---

Mr. Hancock: Once again, Liberal Democrats have more than a degree of sympathy for the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I would support wholeheartedly the idea of moving the poll from a Thursday to a weekend, but I take his point seriously. Many of us represent multi-ethnic communities in which there are people with strong religious convictions who would find it extremely offensive to have voting only on a Sunday. The provision for weekend voting should allow that voting to be on both days. For some religious groups, voting on a Saturday can be as offensive as can voting on Sunday for other groups. There must be a balance. If weekend voting is to take place, it should be tried in a large enough pool of local authorities to allow its effects to be judged properly. It is simply not good enough for one or two authorities to decide that they will try it out. There is a lot to be said for weekend voting.

It was unfortunate--or perhaps fortunate--that I was not here last night. I was attending a meeting of Portsmouth city council--

Mr. Evans: Job sharing.

Mr. Hancock: Yes, job sharing. The democratic process constituted an interesting part of the meeting's deliberations. We were considering whether to have an elected mayor or Cabinet-style government. A frequent question was, "How can we encourage more people to vote?" I do not believe that having an elected mayor or Cabinet-style local government will achieve that. However, spreading the times and days when people can vote would be advantageous to the democratic process.

Many of us are from local government backgrounds, and have witnessed pitiful turnouts at elections. It is obscene that 10 per cent. is not unusual nowadays and that we no longer find an average turnout of 25 per cent. unacceptable in some big cities. We must do something, and the Bill is a major step towards showing that democracy has to be flexible enough to change with the times.

I want to encourage weekend voting, but we must ensure that we do not disadvantage people who feel that those days are significant for their religious beliefs or social activities. Voting must be held on both days of the weekend.

Mr. George Howarth: I want to tackle briefly two of the points that have been made. First, the hon. Member

20 Jan 2000 : Column 1025

for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked whether we had received any representations about weekend voting. The Home Office has received only one letter, from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, expressing anxiety about voting only on Saturday. That is an unreasonable prospect, especially in areas where there is a concentration of Orthodox Jews, who would find it impossible to vote on a Saturday. The letter also expressed concern about holding an election on the day of a Jewish festival. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take those matters into account when he considers the applications for pilot schemes, for which the closing date was last Monday. Although my right hon. Friend has not had an opportunity to scrutinise the applications, they will all have been received by now.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made an equally valid point. He said that as wide a range of areas as possible should be selected for the pilot schemes so that the results would not be skewed by geographical considerations. The Home Secretary and officials aim for a spread of suitable applications so that they can gain a good picture.

I hope that I can be reasonably brief in dealing with the amendments because, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley pointed out, we have discussed the issues that they raise on Second Reading and in Committee.

We must ensure that we do not harm the interests of those with strong religious views, which would make it difficult for them to vote on a particular day of the week. At the risk of making the eyes of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) glaze over--although I am not sure of the difference between that and his normal expression--I shall mention again the working party that I chaired. I assure hon. Members that the subject that we are considering has been central to our deliberations for a long time, and we do not wish to do anything to the detriment of voters with strong religious views.

3.15 pm

In Committee, I did my best to provide reassurance on the matter. I quoted a Home Office circular, which pointed out that one of the conditions that local authorities will have to fulfil when applying to run a pilot scheme is making a statement that

"'no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation'".--[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 489.]

That is unambiguous and would cover those with strong religious views.

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:

"If weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days."--[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 172.]

I also quoted that in Committee on 13 January, at column 501. I know that my right hon. Friend's efforts to provide the House with some reassurance did not fall on deaf ears because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said on behalf of the Opposition:

"The Minister has given assurances that those of strong religious beliefs will not be disadvantaged by changes in the pilot schemes or anything that follows them. I am reassured by that."--[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 502.]

20 Jan 2000 : Column 1026

Nothing has changed in the few days since then and I hope that, in the light of those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the amendment is unnecessary and withdraw it.

Let us consider amendment No. 21. It is a clear requirement of any pilot scheme that it must be properly evaluated. That includes not only considering its cost or effect on turnout, but its impact on voters. Clause 10(7)(b) is designed for precisely that purpose. We would expect a local authority to consider the effect of any innovation not just on the electorate overall but on groups of electors that were likely to be particularly affected by the innovation.

Home Office guidance on evaluation, which has been made available to local authorities, suggested that it should specifically cover the

"acceptability of voting days and times to all faith groups".

I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend will not approve any applications that involve a change of voting day when that is not part of the evaluation process.

On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the amendment is unnecessary. However, it was important to debate it.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances and his final comment. It is important to scrutinise the Bill properly and give reasonable time to considering amendments such as Nos. 29 and 21.

I am grateful for the support of Liberal Democrat Members for the amendment. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) talked about the need for a wide enough pool. If the pilot schemes are to be properly evaluated, there must be a range of them, not simply one in the south-east or in the north-west. They must be tested in many regions to enable a proper evaluation.

I also accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the crisis of democracy, especially in by-elections, where there have been turnouts of 16 per cent. The turnout for one European election was under 10 per cent. That is appalling and I hope that the measure will help to redress that, although I have grave reservations. It will take more than the Bill to achieve that.

The Minister gave reassurances about the regulations that will be established, and said that it would be acceptable for a specific local authority to undertake a pilot on both days of a weekend, but unacceptable for it to move polling from Thursday to Saturday or Sunday. I am grateful for that.

I was interested to learn that the deadline for applications to carry out pilot schemes this year has already passed. I should be grateful for an early indication of the number of applications.

Mr. Howarth: I shall ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) provides that information as soon as possible.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that. Perhaps an analysis of the sort of schemes that people are suggesting can be provided early so that other local authorities that have not had an opportunity to submit a pilot scheme for this year will have some food for thought. I understand that the pilot schemes can be submitted next year, too.

20 Jan 2000 : Column 1027

I seek clarification from the Minister of one further matter. It will be expensive for voting to take place on more than one day, and I know that the Home Secretary will consider carefully the cost of the pilot studies. If a local authority decided to hold two whole days of polling, I assume that that would be extremely expensive.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): My local authority, St. Helens, made an application for a two-day polling pilot and the estimated cost is £5,000, which is not very great.

Mr. Evans: Five thousand pounds--[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), from a sedentary position, referring to six wards. When local elections are held in parts of local authority areas, they can perhaps be carried out at reasonable cost, but when they involve more than six wards, twice as many personnel are likely to be needed, and at weekends they would have to be paid time and a half or double time. The implications of that must be taken into account.

If a local authority wants to move from polling on a Thursday to polling over two days, as the Home Secretary will not permit voting on only a Saturday or only a Sunday, it can decide to conduct only partial polling on the Saturday and whole polling on the Sunday, or the other way round. In other words, all the polling stations in an area would be open on one day, and fewer would be open on the other day.

We know that, in certain parts of constituencies, there are concentrations of people of certain religious persuasions who would be affected by that. They would not receive the same service as was delivered to others in the constituency. If such people decided that, for religious reasons, they could not vote on the Saturday, they could be disadvantaged by having to vote on the Sunday. They might have to travel greater distances because their local polling station might not be open. They would be told that polling stations were open in certain other areas, or perhaps only one polling station would be open in the town hall.

---