| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Garden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful Answer. I am sure that her brief shows her that the operation was not quite as smooth as she describes.
Given the widespread concerns about the poor levels of registration among service voters, will the Minister undertake that the Ministry of Defence will put in train a survey to find out how many service people are registered and in what way, so that the Electoral Commission, when it comes to carry out its investigation, which it has told me it is going to do after the election, will have proper data to look at?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence and the Electoral Commission are very enthusiastic about getting as many service people to vote as possible—in the county council elections on 5 May. As to a survey, I can only repeat what my honourable friend Ivor Caplin said in the House of Commons. He said:
"We do not seek information from individuals on whether they are registered to vote and whether they exercise their vote; that would be an unnecessary invasion of privacy by an employer. There is therefore no certain way of determining the number of service personnel registered to vote".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/04; col. 124WH.]
Lord Truscott: My Lords, will my noble friend explain why changes were made to the way in which service personnel could vote? Can she answer the criticism that the new system is more complicated as a result?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the old system, which was in place before the Representation of the People Act 2000, which was supported in all parts of the House, was to some extent unreliable. It depended on the individual service person keeping his details up to date. It is likely that many service personnel never met that requirement because there was no annual mechanism in place to remind them to do so. Although registered, they were unable to vote. They now have that reminder.
24 Mar 2005 : Column 357
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the website. Can she confirm that, until very recently, it carried guidance to service voters that was four years out of date? Do the Government mean to disenfranchise the Armed Forces, or was that merely incompetence?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, of course the Government do not wish to disenfranchise the Armed Forces. I would show the noble Lord the very useful leaflet—a visual aid—that was sent out in January to 100,000 service personnel in all garrisons, units and ships. Yes, there was an inaccurate website in December, and the inaccuracy was rectified within hours of it being brought to the MoD's attention. It was not one of the main websites; it was a small, linked website.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if the wonderful leaflet that the Minister has just shown us was sent out at the end of January, why did it not arrive until the first week in March? Is she saying that the Post Office is more inefficient than some Answers in the past have suggested, or is there a real problem with the distribution of the leaflets?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I was not aware that there was a problem with the distribution of the leaflets. I will certainly take up the noble Lord's point and write to him. As well as the leaflets, there were television and radio broadcasts. My honourable friend Ivor Caplin spoke on services radio about how important it was for service personnel to vote. As well as the leaflets, there were many other means of information.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does the information that has been collated show the proportion of service personnel voting in a general election to be higher or lower than that of the general public?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that, and I do not believe that it is possible to give an answer to that because people voting as service personnel form only a percentage of people in the services along with those who might vote as an ordinary voter, which they have been able to do since 2000, or as an overseas voter. So we cannot break that information down.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, is the Minister able to give us an assurance that when ballot papers are distributed they will reach the personnel who are entitled to vote in time for them to be completed, returned and included in the count?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, every possible effort will be made for that to happen.
24 Mar 2005 : Column 358
China: EU Arms Sales Embargo
Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect they assess that the lifting of the European Union embargo on weapons to China will have on relations between the United Kingdom, Japan and Taiwan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, there has been no decision on lifting the embargo, and to support any such decision this Government would have to be satisfied that it was the right thing to do. The lifting of the embargo should not result in the increase of arms exports to China, as the European Council has made clear. The United Kingdom Government have been discussing the issue with all our friends, including through our official relationship with Japan and our unofficial relationship with Taiwan. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, there are problems now because of the concern raised by the anti-secession law passed on 14 March in China.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful for that reply, and for the change of tone—indeed, the change of policy—that it implies. I am sure that the Minister is aware that it is not only the Americans who are concerned, but that many people in Japan and the Pacific region regard it as absolute madness that anyone should propose lifting the weapons embargo now, with the increasing tension in the Taiwan straits and the massive build-up of Chinese military expenditure.
If the United Kingdom's policy is now to toughen the embargo with a new code of conduct, which Ministers have said is the case, why do we not just go ahead and do that, and reassure our best friends in the Pacific—that is, Japan, the Americans and others—maintaining the collaboration with the US industry that is needed by our industries and leaving our European neighbours to do what they wish? If they want to damage themselves and damage stability, let them do so. Why do we not just go ahead with our own policy, in our own interests?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as we have discussed before, although the word "embargo" implies a total ban on exports of all things on the military list, as the noble Lord will know, there are exports of goods from the military list. Those were published last year, and there were something in the region of 140 or so individual export licences, not all of them from the military list but relating to other matters as well, of concern in that area.
The fact is that there is not a change of policy on this, but there is certainly a change of nuancing in my Answer. Let me be clear: it is entirely right and logical that we should proceed in lifting the embargo and strengthening the EU code, because it is already a
24 Mar 2005 : Column 359
better instrument for ensuring that we have proper regulation of arms exports. That is the logical position. But I agree that in view of what happened in China on 14 March in relation to the secession legislation that was passed, there is a different political landscape is emerging. That is why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, when he was interviewed on this matter last week, said that there were now political problems, and greater political problems than there had been, in lifting that embargo. The shift is inherent, of course, in the anti-secession legislation passed in China.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, given the size of the Chinese armed forces and the size of the arsenal that they already have, is it felt that by lifting the embargo the perceived danger from China will increase—or will it remain the same?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my honest opinion is that the position remains the same. It is enormously important to remember that the embargo currently in force is not legally binding. The code of conduct that we are talking about is already legally binding on this country and is a stronger instrument. The embargo is on lethal weapons alone; there is no embargo on many technical matters that the Chinese wish to acquire. The way in which we regulate those exports is already under the EU code of conduct.
The position logically has not changed at all, but I agree that there is a different political environment because of what has happened in China.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |