| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very firmly endorse what my noble friend said about the mainstream Islam view, and reinforce what he said about the need and desire for people to be proud of being both Muslim and British. He will understand that it would be quite improper for me to comment on any information in relation to the security services, and I am not able to do that. However, I can say that any action taken by the services or in terms of police enforcement has to come within our law.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the open judgment by Mr Justice Collins, to which she refers, does a great deal to enhance public confidence in the SIAC process, except that he made some adverse remarks about the failure of the special advocates to attend? He said that he could not see any reason for that. Does she not think that the SIAC procedure rules need to be amended to oblige the special advocates to attend in all such cases?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I noted the comments made by Mr Justice Collins in relation to the case. I do not believe that the rules need to be amended. It was clear that, in that case, the advocate came to a view that their continuance would not inure to the benefit of their client. We are not entitled to know why they came to that view. It is also right to remind the House that the SIAC made it clear that the evidence in the case against the appellant was so strong that no special advocate, however brilliant, could have persuaded us that reasonable suspicion had not been established so that the certification was justified.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, is it not high time that the work of the British security services was restored to the secrecy that it once enjoyed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will know that there is a tension between what is necessary to keep us safe and what is necessary to keep us fair. We have that difficult balance about right.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there are circumstances in which it would not be in the interests of British security and intelligence to exclude people?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that may be the case, although of course we cannot in this House explore what those circumstances may be.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in view of the very helpful published findings of the SIAC and the remarks of Mr Justice Collins, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, will the Minister assure the House that all legitimate steps are being taken to monitor any contacts that Mr Abu Qatada may have from within Belmarsh with persons or bodies hostile to the security of the realm?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, once again I cannot make any specific comments, but noble Lords should be reassured that our services and police forces are taking all appropriate, proper and legal steps to make sure that the citizens of this country are made as safe as can be contrived.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, there will be a repeated Statement later today, which will follow the Report stage of the Energy Bill. It will be made by my noble friend the Leader of the House and will be on the publication of the Cory report.
European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
11.29 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 14 as first printed for the Lords.]
1Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause— "Piloting conduct at European and local elections
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1J in lieu thereof.
I respect and like this House. It is a privilege to come to this place and to put the Government's case before it. But, on this issue, we cannot go on meeting like this. Time is against us. I shall not speak at length, but first, for those who may be new to these rather repeated discussions, let me reiterate why the Bill matters and why, after this House has done its best to scrutinise this issue vigorously, I believe that now is the time to listen to the other place. However, I hope to leave some points of clear comfort to the House that the issues that lie between us on these matters will be the subject of study, monitoring and report back at a later date.
Why does it matter? It matters because essentially we are addressing whether it is possible to increase the turnout of the public who vote in European and local elections in June. I do not need to go on about why that matters given how poor turnouts have been at both the European and local level: 24 per cent at the last European election.
We have a substantial measure of agreement across the House on this Bill. That may not be apparent to the outside world, but there is a keen interest—I use words no stronger than that—in all parties to see whether postal voting can raise turnout in a sustained way. There is a consensus that at least the three regions should be piloted and the argument is about whether or not a fourth region is suitable. When asked for its advice, the Electoral Commission signalled that the fourth region, the north-west, was potentially suitable. The commission identified some areas of concern which it was open to the Government to explore further. The Government have explored those issues further. The regional returning officers and electoral
There are also benefits in undertaking a pilot in the north-west, in particular to focus on some of the issues of complexity and to address the concerns that have been expressed about whether all-postal ballots can be done safely, without fraud. Therefore we ought to undertake a pilot in the north-west to test whether the strengthened measures that we have put in the Bill—with due acknowledgement of the effort of some Peers to bring forward those strengthened measures—have, as we hope, a desired effect.
As I have expressed on previous occasions, the Government have made the judgment that, on balance, it is desirable to have these four regions. The Commons have supported that opinion not once but on numerous occasions, and I believe that it is right for the Government and the Commons to have their way on this issue. It has been said on previous occasions, and I respect it, that one should seek consensus on electoral or constitutional issues. That is right in principle, but cannot be—how shall I put it?—an absolute veto on change. If it were an absolute veto on change and we did not make any movement on electoral or constitutional issues until all views, all voices and all parties were unanimous on both the measures and the timing, we would have constitutional arrangements that were fossilised and out of date. On that issue, I would expect that there is a consensus at least between some parties. Progress has to be made on constitutional issues and sometimes that necessitates having to move forward faster rather than slower.
I shall not go into great detail, but there have been occasions in the past when previous governments have changed our constitutional and electoral arrangements such as, for example, in the abolition of the GLC. There was no trace of consensus on that issue whatsoever. I disagreed with the absolute abolition of the GLC, but I did not think that the government of the time were acting unconstitutionally in terms of doing so.
Let us focus on the present rather than on history. The position is that I am afraid that this issue is now as much about the powers of the House as about the Bill itself. But, as I said during a previous debate, the Government have 28 per cent of the vote in this House. I make no complaint about that. It is not good, I believe, for any government to have an overall majority in this House, and that is the Government's position. However, certain implications flow from that.
It is also right that this House can and should ask the other place to think again. That is what a scrutinising and revising Chamber is all about. I would hate a situation in which this House did not do that powerfully and strongly. Moreover, it is beneficial that at times it does so twice, because it forces a government to think, "Are we right on this issue? Could improvement be made? Should we make adjustments? How can we develop consensus?" Going through such a process twice has a further benefit: it draws the attention of the media and the public to the issue and it allows the potential for public opinion to swell around an issue if that public
But the situation we are in seems to me to be at risk of going further than that. Opposition parties, because of what I have said about the turnout, have a majority over the Government in this House. We do not have absolute and rigidly clear procedural rules. Some would say that they wish never to see them. In that situation, a responsibility is placed on all of us, government Ministers or others, to consider what is the limit of our legitimacy. Does the issue merit it and how far should we go? Ultimately, that is a decision that each individual Member must make for themselves. In a sense one is asking, "Is this an issue of such constitutional importance that we ought to take this beyond the limits of anything that we have ever seen before in terms of the relationship between the two Houses?"
As I have signalled previously, I have respected the opinions of other Members on these issues and I have been saddened that we have not always been able totally to agree, but I am a realist and I would not have expected that. On this issue, however, it is inconceivable how the matter of four regions rather than three regions could be seen as a constitutional issue that justifies going to the extent that we have. Time is against us and today we have to try to find in this House some way of moving forward with the good grace and spirit normally exhibited in this place.
All I would say in conclusion is that this Bill is about a decent endeavour. It concerns an endeavour to increase turnout. I cannot believe that all noble Lords do not share that endeavour. The Bill is an experiment; it will die one day after the elections. It does not put something into the constitution permanently, rather it is about trying something once, and once only, and seeing whether it works. The process will be researched, evaluated and reported on by the Electoral Commission, and I hope that at some stage this House will have the opportunity to debate the report so that, in a sense, we can rerun our debates based on what the commission has to say. No doubt we shall point fingers at each other according to how we interpret the evidence that is presented.
This issue has to be resolved. While I am not expecting Members to change their views as to what they would prefer to happen, I do ask the House to think seriously about whether this is an issue on which we should provoke something that will feel close to a disproportionate constitutional tension—I use no stronger words—between this House and another place. If these four regions carry out pilots, some 2 million more people will vote in the European and local elections to be held in June. That in itself is a good endeavour that I would wish this House to support. For these reasons, I ask the House to support the Commons and to resist the amendment which has been tabled by the Liberal Democrat Party.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1J in lieu thereof.—(Lord Filkin.)
(1) An election to which this section applies (a pilot election) must be held—
(a) only by postal voting, and (for that purpose)
(b) in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order (a pilot order).
(2) These are the elections to which this section applies—
(a) the European Parliamentary general election of 2004 in a pilot region;
(b) a local government election in England and Wales if the poll at such an election is combined with the poll at an election mentioned in paragraph (a).
(3) These are the pilot regions—
(a) North East;
(b) East Midlands.
(4) Postal voting is voting where no polling station is used and a person entitled to vote in person or by proxy must deliver the ballot paper by post or by such other means as is specified in a pilot order.
(5) A pilot order—
(a) may modify or disapply any provision made by or under a relevant enactment;
(b) may contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision or savings (including provision amending, replacing, suspending or revoking provision made by or under any enactment) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate;
(c) may make different provision for different purposes."
The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendment—
1ALine 15, at end insert—
"(c) Yorkshire and the Humber;
(d) North West."
The Lords disagree to Commons Amendment No. 1A to Lords Amendment No. 1, for the following reason—
1BBecause it is appropriate to make provision for no more than two pilot regions, as recommended by the Electoral Commission.
The Commons do not insist on their Amendment No. 1A to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following amendment to the Lords amendment in lieu of that amendment—
1CLeave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
"(c) Yorkshire and the Humber;
(d) North West.
( ) Postal voting is voting where no polling station is used and a person entitled to vote in person or by proxy must deliver by post or by such other means as is specified in a pilot order—
(a) the ballot paper, and
(b) the completed declaration of identity form.
( ) The declaration of identity form is a form which is delivered along with the ballot paper and which is completed by being signed—
(a) by the person to whom the ballot paper is addressed, and
(b) by a witness to that signing whose name and address are clearly marked on the form."
The Lords agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1C in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 1A, but propose the following amendment thereto—
1DLine 3, at end insert—
"but, in the case of either region specified in paragraph (c) or (d) above, a pilot may only take place if it is specifically recommended by the Electoral Commission in a report which is laid before both Houses of Parliament after the coming into force of this Act."
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 1D to Commons Amendment No. 1C, for the following reason—
1EBecause it is not necessary to seek further advice from the Electoral Commission.
The Lords do not insist on their Amendment No. 1D to Commons Amendment No. 1C to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1E but propose the following amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1C in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 1D—
1FLine 3, leave out—
"(d) North West."
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No.1F to Commons Amendment No. 1C, for the following reason—
1GBecause it is appropriate to pilot postal voting in four rather than three regions.
The Lords insist on their Amendment No. 1F to Commons Amendment No. 1C, for the following reason—
1HBecause it is appropriate to pilot postal voting in three rather than four regions.
The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 1F to Commons Amendment No. 1C, but propose the following amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1C in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 1F—
1JLine 13, at end insert—
"( ) The declaration of identity must contain a statement advising the voter that the ballot paper should be completed by him—
(a) outside the presence of any other person, or
(b) in the case of a voter who requires assistance, in accordance with such advice as is provided for in the pilot order."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page