| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the Minister responds to that point, I hope that he does so with caution. I understand the need to keep costs down, but the possibility that, over a two-day period, ballot boxes would not be available universally in a ward or constituency on one day would be a big mistake, and would leave the local authority or any other body conducting the election open to serious challenge.
Mr. Evans: I am seeking an assurance from the Minister that, if voting is held over two days, it will be universal, and that people will not be offered a second-class service because of their religious convictions. If they had to travel considerable distances to vote, it might put them off voting.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is a point which, as far as I am aware, has not been raised in the debate--the integrity of the ballot box which, I assume, will have to be sealed and collected at the end of the first day of voting. Where will the ballot boxes be stored? Who will look after them and ensure that they are not tampered
with? Who will make sure that the following morning they are taken back to the same polling station and the same booth? That is a serious issue.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I have observed elections in the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka and the United States, and I have not come across polling taking place on more than one day. In the pilot study, local authorities that want to move from polling on a Thursday will have to hold voting over two days. From what the Minister said, they will not have a choice. The Home Secretary has made it clear that, if voting is to be held over a weekend, it must be held on both Saturday and Sunday. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are asking that voting should be conducted universally over the two days, if the pilot studies are allowed over a weekend.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Perhaps he will write to us. If the Home Secretary decides on voting over a Saturday and a Sunday, what will happen to the ballot boxes in the intervening period, so that everyone can be assured that the integrity of the poll will be maintained? It will be difficult for political parties to provide sufficient people to scrutinise the way in which ballot boxes are stored.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to be assured that, if polling takes place over more than one day, full information will be provided to the political parties about where the polling stations will be, the duration of the poll, and the details mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry concerning the integrity of the poll and the personnel involved.
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is it his understanding that, under the Bill as drafted, the Government could contemplate polling over a Saturday and a Sunday, but that, on either of those days, ballot boxes could be only partially available to part of the population?
Mr. Evans:
Yes. There is nothing to stop a local authority putting in for a pilot in its area that would involve polling all day on a Saturday but only partially in certain areas on a Sunday, or all day on a Sunday and only partially on a Saturday. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that, or indeed to prevent a local authority from holding a poll over more than two days, but the cost would be prohibitive, and I know that the Home Secretary will take cost into account.
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmonds):
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. Will he bear in mind the concerns of those of us who represent rural constituencies? Especially in rural areas where there are predominantly urban borough councils, urban members often dictate policy without regard to the interests of rural constituents. I know that Ministers are in listening mode and I hope that they will have particular regard to the interests of rural constituents, who will be singularly disadvantaged if there is partial voting on a Saturday or Sunday, as my hon. Friend described.
Mr. Evans:
I am sure that the Minister will have heard the concerns of my hon. Friend. I share those concerns. I, too, represent a rural constituency, although in some parts
Mr. Evans:
Does the Minister seek to intervene?
Mr. Howarth:
What I am about to say may be longer than an intervention.
Mr. Evans:
I seek guidance from the Chair. Must I seek permission to withdraw the amendment after the Minister has spoken?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
After the Minister has spoken, the hon. Gentleman may seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Howarth:
Must I seek leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is not necessary. It is the Minister's business.
Mr. Howarth:
I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall deal briefly with the points that have been raised, starting with the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), through the Opposition Front Bench. The security arrangements for ballot boxes used in early voting will be exactly the same as for those used for postal votes, which are of course received before election day. Electoral administrators are entirely familiar with the procedures for keeping ballot boxes secure and I have every confidence that they can do that in those particular circumstances. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considers a particular application, however, he will have proper regard for not only the cost, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, but the integrity of the ballot. If there were any doubt about whether a particular application could ensure a ballot's integrity, he would not approve the pilot scheme.
It may be of assistance if I tell hon. Members that, at close of play on Monday, 44 local authorities had made applications, including those of St. Helens, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred, and Knowsley--surprise, surprise. Some involve more than one innovation and, if I understood him correctly, that is the case for St. Helens.
Relevant points about voting being spread over two days were made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who referred to religious interests, and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who was concerned about people in rural areas. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considers a scheme, he has to decide whether any voter would be disadvantaged and in doing so obviously needs to be mindful of religious interests, the interests of rural and urban areas and so on. In such
circumstances, he would find it difficult not to take the interests of rural voters into account, and would not want to disregard them anyway. Hon. Members might not be aware that my constituency has contained a large rural area since the Boundary Commission changes were made for the last general election, so I also have an interest in the matter. I hope that those assurances are helpful.
Mr. Evans:
With the leave of the House. I stress once again that, although piloting may take place on one day of a weekend, there should be equality on both days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said. With those assurances, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 13, line 10 leave out clause 11.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in page 13, line 13, leave out
No 49, in page 13, leave out line 19.
No. 50, in page 13, leave out lines 20 and 21.
No. 51, in page 13, line 27, leave out
No. 53, in page 13, leave out line 44.
No. 54, in page 14, leave out line 1.
No. 55, in page 14, leave out line 4.
No. 56, in page 14, leave out line 6.
No. 34, in page 17, line 4, leave out "11".
No. 35, in page 17, line 7, after "purposes," insert
Mr. Forth:
In what I have repeatedly called an unnecessary and bad Bill, the clause is one of the most worrying provisions. Sub-section (1) says:
All that would be bad enough, because I do not believe that the case has been made for the provision and sufficient weaknesses and loopholes have emerged in Committee and on Report for us to be even more worried
about the Bill, but the clause allows the Secretary of State, on the basis of the pilot schemes and the reports on them, simply to apply the results
My amendment would delete the clause altogether and I am advised that the effect would be that the Secretary of State would be obliged to resort to primary legislation widely to apply the results of a pilot. That is what I am after. I am not satisfied that it is sufficient to have an order made, even with the approval of each House of Parliament, which is provided for in subsection (4). As we all know, one of the many problems with that approach is that statutory instruments are not amendable, so we face the prospect of the Secretary of State being enthused by one of these experiments and implementing such a change to the electoral process right across the country, by order. To my mind, that weakness and danger is inherent in such an approach.
It would be one thing if all those matters had been carefully researched, and perhaps the Minister will tell me again about his working party, for which I still have no enthusiasm. He might, however, tell me of the thoroughness with which the working party operated and how it foresaw all those difficulties, saying that it cannot be blamed for all the flaws in the Bill that have emerged. They would be down to the parliamentary draftsman, not the working party.
Did the working party ever envisage that, as a result of the measures that will be put in place by this ill-begotten Bill, a relatively small pilot--implemented, for example, in St. Helens--could attract the attention of the Secretary of State, who might decide that it could be equally implemented in Caithness and Sutherland on the one hand and Cornwall on the other? According to the clause, the Secretary of State could come to the House and say, "By order, I have decided that this scheme is a jolly good idea and the whole country will now have it." Given the rather slender accountability that statutory instruments regrettably provide for us, that could be done. We were criticised for having the gall to scrutinise the Bill, but how much less scrutiny would a statutory instrument provide before the electoral law of the entire country might be changed?
I make a plea. My amendment would have the simple effect of removing the clause from the Bill so that we could all have the reassurance--the guarantee--that, were we ever to face the prospect of changes being made to our electoral law based on the slender evidence of perhaps only one pilot scheme, even if it were to take place in St. Helens, the Secretary of State would have to produce primary legislation, with all that that implies. It would have to go through the full process of scrutiny, unless it were truncated by the Government of the day, and then, and only then, would there be a general change in electoral law.
3.30 pm
"and on a permanent basis".
", or (as the case may be) district electoral area,".
"; except that section 11 shall not come into force before 1 January 2003.".
"If it appears to the Secretary of State, in the light of any report made under section 10"--
such a report would be from a local authority that had conducted one of the pilots we have been discussing--
"on a scheme under that section, that it would be desirable for provision similar to that made by the scheme to apply generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to relevant elections of any description, he may by order make such provision for and in connection with achieving that result as he considers appropriate".
That bothers me considerably. I am worried in any case, as I have said a number of times, about the way in which we are tampering with long-established electoral law. I am not happy with that approach and shall expand my comments, although not at great length, on Third Reading.
"generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to relevant elections of any description".
We are going way beyond what is prudent, sensible or wise, dealing as we are with something as sensitive and basic as electoral law.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |