---

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I am delighted to wind up the debate. I shall be brief, because I want to give the Minister the maximum time to answer the many points that have been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, it is remarkable that the Government should have jeopardised the credibility of their albeit incredible policy through their near obsession with postal ballots. I shall deal with that issue at some length, but I shall first say a word about regionalism in general.

The truth is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, that regionalism will not deliver for localities. It is local government, rooted in
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 421
 
communities, time-honoured and with the respect of communities, that will deliver for local people. Those of us with histories in local government, and who believe in local democracy, also believe in empowering local councils—made up of locally elected people—to take decisions on behalf of the communities. We do not believe in ceding power from them to some remote anonymous region, with which they have little connection and less affinity.

Does anyone in this Chamber really believe that people in my constituency in Lincolnshire would owe any loyalty, feel any affinity or offer any support to a regional government that would inevitably be centred on Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, where the people and the money are? The considerations of rural Lincolnshire would be far from the minds of those elected to that regional body. That local case is replicated across the whole of this kingdom. Members on both sides of the Chamber know that, which is why Members from all parties have criticised the Government's regional agenda. The Government know that their regional policy lacks popular support, which is why they are prevaricating and hesitating on the referendums.

The postal ballots add further chaos to what would anyway be a faulty process because of the lack of support for regional government. Three points were made in the debate that I wish to amplify. First, democratic elections are not just about turnout. Their legitimacy is founded on the integrity of the ballot and the electorate's perception of its fairness and honesty. Voting in person, on a particular day and in the locality in which one resides, combines convenience and openness. Casting a vote in a sealed ballot box inspires faith in the system because it delivers fair, honest and free elections.

Turnout is important, but not at all costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, blaming declining turnout on the process ignores the fact that elections are about people, policies, ideas—hearts and souls. It is for people in this Chamber, who were democratically elected, and others who aspire to be so to increase turnout by the way they behave, by advocacy and by example. Simply tinkering with the process will be no guarantee of that.

The second point, which was made the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and others—indeed, the Minister referred to it earlier—is that all-postal ballots disadvantage particular groups disproportionately. We heard something about people who are partially sighted, but what about people who live alone, who have literacy problems or who, for one reason or another, find it difficult to have a vote witnessed? The Minister's response is, "Ah well, we will get rid of witnessing. We will get rid of one of the safeguards of the fairness of the system in order to increase turnout." The Minister will abandon witnessing because of the very real points that have been made in this debate, and which I have highlighted.

The Minister knows that many people want to continue to vote in person as they have done in the past. I offer the House two examples from my locality. First, a young person, who had just come of age and wanted to vote for the first time, said they felt deeply frustrated
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 422
 
that they were unable to go to the polling station and put their voting paper into the ballot box, as their parents and forefathers had done before them. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is correct. We set aside that right at our peril; it was hard earned and is being treated in a cavalier and careless fashion, as he said. Secondly, an elderly lady told me that she had voted in every election that she could and felt angry that she was not able to cast her vote in person. The idea that mobile voting stations can be set up conveniently for people in remote, far-flung areas is nonsense and the Minister knows it.

My third point is that participation is about active involvement. The Minister knows that there is an aesthetic to democratic elections that should be neither disregarded nor derided—campaigning, the drama of election day, the opening of the ballot box and the count in front of people who have participated in the process. The election is seen to be fair, transparent and open. The balkanisation of Britain that would arise from regional government—in the words of the hon. Member for Pendle—would be exacerbated by a system for electing regional authorities in which local people felt they had no faith.

We have received no assurances about the cost to local government. We have been given no persuasive guarantees about the countering of fraud and impropriety. There has been no draft regional Bill, because there is no popular will for regions and no convincing case for all-postal ballots. There is no good reason to support the orders and I urge the House to vote against them.

5.57 pm

Mr. Raynsford: The debate has been wide ranging, with some rather curious contributions as well as some valuable contributions and perceptive comments.

The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was remorselessly negative in his tone. He revealed the position of the Conservative Opposition, who remain utterly hostile to devolution. The tragedy for the Conservative party, which still does not realise why it has been rejected time and again by the electorate, most recently last week in the by-elections, is that it still hankers—[Interruption.] The Conservatives were in third place, rejected in seats where they had previously come second. They have no future and no prospects—as the public recognise—because they are locked in the past and do not realise that the world has moved on.

The hon. Member for North Essex made the preposterous claim that the Conservative party trusts the people. The Conservatives' record shows just how ludicrous that claim is. They did not trust the people of Scotland. They did not want the people of Scotland to have devolution, and agreed only after the people of Scotland had voted decisively for it that it was probably a good idea.

The Conservatives did not want the people of Wales to have a referendum and voted against giving them a choice. Again, after the event, they had to relent and change their mind about that, too. In London, not only did the Conservatives not want to give people the opportunity of a referendum, they even took democratic government away from London when they were in power—without a referendum, giving people no say at
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 423
 
all and showing no sympathy with them. It is preposterous to claim that they are in favour of trusting the people.

We gave people the opportunity and they voted in Scotland, Wales and London. We are giving people in the English regions the same option. It is absurd to claim that what is good enough for Scotland, Wales and London is not acceptable for the English regions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) made a passionate speech in support of regional devolution. I shall not go over the valid points she made, but will simply reinforce her message that a number of decisions that have gone against the interests of the north-west might have been different had there been a powerful voice speaking for the region. Many, many people who care about devolution recognise the importance of that.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton supports the Government position in principle, and we are grateful to him for that. He voiced three caveats. First, he mentioned people who are visually impaired, and he accepts that we are making provision to deal with that issue. Secondly, he wanted us to not give the decision to the Electoral Commission, while listening to its views, and that is exactly our view. We will listen carefully to the Electoral Commission's views, but it is ultimately a decision for Ministers to take. I hope that he accepts that. He also expressed support for the idea of witness statements, but we believe that such statements can reduce participation. There is quite a lot of evidence that the requirement to make those statements deterred people from voting in June. Although we are very clear that there must be safeguards for the proper conduct of all-postal ballots, we accept the Electoral Commission's evidence that witness statements are helpful.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about people who could get assistance at home. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who made the Opposition's winding-up speech, has clearly not read the orders or taken any care to do his homework. People who are illiterate will also be eligible for assistance in the same way as people who suffer visual impairment. There will be scope for electoral officers to visit them to assist them in filling out their ballots papers, and I should have thought that the Conservative spokesman welcomed any such measure that helps to encourage participation. His position was remorselessly negative, against a form of voting that has hugely increased participation. He is fundamentally anti-democratic in arguing against giving more people an opportunity to vote.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton also asked about costs—an issue also raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—and suggested that the provision of either additional voting points or visits by electoral officers might increase the costs. Obviously, we will give the returning officers in each region a figure to work with for the costs, but there is provision for exceptional claims where good reasons are given for exceeding those figures. We will consider such claims if they are made. As I said earlier, we expect returning officers to operate in the most cost-effective way and to minimise costs, but provision is made for those circumstances.
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 424
 

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) raised the issue of election fraud and said that, although concerns arise from the local elections, he believes that the increase in turnout is a proper safeguard against a small number of people exercising disproportionate influence in low-turnout elections—a very valid point indeed. That is one of the strong reasons to make all-postal provision.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon welcomed the steps that we are taking to extend options for people to vote, but he argued that, on international evidence, increases from postal voting are likely to be short lived. The evidence so far is that improved turnouts in those local authorities that have held all-postal ballots have been sustained, but we need to continue to look at that issue. Our objective is to increase turnout.

I am afraid that I do not have the opportunity to cover the many other points that have been made.

---