§ Mr. JenkinTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs on what evidence he based his decision that(a) Yorkshire and the Humber and (b) the North West region was suitable to pilot all-postal voting in the June elections. [155139]
475W
§ Mr. LeslieThe European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, currently in Parliament, will allow pilots of innovative voting methods at this year's European and combined local elections. The Government asked the Electoral Commission to recommend where pilots should take place and the Commission published its recommendations on 8 December 2003.
The Commission identified the North East and East Midlands regions as 'highly suitable' and 'suitable'. The Commission also identified four regions that 'could potentially be suitable', These were, in descending order of suitability, Scotland, Yorkshire and the Humber, the North West and the West Midlands. It regarded the remaining regions as 'not suitable'.
The Government accepted the recommendations regarding the North East and East Midlands on 16 December. Other options were then carefully considered. An approach of holding discussions with electoral administrators in the potentially suitable regions was decided upon, to establish what their concerns were and whether or not these could be addressed.
Scottish Returning Officers had written to the Commission expressing various concerns. While Government viewed these as being about the same practical issues that affect the other regions, and despite efforts to allay their concerns, the Returning Officers remained concerned about their capacity to ensure an effective election. As a consequence of these concerns about operational capability, the Government decided not to impose a pilot in Scotland.
There has already been positive experience of all-postal pilots in local elections in Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West. Discussions with these regions showed that they were confident that successful pilots could be arranged for June and the North West in
Years1 1908–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 Outturn Outturn Outturn Outturn Working provision
Plans Plans Plans Science3 Real (£ million) 2 1 764.7 1,798.6 1,894.7 1,944.9 2,222.0 2,349.0 2,566.5 2,810.8 Percentage of total 53 38 27 29 28 40 57 53 Innovation4 Real (£ million) 298.2 287.5 307.4 303.2 322.3 333.0 339.5 354.3 Percentage of total 9 6 4 4 4 6 7 7 Enterprise5 Real (£ million) 166.8 208.4 293.8 283.8 423.4 394.0 348.7 358.6 Percentage of total 5 4 4 4 5 7 7 7 Competition6 Real (£ million) 6.5 8.7 9.2 10.5 25.9 26.5 28.9 29.5 Percentage of total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1Figures are shown from 1998–99 (the first year for which resource information was produced) to 2005–06 (the final year of the current Spending Review period).
2Figures are shown in real terms at 2002–03 prices (using GDP deflators from the HM Treasury website) and as a proportion of total DTI expenditure (resource and capital), as listed on pages 190 and 194 of "Central Government Supply Estimates 2003–04 Supplementary Budgetary Information" (Cm 5797, May 2003), where a breakdown is available.
3The figures from the Departmental Reports have been revised to ensure a consistent (resource) basis because prior to 2002–03 reporting of the Research Councils' expenditure was on a cash (grant in aid) basis.
4Outturn not available for 2001–02 due to a change in the budget structure, so a 'working provision' is provided. Excludes "Office of Science and Technology" expenditure on space (except for 2003–04 plans, which include BNSC budgets transferring to the Science budget from 2003–04).
476Wparticular had commenced work to prepare for a possible pilot. It was, therefore, decided that both of these regions should hold pilots, in addition to the two regions already announced.