| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I notice that these are regulations under the 2001 Act, but they are remarkably similar to clauses in the Electoral Administration Bill. Are we amending the Electoral Administration Bill, which we have not yet considered, or are we dealing with regulations under the 2001 Act, which is what is said? It would be extraordinary to be considering something here that we are going to be dealing with in the Electoral Administration Bill later on. I wonder whether, if we agree to the regulations, those clauses will then be removed from the Bill.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and explanation of the regulations. To some extent, I share the view that has been expressed, or at least also wish to inquire about this mode of amendment. As the Minister said, these are serious issues and there are a number of proposed changes, some of which will have significance, particularly in combating feared fraud. I believe that the Government may have it in mind to use this means simply to expedite the implementation of these changes so that they can take effect in time for the May local government elections in England and Wales. Certainly it seems to me desirable that that should happen, but I am not entirely sure whether the Bill that is before the House will have reached the statute book in time to achieve that.
It is clear that these measures have been subjected to very widespread consultation and are broadly based upon recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the returning officers. There have been opportunities for consultation and there has been widespread consultation. So far as I am aware, the conclusions are not controversial, although it has to be said that because the measures are untried, their effectiveness in reconciling access and the avoidance of fraud will have to be judged in the event. I hope that the Minister will say something about the scrutiny of how the new rules—particularly those governing postal vote verification—will work in practice.
I have one other question to put to the Minister with regard to the proposed change in the time of voting, or the standardisation of voting hours in local elections in England and Wales—the 7 to 10 proposal. That seems to me to be entirely welcome, but I fear that it may not be sufficiently widely known at the time of the elections that the change has taken place. Have the Government given any thought to how they might publicise it, as that could considerably affect turnout on the day? Otherwise, so far as I am concerned, these regulations are broadly welcome.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I wish to speak to the Welsh order, which is being made under a different Act; it is proposed that it will come into force under the Government of Wales Act 1998, as opposed to the other statutes which give rise to the other regulations.
9 Mar 2006 : Column 968
We in Wales are very concerned about the security of the vote and we welcome the measures to improve postal and proxy voting. We look forward to seeing what changes are likely to be introduced before the elections in 2007. The matter is less urgent for us, because we do not have the relevant elections in May of this year. These are holding measures for Wales in case there are by-elections, as I understand it.
In previous local elections, great concern has been expressed about fraud, but of course it is no new topic. I recall a colleague of mine many years ago in the 1950s standing, not in Wales as it happened, but in Bootle. He was a bit worried that at 9 o'clock in the morning not many people seemed to be voting. He was told, "Don't worry, half the graveyard has already voted for you". The possibility of fraud in local elections has long been there and it is right that we should tighten the rules as much as we can.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for generally welcoming these regulations, although one or two questions were raised. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that we are not amending the Bill that is passing through the House at the moment; we are making changes under existing powers in time for the May 2006 elections. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, also raised that point. One of the reasons why these regulations are coming forward now is that the 6 May elections are only a month or so away. The changes complement the Bill; they do not duplicate any part of it. Interestingly, when I read my speaking notes, that was the first question that I asked. I was assured that there would not be a problem in bringing forward these regulations while the Bill went through the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly said that these are holding measures. He also made some important points about fraud. Part of the purpose of these measures is to reduce and contain fraud, which has perhaps been a feature not only of local government elections in Wales. We are making our very best efforts to stop such fraud. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, asked about publicising 7 am to 10 pm voting. We are in close contact with the electoral administrators on these changes, which the Electoral Commission will publicise so that electors are aware of the new polling hours. I hope that I have answered the questions raised. If not, we will deal with them in correspondence.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I want to be clear about this. These regulations and articles may not be absolutely identical to the clauses in the Electoral Administration Bill, but they have the same effect. I want to be clear that we are able to amend them, although I do not suppose that we will want to. This is a curious way of legislating—the clauses in the Electoral Administration Bill will still be able to be amended, when we get around to them, even if they then changed these regulations. We have had no opportunity to discuss this area as part of the Electoral Administration Bill and, if we implement the
9 Mar 2006 : Column 969
regulations, there would be no reason for us to be able to do so or to have any force if we did. I am not sure where we are.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am absolutely sure where we are. As I said, and I am sorry if I did not say it clearly enough, these changes are being made under existing powers in time for the 2006 elections. If we wish to amend the orders, we can do so without reference to the Bill that is going through the House at the moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Childcare Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2006
5.53 pm
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 January be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order has been spoken to already. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 January be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it has not been spoken to; I am here to speak to it. Were not the first three taken together and this one kept for later?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this is the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2006, which I have spoken to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am sorry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2006
5.54 pm
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6 February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6 February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9 Mar 2006 : Column 970
Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006
5.55 pm
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 December 2005 be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order will give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Wales and will affect constituencies for both the Westminster Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
The Boundary Commission for Wales announced in December 2002 the start of its review of Welsh parliamentary constituencies and National Assembly for Wales electoral regions. It submitted its fifth periodical report of the Boundary Commission for Wales in January 2005. In May 2005, as part of the machinery of government changes, sponsorship responsibility for the Boundary Commission for Wales transferred from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs in the other place laid the report and a draft order before Parliament on 14 December 2005 and therefore fulfilled the Secretary of State's obligation under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to lay a draft order before Parliament giving effect to the report.
Before turning to the details of the order, I thank the Boundary Commission for Wales—that is, the right honourable Lord Justice Stephen Richards, who was the deputy chairman, and his fellow commissioners, Professor Kenneth George and Mrs Susan Smith, together with their expert advisers and secretariat—for its work in delivering its fifth periodic report.
Noble Lords may question the amount of time that elapsed between the report being presented to the Government and it being laid before Parliament. In the run up to the 2005 general election, officials made a working assumption that delaying boundary changes in Wales would help the effective planning for the election. After the general election, the report was delayed by the transfer of sponsorship responsibility for the Boundary Commission for Wales between departments. There followed a need for consideration of representations received by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs concerning some of the recommendations. However, noble Lords will be reassured to know that the Government laid the report and the draft order at the earliest opportunity.
The Boundary Commission for Wales is required under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 continuously to keep Welsh parliamentary boundaries under review and to conduct a general review every eight to 12 years. In formulating the conclusions of its latest review, the Boundary Commission sought, in line with the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to create constituencies that adhered as closely as
9 Mar 2006 : Column 971
possible to the electoral quota. This is a figure devised by dividing the total electorate in Wales by the number of seats. The figures used in this calculation were taken from the electoral register in December 2002. On that basis, the electoral quota was set at 55,640.
Apart from the electoral quota, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires that other factors be taken into consideration—these include special geographical considerations and community and transport links—to achieve the best possible outcome in drawing up new constituency boundaries. This is well illustrated by the Isle of Wight, which the Boundary Commission for England had previously recommended should remain a single parliamentary constituency in its own right given its geographical position, though the number of electors there—more than 100,000—could warrant part of the Isle of Wight being combined with electors from the UK mainland.
I am aware that there were some local concerns expressed about aspects of some of the recommendations in the report—for example, the transfer of the Aberkenfig and Cefn Cribwr electoral divisions from the Bridgend constituency to the Ogmore constituency. These local concerns are perhaps inevitable given the nature of the work of the Boundary Commission and the implications that proposed changes will have for members of the public, elected representatives and political parties. However, interested parties were invited to attend public meetings prior to the Boundary Commission finalising its proposals.
If interested parties objected to a specific recommendation, a public inquiry was held to discuss the issues and allow for counter proposals to be submitted. Independent legal experts—QCs—chaired these inquiries. The objections were considered, and the chair then recommended a course of action to be adopted in a report. The Government, having carefully considered representations that have been brought, have accepted the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Wales.
In conclusion, the Government are satisfied that the Boundary Commission has carried out a full review in reaching its conclusions and making its recommendations. The Government now need to complete the parliamentary process to give effect to the Boundary Commission report by agreeing the terms of the draft order. I therefore commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 December 2005 be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
6 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |