| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leslie: I presume that the tone of the hon. Gentleman's response was intended to gain some sectarian advantage for the Conservative party: what it will probably do is quite the opposite. Those with responsibility in this House—I include in my comments Members from all parties—will recognise that it is important that we maintain public confidence in the manner in which our elections are administered. It is the responsibility of returning officers at regional and local level. I have confidence in their abilities to cope. They all say that they are happy to be coping with the all-postal arrangements. They report that, while there have been some delays, as I mentioned in my statement, the printing schedules are on track to meet the 1 June deadline.
The hon. Gentleman speculated what might happen in certain circumstances. He mentioned legal advice that he had received. I do not expect that we will go past the 1 June deadline. As that situation is not likely to arise, I do not believe that it is necessary to go into that level of speculation.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about Bradford. I have looked into that area. I understand that the ballot packs are due to be with Royal Mail today and tomorrow, which is clearly ahead of the 1 June deadline.
There were problems with a number of contractors—especially Opt2Vote in the east midlands—but I believe that contingency plans are working well and that we are
27 May 2004 : Column 1738
on track to use some of the spare printing capacity that is around. These issues arise all the time in elections, but because the all-postal elections are subject to obvious scrutiny it is natural that hon. Members are paying particular attention. I believe that the elections will run smoothly, but I caution all hon. Members. We need to be responsible about the tone and language that we use when we speak about the administration of elections. It is important that people realise that the returning officers can cope. They will run the elections well. The arrangements are on target; we are on track. The hysteria from the hon. Gentleman is unwarranted.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): This pilot would now seem to be sunk. Who will be the last returning officer to receive the packs? By what dates should the packs initially have been received, according to the schedule? What extra help will be provided to returning officers to see that they are able to meet the deadline for the distribution of ballot papers?
Mr. Leslie: As I explained some moments ago, 1 June is the deadline in the regulations for the issuing of ballot packs—that means that they go from the printers to Royal Mail. We are on track to do that. The media reports of how printers factor in the scheduling of their different printing arrangements have led to some of the stories. I assure my hon. Friend that the regulations will be adhered to, that electors will get their ballot packs in time and that they will have ample opportunity to complete and return them. We are in constant dialogue with the returning officers for all the regions, especially the east midlands, given the size of the Opt2Vote contract. We will continue to give assistance to them as appropriate. They are the clients of the contractors, yet we are helping in looking for spare printing capacity as and when that is necessary. I do not believe that there is any need at this stage to have a lack of confidence in the returning officers.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I am grateful for the statement, but any lack of confidence is not in the returning officers but in the Government who got them into this mess.
Was not the Minister's statement astonishingly complacent given the scale of the problems? In the east midlands, with the single exception of Chesterfield borough council, which was allowed to do its own thing in terms of printing because it had conducted a previous pilot successfully, all the local authorities were forced into the hands of a contractor who clearly could not cope. Many returning officers will not have the packs until 1 June, which is the date by which they should have been sent to voters.
The Minister blandly says that in the north-east 19 out of 23 local authorities will be on time, without mentioning that the four that will not be on time happen to be Newcastle, Gateshead and north and south Tyneside, which represent almost a third of the electorate in the north-east. Will the Minister explain who are the "other deliverers" apart from Royal Mail that he mentioned in his statement? He made no reference to the returning officers who are having to cope with printers who have made mistakes in the composition of the packs and papers that have been sent to the wrong electors. My hon. Friend the Member for
27 May 2004 : Column 1739
Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has mentioned two pairs of wards in his area that were affected last night. We now know that in at least two further wards—Stepping Hill in the Stockport constituency and Heald Green in the Cheadle constituency—electors simply have received the wrong ballot papers in the post. It is difficult to see how that will be corrected.
There was an arrangement agreed by all parties, the Electoral Commission and Royal Mail for a moratorium that prevented any ballot packs from being delivered with the election material from a single political party, because that clearly would give a bias. That moratorium is not being adhered to. Has the Minister anything to say about the integrity of an election that is in that position?
If the ballot papers are not in the hands of the electors on 1 June, which is what the regulation requires, will regional and local returning officers or the Minister's office have any power to suspend, extend or cancel the elections?
This disaster could have been avoided had the Minister listened more to the expert advice of the Electoral Commission and of this House and had he not acceded to the bullying of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Leslie: It is exceptionally disappointing that Opposition spokespeople have tried to capitalise on what are normal printing arrangements and difficulties, which are encountered in any election arrangement. They will all know that, from time to time, the printing schedules have to change because of technological issues and, in this case, the printing machines and the process by which ballot packs can be produced. However, so long as those ballot packs are produced within the target margins—before the deadline of 1 June—I am confident that we can run these elections smoothly.
It is incumbent on all hon. Members, particularly those who are party spokespeople, to think very carefully about such an opportunistic attempt to jump in on any story that may come along, to claim that all the elections are somehow in jeopardy. That is not the case. The elections will run smoothly. I am confident from the assurances that I have had from the regional returning officers, who are the professionals involved, that they have ample capability to cope with any necessary arrangement, and Royal Mail will also be able to cope with the delivery arrangements. Hon. Members must bear in mind the fact that others are watching and need to see this.
In respect of the hon. Gentleman's point about the east midlands, I do not believe that all those returning officers were forced to use Opt2Vote contractors. They had an opt-out arrangement with the regional returning officer, and all but one chose to use Opt2Vote. Most of the difficulty in the north-east was due to the illness of one managing director at Document Technologies, but we have now found arrangements whereby the in-house printers in the Sunderland local authority have helped out in catching up with the printing there, so I believe that the problems are solved in that area.
I will look further into the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about Stockport, but I believe that, when we consider the scale of these all-postal elections—
27 May 2004 : Column 1740
14.2 million people are involved—the elections will be successful. As I say, the general picture is one of good progress so far.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): I welcome my hon. Friend's update. As he knows, Leicester is one of the pilot areas. We expected to receive our ballot papers this weekend, although the electoral registration officer assures me that they will go out next week. My hon. Friend knows that the papers can be either sent by post or delivered to a venue. In Leicester, the electoral registration officer has decided that there should be one venue—the town hall. In view of the delay in issuing those ballot papers, would it not be acceptable to have a venue in each parliamentary constituency in Leicester, thus making it easier for people to deliver their ballot papers if they receive them late, after they return from holiday? Will my hon. Friend issue guidance to that effect and provide help to local authorities if they wish to take up that suggestion?
Mr. Leslie: All the necessary guidance for local authorities is in place—I am confident about that—and the minimum number of assisted delivery points is one for each local authority, although it is a matter of discretion for local returning officers to choose whether to supply further assisted delivery points. I am not sure about the precise arrangements in Leicester, but that area was contracted to Opt2Vote, as part of the ballot delivery. I have seen the schedule, and we anticipate that its ballot packs for Leicester will be delivered in time. The regional returning officer for the east midlands, Roger Morris, is confident about that, but I will continue to monitor the situation.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |