HL Deb 30 April 2001 vol 625 cc505-9

7.33 p.m.

Lord Davies of Oldhamrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd April be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that these draft regulations be approved. In so doing, I shall speak also to the other Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate that the regulations and order are designed to achieve the same purpose, which is why it makes sense to consider them together. I shall also endeavour to show that all of the provisions contained in these regulations are uncontentious and deserve your Lordships' support.

The purpose of all these instruments is to correct some minor defects in existing regulations. Let me first, on behalf of the Government, apologise unreservedly for those defects. All I can say is that mistakes can happen in the best run of departments and I hope that your Lordships will be forgiving.

The genesis of these regulations was a debate that was held during the recent passage of the Elections Act 2001, which is the Act which postponed the local elections until June. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, tabled an amendment to correct a defect in respect of the supply of electoral register updates. Responding, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said that the Government were sympathetic to the purpose behind the amendment but that we did not feel that the Elections Bill, as it then was, was the right vehicle to make the change in question. Instead, my noble friend made a commitment to your Lordships that, as quickly as possible, we would bring forward self-contained regulations to correct the defect. The result is the four sets of provisions that are currently before your Lordships' House.

The first three sets of regulations relate to parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, while the fourth—the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2001—relates to elections to the Scottish Parliament. As I have indicated, the main purpose of all four sets of provisions relates to the supply of updates of the electoral register which come about as a consequence of the introduction of rolling registration.

Regulations 46 and 47 of the various Representation of the People Regulations 2001, which came into force earlier this year, deal with the supply of free copies of the electoral register either on request or automatically. Regulation 46 provides for the automatic supply of the register, together with the monthly updates to it made under rolling registration, to bodies such as the Electoral Commission, the Secretary of State and the British Library. Regulation 47 provides for the supply of the register on request to MPs, councillors, the political parties and candidates.

Although the intention was also to provide for the supply of the monthly updates under Regulation 46 to MPs, councillors and candidates, in the event this was not specified in the regulation. Some electoral administrators have interpreted the regulation to mean that they are unable to do so. Others have taken a different view and interpreted the regulation in the spirit in which it was intended and have supplied the monthly updates to these people.

Clearly this situation is unsatisfactory and the main purpose of the regulations before your Lordships' House is to put it beyond doubt that monthly updates should be supplied to those involved in contesting elections.

For the sake of completeness, I should make clear that in the case of elections to the Scottish Parliament which, as I have indicated are the subject of the fourth Motion, the relevant instrument is the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999. However, the changes made by article 3 of this order are the same as those being made in respect of Westminster parliamentary elections by the other regulations.

Regulation 3 of each of these regulations deals with the definition of the term "data". Regulation 3(1) of the various 2001 regulations (and paragraph 7 of the Scottish Parliament election regulations) define "data" as having the same meaning as in Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. But that definition includes data other than electronically held data. In the 2001 regulations, the term data is meant only to refer to electronically held data. Accordingly, Regulation 3 of these regulations substitutes a new definition of data which derives from paragraph (b) of the definition in the 1998 Act and confines it only to electronically held data.

The regulations contain a couple of other minor points. Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the England and Wales regulations are designed to introduce a measure of consistency. Under Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, people may apply for an absent vote for, an indefinite or particular period".

However, the 2001 regulations, when dealing with the same issue, refer to a "definite or indefinite period" and to a "defined" period. The regulations simply change "definite" and "defined" to "particular" to ensure consistency with the original Act.

Finally, I deal with Regulation 6 of the England and Wales regulations, which is Regulation 5 of the first set of Scotland regulations. Regulation 56(5) of the 2001 regulations provides that if a voter who has been granted an absent vote wants instead to vote in person, their application to be removed from the list of those who have been granted absent votes must be received by 5 p.m. on the 11th day before the date of the poll if it is to have effect for that election. Once that deadline has passed, the returning officer is likely to start sending out postal ballot papers.

However, various other provisions relating to proxy votes have a deadline of 5 p.m. on the sixth day before the date of the poll. These include cases in which the proxy no longer wishes to act in that capacity. The problem with that is that in a relatively small number of cases those who act as proxies vote by post. Potentially, therefore, a proxy could quite properly apply to cease to be a proxy after a ballot paper had already been sent to him.

Accordingly, Regulations 6 and 5 of these regulations amend Regulation 56(5) to introduce a common closing time so that all such applications need to be received by the registration officer by the same point, which will be 5 p.m. on the 11th working day before the date of the poll. Article 4 of the second Scottish instrument makes a corresponding change for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

I have done my best to explain the purpose of the regulations in straightforward language. I hope that I have not been too technical or too confusing. I emphasise that they are designed to correct minor and, in some cases, purely drafting defects. The only substantive change they make is to ensure that those who are supplied with copies of the electoral register on an annual basis can also receive the monthly updates to it. I am sure that all your Lordships can see the benefits of that. We have consulted the Electoral Commission on the regulations and it has endorsed them. I therefore hope that your Lordships will see fit to approve all the instruments. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd April be approved. [14th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Viscount 13ridgeman

My Lords, I, too, acknowledge the generous response of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Cope and I tabled to the Elections Bill. We are grateful to the Government for giving prompt effect to the intentions behind that amendment. All political parties will be grateful for the regulations, which will save them all considerable expense. We support them.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, I shall speak on behalf of my party in respect of the first three measures. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie will deal with the fourth as it relates to the Scottish Parliament.

It is obviously correct that the regulations should be passed. It is plainly desirable that those who receive annual copies of the register should also receive the monthly updates. It is essential for candidates and political parties to do so. I entirely support the amendments that these new regulations make to the existing regulations.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for explaining the Scottish parliamentary order. I hope that I have understood it. The No. 3 order deals with the provision of electoral registers and tidies up the implications of the rolling register and the various means by which it is now recorded and distributed. Presumably it refers to electronic records and CDs.

The No. 3 order also sets down a final date 11 days before an election for an elector to remove their name from the register of absent and proxy votes. I hope that the Government will promote the use of the absent vote, by which we mean the postal vote. I accept that there is potential for electoral fraud, but I believe that many electors would find a postal vote surprisingly convenient. A campaign to promote postal voting may even increase the turnout, which is desirable.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister on the Scottish order. He may have answered the first and I missed it, because, even though he tried to use ordinary language, he was describing something rather complicated. People will be able to remove their name from the list of absent voters up to the 11th working day before the poll. Is that the same for Westminster parliamentary elections? It ought to be, but I just wondered.

I have lost my place. If the Minister could answer that question, I may think of the other one in a moment.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I hope that I am able to answer the questions without provoking further ones, lest I get into deep waters.

I very much appreciate the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who recognised the desirability of ensuring that the crucial data on the electoral roll are available in the most up-to-date form possible to all concerned with contesting elections.

The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked about the 11 days. We are bringing the two dates into line so that we do not have a ridiculous situation in which a person can withdraw from being a proxy after the ballot paper has already been designated to them. I entirely accept the noble Earl's point that we should facilitate the exercise of the democratic opportunity in the best way we can. He is right that improved ways in which we can facilitate postal votes may assist in that. The regulations merely bring the dates into line and in no way inhibit that. The noble Earl will recognise that a number of steps have been taken in recent years to promote the opportunity to obtain the right to vote by post, which meet his substantive point.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I was seeking to say—although perhaps not as coherently as I might have done—that the 11 days are days on which the clock ticks towards an election date. As she rightly said, they are often called working days because they are days of the week, excluding bank holidays and one or two other days that are outwith the parliamentary calendar. Therefore, she is absolutely right in her assumption that it is intended to bring the Scottish position fully into line with, and be totally consistent with, that of Westminster.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I apologise for having lost my place earlier. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether the security of the relationship between the postal vote and the voter is the same as for Westminster. If it should turn out that the system does not work very well, will the Government suggest to the Scots Parliament that it be changed before the Scottish Parliament elections? I believe that we are very keen that people should be able to vote by post. However, that must not be abused, and I wonder whether the system for the Scottish Parliament elections will be the same.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I believe that I can assure the noble Baroness that the arrangements are to be the same. I can also assure her that our increasing experience of the extended opportunity for postal voting enables us to guarantee, in the phrase that she used, security; that is, the person on whose behalf the vote is cast will be the person who has received and cast the vote and who has signed accordingly. Any proxy arrangement is common to all the elections in those terms. Therefore, I believe that I can assure her on that point. In doing so, I hope that I can assure the House of the significance of the regulations and orders and of the justification behind them. At the same time, I apologise for the small administrative reason which gave rise to them.

On Question, Motion agreed to.