---

Mr. Leslie: Intemperate language does not get the hon. Gentleman any further forward. I thought that it was important to give the House an update, not least because of media reports and yesterday's points of order. Had I not done that, no doubt more points of order would have been raised, asking where Ministers are and so on. I am doing my best to describe the picture of what is happening according to regional returning officers. They have reported good progress so far. We are at an early stage, not forgetting that close of poll is 10 June. We still have a long time to go, and no doubt anecdotes will be heard from time to time. We try as hard as we can, as do the returning officers, to ensure that the elections are infallible, although issues will arise from time to time. I repeat: we are on schedule to deliver successful elections. I have no reason to doubt that at this stage.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): My hon. Friend mentioned his meeting with Adam Crozier yesterday. Did Mr. Crozier give a 100 per cent. guarantee that ballot papers posted on 8 June would arrive with returning officers on polling day on 10 June? Can the Minister remind me whether anything is on the ballot paper to indicate that it must be returned by 8 June to be counted?

Mr. Leslie: I discussed the return of ballot papers with the chief executive of Royal Mail. Although there will be a sweep of post boxes right up until the close of the poll, we are advising electors to ensure that they post their ballot papers by 8 June to be certain that the returning officers receive them in plenty of time. We want to ensure that as many electors as possible know that. It is in the advice that they receive in their ballot packs. I hope that my hon. Friend will help in promulgating that message.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): The Minister is a decent chap and I am anxious to help him. He must realise that he has not convinced the House, and hon. Members on both sides remain concerned.
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1744
 
May I draw his attention to a couple of facts? The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said yesterday that the elections are worse than those in a third-world democracy, or words to that effect. We recently had highly successful and efficient elections in the world's largest democracy—India—which compare favourably with the mess that we are in. Even at this late stage, why does not the Minister think of inviting Commonwealth parliamentary election observers to ensure the integrity of the elections?

Mr. Leslie: I look forward to when the hon. Gentleman next meets his returning officers. I think that I will post them copies of his comments. I am sure that they will be astonished at the intemperate language that he uses to describe their dedication to their task. They are perfectly capable of dealing with the arrangements and have them in hand. We have seen the ballot packs going out, and the vast majority are already with Royal Mail. We are on schedule to meet the 1 June target.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): On 16 March, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee took evidence from secure printers, in particular De La Rue Security Products and Document Technology Ltd. They expressed grave doubts about the viability of the process. De La Rue, probably the biggest and most highly thought of secure printer, had already decided at the beginning of March not to tender for the ballot paper printing because, in the words of Mr. Keith Brown:

"We took the view subsequent to that, in early March, that we have withdrawn from this year's pilots on the basis both of potential lack of print capacity, but also in terms of procurement lead times for key pieces of equipment."

This shambles was not only predictable but foreseen by those who knew what they were doing. It is patently obvious from what has happened in the past few days that Ministers do not have a clue what they are doing. Given the fiasco over which the Minister presides, will he take the responsibility, of which he spoke, and apologise to the House, returning officers and the electorate for the mess? Will he also give an undertaking that anyone who does not receive their ballot paper in time will be able to cast a vote in the traditional way, at a polling station, on 10 June?

Mr. Leslie: Again, I regret the hon. Gentleman's approach. I do not know whether it was clear to the House where his quote ended, but his talk about shambles and so on was not part of De La Rue's comments. Different contractors and printers have taken a different view of whether they want to participate. We have 12 main contractors involved in the scheme and have experienced delays with, I think, two of them. We are in touch with them and the returning officers are working closely with them, bringing them back on track. We do not have a problem that is as widespread as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is important for him to take a step back, take a breath and realise that the elections are running smoothly.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Judging by his statement the Minister will be assessing the
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1745
 
success or otherwise of this experiment according to whether turnout goes up. As someone who, 20 years ago, worked with other Conservatives, Liberals and the then Social Democrats to try to restore integrity to trade union ballot practices, may I assure the hon. Gentleman that the measure of whether an election has integrity is not the level of the turnout? If turnout goes up it is often a sign that there has been multiple voting, cheating, ballot stuffing and abuse in general. How confident is the Minister that when these elections are over there will not be a great many reports about abuses?

Mr. Leslie: I am really disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. Saying that a higher turnout is a sign of malpractice is beyond reality. He needs to appreciate the track record of previous postal pilots; they all proved successful in raising the electorate's participation, and that will happen again in these elections. The Electoral Commission will be undertaking an investigation and review of how the pilots work and, as I said, it will report in September.

Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): I am glad that the Minister responded to my point of order yesterday and came to the House to make a statement today. He may be aware that the regional returning officer in the north-west, the chief executive of Manchester city council, had an emergency meeting with returning officers in Cheshire and West Lancashire last night, and they are moving heaven and earth to get the ballot papers out as soon as they receive them from the printers. Does the Minister, on behalf of the Government, accept any responsibility at all for this mess?

Mr. Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made his point of order yesterday; I saw it in Hansard and
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1746
 
wanted to come to the House to respond to it. It is important that hon. Members have that opportunity to raise issues from time to time, even though those issues may not necessarily be points of order.

I am aware that Howard Bernstein, the regional returning officer in the north-west, is meeting colleagues in different areas to discuss issues, and quite right too. That is exactly the job that regional returning officers should be doing. I think that they are doing a good job, and I believe that the elections will be successful.

Point of order

2.13 pm

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and in light of the Minister's inability to tell the House what would be the legal consequences of the failure to get the ballot papers issued by 1 June, is there any way by which we can get a competent and capable Minister to the House this afternoon who can answer what is in fact a very simple question of enormous consequence? It is my belief that if that issuing did not take place the elections would be effectively void, which would reflect very badly on the state of our parliamentary democracy. We also want to know what provision the Government will be making to recall Parliament next week in those circumstances so that we can act to prevent the entirety of the European election process being voided as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): These are very serious matters, but they are not ones that the Chair can deal with at this time. The whole House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman put on record. Matters concerning the recall of Parliament are all laid down in the Orders of the House.
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1745
 

 
27 May 2004 : Column 1747
 

Whitsun Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

2.14 pm

---