance that surround the opening of Parliament and that some of the historic Scottish traditions can be observed at that time.

Perhaps I may briefly examine the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order. I wish to make a number of points, without going through the whole order. Taking an example from the first page, officials ought to have, as it were, cleaned the copy before they decided to copy the House of Commons. Looking at the first page, I am not entirely sure whether the aircraft and shipbuilding industries arbitration tribunal still exists. There is a question mark over that. I certainly do not think that British Shipbuilders still exists. And, having checked, I do not think that the British Coal Corporation still exists. I am told by no less an expert than Dod that it ceased to exist on 1st January 1998 and that its functions were transferred to various departments of the Department of Trade and Industry. Dod may be wrong; I may be wrong. However, I do think that a little cleaning might have been done to remove those bodies that have ceased to exist.

My second point is one that the Minister attempted to answer. There are many bodies—the social security tribunals mentioned by the Minister are a case in point—where the Scottish Parliament has absolutely no locus. They are entirely reserved to Westminster. They are rightly on the "banned" list for the House of Commons. I am not entirely convinced that one should argue that they should also be on the banned list for the Scottish Parliament, when that Parliament will have absolutely no say.

If the principle is one of ministerial accountability and of non-involvement in politics, I can understand that. However, I do not think that it is always that. Perhaps the first time round is not the occasion to question that principle. However, for the future, we ought to look carefully at the banned list, especially when it covers reserved matters. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament will do that.

The third point is that, although we have the banned list, members of those bodies listed are not banned from Westminster in total, only from the House of Commons. There are Members of this House who sit on some of these bodies. When I arrived in this House I was a member of the Seafish Industry Authority. It is perfectly right that that body should be on the banned list for the Scottish Parliament because it will be answerable to the Scottish Parliament. However, there are other bodies that are answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is the chairman of the British Council. I do not think that the British Council will have anything to do with the Scottish Parliament. So I wonder why the British Council should be added to the list for the Scottish Parliament when it is seen as perfectly proper for a Member of this House to be on the British Council.

There are other Members who might be mentioned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is a member of the Council on Tribunals; the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is chairman of NESTA; the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is chairman of the New Opportunities Fund; the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is a BBC Governor—that would probably not knock her out from the list for the Scottish Parliament. I really cannot see the point of English Nature being a proscribed organisation. I am wondering about my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. I may have missed it, but I cannot find a reference to the Scottish Tourist Board on the banned list. I suspect that it should be there. That may be worth examination. It probably ought to be on the list on the same principle as the other bodies.

I now turn to the bulk of the business. I wish to put a number of minor points. I am happy to say that the Minister dealt with one or two of them in his speech and that will save time. I shall put two major points at the end of my remarks. My first point regarding those of us who have absent vote rights constantly was dealt with by the Minister. Those absent vote rights will carry on into the Scottish Parliament.

I turn to the next point, on paragraph 42 of the main document, concerning the 1.5 million which I understand has been agreed between the parties. If I understood the Minister correctly, the amount of money spent by each party on its regional list is not included in the £1.5 million. The £1.5 million is the over-arching general expenditure of the political parties and does not include the eight separate regional expenditures. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. I have not done a calculation. I imagine that if it were to be included then the parties centrally would have a pretty tight budget for the normal mega-advertising that goes on. If it is not included, that is fine. I also heard what the noble Lord said about the importance of the regional expenditure being properly accounted for and being returned in some way so that the public can inspect it. That is absolutely right and proper.

The next point is the modification of Section 10 of the 1998 Act which is, if one likes to look at it this way, Henry VIII in operation. The Minister and I had quite a lot of discussion about the question of what happens at what I may call by-elections on the regional list, although these are not actually going to be by-elections; in other words, what one does if a member retires or dies and it is necessary to find somebody to fill the vacancy.

I notice that the Minister has made some changes to what we agreed after some quite detailed discussion in your Lordships' House. It would be fair to say that it was your Lordships' House that brought in the improvements in the Bill. The Minister was very reasonable in his approach to this and accepted some of the points made in the debate.

I am a little concerned at leaving the amount of time which can be taken between a member dying or retiring and the procedure to find out who is next, whether they agree to being members and whether they are still, so to speak, in good standing with their registered party. I notice that the time is within such period as the regional returning officer considers reasonable. Given that everything else in electoral law is pretty tightly timed in the number of days, and so on, I was struck by the fact that that was a little open-ended and I wondered why we did not just say 28 days, or even longer. I would accept that, but there should be some kind of time constraint on it. Perhaps the regional returning officer will want to put a time constraint on the people who respond to his letters; in other words, if he sends a letter to the person who is next on the list he will expect a reply within a certain amount of time and not allow the matter to drag on.

On the next point, may I say out of appreciation that I am glad to see the point about the parties' emblems. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for changing the Registration of Political Parties Bill when it was pointed out to him the problems this would cause in Scotland and Wales if there were to be only one party symbol for the whole of the United Kingdom.

My next point concerns the ballot paper. I had not actually picked it up, which shows the complexity of this document. I was interested in the Minister's statement that there would be three ballot boxes and that we would separate them. I imagine that that would help to speed the count on the evening. It is something I am deeply interested in because I have been volunteered—I think that is the right word—to do the radio and television commentary during the night. Frankly, if it were necessary first to sort out all the ballot papers from one ballot box, it would be a pretty long night. I am therefore quite relieved to see that.

It may not have been in this Bill but the Minister may recall that I raised the question of the official mark. I continue to be fairly obsessed by the official mark. I do think it is something from yesteryear. In the case of these elections the people sitting at the table are going to have to make three official marks for every person who comes up. I prophesy that the number of papers without official marks will increase simply because of that, especially if there is a queue of people and perhaps some explanations having to be made about the new system. I am sorry to see that we are still sticking with the official marks because I am not in the least convinced that they do any good.

The next thing I noticed was the existence of a presiding officer. That was a different presiding officer from the presiding officer who was going to preside over the parliament. Your Lordships will remember that I tried to call him the speaker. I have only put this in because I was interested to show that perhaps I was right after all. On Monday the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, was being interviewed on the radio about a tourist conference. He was talking about whether or not there should be a tourist Minister and he described the tourist Minister as being "in the Scottish Cabinet". I thought to myself, "Oh dear, you will get reprimanded". As I say, I do not think they are supposed to use "Minister", "Cabinet", or "Speaker", but it indicates what is going to happen.

I next have a general election point. I see that we are continuing to suggest that if the person who is presiding at the poll is doubtful about somebody, he asks him or her a question: "Are you the person registered in the register of government electors for this election as follows?" It has always seemed to me that if one is intent on voting on behalf of somebody else, one is not going to own up to that question. It is a totally pointless question in order to stop people impersonating others. If we want to do that we have to go down to saying, "Have you any evidence to show me that you are who you say you are?" When I raised that I did not make much progress, but I still see that pretty pointless question in the papers.

My last minor point, if I may call it that, is once again to welcome the fact that the names are on the regional list ballot paper. Your Lordships will remember that the Government were intransigent on the Welsh Bill. They would not entertain it. Happily, the Minister was much more forthcoming and understood the point that was being made, as did his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn when we came to the European Elections Bill. I am certainly very pleased and I thank the Minister for putting the names on the ballot paper. I think it would have been ludicrous if they had not been on the paper. Perhaps I may say on behalf of Wales that I gather a bit of back-filling has been going on, despite the fact that it is not in the Act, and the names are going to be on the Welsh ballot paper as well, but we are going to come to that later.

My two major points are these. The first one has not been covered by the Minister, the second one has. The first is about the whole question of registered political parties, the nomination of the candidates on the regional list and the registered political parties. Those of your Lordships who heard me on the Registration of Political Parties Bill will know that I considered it profoundly undemocratic and absolutely wrong that somebody had to adjudicate over whether or not the political party could stand at an election. My worst fears have already been confirmed. Last weekend in the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman there were reports that the registrar had refused to accept the registration of the Green Party in Scotland. The Green Party in Scotland is totally different from the Green Parties in the rest of the country, but he had already got a registration from the Green Party which covered England and, I presume, Wales, and he declined the registration from the Scottish Green Party. I do not believe that is right.

In today's Herald there is a report that the Scottish Socialist Party led by Mr. Tommy Sheridan—and I find it odd that I am standing as a flag-bearer for its right to stand, although it is not odd because it is a fundamental democratic right—which is a minor irritant to the governing party but a considerable force in the City of Glasgow, has also been refused on the basis of the fact that the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which put up far fewer candidates than the Scottish Socialist Party at the last election, has registered. Therefore, he is not allowing the Scottish Socialist Party to register.

I presume that also means that the party will not be able to describe itself as the Scottish Socialist Party on the local election ballot paper. Its members hold local council seats in the City of Glasgow. I really do think that we are going to have to find a way round this because, while I do not agree with Mr. Tommy Sheridan on much or perhaps anything that he does or says, I think he has an absolute right to continue with the party which he and his friends created and to be able to stand under that party banner, which is clearly understood in the City of Glasgow. I think it would be quite wrong if he were not able to do that. I suspect that it might even be contravening his human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. If he reads those rights, he might be led to consider whether there is a challenge to be mounted on that basis. I know that the Minister is not answerable for the registrar, but this is a very serious issue. It is not only to do with the Scottish Parliament or the regional list seats.

I understand why the Government needed registration for regional lists, although I should have preferred not to have the registration Act. I understand the argument on regional lists. But there is absolutely no argument when it comes to local government seats, especially when these people are already elected under the flag of the Scottish Socialist Party. There is no political advantage to my party in my advocating either the Green Party or the Scottish Socialist Party being allowed to stand. but I believe that it would be iniquitous if neither of those parties could fly under the name by which everyone in Scotland knows them. I hope that the Minister can indicate that the Government are looking seriously at that matter.

My last point concerns recounts on the regional list. I listened with care to the Minister's explanation, but I still believe there is a major problem. I accept that when the counts are finished someone could ask for a recount on the regional list at that point. But at that point there may not be any obvious reason why a recount should be called. The Minister might confirm a point for me in order to help me with my night on television explaining the great triumphs of the Scottish Conservative Party.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have to tell him that, if he is to receive a fee for that appearance, my advice is also subject to a fee.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I have not yet negotiated my fee. I am happy to tell the BBC that I shall be looking for one, but I shall probably do so in vain.

I presume that, when the first-past-the-post count is completed, there will be an announcement in the normal way about who has been elected. After that, the regional list count having been completed for that constituency, the result will be transmitted to the regional returning officer. Once he has the results in from all the seats in his patch, he will add them together, everyone will agree the totals and he will then perform d'Hondt on them. It is not even at that point that it becomes obvious that there may be a problem with a very close result but only when the d'Hondt calculator is used down the list, especially when the last seat of the seven is reached.

Perhaps I may give an example using the results in central Scotland at the last general election. The last seat was between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Conservatives had already gained one seat, so they were left on the last line with 20,791.5 votes. The Liberal Democrats, who had by that time gained no seats, were left with 20,624. The Conservatives won that seat by 137 votes. On any normal first-past-the-post count, that is recount territory. I believe that, if I were a Liberal Democrat in those circumstances, I would feel peeved that I had not the right to ask for a recount. A hundred and thirty-seven votes of a total of over 40,000 is pretty minuscule. One bundle placed on the wrong pile could make all the difference between the Liberal Democrats gaining that seat and the Conservatives gaining it.

I am extremely glad that it is against my party that I can make this mathematical argument because it shows that I am trying to look at it from a fairness point of view; but, of course, it could happen any way round. That is what would happen in central Scotland. I believe that at that stage a recount ought to be called if, in that case, the Liberal Democrats wanted it. I hear what the Minister says about the difficulty, but I do not think that the difficulty is sufficient answer. In my view, they would have to abandon getting a result there, call in all the boxes and do a full recount of all the constituencies. I understand the logistics, the difficulties and the delay that would be caused, but we are talking about a delay of a few hours in order to ensure that a political party is not deprived of its right to call a recount in a very close call.

It is that seventh seat in all cases that would make the close call. None of the other seats were as close as that one, but one could devise arithmetic by which they could be even closer and one or two votes could make all the difference. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is to follow me, would make the same point. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty but it is a difficulty which we ought to have overcome so that, in the unlikely event that we get into this situation, the count would be extended into the next day and one seat would be left to be decided the next day after all the votes had been recounted.

I am sorry to have spoken at length, but these are long pieces of secondary legislation, the last two of which, in particular, raise serious issues.

9.5 p.m.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to wear my "McThomas of Glenshee" hat for the purposes of these regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that the date of the election was unlikely to be a huge surprise in Scotland. I think that it will be a huge surprise in England to find that on that day a new legislative body, the Scottish Parliament, is elected in Scotland. We are all looking forward to the reaction.

The noble Lord also referred to his hope that the beginning of the Scottish Parliament would be greeted with pomp and circumstance. According to the Welsh press today, the Welsh have already taken that on hoard. For the opening of the Welsh Assembly we are relying upon our cultural icons, the Manic Street Preachers, Tom Jones and, it is hoped, the whole of the Welsh rugby team—but only provided they beat England on 11 th April. Remembering Harold Wilson in 1966, I respectfully suggest to the Government that it might be in their interests to have a word with the England team to make sure that the Welsh team are victorious at that time.

I note with interest that the disqualification order is 32 pages long compared to four pages for the Welsh disqualification order. I also note, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, references to certain bodies that I know no longer to exist. A certain degree of pruning and rethinking of that order may be required. I am also very interested that no member of Sianel Pedwar Cymru is entitled to be a member of the Scottish Parliament. It is interesting to consider who might have that desire.

Perhaps it indicates that Scottish television has taken over Welsh television. For some reason I pay my electricity to Renfrew in Ayrshire. Things appears to have come to a pretty pass.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten Emyrs Hughes and Keir Hardie?

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, we attempted to take over Scotland in those days. I continue to do so.

The serious point that I raise on this particular order is whether it is necessary to follow the Westminster model and require a candidate to stand down from office on consent to nomination. I believe that difficulties arise in employment if the holders of the offices set out in the order must resign those offices just to become candidates. I can understand that if they are elected they should immediately resign the posts that they hold, but there is no certainty that if they resign to be candidates they will ever recover those positions at a later time. I have always regarded that as a bit of a difficulty with Westminster elections. I respectfully urge the Government to consider whether in the context of Scotland, where there is an attempt to make the opportunity for a person to become a member as wide as possible, it is necessary to have a provision of that kind.

I turn to the meat of the matter: the elections order. I make three points, all of which have been referred to by those who have already spoken. First, I welcome the list of names that appears on the ballot paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out, we had such trouble with these issues on the debates on the Welsh Bill. We were told that it was impossible and nothing could be designed to put before electors. Here we have in the schedule to the order an example of just such a scheme that the focus groups, who today advise the Government, describe as fairly easy to understand. That was the kind of comment that we made throughout.

I am a little perturbed by the fact that the colours of the ballot papers are blue and peach which, certainly in my part of the world, have been Conservative colours for as long as I can remember. That may not be so in Scotland. The noble Lord indicates that the colour is mauve.

I turn to the question of regional expenses. Reading this document, I do not understand how the political parties can divide their expenses between regional elections and a national campaign. As it reads at the moment, it suggests to me that the constituency candidate has an expenses limit that is similar to the Westminster limit; that the individual candidate who stands in the region has a limit which is the sum total of the constituency limit in that particular region. and that the £1.5 million limit applies to all expenditure—indeed, the noble Lord said so in his speech—not usually covered in a constituency. That means that it should cover the whole of the regional elections and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated. I see that the noble Lord is nodding.

To have regional limits for those who are party candidates as opposed to individual candidates cannot cause a difficulty. If an individual candidate has a regional limit that is limited to the sum total of the constituency limits, why cannot the same be applied to the party so that the national expenditure of that party is the sum total of the eight regions in Scotland? That would appear to be the proper way to go about it.

Obviously, the noble Lord together with those who advise him, has considered this. He tells us that he believes that the publication of expenses on a regional basis afterwards will ensure transparency. Transparency is all very well if it occurs before an election but it is not much use after the members have been elected to the Parliament. It leaves open the possibility of abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. referred whereby a party—for example the Labour Party—decides to abandon any regional expenses in central Scotland, where it expects to win constituency seats, and dumps one third of that expenditure in the Highlands and Islands, one third in the Borders and another third perhaps in the North East in areas where they are a little more likely to end up relying upon the regional list to provide that party with representation. That abuse is open to the political parties. I am not so naïve as to believe that a political party such as the Labour Party in Scotland will not take advantage of it. That is a matter that the Government should reconsider before the order is finally passed.

I turn to the issue of nominations, at Schedule 2, Rule 4. The Liberal Democrat Party has always been concerned to ensure that candidates can stand as freely as possible and are not limited by excessive deposits. For example, if a deposit for a parliamentary election had been placed as high as £5,000, in some elections 20 years ago my party would have been completely bankrupted. The financial limits are therefore one way of controlling candidates, but not a very fair way. The alternative is to ensure that a candidate who stands can say, "I have the backing and support of a significant number of people from the constituency". We have always said that 10 people assenting were too few: that if one cannot get 100 people behind one in a constituency election one ought not to stand.

The position now outlined in the schedule is that any individual can nominate himself. For the sum of £5,000 that he deposits, and will undoubtedly lose, he then has access to the free post; if he is a regional candidate he can have it over a huge area, and he can have easy advertising at a cheap price for whatever cause he chooses. That is the kind of abuse that I am sure the Government would wish to avoid. It is an issue to which they should give further consideration. Making it easy for a candidate to stand is one thing; but to open it up for anyone to gain £500 worth of massive publicity is somewhat different.

I turn finally to the question of recounts. Although the Minister fairly acknowledges the problem, I do not think that he has yet found the solution. It is interesting that there is a significant difference between the Scottish and the Welsh provisions. The Welsh provisions were originally drafted like the Scottish provisions. Rule 55 provides that an objection can be taken at constituency level by a regional candidate or by his election agent provided that he is present when the counting or the recounting of votes takes place. If there are 10 constituencies a regional candidate and his agent cannot cover the lot. The provision cannot work.

For that reason, there has been an amendment in the Welsh provisions. It provides for a party to nominate counting agents for an individual candidate or a group of party list candidates so that objection can be taken at a constituency count by a regional candidate, his agent, a party list candidate or the counting agent—this refers to Wales—who has been specifically appointed for that purpose. The Scottish machinery cannot work. The Welsh machinery could but—perhaps I anticipate what I may say later—it should not. It is not satisfactory that a recount should be requested in each individual constituency.

Let us consider the position. There are 10 constituencies. The constituency count is held in the first small constituency, and everyone goes home. The second constituency count is held an hour later. The third count, a rural constituency, is four hours later. But it is only when all the 10 constituency regional votes come in that the need for a recount can be ascertained. It is only at that point that the agent for the party for the regional list can phone up the people in each individual constituency and say, "The vote is so close on the seventh candidate that we must have a recount". Everyone has gone home. If that is so, from a practical point of view the boxes have to be brought out the next day in each individual constituency and counted. There will be a delay anyway. So why not do as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, suggested? Why not bring all the boxes sealed from the various constituencies to a central point on the following day or the day after? After all, there are only 10 constituencies on average to each region. What is a day or two compared with an election petition which may last months? The recount could then be done in one centre for a final figure to emerge. I say that against my own party because as the Conservative Party stands at the bottom of the opinion polls in Scotland, it is probably a Conservative who will be at the bottom of the list.

Having said that, I believe that the recount provisions require to be looked at again. The Welsh have provided a solution. I do not believe that that is satisfactory but, although it is inconvenient, it is workable.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, noble Lords will be glad to hear that I shall be brief. My first question is about the ballot boxes. The Minister said that there will be three ballot boxes in each polling station, colour-coded to match the ballot papers. What will happen if a vote for the Scottish Parliament goes into the local government box? Are voters to be warned that if that happens their vote will not be counted because that box will not be opened until the next day. That may cause a great deal of feeling and a candidate may lose a vote because of it. I should like to know whether people will be warned about that.

Secondly, have the Government made sure that the colours that they have selected are those least likely to be mistaken by people who are colour blind? That is not a lighthearted question. A great many people, particularly men, are colour blind. For example, when they are picking red strawberries against green leaves, they cannot see the strawberries even though they want them. I do not know a great deal about that. If the colour chosen is mauve, the intensity of the colours is very much the same. Will the colours be easily discernible and, most important, will they be discernible from white, because if the coloured ballot paper is mistaken for white, the vote will he lost. That seems to me to be a snag.

I read—and the Minister has doubtless read it too—that in Grampian region there is anxiety about the combination of a high turn-out and the fact that the process will be rather slower because people will be learning the system of voting in three ballot boxes. That may mean that there is a delay, particularly at the rush hour, at the end of election day, which we all know takes place. Therefore, in that region there will be extra ballot boxes. Has that decision been taken in other parts of the country? Has consideration been given to the fact that extra ballot boxes may be needed?

My other question is about the opening. During the passage of the Bill we understood that it was not constitutionally necessary for Her Majesty or her representative to open the Parliament. Has Her Majesty been invited to open the Parliament and, if so, has she accepted? The public want to know that.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I now have a pile of paper almost equal to the number of pages in the order. I am grateful to noble Lords who have raised a number of interesting and important points. It is right that we should look at them.

Perhaps I may deal with them in reverse order and deal first with the issues raised by the noble Baroness. As regards the colour of the papers, we have indeed taken the problem of colour blindness into account in selecting the colours.

As regards ballot papers going into the wrong boxes, we must accept that there is a significant risk that a number of ballot papers will go in the wrong box. It is the count for the local government elections which takes place the following day. The practice on the evening will be that the ballot boxes will be opened and mis-allocated papers will be allocated properly at that point. Therefore, if somebody's ballot paper is put into the wrong box, that would not end up as a wasted vote.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, does that mean that the local government ballot boxes will be opened the previous evening?

Lord Sewel

My Lords, they will be opened and then resealed.

Perhaps I may deal with some of the other points raised. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that Her Majesty will attend the opening ceremony on 1st July. That will be the official opening ceremony of the Parliament. The first meeting, on 12th May, will be very much a low-key event.

I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I am pleased that he recognises the importance of due ceremony to mark the formal opening of the Parliament. It was only a few months ago that the noble Lord was putting all his effort into ensuring that that day would never dawn. It is nice to know that he now wishes to see that it is properly marked. Indeed, we are having, and have had, consultations to ensure that that takes place.

The noble Lord mentioned a number of bodies which he thought may be defunct. That point was also latched onto by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I say to both noble Lords that British Shipbuilders continues to exist, in a very reduced way. There are three office holders. The chairman is paid in the region of £17,000. The two members each receive £5,000. Therefore, it is a little too early to write off British Shipbuilders. I spent most of last week in Brussels. At one stage we were talking about virtual cows. In this order we may be talking about virtual organisations. However I think it is better, even if such bodies are defunct, or have recently become defunct, to include them. There is no harm in including defunct bodies, because nobody will be excluded on that basis.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Minister that it is a good job that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not in his place to hear his remarks.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, we have a "belt-and-braces" attitude on this matter. The noble Lord also mentioned social security tribunals. The basis of disqualification there comes from the line of judicial independence, ensuring that people who perform that function are seen to be politically independent.

I turn to the £1.5 million. During the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I indicated by nodding that he was correct and that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was wrong. As I have said, the £1.5 million covers everything not normally covered in a constituency campaign, and that means both the national and regional element. It is difficult. when one thinks of it, to distinguish between the regional and the national. If someone puts up a "Vote Labour" sign, what the dickens is it? Is it an exhortation to vote Labour nationally or regionally? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the point that a party would somehow concentrate "a third, a third, a third" in their best regional areas. I do not believe that that stands up in reality. What would happen if they did that? They would have no national campaign at all. Clearly the parties are going to put quite a lot of that £1.5 million into an across-the-board national campaign. I suspect that we shall see very little dedicated regional expenditure and regional campaigning. There will be the amounts spent in the individual constituencies and I suspect that we shall find that the £1.5 million is virtually taken up by national activities and a national campaign. Therefore I do not have the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised the point of registration of political parties. As a Minister I can have no locus in that. Whether or not to accept a registration of a political party, a name, rests with the registrar, though there is an appeal to a committee established by Madam Speaker in another place. I am sure that that is the route that will be taken in relation to the specific cases instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. It would be quite wrong for a Member of the Government to have any say in whether or not a party name should be accepted by the registrar. A quite correct division exists. I also make the point that the party name used at a local election is decided by the returning officer and not the registrar. So the decisions are taken by two very different people. The sort of tension identified by the noble Lord. Lord Mackay, can therefore occur.

We come to the business of recounts. As I said in my opening speech. it is a difficult area; I acknowledge that. It is one about which we have no previous experience. All our elections at the moment are based on first-past-the-post, and when the count is done we know who has won. That will not be the case when we move into proportional additional member territory. There is a fall-back position. If the situation arises illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and we are down to a couple of hundred votes out of several tens of thousands, then the decision is clearly by recourse to the courts. The papers are still extant and the recount would be possible if a candidate thought that there was something wrong with the way in which they had been counted in the first place.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, will the Minister accept that an election petition is hugely expensive and will rest upon the individual candidate?

Lord Sewel

My Lords, it is a course of action that is not to be undertaken lightly; I accept that. The difficulty with the alternatives is, to take an area like the Highlands and Islands where counting will take place in a number of different constituencies with vast geographical spreads, how long will the counting stations have to be kept open? We get into the practical mechanisms of what will be required. However, I recognise the anxiety. We should go forward on the basis of the procedures described in the orders and learn from experience. We can then see what adjustments may be appropriate and may command widespread support in the future. If a real difficulty arises, I am sure that it will be in the interests of all of us to look again at these provisions in the future.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I am not sure that I am imagining the scene correctly. Will the results of the regional vote be read out in such a way that people know that the collation has been done correctly or will that be done on paper and simply the ultimate result read out?

Lord Sewel

My Lords, the regional returning officer has to announce the additional regional result. To achieve that he will have to go through a process of calculation. That is published as part of the proceedings of declaration. As my noble and very helpful friend, Lord McIntosh of Haringey has indicated to me, it can be recalculated on demand as well. That is an open and explicit part of the process so that people know where they stand and make a subsequent judgment on whether they are content with how the process has been applied.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that the calculation can be done again if someone asks for it. The calculation will be very easy. If the returning officer is not too quick, other people will probably obtain the result quicker than he will. It is a fairly straightforward calculation to use the D'Hondt calculator. I still believe that the problem remains that when one gets to the seventh seat there could be a severe difficulty.

I hear what the Minister says about the counts. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am not convinced that there is not a way round it which is far superior to going to court, which is both expensive and lengthy. I appreciate that the problem with orders is that, even if the Minister were to agree with us, there is probably not much that can be done at this stage.

I fear that there has been an oversight, which perhaps indicates that if these orders had come before us sooner we might well have picked up this matter. Albeit hedged about with qualifications as to when somebody could call for a recount, the ability to call in all the papers the following day and have a general recount would certainly seem to be by far the fairer and better option.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said on that matter. I believe that we have a way forward for these elections. We are in unknown territory to a significant extent. We can reflect on the basis of experience. I am sure that no party represented here, or likely to be represented in the Scottish Parliament, would wish to see its representation enhanced on some dubious basis. There will be ample opportunity to bring forward new provisions, if that is felt necessary, for subsequent elections.

I believe that I have dealt with all the new issues. I realise some arose from the procedures which have already been adopted for election to the other place. Quite understandably, noble Lords were using this debate to rework some arguments heard there. I do not believe that they are particularly appropriate to these orders. I believe that I have dealt with the particular new issues which relate to the new orders before us today.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to