---

Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for clarifying that safeguard, but when he and the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), gave that explanation to the House last week, there was no suggestion, as I recall, that the laying of orders went against the initial advice of the Electoral Commission. Why did Ministers not make it clear to the House that the commission had advised against proceeding with the laying of orders?

Mr. Raynsford: The position is exactly as I have described. I had discussions about the matter with Sam Younger, who hoped that we would delay the referendums until after the evaluation. He said so on the basis of advice from his chief executive that it would be possible to hold referendums in autumn even if the orders were not approved by the House in July. I pointed out to him, after taking advice from my officials, that that was not the case. Our figures suggested that if there were a delay and the orders were not agreed by the House before Parliament rises in July, the later timetable would mean that the election period would straddle Christmas. It is not sensible for a referendum to be held in the last two weeks of December and the first week of January, and I explained to Mr. Younger that in the circumstances the sensible way forward was the one that we announced to the House last week and which I have repeated today. The orders need to be agreed to allow us the certainty to proceed, and to satisfy the timetable that we have pledged to honour. At the same time, we will not proceed if the report that the commission will publish on about 13 September makes it clear that it would be unsafe to do so.

That seems to me the sensible way forward that balances both concerns: the concern to avoid unnecessary delay and prolonged uncertainty, which are not good things for people in local authorities affected by reorganisation, or in the northern regions that are
 
30 Jun 2004 : Column 331
 
keen to get a decision one way or the other on elected regional assemblies. Prolonged uncertainty would not be in their interest. We do not see an argument in favour of unnecessary delay. We do see an argument for allowing an opportunity to take stock, consider the Electoral Commission's report and then act accordingly.

Joyce Quin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the explanation that he has given. If, by any chance, the Electoral Commission said that it would be unsafe to proceed, would it be possible to go ahead with the autumn timetable under the ballot box system, rather than the all-postal system?

Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend raises some interesting questions, but the situation is more complex. There are a number of possibilities. The hon. Member for North Essex suggested the possibility of a requirement for the individual registration of all electors. That would require legislation and would take a long time, so it would be impossible to meet the timetable. If there were some administrative changes to give greater safeguards against the possibility of fraud, those might be introduced in a way that allowed all-postal ballots to take place according to the timetable agreed. Equally, there might a case for reverting from an all-postal to a traditional ballot, but that would require different orders, and time would be needed to take them through the House.

All those factors indicate that the sensible course of action is not to prejudge the outcome, but to allow an opportunity to reflect on the Electoral Commission's report, as and when it comes out, and to enable us to proceed as we originally proposed and as was agreed by the commission if it does not produce convincing evidence to suggest that it would be unsafe to do so. That is the sensible way forward.

Mr. Hammond: The Minister has twice used the phraseology that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), used last week, saying that there would be a delay if the Electoral Commission declared that it would be "unsafe to proceed". That is a very high test to set. The right hon. Gentleman is reported in the Yorkshire Post yesterday as having said:

"If there were to be a suggestion that some new regulations were required then"

a delay

"would take place."

A suggestion that new regulations may be required is very different from a declaration by the Electoral Commission that it would be unsafe to proceed. Can the Minister tell the House which is the test that he will apply?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I was referring to exactly the point that I was making in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). The outcome will depend entirely on what
 
30 Jun 2004 : Column 332
 
particular proposals—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question. I hope he will contain himself while I try to answer it.

There are a number of possibilities. There could be suggestions that safeguards would require legislation or regulations. There could be suggestions that certain administrative arrangements might be necessary to enhance the security of the poll. I do not want to anticipate or prejudge the outcome of the Electoral Commission's report. I want to be able to consider it thoughtfully when we have seen it and to reach an informed judgment as to whether or not there is convincing evidence to suggest that changes should be made—and if so, the necessary changes that ought to be made to the arrangements.

Mr. Curry: Assuming we go ahead with a postal ballot, the right hon. Gentleman states, and it is stated in the Government amendment, that there will be one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 electors. In Leeds, Bradford or Sheffield, two or three square miles may well embrace 50,000 electors. In the whole of Craven in my constituency there are not 50,000 electors, so somebody could find themselves 40 or 50 miles away from the single ballot point. Will the right hon. Gentleman take sparsity into consideration and reconsider the proposal in the light of geography rather than population?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but he will recall that the proposal was made against a background where the number of assistance and delivery points attracted criticism in the House when we debated the matter last week. In response to concerns, we have significantly increased the number of assistance and delivery points. It is never possible to provide a single point for the convenience of every community—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for North Essex like to intervene?

Mr. Jenkin: Why does the Minister not provide the certainty that everybody wants by going back to polling stations, which offer a convenient location for everybody to vote in person and would provide certainty about the process and certainty that the referendums would take place? He will not do so because he knows that if he goes back to the ballot box system, which was good enough for Scotland and for Wales, the turnout will be a humiliation for him and the Government.

Mr. Raynsford: Once again, I rather regret giving way. The hon. Gentleman has added nothing to the debate. He knows perfectly well that there is substantial evidence that all-postal voting increases turnout substantially. He may not want people to exercise their democratic rights, but we do. It is right that people should be given greater opportunities, but it is also right that people who expressed a wish for more assistance and delivery points should have their concerns met. That is why we have responded by increasing the provision of assistance and delivery points, while continuing with the recommendation that was
 
30 Jun 2004 : Column 333
 
supported and endorsed by the Electoral Commission to hold the referendums by all-postal ballots in order to ensure the maximum level of participation.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said earlier that a postal vote should be available only to people who had applied for it. Upstairs in my office I have a letter of complaint from a constituent of mine whose mother received a two-page letter from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that could be only described as party political propaganda, saying that if she wanted an application form, that would be arranged for her so that she would be able to have a vote. I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House do that, although I have never done it in my 21 years as a Member of the House. It is a lot safer for somebody to have a ballot paper sent to them through the post than to be prompted in the way that my constituent's mother was prompted down in Folkestone.

Mr. Raynsford: The point that my right hon. Friend highlights is the Conservative party's extraordinary propensity to say one thing in the House and do something quite different elsewhere. The hon. Member for North Essex might do the House a service if he placed a copy of that letter in the Library of the House, so that Members could see how the Conservative party behaves in relation to postal voting.

---