European Parliamentary and

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Hawkins: It is not for me to express a view one way or the other. We have said that there are some arguments for having postal pilots but we do not believe that they have to be run in three areas. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are very much against the e-voting pilots for the reasons that we gave this morning.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, as a result of the clause, there is a danger that any area used as a postal pilot area before will not necessarily be included next time. I will be interested to hear the Minister say how the Government will respond if areas such as the hon. Gentleman's in Chorley are left out next time because they were used to run pilot schemes before.

Mrs. Brooke: We seek to delete the clause, because it is a retrograde step to permit something in only one circumstance. Local authorities that have had successful schemes are finding it difficult to make plans. How will they move forward? There will be a great deal of disappointment. People are less likely to want to vote if they have participated in successful all-postal schemes and suddenly no longer have them. They will ask many questions, and the electorate will find it difficult to understand why they cannot have something that they had last year.

The clause is a retrograde step. These pilot schemes have been appropriate for the authority to which the election applies, unlike the pilot schemes for the European elections.

Mr. Leslie: I am slightly perplexed by the Liberal Democrats' position. I thought that they did not want differential voting systems in a single country. One of the reasons for the clause is that, if certain pockets in a single constituency—a region, for European parliamentary purposes—have voting opportunities that are different from those in other neighbourhoods or districts, some people in one part of the constituency may be advantaged by being able to vote more easily than others. I am sure that they would take the opportunity to point that out. That is why we want any parliamentary constituency to have a consistent voting mechanism.

Mrs. Brooke: May I clarify a point? I am sure that we may well be using that argument but we do not agree with the pilot. Starting from that position, such an approach is logical.

Mr. Leslie: We now have Liberal Democrat logic on the record and I am sure that, in years to come, people will look back at that great dialectic.

Column Number: 141

The clause disapplies section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, so that local authorities cannot apply to run separate, local pilot schemes under the Act on the same day as next year's European and combined elections. That is not only about containing costs but about retaining other elections as a control with which the pilot results can be compared and scrutinised. That is the point of scaling up to a new level of regional piloting.

Consistency throughout European parliamentary constituencies is also exceptionally important. It is important not to confuse electors further by having different voting arrangements in different neighbourhoods. We must ensure that some regions will pilot, while other regions cannot. There are many good reasons why such action should be taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Electoral Commission report

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in

clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

'(c) the impact of the pilot scheme on the campaigns of the candidates and on the political parties.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 34, in

clause 4, page 3, line 19, leave out 'a statement' and insert 'statements'.

Amendment No. 9, in

clause 4, page 3, line 22, at end insert—

'(7A) The report must include a statement by the Commission of the views of the candidates and the political parties on the conduct of the election and on the impact of the pilot scheme on the turnout and result.'.

Mr. Hawkins: Amendment No. 6 would insert into clause 4 new paragraph (c) to examine the impact of the pilot scheme on the campaigns of the candidates and the political parties. We have also tabled a similar, albeit more far-reaching, amendment introducing new subsection (7A) to clause 4. It sets out a requirement for a statement by the Commission

Column Number: 142

''of the views of the candidates and the political parties on the conduct of the election and on the impact . . . on the turnout and result.''

Amendment No. 34 makes a minor, grammatical point.

It is important that, when the pilots are examined, some analysis should be made of their impact on the way in which elections were conducted. Much worry was expressed by the Electoral Reform Society about the way in which mixed messages would be sent. For example, the society said that different methods of election will affect media coverage with the same election taking place throughout the United Kingdom. Obviously, the issuing of the ballot papers for a postal pilot between two and three weeks before polling day will shift the campaign period and change the activities that political parties undertake. Earlier in the year, I observed that in the part of my constituency that was a postal pilot area for the local elections.

While the ability exists for the voter to return his or her postal ballot paper on the evening of election day, in practice most voters may vote within a couple of days of receiving their postal ballot paper. As the Electoral Reform Society said, that may be of little consequence in local elections as the entire efforts of a local political party can be focused on a set campaign period. To some extent, therefore, it may not be so important when that period falls. However, as the society said, an election throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, such as a European election—as the Government propose—that is conducted on the basis of two different timetables, will place extra burdens on each political party. That will affect party political broadcasts and media coverage.

The Electoral Reform Society asks:

''Can the Government guarantee that media coverage, especially national news coverage, will be split between those regions with all-postal ballots''

and those with ordinary voting? The Government cannot do that, so there would be major problems. Such matters should be analysed and set out in the Bill.

Mr. Leslie: In the few seconds remaining—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

The following Members attended the Committee:
Cook, Mr. Frank (Chairman)
Blunt, Mr.
Brooke, Annette
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Davies, Geraint
Drew, Mr.
Harris, Mr. Tom
Hawkins, Mr.
Hoyle, Mr.
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Lazarowicz, Mr.
Leslie, Mr.
Prentice, Bridget
Quin, Joyce
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wilshire, Mr.
Wishart, Pete

 

---

Prepared 4 November 2003