HL Deb 13 September 2004 vol 664 cc933-45

4.58 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford, the Minister for Local and Regional Government. The statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement to the House on regional and local referendums in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber. This follows the Statement I made in July, in which I referred to the differences of view in this House about whether we should go ahead with referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber. I explained the Government's decision to reschedule the referendums in those areas, and confirmed, against a strong confidence in postal-voting—in the northeast, our decision to proceed with the referendum in that region. Members will recall that Parliament approved the orders enabling that referendum to take place.

"In July, I also gave two assurances to this House. First, I said that the Government would not proceed with the referendum in the North East on the basis proposed if the Electoral Commission produced convincing evidence that it was unsafe to do so.

"Secondly, I said that, with your permission Mr Speaker, I would make a further statement in September on how we intended to proceed with the referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber having had the opportunity to consider the Electoral Commission's evaluation report of the June electoral pilots. Today's Statement follows on from those two assurances.

"Regarding the commission's report and statement, the Electoral Commission published its report on 27 August. In parallel it published a statement setting out its view of the implications of its report for the regional and local referendums in the North East.

"The report concludes that successful elections were delivered in the four pilot regions. The commission states that to date it is not aware of any evidence to suggest any widespread abuse of postal voting either within or beyond the pilot regions. Moreover, from an extensive public opinion survey, the commission found that people in the pilot regions were satisfied with all-postal voting by a margin of two to one—59 per cent against 29 per cent.

"Nevertheless, the commission concludes that the all-postal pilots raise a number of important issues that need to be addressed for the future development of voting methods in Britain. It makes a range of recommendations designed to make voting more convenient, to increase the administrative capacity to run elections, and to build greater public confidence in voting arrangements.

"Above all, the commission identifies in its report the strong public support for electors to have choice as to how to vote—a demand for choice that the commission is clear that all-postal voting does not meet. Accordingly, it has withdrawn its previous recommendation that all-postal voting should become the norm in local government elections.

"In its place the commission proposes a basis for future multi-channel elections to develop a new foundation model of voting. The commission undertakes to work with government, electoral administrators, political parties, and experts in access and security to design this new approach to voting which must be capable of offering electors both choice and security.

"It is against that background of findings and recommendations that the commission has drawn up its statement about the conduct of regional and local referendums.

"As regards the North East referendum, which this House has approved for 4 November, the commission has unambiguously concluded that this referendum should proceed as an all-postal ballot without changes to the process. Central to the commission reaching this conclusion is its recognition that the referendum process is already under way, and its judgment that there would be far greater risk to the process if significant changes were to be made now than if the referendum were to continue as planned.

"The commission recognises that the system for the North East referendum is an improvement over that piloted in June, particularly as there is no requirement for a witness to sign a security statement and because we have required considerably more assistance and delivery points, at which voters can receive help and vote in privacy. The commission also recognises that there have been no allegations of fraud in the North East, there is extensive experience of all-postal voting in that region and there is greater public support for all-postal voting than in any other region.

"Accordingly, the commission also explicitly states that it is not making any recommendations for change to the orders already made in relation to the conduct of the North East referendums. The commission undertakes to work with the chief counting officer and government to encourage and promote good practice within the framework of the existing order.

"There are therefore no grounds for not proceeding with the North East referendum. It will go ahead as planned on 4 November. We as Government welcome the commission undertaking to work with others to encourage and promote good practice, and we stand ready to play our part.

"I turn now to the referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber.

"In its statement the commission states that given the recommendations in its evaluation report, it could not support any future referendums on the all-postal basis now being used for the North East.

"We welcome the commission's commitment to multi-channel elections—the form of elections that has consistently been the long-term aim of the Government's electoral modernisation strategy. We are ready to work with the commission on developing its proposed new foundation model of voting and we will be discussing further with it how that will he taken forward. We hope that all key stakeholders will join us. We share the commission's belief as to the importance of securing a degree of public and political consensus for significant changes to the electoral process before moving forward. And we note that the commission aims to report on the new model in March 2005.

"Against this background it would be wrong now to reach final conclusions on the precise timing and form of the referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber. Over the coming months, we and others will want to see how work progresses on the new foundation model, and to consider and analyse more deeply the full range of the commission's recommendations. We will then be better placed to take final decisions about the form and timing of these referendums.

"I would, however, reiterate what I said in July. The Government are absolutely committed to these referendums going ahead.

"It is important that the people of the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber should have their opportunity to express their view for or against an elected regional assembly and the associated local government reorganisation. I understand the concerns that have been voiced about delay leading to uncertainty about the future structure of local government in Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire and North Yorkshire.

"We recognise that concern and we take it very seriously. But we want to make sure that the referendums are held against a background of confidence in the voting system. We will of course aim to minimise the delay. In all events, given the need for primary legislation following a 'yes' vote in one referendum to allow elected regional assemblies to be established and the associated local government reorganisation to take place, there is no reason why this revised timetable for the referendums should cause significant delay to the overall local government reorganisation timetable.

"The extensive electoral pilots last June have much to teach us all. Already they have led the commission to revise some of its key conclusions about all-postal voting which it drew from earlier smaller pilots. But the way is now clear for the people of the North East to make their choice on an elected regional assembly for their region. And the people of the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber can be confident that they too will be able to exercise their choice before too long".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

5.6 p.m.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, the Minister must find himself in a state of embarrassment, having to bring this Statement which was given in the other place by his right honourable friend Nick Raynsford. First, in July, the Government had to admit that they could not carry out referenda in the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside, in November. Now, they are saying that they intend to put those off indefinitely.

Of course that really comes as no surprise, as it has become increasingly clear that there is little appetite for changes to government in those areas, and should the referenda be pursued, the Government are certainly not going to win. The Deputy Prime Minister, of course, would not want to lose face in his own area on his own flagship policy. However, could the Minister tell us how much this frolic has cost in terms of government information already put out, preparatory work already done and the cost of each ministerial visit—of which there have been many—and public consultation prior to the announcement of the deferment on 22 July?

The Government point to the words of the Electoral Commission—words which I quoted to the Minister last Tuesday, but of which he did not appear then to be aware—that one of its key recommendations was that, there should be no further all-postal votes undertaken in the United Kingdom". The commission did suggest a further examination of voting systems other than all-postal, but is the Minister really saying that even an organisation so adept and independent as the commission is going to be able to undertake an in-depth consideration of the value of all the other methods of voting, controversial as some of those will be, carry out the necessary consultation and be in a position to make recommendations by March of next year? Would any recommendations then made be expected to play in to both the untimed referenda as well as a general election?

The Government have got themselves impaled on an extremely sharp hook by insisting on "messing about" with the voting system, which they have now done systematically for a number of years.

Will the Minister tell the House how he expects Parliament to consider any report of the commission on these matters in a timescale that is commensurate with good organisation—particularly in view of the fact that neither this House nor the other place has yet had an opportunity to discuss the Electoral Commission's report and/or the draft Bill on powers and responsibilities of regional government in time for it to effect the one remaining referendum in the North East?

Actually, this is a matter of at least as much significance as the decision on the ballot. There has been no parliamentary scrutiny of the commission's report or the draft Bill. In that regard, the Minister may be interested to recall the words of his noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean when she was responding to the debate on the Constitution for Europe (Referendum) Bill on 10 September. She said (at col. 851 of the Official Report on 10 September) that, a referendum held before Parliament, the cornerstone and very hallmark of our democracy, has had the chance to scrutinise the"— in her case she was talking about the treaty but in our case we are talking about the Electoral Commission report and the draft Bill—was an "extraordinary proposition". Indeed it is and it is apt to the matter about which I have just spoken. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us an indication of when such a debate might take place.

The Government make much of the fact that the Electoral Commission gave the go-ahead for the North East referendum to take place with all-postal voting, but that, of course, is because Parliament had already been bounced into the decision before the recess—at that stage, before it knew what the Electoral Commission's views would be and, since then, plans have been underway. However, having set up the Electoral Commission to advise them on the pilots, was it not absurd that they took that decision before receiving the commission's report? Had they not done so, it might also have been possible for the North East venture to have been conducted according to a more normal voting system, whether or not the returning officers and others were prepared to carry out the all-postal ballot again.

The Minister assured the House last Tuesday—the Statement does so again today—that there will be considerably more assistance and delivery points in the North East referendum election. But, as was pointed out last week, the population of the county of Northumberland is scattered, and unless each village and town is assured of several such points, it means that people will still be hampered if they wish to deliver their votes personally.

This whole regional government policy, as we have said so often, is a mess. It is a policy which is not even widely supported in the regions concerned and one that pretends to be about local government but is nothing to do with local government reorganisation. The Statement underlines that situation.

The Minister concluded by saying that the extensive electoral pilots last June have much to teach us all. And so say all of us—they have been a disaster.

5.12 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I was going to say that I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I am not sure whether thanks have yet been given. Normally when the Opposition rise on these occasions, they remind me that I must say thank you as well.

However, I am not sure how much further forward the Statement takes us. That may be because the Electoral Commission made its report when Parliament was in recess and there has been a certain amount of discussion of the issue in the media. Nevertheless, of course one must welcome the information.

First, I put on record that we on these Benches are delighted that the Electoral Commission has rejected all-postal voting for local elections. The Statement refers to public confidence. I have to say that in my mind public confidence is not satisfied by references only to fraud which leads to successful prosecution. Although I have not read the whole Electoral Commission report, by definition it is the case that there are more allegations of fraud, thus undermining public confidence, than there are successful prosecutions or prosecutions at all. To take one point, we all know the difficulty of persuading witnesses to testify.

The report refers to the demand for choice. I support that, but it also refers to developing a new foundation model of voting. I have to say that I am not persuaded by the jargon. I would be more persuaded if the new foundation model looked at matters from the point of view of the voter and considered all the issues thrown up in the experience of voters and, no doubt, in the experience of many of your Lordships who have played a part in recent elections. I refer to matters such as considering the timing of the various steps taken in the electoral process so that, for example, ballot papers do not arrive before official information about the election in question, and being clear to the voter about the fact that a postal ballot can be delivered on the day of the election. I am sure we all know of voters who were disenfranchised because they did not understand that kind of issue.

As regards the referendum in the North East, we welcome the fact that that is to go ahead in order to give residents there the chance to make their own decision. We have said that consistently throughout this debate. But I support what the noble Baroness said about assistance and delivery points. Much of the North East is rural and very sparsely populated, including, to my surprise, as I found out about 10 days ago, parts of Hartlepool—very nice it is too.

I urge the Government not to get themselves into a situation in the North East in which decisions are taken too quickly and on the hoof. The kind of muddle that that creates for everyone is not fair to the chief counting officer, to the staff, to party activists and, most of all, to voters.

As regards the other referendums, the Statement ends by saying that people in the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber can be confident that they will be able to exercise their choice "before too long". Is that the same kind of language as "shortly" and "in due course" and so is not capable of very clear definition? If it is capable of clear definition, the Committee will be grateful to hear it.

I must express some concern that the timing of the referendums appears to be wrapped up with the project of expanding methods of voting. They are different issues. I simply cannot see that sensible work can be concluded by next March. But I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

5.18 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I am the least embarrassed Minister one could ever imagine. I am also probably the least politically correct one. I am not at all embarrassed, and nor was I embarrassed last week when I answered the noble Baroness's question. I do not have it in front of me but it was in the following terms: "In the light of the Electoral Commission's report, why are the Government holding the referendum in the North East?" My answer, which I rewrote myself as opposed to using what was presented to me, was that it was in the light of the Electoral Commission's report that we were proceeding in the North East because that was what the report said. The fact that it said, "Don't do it at any other time", was not an issue so far as concerned the North East. I read the full report and made it quite clear what the factors were.

The noble Baroness asked me about money. I have various figures but, in terms of the information campaign, I think that originally £5 million was set aside for the three regions. The current estimate of the main components of that is up to £3.2 million. That is in relation to the "Have Your Say" information campaign, which I think was being run. Obviously there is nothing happening in the other two regions and I understand that, in any case, that campaign has now finished.

So far as concerns Parliament, we published the draft Bill. The Select Committee in another place said that it would have a look at that. The implication is that, in due course, the Government will bring forward a Bill, subject to there being a "yes" vote. I am not a business manager but no one has said to me that we should put aside government time to debate the draft Bill when in due course there will be government time for debating the full Bill. The draft Bill is there for everyone, outside and inside, to see what we have said in relation to the powers. So far as concerns a debate on the report of the Electoral Commission, that is a matter for the usual channels and it is not for me to speculate.

This is a fairly long Statement but—I have to be careful what I say here—it did not say a great deal that was new. The one point that is new is that the Electoral Commission will look at a new model for voting and will report by March next year. That is the new bit of the Statement. That is the news for today. We made the commitment in July simply because of the hiatus in local government reorganisation. Those two areas—the four counties—needed to know. They all know now what was going to be on offer in terms of the options. However, that will no longer be done because there will be no referendum. That can cause problems in terms of recruitment, training and decisions to be made. We fully understand that. Therefore, we do not want any undue delay.

There are some important dates about which I have been reminded. I do not know whether my colleague, Nick Raynsford, referred to them in the other place, but 16 June 2005 is important in the chronology in terms of what happens when. There are no secrets about this. Everything is in the legislation; that is, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act and referendum orders. There is a series of things to be done after the original soundings and process started, and a period by which it has to be completed; otherwise we shall have to start again.

March 2005 is reasonable; it is six months away. The general election is in 2006, so the law says, or certainly by 2006. I do not know what will happen in spring next year but the Government are very supportive of the Electoral Commission. We are encouraging people to work with it and with our partners in the political parties in arriving at this new model for voting procedures, which will enable us to give a settled view and, hopefully, the opportunity to keep the commitment to people in those two regions that they will have their referendums before not too long.

5.22 p.m.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, is it not the case that while this debate about referendums for regional assemblies grinds on, the Government stealthily and without any democratic mandate continue to expand regional government on the ground, hoping, no doubt, that eventually they will be able to say that whatever public opinion says now, the time will come when they will be able to say with great force, "Now these bodies have all these powers, is it not really quite wrong that they should not be democratically accountable?" Where is the evidence that any public benefit will flow from the draining away of power from existing organs of government to these new assemblies? Is it not the case that Mr Prescott seriously thinks that these new regional bodies will be more pliant and more willing to do his bidding so far as planning is concerned than existing local authorities? That is at the back of this.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, that is not at the back of this, and I wholly reject what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said. The Government are clearly making use of the government offices and regions that we inherited from the previous Conservative government. It is true that we are changing functions and structures to deliver some of the issues on a regional basis. That has nothing to do with whether there are elected or unelected regional assemblies. As I said, the regional assemblies are there; they are all unelected at present.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, as people will know, I live in the North West and I should declare that I was elected a councillor with my biggest ever majority under the Government's all-postal vote pilots. I also have to report that the whole thing was a shambles. If we get to debate this properly at any time I will be able to tell noble Lords many things about what went on. One fellow who was sat in the sun in Nelson town centre filling in ballot papers for all his family was a well known lifelong Labour supporter. One of our people went up to him and said, "This is how the Labour Party win elections, is it?" He said, "We've had a family meeting. It's all right. We've all decided to vote Liberal Democrat this year". It was a shambles. I am very pleased to say that he was not a voter in my ward.

The Minister said that the date of March 2005 was the new information in the Statement. However, the Electoral Commission announced that in its report on postal pilots. Is the Minister saying that the Government will do something additional by March 2005 or will it simply be the Electoral Commission?

If the Government are so keen on having these referendums in Yorkshire, the Humber and the North West, why do they not just hold them? Is it that they think that people are so uninterested in this whole project that none of them will bother to go to the polling station?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, no. As I said, the reason for the Statement made in both Houses today is to keep a commitment that was made in July that we would come back in the short September Session to make a Statement that would be relevant particularly to those areas where there is "local government blight", if I can put it that way. Clearly, there is local government blight in those four counties and they needed to have a further Statement of the Government's view. The Government will give their views on the Electoral Commission's report in due course. We have not yet done that.

Baroness O'Cathain

My Lords, referring to what was said by my noble friend Lady Hanham, the Electoral Commission did not give wholehearted support for the North East referendum. It prefaced its comments by saying that it would go for it because the process was already underway.

The Electoral Commission said that it could not support the referendums for the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside and that it would further discuss the issues. However, apparently the referendums will go ahead, if there is a degree of public consensus of support, by March 2005. I did not have the Statement with me so I had to take down what was said. How will that public consensus of support be measured? What does "degree of support" mean? Does it mean if 10 per cent say "yes" or 60 per cent say "yes"? The Statement said that the Government are confident that people will be able to exercise their choice before too long in these three regions. Does that mean irrespective of what degree of support there is?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, no. I said that the Electoral Commission stated that it will report by 2005 on this new model and then we will assess how the referendums will take place in the two regions. The issue of the referendums taking place is a settled view. Soundings were taken and statements were made to Parliament for the three regions. It was assessed that there was sufficient support for referendums to take place in the three regions, with two regions not doing that. It is still valid to proceed with the referendum up to a certain date based on the soundings that were taken originally. That is the point I made. No one said that the referendums will take place in March 2005.

If it was the case that it is said that the referendums were already underway and that is the reason we are proceeding with the North East, they were already underway in the other two regions in exactly the same way. So, I do not rest my case on that. I rest my case on the words of the Electoral Commission report—it is a brief report on the website; a couple of pages of A4—which made it quite clear that it has the confidence in the North East to proceed on the present basis on a series of factors. One was that it was already underway but that could not be the only one because it was underway in the other two regions and we are pulling the plug on the other two. For all the reasons we gave—more experience, more support, no knowledge of any fraud or anything like that—it was confident. So, it was not the case that the Electoral Commission said, "Do it in the north-east because it is a fait accompli; Parliament has already approved it". We had already approved it for the other two but we were not proceeding on that basis.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, the Minister referred to the blight on the counties and accepted that there was blight. However, the Minister did not mention the fact that there are county council elections in those four counties on the first Thursday in May. That is very important indeed. The campaign is getting underway for those elections. People are already selecting candidates. I have the same doubts as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about this foundation model and it being in place by May. There could well be a general election at some stage next year. There are rumours that it could well be on the same day as the county council elections in May. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what is going to happen with the county council elections. With the confusion in those four counties, how can they proceed with county council elections at the beginning of May?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I must read the sentence from the Statement that I read out earlier. And we note"— "we" being the Government— the Commission aim to report on the new model in March 2005". The Commission is going to report on the new model in March 2005. Nothing will be in place and nothing says about it being in place. As far as I am aware—and I think it is quite spurious to raise these doubts—nothing is going to interfere with the county council elections on 5 May, which I think is the first Thursday in May, of next year.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville

My Lords, did the Minister, in kindly reading out the Statement made in another place by Mr Raynsford, re-read the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on more than one occasion expressing confidence in the arrangements which we were going to be exploring during the pilot schemes? It is against the background to those exchanges and the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, which turns out to have been mildly misplaced, that I have three questions about the period between now and March.

First, has any research been carried out in this country into why there is a reluctance among other western European countries to have postal voting on demand?

Secondly, while all the electoral pilot schemes appear to have been monitored so far by administrators, would there be virtue in also having an independent element in any future testing?

Finally, with the extension of postal voting, and in the light of recent events, do the Government think that Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which relates to undue influence, will need re-writing?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, they are fascinating questions. On the initial point of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about my noble friend Lord Filkin, no, I have not gone back and done that. If one looks at the dates, I suspect that the Government took a decision the day before I made the first Statement in this House, which I think was the morning of Thursday, 22 July, following the debates in the House of Commons 48 hours beforehand, which of course superseded the answers my noble friend had given about other matters.

In other words, we proved we were the ultimate listening government by listening to what the House of Commons, the elected Chamber, said about the referendums in the two areas. We made the decision on the night, having listened to the House of Commons, which is why I then came to this House to make the Statement.

I do not know anything about research on the reluctance of others. I would be interested in research on why we are not able to export our wonderful firstpast-the-post electoral system to anybody. We have not exported it to South Africa or to any of the former Communist states because in some ways it is a discredited system. I say that personally; that is not the Government's view, of course. The fact is that every voting system this Government have introduced since 1997 has been a proportional voting system. To that extent, I think the Government have been a very good government.

I do not think that we have ever looked at the issue of independent testing in pilot schemes. I have no doubt that the Electoral Commission, when thinking about these things and the Government's response to its report about all postal voting elections, will probably look at Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I have listened to this interchange with great interest. Of course we are all very concerned about low turnouts in elections. I think that we all understand why the Government have paid so much attention to electoral systems, but I suggest to the Minister that perhaps the Government should now be looking elsewhere in relation to this problem.

The Survey of public attitudes towards conduct in public life, which has just been published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, reveals that of 1,097 people consulted, only 24 per cent reckon that they trust government Ministers to be telling the truth and only 27 per cent trust MPs. It is interesting that 41 per cent an improved figure but still very low—trust their local councillor, whom many people know.

Perhaps the public's perception of government Ministers, MPs and councillors is the cause of the trouble on low turnout and the Government should look at that before they proceed too far in fiddling about with voting systems in the hope that they will improve turnout. The situation is very worrying. It is part of the cynicism in this country about political processes. It is much the most worrying thing that we should all be thinking about in relation to democracy.

Perhaps the Government will look very carefully at the public's perception of Ministers, MPs and local councillors and whether there is something here to consider that is even more important than voting systems.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised important points. I was going to refer to that report later on the Housing Bill when discussing the issue relating to estate agents, because that is the one body that figures lower than government Ministers in terms of the public's trust. I do not think they are all crooks and all tell lies. I would say that about others in public life.

However, the noble Baroness has raised important points about the lack of turnout issue. The turnout at the last election was 59 per cent, which is an incredibly low turnout in a modern, mature and allegedly alert democracy. But, if people think that their vote does not count, they are less likely to use it. Turnout is higher in continental Europe where they do not use our voting system.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, are not the Government wriggling in a cage of their own making? It seems to me that the people of the North East now have a great opportunity and a great responsibility. Not only are they going to be voting for what might or might not happen in their own regions, but if they take the trouble to reject the regional assembly proposals, then at the same time they would create the opportunity to remove the blight which the Government have placed on local government in the whole of the north of the country, by expressing a definite opinion that they do not like it.

Of course it remains to be seen whether that is what will happen, but if the North East rejects the regional assembly proposals it would be interesting to know what the Government's view will be on the other two regions where they have putative referendums to come in the future. It seems to me that they would be wise to withdraw the whole lot.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I would be extremely unwise to comment on that question. It is the choice of the people of the North East in the referendum to vote the way they want. It would be quite wrong for government Ministers to speculate on what might happen, whatever the choice was, on the turnout, the differential between "yes" and "no" votes or "no" and "yes" votes, or whatever. It would be wholly wrong for me to go into that.

Forward to