| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I want to speak specifically to the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which is the last regulation in this group. In doing so, I apologise to the Government for failing to respond in the consultation process because I have a significant point to make. Civil servants in the Chamber today will want to take it on board when they consider these matters further.
The explanatory memorandum to the regulations states in paragraph 14:
- "The main changes to the version of the rules, which previously applied"—
- "ensuring that forms which are or may be used for all polls, such as notices in polling stations and declarations by disabled voters are in a form which is consistent with those applying under the legislation governing the election with which the mayoral election is combined."
My noble friend will know that I devised and gave name to the supplementary vote after 12 months' detailed work in 1989 on electoral systems following an argument about the operation of the alternative vote system, the problems it has with third place candidates wining seats and the weighting given to lowest placed candidates influencing the votes in elections.
The supplementary vote is simple but it needs explanation. There is a problem with the design of the ballot paper. It was my son who drew my attention to it following a party meeting he attended, where it seems people were led to believe that a ballot paper would be invalid in the event that only one vote was
cast. The ballot paper in the case of the supplementary vote is set out on page 30 of the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. The only guidance that I can find is in the Guidance on New Council Constitutions, which states in paragraph 14.16:
- "Where there are more than two candidates, the voting system used for elected mayors is the Supplementary Vote system, as established by section 42 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Act. Under this system, voters cast first and second preference votes. After counting all of the first preference votes, if no candidate has secured a simple majority of the first preference votes cast, all but the top two candidates are eliminated. Any of the eliminated candidates' second preference votes cast for the remaining candidates are added to those totals, and the one with the most votes is elected as elected mayor. Where there are only two validly nominated candidates, the first-past-the-post system is used."
There is a slight error in that text, in that it states,
- "Under this system, voters cast first and second preference votes".
What can we do about it? I have a number of proposals, which perhaps I can briefly put to the House. I have a copy of the ballot paper, which is a photocopy of page 30 of the regulations. The only reference to guidance is where it says on the top right hand corner:
- "Vote once [x] in each column".
Some Members of this House might think that this is a trivial matter. In fact, it is extremely important, because it affects hundreds of thousands of votes that will be cast in the mayoral elections. I ask my noble friend whether it is possible for an additional, supplementary guidance note to be issued to local authorities that they have in mind a revision of the ballot paper under one of the proposals that I have made today.
4 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall answer off the top of my head the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I do not know the procedures. I am a little out of date. But I imagine that this would be an issue for the Electoral Commission. I am not sure whether when the mayoral elections took place four years ago the Electoral Commission was in existence. In fact, the legislation setting it up was passed only in 2000 or thereabouts. I suspect that the commission was not in existence. This would be a matter for it to look at. If it does not fall within its remit, there is something wrong with the set up and with the guidance.
The point raised by my noble friend is valuable. He is the kind of Member that I like. He came along with a problem, but also brought five solutions. I will certainly take advice on that point, but I imagine that would be the way out of this.
Perhaps I may deal with the specific questions in reverse order. I have answers to most of them. I am about to prove whether I was listening to the noble Baroness at the same time as discussing one of the issues with my noble friend.
These regulations set the basic rules for pilots, following the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. In a pilot area, they will be subject to modification to allow for the pilot scheme. I hope that makes sense. I have not followed the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill so I cannot therefore go beyond the advice that I have, because I have not been dealing with the Bill.
Regarding the returning officers correcting errors, the regulations replicate existing provisions for parliamentary and local elections. We do not feel that we can use what are in effect parts of secondary legislation to make what would be a substantial change to the existing law. I am not saying that the point is not valid—it is. The threat of almost questioning an election puts people off, because of the procedures used and the costs involved. There are people who are much better aware, having had to use it in recent years. It is not something that we feel that we can do in secondary legislation.
A point was made about recounts, but the recounts can be called only in a local area, which follows the practice in 1999. There is no change in the recount provision, and it would not be any different. I suppose in a local area you would not know about the votes in the constituencies as opposed to the votes in the local areas on the European side. I fully accept that, and I do not know what the closest European vote was at the last election, using the much more modern and sensible PR system compared to the previous unfair system—those are my personal views. I do not know how practical that would be, but we are following existing practice and not changing it for the moment.
It was suggested that we combine elections every five years, given that we have European elections every five years on a fixed date. I do not know how far in advance the member states fix the span of control. We are allowed to have the European elections within a period of about four days, which allows us to vote on Thursdays. Member states can choose what day they vote on. I do not know how far ahead that date is fixed, whether it is fixed for the rest of the century or the rest of the decade. The Government invited the Electoral Commission to consider having the local elections. It would be wrong to make long-term amendments to those election dates at present. We have just received the report on this issue, and we will give a view on that in due course.
The declaration of identity provisions follows existing provisions in parliamentary local government elections. We have made no change in this respect. As for the declaration of identity with postal votes, the regulations
require a witness signature. The elector is required to make his usual mark but the witness is required to give a signature. That is my understanding of the point.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, that was not the point. The point was that we had a great humdinger when debating the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill on whether a witness signature was required to accompany a postal vote. The regulations are as plain as a pikestaff and perfectly easy to follow; the only way we ensured, finally, that the witness signature was to be attached to a postal vote in the Bill was through winning a vote in the House. I cannot understand why we had that row when the regulations were already there in the normal way. I do not think that the Minister will be able to answer this, but we had better get the point straight.
Lord Rooker: I did not get the point straight, did I, my Lords? We may have had a slight lack of joined-up government. That may be the answer—I do not know. It sounds terrible, but I do not think it is a matter for my department. However, the noble Baroness's point is well made, bearing in mind the other legislation going through the House on which the Government have not taken the same line.
The consultation mentioned the fact that no decision on pilots had been taken. Many respondents took the opportunity to comment on that, so it was an issue.
The orders for previous pilots have never been subject to parliamentary approval. These follow that precedent. I do not know whether that is a good answer, but it is the honest answer.
The noble Baroness wondered whether I had taken electronic counting on board. Electronic counting in the Greater London Authority elections and in the pilot has been reviewed. Lessons have been learnt—I am assured of that. The Greater London Authority is confident that the system will run smoothly in 2004.
I am surprised and, indeed, gratified by the answer I am about to give the noble Baroness to her first question about citizens of the accession states. I did not read the detail of my form, I just signed it, but it appears that the canvass form made it clear that citizens of accession states would be able to register to vote in advance of their member states joining on 1 May this year. To that extent, it was made clear. I suspect that the information would be in the small print on the back of the form—nevertheless, it was there. In any event, people have their own networks and are able to get information.
Because we now have a much more sensible system of a rolling register without that fixed slot on 10 October, people have plenty of time to get registered, now that Parliament—this House and the other place—has approved the regulations. I think there is one more order to slot in—two at the most—to the package for the elections on 10 June. So there is plenty of opportunity between now and then to get registered.
The noble Baroness said that her party was not fully in favour and did not see a lot of merit in the regulations. I appreciate the reasons why. There are different election systems for many people, particularly in the London area, where more than one system will be used.
I have always taken the view, as I promote the sensible, fair voting system of PR around the country, in a personal capacity, that people can understand and read knitting patterns, while I cannot. They can understand and fill in football coupons, while I cannot. I have yet to see a ballot paper that is more complicated than a knitting pattern or a football coupon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page