| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Of course we have reforms and a reform agenda to pursue in Europe. However, the position opposite seems to be not so much about reform but about how we can withdraw. When the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, talks about his noble friends, he is talking about his noble friends in three parties: his own, that of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is in a slightly more significant party than him.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, did the Minister hint at any point that my party favoured withdrawal from the EU? If he did, I would like to make it clear that that is not our policy and was not included in anything that I or my noble friend Lord Waddington said.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course I accept that important point. What I can identify is that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was concerned to mention his noble friends across the parties and he included the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in that. He was fully confident that a great deal of that which she would express would find favour with him and reinforce his arguments—not, as she says, in the final conclusion that his party represents, which is why the noble Lord is a shining example of integrity, having recently withdrawn to it, although it took a little while. He was firmly within the embrace of the party of which the noble Baroness is such a distinguished Member for many years. However, she will appreciate that a large number of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, take—as do those of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—their logical conclusion as withdrawal from Europe. The Conservative Party is able to contain, within its ranks, a fair number of people who subscribe to that view. However, its official position is a good deal more conditioned—I accept that from the noble Baroness, who expressed that accurately in her contribution. That does not alter the fact that we know where these arguments come from and where they draw great support.
In fact, at one stage, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was effectively saying, “I defer to some of the facts that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, put forward”. Well, of course he did. They came from a similar source. They are facts that I was able to recognise as having been the product of a single document and body of thought about Europe. I merely say that that degree of understanding on the issues put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is not an alien position within sections of the Conservative Party, but is shared by many.
4 Feb 2008 : Column 933
I am not going to put words into anybody’s mouth. However, I will say that a great deal of the Conservative Party’s opposition on these issues falls shy of the withdrawal argument, but presents constant criticism in terms of the only solution, which seems to be to walk out on this position.
On the issue advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I know he said that we could follow the example of Switzerland. Why does he not cite those countries that have joined the European Community over the past 20 to 30 years? Anyone would think that it is a small group of nations which had seen no growth, no ability to win any support and no extension of its membership at all, when it is exactly the opposite.
Some of these budget strains—and I hear what has been expressed on the opposition side about the budget increases, marginal though they are—are a reflection of the fact that enlargement bears costs. However, the Government have always been explicit about that. They never doubted that enlargement of the European Community would give rise to budgetary costs, but knew that they would lead to very significant advances within the Community.
The noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart, are not right in expressing the view that the growth of the European Community does not produce jobs or increase trade—it does. There are very significant increases. Exports to Poland alone rose in the past three years by 89 per cent, compared with the rise of just 11 per cent before it joined the European Community. Is that coincidental or causal? The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, expresses that as coincidence. It is a pity he did not construct his speech around these remarkable coincidences in the way in which the European Community benefits the British economy.
The Government are concerned to demonstrate—as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, expressed in his contribution—that the British people are bearing their fair costs within the European Community, which are remarkably similar to those that the French will bear over the next six years. These are two of the richest countries in the European Community. Of course enlargement carries costs, but in the past it has also meant great opportunities for Britain and the other countries of the European Community, and it will bear that fruit again.
I appreciate the strength of the points of view expressed on the other side of the House this evening. No one doubts the passion that comes to the European debate. That passion has shown no sign of abating in the past three decades or so of British politics, and I imagine that it is destined to be expressed in our debates on the issues to be confronted in the next decades. However, what are we left with? We are left with the Bill being presented to the House against a background in which the Government must negotiate tough terms, as they have always had to, within the framework of Europe and against a background in which great opportunities will present themselves. Those opportunities will be realised, which is why I commend the Bill to the House.
4 Feb 2008 : Column 934
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister asked me why I choose Switzerland. I do so, as I tried to say before, because it is a mature economy that is very similar in many ways to our own, although it is very much smaller, and because it has all the advantages of free trade and free movement of persons with the European Union but without the immense costs that afflict our economy for only 10 per cent of our trade. Ninety per cent of our economy does not even trade with the European Union, yet 100 per cent of our economy is afflicted.
My second point is to end with a question: if the Minister really wants to clarify our position on everything that we have discussed this evening—the budget, the rebate; even the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was in something of a muddle about what it might all mean—why does he not commission a simple, cost-benefit analysis that would explain to the British people in words of one syllable that even I could understand exactly where we are financially, and indeed constitutionally, in relation to this project? Why do the Government not do this? It can be only because they do not want the answer.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s second point. He will know that the Government are concerned to clarify these issues as fully as possible and will endeavour to make progress on that. On his first point, however, is he seriously suggesting that the relationship between Britain and Europe after it had withdrawn from Europe would be roughly the same as the relationship between Switzerland and Europe? I hear what he says about the economies. Anyone would think that he had never been anywhere near political relationships or set foot in a political assembly and would not recognise the issues to which actions of that kind give rise. He can certainly press me as strongly as he likes about certain details with regard to the European Community, but if he thinks that I believe that the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Community would have the same impact and relationships as Switzerland not joining the European Community, he and I live in rather different worlds.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that our position would be stronger?
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2008
8.59 pm
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Davidson of Glen Clova) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23 January be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for agreeing to debate the two election-related statutory instruments together. The order is made under Sections 12 and 113 of the Scotland Act 1998. The regulations are made under the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended
4 Feb 2008 : Column 935
The decision to delay their introduction was taken after receiving advice that this additional duty on electoral administrators was not achievable given the introduction of the single transferable vote system and electronic counting for the May Scottish parliamentary elections. That was the right decision. I say that as we have had no evidence of electoral fraud in Scotland in recent years. The Scottish elections in May last year received a higher level of scrutiny than any previous elections, and still no cases of electoral fraud have been brought forward for prosecution. But one must avoid complacency, and the number of people wanting to take advantage of voting by post or by proxy is increasing. Some 11.2 per cent of the Scottish electorate voted by post in 2007, compared with 3.8 per cent in 2003. It is important that only those eligible to vote and who have registered to vote by post or by proxy are able to do so. We fully recognise the need for safeguards against any attempt to vote fraudulently. That is why we are now introducing for Scotland those measures that have been successful in tackling fraud south of the border. There has been a reduction in the number of allegations of fraud in England and Wales since the introduction of these measures, which is a positive indicator that, in conjunction with other fraud action, they are effective.
It may be helpful to continue with a brief explanation of what the two instruments do. I should start by saying that there is little difference between the provisions in the draft regulations and the draft order. The regulations apply to UK parliamentary elections in Scotland, and the order applies to Scottish parliamentary elections. The main difference on transitional arrangements I will come on to shortly. The instruments set out the process by which personal identifiers of a signature and a date of birth are to be collected and how they are to be used to check the validity of returned postal votes. Applications for postal and proxy votes are required to include a signature and date of birth. An exemption can be provided for voters who suffer a disability or the inability to read or write. When dealing with applications, electoral registration officers have the power to check certain signatures or dates of birth previously provided by the applicant to the local authority. Electoral registration officers are required to maintain a record of absent voters’ identifiers and to obtain a fresh signature every five years. This takes account of any change in a person’s signature over the period.
The instruments also set out how identifiers are used to check the validity of a returned postal vote. At an election, not less than 20 per cent of postal votes returned will be set aside for checking by the returning officer. All returned postal voting statements must have a date of birth and signature to be duly completed and valid unless the signature requirement has been waived. I know that it is the
4 Feb 2008 : Column 936
Perhaps I may turn to the transitional provisions, and I hope not to weary the House unduly. The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2008 sets out transitional provisions whereby electoral registration officers will write to existing postal and proxy voters asking for their personal identifiers. Each registration officer must by 7 April 2008 write to all persons who have an entry on the absent voting records requiring them to provide personal identifiers within six weeks of the date of the notice. If within three weeks no response has been received, a copy of the notice is to be sent as a reminder. If no identifiers are received from absent voters within the six-week period, they are to be removed from the absent voters’ records. Voters will be informed of this and provided with the location of the polling station to which they have been allotted.
The equivalent transitional provisions that apply to the UK parliamentary elections are set out in a negative instrument, the Absent Voting (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2008. The reason for the different approach is that the parent legislation for each instrument says something different about the parliamentary process for introducing such regulations. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that provisions will be in place to cover existing absent voters for UK parliamentary elections.
I should also draw attention to the provision that allows identifiers collected for UK parliamentary elections to be used for checking purposes at Scottish Parliament elections. This will allow a single set of identifiers to be collected and retained for both UK and Scottish parliamentary elections.
In accordance with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 we have fully consulted the Electoral Commission on both instruments. We have also consulted with a reference group of experienced electoral administrators. Their comments and those of the commission have been helpful. I commend the instruments to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23 January be approved. 8thReport from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Davidson of Glen Cova.)
4 Feb 2008 : Column 937
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the inner workings of these two measures and their overlapping content. The Minister will expect me to congratulate the Government on their wisdom in not trying to introduce these measures in time for the last Scottish election, when one can only imagine that one more element of chaos might have been introduced into the difficult administration that took place at that election.
I think the Minister was trying to tell the House that they had not been able to identify any spoilt postal ballots. However, the situation was such that there were so many spoilt ballots all round that they would have been difficult to pick out. It struck me that there appeared to be very few MSPs who were of a mind to challenge the count when the elements were so largely out of balance.
Both the order and the regulations deal with similar items. Is there any rationale for having a five-year term rather than a four-year term for a review of the registration? It would appear from the wording that the registration officer could, or probably would, wait until 31 January before sending out a demand for re-registration to all those who have been registered for five years or over. This means that some who registered in January or February may well have five years and 11 months between registrations. Will the registration officers be able to consider sending out a notice on the fifth anniversary of a registration if they decide that is appropriate?
The fact that these registrations will now contain a signature and a date of birth is certainly a good protection against something that occurs only in unruly countries where votes are cast on behalf of the dead. One hopes that this will be a guard against people trying to carry out what I think is known as “personation” in elections.
I can see, in some ways very properly, that if someone does not return the demand sent by the registration officer they are struck off, but should there not be some provision for an appeal? In what way can the situation be rectified if someone feels that they have been wrongly struck off?
I have been interested to see the proceedings of the Scottish Affairs Committee recently in another place when it was interviewing Mr Ron Gould, who carried out the review of the Scottish elections. Following the findings that he brought in on that fiasco, and the comprehensive list the Minister gave us of all those who have been consulted, does he feel sufficient people have been consulted so that if anything goes wrong he will be able to say that it is impossible to blame any individual?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I, too, welcome the order and the regulations. They appear to stem from discussions that were held in your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Electoral Administration Bill in 2006, when provisions were inserted to require absent voters to provide personal identifiers to electoral registration officers. I have no quarrel at all with the timing of these instruments and I agree with what the Minister said about the sense of bringing them before us now.
4 Feb 2008 : Column 938
The order sets out the process by which personal identifiers are to be collected and how they will be used to check the validity of returned postal votes. It is surely right—we have always taken this view—that we should make it easier for electors with a disability or the inability to read and write and that they should be exempt from providing personal identifiers. The transitional arrangements, which the Minister described in detail, seem entirely sensible. The regulations implement a change removing the standing fee of £5 and having the fee calculated on the basis of the price of copied returns at the rate of 20p for each side of each page. That is a perfectly defensible proposal.
During the passage of the Electoral Administration Bill, my noble friends and my honourable friends in another place supported what is being implemented tonight. It is right to encourage new methods of voting, including more postal votes and internet voting, since the participation of the electorate in voting is crucial to the health of our democracy. It has been noted that all-postal ballots in local and European elections helped to increase voter turnout. There are certainly dangers of electoral fraud. It is good to hear from the Minister that so far those dangers are not running ahead unchecked, but it is right to be prudent in seeking to avoid them. Problems of personation, multiple voting and intimidation may, as the noble Duke suggested, be observed in wild countries. I hazard the suggestion that within the British Isles such practices are not historically unknown, though they may have happened in slightly less ruly parts of the country than noble Lords are familiar with today.
Having said that and having strongly welcomed these prudent measures, I think that it is right to encourage voting in person, as that is an act of civic participation that gives a higher profile to the importance of the ballot in our democracy. Therefore, while I am happy to endorse the changes that ensure that people who are unable to vote in person because they are ill or away from home are able to vote by post, I hope that we may look at measures that will make it easier for people to vote in person, including certain changes in the days on which people vote. The date—weekend voting and all that—is probably of greater significance than the matters that we are considering tonight. However, it is right to ensure that our elections are secure and to combat electoral fraud, and these instruments seek to do that.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, my noble friend is probably right to raise some questions about the merit of voting in person. Having cast a postal vote, which is bound to be done a few days before the end of the campaign, something can be revealed that completely destroys one’s choice.
The content of both these statutory instruments seems to be fine but I am bit worried about the length of the notes appended to the order. I say that in the context of the unexpected chaos that occurred last May. I was one of 11.2 per cent who had a postal ballot and, in fact, I brought my postal ballot down here and showed it to various people in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, including the Whips, and they all thought it was an excellent ballot paper. That
4 Feb 2008 : Column 939
I believe that both statutory instruments are likely to make fraud even more difficult and I welcome that. However, I am not content about the parliamentary process for the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order. It is terrible that these instruments do not go to the Scottish Parliament for it to scrutinise them as a third Chamber—let alone to do so exclusively, as I believe it should.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |