HL Deb 08 January 2004 vol 657 cc332-50

Second Reading debate resumed.

4.4 p.m.

Lord Norton of Louth

My Lords, when the House began to fill up at three o'clock, I began to think that a great many of its Members were actually interested in what I was going to say on the Bill. It is very encouraging to see so many noble Lords still present. I want to make one general observation and to raise two specific, but I think very important, points. In so doing, I will reinforce some of what has been said already in the debate, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

My opening observation is basic but fundamental. Voting is at the heart of the democratic process. The Bill provides for the use of innovative voting techniques in elections to a legislature—in this case the European Parliament—for the first time. As the Explanatory Notes state, at paragraph 6: Ministers intend to continue the programme of pilot voting as part of a programme working towards a multi-channelled, e-enabled general election some time after 2006. Piloting at next year's European Parliamentary elections would represent a scaling up from previous schemes and would be a further step towards this goal". It is a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, his very helpful letter to the Constitution Committee.

In drawing attention to that, I am not passing judgment on the merits of what is proposed, but rather calling attention to the fact that it constitutes the initial step on the path towards a general election in which voters do not necessarily go to the polling booths in the traditional manner. That final goal will constitute a fundamental change to our electoral arrangements.

As I say, I am not arguing against that. If a new method, such as all-postal voting, is employed that has the effect of increasing voter turnout, there is clearly a case for it. Indeed, if more electors vote, in terms of democratic values it would be difficult to argue against all-postal voting. I might also add that there is a case for welcoming it on political grounds. Some research findings suggest that my own party will benefit from all-postal voting. Before the Minister rushes to withdraw the Bill, I should point out that other research suggests that the effects will be neutral. An even higher voter turnout in British parliamentary elections would also help take some of the wind out of the sails of those who argue for a new electoral system.

Before we take the steps proposed by the Bill, we need to look carefully at the detail, as several noble Lords have mentioned. The first of my two points concerns a provision embodied in the Bill, while the second is concerned with what is not in the Bill and picks up very much on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, very briefly touched on my first point when he opened the debate. It concerns Clause 8 and the schedule, which precludes by-elections from being held within three weeks before or after the combined European Parliament and local government elections. The Constitution Committee, which I chair, has drawn attention to that provision, as it fulfils the committee's "two Ps" test: that is, it raises an issue of principle affecting a principal part of the constitution.

The committee reaches no judgment on the matter; that is for the House. What it notes is the fact that electors are by statute denied the opportunity to elect a parliamentary representative—other than to the European Parliament—in a six-week period, should a vacancy occur. I quote from our report, at paragraph 14: So far as we are aware, there is no direct precedent for the imposition of such a restriction, which could cause the electorate in the affected constituency to be without a representative in Parliament for longer than would otherwise be the case. This may be perceived as setting a precedent with constitutional implications". My personal view is that there needs to be a compelling case for such a provision which limits the rights of electors. One argument for the provision, as advanced by the Minister in the other place, Christopher Leslie, is that it avoids additional complexity. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, referred to it today as "unnecessary" complexity. I do not necessarily regard that as a compelling reason. It may be inconvenient but, as long as it is administratively feasible, a by-election should not be excluded during that time period.

Another reason advanced by Mr Leslie is that there would be insurmountable complexity if a Westminster by-election were to be held at the same time as the pilot elections. He did not elaborate so I am not sure if the complexity would be insurmountable because electors would be confused—voting by post for MEPs and councillors and going to the polling booths to elect an MP—or because returning officers would not be able to cope, given the resource implications. We need to know which it is, I suppose it could be both, and provided with a fuller and persuasive justification. The clause requires very careful probing.

I turn to the second point—one of omission—and I do so purely in a personal capacity. There have been exchanges in the other place and some Questions tabled about electoral fraud. My noble friend Lady Hanham and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, have addressed it. I recently tabled a Question about security of the vote in elections held by all-postal ballots. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, replied, making clear that the Government took the issue seriously and outlined the provisions of the Bill dealing with the offence of personation. I have no complaint about the Answer, nor with Clauses 6 and 7—quite the reverse, I very much welcome them. My concern is with a different aspect: that of the secrecy of the ballot, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I agree strongly with his comments.

The purpose of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act 1872, better known as the "Ballot Act", was to ensure that when one voted, whatever promises may have been made to others, no one knew for certain how a person had voted. It was a crucial means of getting rid of bribery and undue influence. Indeed, I quote from Robert Blackburn, in The Electoral System in Britain, at page 103: The Ballot Act did away with the traditional, open method of voting, and instead introduced the modem system whereby no-one except the voting citizen him or herself need know how he or she in fact voted. As a direct and immediate result, intimidation and fear of reprisals were radically undermined". Section 66(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides that no person shall interfere with a voter when recording his vote. The problem with postal voting is that we cannot guarantee the secrecy of the ballot. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I refer here not to the secrecy in respect of receipt by the returning officer but secrecy in the casting of the ballot. Lack of secrecy may give rise to vote buying, though I suspect the biggest problem is likely to be that of undue influence being exerted in properties where there is multiple occupancy. For example, parents putting pressure on sons and daughters of voting age or the owner of a care home encouraging residents to vote for a particular party. The polling booth guarantees secrecy. The sitting room does not.

As the Explanatory Notes record, what is proposed raises a problem in respect of the European Convention on Human Rights—again noted by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—which embodies the principle of, free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot". The Explanatory Notes go on to say, at paragraph 24: The effect of the innovative voting systems on the secrecy, security and accessibility of the ballot is something on which the piloting scheme is designed to generate evidence, in order that decisions on the wider use of these or other systems can be proportionate and soundly based". I would like to know what means will be employed to determine the effect of all-postal voting on the secrecy of the ballot. What mechanisms will the Electoral Commission employ in order to test for any undue influence of the sort that I have mentioned? To what extent has that been thought through?

I also wonder why secrecy is to be addressed as a "consequence" of this pilot scheme. I appreciate that it is a pilot, but, given the ECHR concerns, should not the issue have been anticipated and some provisions included, the pilot elections serving to test the robustness of those provisions? Certainly, in respect of disabled voters, proposals have been put forward by the Disability Rights Commission. What is being done, for example, to ensure that visually impaired voters are sent tactile voting forms? Implementing such proposals, I would have thought, would help make the Bill more convention-proof.

Those are the principal points I wish to raise. I do have some concerns about subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2. As the Explanatory Notes concede, providing "polling progress information" to the political parties may cause concern under the ECHR, not least in respect of privacy. I appreciate that the provision of the information will be helpful to the parties and save them no end of time. I am not surprised that the Minister said that all the parties support that particular provision.

However, under existing arrangements, citizens are under no obligation to tell a canvasser whether they have voted or, if outside a polling booth, who they are. Under this provision, one does not have that option. I can understand the argument that voting should be deemed a civic duty and therefore the fact that one has done one's duty should be a matter of public record. None the less, I have some concerns on privacy grounds.

From my earlier comments, the Minister will have realised that I am not unsympathetic to the Bill. However, it is a Bill of some constitutional significance. I think we would be failing in our duty if we did not give it the most careful scrutiny. I believe that some things can be achieved before the Bill completes its passage. I consider it essential that we see a copy of the order as soon as possible. In the mean time, I look forward to the Minister's response to the concerns that I have raised.

4 p.m.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, this is the second time in a week that I have had the privilege of directly following the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. On this occasion I agree with a great deal more of what he said than I did last Monday. Whether that makes me some form of Conservative, I am not sure. People can make a judgment on that.

I do not accuse the Government of deliberately seeking a system which will lead to fraud, corruption and intimidation. However, I believe that they are walking blindfold, with earplugs in their ears, towards such a system. I believe that it is our job in this House at least to flag up some of the problems which universal postal voting has in store.

In expectation of this Bill, I made a speech on this subject in the debate on the Queen's Speech at col.250 of the Official Report for 2 December 2003. I shall not repeat what I said then, except to say, once again, that turnout may mean different things to different people. The number of ballot papers returned may not necessarily equal the number of people who fill in those ballot papers.

Whatever the Electoral Commission and the Government believe, a great deal of evidence suggests that, in all-postal voting for elections, a significant number of votes are filled in by people who are different from those to whom the votes were addressed. Much such activity is not malicious and it is not deliberately fraudulent; nevertheless, it is wrong. There is much evidence of people voting on behalf of their husbands, their children or postal voters who are away. There is evidence of people taking ballot papers and filling them in at the bus stop and so on. Yet, in his introduction, the Minister quoted the Electoral Commission as saying that there is no evidence of an increase in fraudulent activity.

The problem is that no one has checked systematically to see whether there is such evidence; there is simply a reliance on people to complain. No one has carried out a proper survey to find out how much of the increased turnout in many elections is real and how much is simply due to all the ballot papers from a particular household being sent back by one or two people in that household.

I give an additional example of a friend of mine—Councillor David Roberts-Jones in Stockport—who stood in a by-election in Stockport some 14 or 15 months ago. He reports: I spoke to a nice old lady, who said she had already voted for me by post. I then asked her about her husband. She burst into tears and told me he had passed away two months previously. I apologised profusely. 'Don't worry', she said, 'You weren't to know, and anyway he's voted for you too'". That happens all the time.

Until now, postal voting has accounted for a small proportion of the number of votes cast. Anyone who has been involved in elections knows that that type of thing goes on, but it has not been a significant factor. The problem with all-postal voting is that the scale of the problem will suddenly increase dramatically.

For many years, we have all known of the minor scandal that has occurred in, although by no means all, many old people's care homes. I remember canvassing in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election nearly 20 years ago for the person who is now my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth. I came across an old people's home in the middle of the countryside. The person with whom I spoke was not the owner but she was employed to look after the old people. She said, "There is no point coming here. Mrs so-and-so makes sure they always vote Conservative". I asked, "All of them?". She replied, "Yes, they all vote Conservative, but don't worry, me and my husband are voting for your man".

That type of activity has always occurred. A few years ago, I made inquiries of a friend of mine who was a care assistant at an old people's county home in my ward. I asked her the best way to arrange to spend half an hour there in order to chat to the residents. She said, "It's a waste of time. None of them will even recognise you now". Therefore, I did not go. A few days later, she said, "The postal votes came but don't worry, they all voted for you". This happens all the time. It has occurred on a small scale and many care home organisations have tried to clean up the practice a little. Nevertheless, it has happened. However, the current scale of the operation leads me to believe that the incidence of fraudulent voting may he large. Certainly much anecdotal evidence suggests that that is the case.

All postal voting is wide open to scams. A recent case in Hackney came to court. It was one of the few ones that ever reached court. People were punished. I believe that Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors were involved. So it is not just the Labour Party that does this kind of thing. I am not making political points. In that case, they had registered a significant number of voters at houses where no one lived and had then applied for postal votes. It is very easy. One does not have to apply for the postal votes, all one needs is the registration. That is why the Electoral Commission has suggested that individual registration and a much tighter registration system is necessary before we can consider moving to all-postal voting. There is useful experience of that in Northern Ireland. In my view, it would be entirely wrong to have all-postal voting in elections of this scale without individual registration.

Noble Lords have already explained the problem with houses in multiple occupation, student houses and student colleges. There is huge potential for misuse of piles of votes coming through the letter box on to the table inside the door. Who will do what with them? Unscrupulous people will simply hoover them up and send them back. There is no way, so far as I can see, that that can be prevented.

There are many details in the Bill, such as declarations of identity, marked registers and so on that we shall discuss in Committee. I believe that the fundamental problem without individual registration is that all-postal voting is a recipe for fraud and corruption. There are political parties in this country—we were talking about the British National Party yesterday—which do not seem to have discovered postal voting and how to organise it. After the last general election the BNP's organiser in Burnley was put in prison for forging the nomination paper. If that party is prepared to do that, what will it do with postal voting once it decides what to do with it? I think I could make a great deal of money explaining how to rig the system. Of course I shall not.

The noble Lord referred to the Ballot Act. In it there are three fundamental principles: first, one votes in person; secondly, one votes in secret; and, thirdly, as a result of those two items, one is protected from bribery and intimidation. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, put his finger on the issue—that secret voting is not something that is offered to people as an option, it is made compulsory for people because it is only by making secret voting compulsory that one can stop other people intimidating and bribing them. Even if people want to show how they have filled in their ballot to other people, that is illegal and must remain so. It is a fundamental part of the system.

My view is that the safeguards of the secret ballot do not need to be relaxed at this stage. The evidence is that more people are finding ways, particularly through postal voting—but not only through postal voting—to corrupt the system and to defraud the rest of the electorate of a true election result. It needs strengthening now and not weakening. I believe that the system, as set out in the Bill, will sooner or later lead to fraud and corruption in our electoral system on a large scale. Perhaps that will not occur in these pilots, but eventually if the Government move to a comprehensive all-postal voting system we shall undermine the very basis of our democracy.

4.23 p.m.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen

My Lords, I am very pleased to be making a short intervention on what I think is an extremely interesting Bill, especially for those of us who have taken an active part in parliamentary and local elections and their processes from a tender age.

I first helped to run a political committee room in Lincolnshire in the late 1950s. I have continued to help up to the last election—now in Greenwich and Woolwich—and I have no doubt that I shall continue into the future.

It is slightly ironic that in many parts of the world a democratic process—that is, a freedom to vote for the party of one's choice—has been only a dream for so many people for so long. When in such countries people get an opportunity to vote, they will put up with any inconvenience to participate. Will any of us forget those long lines of black South Africans standing in very hot sun in order to vote for the first time in their lives? Some of those people were quite elderly. It was a very moving sight. And yet today, we, who have had for so very many years the right to vote, have to worry now about the low turn-out at elections and what it means for our democracy.

I welcome the Bill and its pilot proposals, which I hope will pave the way for future innovative methods of voting, a number of which have been mentioned already. The main aim of the Bill is to encourage people to vote and to allow the use of different methods of attracting voters.

When I think of the different places in which I have cast my vote over the years, I get a picture in my mind of drab and draughty village or civic halls, schoolrooms, church outhouses, which are usually quite bare, or even, in rural areas, the front room of a helpful villager. Most were not particularly welcoming environments. So, in an era when comfort is part and parcel of most people's lives, anything that can be done to make voting more attractive must be done.

The Bill allows participating regions to consider different initiatives to pave the way for an updated voting system. One obvious place to start is the provision of facilities for voting in places where people normally congregate—supermarkets and chain stores, for example. We should try voting over two or more days. This happens in a number of other countries and it may be particularly helpful in rural areas.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I like the idea of everyone voting by post. I believe it would prove to be popular. It is easy to understand and gives everyone a chance to vote without too much effort and at a time of their convenience.

I understand the worries expressed in relation to fraud, but please let us not believe or pretend that misdemeanours have not occurred in the past. I speak here as a past Labour Party organiser. Misdemeanours are not new. I shall mention only two of the milder forms of naughtiness.

Like others, I am sure, I remember the days when a doctor had to sign to certify that a person was unable to attend a polling station in person and therefore should be eligible for a postal vote. Some of the doctors' signatures on the postal vote application forms were, to say the least, suspect. For one thing, they were legible—and most doctors' signatures are not legible. I shall say no more on that particular area.

As regards proxy voters, how many have cast a vote in line with the wishes of the person they were asked to represent? Not all by any means. So it is not a new phenomenon we are faced with in ensuring that in any future legislation safeguards against misdemeanours are well in place.

Finally, I end in the same vein in which I started my short contribution. I welcome the provision in the Bill that allows information relating to voting to be available to political parties prior to the close of the polls. Like other active Members of the House, I cannot count the number of cold and rainy evenings that I have spent knocking on doors urging people to go to vote before the polls closed. Those in the houses in question became particularly angry if they had already voted, and especially if they were watching their favourite television programmes. Over the years I have been threatened by dogs, received a barrage of verbal abuse, and on one occasion I was even threatened with a gun. I am pleased to inform your Lordships that I was younger then and could run faster than I can today.

The main aims of the proposals in the Bill are to encourage more people to use their democratic right to vote. I, for one, sincerely hope that it will succeed and that we can learn from it, build upon it and improve the number of our citizens who vote accordingly.

4.29 p.m.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, we in my party opposed the Bill in the other place. We did so for a number of reasons: partly because we believe that in elections held across the nation as a whole—such as the European parliamentary elections—all constituencies should vote on the same basis. We did so also, and perhaps more importantly, because we believe that it is premature to introduce all-postal voting even on a pilot basis. As my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lord Greaves pointed out, the safeguards against abuse simply do not exist at present, even if it is assumed that they can be provided.

Of course, it would not be appropriate to oppose the Bill unconditionally in your Lordships' House. That would be inconsistent with the practice of this House, which is to seek to improve Bills rather than to reject them, but this Bill certainly needs improvement.

We accept that if pilots are to be held in 2004, the north-east and east midlands regions are indeed the appropriate ones. We also believe that there should not be a third region. Two is enough and the region that may be the runner-up—Scotland—is one of great size where there are obvious difficulties with postal deliveries to some of its more remote inhabitants.

We welcome the Government's assurance that they will not introduce any other voting methods, such as e-voting, following the Electoral Commission's report, which stated that the technical and security problems for e-voting have not yet been solved. The safeguards are simply not in place; nor was there any evidence that e-mail voting significantly increases turnout. Indeed, it is doubtful whether we should in any case use a voting system that is available only to those who have home access to the Internet, which in most regions is less than 50 per cent of the electorate and in others not much more. That is entirely different from the telephone, for example, which has a much higher access ratio.

There is evidence that all-postal voting significantly increases turnout. It is the only method so far tried that has succeeded in doing that. I can think of some other methods. I hesitate to suggest that all television companies should be required to air their most boring programmes all through election day, but that might have some effect.

As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out, there is serious concern about the secrecy of the ballot, which was an historic battle won by Gladstone's government in 1872. That is an issue of great importance. There is a real risk of pressure from within a voter's household: parents putting pressure on children, husbands putting pressure on wives or the other way round.

In some circumstances, there may be pressure from outside the household to vote in a particular way and therefore to show someone a completed form before it is returned. That practice is not unknown among Labour MPs, who have in the past been required to show ballot forms for party elections to their Whips before returning them. That may be a hypothetical risk in Great Britain, but it is plainly not in Northern Ireland. Frankly, it would be unthinkable to have all-postal voting there, but who can say that what happens in Northern Ireland now could never happen in any other part of the United Kingdom?

There is the risk, especially in houses in multiple occupation, of people getting hold of and completing voting forms meant for other people. Again, that is a real risk and I wonder whether the Government intend to take any steps to find out whether there has been such abuse. Of course, measures could be taken to reduce that risk—especially registration on an individual basis, not on that of the household, with a signed registration form from each elector.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, referred to Clauses 6 and 7. They are welcome, but they do not go nearly far enough to deal with the problems, particularly in houses in multiple occupation. We accept that it is impossible to change the registration system before next June's election. But will the Government accept the Electoral Commission's view that pilots should not be rolled out on a permanent basis until the safeguards—in particular, an individual registration system—are in place?

My noble friend Lord Rennard drew attention to the problem of the late return of postal votes. It is plainly right that postal voters should be entitled to vote by post on polling day. I suggest therefore that, whether or not it is desirable to extend the counting of postal votes for a further period, any postal votes received on the day after polling day, which must therefore have been posted on polling day, should necessarily be counted in all postal-only elections. That might delay counting, but there would be no problem in the European elections, in which votes cast on Thursday are not counted until the following Sunday. That change in the system would cause no problems on this occasion. It may be possible and desirable to delay counting of local election votes until Friday afternoon, Saturday or even Sunday. Are the Government prepared to consider allowing postal votes received on 11 June to be included in the count for EU and local elections this year?

There have been complaints from the Disability Rights Commission and the RNIB. All-postal voting makes it easier for some people with mobility problems to vote, as they do not have to make a special application for a postal vote or arrange for someone to assist them in getting to the polling station. But some disabled people, especially those with a visual impairment, will suffer from the lack of assistance available in polling stations. The Disability Rights Commission complains about the lack of a right to require a ballot to be issued in Braille or with a voting template. Are the Government prepared to act on those complaints either for the pilots or before the more general roll-out following them?

The Government say that a staffed delivery point at which ballots can be handed in will be made available in each local authority district. But the Local Government Association and the Electoral Commission say that there should be a delivery point in each local authority ward, not just in each local authority district. One point for a whole district would be inadequate even in an urban area and would be totally useless in a large rural district. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, supported the call for accessible and publicised delivery points. Will the Government accept that there should be one delivery point per ward as an interim step, at any rate, unless and until it becomes apparent that there is no significant need for it?

The noble Lord, Lord Louth, and the Constitution Committee in its report have drawn attention to the fact that the Bill excludes the possibility of Westminster by-elections for a six-week period. The reference to a six-week period is an underestimate; it should be seven weeks—three weeks before 10 June, on the 10 June and for three weeks after that date. Assuming that elections are held, as customary, on a Thursday, that would exclude the three Thursdays before 10 June and the three Thursdays after it, as well as 10 June itself. That means that the last date on which a by-election could be held before 10 June would be 13 May, after which the next date would be 8 July. I can see that a by-election—particularly, perhaps, if it is held before the European election—might distort the result of a pilot scheme by reducing the turnout. But excluding all dates between 13 May and 8 July is too long. I wonder whether the period should not be reduced by a week at each end.

My next point is that the Bill has not yet gone to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Clause 10 proposes that the order under Clause 1 should use the affirmative resolution procedure. The order under Clause 1 is the order that identifies the pilot regions. That, of course, is correct. That is a very important order and it should use the affirmative resolution procedure. An order under Clause 2—the pilot order that implements the main order—will also include some very important provisions, but, as the Bill is now drafted, it will require no parliamentary procedure at all. Therefore, should the Bill not require at least the negative resolution procedure before an order under Clause 2 can be implemented?

Finally, I turn to a point raised by the Local Government Association. Will the Government undertake to pay all additional costs that are incurred in local authorities in the pilot areas? As I said, this is not a Bill with which we are happy. We will not, in your Lordships' House, set out to wreck it. But we think that there are important and significant changes that should be made: we shall do what we can to ensure that those changes are made.

4.41 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for his usual clear and lucid introduction. I have an interest to declare: I have lived in the East Midlands region since July 1993. Both Bills pilot alternative voting methods in order to increase voter turnout. Noble Lords will be very interested to hear that despite my obvious interest in current affairs and politics, and despite having canvassed during general elections in adjacent constituencies, I do not have the foggiest idea who my MEP is, what his or her party is or what he or she has been doing in Europe.

If I do not know, it is not surprising that the electors do not know or do not care. Has the Minister done any research on what proportion of the electorate knows who their MEP is? The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, talked about the effects of the infamous closed list. I think that he is entirely right. We cannot expect the Minister to answer all our questions or points when he responds, but will he undertake to write to us in response to all the questions identified, as such, by a question mark in Hansard?

I listened with interest to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Of course, he is not an election junkie; he is a genuine expert. During later stages of the Bill, his experience, wisdom and counsel will be of great benefit. I just wish that we had someone of his skill in our party. He identified a number of difficulties with all-postal voting—in particular, the lack of secrecy.

I disagree with the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. She pointed out the role of the tellers at the polling station. However, in that situation, voters do not need to give information to anyone who is not an election official, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, also made interesting observations about the situation inside a family. I can see very severe difficulties possibly arising; we may not actually see them, but they may occur. The noble Lord also talked about the problem of voting too early in the campaign to make an informed decision.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, raised a number of interesting points. She touched on the issue of possible fraud, about which she appears relaxed. But I think that the purpose of the pilot is to determine whether there is a problem with fraud. I agree with the negative view that she takes of a national pilot. Apart from it being a contradiction in terms, it would make it much more difficult for the Electoral Commission to study the results of the pilots. She was also relaxed about the problem of personation. She pointed out that there is no identity check at the polling station. She is right. However, at a polling station, there is a real risk of detection of personation.

Baroness Could of Potternewton

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. I am not relaxed about any of those points as he suggests. I am certainly not relaxed about personation. My point was that personation has continued. The Bill is likely to prevent it occurring in the way in which it has occurred in the past. I am certainly not relaxed about it.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, when I selected that word, I wondered whether I would come unstuck. I entirely agree with the contribution of the noble Baroness.

In a home in multiple occupation, there is a risk of immature youngsters thinking it merely being a bit naughty to post all the votes on the carpet. There is a real danger that they could find themselves in serious difficulties.

I assure my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that we are all interested in his views. He raised the problem of the prohibition of by-elections for a six-week period. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, touched on that problem too. My noble friend Lady Hanham and I will have to consider that matter with great care.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also was concerned about fraud. Perhaps we should consider putting a greater duty on the Electoral Commission to investigate whether any fraud has taken place and providing it with the necessary tools to do that. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, made some interesting suggestions based on her practical experience of elections. Of course, I am a complete newcomer to the business. I am not sure what returning officers would feel about keeping polling booths open for two days, but I take it that she is referring to a conventional election rather than to a postal one.

It is quite clear that there is only just enough time for the authorities to make the necessary arrangements to implement the Bill. The Electoral Commission's report of December 2003 indicated that firm decisions were needed by mid-December. We on these Benches will he as helpful as possible, while properly scrutinising the Bill as my noble friend Lady Hanham has indicated. We therefore intend to help the Minister by tabling amendments in Committee that would specify the north-east and east Midlands regions in the Bill. As the Bill may be considered in Grand Committee, we could not force a Division, but the Government can remove any uncertainties for the authorities by accepting our amendments or by tabling their own.

More controversially, we should also consider excluding other regions, as recommended in the Electoral Commission's report. I am sure that all noble Lords have found the report to be good reading and very useful. My noble friend Lady Hanham touched on the issue of using Scotland as a pilot region. The report refers to the risks identified by the regional returning officer for Scotland. They are cumulative and centre on: the legislative timetable; the general lack of experience in Scotland of all-postal ballots; the lack of time available for forward planning; the recent busy electoral history in Scotland; issues relating to the security of the ballot; possible problems of delivery and return of ballot papers; the very significant staffing implications of an all-postal ballot; concerns about the ability of suppliers to deliver effectively; lack of time to test critical computer systems—although we do not mean e-voting—and resources to plan for and deliver the election. Those risks were identified by the returning officers, who would have to implement an all-postal ballot in Scotland.

On Scotland, the report concludes, and in the light of the unanimous views of the returning officers, the Commission does not feel able to recommend that Scotland is suitable to undertake a pilot scheme in 2004". Considerable uncertainty and nugatory effort could be avoided if Ministers were to accept our suggestions now.

E-voting makes voting and counting easier, but it does not increase turn-out, for reasons identified by all noble Lords and in various reports. We oppose e-voting for now. The Minister in another place indicated that no e-voting will take place in 2004 and we wish to see that confirmed in the Bill. That is not merely because our confidence in Ministers' assurances at the Dispatch Box has been shattered as a result of recent events, but also because it would remove any uncertainties and lingering thought in industry that there might be e-polling. As a result, entrepreneurs would not waste their efforts and resources.

Much concern has been expressed about the secrecy of postal voting systems. This applies both to casting and counting. As suggested by my noble friend, we will need to look very carefully at the arrangements for opening postal votes, the possibility of using two envelopes to separate the ID from the ballot paper and, of course, the scrutineering arrangements.

My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth was extremely concerned about the security of voting, as were other noble Lords. He said that: The polling booth guarantees secrecy. The sitting room does not". The Minister will tell us that the detailed arrangements are to be covered in two orders. These orders must be in draft form now; they must exist. If they are not ready, I suggest that the Minister should withdraw the Bill now because there will be insufficient time to make the necessary arrangements.

If noble Lords were able to consider the draft orders before Committee, many of our amendments would be unnecessary because we would know the answers. We would know that the Minister had already covered various points. Seeing the orders would be extremely helpful because we do not want to waste time, we want to get on with the Bill.

As observed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Bill provides for two orders, one subject to affirmative resolution and one to negative resolution. It may have been appropriate to have two orders when the Bill was originally drafted, but presumably both of the orders will be tabled almost immediately after the Bill receives Royal Assent. This Bill provides for a "one off" event, the pilots, and will not recur. I cannot understand why there is not one, all-encompassing affirmative order.

The Minister may say that he needs a negative instrument facility to correct and amend any possible errors that might arise. But if he finds that an error has been made in the order, we will regard that as a serious matter since the time-scales are so short. There is no margin for error and if anything goes wrong it will be extremely difficult to make the pilots a success. So we would certainly ensure that any negative amending order was fully debated on the Floor of the House. Conversely, if the Minister takes the single affirmative order route, I am confident that the House would be sympathetic to the need for speed in the unlikely event of an error arising.

I, too, received the interesting brief from the Disability Rights Commission. At the very least, I know that all noble Lords will seek to ensure that the Bill does not make matters worse for the disabled. However, I think that we should be able to make some improvements. The pilots provide a good opportunity to trial improvements, provided—this is the big caveat—that there is no chance that those improvements might distort the data to be captured from the trial and analysed by the Electoral Commission. In view of the relatively low numbers, that is unlikely to be a problem.

In conclusion, I look forward to working with the Minister on this important, if simple, Bill. Deliberations at later stages will be far more straightforward if the Minister lets us see the draft orders that must be available now. If they are not, then I suggest that the Minister is in deep difficulties already.

4.53 p.m.

Lord Filkin

My Lords, in rising to respond to what has been a good debate I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it in such a thoughtful and reflective manner. That will do us proud as we move towards our consideration in Committee. As I normally do, I undertake to write to all Members whose questions I fail to answer either from want of time or wit so that there will be an opportunity to consider those before we get to Committee. However, I will not go as far as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, adventurously sought to suggest; that is, to respond to every comment with a question mark set out in Hansard. I would be trapped into answering rhetorical questions, which would burden us both.

I turn first to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Yes, the Bill applies only to the European Union and local government elections to be held on 10 June. She also mentioned the report of the Electoral Commission and was quite right to say that the commission made positive recommendations about the two regions which we have already announced. It then set out a hierarchy of other regions where it had varying levels of doubt. So positive recommendations were made about two regions and the issue was left open with doubts on others. I shall say no more on that at this point because we shall consider it further in Committee. However, I wanted to avoid leaving the impression that the commission had made positive recommendations for every region, because that was not the case.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of Royal Mail capacity. She is absolutely right—that is a crucial issue. There have been considerable discussions with the Royal Mail. Adam Crozier, the chief executive, has affirmed to us that its contribution to a postal election is the highest priority the Post Office has, apart from the delivery of money to the post offices themselves. One will understand, therefore, what a high priority that is. So it is aware of the importance of this to its reputation and already has a strong central team in place.

The planning process has gone as far as considering what would happen were there to be local postal strikes and how the Royal Mail could be sure that it still fulfilled its obligations to democracy, which is what it is doing in this case. We will no doubt come back to that issue in Committee but, just as an opener, I wanted to make it clear that an important issue was concerned. We had had discussions with the Royal Mail and it is taking the matter very seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised important issues about the Disability Rights Commission. We have met representatives from a range of disability organisations which have, quite rightly, expressed concerns about using only one channel. Provisions are made within the pilot orders for accessibility of delivery points and the equipment that must be provided to assist disabled voters. We will be looking to address the concerns expressed by these organisations in consultation with them during the development of the pilot order. I hope to be able to say more on that in Committee.

On the important, if complex and technical, issue of envelopes in one-piece mail, as I would not pretend to be a world expert in this matter, we will debate it in Committee. It is an important issue. Electoral administrators and suppliers have extensive experience of producing secure and effective forms of ballot papers and enveloping systems, and we intend to work closely with the administrators in the regions, the Electoral Commission and others to ensure that secure formats and systems are used in these pilots. Again, we will be learning from our experience on the three previous rounds of pilots.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, gave, not unexpectedly, a thoughtful contribution to the initial stages of the Bill. He suggested that the Bill was premature. Let me say one or two words about why I ask him at least to keep an open mind. This is a significant change in electoral arrangements. We should proceed with caution, but the evidence of the scale of improvement in the voting would mean that we would be wrong not to continue progressive experimentations in the way we are doing. By that I mean that the increase is not 15 or 16 per cent on 60 per cent, but 15 or 16 per cent on 35 per cent or so. Proportionately, it is a very significant increase in the turnout response, and we hope it will be sustained.

I do not think the best way of proceeding is to wait until the utopian position when we know the answer to every single question about fraud, security and secrecy, which have been quite rightly raised in this debate. Doing so would probably mean that we would never move at all. The way in which we are moving, which I think is right, is step by step, with a process of research and evaluation at each step. We are using the processes of piloting to address the questions raised in debates such as this and using the Electoral Commission and other mechanisms to do so.

In other words, not being able to give a perfect answer to every question at this stage is not a reason for not moving forward but is a reason for marking those concerns and trying to use the process of progressive, incremental piloting, the mechanism by which we seek to rebut or address concerns and issues. I will say no more on that at this point, but that is why I think the proportionate and progressive approach we have adopted on the Bill on piloting to date is right in principle, rather than waiting until we have a perfect and total system. Having said that, I have noted the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others, to which we will come back subsequently.

The noble Lord made a point about the difference between a postal voting timetable and the campaign timetable. That is a point for reflection, but our electorate are grown-up and mature and can use their own judgment about when they want to vote. I can conceive of situations in which people will know in which direction they want to vote, as there are life-long Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour voters, who will vote without thinking. Others may not do so, and they have the opportunity to delay their vote right until the end, when they have heard and, one hopes, benefited from the election material and the debate in local or national media.

People also have the opportunity to vote on the day itself. That touches on, without totally addressing, the point raised by noble Lords. They can vote on the day itself by going to the particular local delivery point—or whatever ghastly term we have invented—to put their vote in the box. They could also go to that place and vote there and then put it in the time-honoured box. People have a choice, and they can make their judgments about when they believe it appropriate to vote.

There is not a self-evident or simple answer to the problem of HMOs. We are fully aware of the issue, which is most important for registration officers, the Government and the Electoral Commission. We may be able to say more in Committee, or it may be one of the issues of which there must be very serious evaluation afterwards, to see whether exceptional measures are required in such circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised the question of being surprised at there being a combination of the EU and local government elections, with the piloting process happening at the same time. I would have to look back into the history, but I trust that there was no misapprehension in that regard. However, that process is important because it gives us the Ability to test two things at once. First, there is the application of an innovative voting method of all-postal voting at a regional level, which has never been done before. I nod with due obeisance to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for recognising that this is an election to a legislature. He made that point clearly and well, and I respect it. Secondly, we are looking at piloting for two elections at the same time—or two or more. Two measures are being dealt with in a novel way, which is potentially important to evaluate. There is much to be learned from the set of pilots that we propose.

The noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, if I recollect correctly, raised the issue of secrecy. It is clearly a fundamental issue, and I would be foolish frivolously to say that there is no conceivable situation in which there could not be a problem. One can conceive of the possibility of pressure, although it may not be extensive. Certainly, under Clause 4, the Electoral Commission will be required to report on the elections, and in doing so we shall expect it to consider issues of secrecy. Any such issues would normally be considered by the commission, and it is a particularly important issue.

We have also been working with the electoral administrators to ensure that literature and systems are used that provide for secrecy, and that people are reminded of the importance of secrecy. Time will not allow me to say more, but I mark the importance of that matter.

A number of noble Lords spoke on the issues of fraud and security. Again, I cannot do justice to all the points made, for reasons of time, but I shall do my best to come back with written responses. However, I shall give a quick menu of some of the issues that we are considering. No final decisions have been taken, but the menu will give noble Lords a flavour of the issues that we are reflecting on. Among these are the facility for people to report instances of fraud or coercion by telephone; security statements that require a voter's signature, which will be mandated, as I indicated before; comparing signatures on security statements with signatures on file; checks with a sample of people marked as having returned a ballot paper to check that they did send in a paper; inclusion of secrecy warnings on voting and proxy voting literature; repeated warnings as to the penalty for fraud; extending the scope of the secrecy rules to cover all postal provisions; and so on. We shall return to those issues in more detail.

I note the interesting point on weekend voting made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Although it is a point, he will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not think we are likely to introduce it at this point. No doubt, however, we will reflect on it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, asked whether extra money will be available. The short answer is "Yes". The Government will cover the additional costs that result from holding the elections on a pilot basis. As one would expect, however, local authorities will be expected to pay the costs that they would have incurred if the elections had been held on the traditional basis. That is the normal agreement with local authorities on new burdens, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, knows better than I do.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, made a very measured and thoughtful contribution. I thank him and the committee for marking up these important constitutional points for us. I think that, in a sense, I have already referred obliquely both to the issue of secrecy and to the legislative point.

I have not yet referred to the exclusion of Westminster elections, to which I shall return in more detail. However, the central point, as I think the noble Lord inferred, is the concern about complexity and confusion. We will reflect on whether it is possible to reduce the period of exclusion in the light of concerns that registration officers might have if, late in the process, they suddenly found that they had another election on top. That is part of the problem—no one knows when there will he a by-election, whereas people can plan for the elections that will be legitimated as a product of the Bill.

Visually-impaired voters are part of the issues on disability that we will come back to in more detail.

The point about marked registers was extremely interesting. I know of some people who have been reluctant to give their names outside polling booths—maybe they are cussed people, or not. The point is that going to a polling station is effectively a public act. It does not mean that you will necessarily be seen, but you will have been seen to go in there. It is true that no one knows whether you actually voted or not, or whether you spoiled your ballot paper, but it is a fact that you have been seen. So it is not a private act, even though, quite rightly, your vote is private.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the tone of his speech. It was reflective and deeply concerned about some of the issues. I respect that he is deeply concerned about some of the issues. I think the best way to identify these issues is to have pilots. A point that I do take, and on which I shall reflect, is whether a system of identifying problems that relies fundamentally on complaints is sufficient. I think that that is a good point. I do not think that that is exactly the position, because the Electoral Commission has a duty to look proactively as well.

However, I think that we must look particularly at the kinds of concerns that are unlikely to manifest themselves through complaints and see whether there are identification mechanisms for addressing them. This is not a process of having an academic debate about the extent of fraud; it is to try, through the pilots, to find ways of reducing fraud so that we all have more confidence about taking innovative voting methods that work forward into the future. I take that strongly, and I take the challenges in relation to the ballot Act as well.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, as ever, for her thoughtful, enjoyable if slightly frightening and open candour about some election processes. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also urged that the television companies should be encouraged to put on boring programmes. I hope not; I do not think they need any encouragement.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, perhaps they could be encouraged to put the Parliamentary Channel on all channels that day.

Lord Filkin

My Lords, I have even met people who have watched it, which surprises me.

The point about the entitlement to vote on polling day is interesting and we will reflect on it. In a sense, I gave an answer already. They can vote on polling day. It requires them to walk down the road and vote in the place that exists as a consequence.

I must turn to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I apologise to other Lords for racing past. I note his warning about putting the two regions in the Bill. I mark the point that the Electoral Commission was not excluding consideration of other regions: it was only making a positive recommendation about two, while leaving some questions open—perhaps the next three or four—with a number at the bottom where it was clearly saying "no". There were three broad categories and gradations within those categories.

I hope that the noble Earl does not move an amendment on e-polling. I make it clear, and I give the statement from the Dispatch Box, that this Bill does not allow e-polling. It will not be done, but he will take his own counsel on that. I hear, as ever, the encouragement to get the draft orders in place. Although I would not want to raise his hopes excessively on that, we will give as much information as we can as soon as we can—I make that promise.

I look forward to working on this Bill with other Members, both on the Front Benches and Back Benches. We are dealing with important measures upon which we ought to seek as much cross-party unity as we can, because they affect our democracy. I look forward to the Committee stage.

On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.