| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Constitutional Commission, which was recently developed and is, I believe, a state-funded body, will be allowed to make recommendations about the devolution of the Scottish parliamentary election process? I certainly believe it should. Devolution implies that the national community of Scotland should start to throw off dependency and not in a particularly lengthy process, as a child becomes an adult. At a risk of mixing the metaphors, Scotland is the 35 year-old who needs to leave home. Therefore, I sincerely hope that this is the last time that this type of order for the Scottish parliamentary elections comes exclusively to these two Houses of Parliament.
9.15 pm
Lord Maxton: My Lords, I shall try to be as brief as my noble friend Lord Davies was suggesting.
First, I say to the noble Earl that I think the Scottish Parliament would have powers to do that but has refused to take them so far. Secondly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is not suggesting that we return to the bad old days when you had to have a tame doctor on hand to sign a medical certificate to say that somebody should get a postal vote. I know that we had a tame doctor in our own constituency party who did exactly that. Furthermore, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is wrong if he thinks that personation takes place only in other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said. Personation in the British electoral system has always been small but has always existed. Perhaps I should not say this, but my mother almost used to boast about how she used to vote for dead people in elections in the 1930s. She is long dead and therefore my admission does not affect her.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I was merely trying to be polite; I had no illusions on the matter.
Lord Maxton: My Lords, I am glad about that.
Although I welcome any attempt to stop fraud in the postal system, I think that it is absurd that, in this day and age, we are still debating an electoral system that is based on crosses on pieces of paper instead of moving towards an electoral system based on computers, the internet and voting electronically. The advantages of that are enormous. I agree that it would mean that one would have to have identity cards. If they were compulsory, people would be able to vote in a variety of places, and not just in ballot boxes, and eventually in their own home, on their own computers or even via their own television sets. Such a system would also expand the ability of people to vote. With identity cards, it would become very much safer and more
4 Feb 2008 : Column 940
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the broad welcome accorded to the instruments. I shall endeavour to deal with the various points that were raised. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked why there was a five-year rather than a four-year term, and why one proceeds in that way. The rationale for the five years is simply for providing fresh signatures. The five-year term is consistent with what applies in England and Wales. An attempt to obtain some kind of uniformity throughout the United Kingdom is being made. Over the course of time, signatures will be refreshed. There is therefore no particular virtue in either five or four years, but five years is a prudent way forward.
In response to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, about “wild countries” where different practices arise, I say simply that these regulations for Scotland follow what is happening in England and Wales. That perhaps provides some guidance as to these jurisdictions.
As to whether one would be struck off, I say that the position is that if one does not proceed correctly to fill in the application form, one is notified that one is removed from the register. One can then reapply if one wishes to continue to be an absent voter.
I welcome the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for the attempt to improve the health of our democracy by what he correctly described as “prudent measures”. In answer to his question whether it is easier in person to carry forward one’s electoral obligations, I say that the Government are attempting to improve the way in which voting will proceed. While they know that people lead busy lives and do not always find it convenient to get to a polling station during the week, TheGovernance of Britain Green Paper set out an intention to investigate how to make voting more accessible, in particular through considering the option of weekend voting.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was concerned about the “chaos”, as he described it, in Scotland, but the measures are merely to reflect what has operated in England and Wales. There is no suggestion that these measures created any difficulties there, but rather improved the position in terms of avoidance of fraud. As to the noble Earl’s wariness of anoraks, I agree with him that that is something of which one should always be wary. He was concerned about whether he may or may not be content about the provisions because of the position regarding the Scottish Parliament. It has been the settled will of the UK Parliament, pre-devolution, that the UK Government reserve the responsibilities for these elections. I would submit that nothing has changed since 1998, suggesting that a change is necessary. The problems that arose in May were not the direct result of the fact that responsibility rested with the UK Government, because the elections in 1999 and 2003 had proceeded smoothly. The Scottish parliamentary review is very much a matter for those who are running
4 Feb 2008 : Column 941
My noble friend Lord Maxton was absolutely correct in his concern with fraud. These measures endeavour to reduce the possibility of such fraud. The suggestion that one should look forward to progress is, of course, something that this Government share, and would always seek to do. There is no way that these instruments cut down or curtail the possibility of progress in the future. I trust that I have at least endeavoured to answer the questions raised by noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4 Feb 2008 : Column 942
Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2008
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Davidson of Glen Clova): 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 23 January be approved. 8th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Davidson of Glen Clova.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 9.27 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |